No announcement yet.

decision point, late Middle Ages

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • decision point, late Middle Ages

    I am playing the Zulus in a warmonger game, Civ3-PTW 1.21f, Regent level, and I need some advice, opinions and so forth about what to do next. I have just conquered my entire home continent, and it's 1360 AD. I have the most powerful civ in all respects (pop, #of cities, military, land area, resources, etc.) except culture. Now, the only remaining civs (4 of them, Mongols, English, Ottomans, Scandinavians) are on overseas continents. So, I'm at a turning point in the game. -- I can either stop my conquests and build, or continue with the wars..

    Is it worth it to build galleons, 20-30 cannon and associated protective units and 20-30 knights/cav and attack them across the ocean, or should I wait until I get better units (Transports, Tanks, Artillery)?
    Let Them Eat Cake

  • #2
    If there is a resource you need or lux to add to the empire, I would be inclined to go for it as soon as I was ready.
    If you see a civ that has a open space to land some troops and a settler to get a foothold, that would be my choice.

    If you already have the troops and just need the transport, then build them. If you do not have enough troops or transports, I would consider waiting. Using less than modern transports is painful, but you could use them to disband and rush a harbor/barracks/temple.

    If you have just finished a war, build the stuf and let the war weariness dissapate.

    Some times I can time it to go when two or more civs are at war and make and MPP/RoP so I can land safely in their lands and head out. If you have to land on the hostile shores, you can come under a serious couterattack.


    • #3
      Well, I've got all the resources I need, and some extra, and a tech lead. I have approx 20 knights, 30 medieval inf, 3 cannon (just started building these); 4 caravels. My conquest of the home continent was done at the expense of basically ancient-era civ's (only their capital had musketmen). I think my oscillating wars in the ancient era kept them beat down. Now, in 1360AD, all of the land is fully REXed by the AI and myself so that phase is over. I think I will lay low for awhile since my sealift isn't up to par yet. There is this one Mongol island I have my eye on...

      but this brings up a point. How useful are cannon?
      I think they are a big step up from catapults. I understand C3C has a trebuchet or some interim bombardment unit.
      Let Them Eat Cake


      • #4
        Yes it does, but I have not used it and only built a few. I am in favor of using armies to attack cities for the speed and forgo the bombardment. This is because you can not use the rail/roads of others, so moving them is going to slow down the fast movers.

        On an invasion, I will use them on the first cities or two and then use them for defense of any counter attacks. So cannons are actually a bit less than cats for the price and neither has any range. So use them as you can. Lots of people like to march a stack of cannons to each city and I can't fault them, bit it is just not my style. It will make a war last too long to suit me.


        • #5
          Interesting, using Armies to attack cities. I have never had much combat success using armies vs. cities, even using 3 or 4 MA armies. But then I have never used 4 or 5+ armies at a time.

          I am trying to do that this game; Zulus (militaristic) and Heroic Epic; as of 1505 AD, 2 GL's...(is that below average?) 1st went to an army, 2nd rushed the FP. I need a third GL. I have just built the Military Academy so that should help with armies. I'm using the Mongols to get lots of elites, I took 2 of their island-towns for practice. Currently researching NATIONALISM. I got beat out of Adam Smith's by 2 turns. Oh well, I don't care, the Zulu will just capture the cities they need !!
          I don't often play warmonger but there's something neat about using brute force every now and then.
          Let Them Eat Cake


          • #6
            I am not sure there is an avg for MGL, but if I do a far amount of fighting, I expect to get at least 4, if the game goes as far the ending of the industrial age.

            In C3C, you do not have a lot of uses for the MGL, it is easy to make armies with them. I would not make an FP in C3C until I am way past OCN. This is becquse the FP is not all tht great now and I can wait.


            • #7
              Whoops hit the wrong key.

              Anyway I was about to say that I like to make at least three armies and build the Pentagon.

              When to use an army against a city is the important thing to me.
              If I get a real early army, I will use almost any three units.
              I mean 3 swords will roll over spears and such.
              Later, I will use horses or better yet ancient calvs. These are used against other ancient units and maybe a musket in a town.

              Once they get musket I need knight armies. Calv with 4 units can beat rifles, but is not a given. After rifles, it needs tanks or pounding before attack.

              But I want to use armies against ancient units for the most part, after that I will wait for tanks. This is just a general rule and often you have to adapt.


              • #8
                My experience is that a full health three cavalry army will take out a vet infantryman defending a metro something like seven/eight times out of ten, and will withdraw an eighth/ninth time.

