The Ultimate Guide on Game Strategies on Huge Maps - your input-

[Master Zen]

But my point is that you can hoard the knights by building horsemen just as easy, I never said anything about actually producing the Knights. You don't even need that many as Cavalry. In my last huge game (and I don't play alot because of slow computer) I needed just 30 knights to crush Germany which was the #2 power and had over twice as many cities as I did. I did them in 20 turns. If I had waited until cavalry god knows what they would have done to me. Plus, if you strike quickly, ie right after Chivalry, you'll get most cities still defended by Spearmen and on size 6 or less. IMO Knights give a much better butt-whooping than cavalry if timed properly.

[nbarclay]

A lot has to do with the pace of research. In my games where I wait until Military Tradition to do serious fighting, I'm researching faster than Emperor-level AIs can. (If I can't research that quickly, I need to fight earlier to get more space.) That leaves me with a lot less time to build whatever it is I'm going to build before Chivalry becomes available. In a game like that, the only way I could build twenty or more horsemen for upgrade to knights would be to cut seriously into my construction of city improvements. Also, the goal of getting knights as early as possible in the hope of fighting spears and the goal of getting Leonardo's to make the knight upgrades cheap are somewhat at odds with each other. Even with a perfectly timed prebuild, you need both Chivalry and Invention before you can do a Leonardo's-powered upgrade. That puts you only a tech away from Gunpowder, and your adversaries only a tech plus whatever lead you have away.

As for why so many cavalry, I want to be able to take multiple cities per turn, with fresh troops always ready to take over the attack while earlier waves heal. That calls for a whole lot more forces than the bare minimum needed to defeat a single neighbor. But it also allows conquest of an entire continent relatively quickly, thereby making the most of the window of opportunity between the time I get Military Tradition and the time AIs start getting Nationalism.

Nathan

[Master Zen]

Well first of all I'm the kind of person who goes 1 civ at a time, only rarely will I go on a total warmongering spree with multiple civs (and if I do, the main axis of attack is unleashed upon one). I still think that Knights are the best choice despite waiting for a Leo upgrade because of this.

Also take into account that

1) your enemy might not have saltpeter and if it does, might be severed. (in that game I did a very sweet LRDF style swing with 2 knights into enemy territory, though a friendly civ with a RoP and right smack into the saltpeter)
2) your enemy will not upgrade immediately ($$).

In the game I mentioned, launched immedately after the Leo's upgrade I faced at the most 5 musketeers during the whole war, most of them defending Berlin. My experience with emperor is that in the middle ages the AI isn't that quick to upgrade their units on anything besides their major cities.

By the time you finish your knight wars, you'll be in a position of dominance which is practically a game-winner in a silver plate. Even if you don't conquer the entire continent (which in huge is a chore) you'll win anyway, so what's the point of actually doing it? If I want to conquer it for... ehem... personal warmongering reasons ... I'll wait till tanks and bombers when my civ will be cranking them out at 2 turns even without mobilization. More fun IMO than cavalry wars.

(then again the beauty of this game is everyone plays different)

[Cruddy]

I always build too many horsemen to upgrade to knights - I'm always scared that I'll lose a bunch, but so far never have. Now, if the pike's had double defence against mounted opposition, my strategy would be fine. It's hard to ditch my old Civ2 habits.

[Arrian]

I always build too many horsemen to upgrade to knights

Impossible. You can never have too many.

-Arrian

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arrian


Impossible. You can never have too many.

-Arrian

30-40-50... what's the difference??

[Mountain Sage]

nbarclay and Master Zen



This will go into the Manual (which is evolving fine, I just need abit more time to finish an 'intermediate' version).

Everybody else, keep on posting!!!!

[Cruddy]

Fair point guys. I just like to end up with a Civ with that has recognition culture wise, rather than a military mincing machine.

In other words, I have a lovely army but few improvements, letting the AI civs that are further away race ahead in tech.

It's just a balancing act - and I keep falling off the rope.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

A bit overlooked in this discussion is the issue of who your neighbors are, and what they have.

True, fighting knight-based warfare can be more grueling than overpowering your neighbors with cavalry. But the period between your knights-based conquest and MT can net you the wealth you need to stay ahead in tech and prepare for your next war.

On a huge map, no matter HOW hard you REX, you're going to probably still want more land. At the very least, for security's sake.

