Three-man Chariot = Godly UU

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Next time a three man chariot fights, listen to the sound it makes -- then you tell me.

I guess we know that Dean is a civer! That's very amusing.

What he said: "We are going to Washington...we are going to Oregon...we are going to Wisconsin... AAARRRGGGGHHH"

What he meant to say: "We are invading Rome... we are invading Persia...we are invading Eygpt... AAARRRRGGHHHH"

[The Viceroy]

Now, maybe its just me, but doesn't the sound the 3 man chariot makes when attacking sound like Howard Deans infamous scream ??

Currently playing hittites, and have just beat back the Netherlands with this UU, I was not expecting much from it, but I think the speed with which you can build these things means you can build up a fair number of them quickly, and having a stack of 5 or 6 ready to attack in 1 turn can usually defeat the AI's standard 2 spearman in most cities.

[The Viceroy]

(helps when you read all threads .. ha ha somebody beat me too it)

[player1]

Well, nice thing about chariot UUs, is that you can get them operational very early. Usually before enemies get any Iron or Horses.

For this use Egyptian chariot is better since it's cheaper, but on the other hand Hittites Chariot is more durable and can survive Archer attacks.

[barbeerhj]

I tried the Hittites on MP, with a very interesting victory.

I did get the advantage of suprise against my near by human nations. I was lucky to get "the wheel" around 3550 b.c., and had a near-by horse to use.

By 2500 b.c., I had devastated many near by nations with raiding and capture warrior gaurded cities (very hard to send a spearman our and make one if you don't have an infrastructure).

My main plan was to raid two of my neighbores while developing my own economy for a later sword man attack. At most, I had about 5 chariots terrorizing all near-by nations. Also, I would like to add that i lost only 1 chariot to an archer assault, either retreating or defeating the other archer assaults that came.

But, spending all of those shields on my 30 shield chariots did set me back later on against farther off nations who's infrastructures could allow quick counter attacks and the dreaded swordman.

-ron

[barbeerhj]

LOL, OMFG !!

I was watching "This land is your land" political animation and I saw the sound Howard Dean made, I couldn't stop laughing.

You were right, the sound is almost exactly the same, I wonder if the people who made C3Q put that sound just to spite him.

-Ron

[MotownDennis]

Originally posted by barbeerhj
I tried the Hittites on MP, with a very interesting victory.

You must have been playing with noobs.

The Hittites just don't quite cut it in the MP world. They are average at best; there are much better choices out there. Give me Egypt's war chariots anyday over the Hittites' chariots.

[barbeerhj]

Why?

Explain to me why the Hittites "are only average" and why the Egyptian UU is better when it can't take a cheap archer counter attack?

Surely, they will have a road and be able to strike back, how is it's 1 defence going to gloriously survive everytime?

Go to here for the "dean scream".

[Arrian]

Cost effectiveness. The Egyptian WC is 20 shields for a 2.1.2 unit. The Hittite unit costs 30 shields for 2.2.2.

It is generally held that offense is more important than defense (correct me if I'm wrong, MPers, since I'm a SP guy).

Given the same amount of resources, you can either build 10 3-man chariots, or 15 War Chariots. Hmm. True, the 3MC is a more effective pillager. But a War Chariot swarm is a lot easier to put together.

Personally, gimme the Iroquois Mounted Warrior, at 3.1.2. for 30 shields. Defend against THAT bad boy (ok, ok, if you're Greece or the Zulu you've got a good shot)!

I've played the Hittites several times in SP. I don't like the UU. Too expensive for an early, 2-attack, no-jungle/marsh/mountains UU.

Amassing large numbers of units is important in CivIII, due to the combat system. You can easily get a couple of bad combat rolls and be screwed if you don't have many units.

-Arrian

[barbeerhj]

Oh

I was thinking on the idea that a human player would be a lot more innovative then a computer one, thus the archer counter attack.

I guess that if the enemy didn't have any offensive power, then the Egyptians would be better just on the fact that they have a cheaper chariot.

But consider this, based on the Egyptian chariots sets, then massing veteran warriors has as good a chance to win as the chariot does against the spearman. Thus meaning a unit costing 10 shields can defeat or at least put an Egyptian UU out of service until it heals. Not very likely going to happen against a Hittite Chariot.

