Noble to Prince - unbearable

[Ming]

P.S. and yes ive tried many strategies, im not an idiot, ive been playing civ for over 14 years, trust me ive done just about every strategy there is.

SO... move up a level or two. It sounds like all you want to do is play a game where you kick everybodies butt, which I guess is fine if that's what you want. But if you really want to test your strategies, and have a challenge, it's time to move up. It's tough to take you very seriously when all you do is rant about how good you are, yet all you do is play at the lower levels. Most people can romp on Prince, and that's why many people are playing much harder levels. I would rather be challenged then play yet another game where it's so easy it's no longer any fun

[brandonjm8]

SO... move up a level or two. It sounds like all you want to do is play a game where you kick everybodies butt, which I guess is fine if that's what you want. But if you really want to test your strategies, and have a challenge, it's time to move up. It's tough to take you very seriously when all you do is rant about how good you are, yet all you do is play at the lower levels. Most people can romp on Prince, and that's why many people are playing much harder levels. I would rather be challenged then play yet another game where it's so easy it's no longer any fun

im not trying to say im the best and nor am i, but i have pride in myself and will defend it. if you thought i was showboating sorry you took it that way but that was not my intent. i know the higher levels will be harder, youve been playing alot of bts compared to me, im only on my 4th or 5th bts game, i dont play much and move up levels after a few kickass games, probably after this one or the next dependent on how i do i probably will move up to the next after prince, in due time. but not to sound cocky but i know i will do good if not great there too, i know how to play the game and switch up styles when needed, sometimes i have a bigger D or the opposite, sometimes i go a conquering early in game and others im defending and killing, games change with every generated map, different locales and civs and resources and ect ect ect make each game different then the last, maybe not completely but enough. i have no idea how many bts games youve played but im pretty sure its alot more than i have, i also play only marathon so they take alot longer, in due time i'll be up to deity but im in no rush

[wodan11]

Brandon, nobody's trying to get you down. It's just when you say things such as

it isnt wasteful to have an awesome D

Which are clearly not true. Having more than 4 defensive units in places where they aren't used is a waste, plain and simple.

We can talk about pros/cons of offensive vs defensive units all we want, but it seems we can't even get past the basic point that defensive units that aren't attacked are a waste.

[Baldyr]

Yeah, that's what I mean also. If I have 4 units in a border city in peace time, and I don't need them for policing the population, that's really 3 gold wasted on upkeep every turn and city. They're not contribution with anything other that being an "deterrent". Also, if I have a stack of 10 units just lying around, thats another 10 gold wasted every turn. Units should be used, right?

Ideally you wouldn't have more than the obligatory one unit per city for happiness, in peace time. You should only need to get additional units if a war brakes out (since we're pretty much discussing defensive strategies here). Sadly this would only work in a perfect world, and neither Civ or reality is perfect. So of course we need to be a little wasteful with our money - to be able to put up an effective defense momentarily (and to be able to counter-attack) - and also to deter our rivals from declaring in the first place.

My point, then, is that its merely a question of maybe wasting 100 gold on your units per turn if you have say 50 cities (3 up-to-date units each in 25 border cities, another 25 obsolete units as a police force in your heartland). Which is a lot! You could, however, waste 200 gold per turn by stacking 4 purely defensive units in every city just because you made a rule about it. And you don't even get any offensive capability for double the money!

To summarize: Having a defense is wasteful and thats something you pretty much have to live with. But you don't have to go totally overboard and pay double the upkeep just to have a defense. You could use half of that to maintain an offensive army to use as a deterrent instead. And would a war to break out, use that army to put an end to it once and for all. (All those defensive units in your heartland aren't gonna do anything about it, that's for sure.)

But. I don't think Brandon is listening to what we're saying. But that's alright, because he chooses to waste his money, and he chooses not to listen. Its not like we want him to stop wasting that money, merely to acknowledge that he has understood our point. But I doubt that he ever will.

So, let's just stop beating this dead horse.

[brandonjm8]

Brandon, nobody's trying to get you down. It's just when you say things such as



Which are clearly not true. Having more than 4 defensive units in places where they aren't used is a waste, plain and simple.

