Otto unique..

Epistax · July 29, 2003, 10:08

The Saphir looks great on paper. 8-3-3, pretty much unbelievble in the era you get it.... is utterly, utterly useless.
Why do I say that?
The alternative unit is 6-3-3. It kicks the ass of everything up to riflemen. And Saphir? It kicks the ass of everything up to riflemen. Sure they take a bit less damage, but they still seem to get their asses handed to them when facing a bunch of people in formation with guns.

I've come to this conclusion after a recent raid on the Persians. I developed Saphirs, then decided to attacl as soon as my trade agreements with the Persians wore out- a mere 16 turns. I managed to make about two a turn until then. I made narry a cannon, as the only unit that posed a threat to the Saphir was other calvary, and those guys could still take out a Saphir with just one bar of health.
Then I attacked. Took their cultural capital and demolished it (there was no way it wasn't going to flip). Took a couple other cities. A turn later.. riflemen everywhere, no cannons. My veteran army of Saphirs? Can't even scratch the riflemen, lose all health and do no damage. The same happens to the majority of my hord. I never manage to kill a single rifleman, although I do a bit of damage (which is repaired over the turn). I still have a few left, and if I tilt my now golden age war machine towards cannons, I'll make short work.

But I gotta say...
Saphirs suck.

Cort Haus · July 29, 2003, 12:47

Sounds like a nasty case of bad RNG you had there. Presumably all the rifles were on flat terrain and not beyond rivers...

vmxa1 · July 29, 2003, 13:07

It is true that 633 and 833 have the same limitation. The one benefit the 833 has is that it is a slight favorite over the 633 and you will be having lots of those types of battles.
If I have 20 calv and the ai has 20 833 units, who is the most likely to win?
That they will not do real well attacking a city full of rifles, changes nothing. You need tanks to feel good about that. Well a stack of cannons would help, but I understand that is not often available.

Epistax · July 29, 2003, 13:16

20 cavs vs 20 saphirs.. I think whoever went first would win (that is, once they are in range of eachother). I don't know exactly how the game treats the numbers, but say straight up cavs have something around a 67% chance to win on attack, saphirs have an 80%. I don't want to turn this into a statistics war for the simple reason that I can't picture myself getting into this kind of offense versus offense on a large scale.

About attacking over a river; I'm not doing that, but The Art of War gives a damn good example how to turn that into a huge tactical advantage. Of course it only works once if anyone manages to escape and explain what happened.

I'm sure it is possible it's extremely bad luck, but my point is my game would be nearly the same had they been cavs instead of saphirs.

GhengisFarb™ · July 29, 2003, 13:47

I haven't seen the 833 units perform notably better than the 633 units either.

trickey · July 29, 2003, 15:35

I have played a few games with the Ottomans, and I must say that the Saphi really owned anything in their way, even coming out pretty good against Riflemen. Of course, I could have just been getting quite lucky with the RNG.

CerberusIV · July 29, 2003, 15:43

Riflemen can stand up to cavalry on flat terrain and are hard to beat if the terrain has a larger defence bonus, Sipahi are stronger against riflemen outside cities.

In a city with walls or a defence bonus it will always be hard going with either cav or Sipahi. That is why you start with Sipahi to destroy the AI's units outside cities and then use your GA to quickly produce a stack of cannons to bombard the city defenders down to low HP before your Sipahi storm in. Unfortunately this destroys city improvements in the process but they can be rebuilt.

The RNG can be fickle. In a recent game I lost a vet swordsman attacking an unfortified barbarian conscript warrior on grassland. It happens. :shrug:

gunkulator · July 29, 2003, 17:53

I dunno. I'm playing the Ottos now. With a 4 to 1 Siphai to defender ratio, I have taken and razed two size 12 cities. Each had a mix of Infantry and Rifleman. The inevitable Cavalry counterattack managed to kill only one of my Infantry (I was on a mountain). Best of all, my Golden Age was triggered so I am outproducing the AI like crazy.

Siphai give you a reasonable attacking unit against Rifles and even Infantry, not a hopeless one. War with Siphai are a great way of slowing down the AI's inevitable research into Tanks and Bombers. Tacitally, you still need overwhelming odds though.

badams52 · July 29, 2003, 18:24

From an older game I played, I was surprised at the success I could have with cavalry v. riflemen. Sure you're not going to win many one on one battles, but with enough of them, even metropolises filled with riflemen can be taken. Think SODs.

The game I was playing was a game where all I would build were units, nothing else, not even barracks, so numbers were not a problem. And once I had numbers, civs with only riflemen were less difficult to conquer than I had expected.

Now against infantry, well let's just say I'd wait till the infantry only had 1 HP before attacking with elite cavalry.

Tiberius · July 30, 2003, 02:39

What is a Saphir? A Sipahi wearing sapphire?

Anyway, I've never played with the ottomans, but just like badams, I've had succes with cavalry vs. riflemen, even attacking AI cities. Especially when I had the right number of Cavalries supported by the right number of artilleries.
I can imagine that one can do the same using fewer sipahis.

trickey · July 30, 2003, 07:25

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator
I dunno. I'm playing the Ottos now. With a 4 to 1 Siphai to defender ratio, I have taken and razed two size 12 cities. Each had a mix of Infantry and Rifleman. The inevitable Cavalry counterattack managed to kill only one of my Infantry (I was on a mountain). Best of all, my Golden Age was triggered so I am outproducing the AI like crazy.

Siphai give you a reasonable attacking unit against Rifles and even Infantry, not a hopeless one. War with Siphai are a great way of slowing down the AI's inevitable research into Tanks and Bombers. Tacitally, you still need overwhelming odds though.

That's another bonus of the Sipai, a perfectly-timed GA.

Epistax · July 30, 2003, 09:13

Sipai? Do'h. Well I don't have the game on this computer.
Yes it was a good time for a golden age. Now I'm setting with an iron works, a several techs ahead (Darwin), and the largest army in the game. Thankfully the French haven't learned of infantry yet so my artillary (now everywhere) + horsey men are whipping.

(complete side note) I don't like it how an Elite* unit is demoted when upgraded. Elite is fine but Elite*? Let'm get better

gunkulator · July 30, 2003, 10:41

So in summary for the Ottomans:

1) You get a kick@ss UU
2) You get a perfectly timed GA
3) You get Industriousness - the best trait
4) Scientific ain't too shabbly either.

Sounds like a winner. Perhaps the most well rounded/best civ?

Last Conformist · July 30, 2003, 14:34

Tearing down defending Riflemen with Cav is pretty easy. Doing it with Sipahi is almost too easy. Come Infantry, and those extra two points on the Sipahi really does tell. But if the enemy has Inf, you should have Arty, so even Cav is entirely sufficient to kill off the weakened defenders.

I submit that the Cav is the single best generic combat unit in the game, and that the Sipahi, as the best Cav-based UU, is a strong contender for best Civ III combat unit all categories.