Managing your civ for the benefit of your UUs - Page 2

jshelr · December 2, 2002, 12:34

No offense, but when my generation asked what you were smoking it was a complement and they wanted to know your source.

BTW, what I like about the PBEMs games that are starting up is that the tech extortion tactic is out the window, at least for games without some AI cannon fodder added to the human players. If you beat me up and ask for tech, I'll probalby give it to your neighbor to get even.

Arrian · December 2, 2002, 13:03

I played a couple of games as the Celts (on Monarch) over the holiday weekend and here are my thoughts:

Step1: archer rush 1 or maybe 2 AIs, take or raze 1 city, get some tech & gold, and stop fighting. ReX, build lots of workers (yours are slow), research toward Monarchy, hoard cash.

Step2: build some horsemen (or chariots if you don't have HBR) and then vet warriors.

Step3: hook up iron

Step4: upgrade to GSs - 960 for 12 of them.

Step5: switch to Monarchy, attack.

Step6: kick ass

The unit itself isn't really all that great when you take the cost into consideration. But I think you're paying for more than just the unit stats. When I think of the other dominant ancient age UU (the Mounted Warrior), the thing I always wished for was the militaristic trait to go with it. You see, a 3 attack unit with retreat ability will a) win a lot of battles, b) survive some he is losing, and c) have the mobility to hit weaker targets more easily, should that be deemed benificial.

Basically, you're paying for a dominant, mobile unit + militaristic, meaning a lot of elite units that win lots of battles. The result, if the RNG cooperates, should be a slew of leaders. In the one game I've played all the way out to a SS launch, it did.

I archer rushed Russia and Germany very early, gaining 1 city and 5-6 techs from Russia, and razing 1 German city and getting a tech or two, plus money from Germany. I also rebuilt a city on the ruins and eventually built a FP there. Anyway, I then set about building my empire and hoarding cash. With a powerful unit such as the GS, I figured I could really take my time because when I did attack, I would slice right through the opposition.

I got Monarchy, switched over, built the HG and my FP, and then attacked. My golden age began, IIRC, in 250AD. I had 13 Gallic Swordsmen and a comparable number of horsemen, plus an elite archer and couple of extra spears. Results: 4 Great Leaders, destruction of Germany, Russia and England. Great Library captured. Leaders used for: army, Sun Tzu, Sistine, Leos. And I never looked back. I ended up using Modern Armor vs. Riflemen just for the hell of it right before the SS launch. I played it out so I could check out the new buildings & the Internet (which I think is a really nice wonder).

In the second game I was playing, though, the RNG screwed me. I used leader #1 for an army, and then spent a ridiculous amount of time scraping for leader #2 for a palace move. By the time I finally succeeded, I was losing wonders (Great Libary and Sun Tzu built, will lose Sistine by 3 turns all to the Ottomans across the Ocean). I would still win that game, because I have an optimal Palace/FP axis, but it would be ugly. The main different in game 2 was though I did some early fighting with warriors & archers, I took no cities and got almost nothing for peace. My closest neighbor, France, had their 4 main cities built on hills, so I couldn't really archer rush them. England, which I fought, was far away, and I couldn't do much damage.

-Arrian

Theseus · December 2, 2002, 21:24

Catt, I don't know how I missed your post over the weekend, but as usual I'm in awe.

I knew as I was writing the first post that a LOT of my point revolved around gold / upgrades, and you did a much better job of explaining that *specific* aspect of the strat (almost deserves its own thread).

In fact, does this now become 'doctrine' for strategy? Larger forces of shield-cheap upgradeable units, and mucho gold? Instead of Arrian's 12 GSs, why not 15, or even 20? Even at the cost of unbalanced civ development?

Dominae · December 3, 2002, 02:04

After playing a couple of games with the Vikings through their critical period (i.e. until Berserks aren't useful anymore), I figure I'd post some thoughts here.

1. Early-game

Although the Viking UU isn't an early-game unit, the combination of Militaristic and Expansionist allows a very strong start. Actually, with those two traits the only part of the game that is strong is the early-game, so use the traits wisely. Archer rush of some kind should be attempted, preferably just for distruption until Horsemen come online. A more concerted Archer rush effort (as described by Sir Ralph) is also a possibility, and has the advantage of leaving more Archers to upgrade. I don't use this strategy as a matter of personal preference, although I can attest to its potency. Other than Barracks, almost no city improvements need to be built, as constant war and REXing should take up most of the available production power.

