What Units DON'T You Build?

[snoopy369]

Well, in theory if you're using machine guns for defense against non-gunpowder units... but then I doubt you need the bonus anyway

[egavactip]

Originally posted by wodan11
Egavactip, don't you find that a lot of your troops die without first using siege? Even if you have stronger units, that's going to happen quite a bit. For example, a rifle vs a fortified longbow is about even-up odds. That 75% or 100% cultural defense is a killer.

Wodan

But if the rifle has first strike and anti-archer promotions (whatever they are called), it gets better. I am also rarely facing 75% or 100% cultural defense. Usually more like 40% to 60%, if my memory serves me correctly. Usually when I am on the rampage with my first "rifle war," I am killing a guy with each rifle unit and usually not losing one in return, though it may get beat up. If I have cannons or trebuchets, I'll throw them into the battle to get some collateral damage first, but as you might suspect, those will get whittled down after the first few conquests and not get replaced quick enough. I haven't ever really tried to track losses or precise battles at this stage, so I don't want to give the impression of being exact when I cannot be, but usually when I get a big-ass force of rifles, it is go time. Obviously, not all targets are the same, and some are particularly well defended, and on good terrain or have some great promotions or what have you. But I find the rifles pretty darn good overall.

Maybe next game I'll try to note how many rifles I lost by the end of the game. My vague recollection is that I'll lose lots of axemen and maces but far fewer rifles and fewer still infantry and tanks later on.

[egavactip]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I would suggest that if you can win without siege at almost any point in the game except pre-catapults, you are probably playing on too easy of a level (unless you prefer to play at an easy level, in which case have fun!).

I'm currently on noble, which I guess is sort of middle of the road.

I never suggested I could win without siege at almost any point in the game except pre-catapults. I think CivIV favors the defense too much, in fact. What I try and look for are sweet spots in the progression where I may have advantages in attack vs defense. Axes can do it early on, if you are willing to suffer losses, although they will have real problems against a protective opponent esp. if he has a lot of hill cities. The next sweet spot is not until maces, which can be very effective until longbows and crossbows become common. Then you are in trouble and it is hard to launch an effective offensive war without lots of prep and lots of siege, etc., until you get a strong gunpowder unit. Then you've got another sweet spot until the AI catches up (and sometimes beyond if they concentrate on cavalry rather than good defensive units). Infantry gives you another one. With rifles and infantry both, I don't try to do it siegeless. If I have siege weapons, I will certainly use them, but I don't produce masses of them, and will usually try to rely on them to either quickly knock a low culture city down or to sacrifice themselves to quickly cause some collateral so the rifles can mop the floor. Usually I can keep a few trebs or cannons flowing to the front lines to be handy through the end game of a war. Once I can get tanks, I eschew all siege units, because they just slow the attack down.

Now on a higher difficulty level, the AI probably progresses faster in military tech than on noble and those sweet spots are probably a lot smaller or in some cases non-existent. So I can't say this would work beyond noble. And I am talking theoretically, so it assumes that you didn't get caught out of balance by a stack of doom or backstabbed by another AI opponent on the other side of your empire or had some really bad random event or made a stupid mistake or what have you. All of those things can easily happen.

What I like best are those units that serve an all around purpose--they can attack, they can defend, they can garrison. You just get more use out of them, long term, than one sided units such as mounted units or siege units. So I try to find ways to fight the wars so that I can rely more on the all-purpose units than on the specialist units, which I produce in smaller numbers or not at all, depending on the unique circumstances of the particular conflict and the particular game situations.......

I am not suggesting any magic solution or strategy or tactic or suggesting that anybody else's strategies are not equally or more valid. Just explaining why I build (or don't build) what I do (or don't).

[snoopy369]

You're not using the right form of negation

My statement, properly put:

"If, at any point in the game post-catapults, you are able to win meaningful city battles without the use of any siege units, you are playing on too easy of a level."

There is no point in the game post-construction where two equal opponents can fight without the use of siege units and make significant inroads (and I include any bombard-capable craft as siege; so include ships and planes, if used for said purpose).

You certainly can beat a weaker opponent, either militarily or tech-wise; but if you are playing with riflemen, and the AI is playing with longbows, that's not by any means equal. Maces versus archers is also not equal. You're defining 'sweet spot' as 'ahead of the AI'. Macemen is quite a bit past longbows (heck, it IS crossbow tech, for that matter). At a reasonable level, you should not be fighting the AI with that much of an advantage.

Civ4 very specifically avoids what you prefer - the all purpose unit - in an attempt to force you to use combined arms (multiple types of units). In a truly even fight, you are pretty much required to use at least three different types of units to win; which three varies a lot, though siege are usually one of them (though less so in BtS). This is the avowed purpose of Soren and the design team. You are forced to make strategic decisions and to use many of the available units, in order to make the game more complex.

That said, of course play whichever way is fun for you

Noble, btw, is definitely a rather easy level for an experienced player; it is probably the best level for a player to start out on, but pretty much any player who plays ~30+ games and has any ability to learn at all can progress to at least Prince. Prince is generally the level many people get 'stuck' on, and cannot surpass no matter what their experience.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by egavactip
Maybe next game I'll try to note how many rifles I lost by the end of the game. My vague recollection is that I'll lose lots of axemen and maces but far fewer rifles and fewer still infantry and tanks later on.

F5

Wodan

[prelynmax]

It's clear that the OP has no idea how to play this game at all. That's all I have to say about this.