                But the army will die a bit more often than one time in ten.

                I have kept no record so that is doing the best my memory can.

                The line to take is to use one or two single cavalrymen to weaken that first infantryman before you attack with the army. Mostly the single cav will withdraw before dying (because they are only going to take the infantryman down one or two health bars) but not all do. So you will lose some.

                In a capital there may be as many as three vet infantrymen before you get through to lesser units.


                • #9
                  Originally posted by vmxa1
                  for the MGL, it is easy to make armies with them. I would not make an FP in C3C until I am way past OCN. This is becquse the FP is not all tht great now and I can wait.
                  GL is great leader, but what is "MGL"?

                  FP is Forbid. Pal. , but what is OCN?
                  Let Them Eat Cake


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mace
                    GL is great leader, but what is "MGL"?
                    FP is Forbid. Pal. , but what is OCN?
                    Mace, since C3C there are now 2 types of Great Leaders and thus the need for specificity. The Military Great Leader (MGL) and the Scientific Great Leader (SGL).

                    OCN (I believe) is Optimal City Number. It's the maximum number of cities (based on map size) that one may make before massive corruption or some other very negative factor kicks-in. I'm not real clear on this issue myself.
                    "...Every Right implies a certain Responsibility; Every Opportunity, an Obligation; Every Possession, a Duty." --J.D. Rockerfeller, Jr.


                    • #11
                      If you are sending lone calvs against an infantry in a metro, you will not be an odds on favorite to do any damage at all, let alone 2 HP's. Yes, it could happen, but not frequently.

                      An 3 calv army attacks, it could win as you say, but it may well not. This is not a winning strategy for anyone that is playing a no reload game with RNG preserved.

                      Attacking metros with out tanks/MA is going to be very expensive, unless you have brought along lots of artillery.


                      • #12
                        Ok I used the combat calc from CFC.
                        With a fast moving unit of attack 6 and a vet attacking a fortified infantry in a metro, with no bombard defense or hills or river.

                        You get a 2.07% chance of the calv winning, 61.xx% it loses, 36.3 draw. enough said about atacking with calv any inf in a metro. It just is not profitable.


                        • #13
                          Of course the cav does not win. But it reduces the health of the defender. And you have a number of cav units stacked with your army. Once the infantry is down to two bars of health and the three cav army then attacks it will usually manage to kill the damaged infantry.

                          In cases where there is only one good defender, taking out the infantry unit tends to mean the fall of the city in that turn.

                          In my current game I have just finished a campaign where I consolidated my hold on a large continent with a war against three civs two of which had got as far as having infantry. Against the weaker civ's riflemen my cavalry and three cav army steamrollered through with very few cav losses and the army never going into the red.

                          Against the others I found that for peripheral cities I needed an attacking force of about six cav units and a three cav army. Losses would be one or two dead cav. A good exchange for a city.

                          Against the capital I needed a lot more, 3 three cav armies and a dozen cav units. And two of the armies and quite a number of cav units died.

                          Plainly you want some strategic return for losses on that scale. In my case I got two additional luxuries and consolidated my dominance of my home continent. I also paved the way for a period which I will try to keep peaceful and a government switch to democracy (and a reduction in my standing army). An excellent return.

                          I made a mistake, I think, in that I could have added a fourth cav unit to the armies. Maybe one or both of the lost armies would have survived had I done so. In the past I have kept the fourth slot free, once available, to add a tank and thereby to try to extend the useful life of the army. But hindsight has made me realise that was not really apropriate in circumstances where my attack was not going to keep rolling and where the risk of losing armies was as high as it was here.

                          But I certainly do not regret tackling the infantry defended cities. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.


                          • #14


                            That last post is inaccurate. And may be misleading. In my current game I am playing the Russians. So for cav and three cav army read cossacks and three cossack army.

                            I can't remember what stat is improved for cossacks but if, as seems likely, its offence is better then that may make a critical difference.


                            • #15
                              No difference between them. Antidotes are fun, but have no real meaning. The combat calc shows a 14% chance to reduce 2 HP from an infantry unit under those conditions.
                              So have I seen the AI attack my inf with a calv and do 2 HP's or kill it? Yes I have, will happen routinely, no it does not.

                              I would surely stick that 4th unit into the army and not wait for tanks, if I was at war already. I doubt the tank will make a huge difference much later, as compared to the extra unit now. The game may be over by the time I get to tanks.

                              Would I toss lots of units at a metro to grab two luxs, yes I would and accept the loses. At Emp/Demi two luxs are worth nearly anything I have to spend.