Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Civ-Specific Strategy: French

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Machiavelling with the French

    Here are a couple of tips I found worked REALLY well while playing Joan in the Machiavelli style. The game ended in a Space Race when after watching the Chinese and Germans engage in non-stop war after discovering Tanks.

    -- Right of Passage --

    This is your most powerful diplomatical weapon, so use it wisely. Joan will be set up near Russians, Germans, and probably the Chinese. All three are aggressive and/or treacherous and will just as likely harass each other if given the right opportunity. The trick is to play off their bad reputations that will develop over time as they sneak attack their neighbors.

    If non-aggressive civs want to take on one of these three Baddies, then grant them a ROP to that civ to allow speedy passage of their troops to the front lines. If the troops can make it to enemy turf, better, as that will allow terrain improvements to be pillaged and cities mauled. If the battle lands in your own turf, well, it saves you on admission to watching the show. The war probably won't hurt a Baddie badly, but it will slow down their economy and bleed off some of their built up troops.

    If one of the three Baddies wants to beat on the other, grant a ROP to whichever civ is STRONGER!!! This seems counterintuitive, as it seems to give the disadvantage to the underdog. But in truth what will kill the stronger civ is their overextending themselves on the supply lines to keep the war going. Plus if the battle is fought on the ememy's turf, there is a good chance the defender will have enough fortifications and local production advantage to keep on with the onslaught.

    If you want the war to drag on and on, then grant neither a ROP. Then they'll be forced over bad terrain an no roads, and the longer the war drags on, the less culture they will accumulate. If you stay out of war, then all things being equal, you'll accumulate culture twice as fast as they will. This will become important later when you try to culture flip captured cities.

    -- Stockpile a couple of Settlers --

    When your neighbors beat on each other and lose cities to the other, the national boundaries start collapsing. You have a great opportunity to jump in with a Settler and establish a city in the cracks of their borders. You may not want to keep the city, and later trade it for some concession. Or you may want to take advantage of a cultural advantage to rush build culture structures in these cities to culture bomb the surviving cities. Once flipped or invaded later, you can strip them peacefully for slave workers. It's important NOT to raze, as that will cause a black mark on your reputation and totally ruin the Machiavellian strategy.

    -- If you have to fight, stick with Republic or Democracy --

    If you force yourself to stick with this strategy, then you will be obliged NOT to enter military alliances or mutual protection pacts. You can't afford them, because to keep your reputation you'll be obliged to play out the war at least 20 turns. If you want an 'ally', prosecute the war vigorously by yourself. If you can get enough edge on your enemy, and the other civs smell weakness, they will jump in on their own and you will then exit gracefully with a peace treaty without harming your reputation, and let the jackels finish him off. Plus by delaying other entrants of the war, you stand a good chance of extending the time your enemy is stuck in war and sink his economy in the swamps. Besides, Joan is not Religious (how did that happen?!) so it takes too long for her to switch governments. Keep upping the luxury rate and downing the science rate until you can exit gracefully, and then within a turn you can be back to a happy, croissant eating nation!

    - Scott

    Comment


    • #47
      Size of maps (for the French)

      Actually, I flip-flop on map size depending on what I am trying to learn or what I am tired of. The last several months I've been playing on Large and just switched to Huge in the last game. I leave the number of AI civs at the default. It's my belief that Musketeers actually work better on smaller maps where the larger ones favor fast movers and open terrain. The Machiavelli game cited above was played on Large, not Huge.

      I'll give Joan a try on a much smaller map and report back if the Musketeer effectiveness improves.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Size of maps (for the French)

        Since I just graduated myself to Emporer level, I took the opportunity to dip my toe in the water with Joan, and shrink down to a smaller map.

        First game was on Small. Ouch! That's awefully small after playing large/huge for months. I did pull out a respectable game, given the my national shape, a T-bone, was impossible to defend. Some quite couragous Swordsmen fortified in mountain forts held off a few injured one-strength Panzers, but in totality the game was lost long before the Modern Age.

        However, the real question was the performance of the Musketeers. In a word, "Awesome!" Given such a small map puts everyone in close quarters, I was using Musketeers from fortified positions in the same way most players use Riflemen.

        After that I stuck with Medium sized maps which I am still playing now. The first few games at Medium were with Joan, and later I played Lincoln, Bismark, and now Tokugawa. I cried while playing a losing game with Bismark watching the AI Joan march across the southern part of the land mass and push Lizzie into the ocean! With, what else, but Musketeers supplemented by Knights. In that same game I noticed Joan had slightly more lebensraum which she put to good advantage. With no serious conflicts she easily rose to the top of of the power charts. Hate it when the AI outplays your own strategy!

        In review, I would say that the smaller the map, the more valuable the Musketeer become as a UU. On large maps the bias is for 2+ movement UUs, namely Panzers, Mounted Warriors, etc. And experience with smaller maps confirms the need for players with balanced UUs to have experience with combined arms style warfare and versatile play style.

