Noble to Prince - unbearable

[wodan11]

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.

the only civ im interested at the moment is 2nd power, im twice as strong as 2nd

You're twice as strong, and want even more before you invade. Your opponent doesn't have tanks or bombers.

I guess I still don't understand what the 200+ defensive units are doing for you here.

a better balance of both would allow you too send those O units on conquering missions

Incorrect.

If X total units are able to be built, and one person builds 3/4 D units and 1/4 O units, while another builds 1/2 D and 1/2 O, but both intend to use 3/4 of the total to guard against invasion and 1/4 of the total on conquering missions, then there is NO DIFFERENCE in how many can go conquering.

If, however, one of the players builds more units than X, then that player can indeed have more units conquering. That, however, has nothing to do with how many of the total are D and how many are O. And it's also an apples to oranges comparison; we can't compare player 1 who makes X+Y units while player 2 is only allowed to make X units.

Anybody can build more units. Should they build D or O?

and if your O units should fail defending your D units might have not, D units are far better surviving attacks then O units

In some situations. But intelligent use of O units includes collateral such as siege and bombers. (Siege by definition is not defensive in nature.) O using collateral makes offensive units far better at surviving than D 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.

The same is true of defending D units.

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.

Bzzt. Story vs gameplay. (Real life / story cannot be used to justify a game strategy. Basically, this is saying that you justify a game decision because that's how you think they do it in real life, as if that has anything to do with actual game results.)

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.

I think you're forgetting that Musketmen can get Shock, Cover, etc. while Macemen, Pikes, Crossbows cannot get Pinch.

Musketmen can get CG, Shock, Cover, etc which makes them equally adept at D as well as O operations. The main problem with Musketmen is that nothing upgrades to them so you have to start them from scratch. If you have setted a GG or two by then, that helps, but there's a tradeoff because then you can only build them in one city.

well you guys all know my stance, 1 defensive unit is worth 2-4 offensive units... if it see's combat.

IMO a defensive unit done right does not see combat at all. I think Brandon agrees because of his extensive discussion of the deterrent effect of mass numbers of D units.

To me, D units are a necessary evil, except in some strategies such as the Warlord defense, and even then only used sparingly. Only in border cities and only minimal numbers, usually 2-3 each only. Some to accompany my invading SODs. That's it.

[brandonjm8]

You're twice as strong, and want even more before you invade. Your opponent doesn't have tanks or bombers.

I guess I still don't understand what the 200+ defensive units are doing for you here.

id say about 180 of my 213 infantry are used for D purposes with CG promos, while the others for attacking with drill and shock promos, im sending some of my D ones for defending cities that i capture, the reason i havent done it now well for one i havent played in almost 2 weeks, the others are quite simple his defenses are great, we are talking 50+ infantry with CG3 and drill promos (thats just in four coastal border cities in view of my subcontinent, im gonna scout a new invading area instead), thats 50 infantry with 35 str plus fortify bonuses and their shock promos too (my strongest units are tanks, i only have 8-10 of them, not enough yet) and sams with same promos, i dont quite have enough bombers yet. once i upgrade my 37 cavalry to gunships then the invade will start soon after. FYI: my O is bigger than my D. i just need alittle more attackers to guarantee victory, better safe than sorry against him.

Originally Posted by brandomjm8
a better balance of both would allow you too send those O units on conquering missions.

Incorrect.

If X total units are able to be built, and one person builds 3/4 D units and 1/4 O units, while another builds 1/2 D and 1/2 O, but both intend to use 3/4 of the total to guard against invasion and 1/4 of the total on conquering missions, then there is NO DIFFERENCE in how many can go conquering.

when do two warring nations build the same number of units? my point was with a strong D, not as many O units need to stay on your land and hence you can send more conquering than w/o having D units in place with "SOME" O units.

If, however, one of the players builds more units than X, then that player can indeed have more units conquering. That, however, has nothing to do with how many of the total are D and how many are O. And it's also an apples to oranges comparison; we can't compare player 1 who makes X+Y units while player 2 is only allowed to make X units.