Thus, the Viking early-game should incorporate the following things: 1) use of Scouts to find Horses, 2) Archer rush nearest civ for pure disruption, 3) major Horsemen offensive on as many civs as realistically possible.

2. Great Library

The GL is particularly important for the Vikings, as the money saved with it is put to great use on the very expenseive Archer->Berserk upgrade. Setting aside one high-production city to grab this Wonder early is highly recommended. Note that if the Middle ages come around and no one has built the GL yet, it is still worth building even if it will only provide two or three techs. If the early-game is played out as described above, the Viking economy will be quite poor, and trading partners may not be available (i.e. everyone hates you). At the very least the GL will provide Feudalism, Monotheism and Chivalry, which opens up the Horsemen->Knight upgrade. This allows continued aggression until Invention is obtained (hopefully through the GL, but probably through extortion).

3. Galleys

Another city should be set aside to build Galleys. The goal is to have around 5-10 by the time Invention comes around. The Galleys don't necessarily have to be very useful right away, their main use being exploration and picking out nice coastal targets.

4. Invention

Remember those Archers from way back? This is their moment of glory! Once Invention is discovered, all Galleys should be back home to load Berserks. The first wave is made up of upgraded Archers left from the early-game (usually around 8-10). A couple of Galleys of Pikemen should be sent along with the Berserks, as 2-defense just doesn't cut it in the Middle ages. Most cities should be then set to produce to Berserks until all Galleys are full. Do not attack with the Berserk force right away!

5. Golden Age

At this point, one or two major wars should be raging with Knights as the main land force. If there is no war, one must be declared ASAP and Knights should lead the offensive. 2-4 turns later (no less!), the Berserks are unleashed upon the targeted coastal cities. These cities should have a maximum of two defenders (making the Berserks' job really easy), since all enemy offensive units are by now tied up with the main force of Knights. In one turn, the goal is to grab as many coastal cities as possible, usually around 5 or 6. The AI will probably grant peace the next turn, which is a nice fallback position in case something goes wrong (for instance, the AI has many more Knights than expected).

With a GA begun, the focus should be on producing as many Knights as possible, as the attrition rate on Berserks is very low and the are only so many coastal targets. Berserks can also be used on land, but every attempt should be made to use their amphibious assault ability, as the AI never ever expects it. A good trick is to patrol the coast for reinforcement and amphibious assault them en route.

6. New Beginning

Thus far, the Viking game has been war war war. Maybe every other civ is Furious, maybe not. In any case, with such a strong start, the game should be wide open for the Vikings to decide their future: should it be continued aggression with gunpowder, or more peaceful ways with a focus on industrialization? What was once a violent and barbarious civilization will surely become one of the world's greatest.

Hope that was a good read. I must say that I don't think Berserks to be too powerful anymore, as their use is quite limited and the Archer upgrade isn't that great (high cost and decline in usefulness of Archers for an important period of the game). If you've seriously tried the Vikings, I'd love to hear your comments.

Dominae

Nakar Gabab · December 3, 2002, 03:59

Frankly, getting the gold to upgrade to GWs isn't THAT hard. Just go straight to 10% (or 20%) science (and sometimes 10% lux) right off the bat. Beg, borrow, or steal your way to Iron Working as you go, but DO NOT spend money on anything else. Build plenty of warriors as you go, hook up the iron, and get it ON!

Yes, they're expensive. Yes, they're not EXACTLY as cost-effective as horsemen. But man are they tough little SOBs. Cost-effectiveness be damned when you've got those checkered-pant thugs with their 3 attack slamming you. Only the Iroquois can match that speed and mobility, and it's easier to pre-build warriors over chariots (you'll start with warriors, but unless you're Japan, you never start with chariots, and it doesn't help the Iroquois, does it?). So yeah, you get hit on the money, but at least you can get the warriors up no matter what. Imagine trying a horse convert when you have no horses - you can't even get STARTED. At least if you have no iron, you have something.