We can talk about pros/cons of offensive vs defensive units all we want, but it seems we can't even get past the basic point that defensive units that aren't attacked are a waste.

and you wont get this past your thick head that having the option available of having a mobile strong D ready to go wherever needed is never wasteful but according to you guys "having a strong D is a waste", defenders are never a waste no matter what you guys say, they either defend attacks or with enough they can deter potential attacks from fear of your numbers of D and O, like ive said D units are never a waste and balance of both O and D is the key to victory. enough said.

[brandonjm8]

To summarize: Having a defense is wasteful and thats something you pretty much have to live with. But you don't have to go totally overboard and pay double the upkeep just to have a defense. You could use half of that to maintain an offensive army to use as a deterrent instead. And would a war to break out, use that army to put an end to it once and for all. (All those defensive units in your heartland aren't gonna do anything about it, that's for sure.)

But. I don't think Brandon is listening to what we're saying. But that's alright, because he chooses to waste his money, and he chooses not to listen. Its not like we want him to stop wasting that money, merely to acknowledge that he has understood our point. But I doubt that he ever will.

So, let's just stop beating this dead horse.

yep, put your sticks down
you guys too arent listening to what im saying either, theres many uses for D units whether you agree or disagree, its not up too you. theres always reasons for having reserves in the heartland, with railroad and/or airports they can go anywhere and yes my awesome D works as a deterrent and yes it costs me alittle over 100 gold/turn, ouch thats too much yeah rite, in every civ theres gonna be inefficiencies, being the most efficient doesent guarantee victory either. oh and btw, giving your D units the drill promos make them good attacking units too along with good D units, think before you speak. its too bad you guys havent figured out just how good some other things can be when used correctly, and yes i have a strong O too. oh and before you respond play some marathon so you know how long it takes to build units, you cant run lean then build once someone DoW's on you, then its too late, you gotta constantly build up your army with balance and try to keep in par with the top powers otherwise your "fresh meat" and gold/turn is of little concern when your nation is at stake.

and if you somehow run more than 30-40% gold slider in the mid to late game, you need to go down some levels and learn more aspects of the game, the only time your army should bring you to the point of bankruptcy (10-20% or less gold slider) is very early game, once markets comes it should be easy to at least have a 50% science or higher if you know how to play.

[Baldyr]

The thing that you haven't been able to answer is this: What good does a "defensive" unit do 20 tiles from the nearest border? Its wasting you money just sitting there. So I would kinda get if you stacked all these defensive units mile high along your borders, because then they might actually see some action. And if it takes a unit say 7 turns to get to a trouble spot (you talk about reserves), thats 7 gold wasted every turn right there, because the units isn't defending anything moving along those roads, is he?

I would also agree to stacking defensive units in selected cities behind the border cities, so you could easily distribute them where ever needed. But having 4 units sitting around in on the most secure spot on the map (that it smack middle of your well defended empire) is just inefficient - and thus wasteful.

Sure, we have to waste some resources to deter others and keep up a defensive capacity through out the game, but its not like its a good thing to waste any resource. You won't be getting back that money, are you?

But, nuff said. Over and out.

[brandonjm8]

The thing that you haven't been able to answer is this: What good does a "defensive" unit do 20 tiles from the nearest border? Its wasting you money just sitting there. So I would kinda get if you stacked all these defensive units mile high along your borders, because then they might actually see some action. And if it takes a unit say 7 turns to get to a trouble spot (you talk about reserves), thats 7 gold wasted every turn right there, because the units isn't defending anything moving along those roads, is he?

I would also agree to stacking defensive units in selected cities behind the border cities, so you could easily distribute them where ever needed. But having 4 units sitting around in on the most secure spot on the map (that it smack middle of your well defended empire) is just inefficient - and thus wasteful.

Sure, we have to waste some resources to deter others and keep up a defensive capacity through out the game, but its not like its a good thing to waste any resource. You won't be getting back that money, are you?