Anybody can build more units. Should they build D or O?

i wasnt comparing apples to oranges, i look to overwhelm opponents when i go a conquering so i tend to build more units when possible compared to them, then with the extras they go with the next group for the next victim.
but since i build a good D too i have my D defending and deterring attacks on my homeland. and obviously when you go conquering you want more O units for attacking with minimal D units for defending new territories but when defending against an invading army on your homeland i would build close to a 50-50 ratio since D units will survive more attacks than O units, and you D units fortified will be the first ones to die so it makes sense to replace them too.

Quote:brandonjm8
and if your O units should fail defending your D units might have not, D units are far better surviving attacks then O units.

In some situations. But intelligent use of O units includes collateral such as siege and bombers. (Siege by definition is not defensive in nature.) O using collateral makes offensive units far better at surviving than D units.

you dont always have bombers available, and horse units can easily destroy seige units, but theres still gonna be units left in their SoD so why not have better surviving units like D units take whats left and keep the kill ratio in your favor. there are many situations when a D unit wouldve been better, so why not have some.

Quote:brandonjm8
there are or will be times when you run out of defending O units in a given area, it will happen sooner or later.

The same is true of defending D units.

but with proper D units and promos, the kill ratio will be well in your favor, with an ample supply of such D units then in the end you have nothing to worry about, kill ratios are very important to me, id rather lose less then them so i plan for it which is one of the many reasons i invest in a strong D.

Bzzt. Story vs gameplay. (Real life / story cannot be used to justify a game strategy. Basically, this is saying that you justify a game decision because that's how you think they do it in real life, as if that has anything to do with actual game results.)

real life situations mold my gameplay strategies so Bzzt not wrong, ask a general and tell him you dont want sufficient D units and tell us what he says, lol. this game is realistic whether you think so or not, thats its intent, to be a simulator of real life decisions, not all but you can use real life situations as a basis of ones strategy and build off from that. there will be times in which your involved in a WORLD WAR and are warring with multiple nations and wish you had more D units securing your homeland which can take more of a beating before dieing, remember kill ratios and D units fortified heal after each turn unlike attacking O units(unless they have the march promo but thats late game and not easy to get and marines and mech infantry only start with them) .

I think you're forgetting that Musketmen can get Shock, Cover, etc. while Macemen, Pikes, Crossbows cannot get Pinch.

Musketmen can get CG, Shock, Cover, etc which makes them equally adept at D as well as O operations. The main problem with Musketmen is that nothing upgrades to them so you have to start them from scratch. If you have setted a GG or two by then, that helps, but there's a tradeoff because then you can only build them in one city.

i hear ya there, i did forget but i almost never have the time to build them for the simple reason i research rifling right afterwards.

IMO a defensive unit done right does not see combat at all. I think Brandon agrees because of his extensive discussion of the deterrent effect of mass numbers of D units.

To me, D units are a necessary evil, except in some strategies such as the Warlord defense, and even then only used sparingly. Only in border cities and only minimal numbers, usually 2-3 each only. Some to accompany my invading SODs. That's it.

it all depends on how many aggressive civ leaders and AI's you have and how often you get attacked and so on and so on, i only got attacked once this game with a pitiful force (2 knights, 1 trab) so then afterwards i built more O and D for the upcoming invading force i thought was coming and it never did, so my power skyrocketed and noone else attacked me because of that and soon after the attack i took three cities kept one of the three and forced him to be my vassal.

[Dinner]

I also find Prince extremely hard.

[Ming]

i only got attacked once this game with a pitiful force (2 knights, 1 trab)

Weren't you glad you had that incredible defensive army to defend against that
A total waste of units...

[brandonjm8]

Weren't you glad you had that incredible defensive army to defend against that
A total waste of units...

maybe if you read what i said then youd know i built my "awesome D" following the invasion thinking that the actual real invasion would come but never did, try again

oh and yeah since i built up my forces i vassalized two civs, wow what a waste

read before commenting, this comment you just posted holds no merit.