Now, say you border the Zulu or Spanish. You have chivalry and they have feudalism + access to iron. Do you want to attack them? Probably not, unless you're real ballsy. You want to wait for MT to cream them utterly, because their masses of Spearman, Archers, etc. can perhaps pose a threat to your knights.

On the other hand, say you border the English, Germans or Ottomans. Do you want to attack, even if they have access to iron? Absolutely! First of all, they'll be underdefended and you should put them out of commission before they put their iron to good use. A veteran cav vs. a veteran pikeman in a size-12 city is a battle that's still up in the air. Better to crush the civ NOW before they can build those pikemen.

At least, this has been my experience. Knights make a fine offensive unit in many situations, and though chivalry is worth skipping, it's definitely worth trading for and taking out a potential weak neighbor before that neighbor develops his/her culture and defense and becomes a true thorn in your cavalry-using side.

[Arrian]

Yahweh,

Let me add a few twists:

1) First off, there is "access to iron" and then there is "access to multiple irons deep in their territory."

I don't have much fear of a civ that has 1 iron resource near the border. I can cut that with a modicum of fuss. So the location & number of iron resources is a major factor in my decision-making.

2) Sometimes the tough fight is worth fighting, and sometimes it isn't. If a powerful neighbor of mine is blessed with nice land, a wonder or two, and the right resources, going ahead with an invasion could mean a nasty little war. On the other hand, it may be that I want that land for my FP (or Palace move), and maybe those wonders are worth heavy casualties.

Example: Me Rome, them Scandanavia. I was strong. They were nearly as strong, and fairly far away. They built the Pyramids, had iron, and even feudalism.

I had horsemen & legionaries. I attacked them anyway. Despite sustaining heavy casualties, the operation ended up being a spectacular success. Captured the Pyramids, moved my Palace to an optimal spot, generated several Leaders, allowing me to get all of the big medieval wonders. Most of that occurred without Knights, let alone Cav. I did end up using Knights to finish them off. That game went down as one of my very best.

On the other hand, had the Vikings not been such a perfect target, I would have held off and hit them with a massive Knight rush later.

3) What is the status of your potential enemy's UU and GA? Do they have a nasty UU? Can you, via preemptive strike, make sure they don't get to use it? Have they already used it and had their GA?

The main complication on huge maps, for me, is that I typically use swordsmen to crush/emasculate 1 AI civ that is potentially dangerous and/or has things I want BEFORE opening up my mounted attack. AU207 was fine for that, since Babylon was so darn close. But I suspect it isn't often that you have a neighbor that close, which makes swordsmen a lot less effective. The second main complication is the time it takes to get your REXing done so you can build your army... by the time I was ready to fight, it made sense to wait for Chivalry.

-Arrian

[Ubergeek]

Arrian is right, the distances involved are so much bigger in Huge games that the early-game units are frequently not usable at all to any effect. In all the Huge games I've played, I've had the opportunity to do an archer rush exactly once.

Swordsmen are moderately more effective (especially the UU swordsmen with their better stats) but the thing with swordsmen is that you often have to plan your early game entirely around fighting a swordsmen war -- you have to expand in the direction of the chosen target, dedicate a lot of workers to building the appropriate roads, and get enough swordsmen on the march early enough that they're not obsolete by the time the hit enemy territory. A big factor is that the distances from the production centers to the battlefront is so long that it takes forever for reinforcements to arrive (especially prior to Engineering) and it's much easier for the defense to kick out enough units to swamp your expeditionary force in many cases.

By the time of chivarly, the land is always filled and I have a good road network laid down, so a knight was is possible. If your enemy doesn't have Feudalism/Iron (or Hopiltes/Numidian Mercs) there are no problems. However, a war with knights against pikemen has to be done very carefully. Basically, I use knights to pillage the enemy's infrastructure and pick off wandering units, but I only attack cities I NEED to have, and then only with overwhelming force. My objective is always to force a favorable settlement and set myself up for the next war, the one where my cavalry is going to make liverwurst out of the target civ. On a smaller map, I'm much more willing to go for broke with Knights, because it's less of a hassle producing enough of them to do the job and getting them where they need to be.

[TheArsenal]

Only being alone on an island allows me to skip Chivalry.

