The Regent -> Monach jump

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Theseus


:applauds:

Republic is for wimps.

* Theseus ducks

I once played a sid game out in despotism to see what that was like, it is not for wimps, just nuts.

[Golden Bear]

Wow. This thread jumped forward a lot over the weekend.

I have been building CxxC and then only building hospitals in the cities where I want them. That way I can still manage to get cities to size 14-20 in high productivity areas.

Funny thing. I started a game with a perfect two cows set up. It had dyes in forest right next to it. Boom, 4 turn settler pump. Nice cluster of cities, lots of area to expand. However, before I knew it, the AI had, with wide spacing, spread out to block me in. I have 50% more cities but was packed into a tiny space.

As a result, I am toying with clustering at CxxC around the home city and then spreading wide and fast outside of that.

The current game started with two cows and a wheat so that I was able to run a 2 turn worker pump along with the 4SP. My only difficulty with the 4SP is the happiness slider tweaking... too easy to forget.

Thanks for the good advice. OK, somebody (sorry if this is a tiny threadjacking), how do you use Feudalism? I have not had enough success with it to want to use it. I usually, whimpishly, go Despot-Republic-Demo if I want a SS win or stop at Republic for domination.

BTW, in the last Monarch game, I was on a continent with 5 neighbors and none of us had horse. I started to do a swordsman rush but saw that the AIs archers usually killed my troops. Thus, I changed to an archer rush and swept half the continent. I found that to be amusing.

[Arrian]

That last bit was just wacky combat luck. Swordsmen > Archers. 3.2.1 vs 2.1.1. If the archers are attacking your swords, that's a problem since the odds are then roughly even. Which is why you want to bring along a few spearman to eat up the AI counterattacks (same defense as swords, but 20 shields instead of 30).

For better results, bring along bombard support (catapults, trebuchets, etc). Softening the opposition up first tends to reduce the number of times you lose battles you "should" win. Like swordsmen attacking archers and dying.

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

Goldenbear you do not give us enough details to address the combat. If swords attack archers with no def bonus, then swords win.

If archers are forted on forrest, then archers win. One other thing is that in C3C archer get the bombardment, so that could make a big difference in a small sample.

If I have 5 swords and they have 5 archers, out in the open on flat land, I am happy to attack them (with or without spears/cats).

Of course I am much happier if I have a spear or two and 3 cats, but that is just mean.

[Arrian]

Archer forted on forest should be a 1.5 defense (defense of 1 +25% for fortifying, +25% for forest bonus). So, even if another archer lands the zero-range bombard, the odds should be in the swordsman's favor. I suppose if we're talking about regular swords vs. vet or elite archers, it could be about even.

Most likely a small sample size issue.

I am much happier if I have a spear or two and 3 cats, but that is just mean.

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

Arrian, I used the DES combat calc for 5 vs 5 all vets 10 trails and the archers won 80% of the time.

My experience tells me that I would favor the swords, but I would be worried, if the archers were forted in a forrest.

For sure a one on one, I go with the swords every time. We all know it does not have to go your way, even against a warrior.

[Golden Bear]

For clarification... I am not declaring that there was any ai cheating going on. And, I am quite happy to attack archers with swordsmen. The problem, curiously, is more on the defense side. But let's see if I can explain it better, and you can take for granted that I understand terrain effects on combat.

Swordsmen are not fast. It takes them, at best border conditions (unless there is something funny, a zero border) a turn to get next to a city and a turn to attack it. So I begin my SM rush with 8 or 9 of them, figuring to build as I go. Basically, one principle of combat against the AI is that I want to get multiple kills out of each unit and to prevent the opponent from getting multiples.

Anyway, my troops cross the border and are on good defensive terrain. Hills. Not great but there are rivers on two sides. Before they ever get a chance to attack, they are absolutely ravaged by archers. I had 2 damaged SM after their turn and they lost only 1 or 2 attackers. These attackers came across rivers and uphill to beat the more expensive troops.

My thought was, "shoot, two can play at that game." For 70% of the cost of SM, I can build archers and lots of them. I have never tried this before since I always favored SM. I was amused that it actually worked. Plus, I did not feel bad about losing a cheap unit in a human wave assault.

[vmxa1]

Wow I ran 1 trial, then 10, then 1000 and the archers never one once. No archers survived.

I took them to all be vets and SM meant swordsmen. You sure they were not bowman or long bowmen?

Remind me not to stand next to you in any storms.

[Mace]

Regarding Regent ---> Monarch. I don't notice a big jump between Regent and Monarch. Wasn't a big step for me. Now, going up above Monarch, is to me a much larger step. The AI unit bonii really stack up then. (no pun intended).

I usually play Monarch for research purposes, meaning that I can beat it regularly using the style I prefer. Monarch lets me try different strategies, and that's what I like to do with Civ.

If I want a true challenge, then I go a little higher on the diff level. Sid is too much for me though. I admit it...

[Golden Bear]

Vxma, I wish I still had the save so that you could enjoy the spectacle!