But, nuff said. Over and out.

i guess you just assume that i leave them in the middle or "heartland", thats my fault i guess poor choice of words on my part, i shouldve said i like to average 4 D units per city, of course i dont have 4 units where no enemy can ever reach, those extras goto coastal and border cities as well as reserves in cities close enough for quick movement where needed. to get to your money comment if 100-150 gold/turn in late game is hurting you then you need more money producing cities/buildings. its only wasteful if its noticeable, this difference would be 556 gold/turn w/ awesome D and around 670 gold/turn w/o, a difference of 120-130 gold/turn which is nothing to me. especially since i have a huge tech lead (around 10 techs or more) and awesome science at 70% (4400 beakers).

reserves in the heartland can mean many things, in this instance i have an extra unit with the one defending should anyone of areas fail or look to fail, the outer areas have enough but just in case i have about 10 extra total ready to go anywhere and since my cities were build in circles around each other these extra 10 can go anywhere should an area require it, its just an extra option and alittle layer of reserves that you wish you had if in fact one area did fail than wishing you had it when and if that happend and you didnt have it available. options can be everything in strategizing.

[wodan11]

I have to admit... I've played heavy D strategies before. But I've never gone to the effort to get a 10 tech lead and then leveraged it to enable me to have > 3 extra defensive units per city. I suppose I had other things in mind... such as winning the game.

A better question might be to ask what's your comparitive level on the Power graph, Brandon? Please open your current game (that you've been talking about) and tell us what it is. Better: give a screenshot.

If you're > 150% of your nearest competitor, then what's the point? Are you doing it just because you can? Or is there some reason that overwhelming my enemies with defense is better than overwhelming them with offense?

[wodan11]

and you wont get this past your thick head

Please don't attack the person. Attack the argument if you must.

that having the option available of having a mobile strong D ready to go wherever needed is never wasteful but according to you guys "having a strong D is a waste", defenders are never a waste no matter what you guys say

Never? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

they either defend attacks

With the use of offensive units, there aren't any attacks on my cities.

or with enough they can deter potential attacks

O units do this just the same. So please don't keep using that rationale... it doesn't apply.

[brandonjm8]

I have to admit... I've played heavy D strategies before. But I've never gone to the effort to get a 10 tech lead and then leveraged it to enable me to have > 3 extra defensive units per city. I suppose I had other things in mind... such as winning the game.

A better question might be to ask what's your comparitive level on the Power graph, Brandon? Please open your current game (that you've been talking about) and tell us what it is. Better: give a screenshot.

If you're > 150% of your nearest competitor, then what's the point? Are you doing it just because you can? Or is there some reason that overwhelming my enemies with defense is better than overwhelming them with offense?

i started building D early cuz i play continents and i have my own, til you get astronomy there isnt any possible way to be attacked so i took the time to build more D than O, had i been sharing with someone then the ratio would be closer to 50-50. but i like to take the early time to build D then O once astronomy comes within reach which does take awhile in marathon games. ive havent been playing in a week or so but im very close to winning, i have way more O than D now, ive vassalized two of the civs, only three civs remaining. im dependent on two of the civs for resources cuz most of my cities are now maxed out (mostly healthiness reasons), the only civ im interested at the moment is 2nd power, hes strong very strong, i need to find a better invading spot cuz at the moment my previous spot i had intended is heavily guarded with infantry and sams with very good promos, i need to scout out another locale so then i can just vassalize him and that should be enough for the domination victory (hes got the 2nd largest continent after mine and i need more land than population) so going after one of the other two wouldnt give me enough land to win (the russians continent is the smallest and very small, and with the indians they have a pact with me and we trade many resources and w/o their resources most of my cities would have health problems) and take longer possibly. im twice as strong as 2nd and very close to invading, i want too make sure i take enough of his cities to force caputilization(?) and vassalize him and win the game. pretty soon i'll have 37 gunships 15 or so tanks 20 artillery 50 infantry and marines and other units, just gotta get a few more tanks and transports and with my carriers with fighters showing up i can start to scout my new invading spot and my sub's with missiles and my navy will destroy theirs and all that fun stuff, hes (2nd power, saladin) has 30+ cities so i will need to take over at least 5 if i want to vassalize him and if that doesnt happen this will take awhile, the only advantage i have is battleships/attack subs and bombers and tanks, hes got infantry and sams with very very good promos, i will lose alot of units. im not trying to attack anyone here but there are some know-it-alls here and i apologize to anyone i may have offended.

