Canon or Cavalry?

Ljube · October 19, 2003, 18:50

Not much of an issue, but I was thinking to ask where to build canon and where to build cavalry. Canon is not obsolete yet and may still prove useful especially if we develop our railroad network further.

Canon is four rows, cavalry six - 50% more expensive.

So I give a spectrum of options and you choose.

Ljube · October 19, 2003, 19:00

I'm sorry for my poor spelling, but bellow is actually below.

cavebear · October 19, 2003, 19:08

I don't see any point in building Cannon except in cities where some agressive defense is neded at the city gates against incoming units. Yes there are some few places where Cannons are worth building. But mostly, Cavalry are going to be more useful in the long-term.

Cavalry is just a Cannon with triple defense and 2 moves. Why deliberately build less for the sake of a few shields?

Sparrowhawk · October 19, 2003, 19:14

The only reason I can think of is if we intend to try to get to Machine Tools before anyone else gets Automobile, thereby upgrading our Cannon to Artillery, which is obviously better offensively then Calvary.

shade · October 19, 2003, 19:46

never mind the spelling(they learned to live with mine

)

Cavalry all the way...as cavebear said for a mere 50% extra they get 200% more defence and 100% more movement.

Shade

Ben Kenobi · October 19, 2003, 22:19

Just incrementally rush the calvary. Not expensive enough to warrant the use of weaker units.

CannonFodder · October 20, 2003, 02:07

Heh, this is probably goofy-sounding coming from me but this should be a non-issue. Build cavalry, not cannons.

comte_umanov · October 20, 2003, 13:08

i actually agree with sparrowhawk.
since the cannons will all be upgraded it would be a nice idea to have a few of them left or even keep on building them.
besides, haven't hey got any advantages on the hitpoint/firing points. (i mean the last numbers after attack, defense and range)? i am not sure.

i vote for still building a few, maybe in just one or two cities. they are also nice to use as long as the fields to attack are next to the railroad system.

and the last and best point: they are cheaper than cavalry.

proposal: maybe build them in only one or two cities, for which it makes a difference in turns between building either cannon or cavalry

Sparrowhawk · October 20, 2003, 21:28

Quote:

Originally posted by comte_umanov
i actually agree with sparrowhawk.

You don't need to make it sound like you are suprised to agree with me!

But to clarify, I am not sure we are in agreement, as I posted, cannon are superior offensively to calvary if we plan to get to machine tools before anyone get automobile and thus upgrade our cannon to artillery.

Therefore, my opinion depends on the outcome of the tax rate thread, because if we choose to set our science at 0, I can see no reason to continue building any cannon. However, if we set our science at a rate where machine tools is within our grasp, then perhaps we should consider this option. Having said that, I think the trade off in the time between is too great, and we need to go for as many calvary as possible, and decimate our opponents while we can.

/me the one who can argue with himself better then any other

Six Thousand Year Old Man · October 20, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by comte_umanov
besides, haven't hey got any advantages on the hitpoint/firing points. (i mean the last numbers after attack, defense and range)? i am not sure.

No, they don't. Artillery have 2 firepower. Cannons and Cavalry have 2 hp and 1 fp each.

Upgrading to Arty would be good... if we don't do that, Cannons are pointless, IMO.

atawa · October 21, 2003, 12:24

Cannons are 33% cheaper then Cavalry and do the same damage.

I seem to disagree with everyone on this but with railroads and instant forts we dont have to spend 20 shields more per unit imo.

Ljube · October 21, 2003, 13:35

I agree with your views Vice President atawa. Canon is equally effective and much cheaper than cavalry. But we are the sole two voices of dissent, I'm afraid.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · October 21, 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
Cannons are 33% cheaper then Cavalry and do the same damage.

Cannons also have 50% of the attacks of Cavalry. Building Cavalry gives twice as many attacks for 1.5x the cost of Cannons.

I know that Cannons are cheaper, but Cavalry gives us some extra flexibility. If a city is swarmed with AI attackers, a Cavalry may be able to move out, attack a dip, and move back into the city... or kill 2 units on separate tiles. Fortified Cavalry also defends a helluva lot better than Fortified Cannon.

More likely, we might need that extra attack when taking down a walled city with multiple defenders. If a AI defender is knocked into the red, a Cavalry could defeat that defender and perhaps another wounded defender as well.

I sure know that having Cavalry instead of Cannon would have made the attack on Washington easier.

duke o' york · October 22, 2003, 07:34

I know that it doesn't make any difference to us because we're at war with everyone but Russia, but I like the ability of cavalry to hide in the square in the corner of the city radius while I demand tribute and then level the city if they refuse, but can never be sent back to your cities.

It makes sense to build cannon if we are about to get machine tools and want cheap upgrades, but I can't see things going that far. Cavalry will have an instant impact!

atawa · October 23, 2003, 14:22

We are building railroads anyway, once you've reached the stage of modern warfare mounted units become obsolete.

The 2 attacks is realy a non-issue as they will be badly wounded after the first anyway and will die against most units on the second.

As we have railroads and instant forts we can have 3 attacks against city's with Cannons against 2 with Cavalry.

Hydey · October 24, 2003, 00:16

I support a cavalry charge.

cavebear · October 24, 2003, 08:25

Welcome back! I assume you have been sporting with the Amazons on a mysterious Island we haven't found yet...