AU 202: Analysis, Solutions, and Stories (spoiler)

[Meldor]

I started the game using the AU mod and PTW, but I have not finished it yet. I got both a settler and a city out of the goodie huts, so I don't know if the game is worth a write up. With both of those, it drops the difficulty level down to regent or less.

[Edit] Correct spelling, big fingers and small keys on laptop.

[Catt]

OK - away from 'Poly for the weekend, but played more of my game. Screenies to come later. Catching up on posts from where I left off . . .

On the FP / Palace issue, using Robber Baron's map, I manually built my FP in a city one tile east of Ulaanbataar's location (on the gold hill) - so only 3 tiles from my Palace.

I reduced the Germans to one city on the island west of the German mainland, completing the conquest just about the time of cavs (Greeks later eliminated the Germans). My ridiculous leader luck has continued, and I finally used one to rush a palace in a city about 4 tiles due south of Berlin - making most of former Germany and virtually all of the landmass south to just shy of Salamanca more or less prodcutive.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe I could have triggered domination with Cavs. But it occured to me that I was playing the AU Mod for the first time in a long time, and so many of the Mod's changes come in the Industrial Age and beyond that I decided to play this one out (possibly to a SS victory) and experiment with some of AU. I tested war weariness; when it became too much, I played in Communism for a while; I compared it to Monarchy; I'm having fun with 8-attack infantry; etc., etc. -- it's currently late Industrial, I have been at war with Babylon since the beginning of the Industrial Age, and in fact at war with much of the world on and off during that time (Babs keep buying alliances and I was content to plod along watching AI behavior). I'm doing something I hardly ever do -- using a large stack (30+) of artillery with infantry coverage to take Greek city after city - effective but tedious (now I remember why I try to be peaceful between RP and MT). I'm researching Flight before MT just to get a feel for lethal sea bombard and it's "balance" in the Mod (my own long-ago experimentations made me feel it was unbalancing).

In short - lots of experimentation, little killer instinct.

I have collected some screenshots and will post in the next few days -- I will also post some in the AU Mod thread on specifics regarding the Mod.

Jawa Jocky - cool, I will give Infraview a try.

Catt

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
something I hardly ever do -- using a large stack (30+) of artillery with infantry coverage to take Greek city after city - effective but tedious

I do this a lot with the AU mod (see my AAR). I consider this a major strategic change from stock Civ3. With Railroads down, Artillery and Infantry are actually more effective than Cavalry, so you can actually do some fighting between Replaceable Parts and Motorized Transportation. What do you think of the change Catt?


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae


I do this a lot with the AU mod (see my AAR). I consider this a major strategic change from stock Civ3. With Railroads down, Artillery and Infantry are actually more effective than Cavalry, so you can actually do some fighting between Replaceable Parts and Motorized Transportation. What do you think of the change Catt?

I agree that it provides a lot more flexibility, which I like. That said, it's not a tactic I would voluntarily rush into -- it is very tedious (even with "j" move and "ctrl-j" moves. In AU 202, I would have used cavalry to hit Greece, or, failing that, would have just waited until MT rather than press a voluntary offensive (but I was experimenting and eventually Greece declared on me, c'est la vie).

On a related note (very preliminary - and I will also post in the Mod thread), my sense is that adding the "wheeled ability" to many units will strongly favor the human over the AI in the long run. The mountainous terrain of Greece in AU 202 hasn't slowed down the Greek waves of infantry / riflemen / guerillas, but the AI so rarely uses artillery on offense anyway. If Greece had tanks, I could easily pillage a few mountain roads inside my own territory and channel any whelled attackers into a "valley of death." The AI has not, of course, grasped this concept with regards to my arty stack.

Catt

[Dominae]

Why is using Artillery and Infantry more tedious than Cavalry? Sure with Artillery you need to bombard them to a crisp (which takes a while), but with Cavalry you need to do multiple attacks, often with retreats, and then rushes for cover. Many more clicks in the second case, no? Plus, using Infantry exclusively, you've got attackers and defenders all in one package, which also simplifies things a lot.

I'm not making a case against Cavalry here, mind you (I don't want to start another debate!), it's just that I've found Artilley/Infantry to be actually less tedious.


