Tweet
hello all. long time reader, new member, first time poster.
im a warmonger, through and through. as such, im looking forward to the following leaders: victoria--fin. is always good, solid UU, imp looks good, and the UB is okay as well. both khans look good with the ger, especially genghis. their keshiks, knights, and especially their cavalry could do quite a bit of damage. both caesars appear solid as well: julius could have the best early game of anyone with quick settlers and praetorians crushing virtually anything, which leads to GG, which in turn come out even faster for him. hannibal looks great: good UU, UB, starts with mining, and char/fin sounds very strong. cyrus seems to have great synergy between his traits and might be fun. mehmed (good UB, good UU although hes not around for long, fairly good traits), catherine (excellent UU, starts with mining, good traits even without financial), and shaka (at least the UB) look interesting. i love napoleon's new traits, but hate the french UU and especially UB.
disappointments/soft spots: 1) barracks getting -1 exp. woe to those of us who like killing for a living, but it shouldnt be too bad. 2) vassals not paying tribute. i hope they take a realistic (aka submissive) stance when you demand money and resources from them. 3) as a roman fan, i cant come to grips with the roman UB--the caesars were meant for fighting and the forum doesnt add much to a non-builders table--in my normal game, it will net me 1 or 2 more GP than average. other UBs that look underpowered are the russian research institute (too late except for maybe last-minute space race boost), french salon, greek odeon, celtic dun (plus the celtic UU, sorry), and the arabian madrassa.
pluses: 1) its obvious, but charismatic and imperialistic. both look great from a warmongers standpoint. if GG are all theyre cracked up to be, imp looks especially devastating, even more so if you get them out early in the game. 2) even without direct tribute payments, the vassal system looks awesome (again for warmongers). i cant say how many times ive destroyed a civ, only to have them found a city in the middle of nowhere, usually near an icecap and out of practical reach. im guessing domination wins will be much less aggravating, especially on the world map where everyone gets to the south pacific/australia just in the nick of time. there are many more pluses, but other people have written enough on them already.
had some questions about warlords maybe some of you could shed some light on:
i know this is somewhat old, but i havent been convinced yet: ive heard how tokugawa should be a great warmonger because of agg/pro, especially with gunpowder units. however, it strikes me that warmongers go on the offensive a lot more than the defensive. as such, city garr is almost useless (except when units are posted in newly conquered cities to heal). protective really only gives gunpowder units drill I when it comes to offensive combat. to me, that doesnt justify losing organized, which has to be one of the greatest warmonger traits there is. to those who say they will be really good with barracks, vassalage, and theocracy, thats true, but they will still only have drill I over a non-pro civ (and combat I over a non-agg civ); also running vassalage, theocracy, and any other costly civics is a lot more painful with a large empire when you dont have org. or its cheaper courthouses. id just rather have him keep organized over protective.
can you declare war on a vassal, or is the only way to keep demanding things from them until theyve had enough of it? also, does anyone know how the AI factors in vassals when declaring war (hopefully appreciating the combined power of both the vassal and master civs, like a defensive pact)?
could someone straighten me out on what exactly a GG does when made into a warlord? ive read way too many conflicting reports--many make it sound like a warlord does surprisingly little, others make him sound game-breaking.
how do you think youll use a GG? im thinking usually ill use them for the +25% production. it just seems to contribute more to the war effort over the course of an entire game than the other 2 options. exceptions: maybe +2 exp. in really high production cities or if im cyrus (2 exp.+barracks+vassalage or theocracy+charismatic=level 3 units). maybe use one or two for warlords, but only for huge stacks right before a large campaign, like right before you unleash cavalry or tanks.
thats all for now.
im a warmonger, through and through. as such, im looking forward to the following leaders: victoria--fin. is always good, solid UU, imp looks good, and the UB is okay as well. both khans look good with the ger, especially genghis. their keshiks, knights, and especially their cavalry could do quite a bit of damage. both caesars appear solid as well: julius could have the best early game of anyone with quick settlers and praetorians crushing virtually anything, which leads to GG, which in turn come out even faster for him. hannibal looks great: good UU, UB, starts with mining, and char/fin sounds very strong. cyrus seems to have great synergy between his traits and might be fun. mehmed (good UB, good UU although hes not around for long, fairly good traits), catherine (excellent UU, starts with mining, good traits even without financial), and shaka (at least the UB) look interesting. i love napoleon's new traits, but hate the french UU and especially UB.
disappointments/soft spots: 1) barracks getting -1 exp. woe to those of us who like killing for a living, but it shouldnt be too bad. 2) vassals not paying tribute. i hope they take a realistic (aka submissive) stance when you demand money and resources from them. 3) as a roman fan, i cant come to grips with the roman UB--the caesars were meant for fighting and the forum doesnt add much to a non-builders table--in my normal game, it will net me 1 or 2 more GP than average. other UBs that look underpowered are the russian research institute (too late except for maybe last-minute space race boost), french salon, greek odeon, celtic dun (plus the celtic UU, sorry), and the arabian madrassa.
pluses: 1) its obvious, but charismatic and imperialistic. both look great from a warmongers standpoint. if GG are all theyre cracked up to be, imp looks especially devastating, even more so if you get them out early in the game. 2) even without direct tribute payments, the vassal system looks awesome (again for warmongers). i cant say how many times ive destroyed a civ, only to have them found a city in the middle of nowhere, usually near an icecap and out of practical reach. im guessing domination wins will be much less aggravating, especially on the world map where everyone gets to the south pacific/australia just in the nick of time. there are many more pluses, but other people have written enough on them already.
had some questions about warlords maybe some of you could shed some light on:
i know this is somewhat old, but i havent been convinced yet: ive heard how tokugawa should be a great warmonger because of agg/pro, especially with gunpowder units. however, it strikes me that warmongers go on the offensive a lot more than the defensive. as such, city garr is almost useless (except when units are posted in newly conquered cities to heal). protective really only gives gunpowder units drill I when it comes to offensive combat. to me, that doesnt justify losing organized, which has to be one of the greatest warmonger traits there is. to those who say they will be really good with barracks, vassalage, and theocracy, thats true, but they will still only have drill I over a non-pro civ (and combat I over a non-agg civ); also running vassalage, theocracy, and any other costly civics is a lot more painful with a large empire when you dont have org. or its cheaper courthouses. id just rather have him keep organized over protective.
can you declare war on a vassal, or is the only way to keep demanding things from them until theyve had enough of it? also, does anyone know how the AI factors in vassals when declaring war (hopefully appreciating the combined power of both the vassal and master civs, like a defensive pact)?
could someone straighten me out on what exactly a GG does when made into a warlord? ive read way too many conflicting reports--many make it sound like a warlord does surprisingly little, others make him sound game-breaking.
how do you think youll use a GG? im thinking usually ill use them for the +25% production. it just seems to contribute more to the war effort over the course of an entire game than the other 2 options. exceptions: maybe +2 exp. in really high production cities or if im cyrus (2 exp.+barracks+vassalage or theocracy+charismatic=level 3 units). maybe use one or two for warlords, but only for huge stacks right before a large campaign, like right before you unleash cavalry or tanks.
thats all for now.
Comment