Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Two

[Velociryx]

Just back from lunch and have my Civ-Analysis for the Aztecs currently being reviewed for posting in a bit! Slowly but surely, it’s coming together (2 of 16…still a LOOOONG way to go!).

Anyway, some excellent comments!

GaH: Thanks man, and I think you’re right! The classic Despotic Rush is not really strategy at all, and anything that strays too close to that is bound to raise some hackles. Still, the fact that it is so effective can be studied, and I think that many of the concepts and strengths it brings to the table can be adopted without “selling out” or completely crossing over to that “other side.” (“The Dark Side” as eMarkM quite aptly put it!)

Clegg: Interesting observation about workers counting toward your total “military strength.” I noticed something along those lines myself in my last test game, but wasn’t gonna mention it till I had some more time to test that…but, since you’ve had a similar experience, I think it’s a good bet we’re on the right track with that thinking, and in that case, guesstimating at how many workers a rival civ has, you could probably safely launch an attack when you have “an average military” compared to them, based on the thinking that their total military strength also takes workers into account. Very odd thing, that, but hey…I can work with it!

Mark: Nahhh, I knew ya meant well by your post, but no worries! Even though the strats discussed from time to time here might stray off “in that direction,” the whole point of this thread is to find ways to win/improve your game without giving in to the Despotic-Rush demons. I think, as our conversations here continue to unfold, it will come to light that there are a number of ways we can apply many of the essential strengths of that method of playing, but do so in a much more “Purist” way. That is to say, if we can find a way to harness some portion of the power of that approach without going whole hog, we should see ourselves with a stronger game overall, a better chance at some of the more interesting win conditions on Deity level that don’t revolve around simply beating everybody else to a pulp, and the overall approach will be both intense and immersive (not to mention nailbiting!). At least, that’s what my hope is!

RPM: I have noted that my starting position is usually a little less optimal than it is on Regent, but I can’t say I’ve had many truly wretched starts. It does seem that you get less river tiles/bonus food in your area, but that could be just bad luck on my part!

-=Vel=-

[sophist]

Something I've not explicitly read in the talk about militaristic civs is their utility in conjunction with mobile units. Consider: a mobile unit will retreat (if possible) when down to 1 HP. So if you have an elite horseman, it will retreat after 4 hits where a regular horseman retreats after 2 hits. Effectively, the elite is twice as useful as the regular, before even counting the hero business. Just like someone pointed out being industrious is like having twice as many settlers, being militaristic (can) be like having 50% to 100% more army just by virtue of easy promotion. Well, numbers are fudged, but you get the picture.

Or maybe you already got the picture and this is something obvious that everyone already noticed.

[Arrian]

regular/vet/elite

Yeah, that's something that's clearly very important. This is why I nearly ALWAYS build barracks before I build anything I intend to use in a war, so they're vets. I have tried using some "regular" horse units, and man, they suck. 2hits, and run away. Defenders tend to get that free "1st shot" at attackers, so regular attack units suck, unless you have them in overwhelming numbers. But if you're gonna build that many, why not build barracks?

As to the advantage that Militaristic civs get from promotions, I think it's kinda hard to quantify (does the editor, which I've never even looked at, provide any hard numbers on that?). For me, though, the real advantage to more promotions is all about leaders. As I said, I generally avoid "regular" units like the plague, so the only promotion I'm concerned with is vet -> elite. Once I have an elite, his task tends to change to that of a mop-up unit. He fights battles he should definitely win, thus upping his chance of survival and producing a leader. This is one of the reasons why, in a recent (regent) game, I had 11 cavalry still sitting around next to my 50-odd modern armor. They were my elites. If I had fought again (didn't), they would have been used.

Anyway, to make a long post have a point, I think the bonus Militaristic civs get toward leaders (isn't it something like 1/12 chance of popping a leader vs. 1/16 for "normal" civs) is actually twofold. They will have more elites, thus more chances at leaders as well. Hmmm.... ponders the Germans...