Dominae

[alexman]

Damn Greeks

It has been a couple of weeks since I set up the map, so I figured my memory had faded enough to give this game a shot.

I chose the Mongols, AU mod, Emperor, and didn't get very far. By 2000 B.C, after building 4 scouts and 3 cities, and had just finished my barracks to start my archer rush against the Iroquois.

The Greeks, with just two cities very far away, decided to send a Warrior and a Hoplite my way. Fortunately, a spearman was completed just in time to fill my empty city, so they headed towards another empty one. I set citizens to work a forest and the second spearman was completed just in time also. The Greek units fortified in my territory without declaring war. Phew! But then, a stinky barbarian took advantage of my units being tied down, and started heading towards my empty capital. I couldn't risk losing 20+ shields, so I figured I could defeat the punk with one of my veteran spearmen, and still get back into the vacated city before the Greeks had time to declare war and take it...

Well, my veteran spearman got killed while attacking the conscript barbarian in the open, and the Greeks of course declared war and entered by undefended city after two turns.

That's where I am now, but I don't think I feel like continuing. I'm quietly stepping away, humiliated by a less-than-killer AI!

[Dominae]

Umm, good recap alexman! I think this scenario came with a good share of luck: for some, good; others, bad.



Sometimes unit quantity wins over unit quality.


Dominae

[Catt]

Re: Damn Greeks

Originally posted by alexman
That's where I am now, but I don't think I feel like continuing. I'm quietly stepping away, humiliated by a less-than-killer AI!

alexman - did you see my first try? My second try I had something very similar happen with the greeks -- a hoplite and a warrior decided to fortify right outside a city (I was convinced they would attack - I then pop-rushed a spearman (or warrior) and moved a second into the city). They just hunkered down. Later they mosied on, but came back in about 10 turns (maybe a barb scent? - going to kill a village?). They declared war the second time.

Originally posted by Dominae
Why is using Artillery and Infantry more tedious than Cavalry? Sure with Artillery you need to bombard them to a crisp (which takes a while), but with Cavalry you need to do multiple attacks, often with retreats, and then rushes for cover. Many more clicks in the second case, no? Plus, using Infantry exclusively, you've got attackers and defenders all in one package, which also simplifies things a lot.

It's slightly less tedious with 8-attack infantry, I'll give you that. But what I mean by tedious is less about clicking and more about sheer length of individual turns and the number of such turns it takes to "complete" a phase of the game (in this case, conquest of a neighbor).

With my arty and infantry stack, I move a huge stack one tile at a time into enemy territory. When outside the city, I bombard 30 times. Depending on the effectiveness of the arty, I attack with infantry or wait a turn for one more arty cycle. I take the city. I move some infantry into the city as a garrison, I leave some covering the arty. I wait a turn or two to heal, suppress resistors, and rush a temple. Depending on circumstances, I may need to wait a few turns for the cultural expansion to happen or at least be a turn away. Then I move on and do it again on the next city.

With cavalry, I move two tiles into enemy territory and strike one target until it falls. Covering units come in behind to protect the "retreated" units. Next turn everyone piles into the conquered city to suppress and heal. The next turn I repeat the process. I worry less about rushing a temple because I plan to conquer the next target quickly enough that the enemy cultural pressure will be at least partly (if not entirely) lifted through force, making flipping almost a non-issue.

More importantly, with fast-movers for roughly the same shield investment and upkeep costs (initial, not total, as I expect losses with fast-movers and very few losses with arty/infantry), I can probably outfit 2 or 3 attacking groups, taking on 2 or 3 targets on the first turn. I find it harder to move quickly with arty and infantry - and it's not just because of the 1-move versus 3-move, but because I can generally only take one target per "combat round" (i.e., grouping of turns). The larger numbers of units required in an arty and infantry assault make maintaining 2 or 3 discreet attacking groups prohibitively expensive (in both shields and upkeep cost) compared to 2 or 3 fast-mover groups.