[brandonjm8]

I also find Prince extremely hard.

its not prince for me, i think because i play continents it lets all of us grow before we all kill one another, gotta wait for astronomy to transport military units. thats a good chunk of time for us all to build up and expand.

[Ming]

maybe if you read what i said then youd know i built my "awesome D" following the invasion thinking that the actual real invasion would come but never did, try again

Gee... no envasion ever really came, and you were wasting an "awesome" defense... Yeah, try again... it was a waste,

oh and yeah since i built up my forces i vassalized two civs, wow what a waste

Defensive forces don't vassalize civs... You're total army does, so yeah, wow, your defense was still a waste.

read before commenting, this comment you just posted holds no merit.

Try understanding before commenting... Almost everything you have posted on the topic of defense holds no merit.

But yeah... if you want to play at noble, and build up an awesome defense that doesn't do anything, feel free. That's what the game is all about... doing what you want and having fun. But when you try to tell people that it's the best and most awesome strategy... you better expect some disagreement from other players about that flawed strategy.

[brandonjm8]

Gee... no envasion ever really came, and you were wasting an "awesome" defense... Yeah, try again... it was a waste,



Defensive forces don't vassalize civs... You're total army does, so yeah, wow, your defense was still a waste.



Try understanding before commenting... Almost everything you have posted on the topic of defense holds no merit.

But yeah... if you want to play at noble, and build up an awesome defense that doesn't do anything, feel free. That's what the game is all about... doing what you want and having fun. But when you try to tell people that it's the best and most awesome strategy... you better expect some disagreement from other players about that flawed strategy.

your an idiot, i mean that sincerely. they invaded with a weak force yes but the real invasion might've been coming so building ones army makes sense IN CASE THE REAL INVASION came, so what it didnt, can you read the future? didnt think so, think more before commenting. as i said i built O and D once they invaded so yes that built up led to two civs being vassalized idiot. umm like i said earlier if you were really paying attention at all i said this game is at prince idiot. and i never said what i do is the best FOR ALL i said it works best for me idiot. when you read posts read them more than once, sorry if this post offends anyone but ming is very childish and quick to respond before analyzing whats been said and if you ask me he's an idiot. as always just my opinion.

[wodan11]

his defenses are great, we are talking 50+ infantry with CG3 and drill promos (thats just in four coastal border cities in view of my subcontinent, im gonna scout a new invading area instead), thats 50 infantry with 35 str plus fortify bonuses and their shock promos too

You mean Pinch, not Shock, right?

(my strongest units are tanks, i only have 8-10 of them, not enough yet) and sams with same promos, i dont quite have enough bombers yet. once i upgrade my 37 cavalry to gunships then the invade will start soon after. FYI: my O is bigger than my D. i just need alittle more attackers to guarantee victory, better safe than sorry against him.

Twice his power and have to build up to ~3x his power to attack.

i wasnt comparing apples to oranges

If you are comparing one player who builds 400 units to another player who you only allow to build 200 units, yes, that's apples to oranges.

Let's say player A has 400 units, with 200 D units and 200 O units
Player B has 400 units, with 50 D units and 350 O units.
That is a fair comparison.

but since i build a good D too i have my D defending and deterring attacks on my homeland. and obviously when you go conquering you want more O units for attacking with minimal D units for defending new territories but when defending against an invading army on your homeland i would build close to a 50-50 ratio since D units will survive more attacks than O units, and you D units fortified will be the first ones to die so it makes sense to replace them too.

An empire-wide ratio is not a good rule because it changes depending on how many units are built, what threat detection tactics are used, and what the possible threat is to be.

