Cavarly rush: Too good?

[Shaka II]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Cavarly rush: Too good?

Originally posted by Modo44

Which only means that you should be leaving Emperor for the next difficulty setting soon.

Are you suggesting that MT becomes irrelevant at the highest levels? It certainly is a dangerous option, that much I can attest to. But the rewards are there too. Certainly if one is behind in tech, it's too late to go the MT strategy. Much better to wait until industrialism, where a major amount of time is available before mech infantry/modern armor are developed.

[Modo44]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cavarly rush: Too good?

Originally posted by Shaka II
Are you suggesting that MT becomes irrelevant at the highest levels?

No, it is very powerful if you can pull it off (as is attacking with any clearly superior unit). I am suggesting that powerful strategies like this one become less powerful the higher you go.

Originally posted by Shaka II
It certainly is a dangerous option, that much I can attest to.

I know, I did this with Cossacks in my last game. But it was on Monarch, and my attack went against Longbowmen, so it was pretty overwhelming. Yes, I too need to move up soon.

Originally posted by Shaka II
Much better to wait until industrialism, where a major amount of time is available before mech infantry/modern armor are developed.

If you can afford the beeline. The AI seems to like Industrialism more than Military Tradition, making it harder to get that head start.

[Shaka II]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cavarly rush: Too good?

Originally posted by Modo44
If you can afford the beeline. The AI seems to like Industrialism more than Military Tradition, making it harder to get that head start.

I meant beelining for industrialism primarily to avoid falling behind in military tech, i.e., if there is insufficient tech lead to go for MT, just go for industrialism, whether or not you get there first. The worst is getting caught with cavalry and muskets, when the AI has tanks and infantry. So there is a critical path decision in this regard.

In this game, I conquered one and a half Civs with axemen, war elephants, then upgraded war elephants to cavalry with proceeds from great merchant sent to India. Cavalry allowed taking over two more Civs, who were behind in tech. Like I say, I pushed the envelope a bit and didn't beeline fast enough toward industrialism, so got caught in that vulnerable situation. I also neglected diplomacy in that respect, allowing Asoka to get annoyed with me, borders clashing, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drachasor
No, rather troop movement and composition would become much more important, since you can't depend on a unit being a tech ahead to give you victory. That increases strategy (obviously greatly enhanced if some sort of troop supply--that was interruptable--was implemented).

You can't depend on a unit being a tech ahead to give you victory, because you can't depend on a unit being a tech ahead. In the cases where it is, you should be able to. Strategy ought to be mostly important for someone who is at parity or behind.

And deciding how to split up commerce is a large part of the game already. One could easily argue it is much more important when one tech can dramatically empower your troops--it places heavy emphasis on science production.

Exactly, but in a highly nonlinear fashion.