Favorite Era of Warfare

[MotownDennis]

My favorite time to go to war?

Anytime.

[madosca]

If I can choose I delay war as much as possible.
If I cannot, because I lack a resource, then I tend to do in the moment I have an advantage i.e. knight vs horeman, rifflemen vs .

Generally I go to war when I have tanks. Very late so.

Thanks.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by gunkulator



horse a=2, spear d=2 + .5 (fortified) + 0.2 (grass terrain) = 2.7 : about 4 to 5 odds
cavalry a=6, inf d=10 + 2.5 (fortified) + 1 (grass terrain) + 5 (likely in a city) = 18.5 : about 1 to 3 odds

No, the odds in the situation in which you give above is

Horse victory 34.9%
Spear victory 65.1%

whearas in the same situation....

Cavalry victory 14.6%
Infantry victory 86.4%

These odds are with both attacker and defender veteran and the defender fortified on grassland. If either defender was in a city (or better defensive terrain) the odds would be much worse.

Where is the confusion?

[gunkulator]

Confusion is over:

The Horse v. Spear is only slightly better option than Cavalry v. Infantry

Horse vs Spear is more than twice as likely to be a win.

I was only estimating the odds, although I came pretty close. Odds and probabilities are related but are not the same values.

[Solomwi]

Apples to oranges, though, as cavs typically have a much longer reign before infantry hit the scene than horses do with spears. The same comparison could therefore be done with cav/rifle and even cav/musket. [/needless pot stirring]

[Arrian]

That's not necessarily so. Horse vs. Spear can last quite a while if:

a) the enemy is isolated and thus hasn't had the opportunity to participate in much tech trading
b) the enemy lacks iron
c) the enemy has iron but you make sure they can't connect it.

The problem with riflemen is that they do not require a resource. Once nationalism is out there, your Cav WILL run into riflemen.

[/needless additional stirrage ]

-Arrian

[Solomwi]

Arrian, I meant as compared to the interval where horses reign before spears hit the scene, which in most of my games is non-existent. IOW, horses have, at the very best, a small window before they're sure to run into spears, and normally no such window. Cavs, OTOH, typically have a small window before rifles and a decent sized window before infantry, given the AI fascination with Nationalism.

[joncnunn]

My own wars are only those needed to secure resources.

1. If I'm sharing a land mass with exactly one oppoent, this will usally result in a late ancient era war. I usally perfer a stack of mobile Horsemen to a stack of Swords.

2. I'm not fond of early Middle Ages fighting unless I'm playing a race with a Knight replacement UU or if a second war was needed to finish the job in the above case. Also if upon my discovery of Gunpowder I have no Saltpeter and am playing the Ottomans, I may go to war with a neighbor right then to aquire it with my Knights before they reach Gunpowder.

3. My early industrial wars are only if needed to secure coal!) I try to have enough of a tech lead to where it turns out I don't have coal, I can take over some while my oppoent is still in the middle ages. Much easier to win when not facing Riflemen.

4. If when I discover Replaceable Parts, I don't have Rubber, I'll draw up military plans to secure some right away. This usally involves artillery, the left over mid inf (after upgrading them to Guerrlias), and riflemen.

5. If when I discover Oil, I don't have any and am playing the Germans, this would also trigure plans to aquire some before to discovering Mobile Warfare.

6. If playing the Germans, I try to trigure a domination victory on the strength of Panzers.

7. If in the modern era, I don't have Uranium, I'll go to war with Modern Armor & Mech Inf to aquire it.

[MotownDennis]

5. If when I discover Oil, I don't have any and am playing the Germans, this would also trigure plans to aquire some before to discovering Mobile Warfare.

You need to secure oil no matter what civ you are, IMO. No oil = bad news.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Confusion is over:



Horse vs Spear is more than twice as likely to be a win.

I was only estimating the odds, although I came pretty close. Odds and probabilities are related but are not the same values.

Neither are what I call desirable odds and I did state that horsies v. spears were a better option than cavalry v. infantry, so what exactly is the problem?

[Petrus2]

MB, you are right that neither is the desired. My only issue would be that in the cav v. infantry case you assumed the infantry in a city, but made no such assumption that the spearman was in a town, city, walls, anything. So really the last factor of "5" should be removed. That makes it 6:13, or roughly 1-2 odds. Still not great!