Before Astronomy, coastal cities don't need any D units. Only land border cities, and only 2-3 of them. So, if the empire is 10 in size and had 3 land border cities, with 50 total units, then the ratio would be ~8:42. After Astronomy, that same empire, with 3 coastal cities, and NO threat detection, would probably benefit from a ratio of ~15:35. With threat detection, I'd say it could go down to 8:42 again.

you dont always have bombers available, and horse units can easily destroy seige units, but theres still gonna be units left in their SoD so why not have better surviving units like D units take whats left and keep the kill ratio in your favor.

Because you can use siege or Cho-kos and keep the kill ratio in your favor.

there are many situations when a D unit wouldve been better

Like what?

kill ratios are very important to me

I think this might be the heart of your opinion... why haven't you mentioned it till now?

Let me see if I can interpret... You don't like using siege units because they usually die when inflicting collateral. So you prefer a D strategy; whatever the negatives, it's worth it because very few units die. Right?

real life situations mold my gameplay strategies so Bzzt not wrong

Real life was a guide to the programmers. But the resulting game rules the programmers made do not have a 100% correspondence to real life. And the game rules are what governs game strategy, not real life.

If we play strictly by real life guidance, and ignore the game rules, then we are misleading ourselves because the imperfections of the game will not comply.

ask a general and tell him you dont want sufficient D units and tell us what he says, lol.

Generals study their whole lives the art of war and even then will gladly tell you they don't know it all. A general will say that D units have their place in war, and that any pre-determined ratio is nonsense.

this game is realistic whether you think so or not, thats its intent, to be a simulator of real life decisions

On the scale of simulators, the "intent" (to use your word) of Civ is much closer to "be an enjoyable game" than to "be an exacting simulator of ancient through modern combat operations".

but you can use real life situations as a basis of ones strategy and build off from that.

Sure. But the concept of "City Guard promotion" does not exist in real life. So the "basis" of which you speak is a methaporical or broad-based one.

And, if it did, it surely wouldn't have been given to > 50% of infantry units. In WWII, units would have been given amphibious or combat. In Vietnam, probably woodsman.

there will be times in which your involved in a WORLD WAR and are warring with multiple nations and wish you had more D units securing your homeland which can take more of a beating before dieing

Sufficient foresight obviates the need for most of those units. Building huge numbers of D units is a crutch to compensate for lack of scouting, diplomacy, and counter-offensive tactical operations.

remember kill ratios and D units fortified heal after each turn unlike attacking O units(unless they have the march promo but thats late game and not easy to get and marines and mech infantry only start with them) .

That's a benefit, yes.

i hear ya there, i did forget but i almost never have the time to build them for the simple reason i research rifling right afterwards.

That's the main reason most players think musketmen are sub-par units.

[wodan11]

/sarcasm on (all in good humor)

(my strongest units are tanks, i only have 8-10 of them, not enough yet) and sams with same promos, i dont quite have enough bombers yet. once i upgrade my 37 cavalry to gunships then the invade will start soon after. FYI: my O is bigger than my D. i just need alittle more attackers to guarantee victory, better safe than sorry against him.

I wonder if there is some strategy that could have been used so that you had more O units now.

a better balance of both would allow you too send those O units on conquering missions.

Incorrect.

You're telling yourself "incorrect"??

when do two warring nations build the same number of units? my point was with a strong D, not as many O units need to stay on your land and hence you can send more conquering than w/o having D units in place with "SOME" O units.

Sorry, I still don't understand how 2+2=5. Must be my vulgar education in math and logic.

i look to overwhelm opponents when i go a conquering so i tend to build more units when possible compared to them, then with the extras they go with the next group for the next victim.

That makes perfect sense. But nowhere in tha sentence did you mention D units, which is probably why it makes so much sense.

so why not have some

Absolutely! I definitely agree that having some D units is a good idea.

[Ming]

your an idiot, i mean that sincerely.

Coming from you, I have to laugh. I'm not the one promoting stupid strategies.

they invaded with a weak force yes but the real invasion might've been coming so building ones army makes sense IN CASE THE REAL INVASION came, so what it didnt, can you read the future? didnt think so, think more before commenting.