That said, I kinda prefer Japan of the Rel/Mil civs. I'm going to try a game as the Vikings to see if I like Mil/Exp more than I did with the Zulu (which, while fun, was kinda eh). Rel/Mil is quickly becoming a favored combo of mine. Wish I could have Ind & Exp too, but what can you do? Oh wait, you can conquer people for slave labor.

One final note: Have you SEEN Brennus in the Modern Age? It's MAGNUM!

POSTSCRIPT: My first Celt game wound up quite well. Wrapped everything up by Independence Day! Okay, it's not the fastest conquest ever posted, but it's one of the few games where I felt aggressive enough to fight constantly. And lemme tell ya, I didn't mind a minute of it.

http://home.graffiti.net/nakar/gamescreens/celt1776.jpg

jshelr · December 3, 2002, 09:20

Dominae

Very good read. Probably deserves to be elevated a bit for people to find more easily before embarking on a Viking game. They actually used your strat in history as some of my English genes can probably testify.

Catt · December 3, 2002, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
2. Great Library

The GL is particularly important for the Vikings, as the money saved with it is put to great use on the very expenseive Archer->Berserk upgrade. Setting aside one high-production city to grab this Wonder early is highly recommended.

Excellent, insightful point in a very good overall read.

Catt

Robber Baron · December 3, 2002, 17:16

Dominae: incisive points. Sounds like you make a fearsome Viking.

I play them a bit differently -- in particular that zerker/golden age hingepoint in the game. In rough sequence ....

: Ragnar's people are militaristic and expansionist, as noted. Ideal set up for an early archer rush (as Dominae observes).

In the meantime, techwise I tend to try beelining for mapmaking, to see if I can get the other "GL," the Great Library, in an effort to optimize what is going to be a heavy maritime investment over the first two-thirds of the game. I'm going to be building a lot of galleys, and eventually loading them with valuable units (the zerkers, even before caravels are on-line). Might as well use them in all kinds of ways, and extend their reach as far as possible.

(If I don't get the Lighthouse, then I am definitely going attack the civ that does.

)

Sidenote: if you're not playing an archipelago world (and if not, why on earth not?), send out 4-5 scouts at the outset of the game, to maximize your expansionist attributes. In an archipelago world, 2 may be sufficient.

I spend minimally on science. Target the Great Library for conquest if building it looks like a long shot (and prebuilding two early great wonders, in addition to preparing an early round of warfare, is risky, at the higher levels of play).

I send out lots of suicide galleys, if necessary, hoping to broker contacts/tech (another key aspect of pre-zerker Viking development, given the lack of tech infrastructure), and get an early sense of coastlines.

No need to plant many overseas cities, on the other hand. You're going to be able to wedge your way onto fully built continents earlier and easier than other civs. And you don't need resources for your UU. No need to overextend and create early corruption problems. Stay focused.

On the other hand, you will definitely want to conquer your entire continent if possible by the early middle ages. You will soon be the most hated and feared civ on the planet, but the AI's inability to mount a sustained amphibious invasion will make you impervious to attack.

Early leader builds: the Lighthouse, a Forbidden Palace (particularly important on Archipelago worlds, where productive zones tend to be, literally, thin), and Heroic Epic (whoever heard of Vikings without Viking sagas?

).

Techwise, once you get monarchy, beeline for invention. Get there as soon as possible, don't look to either side. Your UU has a relatively long-lived effectiveness, but it is particulalry devastating in the middle ages, when you will face pike in cities and frigates are as yet undreamed of. Galleys will be your first fleet of Viking longboats.

(Now for the fun part.) The care and feeding of zerkers. You have a unit that opens up possibilities other civs will not have until much later in the game. Take advantage. You have much more flexibility than any other civ on the board, in all likelihood. If you want to or need to, you can organize a full-scale conquest-oriented invasion of another continent. But that will consume a lot of resources, and may not be necessary. Raze your way along a few coastlines to extort tech. Seriously weaken the 2-3 most powerful civs. Or play mercenary, selling your zerker axes (in alliances) to other civs for gold and treasure. Generally speaking, look for opportunities and wreak havoc.

Meanwhile, back at home, try to maximize your golden age by beefing up a tight core of cities with some infrastructure (particulalry economic infrastructure).