P.S. dont go saying im a know-it-all just cuz i said it, i am not one but i am a pro civ player that looks at others strategies and molds them with my own, i respect others playing styles but dont claim to be better or the best, if you think i claim that then re-read everything ive said cuz never have those words came outta me, i only claim to be a pro civ player thats it.

[brandonjm8]

[QUOTE=wodan11;5727444]Please don't attack the person. Attack the argument if you must.[QUOTE/]

read prior post.

[QUOTE]Never? I don't think that word means what you think it means.[QUOTE/]

i mean what they say cuz of the deterrent issue they are always working towards that.

[QUOTE]With the use of offensive units, there aren't any attacks on my cities.[QUOTE/]

a better balance of both would allow you too send those O units on conquering missions and if your O units should fail defending your D units might have not, D units are far better surviving attacks then O units, there are or will be times when you run out of defending O units in a given area, it will happen sooner or later.

O units do this just the same. So please don't keep using that rationale... it doesn't apply.

like with real life wars, the right combination of both will lead too constant victories. if for example the allies in WW2 had only offensive units and no defensive ones to hold newly captured areas ect we wouldve lost so you rationale doesnt work either, as said the right combo of both will lead to CONSISTENT victories, whether defending or attacking. when you take over a city in hostile territory itd be nice to have some defenders should their army overwhelm your O units.

[Theben]

I guess we should ask what defines an offensive unit compared to a defensive unit in your opinion, and in what roles do you utilize them?

[brandonjm8]

I guess we should ask what defines an offensive unit compared to a defensive unit in your opinion, and in what roles do you utilize them?

most units can be either O or D, purely D units are ones that can have the CG promo, i think we all can agree with that. for the other units that cannot have the CG promo then whatever promos you assign them will determine their uses. horse units for example are O units, tanks and gunships as well, purely D units would be archers although crossbow's do make good attackers sometimes. musketeers are better defenders than O units, basically because they are only 9 str and macemen are 8, plus if the other civs are on par with you then 90%+ of units will be macemen or lower so the added effects of macemen, pikemen, crossbow's make better O units then musketeers, unless gunpowder lasts a long time but usually for me after i get gunpowder its rifling right afterwards or closely after. there are many units that can do both and actually do do both. quick units (more than 1 movement) will almost always be O units and their uses are quite simple to kill and conquer, D units whether it be actual pure D units or units with D promos serve a better purpose securing cities, choke points, newly captured areas, send some with your SoD for defending against counter attacks ect ect ect. uses of units will also depend on situations, planning, whether you have time or need to act quickly, promos, and many other determining factors. but if you want me to list what i think pure O (better attacking than defending) or D units (better defending than attacking) are then here we go, O units: horse units, siege units, gunships, bombers, and most other units which cannot have the CG promo. D units: archers and most gunpowder units, now gunpowder can be both but all except paratroopers can make great D units with CG promos. if you would like to have a unit be both good O and D then give them the drill promos, a D unit with CG3 and drill promos make awesome defending units.

*note: i didnt include UU for i believe you could agree simple reasons. dont bother asking what they are, if you dont know then you dont know. im also not including missile units or navy's, navy's do both attacking and defending, they can defend your ocean resources from being plundered and carriers and subs w/missiles. fighters are both O and D depending on what you have them doing.

[Hauptman]

well you guys all know my stance, 1 defensive unit is worth 2-4 offensive units... if it see's combat. the point is how to make it see that combat (forts!!!!). However, comma, the idea is still to do the most with the least. so 4 units per city is still over kill unless you have 4 cities.

There is no set 'thing' you can go by. 4 units per city wont work if your border is with a blobbed montezuma, and overkill on a continent alone.

and on a complete tangent, when you've done things right, people wont be sure you've done anything at all.