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Sophist: Good observations both! It's quite true that an elite unit (especially an elite mobile) is at least twice as powerful as a "regular." I say at least twice as powerful, because, as you say, when you use him in combat (assuming he wins, of course), you also have a chance at leader-spawning. It's also interesting to note that the way the combat engine is designed, rank (regular, vet, elite) is AT LEAST as important as the firepower of a unit (ie - an elite stone aged spear-chucker has a resonably good chance (a damned good chance if fortified in a city) of trouncing an attacking a "regular" Middle Ages Longbowman. Also excellent points re: building cultural improvements ASAP. I would say though, that there's a bit of an opportunity cost involved that needs considering. For example: If, in the time it takes you to build your temple after your first settler (you have two cities, I have three), it's true that you get an edge in early game culture, but...I now have more cities in play. If we keep expanding at that same pace (each new city you found makes one settler and then a temple), and I keep relentlessly expanding first, I'll have about a third again as many cities as you when the landgrab phase is over.

At that point, if I rush in temples everywhere, I can instantly catch you culturally, on the basis of having more cities (each one having less total culture, but chugging it out steadily from that point on).

Arri - Not so pure, eh? Not to worry....me neither! But....the reason I said 5-spaces apart for an absolute Purist because at four tiles, if you go to the city screen, there will be some overlapping tiles that are shared by both (21(?) total workable tiles, and 3 of them will be shared by cities if they're only 4 tiles apart.

That's never caused me to lose any sleep tho....most of the time, I set my cities up with an eye toward what resources I can snag after my first border expansion. Once in a while, if I'm being chased by the $%&$%%^#$ barbarians, I'll settle in anywhere I can to avoid losing my two pop-point guy....in those cases, I'm not picky...I'm just glad he's still alive and kicking!

[inca911]

Ancient Era Wars

I am a firm believer in Ancient Era wars because of the immense power of the Great Leaders that you
obtain and your ability (as a victor) to extort the technological advances you may have delayed due to focus on military
matters. As soon as you have a slight advanctage in military options over a neighbor civ (preferably not a
militaristic one or one with a great defensive unit), warfare in the early age(s) is a fairly predictable exercise
in troop deployment and safety in combined arms and superior numbers. Rushbuilding a few of the
advanced attackers means you pit your archers against the AI fortified warriors before they can react. By
picking towns that lie on unfavorable defensive terrain for your attacks, you will win these early wars.
Generating a Great Leader(s) easily compensates you for the loss of production that you sacrifice to build
your army. Rushbuilding a Barracks in the nearest town to the front allows you to rotate healthy troops in
for injured ones and protects your Elite units. Additionally, when you are ready to negociate a peace
treaty, you will catch up in technological advancements as part of the peace treaty terms when you
demand them from the AI. Cultural reversion is less likely since nobody has much culture to work with
and suppressing the revolt of small population towns is a snap. The AI is indeed much improved in terms
of warfare, but it still does not properly protect it's units and towns. It also simply doesn't appear to have
the capacity to consider population sacrifice for rushbuilding. That is why Rush Building under Despotism
works so well for the human player. Once better defensive units exists, warfare is much more dicey.
Your Science and Production must really be diverted and the tech loss can be steep. There also seem to
be some breakpoints in the overall offensive and defensive units that indicate a good time for war. When
everyone has fortified infantry in large, walled, high-population cities, then warfare becomes a lot more
tricky than when it's warriors v. archers. Artillery opens up a new floodgate of offensive options,
especially when your opps don't have Infantry! In my next game, I play on playing a militaristic civ with
early warfare to use Great Leaders for Wonders. Even as the Chinese, I gained many Great Leaders (I think
4) and got my Forbidden Palace, Newton's, Copernicus', and the Sistine Chapel as a result. The early
Forbidden Palace is an incredible boon to any geographically dipolar civ. In my opinion, Great Leaders are the most
powerful tool in Civ3. Almost too powerful.... Want the Pyramids? Just wage an early war or two.
Protect your elite units and attack weakened defenders. Your Leaders will emerge and that tightly
contested Pyramid race will be over before it even starts. Late game on Monarch/Regent it appears that
the human player nearly corners the Wonder market by starting palaces and switching to Wonders as the
techs become available. I have yet to spy on an enemy civ's city that was using a Palace for shield
storage, and I've paused play, saved, and checked 30+ cities at a time to get a feel for the AI's priorities
and I don't think it can consider the option. Anyway, in many circumstances, early wars give easy
Wonders, new cities, technological equality, and weaker opponents all with little long-term risk. So
sharpen up your Clovis points and go take some cities!

