Maximize your Strategy: Persians

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

A few more questions from the most frustrated Persian player around...

1. When does your Immortal assault begin, and against whom? Assume for the sake of this question that you're up against Ottomans, Zulus, Babylonians, and Arabs. Who is your first enemy, and why?

2. How do you deal with villages? Ha ha, call me insane, but everytime I pop a village as the Persians I get barbarians. Do certain civs have exceptionally poor luck with villages, like anti-expansionists? Forgive me if this question seems stupid but it's majorly upsetting.

[Arrian]

1) Depends. Who is closest? Who has the nicest land?

All things being equal, however, I'd hit the Arabs (no Ansars for you!). The Babs aren't much of a concern, since your Immortals can cut them to pieces (just bring a couple of spearmen too so the bowmen will be attacking spears, not immortals). The Ottomans you just have to kill before Siphai. The Zulu are typically crap, but if they get uppity, your Immortals can cut them up too.

2) Nope, you're just getting bad luck right now. When I pop a hut near a city, I make sure there is a unit that can defend the city if my exploring unit gets killed.

Remember: you cannot get a settler from a hut if you a) are building a settler; b) have an active settler; or c) have more than the average # of cities per civ in the game. Switch up your production to maximize your chances.

Hey, if your warrior survives, he might get promoted to veteran. That's a vet immortal (for a mere 40 gold) later on.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Hmm. Well, for whatever reason, in my recent string of short-lived Persian games, the typical hut has netted me a bunch of barbarians, nothing at all, or maps. No free settlers or good technologies for me... and this is true even of huts popped by expanding culture.

I wish I had Civ here at work so I could try out a few early Immortals wars... I'm so deeply skeptical of them. My inclination is to wait for Knights, and to use an Immortal around that time just to trigger my GA...

...it's also difficult to walk away from my all-time UP game as Japan (employing "Arrian's Deception" and coming close to a Domination victory) to Persia, outflanked as it typically is by expanionists and often bordering another scientific, industrious power.

But I will survive.

[Arrian]

I wish I had Civ here at work so I could try out a few early Immortals wars... I'm so deeply skeptical of them. My inclination is to wait for Knights, and to use an Immortal around that time just to trigger my GA...

Play the Ottomans, then. You get the same traits, and can use swordsmen without worrying about your GA. You definitely want to use lots of horsemen and/or knights, so you can do a Siphai upgrade.

As for triggering your GA pre-Siphai:

Pyramids/Great Lib
HG/Great Lib
GW/Great Lib
Pyramids/Newton
HG/Newton
GW/Newton

The best way I can see is to build either the Pyramids or GL and then capture the other. Next wonder you build, regardless of what it is, *presto* GA for you. Of course, that may not be an option.

So yeah, playing Ottomans gives you less GA flexibility, but it allows you to use swordsmen (very good early warfare unit) without worrying about the GA.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Yes, the Ottomans are the finer of the two S/I civs.

But this is the Persian thread.

True, the Immortal is not the finest unit, timing-wise.

In fact, the Persians in general I have found to be one of the more difficult civs to get your UP on with, though they generally start with lush land. I'm still unsure when the REXing/culture-building should end, and when the conquering should begin.

Were the Immortals to upgrade to Knights, I'd feel no remorse about using them early on, and moving them on, and one does typically with a beefy army: 1. Move into place, 2. Attack and Destroy, 3. Repeat (focusing on next target). After a while, the Immortals lose their punch, and they take much longer to move from one front to another.

[Frank Johnson]

When fighting any swordsman war...you have to plan ahead for their eventual uselessness.

Once it looks good and I'm winning a major war, I shift all my production to spears, or pikes if I have them. Then I replace the backwater garrisons of what I've taken with the spears and allow my front line troops to continue on.

So I won't be defenseless when new tech comes along, I make sure I have all the cities garrisoned with normal infantry, eventually.

Actualy that's why I was praising the legionaries eariler. Because they are just as strong as pikeman, you can keep them around alot longer. In my last game, they helped attack cities that had rifleman guarding them. I just had so many. ^_^

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

In so far as the best defence can be a good offense, I can see the use of one Immortal per frontier city. But I cringe at the prospect of losing so many immortals just moving them into place to attack... I know that this problem can be deflected somewhat by accompanying them with spears, à la an Archer rush. Still, I've grown soft on units with the ability to retreat... [sigh]...

[Catt]

I'm not really shy about using immortals early and often (same thing with legionaries). The relative advantage of the UU -- a 4-attack in the ancient age -- is generally too good to pass up.

