Cavarly rush: Too good?

[xxFlukexx]

Yeah, that's a good point, DoJ, maybe Guilds is a bit slower(well maybe the same, the techs are cheaper but you need a few more of them. But don't you want those techs anyways? And when you beeline for something like MT, you probably don't want to trade it away so you don't really have much to trade for all the little techs you missed. In my standard size, normal speed games I get 1300-1500g for a size 15-19 city, that's enough for about 6 good cavalry upgrades. Of course a Player could mass build pikeemen and an AI could trade/tech for riflemen pretty fast.

And of course if you are doing that beeline to MT and get war declared on you before you get it, you are quite screwed.

Very few games where I would actually do such a thing and have ivory, but if you can pull that off without dying, go for it, hehe. If you have the tech lead, that is certainly a good way to get some of the latest troops out on the field asap to kill/maim another neighbor and further your lead, but if you don't have a tech lead, watch out.

[Hauptman]

I do have to agree, they did not include enough unit diversity later in the game. They added more early units but reduced mid to late game numbers.

Cavalry's main weapon was the sabre actually, augmented with Rifles. Dragoons used musket carbines and pistols with there sabres.

I would like to have seen a few more units added, but still i run into the problem of "Woot first to gunpowder... ATTACK!" 3 turns later before those musketmen even fight anything there obsolete due to grenadiers. 5 turns later i get riflemen, and 10 more infantry. granted historicly it was kind of that fast but i miss actually using units like in civ3.

They dragged out the early game at the expense of late game in this CIV.

[Mujadaddy]

Originally posted by Hauptman
They dragged out the early game at the expense of late game in this CIV.

Haha, I wish the early game was longer, too

[Dog of Justice]

Originally posted by Hauptman
I would like to have seen a few more units added, but still i run into the problem of "Woot first to gunpowder... ATTACK!" 3 turns later before those musketmen even fight anything there obsolete due to grenadiers. 5 turns later i get riflemen, and 10 more infantry. granted historicly it was kind of that fast but i miss actually using units like in civ3.

Yeah, that part of the tech tree is insane. Macemen morphing into Infantry while marching to battle... actually, I'm one of the Liz fanatics, and I find myself having to deliberately postpone researching Assembly Line so I don't lose access to the more cost-effective Redcoats!

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Dog of Justice


Yeah, that part of the tech tree is insane. Macemen morphing into Infantry while marching to battle... actually, I'm one of the Liz fanatics, and I find myself having to deliberately postpone researching Assembly Line so I don't lose access to the more cost-effective Redcoats!

Those darn Redcoats! They stopped my Grenadiers from taking over England.

Personally, I like the Ancient era the most. But I do feel your pain. I think they need to slow the tech tree down in the early gunpowder era, without speeding up the Ancient era. I need enough time with my swordsmen, and their cohorts, to accomplish some early conquests.

[Zan]

Well, I had nevr played the russians yet and, after reading this thread I started a Terra 20.000 BC game with Catherine to try the rush.

The Cossak are indeed brutal if rushed early.

I started aggressive with cavalry archers, took 2/3 of Africa by crushing cyrus and then. Barracks + westpoint + appropiate civs and started pumping cossaks like there was no tomorrow.

The might of the rush comes from the complete needlessness of catapults. The much upgraded cossaks could kill a city defended by pikemen, longbowmen and, of course, knights in a turn without losing any serious amount of units.

I took the rest of Africa by killing Spain, then went to arabia to kill the english, and I'm going up to finally surround and crush Alexander in Europe, who, as my friendly ally, has protected my non warrying borders for the whole game.

The moment to switch the cossaks to a more modern unit type will come soon, but the game is mostly over by now, with twice the points of the closest follower (place occupied, in that order, by Cyrus, Isabel and Elisabeth. )

[joncnunn]

I don't think Cav are underpowered but I do agree that there are a lot of juicy techs in that area of the tech tree. In fact I'm going to end up reseraching / trading for all but 1 Ren era tech before advancing to the Industrial era.

Originally posted by MotownDennis
Cav are certainly not overpowered, IMO. If anything, I find them to be slightly underpowered (except for cossacks, of course). So much so that I usually don't even research MT. Rifles and infantry come quickly thereafter and, as some others have mentioned, there are a lot of juicy techs to gobble up in that particular area of the tech tree.

