Attaching Great General to Siege Weapons

[Fleme]

I always attach my general to my first Axe / Mace with Medic and will use him for war as long as it takes for him to get Woodsman III to go with his Medic III. Scouts, Cavalry and Artillery make inferior medics with that in mind. (Sure, you could work around this by getting a regular unit to Woodsman III without it being general but where's the fun in that? )

[Theben]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini

Yes, but for me, that usually requires using the first GG to get the level whatever unit which unlocks the HE.

I prefer pounding on barbs for that, or the 1st civ that is dumb enough to attack me. By the time Literature is discovered, I have one or more lvl 3 units.

[rah]

I used to attach a general or two to a siege unit to get the mobility to march with a mobile strike force, but with flanking, I've stopped doing that since they're so vulnerable now.

[East Street Trader]

Well it seems I use GGs differently from most.

I am generally involved in multiple wars from as soon as I locate other civs onwards and I have no trouble having units with numerous promotions. I also get several GGs while still fighting with swordsmen, axe men and macemen. I find the GGs invaluable for creating units that can take out units fortified in cities without the need first to use a whole heap of catapults to reduce the defences and damage the defenders.

For me that is much more important than getting the long term benefits from using the early GGs as super specialists. I reckon to cripple or eliminate all my close rivals so, as far as those particular enemies go at least, there simply isn't going to be a long term to worry about.

But maybe I'll try the alternative approach which others seem to take. Conceivably the time taken (and economic cost) to build all those catapults is made up for by the ability to churn out higher trained units later.

I can't really see using the GG to promote a bombard unit. But again, I suppose experience might conceivably change my view. Next time I fail to get an early warrior to woodsman 3 I'll maybe try this idea. But if I have such a warrior I love to promote it with a GG. The free up dates represent a substantial benefit on the side of using GGs to promote units and a warrior represents the very best unit to get full value out of that benefit.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by wodan11

Sure it can.

I guess you can debate it, but you can't debate it successfully.

Untrue. For example, a wounded unit will often defend later. And, once you upgrade the scout to explorer, the warrior (or chariot or whatever) will continue to defend later (whether wounded or not).

OK, lets make it -- it defends last in a reasonably healthy stack. I'm also thinking about longevity here. -- Sure, there may be a time when your scout will defend an injured chariot/archer stack, but as your other units get better, that's unlikely. Even massively damaged riflemen are going to defend before the scout.

So do Chariots or any of a number of other possibilities.

that's why a chariot is my second choice.

That's a self-discipline concern. If you fear this, then simply don't attack. If you don't fear this, and would prefer to have the option to increase and get other promotions, then go for it. Entirely a choice each person can make for themselves.

The easiest way to exercise self-discipline is to completely eliminate the temptation. I find that I too often risk my medic if the option is available. If you have more self discipline, that's great. Also, other promotions beyond medic III are superfluous (except morale). You could argue for first strikes or woodsman III, but I just think that makes you more vulnerable in the long run than if your little scout just hides behind all the other big tough units. Plus, to get those extra promotions, you have to survive many battles -- you're going to lose one eventually. Just take the temptation off the table.

Again, a self-discipline concern.

No, an I-play-too-fast-and-in-too-many-short-sessions concern. All it takes is one group upgrade that accidentally includes your chariot and you've got that nice juicy medic knight that's going to die.



If you like chariots, that's cool, but I don't see any benefit in having your medic be slightly stronger and upgradeable if the goal is to have it remain weak and never defend. People have talked about using melee units and going for woodsman III -- I hadn't really considered that. I can see how it would be appealing, but now you've got to stay in the forest -- not good for later wars.

[mrp]

I don't use medics I use cities to rest up as for the great general they go into a city that produces well

[Chemical Ollie]

So far, I have not discovered the benefits of attaching a GG to a unit. I tried it a few times, but have failed to see what good it does.

I use them for military academies and specialists instead. One GG in a city does wonders, as you can promote all new units twice (with barracks). But to get 3 promotions, you need the right civics combined with 3-4 GGs, so I tend to spread out the GGs in several cities to get two promotions in each.

[wodan11]

Settled GG's also give 3 beakers under Representation... not too shabby.

Wodan

[absimiliard]

Woodsman III doesn't have to be on the Medic III unit.

Why go for a combo, get a Scout to Medic III and anyone else to Woodsman III. Voila, all done.

-abs

[Fistleaf]

Originally posted by absimiliard
Woodsman III doesn't have to be on the Medic III unit.

Why go for a combo, get a Scout to Medic III and anyone else to Woodsman III. Voila, all done.

-abs

Only the best healer unit's bonus will be taken into account for a stack. So if you have separate units for Woodsman III and Medic III, only the Medic III unit's bonus will take effect.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Theben
I usually drop my Generals in my "Heroic Epic" city, so I can churn out tons of experienced units at the drop of a hat.

Same here.

You can produce some very powerful units this way.