Despotic GA's aren't my favorite thing in the world, but they are also not the horror that they sometimes feel. The thing is that you have to grow accustomed to exploiting the timing of the GA whenever it comes in the most efficient manner -- with the Persians, unless I'm playing a pangaea and the tech rate zooms forward very rapidly (so other govs are available quickly), I tend to view the use of immortals (and a despotic GA) a better approach than holding off on immortals until Republic or Monarchy is available. While a Middle Ages GA may facilitate the rapid construction of many high cost improvements like markets, cathedrals, or universities, a despotic GA generally means a load of immortals -- and a load of immortals generally means one's pick of the choicest land, the largest empire, and the relegation to the dutbin of history of any nearby neighbors. Even if you don't wipe out neighbors, taking 1/3 or 1/2 of their nascent empires early means: (1) you've REXed militarily very, very well, and (2) you've largely eliminated the threat of powerful neighbors for the remainder of the game.

In short, if you're holding back on immortals just because of the early GA, I heartily recommed you play a few games just through the early Middle Ages, in each case launching a furious immortal attack on your neighbors -- by the time knights come around, you might very well find yourself in a dominant position, able to take a pause and build infrastructure at that point (cheap libraries and fast workers!), or prepare your mounted forces for the next waves of activity

Catt

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I like your style, Catt.

Yes, perhaps I am too stuck in my ways, and it's time for me to try an Immortal war or two or three. Now, how would you define your numbers?

In my current game (with about 5 techs left in the ancient age, G. Library 14 turns to go, and Monarchy in about the same amount of time) I've got about 10 cities, and most of my neighbors have the same or less. Needless to say, no one's infrastructure is that hot, except for mine, which is decent/good.

To my northwest are the Babs and beyond them the Ottomans and Arabs. To the East is China, and the Southeast, the Mongols and Zulu.

EVERY empire has ONE luxury that I don't have... and generally only one. The Chinese have no culture whatsoever. The rest are about on my level, or slightly behind. Militarily, they probably outstrip me, slightly.

Who should I take on first?

(I'm sorry, no screenshots - I don't have a screen capture utility and my PrntScrn button... well, I don't have one of those either. Suffice it to say I only have about 1 or 2 spearmen per city, plus 1 or 2 warriors as well - NO VETERANS and no barracks yet!)

[Catt]

Big grain of salt since no maps or further details, but . . .

The Mongol-Zulu confederation south is going to declare war on you at some point- they won't be able to help themselves. I'd keep a small force south to defend your border, but not with any real intent to conquer Mongol territory. I'd spend all available time building veteran warriors and then immortals, and then just romp over both the Chinese and the Babs, one after the other. Maybe the Babs first since it sounds like a lot of the Chinese cities may be auto-razed. Take a good chunk of each's empire. With your homegrown empire, and half each of the Chinese and Babs, game over. You can keep the Chinese and Babs as punching bags / leader farms for later, and you can deal with the Mongols and Zulu at your leaisure, if need be. I don't like having multiple borders to defend, but it sure sounds like an opportunity to cripple the culturally powerful Babs and the middle-ages-dangerous Chinese early.

Immortals in tightly-cramped land masses . . .mmmm [/Homer voice] You just have to resist the urge to build cheap libraries (and expensive temples) when the game presents a great opportunity to crack some heads early.

Catt

[Catt]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Yes, perhaps I am too stuck in my ways, and it's time for me to try an Immortal war or two or three. Now, how would you define your numbers?

Numbers are hard to come by generically. A conservative approach might demand 5 immortals per enemy city in the initial assualt. Which means an attack force of 10 or so probably works in most cases (with reinforcements cranking out of your GA-charged empire). This force of 10 just rolls forward, resting in conquered cities to heal, and then moving on to the next target, with reinforcements bringing up the rear. Make sure to have worker groups tagging along to speed forces to the front. I've launched immortal attacks with as few as 5 or 6 immortals at the start of a war, and I've also unleashed hoards of 20+. The key, it seems to me, is not to wait so long that you start facing pikemen and med infantry in counter-attacks.

Hope your game isn't too late for that with 10 cities already, the REXing done, and no barracks ( ) yet

Catt

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

[British Orphan voice] "Don't be angry with me, Catt, sir, I promise to build me barracks right away!"

Actually, there is still room to REX... in the jungles and deserts... so the AI will most likely keep trying to settle those areas. The Babs have already demanded Literature... I said 'no' and they didn't declare war, but that's pretext enough for me...

I think I can crank out at least 12 immortals in as many turns... that will be enough, if I'm clever, though I might have to learn a lesson about slow-moving offensives.

I'd love to be the guinea pig or "example master" for this thread, if someone could point me in the direction of a screen-capture utility... right-click doesn't work, and as I said before, no PrntScrn on my keyboard.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
... right-click doesn't work, and as I said before, no PrntScrn on my keyboard.