The tedium comes into play with the total length of the effort. In my AU 202 for instance, Greece had about 12 - 14 cities. Had I gone ahead for the kill with cavs versus muskets and later even rifles, I'm betting I could have taken all of Greece in less than half the time the (very effective!) arty / infantry stack method takes. Quicker advances also, IMHO, have a geometric (well, at least not linear ) effect on the enemy's resistance -- if I can take out 6 production centers in the space of 12 turns, I can all but eliminate counter-attackers either coming at my forces or streaming into my territory behind the lines. With the go-slow approach, I am not only moving my offense forward slowly (allowing other Greek production centers to continue to churn out units), but I am also dealing with a steady stream of Greek invaders who avoid my stack like the plague but do want to have a go at something.

So, for me it is tedious because the outcome is more or less certain (as it would be with a properly conceived cavalry attack), but it takes, IMHO, at least twice as long to accomplish. Quicker kills allows me to move on to the next interesting challenge in the game.

Catt

[Dominae]

I'll admit that Cavalry strikes take down empires a lot quicker than Infantry/Artillery in general, no doubt about that. On this specific map, however, Cavalry would have had a tough time in the Hills and Mountains of the Greek lands.

I took down the Greeks pretty fast in my game, but I had a lot of Artillery and Infantry, and was using the Greek Railroad network to move to targets faster (after getting the rails inside the borders of my newly-conquered city). I lost 2 Infantry and 2 Explorers in the war, total. I must admit, it was also a lot of fun to watch the (few) Greek Cavalry bump into my massive Infantry stacks, pleasantly fortified on a Mountain right beside their city.

I believe that each way has its advantages and disadvantages, which is nice because without the AU mod there's no alternative to Cavalry.


Dominae

[Jawa Jocky]

I took out Greece with Cavalry. It was not as bad as I expected even though they had riflemen. Speed is an issue for me since my culture is poor.

One side effect of low culture. You have to wipe out the enemy. In 20 turns everything I take will flip back.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
On this specific map, however, Cavalry would have had a tough time in the Hills and Mountains of the Greek lands.

True! But it also offered some great opportunities for a cav attack. Moving across mountains your musketmen can keep up with cavs for once, so little worry about counter-attacks. Once outside a city, the cavs go on the attack. Once captured, the city makes a great staging point for rapid cavalry advance into the flatlands. With my arty stack, I ended up cutting right down the mountainous center of Greece (to Athens), so I could get to the Greek rubber supply further west, and then fanning out to the flatlands to either side (when cav could have done some serious damage quickly). Had I gone on a cav attack, I probably would have swept into the grassland belt south-east of Athens and wiped out the larger Greek cities pretty quickly before concentrating on the tougher mountain- and hill-encircled towns.

I took down the Greeks pretty fast in my game, but I had a lot of Artillery and Infantry, and was using the Greek Railroad network to move to targets faster (after getting the rails inside the borders of my newly-conquered city). I lost 2 Infantry and 2 Explorers in the war, total. I must admit, it was also a lot of fun to watch the (few) Greek Cavalry bump into my massive Infantry stacks, pleasantly fortified on a Mountain right beside their city.

Also true! If I had more units, I could have moved more quickly. But I was running a pretty lean war machine at that point (which admittedly slowed my progress). I have (so far) lost a few more infantry than you did. My explorers raced to the Greek's last rubber supply (where a force of 5 infantry had just arrived) and pillaged. They raced out of Greek territory the next turn. First time I've really used them offensively as other than a suicide saboteur - but always liked the little devils. The Greeks only attacked my "rubber task force" on two different turns (doing basically no damage) and never attacked my stack of doom which was capped by an infantry army except for ironclad bombardment when it was near shore.

I believe that each way has its advantages and disadvantages, which is nice because without the AU mod there's no alternative to Cavalry.

Also true (first clause)! But, wrt to the "without AU mod no alternative to cavs," I've used the arty/infantry combo in the same fashion under standard rules -- not often, mind you, but only because it is more tedious than under AU Mod rules - it is virtually no less effective. If you bring enough arty along, the 6 vs. 8 attack strength doesn't make much of a difference since you usually end up attacking 1 HP infantry in a size 1 city without walls -- i.e., only terrain and fortification bonuses will apply. Even infantry in such towns on a hill will usually die on at least a 1-to-1 basis with attacking infantry, meaning a slightly larger number of infantry casualties than under AU rules. Still doable without AU, but also still tedious . Wasn't the boost to 8-attack solely to help the AI (which often builds and uses these units for offense)?

