A Strategic Analysis of the Special Units (LONG)

[nato]

French Pikemen can be upgraded to Riflemen though ... they just have to skip the Musketeer step.

[vmxa1]

One more thing, it was stated that waves would be used, that is fine for Humans on AI, not fine on humans. Your wave will be met with numbers and have a tragic outcome.

[carpo]

Originally posted by nato
What I really want to talk about is the forced golden age....

I guess the question is - how valuable is a well timed GA? ...

I think you are taking a pretty big loss to have that early GA. You've GOT to make that early attack count big to make it worth it.

Im in the middle of the tournament game, and hit my Golden Age when i only had 3 cities, very early in the game. I was annoyed at first, but thought "what the hell" and started to build a large army of bowman. The main city quickly reached 6 pop, and i was getting 12 shields a turn. I was pumping out bowman from it, and a few more from my other cities, along with only a couple of settlers. By the time the GA had ended (or a few turns after ... i had to wind down my war effort.. hehe), i had taken 3 Aztec cities, 4 persian cities, and made peace with both only having 1 city left each. I made a few gold a turn in exchange for peace (worth alot in those days ) , and then sat back.

Its now 1310 AD. Persians eliminated. China eliminated. Aztecs decimated, very nearly useless, except for the gold they give me for resources . Ive invaded greece and taken 6 cities. Invaded Zululand and taken 4 cities. Wining on points, way ahead in culture, own crap loads of resources. All-in-all i was very happy with the early GA strat that was forced on me. It really gave me a headstart, and completely hobbled 2 of my closest nieghbours.

So, i think, if you take advantage of it, an early GA can give you a big lead.

[player1]

Originally posted by vmxa1
One more thing, it was stated that waves would be used, that is fine for Humans on AI, not fine on humans. Your wave will be met with numbers and have a tragic outcome.

Since Mounted armies have movment advantage on footmen armies, you CAN COOSE wich TARGET to strike.
You won't choose a super defended place.

Plus,
M.W. ARE GOOD FOR DEFENSE.
Of course, you won't fortify them in cities.
You'll use them for attcking from cities to enemy units.
(then intant heal in barracks)

Plus in order to be attacked, enemy footmen must come near you.
Then, you attack & retreat.

[Grim Legacy]

msg deleted

[jack_frost]

Uhh... I don't know how people are arguing against 2+ move units being utterly and completely dominant.

It isn't useful for attacking deep in enemy territory. Its -required- for a) a good first turn attack that should net you at least 3-4 towns. b) very rarely losing units. c) guarenteing his fast units die.

The only thing 1 move units should be used for is as cheap **** to stick in the city to stop it from defecting until you get infantry (since they are just dominant).

Do musketeers really cancel out knights? heh, hell no. The movement rate of knights with smart play guarentees all your knights end up as cavalry. And hey in reality.. your horsemen (who still rape pikes for the same reason) will all eventually end up being knights. Funny how that works.

Using units that might actually die when attacking is risking shields.

I even find cavalry to still be very useful once tanks are running around because of the three move. Hey, sometimes you need to move 2 squares through his terrain to attack. I don't want to leave tanks out in the open undefended. Cavalry run in, take the city that turn, my border expands, I use his railroads to move tanks in to the next city.


----


My favorite golden age is the english, since it happens right at the start of the industrial age when -two- things are happening.

A) I'm building factories everywhere, and the initial boost against my opponents is increased further (plus the factories finish faster).

B) I'm usually putting up my forbidden palace after taking a lot of land during chivalry (the most effective time for offense). So the build time is reduced (in case I didn't get a leader), and the corruption in all those conquered cities is balanced out a bit by the increased production, or rushing is easier due to increased commerce. How ever you cut it, its gotta be the best GA time.

Its a shame the unit itself is so worthless.. end up having to build them to trigger the GA..and sometimes I need to declare war with someone who I don't want war with just to kill a frigging naval unit.

[Isle]

On the babylonian bowmen. They are really nice defence units to start with costing the same as spearmen. However they are considered special archer, and can therefore not be upgraded to pikemen.. I think 3/1/1 would have made more sense.

In my latest emperor game I was babylonian, and used waves of bowmen to wander over the persian territory. By the late war they had iron, but by then I had horses so I leed my horsemen feast upon the (not so immortal)s.. Keep remembering retreat=defeat, the power of fast units is persistency. I you loose you loose, but if you attack with enough horsemen you'll win and they will ALL survive... (think of weak fast units like they were piranha)

[PhillipII]

just throwing my two cent in about the Immortals.
i beleive them to be a truly excellent unit and i will explain why.

