Overcoming Parity in the Medival Age

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Wow! I'm pretty impressed with your military too! What are you doing with those two spearmen?

[Mountain Sage]

YS,

See my previous post why these units still exist. You can also see that my military adviser likes parades

[Mountain Sage]

I know now how to attach files !!! This is a glorious day for Joan. France entered her personal GA

[badams52]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Re: disbanding to rush improvements

Unless someone can prove to me, mathematically, that this is more efficient than wealth (all the time... I know it is often), then I'll keep with the wealth. Sure, to create "the basics," temples, libraries, etc., in newly conquered cities, this is a fine technique, but to build banks and cathedrals, etc.? Isn't the additional money from Wealth a better bargain? (I'm talking after Economics here)

No, and I'll try to tell you why. Someone else might have a link to someone else who can explain it better, but I'll give it a try.

Disbanding a unit = 1/4 of the shields produced
Wealth from a city = 1/4 of the shields produced (after economics)

But....

Let's say I'm trying to build a factory in a low production city of 3-5 shields on the coast far from my capital (cause I remember the cost of a factory, I do this often, it's something you should do in a city that has little production, and these are the kind of cities you usually rush improvements in)

Before the city has started the production hurrying costs 1800 gold. Afterwards, it depends upon how many shileds of production you have but in the near future it will be around 900+ gold.

Now if I use units, I can build a factory with 10 cavalry units from the turn I begin building a factory and finish it in the same turn (it would cost 1800 to do so with wealth).

10 cavalry costs 800 shields from being built in a city.
900 gold (if I wait a couple of turns the price drops dramatically) costs 3600 shields in a city set to wealth.

The difference is the middle man. A disbanded unit takes exactly 1/4 of it's production to go directly to shields, but when hurrying with gold, each shield you buy is not 1/4 a gold in price.

Of course there are rounding errors such that a city producing 70 shields will take 2 turns to build cavalry with 60 wasted shields and with wealth, you will at most waste 3 shields per turn, so it will produce 17 gold per turn. This still would not make up for differnce in price.

And you could switch that 70 shield city to artillery, where you'll only waste 10 shields per turn instead of 30.

I don't think the wasted shields from building units will ever amount to 3 - 8 times the cost for hurrying with gold versus disbanding units.

[Master Zen]

Mountain Sage:

now I would really laugh if I saw a spear behind your modern advisor!!

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by badams52
No, and I'll try to tell you why. Someone else might have a link to someone else who can explain it better, but I'll give it a try.

You did a good job. But I'll still probably use wealth quite a bit... especially if I'm improving overseas "colonies".

[badams52]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
You did a good job. But I'll still probably use wealth quite a bit... especially if I'm improving overseas "colonies".

Yep, I use wealth all the time. I tried the disband in far off cities method once, but found the extra production I got in far off cities didn't produce enough of a difference in my victory to make it worth while. If you need to use that method to win, your other strategy is lacking somewhere.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by vmxa1

I think you need at least one caveat to that statement.
Surely it makes sense to go to wealth on a city that has total corruption and is only getting one shield, late in the game. This is at a point here you do not need any workers or settlers.
I feel there are a few other occasions as well, but in the main it is a bad idea to be on wealth.
Never is hard to live up to for me.

Its my experience that NO city is ever so corrupted that it cannot be made productive through improvements, therefore I would still not use wealth for these cities. It will not be as impressive as your core cities but eventually it can become a contributer to your empire. Of course, if your just a few turns from victory then it may not matter that much to you.

Badams:

No. I dont Need to use this strategy, but I'm a builder at heart and I can't stand having neglected cities lying around doing nothing.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Its my experience that NO city is ever so corrupted that it cannot be made productive through improvements

But there can be cities so corrupted as to be a drain on your treasury if you attempt to make them productive.

If, for example, you build a courthouse and police station in a size-12+ city, and you're only getting 3 sheilds per turn of productivity, then perhaps this city is just a drag on your empire.

Not saying that own unproductive cities isn't worthwhile... I do it all the time, sometimes just to keep them out of the hands of the AI, for whom the city might be worth something!

But in this situation, I might not attempt to go all out and make a city "work".

Of course, this is not really an issue during the medieval era, or so I've found.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Its my experience that NO city is ever so corrupted that it cannot be made productive through improvements, therefore I would still not use wealth for these cities. It will not be as impressive as your core cities but eventually it can become a contributer to your empire. Of course, if your just a few turns from victory then it may not matter that much to you.

It sounds like you are talking about a game that has a long way to go yet. I am talking about later, when you have a very large empire and really are only holding this city to have access to the road/RR and prevent others from having it.
I do not want to spend my time trying to get the city productive, if I could (which is dubious). I have enough cities to track already. I get in my temple and let it sit there giving me the 1 shield. If it has the capacity to create specialist fine.
Once I go into my final drive to eliminate all civs, I am not going to groom any cities. Just smash and grab and move on.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I don't know vmxa1, MM may be tedious, but it can be very rewarding, if only to nudge your score that much higher.

I also rather like to think of my conquered citizens as better off under my rule than the enemy's... although, often, this is breezy dreaming.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth


2. The dividing and ruling backfires. The one big civ I get my little cronies to gang up on just annexes them. Now I've got an overseas superpower to compete with!

When I try this "get the little ones to gang up on the big one" strategy I often send a small mobile force to help out. Perhaps as little as 3 knights in medieval times (depends on circumstances).

The results have ranged from completely useless to devastating. I might use those 3 to 6 knights for:
- cutting off a resource or luxury
- blunting an invasion to defend one of my little allies
- grabbing a poorly defended city and giving it to an ally
- drawing off enemy forces
- whatever seems like a good idea at the time

The point here is intelligent application of a very limited force to supplement the allies use of AI directed force. Often this is just enough to tip the balance at a cost of only 3 to 6 gold per turn and perhaps the loss of a few troops.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I have to agree with the above point.

Also, I have recently begun overseas adventures in the medival era, for pretty much the first time, and have noted that they are not impossible. 8 horsemen, or a few horsemen and knights, on the border city of just about any empire, will net you an outpost that can be fortified, expanded, and later used to annex a whole empire. Also, if you're ahead in tech, you can grab cities that posses resources that enemy doesn't yet know about... just to keep it from them...

I know that sounds a little bit OT, but it's related to keeping your enemies in the backseat.