AU 502 Teaser

[nbarclay]

I came up with another thought regarding the research path issue for difficulty levels where it's practical: push hard for Mysticism and Polytheism, trade for Alphabet and (if it's been researched yet) Writing, and then get Philosophy with Monarchy as the free tech. That would be a bit cheaper than researching Monarchy directly and would provide Philosophy as something to trade for techs the AIs have researched without having to give up a government tech. The down side is that the trades could help the AIs' research pace, which would interfere with Alexman's clever little scheme. On the other hand, slowing down research on one's own continent tends to give the civs on the other continent a rather significant advantage. I still haven't decided for sure what direction I'll go in my research, but that looks like a very definite possibility, especially if I play on Emperor rather than taking a chance on Demigod.

(Is this a Continents map, by the way? Or is it something else? I asked earlier, but I don't remember seeing an answer.)

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
Religious with a good ancient UU screams for Monarchy. It's going to be my first government for sure.

I plan to slow down the tech rate so that the Gallic Swords last as long as possible. However, I plan to research full-speed up to Monarchy, and then set the slider at 0% until the middle ages. I'll trade as little as possible, and if I'm not at war, I'll make sure other civs on my continent are at war. We will be the most backwards barbarian continent ever!

That's the second time in two days that someone beats me to the punch.

[Aqualung71]

On research choice, I've found lately in my demigod experiments (rather like wearing a hair shirt I would imagine) that Literature is often a good path. This starts you off on the Writing strat, which if successful can yield good trading opportunities. If failed, as it usually is for me at demigod, then you can try again at Philosophy and/or Literature. Even after researching Philosophy I find I can usually research Literature and still be first, and that can net you up to 10 Ancient age techs if you've contacted enough civ's by then.

And while I'm on Literature, a Great Library play is a horrible strategy in combination with the Celts, particularly at the higher difficulty levels. If you're behind in techs, the GL may catapult you into the Middle Ages and Feudalism before you've had a chance to build your G.Swords. Then you're left with those sluggish Medieval Infantry.

Alexman - how about a quick mod before this weekend to allow us to build G.Swords forever?

[ducki]

If you're behind in techs, the GL may catapult you into the Middle Ages and Feudalism before you've had a chance to build your G.Swords.

Unless they changed it in Conquests, as long as you haven't had your GA, you can still build your UU. Not that I'm arguing the Library is a good play, just that - as long as you haven't triggered your GA - the Great Library will not prevent you from building Gallic Swords.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by ducki

Unless they changed it in Conquests, as long as you haven't had your GA, you can still build your UU. Not that I'm arguing the Library is a good play, just that - as long as you haven't triggered your GA - the Great Library will not prevent you from building Gallic Swords.

As far as I know Ducki is correct with this. Unless you've had your GA then you're always able to build your UU.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Rhothaerill


As far as I know Ducki is correct with this. Unless you've had your GA then you're always able to build your UU.

Which is great, but if you haven't generated you GA then you haven't won a battle with a GS. Which means your window of opportunity for using them is closing very quickly.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Thriller


Which is great, but if you haven't generated you GA then you haven't won a battle with a GS. Which means your window of opportunity for using them is closing very quickly.

Which is of course correct. Though I'd say that particular unit remains useful well into the middle of the middle ages. They only have one less attack point than knights and have the same movement. You can always use them as 'mop up' duty if you're really in need of your GA.

[nbarclay]

With the greater power of bombardment units in C3C, I no longer view MedInfs as horrible. Gallic Swordsmen's speed comes at a serious cost in that catapults (and, later, trebuchets) can't keep up with them. As a result, if you use their speed, you're stuck attacking undamaged targets. That's not such a big deal against spearmen, but if the enemy has pikes (as is likely if the Great Library is giving you Feudalism), I think I'd rather use a MedInf/bombardment stack if warrior descendents are going to be the largest part of my striking force. Of course Gallic Swordsmen are still useful to accompany knights and even cavalry, but their suitability as members of the primary assault force is a lot more questionable once enemies get pikes.

By the way, in connection with the use of bombardment units, attacking damaged targets undercuts the advantage Gallic Swordsmen get from their ability to retreat. If the enemy is down to one hit point when a fast-moving attacker reaches one hit point, the attacker will never retreat. Thus, if a defender is pinged down to one hit point before being attacked, Gallic Swordsmen's ability to retreat offers no advantage whatsoever in survivability, while against a victim pinged down to two hit points, a vet GS would have to lose three hit points without the enemy losing any for the GS to retreat. That makes it a lot harder for Gallic Swordsmen's ability to retreat to offset MedInfs' higher attack value when operating with heavy bombardment support.

So while in PtW, a good case could be made for not letting Gallic Swordsmen upgrade to MedInfs, I no longer view that as the case in C3C. There are too many combinations of situation and strategy where removing the ability to upgrade would be a disadvantage. Further, the existence of an upgrade path does not prevent players from leaving the Gallic Swordsmen they've already built as Gallic Swordsmen if they prefer. Thus, the existence of an upgrade path gives a player a choice for existing units and leaves him without a choice only for new units. In contrast, the absence of an upgrade path would provide no choice either for existing units or for new ones.

Nathan

[pvzh]

I could add that judging by colour we have either Aztecs or Japan present in the game. Somebody took my beloved emerald green colour :P

[Aqualung71]

On the MI/GS comparison, I would still prefer to use the GS. MI is stronger in attack, but if used in combination with catapults in order to not have to attack undamaged targets, then you're talking about a 60 shield cost (1 MI, 1 cat) vs 40 for GS --> 50% higher. GS attacking an undamaged target still has retreat ability.

