The Wheels of War

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
Thrawn, good point. Horsemen are not affective for for fighting spearman, in small numbers that is. ALso, retreating saves 1/2 of your forces, making it possible to jsut retreat back and heel three turns. Yes, using swordsman is MUCH more reliable then horseman, but investing in horseman if you have a long way to travel is effective. As for speed, I maintain my thoughts on speed. And as for Immortials, keeping several catapults on defend should make most attacks futal.

-Ronnie

I don't want my units to retreat, I rather them just kill.

As for those immortals, any bombarding unit (and air units as well) are usless, even with the lethal bombardment option on. For those shields I rather have a better unit.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by coryl
I've never understood why Cavalry has a movement of 3 while every other standard mounted unit has 2. Better breeds of horses compared to ancient times?

It makes them too strong IMHO. I can only assume it is to enable them to run away from Knights, which would be slowed down by the weight of armor.

I would give India's UU better attack or defense rather than improve their mobility. Hannibal had a heck of a time moving them around.

Part 1: I believe by that time there was controled breeding. It was understood in the game I think.

Part 2: Ever since Napoleon used them, the Cavalry was hard to retire since they were so good. It wasn't until the advent of machine guns and trench warfare that they had to go. They moved fast because of controled breeding. They were faster than tanks because Tanks (particular the early ones) required either a road or an open, flat feilds.

Part 3: I only suggested this because and Samuri already covers Defense bonus. I think that an attack bonus would serously unbalance the game during this time period.

[Strakorfsky]

Thrawn, consider this...

You say to invest everything into swordsman. So, ounce I reach Chivalry, I just obsaleted almost my whole army. And the beutiful thing about horseman is, ta da, I can upgrade to knights. And ounce again be on the offensive against your massive swordsman.

Investing everythng in swordsman is bad in the long run. No upgrade. And ounce knights come along, you'll be happy that you invested in those horseman when you can upgrade, and be on easy street.

I guess that swordsman are great early attackers, but are a waste of shields in the long run. When you could have made a bunch of horesman and then upgraded them until the calvary.

Leave your stratagies to your best function though. it is simply a matter of opinion.

-Ronnie

[planetfall]

A few swords are good. Their advantages are:

1. Good fooder for weaking spearmen in walled city prior to horse attack, and

2. cheap military police.

Other than that they are not worth much.If you don't need defense, the archer is even cheaper.

--PF

[Gen.Dragolen]

Strakorfsky,

Building swordsmen in quantity isn't a waste: I usually recycle them into improvments or newer units as possible/needed.

I have used large numbers of horsemen before, but they take too great a beating so you are forced to stop your advances to rest them thereby loosing a good deal of the movement advantage.

The best uses I've found for them is in their traditional roles: scouting, harassing, pillaging, and keeping the enemies units tied up chasing them. There is something about the coding in the game that when a lone horseman is wandering around the middle of an AI Civ's cities it makes the AI Civ's stop all other actions and try to kill the horseman.

Usually, I can move up a strong force of swordsmen and take out the cities in the time the horsemen buy for me. And considering I can build a swordsman for what a horseman costs, and I know I will loose fewer swordsmen in an enemy counter attack, I will take a ground pounder and hold the enemies land where as a horseman army could be pushed out.

If casualties were no concern, yes horsemen would be a great option, but considering early in the games I play, high casualty rates are a huge problem. I use a mix of units to get the flexibility I feel I need to win a war. A few cheap archers as shock troops, a few spearman for holding the line, a couple of horsemen and lots of swordsmen to do the human tide assault.

Loosing a couple of archers is preferable to loosing a large number of better units you were counting on to use later. Relying on just swordsmen or horsemen is going to fail eventually too. Like when facing another person in PTW springs to mind...

It's all a matter of adapting to the terrain on which you are fighting. Wheels go best on roads while feet can cross mountains.

D.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
Thrawn, consider this...

You say to invest everything into swordsman. So, ounce I reach Chivalry, I just obsaleted almost my whole army. And the beutiful thing about horseman is, ta da, I can upgrade to knights. And ounce again be on the offensive against your massive swordsman.

Investing everythng in swordsman is bad in the long run. No upgrade. And ounce knights come along, you'll be happy that you invested in those horseman when you can upgrade, and be on easy street.

I guess that swordsman are great early attackers, but are a waste of shields in the long run. When you could have made a bunch of horesman and then upgraded them until the calvary.

Leave your stratagies to your best function though. it is simply a matter of opinion.

-Ronnie

I changed the upgrade path for the AI's sake, so that I don't see swordsmen and longbowmen in modern age (I don't think the AI knows how to disband a unit). Swordsmen and longbowmen upgrade to riflemen, but this tends to be so expensive I disband most of them and rebuild from scratch.

Why build Knights? Your not that far from Cavalry. You can even skip pikemen and head for Musketmen on the way.

I used to head for domocracy first, and pick up the two major happy wonders on the way, but b-lining to Cavalry instantly makes those knights usless, and even can defend against knight attacks. I suggest you try this at least once, as soon as you get into the middle ages, select military traditions and ride to the road of victory. Most people skip upgrading to musketmen and wait for riflemen, but I tell you if you play as rome, you can skip pikemen and head for musketmen, and use them while you research the rest of the middle age.

[Strakorfsky]

Hm...

Well, calling Knights "inaffective" is not a very good decision considering all the techs you must first research to get calvary. By the time you get calvary, the A.I. will be overgrown, and will sign alliances because they will not have had their growth stunted. Skipping knights would ruin a warmongers whole plan. But then again, you are the builder type, so you would probably just concentrate on defence, rather then active offense.

Either way, like I said, use methods most affective to your playing type. I will try what you have said. But I consider Democracy ntil you can make a great economy to support units, and a LOT of happiness to counter-act war.

-Ronnie

[Strakorfsky]

Oh yes, I do not change the game rules. That is a bit ignorant to do so, considering that I find it hard enough in monarch-diety levels with the A.I. outnumbering me in units .

Also, I am already concerned that when multiplayer comes out, people will change the rules to make it easier for them to win. Obviously n00bish, but, all to obvious, considering some of the exeriances I had in CTP where they would give themselves twenty settlers, and me one.

Well anyways, on subject. Playing the original game rules in my thoughts is the best way to play, not with any of those MODs that confuse concepts and make it more unballanced. Wel anyways, those are my thoughts.

-Ronnie

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
Well anyways, on subject. Playing the original game rules in my thoughts is the best way to play, not with any of those MODs that confuse concepts and make it more unballanced. Wel anyways, those are my thoughts.

I don't consider my mod unbalance, I'm tying to help out the AI and make the game better. I'll consider reverted back to the original upgrade paths if the AI had a better concept of when to disband a unit.

Until then, I'll stick to my rules. Because being able to build Carriers before learning how to fly makes me cry.