I was surprised myself since I have always considered the SM rush to be a standard feature. Yes, the were lowly little archers. I am used to the AI swarming me with archers, since I have seen that a lot. I was not used to seeing my SM rush get stopped cold like that.

It has caused me to build more archers and fewer swordsmen in subsequent games.

I noticed a distinct step in difficulty from Regent to Monarch. It is most notable to me in the factor of money. Cash is not as easy to manage on Monarch - still not hard. Monarch takes some planning where Regent takes none.

I am going to step up a level and see if I survive.

I keep trying to get along with other nations and build rather than conquer but my games all seem to follow a similar pattern:

Start
Out expand the AI, build cheap units
Get along with everybody, trade techs, etc.
Get big and powerful, have neighbors attack without apparent provocation.
Get monster powerful with TOE and such
Entire world turns on me and I fight them with luxury slider way up for about 30 turns.
World gives up and I build SS or Dominate

The result of having my score shoot up during the 2nd/3rd tech period seems necessary to be AI WW focused on me.

Maybe at Emperor I can play behind a leader and not get gang attacked.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Maybe at Emperor I can play behind a leader and not get gang attacked.

That's a good one.

If you play behind the leader, he'll be the one to attack you. And since he'll be the leader, he won't have trouble paying good tech for others to attack you. If you let that happen, of course.

The simple solution (if you don't just kill them ) is to make the AI beat up each other instead of you. When one attacks you, pay others to attack him. You can usually pay the whole world, so that the attacker ends up dead - this is useful if he's really big. Or, if he is too small to survive (or you can't afford pying everyone), pay selected civs to attack him. Usually after a turn or two your allies and the one that attacked you will start alliances against each other. Soon the whole world will be at war with itself. After the 20 turns end your defensive alliances peacefully, kick back and enjoy the show. It will be a world war not involving you. This is easier to achieve on large and huge worlds. Most important: do not get back to war unless you are ready for some serious AI extermination. The second time around everybody's reputation will be worth crap and they'll be breaking treaties in no time.

[vmxa1]

Golden Bear the same scenario will be in play at emperor. The main different is the timeline will slide. You will take longer to get caught up and take a lead.

Like Modo said, you could end up with the big guy after you and with some friends. This makes life a bit harder. Usually this is not going to be a civ that is close to you, since you will be able to keep them in check (or lose).

Domination wins get rough in all but pangea maps as it takes so long to gear up to invade. This will be true at all higher levels. Maybe smaller than std maps, it could be different.

Anyway look at some of the good threads on emperor. Ducki and Mountain Sage threads come to mind.

[Shr3dZ]

Start
Out expand the AI, build cheap units
Get along with everybody, trade techs, etc.
Get big and powerful, have neighbors attack without apparent provocation.
Get monster powerful with TOE and such
Entire world turns on me and I fight them with luxury slider way up for about 30 turns.
World gives up and I build SS or Dominate

So true! Just now in my game Im at the point where the whole world is starting to go against me. Its like a chain reaction of alliances against me. Luckily I was able to get 2 of my neighbors in a MPP with me, that should make it easier on me while I select one AI for termination.

Any of the cities I take will be so far down the corruption crap hole that I may aswell just raze all the cities... or take them and offer them as gifts to the two civs im allied with eh?

[Modo44]

MPPs are bad. When you are forced to go to war because of one, the treaty is automatically prolonged. This means that if you want to honor the treaty, you often get into a neverending war. Instead, sign alliances against specific enemies you want eliminated or stalled in their attacks against you. After 20 turns you can cancel the alliance no matter what and leave the AI to fight among themselves. This way they won't be able to draw you back in if you don't want to. This is especially important if you are running a Democracy or other government with War Weariness, where a 40 turn war is not what you want to have.

[Golden Bear]

I agree with Modo about MPPs. However, I have used them to get around AI MPPs. Neighbor A is someone I want to invade but signs MPP with Neighbor B. I sign MPP with B. Declare war on A but don't invade - dangle settlers just inside my border near A's troops. AI cannot resist the settlers and B declares on them.

Of course, then B declares on C, D and E and I wind up in WW.

Maybe I just agree with Modo

The gang attack in my current game happened so quickly that I could not stop it. Incas declare/attack. Mind you, they are the only civ left on MY continent. Ahem.

Anyway, they shoot cav and inf all over the place. I start to clean them up and the same turn look for alliances. I have not broken any treaties at any time. I even stayed in a war for 12 additional turns to honor an alliance. Anyway, nobody will sign with me for any amount of money - and I had lots. Or for tech advances or anything else. Of course I was 3X the score of the nearest. So I gifted them with luxuries figuring that might think twice before giving up free goodies. Nope.

Next turn, Incas sign with French. French sign with Byzantines. And so on.

I yanked the lux slider up to about 60% at the end (Republic and poor on lux variety). Erased the Inca with tanks. Bought inexpensive peace with everybody after they had been shelling, bombing and invading for 20 turns. After peace, I turtle up and finish researching SS stuff. Domination is too much effort.

Emperor next. I've been reading the threads and am ready. I assume I am allowed a couple restarts to get a reasonable position?