        Scott

        Comment


        • #49
          infoscott,

          i never really found muskereers that game-breaking! with a defence of 4 they aren't (one should say weren't) stronger than regular musketmen and their attack of 3 is less than the attack of all other attack units of that time (knights, longbowmen, medieval infantries).

          i'm surprised to see you think this UU is so extremely powerful.

          however - now in C3C, the musketeers gets ADM 5,2,1 which gives the french the best defence unit until riflemen and makes them quite effective against cavalry and berserks.
          - Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity
          - Atheism is a nonprophet organization.

          Comment


          • #50
            I find musketeers exactly the same as musketmen. Even with the french UU, you should never attack with it! In a stack of midi inf. and muskets, you only need a few muskets. It is futile to attacke with them under almost any circumstances, as they cost more but have less attack than midievil infantry. They are ONLY good as defensive units. In virtually any style of play, they are not different from musket men in any way.... exept the GA, that is....

            now, i dont like carthages UU much either. The problem is that i would rather have spearmen. especially when the barbarian settings are high. if you fortify each city with 1 unit, that means i have to spend 30 shields instead of 20. In the ancient age i have better things to do with my shields that. This greatly slows the REXing process. Besides, if i want to attack in the ancient age, i use Horsemen, not some slow unit when i do not even have my road system completed yet. Then there is that early GA, yet another bad point.

            In the end i like the french better, as i find there UU entirely useless, unlike carthages UU, which i find a dissadvantage.

            Comment


            • #51
              An apology for the much maligned Musketeer

              Originally posted by zorbop
              I find musketeers exactly the same as musketmen. Even with the french UU, you should never attack with it! In a stack of midi inf. and muskets, you only need a few muskets. It is futile to attacke with them under almost any circumstances, as they cost more but have less attack than midievil infantry. They are ONLY good as defensive units. In virtually any style of play, they are not different from musket men in any way.... exept the GA, that is....

              now, i dont like carthages UU much either. The problem is that i would rather have spearmen. especially when the barbarian settings are high. if you fortify each city with 1 unit, that means i have to spend 30 shields instead of 20. In the ancient age i have better things to do with my shields that. This greatly slows the REXing process. Besides, if i want to attack in the ancient age, i use Horsemen, not some slow unit when i do not even have my road system completed yet. Then there is that early GA, yet another bad point.

              In the end i like the french better, as i find there UU entirely useless, unlike carthages UU, which i find a dissadvantage.
              It seems your strategy is based on PTW, whereas I play original CivIII. Please let me review why I think Musketeers should be used as offensive units.

              Apart from other medieval UUs, the highest attack values of available units before Cavalry/Riflemen are Knights (4), Longbowmen (4), and Swordsmen (3). Defensive units are (1): Spearmen/Pikemen until Musketment and they are only (2). The only unit with a defensive value BETTER than 3 is the Musketmen (4). So most of your battles in a protracted war are going to be attack (4) versus defense (3) or (4), with defensive bonuses giving the decided advantage to the defender and warefare costing a lot of units to crack strongpoints.

              Since I play the AI and not other players, the battle usually comes to me, not me to it. So that means half or more of the targets are in open ground, and I see defensive values all over the place; from Longbowmen through Knights. The AI rarely or never sends Musketmen on offense. So my _experience_ has been that my Musketeers are facing defensive values that are equal or better than their offensive values. And since I rarely attack undamaged units, my Musketmen are generally attacking from tactical superiority and generally win their fight. I would lose probaby twice as many battles with an attack (2) unit, i.e., the Musketman.

              To fight damaged units means I'm using my defensive strongpoints to blunt the assault, and I use Catapults to injure undamaged units. A veteran Musketeer attacking a hit point 3 or worse, defense 3 or worse unit will usually win the battle. Longbowmen and regular horse can be killed by Musketeers on any terrain, swords and spears on rough, and knights I only attack on open ground.

              Most of my Musketeers come from promoted spears, a few I build in my size 2 recruiting towns (barracks only, working only forests or hills for 4-7 shield production per turn).

              When going on the offense, I use Knights to clear open ground and park them on rough with Musketeer sentries. It's slow moving, but with the French I'm not going to take a lot of ground from my neighbors, because if I've done the job right I REXed a lot of open ground in the Ancient Age.

              By the way, a lot of my strategy works because the AI is clueless to using land bombards offensively and using or avoiding forts (ironically in CivII the AI built forts all over the place). I do space and stock forts between my border cities, so I usually get a number of Zone of Control hits on attacking AI units. I also have my Musketeers pre-positioned in forts so it is easy for them to counterattack.

              In summary, it's all well and good to theorize the utility and cost of a unit based on comparable statistics, but the stats argument is misleading without battle tested experience to back it up. Most importantly it's impracticle to evaluate a unit without considering its operating environment. On this measure alone the following units can be considered (and often are treated) as cost non-effective units: Marines, Paratroopers, and Musketeers, but in the proper operating environments these units are cheap for the tactical value they provide.

              Scott

              Comment


              • #52
                Any evaluation that is not based on PTW or C3C is not going to be all that useful now. You must consider all the new units, such as MedInf. You may reach the same conclusions, but you got to use all units.

                Comment

                Working...
                X