My only (helpful ) suggestion is to buy a new keyboard.

Catt

[CerberusIV]

Just to be different, my current game as the Persians has put me on a small continent (6 cities) and isolated until all the other land has been taken. To make it even more interesting I have neither horses nor iron and no-one I can trade with has any spare.

I think a cultural victory has become the preferred option here - unless anyone can suggest a way out of this.

(Standard map, 8 civs, all much stronger than me by now, 150AD)

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

CerberusIV: my advice: ctrl+shift+q. But I'm sure one of the Whiz Kids around here'll have something better to say.

---

Oh, I have been waiting all weekend to post on this thread. I have discovered much, sahibs. But first,

AN OFF-TOPIC RANT/COMPLAINT

Why in God's unpronouncable name do the Persians never start near the Mediterranean civs when cultural linking is on? First of all, the Persians and Zulus certainly never clashed. Secondly, alright, the Persians historically did have interactions with the Indians, Chinese, and Mongols. And of course, the Ottomans, Babylonians and Arabs are all appropriate.

But Persia's most famous and consistent antagonists were Greece and Rome! Why is it that with cultural linking ON, Persia NEVER starts near the Med. powers? It's totally aggravating from a history geek's perspective.

RANT CONCLUDED.

Now, I wanted to report that I have been following Catt's advice over several games and have reached some tentative conclusions.

Persia as Warmonger

Though Persia's traits would indicate that it should follow a builder path, it's strong UU dictates that warmongering is also a valid choice for Persia. However, it brings with it a few drawbacks that should be taken into consideration before you take the time to put aside culture and start building barracks and Immortals.

First of all, GA timing couldn't be worse. I'm willing to bet that you'll not be a republic when you launch your Immortals war, and you probably won't be a Monarchy either. So your GA is going to come in the despotic era. C'est la vie; the Aztec player knows this isn't the end of the world.

Certainly, you can take down a peg 1 or 2 neighbors - maybe even 3 - using only your immortals and using your GA to produce nothing but more immortals, and maybe the Great Library and/or Hanging Gardens. By the time your GA ends, your empire will be twice or three times it's former size.

Additionally, this allows you to catch up tech-wise. Strictly REXing and building, I found myself with only a razor-thin margin of tech lead, and that's only after much whoring and cash dispensal, surrounded as I typically am by Zulus, Arabs, and at least 2 other expansionists. So don't play this game. Go to war, and take the techs you need. Chances are you'll get all of them.

If you produce a GL or two, you'll be in a strong position. Though being militaristic would help, certainly Industriousness alone will allow you to build the MRN you need to make it to the front and secure the cities you take.

But immortals are DAMN SLOW, so if there's chaos on your front, beware. I was sneak attacked twice by former allies and had to backtrack - painfully slowly - to stop advancing swordsmen and archers. This has retarded my progress, in terms of building up my conquests.

So Persia makes a good warmongering civ, but not a great one. You pretty much have to call in allies to defeat some of the more beefed-up civs (whom they are in each game differs of course), but beware those allies, because if you're sneak-attacked, your immortals might not be able to quickly move to defeat the offenders - never a problem if your UU is mounted.

Waging a horseman war is another option as Persia, which could work out well, even better than using your Immortals early. Immortals remain availible after Feudalism is developed, I've noticed... I began to excercize this option, but things didn't go my way so I restarted. Still, given the right conditions, using horsemen might be the fix you need if you want to wage war in the early game.

Persia as builder

As I mention above, the chief problem with Persia as a builder is the expanionist factor, plus the Ottomans. It's not hard to REX as Persia - in fact, it's quite easy. Persia seems to begin often on fertile land.

The problem is that you'll never get that far ahead in techs, and you'll often fall behind. Simply put, the expansionists will trade techs and contacts like nightclub patrons trade STDs, leaving even Scientific Persia in the lurch. Sure, come Chivalry time, you'll be ahead, but by little, and if the Arabs are still around, they'll be getting Ansar Warriors soon. Ok, you can spend a lot of time crushing them - but what about those Ottomans? They won't be far from Sipahi, then...

I guess I'm an UP stickler and that's why I haven't played one of my 2 active Persia-builder games much past the early medival era. If I could live with, say, Korea getting Leo's workshop, or the Arabs getting Ansar warriors, or the Ottomans surviving, then I'd have no problem. But Persia seems to lack the punch that you need for UP, hence unfortunately dictating early wars of agression.

This would be less the case if you're starting near the Europeans, whose UUs tend to come later or mean less, than the Asians with their sleiugh of ass-kicking Chivalry-based UUs.