Your zerkers will effectively and relatively inexpensively conquer cities held by pike, muskets, even riflemen, making this UU a potent force well into the industrial age. Eventually, if you are aiming for conquest or domination, you will need to convert much of your military to a more balanced, land-oriented force capable of consolidating coastal ground, holding cities, and moving inland. But your zerkers are still your shockforce. Roam your enemies' coastlines, razing a few cities, then sending in a stronger force (some muskets and a knight in the caravel right behind) to grab resources or sever infrastructure lifelines.

Probably by now you are universally despised, but strong enough to fend off any serious threat until it's too late to matter.

. If on the other hand you have cultivated one or two commercially-minded civs as trading partners, you have created the opportunity to play mercenary and sell alliances. Another geopolitical option is to disperse your zerker sorties so as to keep the AI civs more or less in balance powerwise, setting up late-industrial and modern era MPP/world war strife, which will drag the AIs down sooner or later.

In any event, by now you should be on your way to victory. You won't win any UN votes, but you should be able to create a situation in which you can keep the AI civs off-balance for the rest of the game.

Robber Baron · December 3, 2002, 17:22

Forgot to mention:
Re massive archer -> zerker upgrade: if doable, then sure. Pre-build for Leo's can be key here. (Should be feasible, given your rush to invention.)
If you don't have Leo's in hand, keep a stock of archers waiting and see about getting a great leader to rush Leo's (if unbuilt), or make it an early target for conquest, then upgrade.

If other key wonders are out there (Lighthouse, which will certainly be in a coastal city) (or Great Library, to hold for at least one turn), target them.

Dominae · December 3, 2002, 17:30

Robber Baron, nice to see someone else try the Vikings. I think our strategies are basically the same, we've just adapted them to the geographies of our respective games. One thing you mentioned that I overlooked is Leonardo's, which is wonderful option if a Leader is available.

Dominae

nbarclay · December 3, 2002, 17:53

One thought on upgrades: upgrading veterans is a LOT more cost-effective than upgrading regulars. The cost in gold is the same, but the amount of hit points' worth of unit is 4/3 as much. So, for example, building regular warriors to upgrade to GS's is a huge waste of gold. (This cost effectiveness principle also applies with non-UU upgrades.)

joncnunn · December 3, 2002, 18:48

I agree, anyone planning on prebuilding units and upgrading for a rush with them should build the Baracks first. You can often time some choping down of forest to help build the baracks.

Dominae · December 3, 2002, 23:13

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
One thought on upgrades: upgrading veterans is a LOT more cost-effective than upgrading regulars. The cost in gold is the same, but the amount of hit points' worth of unit is 4/3 as much.

Basically what you're saying is that Veteran units are 4/3 more effective than Regular units (which I think is obvious). So the case you're making is that building units with the help of Barracks is always more cost effective than not doing so (which I think is also obvious). What I don't understand is why the upgrade itself is more cost-effective.

Edit: Given my history with these things, I'm sure I'm missing something...

Dominae

Theseus · December 4, 2002, 00:24

Remind me not to play against any of you as Vikings.

GusSmed · December 4, 2002, 01:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
What I don't understand is why the upgrade itself is more cost-effective.

Because you're paying less per HP upgraded.

Chariot -> Horseman is 20 gold. It costs me 80 gold to upgrade 4 Regular Chariots to horsemen, an upgrade of 12 HP. It costs me 60 gold to upgrade 3 Veteran Chariots to horsemen, an upgrade of 12 HP.

- Gus

Dominae · December 4, 2002, 03:21

Quote:

Originally posted by GusSmed
Because you're paying less per HP upgraded.
Chariot -> Horseman is 20 gold. It costs me 80 gold to upgrade 4 Regular Chariots to horsemen, an upgrade of 12 HP. It costs me 60 gold to upgrade 3 Veteran Chariots to horsemen, an upgrade of 12 HP.

Yes...but just pay the extra 20 gold to upgrade another Vet. Chariot and you have 4 Vet. Horsemen for a value of 16 HP, in which case you have the same 16/12 = 4/3 ratio.