There is no problem with building an army... but your "awesome" defense was massive overkill and still not the right kind of force... so you need to rethink just how much defense and what kind of troops are needed.

as i said i built O and D once they invaded so yes that built up led to two civs being vassalized idiot. umm like i said earlier if you were really paying attention at all i said this game is at prince idiot. and i never said what i do is the best FOR ALL i said it works best for me idiot.

OK... you are slaughtering the game at prince and crowing like you are god's gift to man... enjoy your fun, but be prepared for people to call your game approach moronic and bad.
It's too bad you don't play MP games, so that maybe you would learn that there are better ways of doing something, instead of believing your way is best for you.

[rah]

your an idiot, i mean that sincerely. they invaded with a weak force yes but the real invasion might've been coming so building ones army makes sense IN CASE THE REAL INVASION came, so what it didnt, can you read the future? didnt think so,

You don't need to read the future if you're paying attention in the present.

I usually have a spy or two tracking my enemies SODs so I have more time to respond and thereby don't need the type of defense you build. Maybe if you did that you could save on some defense.

[brandonjm8]

You don't need to read the future if you're paying attention in the present.

I usually have a spy or two tracking my enemies SODs so I have more time to respond and thereby don't need the type of defense you build. Maybe if you did that you could save on some defense.

for the moment i have espionage disabled, the spy system has changed drastically since vanilla, from what i read in the civlopedia i wont like it, but will try it in the future, so therefore cant build spy's. i rely on caravels for scout ships and sometimes use a great merchant for spying hostile civs prior to expending them for the 5000+ gold. i do agree that if i had espionage enabled i would have a more balanced army from the start, at this time my army's well balanced but far flung but with my great productivity i can amass a huge army in no time especially for marathon speed.

and my scouting caravels showed they had a build-up of units in two of their cities before they killed off the two caravels, thats why i built up, but they never came. and i saw two other civs having higher powers than them i was 4th at the time so my two GA's right after one another supplied the extra units and it was alot, lol. from that my power skyrocketed to #1 but i thought i would be in a world war soon so i planned on using them but it never happened, kinda weird.

[brandonjm8]

You mean Pinch, not Shock, right?

oops, wrong promo was i thinking about, you are correct. his 50+ infantry plus 20+ sam's all have CG3 and drill promos so they are very tough and w/o ample supply of bombers (alot since he has so many sams in just those 4 cities) to weaken them all.

Twice his power and have to build up to ~3x his power to attack.

much of my power advantage is from my D and my navy numbers around 100, say i have an army of 500 right well maybe 100 total (these numbers are just for examples) are used for attacking on land, i just want to make sure my victory is at hand so im building alittle bit more should he have defenses like this throughout his land, his power is more than twice that of 3rd so hes strong.

An empire-wide ratio is not a good rule because it changes depending on how many units are built, what threat detection tactics are used, and what the possible threat is to be.

well before astronomy i tend to build more D units for future cities, conquered lands ect ect ect so i dont need to build them in the future, that way more time can be spent building O units instead and the need for more D units at that time will minimal so that time can be solely used for the production of O units. my ratios tend to even themselves out prior to when i start planning on who to conquer, when the time comes to start conquering (thats even if i can, depending on the strength of my opponents) then the ratio will swing heavily on O units compared to D units.

Before Astronomy, coastal cities don't need any D units. Only land border cities, and only 2-3 of them. So, if the empire is 10 in size and had 3 land border cities, with 50 total units, then the ratio would be ~8:42. After Astronomy, that same empire, with 3 coastal cities, and NO threat detection, would probably benefit from a ratio of ~15:35. With threat detection, I'd say it could go down to 8:42 again.

i hear ya there but since on marathon especially early it takes time to build ones army so i just start out with a modest D so i dont need to worry about once everyone gets astronomy and then by then i have a formidable O army hopefully, the cities that dont require D units or many of them have their extras sent with my SoD's for protection and defending new lands when the time comes to conquer, that way as i said stated earlier i can focus more on O units to form the SoD then i have some extra D units already so i dont need to build them kinda thing, and id rather be safe than sorry so i like to have some extra defenders anyways even at the cost of 50-100 gold/turn, if i play things correctly which i usually do then that wont be a burden for me as much.

