Tweet
Pre-Warlords, Genghis Khan was indeed Aggressive/Expansive. This trait combination is now taken by Shaka.
-
Participating in my threads is mandatory. Those who do not do so will be forced, in their next game, to play a power directly between Catherine and Montezuma. -
Ahhh....that's the difference then. Sweet. And thanks Jack!
-=Vel=-Comment
-
Changed Traits:
Washington: Was Fin/Org, now Cha/Exp. Old trait combo unused.
Saladin: Was Phi/Spi, now Pro/Spi. Old trait combination now with Gandhi.
Mao: Was Org/Phi, now Exp/Pro. Old trait combination now with Frederick.
Qin: Was Fin/Ind, now Ind/Pro. Old trait combination now with Capac.
Victoria: Was Exp/Fin, now Fin/Imp. Old trait combination unused.
Napoleon: Was Agg/Ind, now Cha/Org. Old trait combination now with Stalin.
Frederick: Was Cre/Phi, now Org/Phi. Old trait combination unused.
Capac: Was Agg/Fin, now Fin/Ind. Old trait combination now with Ragnar.
Gandhi: Was Ind/Spi, now Phi/Spi. Old trait combination now with Rameses.
Tokugawa: Was Agg/Org, now Agg/Pro. Old trait combination unused.
Genghis: Was Agg/Exp, now Agg/Imp. Old trait combination now with Shaka.
Cyrus: Was Cre/Exp, now Cha/Imp. Old trait combination unused.
Julius: Was Exp/Org, now Imp/Org. Old trait combination now with Mehmed.
Catherine: Was Cre/Fin, now Cre/Imp. Old trait combination unused.Participating in my threads is mandatory. Those who do not do so will be forced, in their next game, to play a power directly between Catherine and Montezuma.Comment
-
Good info, and thank you for posting that synopsis!
A question for everyone here:
Do you think the guide would be most helpful if it was written taking into account both the pre-and post-Warlords environments (especially where the trait combos are concerned)? Or, should I just focus on post-Warlords? (which is what I have been doing thus far).
Total aside here, IMO, the reason that Fin/Org and Cre/Fin are no longer used is because they're just too powerful, as far as combinations go. I miss the old Cathy (and so does my wife...in fact, I modified a copy of the Warlords XML so she could play as the old Cathy--her favorite Civ--when we play together!), but yeah....just too strong.
And I fear that Washington's NEW combo might prove to be too strong. He is now an uber whipping machine...free happiness in the early game to offset multiple whips....could crank out ancient attackers in no time flat, or just FLY through infrastructure builds....
-=Vel=-Comment
-
I suspect Cre/Phi was also taken out for balance reasons - it's a phenomenal combination to get the Great Wall with.Participating in my threads is mandatory. Those who do not do so will be forced, in their next game, to play a power directly between Catherine and Montezuma.Comment
-
Total agreement....only way to make Creative balanced is to keep it AWAY from Phi, Org, and Fin, at a minimum, and probably Imp too....(Augustus is another post-warlords candidate for further tweaking...Cre/Org is a cakewalk...not QUITE on par with CRE/FIN, but close enough).
-=Vel=-Comment
-
I tried to play Mongols and was frustrated in the attempt: the Keshiks come in too late to be really devastating, and they are easily countered. It appears that Vel has figured this out and correctly adjusted his strategy. I think the Japanese has the same issue with Samurais: you can't wait for Samurai, you must rush with conventional methods.Comment
-
My bad on the Granaries; I played Genghis a lot more pre-Warlords. Thankfully my comment was a parenthentical - Pottery is still useful for the HBR "detour" because of Cottages.Originally posted by Velociryx
Forgot one thing: Re - Half priced Granaries....that's an advantage for Expansive Civs, yes? I forget who was what, pre-Warlords, but post Warlords, Ghengis is (IMP/AGG), and Kublai is (AGG/CRE)...no luck on the double speed Granaries...And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...Comment
-
I think this is where difficulty level differences jump into our discussion. On Emperor and Immortal, no matter how fast you get those first five Axemen out, the AI will have at least two Archers in every city, plus change. This remains the case for quite a while; what grows is the AI's standing army. As long as you can keep that standing army to just Archers (that is, deny your target's strategics) there's quite a big window for efficiently conquering cities. In other words sacrificing Granaries, etc. for an ultra-early rush is not likely to result in a bigger payout. I think you are noticing this with your argument on Barracks.Originally posted by Velociryx
The notion of delaying the attack until you have a stronger economy and so forth (which has the side effect of giving the AI more time to develop, and also, more time to beef up defenses) is an *excellent* way to attack, but I would be hesitant to call a tech path that detoured all the way to Alphabet (especially if you want to do both Alphabet AND Horseback Riding) before launching the attack to be a "rush", so I'm covering this type of warfare under a different article, but I totally agree with you that it's more than viable, and will *definitely* be making an appearance!