[sophist]

Yes, my initial sluggishness will slow me down vis-a-vis the AIs, but I tend to use an early war to level the playing field a bit. And remember, I was talking in the context of a cultural victory with the single city at 20,000 culture points. It can depend a lot on the map as well.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Also excellent points re: building cultural improvements ASAP. I would say though, that there's a bit of an opportunity cost involved that needs considering. For example: If, in the time it takes you to build your temple after your first settler (you have two cities, I have three), it's true that you get an edge in early game culture, but...I now have more cities in play. If we keep expanding at that same pace (each new city you found makes one settler and then a temple), and I keep relentlessly expanding first, I'll have about a third again as many cities as you when the landgrab phase is over.

At that point, if I rush in temples everywhere, I can instantly catch you culturally, on the basis of having more cities (each one having less total culture, but chugging it out steadily from that point on).

[Velociryx]

Barracks:

Once again, brother Arri brings up an interesting topic for discussion! (gonna have to put you on the payroll bud!)

As I see it, there are two basic approaches to building an army in Civ.

The first, and what I'd probably call the more traditional of the two, is to pick a city with good shield output, build a barracks there, and start makin' troops. Under this methodology, you get a good army built up over the course of time, and they're all veteran units.

The second basic approach is...dispersion(?). I generally DO build a barracks somewhere and crank out a core of veterans, but I firmly believe in supporting them with troops cranked out anyplace I can make them (if I've got some towns that would otherwise be idling waiting for the next improvement to come along, I'll augment my veteran force with scads of regular troops).

When fighting, I'll sacrifice my regulars (or if they're mobile regulars, let them put dents and dings in the defense force I'm tangling with, and then let my sturdy vets come in and finish the job when I feel the force inside whatever town I'm attacking has been weakened to the point that my vets will likely win.

The surviving regular troops don't have to make too many hit and run raids before some will start winning, and be promoted themselves to vets, while the vets quickly rack up enough kills to become elites and maybe spawn me some leaders!

In my last Monarch game, my initial army consisted of two veteran Mounted Warriors, 9 Regular Mounted Warriors, and 9 Swordsmen.

It's true that my regulars would mix it up for a round or two and then haul, but of those nine, none died, and two wound up getting promotions. All four of my vets later went on to become elites, and only one of those got killed (out of position, couldn't cover him with a swordsman, he got aced by a savage Jaguar)

I think that unless you're a militaristic civ tho, those barracks are too expensive to build in more than a couple of cities in the early game, meaning that if you want to get a good sized army quickly, the only viable way to do it is either:

1) Build Barracks in 1-2 cities, but build troops from everywhere and guard your vets jealously

or

2) Build Barracks in 1-2 high food production cities and rush constantly to crank out high numbers of vets (such that you'd wind up with a comparably sized force as you would have in the first option, but with the advantage that they'd all be Vets coming out of the gate.

Other possibilities here??

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

sophist: Quite right! I forgot about the single city culture win, and in that case, you're dead on!

Inca: Good analysis of the benefits of early warfare and the benefits to be gained from it!

Wow...thread's hoppin' today....cool!

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Vel -

Payroll... ooh, you can get paid for spending hours talking about Civ?? Where do I sign up?