I think what's going on here is I'm not accustomed to discuss cost per hit point, largely because I don't see the motivation. If units are compared to themselves, then hit points should not figure as its clear that Vet. units are always better than Reg. units (since they have the same stats, and consequently the same upgrade cost). If you were to cross-compare upgrade costs of units, I can see where HPs might be a factor, since upgrading a Vet. of a "lesser" unit type may result in a better unit (overall) than the upgrade of a Reg. "better" unit type.

So, I can't see the point of upgrading units after they are Vets over and above the fact that they're better as Vets in the first place.

Dominae

BRC · December 4, 2002, 03:47

Quote:

So, I can't see the point of upgrading units after they are Vets over and above the fact that they're better as Vets in the first place.

If you are pressing an attack, and you only have enough gold to upgrade a veteran or a regular, you would take the veteran to upgrade, correct? (I am now wondering if this is the proper thing to do or not)

Dominae · December 4, 2002, 04:28

Quote:

Originally posted by BRC
If you are pressing an attack, and you only have enough gold to upgrade a veteran or a regular, you would take the veteran to upgrade, correct? (I am now wondering if this is the proper thing to do or not)

Well yes. The reason this is obvious is that one unit is Veteran and the other is Regular, and Veteran units are simply better than Regular ones. I don't think this has anything to do with upgrading.

Dominae

Charis · December 4, 2002, 10:11

It's not a question of is Vet better than Reg, or whether to build a barracks or not - the die has been cast and you have, in your possesssion, a Regular Warrior. Do you pay to upgrade him to Gallic Sword or not? (I'm using Gallics as an example, but the argument isn't specific to them)

In fact it IS less cost effective to upgrade the regular.
You get less for your money.

Would anyone pay to upgrade a conscript warrior? Unlikely. If Elites could upgrade to Elites? In a heartbeat yes, and would probably pay double.

Your warrior was built to be cheap MP and was made before there were enough rax around. Let's say that later in the game when considering these upgrades that you have a rax town to work with.

Option A - you upgrade reg warr to reg GS
Cost is 80 gold, result is a reg GS
Option B - you DISBAND the warrior in a rax town and immediately pay rush.
Cost is 95 gold, result is a vet GS
Option C - you keep the warrior around for MP duty, if in despotism or monarchy, and just build a vet GS
Cost is 50 shields, result is a vet GS.

Now this is not an apples to orange comparison, but a direct question for the here-and-now, which do you like?

In MOST cases, B looks pretty good. If my foes are weak, low hp or low defense, then I like A because the chance of promoting is far greater than the chance of losing my unit, especially given the GS retreat ability. A is also decent if cash is medium-low and you will only use the unit for defense.

If cash strapped, where that 100 gold might go a long way towards a tech or something more needful, or if I already have enough GS to conquer every civ on my continent, option C is best.

So there's no one answer, but the question is quite a real one. In one recent game, my foes had just warriors defending their border town and yes I paid good money to rushbuy three regular swords to go after them. In another game, I only upgraded the vets because I was going to face Numidian Mercs, and the increased losses the regulars would face made them less cost effective. That's sort of an "after tax" calculation, if you consider how many swords (reg OR vet) you have standing after their first battle, divided by the total upgrade cost. Vets are again the more 'cost effective, after tax'

Dominae and the other Viking posters -- good reads guy! :b

Charis

Arrian · December 4, 2002, 11:35

Quote:

Option B - you DISBAND the warrior in a rax town and immediately pay rush.
Cost is 95 gold, result is a vet GS

If you disband a warrior, you get 2 shields, right? A Gallic Swordsman is a 50 shield unit. Thus, you are then 48 shields short. 48x4 = 192 gold. Not so cost-effective.

I have upgraded regular warriors to GSs (leftover initial exploring warriors). Normally, it is very rare for me to upgrade regular warriors. Very rare. I normally keep them for MP duty until Republic and then disband them. But GSs are powerful units, and with militaristic, a win by a regular gives you a *very* good chance of promotion to veteran. GSs win a lot. That being said, I build almost exclusively veteran attack troops in my games.

-Arrian

BRC · December 4, 2002, 16:52

Quote:

That being said, I build almost exclusively veteran attack troops in my games.

Me too, except for the initial warriors. And those warriors end up getting disbanded upon the switch to Republic (for rushing temples, usually).

Quote:

I don't think this has anything to do with upgrading.

Sorry. I guess I misunderstood.