[wodan11]

I don't know that I'd go that far. If he's having fun, who are we to criticize. He didn't give any reasoning for the thread, after all. No "I'm trying to play on a higher level" or anything like that.

I think the min/maxing attitude can be taken to an extreme: MP or HOF players tend to look down on casual players. That attitude, IMO, is plain wrong and does not benefit the community.

It would be just as wrong as if someone pointed to MP / HOF players and said they had no idea how to play the game, that they were exploiting really minor weaknesses in the game programming and taking them to extremes which have little to do with the game as a whole.

Wodan

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by wodan11
I don't know that I'd go that far. If he's having fun, who are we to criticize. He didn't give any reasoning for the thread, after all. No "I'm trying to play on a higher level" or anything like that.

I think the min/maxing attitude can be taken to an extreme: MP or HOF players tend to look down on casual players. That attitude, IMO, is plain wrong and does not benefit the community.

It would be just as wrong as if someone pointed to MP / HOF players and said they had no idea how to play the game, that they were exploiting really minor weaknesses in the game programming and taking them to extremes which have little to do with the game as a whole.

Wodan

QFT

Make constructive suggestions as to how to play better, if desired; don't denigrate others for playing differently.

[egavactip]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You certainly can beat a weaker opponent, either militarily or tech-wise; but if you are playing with riflemen, and the AI is playing with longbows, that's not by any means equal. Maces versus archers is also not equal. You're defining 'sweet spot' as 'ahead of the AI'. Macemen is quite a bit past longbows (heck, it IS crossbow tech, for that matter). At a reasonable level, you should not be fighting the AI with that much of an advantage.

When you try for sweet spots, though, you are rushing for a particular technology specifically in order to get an advantage that the opponent does not yet have. Moreover, the AI does not necessary emphasize military technology, which can hurt it against a human player that does. I have played several games recently in which several computer opponents already had medicine, which I did not, but had not bothered to try to get infantry yet.

Civ4 very specifically avoids what you prefer - the all purpose unit - in an attempt to force you to use combined arms (multiple types of units). In a truly even fight, you are pretty much required to use at least three different types of units to win; which three varies a lot, though siege are usually one of them (though less so in BtS). This is the avowed purpose of Soren and the design team. You are forced to make strategic decisions and to use many of the available units, in order to make the game more complex.

Well, I definitely agree that Civ4 tries to force you to use combined arms--but it doesn't always succeed 100% of the time. If it did, we wouldn't see things such as early UU rushes, etc. And I am making strategic decisions, of course--I have been trying to find ways in which the I can utilize the benefits of more uniform military forces can outweigh the various limitations (esp. defensive, but also production) of a more varied army. Cavalry units cost more than riflemen do, and are not good defensively (and even worse, please note, against riflemen). Cannons cost less but are even more limited. If you can find a way to limit your use of those and to maximize your use of a cheaper, more all purpose unit, you may be able to reap advantages from that. In my games, I have found I have been able to do so. As Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own.

Noble, btw, is definitely a rather easy level for an experienced player; it is probably the best level for a player to start out on, but pretty much any player who plays ~30+ games and has any ability to learn at all can progress to at least Prince. Prince is generally the level many people get 'stuck' on, and cannot surpass no matter what their experience.

I am sure I will start playing Prince soon. I'm just not crazy about things that might lengthen the game still further...

[Arrian]

Units I often don't build:

1) Archers. Typically I use chariots and/or axemen. I have often traded for or researched archery *after* getting Feudalism.

2) Swordsmen. Yeah, I know. What can I say? I either go for an ultra early rush (quecha or chariot-based) or I wait for catapults. I might have a sword or two, but often go right to Macemen.

3) Horse archers. HBR often gets researched as a "hey, why can't I build knights? I have Guilds! Oh, right..."

4) Explorers. Duh.

5) Muskets. Sometimes I'll build a couple, but typically I research gunpowder and rifling back-to-back.

6) Machine guns. I have built them at times, but only in very low numbers ('cause I'd rather have more versatile rifles).

7) Cuirassiers. To my knowledge, I've never built or upgraded a single one, which means this is my least built unit.

Elephants are obviously dependant on whether or not I have ivory. Even if I do have it, I tend to build them sparingly. If perchance a neighbor lacks metal, however... cats + oliphaunts = PAIN. Having ivory will actually force me to research HBR, which I often put off.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

Civ does not 'force' anything - it encourages combined arms by making it more efficient. You can always, in any game, use only a single unit (that's permitted to kill units and take cities, so no cats or gunships), as long as you have enough or have enough of a lead...

Combined arms is simply more strategic. Using X resources, what is the best stack I can create to attack civ Y? Certainly a stack of 1000h worth of riflemen is superior to 1000h worth of cavalry; but a stack of 1000h worth of grenadiers takes that riflemen stack out quickly. Cannons are a necessity of course; a few of them is a very effective force multiplier as it takes 20% chance attacks and converts them to 60% chance attacks (3x survival rate). And that is not counting the city defense lowering effect of bombardment...

I certainly have some of the 'all-purpose' units in any stack, but having solely that unit - or even mostly, at equivalent tech levels - will almost never work against a competent opponent. The stack I bring is crafted for the specific opponent I attack, whether that means gunships plus infantry for a tank-heavy opponent, Grens plus cannons for a rifleman defended city, or spears plus archers for attacking Egypt with her war chariots in the early game.

Change to prince ... you'll be surprised to see that the game goes much faster sometimes. You will at least at first have less success, so fewer cities and units to worry about