Mass-produced pikes and catapults can stop a cav stack dead in its tracks (long before you get around to any pillaging ).

It might be a good beeline at the lower levels, but on emperor and above, most of the AI will have rifles before you can gather any meaningful cav force.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Combined with an improved combat system (perhaps even a tactical interface for combat, but at least real army on army fighting), this would probably enhance strategy. True, it does diminish the "race to an advanced tech and then use it before the enemy does"-strategy. However, that strategy is sort of lame, overall. Sure, you should have an advantage if your tech is better, and you should have a chance for your tech to be much, much better. However, a 50% improvement in combat ability for being 1 or 2 techs ahead in one field of research is a bit much.

That turns everything into a simple numbers game of "where does my commerce have the most effect?" That's boring.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MotownDennis
So much so that I usually don't even research MT.

With Military Tradition you get to build West Point if you also have a rank 5 unit. It's a good addition to your specialised city.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That turns everything into a simple numbers game of "where does my commerce have the most effect?" That's boring.

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).

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. All I propose is that a small lead give you an edge, but not domination. An edge in a unit v. unit battle, which means how you position your units and what unit types you have built is more important, more strategically relevent. A slower progress towards Knights and Pikemen, for instance, would mean that a Spearmen-Pikemen hybrid would pose a real threat to a Knight (right now if you get Knights before the enemy has Pikes, they can typically win against Spearmen, even when attacking a city). A very small tech lead should not make this sort of massive change. It isn't interesting or sensible. This kind of thing should only come from a large tech lead.*

-Drachasor

*Another way to do it would be to split up some techs into multiple techs. All provide the same unit, but it starts out costing a ton to produce and the cost lowers as more research is done.

[Modo44]

Re: Cavarly rush: Too good?

Originally posted by player1
If you are "lucky" you'll get Cavalry before others get Muskets,

Not "lucky". Playing at a difficulty level which is too easy for you. Move one up and try pulling the same stunt again.

[Brizey]

Originally posted by dschur

Point 3) Obsolete vs Armor
Artillery SHOULD be obsoleted by Modern Armor. Anyone remember the big artillery program that cot cancelled a few years back? Crusader I think (god, that would have been a bit hit in Iraq with that name). In the modern world Artillery should be mostly replaced by Mechanized infantry and air power as a counter to Armor.

What about modern missile based artillery like the MLRS? 1 vs 1 a tank would win, but 100 vs 100? I'd put my money on the MLRS group because of its vastly superior range and precision. Even if I am wrong, a missile based artillery unit would be a good foil for modern armor and mech infantry units in terms of gameplay.

(RON players: the MLRS is the radar artillery in the game)

Sorry about continuing a 'jack.

[player1]

Re: Re: Cavarly rush: Too good?

Originally posted by Modo44

Not "lucky". Playing at a difficulty level which is too easy for you. Move one up and try pulling the same stunt again.

On Monarch I often get lucky.
On Emperor, maybe sometimes.

Anyway in both cases it's long before Riflemen.

[Shaka II]

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

Originally posted by player1


On Monarch I often get lucky.
On Emperor, maybe sometimes.

Anyway in both cases it's long before Riflemen.

I played this strat in the current game (emperor/pangea/standard/Roman) using the path offered by Yuufo, and not trading alphabet until I had discovered Civil Service. Things have gone quite well, though there was some exposure to a Civ who sneak attacked me (Asoka), while I was cleaning up the remains of two Civs just conquered by my cavalry. Luckily, I had just established a defensive pact with my neighbor (Capac with big army) on the other side that kicked in to save my butt. Lost one border city to Asoka, which I took back after I discovered industrialism, etc. At this point (1850), I've ramped up military (tank/infantry/artillery/sam infantry/gunship) to launch the final assault on Asoka to achieve domination, while maintaining close friendship with Capac (I reestablished defensive pact). I suspect at the end, he and I may have a falling out, but maybe not.

So there is risk that some AIs will become more militarily advanced during the time that you spend waging a cavalry war. I would recommend beelining for rifling and industrialism after cavalry to minimize exposure, while pursuing diplomatic means to lessen the risk of attacks from Civs that will have reached industrialism earlier.

[Modo44]

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

Originally posted by player1
On Monarch I often get lucky.
On Emperor, maybe sometimes.

Anyway in both cases it's long before Riflemen.

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