But indeed, what "newbie" would not consider the obviouse weakness of the Egyptians UU: defence.

And an average city producing 5 shields can pump out warriors with a ferocity, that is if they can keep the chariot from moving into your city limite and attacking at the same time. And keeping a few scouts or warriors scouting the boarder.

-Ron

[Solomwi]

I'm learning the beauty of the MW this week. It has replaced the Panzer as my 2nd favorite UU (sorry, Berserks are nigh on untouchable, IMO ) and favorite ancient UU, just ahead of the GS, and I've just unleashed my horde in the last couple of days. Based on my experience with Indian spears, I'm not as concerned about taking on the Zulu with them as I was (Zulu are directly south of me in this game, along with Arabia, so I'd been eyeing Arab lands when India forced a war), since I've only had a couple of them have to retreat. AFAIK, my continent only has one source of iron, and it's pretty inaccessible, so the age of the MW ought to last a pretty good while. The downside is on the other side of India is Carthage. Of the three civs that make MWs less attractive, I get two (only four civs on my continent). Par for the course.

Btw, due to geography and a general enjoyment of being a bastard, I've razed every Indian city I've conquered. This is giving me a vast area to repopulate, that I have cut off from the south. I'm going to keep Delhi and one other city to keep the chokepoint to Carthage blocked, as well, and should be able to peacefully REX like never before. The Ag trait and MWs can work hand in hand perfectly in the right circumstances.

[barbeerhj]

LoL

I have had VERY bad experiances with the MW. I remember a force of my 10 veteran MW being devestated by ***3*** spearman, barely capturing capitol with only 3 MW left, all three down to 1 bar.

I swear the town was on plains, level 6, no walls, no river. I think I gave him a leader too . I was so mad that he ruined my future conquests of the rest of his empire that I simply aborted the game and started counting to ten.

Another amazing fiasco I had with MW was when 2 spearmans routed 6 of my MW. I limped the 3 left back home with 1 bar on them.

I have never had a major victory worth mentioning with the Iroqouis, I think they have cursed me or something.

-Ron

[MotownDennis]

Originally posted by barbeerhj
Oh

I was thinking on the idea that a human player would be a lot more innovative then a computer one, thus the archer counter attack.

Sure, a human player will be much more innovative when it comes to counterattacking. A human will also be much more innovative when attacking, though. If you are using Egyptian WC's, the key is to get your stack in on the enemy before he sees it coming (or at least with not much warning). Attacking in an unexpected location is also key, which minimizes the counterattack threat.

My rationale is just like Arrian said - cost-effectiveness. Pay 50% more for one more defense? No thanks.

Besides, Egypt's traits are better suited to getting that WC stack built and off to their destination more quickly.

Again, don't get me wrong - the 3-man chariot is ok and you've outlined the ideal uses for it (pillaging, stealing workers, resource denial). It just shocked me a little bit to see a post referring to it as "Godly".

[barbeerhj]

Well...

In reallity, a decent human player is going to keep the terrain around him very illuminated so as not to be surprised.

What is an "unexpected location"? Surely you are not going to sacrifice your two movement and land on a hill and not take grass or plains and thus waiste your movement advantage.

Also, the Egyptians have Religious and Industrious. I can understand the Industrious advantage, even though it has been nerfed by C3Q, but faster temples?

In addition, the Hittites have a very useful trait for early game: expansionism. With this, you can quickly get another scout and scoop up those goody huts and quickly trade for or find "The Wheel" before Egypt can. Also, having scouts, they more quickly explore the world and find viable horse resources and enemy nations like Egypt

Finally, with expansionism, you can quickly find "Iron Working" after your "Bronze Working" and find your iron for later conquests.

-Ron

[barbeerhj]

Anyways...

Is not quality better then quantity?

I am willing to pay 10 more shields just so I can be assured my chariots won't drop like flies against warriors and archers. And assuming 50% faster worker actions is going to assure you much faster chariot production is misleading.

I have seen non-industrious nations infrastructure equal or superior to those of industrious nations. Why? Because the Industrious trait just isn't as good as it was. No more 3 turn mines, no more 2 turn irrigation with just one worker.

I am not bashing the industrious trait, just simply telling you that it may increase productivity, but it isn't going to give you an overwhelming advantage unit and population wise like it did in PTW and original CIV3.

-Ron