Because you can use siege or Cho-kos and keep the kill ratio in your favor.

i use siege units too, but having some defenders kill the enemy while they are attacking adds to the kill ratio in your favor or at least weaken them once your turn comes, i use all kinds of units for defense and attacking. cho-kos are only for the chinese, i didnt include UU's in any of this for they vary from civ to civ and i like to try each civ when i start a new game.

Like what?

one example is when in late game your important resources (oil, uranium, aluminum) if you place 3-5 sam's (or any other strong defending unit, it could be a combo too like infantry w/ sam's) and have them fortify w/ proper promos then its going to very hard for your enemys to destroy their tile improvements. another obvious example is for choke points, you have a fort their so use the add CG promo effect and with fortify bonus and enough D units they will never get past it, there are many other situations but im too lazy to mention them all, lol.

I think this might be the heart of your opinion... why haven't you mentioned it till now?

i guess i didnt think i needed too, i assume any other good civ player will do what it takes to keep the kill ratio's in their favor too and thought it was common, its just smart for many reasons.

Let me see if I can interpret... You don't like using siege units because they usually die when inflicting collateral. So you prefer a D strategy; whatever the negatives, it's worth it because very few units die. Right?

no, i use a wide array of units for both defense and attacking, each of them have their purposes. i just make more D units then most for the future of defending new cities and newly conquered lands and resources, but D units will have higher kill ratios for the simple fact their D bonuses will be more beneficial than O bonuses, if you have 4 D units with CG3 thats a 75% bonus coupled with the 25% fortify bonus for a total of 100% double their original str then add any other bonuses and with the drill promos too they make awesome defending units should you be invaded or sending them to the newly captured cities that are under siege and could use defenders. one of the best reasons i build a strong D is for the simple of deterring invaders from my homelands, if i get invaded my mobile D can go anywhere and i plan for that for that purpose so if they invade with 40 units i can send my extras if needed to fortify the invasion point and add extra protection for my cities while my O units kill off the stragglers if they dont themselves attack their SoD. plans change all the time so my strategies change with them, i wont always have a D of 180 units, most of my others games have been well below that, its just when i was invaded this game i had many cities so i built up for all since i had three angry civs around me so i built up alot, i then vassalized two of the three angry civs, lol.

Generals study their whole lives the art of war and even then will gladly tell you they don't know it all. A general will say that D units have their place in war, and that any pre-determined ratio is nonsense.

any ratio's i make will differ game to game and situations. i have no pre-determined build ratio, but til astronomy i tend to build more D units for reasons already said.

Sure. But the concept of "City Guard promotion" does not exist in real life. So the "basis" of which you speak is a methaporical or broad-based one.

And, if it did, it surely wouldn't have been given to > 50% of infantry units. In WWII, units would have been given amphibious or combat. In Vietnam, probably woodsman.

i agree, i think they intended the CG promos to act like extra city defenses inside the actual city which is why the CG promos only work inside the city, what exactly are the actual extra city defenses i cannot say but i think that was there intent.

Sufficient foresight obviates the need for most of those units. Building huge numbers of D units is a crutch to compensate for lack of scouting, diplomacy, and counter-offensive tactical operations.

diplomacy often fails and with me having espionage disabled i cant make spys, so at times i am building blindly but enough hopefully to repel any attack. without spys the only good scouts are caravels and missionaries (these require open borders tho) and great people.

That's the main reason most players think musketmen are sub-par units.

yeah, even with marathon speed i try to get whats needed for rifling prior to getting gunpowder so i can get rifling right after gunpowder.

[brandonjm8]

You're telling yourself "incorrect"??

no i messed up the quotes there, someone else said "incorrect".