I also feel another overlooked important factor, particularly when already at war and you are still producing units for frontline reinforcements, is the ability of the GS to get to the battles quickly from your more distant cities. This can save turns and even cities. Also, if a GS is attacking on it's "first" turn, it can still retreat after victory leaving itself less exposed to counter attack, while a MI will be sitting on its own at 2 defence, possibly with a couple of hit points gone, and require a pikeman to cover it or else it's a sitting duck. And of course, another pikeman to cover the catapult/trebuchet.

So overall, I'd prefer masses of GS over MI/artillery combinations. But that's just my opinion.

[Aqualung71]

Ducki, 2 quick questions:

1. Is this continents, pangea or archipelago?

2. If you were playing this, would you play emperor or demigod?

[Aqualung71]

I've learnt quite a bit from reading the suggested openings from some of you civ3 legends here.....so I'd like to throw out a couple of thoughts.

A popular strategy seems to be build the granary first, or perhaps warrior then granary, or slot in an extra worker. If you go for the granary first, there are 2 consequences I'd like to explore:

• You don't have MP for some time, meaning you must use the luxury slider a lot more than you otherwise would as you grow. This will affect your research rate (assuming you would otherwise go for maximum research), and at higher difficulty levels may result in that crucial several turn delay in acquiring a tech that may have been of trade value earlier but is now useless;
• You cannot explore in the early game (unless you slot in a warrior before the granary), which puts back your contacts and also leaves you very unsure of the terrain around you. Even though you don't have any settlers yet, it helps to know from which direction the AI may be REXing towards you.

What are your thoughts on these issues, guys?

[vmxa1]

Well as to the explore part, if on Deity or Sid you do not need to be too concerned about that. They will find you real soon.

If you know you selected lots of water on an archipelago, then you have no rush to see the land.

The problem for me is at say emperor on a cont or pangea map. Then you want to get out and scout. The other thing about the highest level is you do not need to sweat being first to find huts. They are not going to be all that good to you anyway.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Thriller
On the MI/GS comparison, I would still prefer to use the GS. MI is stronger in attack, but if used in combination with catapults in order to not have to attack undamaged targets, then you're talking about a 60 shield cost (1 MI, 1 cat) vs 40 for GS --> 50% higher. GS attacking an undamaged target still has retreat ability.

The strategy with catapults or trebuchets is to build a big stack of them that costs a lot up front but that can soften up the victim enough that losses will be significantly lower than they would in conventional attacks. Over time, the higher up-front cost of the stack is paid back by not having to build as many units to replace losses. And yes, pikemen for defense add to the cost, but they have a better chance of killing an enemy attacker than a GS would (especially when the pikes have cat support) and they're less expensive when they die. Further, even when a GS retreats instead of being killed, he's taken out of the battle for a couple turns or more, while having a pikeman take the enemy attack keeps the offensive units healthy.

Also note that because Gallic Swordsmen have a lower attack value than MedInfs and because a small percentage of their retreats could have resulted in victories if they stayed in the fight, it generally takes more Gallic Swordsmen than it would MedInfs to win the same battle. That is even more true when bombardment units improve the odds for the MedInfs. And, as I noted above, the fact that Gallic Swordsmen in a fast-moving attack do double-duty as both offense and defense also increases the numbers needed. So the difference in the size and up-front cost of the stack needed using Gallic Swordsmen instead of MedInfs and catapults/trebuchets is smaller than you give it credit for being. (On the other hand, if you're playing the AU Mod, cats cost 30 and trebuchets 35, which drives up the cost of the bombardment stacks rather noticeably.)

By the way, even with a bombardment/MedInf/pike combined arms stack as my main offensive force, I would want to keep around some Gallic Swordsmen for use against enemy counterattackers. That would include some accompanying my main offensive force to deal with enemy units in its area and some in any other places where I think counterattacking enemy units migh strike. There are times when the ability to kill one enemy counterattacker and retreat out of range of another one that's right behind him can be quite valuable, and fast-movers can also protect a wider area.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Thriller
[*] You don't have MP for some time, meaning you must use the luxury slider a lot more than you otherwise would as you grow. This will affect your research rate (assuming you would otherwise go for maximum research), and at higher difficulty levels may result in that crucial several turn delay in acquiring a tech that may have been of trade value earlier but is now useless;

My belief is that the long-term financial payoff of getting additional cities out faster easily outweighs the short-term cost of having to set the luxury slider higher. That is especially true when the additional cities will be on rivers and get the financial advantages (not to mention growth advantages in the case of Agricultural civs) associated with that. I haven't formally tested that belief, but how well I generally do in the tech race using early granaries and late MPs leaves me with a high level of confidence that it works. Having to set the luxury slider a couple notches higher in the early game might seem very expensive relative to how much gold you're taking in at the time, but compared with a civ's income once a few more cities are founded, the gold lost just isn't all that much.

Edit: Regarding exploration, the biggest thing that concerns me about not getting out and doing at least a little exploring quickly is that I might send my early settlers to the wrong places, causing me not to settle a site with food bonuses as quickly. Under certian circumstances (especially with no barbs), I'm willing to send settlers out blind, but it's a definite tradeoff.

Getting contacts quickly and finding out where the AIs are don't concern me as much. Building up my own size and economic strength as quickly as possible is useful no matter where the AIs are, and on the levels I play at (normally Emperor and Demigod) my AI neighbors generally come to me in a timely manner.

My biggest concern going with virtually no units early is that if there are barbarians, I'm vulnerable to them. Getting out a settler a couple turns earlier doesn't do a lot fo good if barbs kill him, and losing a granary (or a lot of work done on one) to a barb attack can set back expansion a whole lot more than building a warrior or two woud. Which leads to the question of how much risk a player considers acceptable.

Nathan