Catt

[Dominae]

Without calculating probabilities, it "feels" like I take cities down faster with 8-power Infantry. Under stock Civ3 or AU, you'll always take the town if you do enough bombardment. The difference is the damage the Infantry attackers take. Against a size 12 city, a 6-power Infantry usually loses about 2HPs from a 1HP Riflemen defender. With 8-power, it's around 1HP. This difference means that you can push the attack without having to wait for your Infantry to heal (although I will typically left the damaged ones in the captured cities and take the fresh ones to attack).

The change to Infantry was made to help the AI, but IMO it changes the human strategy somewhat. Most players will still base their plans around Cavalry (rightfully so, those guys are amazing), but it's nice to know thaty you can just blow by Military Tradition once in and still be competitive entering the Industrial age. This is precisely what I did in this game (I finished the game without Military Tradition...a first, for me).


Dominae

[BRC]

I believe that each way has its advantages and disadvantages, which is nice because without the AU mod there's no alternative to Cavalry.

This may not be the best place to say this, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

The most important things that I want out of the AU MOD is a smarter AI and an emphasis on combined arms. I love building a bunch of horseman and then raping the AI with my Knights and Cavalry, but I think it would be great if there was more incentive to BUILD Medievil Infantry. They do cost about 1/2 of what Knights do, but I still don't feel as if they were worth it. IMO, they were added just so that Swordsman would be used more.

This quote is exactly what I'm looking for out of the MOD.

As for my results in the game:

I chose the Mongols on Monarch, with PTW 1.14. Nothing really exciting happened, as I was able to keep Germany from meeting the other civs. Hiawatha was not able to hook up his horses in time, and I took all of his cities. I accidently left respawn on, and so he ended up in the very SE of the continent. I then went after Germany with my horsemen. I just stood outside of his borders, near the Mountain. I picked off everything I could. Finally, my reinforcements arrived, and I sent them in to German territory. I captured Berlin and destroyed two others. Got a GL and used it to rush my Palace in Berlin. There was no fear of flipping, and I received two other cities in the peace deal. My FP is just west of the start. I then turned on Greece with horsemen, trimming them back to just Athens. I suffered a few losses, but all in all, not too bad. I have the Iroqouis down to 2 cities, Germany to 2, and then just Athens. I haven't met anyone else yet, but I doubt that they are too far ahead. I am ashamed to say that I quit right here, just about 0 B.C. I wasn't particularly enjoying the game, and I feel that I would have had a fairly easy Domination win. I simply needed to fill up what was left of my continent, and, with the FP and Palace both situated, I think that I would have simply turned out more horseman and Knights and just shipped them across the sea. I'm sorry, but I just wasn;t enjoying the game.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
Without calculating probabilities, it "feels" like I take cities down faster with 8-power Infantry. Under stock Civ3 or AU, you'll always take the town if you do enough bombardment. The difference is the damage the Infantry attackers take. Against a size 12 city, a 6-power Infantry usually loses about 2HPs from a 1HP Riflemen defender. With 8-power, it's around 1HP. This difference means that you can push the attack without having to wait for your Infantry to heal (although I will typically leaved the damaged ones in the captured cities and take the fresh ones to attack).

I probably carried some of my "stock Civ 3" biases into this AU Mod game. I bombarded targets and would refuse to attack with infantry until (1) the city became a 'town' (< 6 pop), and (2) all the defenders were down to 1 HP. If that didn't happen in the first turn's bombardment, I did it again next turn. By the time my stack was up to 35+ arty, I could almost always do this in one turn.

Catt

[Dominae]

Originally posted by BRC
I wasn't particularly enjoying the game, and I feel that I would have had a fairly easy Domination win. I simply needed to fill up what was left of my continent, and, with the FP and Palace both situated, I think that I would have simply turned out more horseman and Knights and just shipped them across the sea. I'm sorry, but I just wasn;t enjoying the game.

No need to be sorry, BRC. Even UP players need a challenge once in a while, right?

You're an Emperor player now. Make the leap!


Dominae