Whether or not I fight wars with knights depends on the strength of my neighbors (if I am playing China, Rider Wars are a given). But I prefer to wait, but still build a large defensive knight complement. The game never turns in my favor until after MT. So until then, in diplomacy, the AI will take try to take my shirt if I let it. Until I am ready for the Great Calvary Wars, I mollify my immediate neighbors, and tell the outlying civs to take a hike. One of these "annoyed" civs - given its choice - will inevitably move large numbers of troops "invisibly" through the nation that buffers us and declare war by means of attack. So, along with running a unit to scout the buffer zone nation, I need a good number of knights on hand to preemptively strike, if needed, and to do as much of the fighting in the neutral civs territory as possible.

I hate seeing AI knights in my territory when I have nothing but horseman.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

All points well taken. However, it should be noted that a few civs, even if they have multiple sources of iron well beyond the initial "front" of cities you plan to take, should still be taken anyways. In my experience, this includes the Arabs, the English, the Ottomans, and the Chinese, among others.

For some reason, the Spanish, the Koreans, and the Persians often give me a run for my money, and do quite well on the defense even when they lag behind me tech-wise.

If an adjoining AI has good land on a huge map, there's no reason not to take it, especially if (as you say) they might later have a kickin' UU. That alone is reason to remove them. Even if they don't have the resource in question, they can always trade for it. I don't want to ever see a single Sipahi or Panzer see the light of day.

Swordsmen are still a good unit on the huge map, but you have to keep your forces concentrated and don't shoot for the moon. Perhaps my most notable swordsman invasion was of France (as China), across a deep jungle infested with Mongols. Just choose your target wisely and really ANY unit other than warriors will do the job, depending on timing.

I wouldn't go up against the Zulu with swordsmen, if they were far from me, in the ancient age, as I probably wouldn't have enough of them. But I might go up against the Vikings or Russians if they were near me, to keep Berserkirs and Cossacks out...

...but I'm rambling.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Playing on a huge map with cultural linking on, you're going to have at least one neighbor susceptible to a knight-based attack by the time chivalry becomes availible. If you want/need more land, go ahead and launch that attack! This is especially true if you've got cities that are happy at size 6 and need aqueducts to grow. Just don't build 'em yet - build knights, and increase the size of your economy with new cities that won't have as hard a time culturally assimilating.

The only exception to this broad statement I could think of would be if you play a lousy early game as one of the American powers... then, perhaps, your neighbors might pose a threat to you. And of course, some civs will always be more threatening, no matter what era you're talking about, unless their early-game luck is terrible.

[dexters]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Athorpel, I disagree with you on a few points:

a. It seems MORE likely that you will not achieve a monolopy of a given luxury on a huge map until you control the entire continent. Playing as the Japanese currently, I have crushed the French, Chinese, Spanish and Koreans, and taken half of Mongolia and Germany, but with India intact and Germany and Mongolia still alive, I don't have a monopoly on luxuries. I'm close, but I've still got to rule the whole damn continent (two, actually, if you count the two haves on one side of a classic ithsmus). This seems to be the typical case. But you don't always need a monopoly to trade successfully.

The mad generator can be a little cooky at times and it seems to like to clump luxuries into regions.

In my most recent game, playing continents, the huge map world has 2 pangea continents. My continent has access to 3 luxuries exclusively, and the other continent has access to 4 luxuries exclusively. These luxuries do tend to clump, but 1 or 2 of them tend to show up in odd spots.

So while I didn't have access to surplus wines, incense or dyes, one of each luxury was available in my territory. The large luxury fields are futher south and I have my eye set on grabbing them.

As noted before monopoly does not have to mean 100% control. if a large luxury field falls into your hand, you effectively control the resource, since another civ with access to 1 of the luxury can't do very much with it but use it themselves.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

In my experience playing huge maps with continents, the above is true: that continents have monopolies of x number of resources, but within the continent itself a single luxury may appear at either tip, meaning in order to have a "true monopoly" on a luxury you must often conquer the entire continent.

If gems appear on continent A, moreover, they will NOT appear on continent B. However, they may appear numerous times in almost any location on continent A.

[vmxa1]

Ok all you guys that were going to post those saves (Yahweh Arrian), I got my PC up now, thanks. Let me have em

[Arrian]

Oh, wow, forgot about that... will do, either tonight or tomorrow (softball tonight, may not even turn the computer on).

-Arrian