Another thing about Emperor and Immortal is that you really need to think about your economy right away. By this I mean both Cottages and tech trading. I agree that a detour for Alphabet does not really fit into the definition of a "rush". The reason I mentioned it is that it's nonetheless a very focused early offensive strategy; call it a rush+.And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...Comment
-
Hey, One More Turn!
Sorry to hear about your rough game with the Mongols...and for the record, I agree with you. It's HARD to genuinely "rush" with the Keshiks...they're expensive (50 hammers a pop, compared with 35 for an Axeman or a Chariot, and TWICE as much as the fortified Archers you'll be attacking), making them painfully expensive to attack with exclusively.
They are GREAT for blitzing enemy territory, masterful scouts, awesome at disrupting reinforcements in the field, and tearing the HELL out of enemy tile improvements (with a handful of Keshiks, you can absolutely deny an enemy ANY resources...not just one or two, you can take them ALL and reduce him to building nothing but Archers), but as fight finishers at the city gates there are better, more cost-effective choices. They start with a -10% penalty to attacking cities anyway (a trait that they share with the Horse Archers they replace), and they're easily countered by Spears. OTOH, if you bring a couple of spears of your own to the party, enemy Chariots won't be able to do much to your Axemen as they move in for the kill.
I think you're absolutely right, btw...Samurai comes WAY too late to be considered a "rush" unit. Sure, you can attack with him and completely destroy an opponent, but no way could you call it a rush if you're waiting till the middle ages to attack. If you want to rush, and I mean REALLY rush, you've got five (non UU) choices:
Warriors
Archers
Spearmen
Chariots
Axemen
Of these, there's almost no way I'd consider rushing with Warriors....MAYBE, if I could see my enemy's borders from turn one, but that's about it, and only then if I had some edge--aggressive, founding on a plains hill with stone,etc).
Archers - again, MAYBE, but the opponent would have to be close, and I'd have to have some type of edge (Capital founded as above, free Archery from a hut on turn one...something)
Spearmen - same price as an Axe, and same resource requirements...no way would I choose to attack with a Str. 4 Melee Attacker when I can get a Str. 5 for the same price.
Chariot - The only other reasonably good rush candidate...a little less hitting power, but can retreat in battle...I'd still tend to gravitate toward Axes, but the Chariot isn't a bad substitute at all.
-=Vel=-Comment
-
Dom, yep...total agreement. I'm writing the guide from the perspective of a Standard Speed Monarch game, and that, no doubt, has bearing on the discussion. My reasons for choosing Monarch is because I consider it to be the most "accessible" of the levels of play, providing a good challenge while still bearing a great deal of similarity to the lower levels of play, at least in terms of keeping the greater bulk of stylistic options open (I think we can both agree that in general, as you move up the difficulty ladder, your options get increasingly constricted in terms of "what works" on a regular basis, thus, I regard Monarch as a good blending....most strategies can be made to work at this level.
-=Vel=-
(we need a mod...Deity level Health and Happiness caps, Monarch level AI bonuses...IMO, that'd be GOLDEN)
EDIT: Another reason for basing the notes on standard speed monarch is...the folks who can regularly beat the game at levels above Monarch prolly don't need one bit of my help...
-v.Last edited by Velociryx; September 4, 2006, 19:03.Comment
-
That's why I think the best 2 civs are the Romans and Persians.
Persian Immortal is really cheap and absolutely crushes Archers, and the Imperialistic Persian settlers should have no problem securing horses. So the Persians can rush much earlier than the Romans.
The Roman Praetorians, however, have a much longer lifespan. I usually deploy Praetorians from 1300BC to 1500AD. Since they eat through Longbowmen, only the arrival of Riflemen will make them finally obsolete. Imagine how many turns and how many hammers you save by sticking with your elite Praetorians!Comment
-
Egyptians might also be a good choice, but I won't really know until I play them.Comment
-
Consider your Strategy Book as already pre-ordered!blehComment
-
Wow! This would be really helpful for someone like me. I think you should keep going!
Empty.Comment
Comment