I don't have any problem attacking with horsies against spears, cause for a while it's about the only choice (swordsmen being slow to get to the front, and catapults typically, at least for me, not being built yet). Some of my horsies will retreat and not die, and I'll be trying to overwhelm the town anyway, so some losses to deprive the enemy of a town is worth it. Concentration of my force at the point of decision will bring down that spearman.

With cav v infantry, the numbers are notably worse, and in my experience there are multiple infantry defending. Sure I'll have more Cav, but it seems the overall unit ratio isn't as good as at the game beginning. Typically I don't attack at this stage, but focus on infrastructure and research. Or I go find a victim who is lagging in tech and beat him/her up . Once I get tanks, then I'll look at attacking again. My remaining cav will be used for pillaging his lines of supply, picking off stragglers or obsolete enemy units, calming protestors in conquered cities, etc.

About the only balancing factor in the cav v infantry argument is that by this time I will have the ability to bombard before attacking, both from sea and land units, and this goes a long way toward helping, if I -HAVE- to go on the attack.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Petrus2
MB, you are right that neither is the desired. My only issue would be that in the cav v. infantry case you assumed the infantry in a city, but made no such assumption that the spearman was in a town, city, walls, anything. So really the last factor of "5" should be removed. That makes it 6:13, or roughly 1-2 odds. Still not great!

I don't have any problem attacking with horsies against spears, cause for a while it's about the only choice (swordsmen being slow to get to the front, and catapults typically, at least for me, not being built yet). Some of my horsies will retreat and not die, and I'll be trying to overwhelm the town anyway, so some losses to deprive the enemy of a town is worth it. Concentration of my force at the point of decision will bring down that spearman.

With cav v infantry, the numbers are notably worse, and in my experience there are multiple infantry defending. Sure I'll have more Cav, but it seems the overall unit ratio isn't as good as at the game beginning. Typically I don't attack at this stage, but focus on infrastructure and research. Or I go find a victim who is lagging in tech and beat him/her up . Once I get tanks, then I'll look at attacking again. My remaining cav will be used for pillaging his lines of supply, picking off stragglers or obsolete enemy units, calming protestors in conquered cities, etc.

About the only balancing factor in the cav v infantry argument is that by this time I will have the ability to bombard before attacking, both from sea and land units, and this goes a long way toward helping, if I -HAVE- to go on the attack.

The assumption that the infantry would be in the city was not made by me. I listed the odds for both assuming the attack was made by and against veteran units and in open grassland with the defender given the 25% fortification bonus.

As for other factors not covered in the direct odd calculations, remember that a few of the attackers will lose the battle but retreat. Also, although artillery might be available for attacking, it might also be possible for the defender.

Typically, I don't use Horsemen as a main attacker, I use them as a mobile reserve and a ready upgrade for a useful unit (Knights). However, If I am put in a position where I must use them I will use them in conjuntion with foot and catapult units. Cavalry is much the same after replaceable parts. Whereas losses are heavy, but still acceptable against rifles; losses rates are unacceptable against infantry and guerilla units without the support of 'slowmovers'. Even with slowmovers, they become a support unit until motorized transportation, at which time they are only good for shields

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


The assumption that the infantry would be in the city was not made by me. I listed the odds for both assuming the attack was made by and against veteran units and in open grassland with the defender given the 25% fortification bonus.

As for other factors not covered in the direct odd calculations, remember that a few of the attackers will lose the battle but retreat. Also, although artillery might be available for attacking, it might also be possible for the defender.

Ok, I guess I missed something when I went back and read the post as I was replying. And yes, there are many factors that can apply; so long as it's apples-to-apples, it's all good.

I think we have about the same thoughts though. Artillery availability certainly depends a lot on SP or MP, since I never see the AI load up on artillery as much as a human.

All of this discussion still makes me enjoy medieval combat the most, with a little overlap on both the front and back end. Variety!!

[barbeerhj]

Truely...

You have not played until you have seen a Nuclear Holocaust unfold through-out the world on a Monarch level map.

I remember on one game where the world decided "Enough was enough" and vaporized a good 70% of the world population, and very much polluted most of tiles in the game. The aftermath was a very interesting scenario: devesation and destroyed power-bases. But the utter and complete distruction created really invigorated me.

One does enjoy a game where the M.A.D doctrine displays it's frightening possibilities.

-Ron

[bongo]

What was it like playing on after that?