n00b Questions

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Theseus
Yes, upgrade paths were fixed, so that Sword- and Archer-class units upgrade to Guerrillas and then TOW Infantry.

Thanks.gotta learn all in the ups and downs of the game

Apreciate the quick comeback

Gramps

[Arrian]

That upgrade path, however, is still pretty crappy, IMHO.

Longbows/Med Inf (with pike/musket cover and bombard support!) are good for situations involving:

1) Lack of a key resource (horses, iron, saltpeter)
2) Production and/or Commerce scarcity (you can't afford to build/upgrade a slew of knights, so you go with the cheaper alternative).
3) Lots of rough terrain, where the mobility advantage of fastmovers is reduced.
4) When quantity is nearly as important as quality (you're facing a FLOOD of enemy units).

They're cost-effective for their time. The units they upgrade to... meh. Guerillas suck, IMO. TOW is ok, but it comes with Rocketry. So between Rep. Parts and Rocketry, you have Guerillas. Ugh.

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

I am not fond of upgrading them either. It comes down to game tactics fo rme. I will try to avoid making many archers, if I do not intend a rush. This means no LB at all. I will not upgrade the archers in most cases.

It is like Arrain said for me, you will have games where you need some troops and LB's are the best you have at the time.

This could be due to lack of tech or lack of a resource, either way those LB can kill some of those contemporary attacking units like MI. You just do not want to have to attack Knights with the chance to retreat.

I really dislike guerillas. ToW's are fine as upgrades and can be a real bugger to have to kill without modern armor.

[vmxa1]

I should have mentioned that what I often use left over archers/LB for is to take that counter attack hit. They will just be sacrificed to make the better units more likely to survive.

Of course if they do not have bombardment units in the stack, it may be better to not use them as you could end up giving promotions. You just have to have a feel for the situation.

[Theseus]

Don't forget, I play almost exclusively with the AU Mod, so Guerrillas are actually pretty decent.

[Grandpa Troll]

I have used them occassionally in my limited playing experience

[punkbass2000]

Yes, me too (on the AU mod). I was more just pointing out, originally, that people seem rather obsessed with Knights in the MA, which I never use much unless it's a good UU. Yes, I build them, of course, but for combined arms purposes rather than as a dominant attack force. I need them for pillaging and for attack and retreat maneoveurs. Then again, I don't build enough military, generally, to just steamroll. I do build a fair number of Knights just for cheap Cavalry upgrades as well.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Theseus
Don't forget, I play almost exclusively with the AU Mod, so Guerrillas are actually pretty decent.

They may be for the AU, but I would prefer to not even have the LB's to upgrade. I just do not have much interest in 1 move attackers after the Ancient age.

[Theseus]

I generally leave my upgraded slowmovers at home when expanding abroad... they are fine for purposes of MPs, and point defense.

[Modo44]

I agree with Punkbass here.

If I have a small military, I need combined arms. They are slow, but unltimately more effective, due to few losses. The force doesn't need to be very big. It moves like a snail, but needs very few resources to sustain. You lose relatively cheap defenders, and sometimes your stacks don't get attacked at all. You lose relatively few attackers, because you have bombard units to boot. With this approach, it is possible to partially go back to building, while at war. Of course, it takes more planning, than just building 50 Horsemen for a mass upgrade.

[Grandpa Troll]

thanks modo..I concur and will make a note to do more than simply produce units to upgrade..