What is the best civ/leader combo for MP?

[wodan11]

wodan11, if you do not have a capable field army, the other side will completely destroy your infrastructure and keep you in stone age forever!

In SP games, you know the AI won't come after you before 1000BC (epic speed); but in MP games, attacks can come at any time.

What's this in response to? I don't recall saying you don't need military, or that I was talking about SP.

[Dinner]

wodan11, if you do not have a capable field army, the other side will completely destroy your infrastructure and keep you in stone age forever!

In SP games, you know the AI won't come after you before 1000BC (epic speed); but in MP games, attacks can come at any time.

That's very often the strategy in SP. Many players will automatically attack the turn they find you and even if they don't find an unoccupied city they'll pillage the hell out of everything they can just to get the gold to keep their research rate up and to ****** the growth of your civ. After that, unless someone disrupts them or they make a mistake, then you're stuck playing catch up if you even can. Even worse if they happen to have gotten your only source of bronze or horses then all the other players see you as a sitting duck and dog pile on you.

[slnz]

In SP games, you know the AI won't come after you before 1000BC (epic speed)

This is a load of bull anyway. AIs can go WHEOOHRN already at about 3000BC and DoW sometimes at ~2400BC.

[One_more_turn]

What's this in response to? I don't recall saying you don't need military, or that I was talking about SP.

The response is to you assertion that archers can hold off axemen.

[One_more_turn]

This is a load of bull anyway. AIs can go WHEOOHRN already at about 3000BC and DoW sometimes at ~2400BC.

Not in my games.

I always play Aggressive AI, and the earliest time the AI went after me was 1200BC with that psycho Alex.

Maybe the reason is that I'm always playing standard sized maps and above?

[rah]

The potential for early war is way higher in MP games.
I've eliminated civs by 3000BC in MP.
In SP games, I never worry when I go worker/work boat/settler first.
If I try that in MP, I sweat until the first warrior is built.

[wodan11]

The response is to you assertion that archers can hold off axemen.

So, your implication is that archers cannot form a capable field army? Nonsense.

In fact, I implied in my post that the archers should be used to attack invading units (and not hold in your cities on defense, as you seem to be assuming).

[Blaupanzer]

Numbers count. That's all Wodan11 is implying. That while you are researching IW with no copper and no horses, all you have defending is warriors. If so, you will die if attacked. However, by getting archery, you can defend yourself adequately, while researching IW. As noted, MP is a riskier game. I stated earlier that I would jump to IW, but lots of archers could keep a player alive long enough for the iron to become available. Then you could pile your insane number of archers on the city you built on top of the iron long enough to start turning out units that have combat authority. You remain in the world of the living, rather than getting "almost" to expoiting that iron, then sitting out the rest of the game. Is his argument so unreasonable? And yes, you can counterattack with archers, as long as you have lots. And I sincerely doubt if warriors could do the same, even if you outnumbered the opposition 3 units to 1 with them.

[rah]

warriors vs Axemen.

[wodan11]

That's pretty much my position.

Anyway the reason warriors won't cut it is that they compare so unfavorably to axes. Archers meanwhile are a Str 3 first strike unit, for 2/3 the cost of an axe. Two archers in the open field will usually take out an axe, and you have a surviving archer who can heal.

In fact, all you really need is N+1 archers (one more than the attacking # of units). Though that is risking an unlucky die roll... having a few extra would be prudent.

Bottom line, you could throw away 3/2 * the number of invaders, and break even in hammer cost. e.g., you're invaded by 6 axes, you send 14 archers 8 of which die and 6 of which survive. You just spent 200 hammers and killed 210 hammers.

But realistically you'll probably only lose 6 of them and only needed to build a total of 12. So you come out way ahead. Your opponent spent 210 hammers to invade you, while you spent 300. You totally wipe out your opponent's invading forces for a hammer loss of 210 while you lose only 150. And you have 6 surviving archers to garrison your cities... he has nothing at all.

[Blaupanzer]

Hammer cost can be seen to equal the time to produce the units when interpreting the wisdom Wodan11 is providing.

[wodan11]

warriors vs Axemen.

yeah, exactly. Though, if Axes didn't have 50% vs melee and if Warriors had first strike, then we begin to get the picture of how archers compare. Cheaper hammers, bonus first strike, and no bonus against them.

[wodan11]

Hammer cost can be seen to equal the time to produce the units when interpreting the wisdom Wodan11 is providing.

I'm not sure what that means. Maybe because I'm two beers under already.

Anyway it's a truism that archers are MUCH easier to spam than axes. No resource required, and for only 25 hammers you can spit them out easier even in low hammer cities.

Bottom line all this said I'm hardly an archer apologist. I just think that they're a valid strategy. Especially when compared to the alternative of risking double or nothing on getting IW before you get invaded.

[rah]

The only thing is if you're doing a desperation whip, and you have the choice of axe or archer, you only get one so even thought the archer is cheaper, I'm clicking axe.

[Blaupanzer]

The premise was if you couldn't build axes, spears, or chariots, would you go for Archery and then IW or go straight for IW.

My thought was that some folks have said that the archers won't stand a chance. But I can make the archers faster and in greater numbers than the other humans can make attackers given that we have roughly equal production bases. What do we build while waiting for IW otherwise? Ming says he gets iron quicker if he doesn't divert to Archery. For SP, I agree, we don't know the bad guys are coming -- those pesky AI. But in MP, we appear to KNOW the evil humans are coming to make a meal out of us. Some seriously spammed archers may make all the difference.