A UU is basically a temporary military advantage right?
To make the most of you need to go out and accomplish something with them or else you will have wasted your temporary advantage.
A defensive UU might not acheive anything if no one attacks you during its effective lifespan. (the exception being the Hoplite which saves you from spending cash/production time to upgrade)

Therefore the UU whose attack value is significantly higher than the enemies he is likely to encounter is the best.
i dont think the retreat from combat ability is that great because it wastes time.I would rather kill the enemy unit right now and barely survive than wait for next turn and get him with ease.
I dont go to war for no reason and will sue for peace the instant my advance begins to slow or too many units need to be replaced due to casualties. The longer you are at war the more your social/scientific/cultural advancement is undermined by the war effort.
Thus the best units are those who are going to chew through defenders quickly while taking minimal casualties.
Immortals are therefore the best. hell if they are Elite they will even be able to take out Hoplites most of the time.

[jack_frost]

a) i agree. being able to attack quickly is just as important.

b) "being able to run away wastes time"?

huh?

if you lose a combat, press w. Attack again with horse/knight/cav/tank till you win. Cycle back to damaged unit. Move damaged unit into city. Press F.

Wait three turns for damaged units to heal while moving 1 move units in to hold the city.

Attack next city.


But hell, I don't like building more then around 35 or so units. So I don't like throwing them away (i have been building more recently - you need to otherwise defection becomes more then annoying). And I can still remove pretty much any enemy civ with ease.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by PhillipII
just throwing my two cent in about the Immortals.
i beleive them to be a truly excellent unit and i will explain why.

A UU is basically a temporary military advantage right?
To make the most of you need to go out and accomplish something with them or else you will have wasted your temporary advantage.
A defensive UU might not acheive anything if no one attacks you during its effective lifespan. (the exception being the Hoplite which saves you from spending cash/production time to upgrade)

Therefore the UU whose attack value is significantly higher than the enemies he is likely to encounter is the best.
i dont think the retreat from combat ability is that great because it wastes time.I would rather kill the enemy unit right now and barely survive than wait for next turn and get him with ease.
I dont go to war for no reason and will sue for peace the instant my advance begins to slow or too many units need to be replaced due to casualties. The longer you are at war the more your social/scientific/cultural advancement is undermined by the war effort.
Thus the best units are those who are going to chew through defenders quickly while taking minimal casualties.
Immortals are therefore the best. hell if they are Elite they will even be able to take out Hoplites most of the time.

I agree, and the Immortals last for a HELL OF A LONG TIME! (not to mention you get them almost right away) Like i mentioned previously, even when knights become available one whole era later, they still cant match up, cause you get 5 immortals for every 2 knights.
Nuff said.

[player1]

You can upgrade Mounted Warriors to Knights (80 gold per unit)

And later to Cavalry (additional 20 gold).

[player1]

Producing NEW foomen unts WASTES TIME.

Mounted units heal in 3 turns most, so you don't need to produce new one (it's also easier to producte Veterans & Elite).

Plus, they quickilier come to front (2 point movment).

[PhillipII]

maybe i should have explained that a bit.
By my logic, which i use to be somewhat anal about time/production efficiency, any ability you dont intend to use is a waste.
If ability X doesnt really help you then you are wasting time/production by getting units that have it. Whether oir not san ability is any good you are paying (shields in this case) to get them.

[jack_frost]

so your saying the additional shield cost for two movement is greater then the additional shield costs to replace units that just die if they lose combat?

Sorry dude, your logic although reasonably sound the application is flawed.

[PhillipII]

Why is my logic flawed?
The cheapest possible unit with the highest possible attack rating is perfect for conquest.
If too many die then i cancel the war and make peace. the result being the cheapest/shortest possible loss of resources.
If they win then i have taken some cities for cheaper than it would cost if i had used Knights, who are more expensive.

I think i understand why you think im wrong. You are coming from the point of view that you want to conquer some cities at any cost. In this instance then certainly Knights are better seeing as how your primary concern is voctory, not cost cutting.

I however am coming from the PoV that i want to take a little bit of surplus production and see if i can "purchase" some new cities with it.

If i win then either way the attacking units are going to be replaced by specialist defenders. that way i can take those attackers and either move on to beseige another city or hold on to them for a few turns in case i end up with a bit more surplus production again.