A slight misunderstanding I've just figured out. When you say 5 tiles apart, you mean four tiles of space between cities (thus the new city is built on the 5th tile away). By that criteria, yep, I put 'em 5 apart (assuming 4 up and 1 over = 5) just about every time.

About barracks. On Regent, like I said, the only regular troops I built were very, very early on to defend cities. After that, just like you described, a few high-shield cities built barracks and they would churn out the best available units (provided something more important didn't come along... marketplace.. bank... ANYTHING non-military, really). However, on Monarchy, I did build some regulars, because the barracks are pretty damn expensive (ponders Germans some more), and I HATE regulars. My regular mounted warriors ended up doing 0 damage to defending spearmen roughly 1/2 of the time. That seriously slowed me down. I didn't lose the units, but I had to pull them back to heal, and meanwhile, they didn't accomplish their task, which was to weaken (if only by 1 hp) the defender, so that the vets could take them out. Arrg. No more regulars for me.

By the way, why all those swordsmen? I would have built MW's nearly exclusively, with a couple of swordsmen for escort duty. Then again, you appear to be better at this than I am (for now, my ego mutters), so I may well be wrong.

-Arrian

[eMarkM]

Barracks

I generally make them in the best producing cities to crank out military units in case of war. I'll create units in non-barracks if I have to, but I try for at least 1/2 vet, 1/2 regular force.

I try to space them evenly through the empire if I can, since you need barracks for updating units. I'll send out that upgraded pikeman to a city w/ a spearman and send the spearman back to the barracks for upgrade. Send that updated pikemen to the next city and send back that spearmen, etc. Defensive units get upgraded first. I don't want to spend a lot of turns shuffling back and forth, so I keep this in mind when I build barracks. Try to space them so no single-move unit has to take more than 3 turns getting somewhere to get an upgrade. You really expedite upgrades with well spaced barracks.

I'll also generally build barracks in border towns with Civ I'm planning to take down and send wounded units to it for quick healing.

This brings me to the subject of drafting. When is it best? Of course, drafting is a must when you're under siege. I also tend to draft units when I go on the offensive and I mean to take out a good 5-6 cities or the whole civ. I leave drafted units in garrison and send the stronger egulars out to war.

When I capture a city I like to stock it full of cheap draftees just in case they revolt back and I lose them. You don't want to leave elites in captured cities and waste a potential leader in a rebellion.

So I mostly use draftees for defensive purposes. Another use for draftees is putting them in diversionary forces, units you expect to get killed while the real force takes the real objective.

e

[Dyrlac]

Ancient Mobility

Vel,

I was playing on a huge, 16 civ, 80% H2O, Continents (which is all I play anymore), as the French, on warlord. In that situation, paired city/training camps isn't even fair.

Anyway, I pop rushed the barracks in the training camps as soon as I could as the Francois aren't so speedy in generating vets.

The way Civ3 is set up, my absolute purist instincts have waned(note to 5-tile scoffers: if you separate your cities by 5 tiles, you get nice interlocks at the corners of the isometric 4X's, an aesthetic improvement, but wastes 3 squares rather than 2 squares with 4-tile spacing). When I first got the game, I couldn't bear to pop rush anything, couldn't have my poor subjects constantly under the lash, it felt dirty. LOL. Now I'll pop rush any reasonably minimal carnage improvement I can get.

In ordinary non-icky games, I'll go with option 1, and build from everywhere., but only if I have horsies. If I meet close hostiles early enough, I do option 2 (rush build from barracks-cities) and swarm with archers. But never do this against the Greeks, you have to have mobility to fight the Greeks or you will end with a dead army. The Aztec's Jags are less of a threat as they can be killed by 2.1.2 horsies or 2.1.1 arrows.

Oh, and the AI certainly pop rushes when it feels the heat, even on the baby levels, as I've seen pop points go down at the same time a new effing hoplite appears.

Dyr

[Velociryx]

This is almost as good as bein' in a chat room with you guys!

As to the thing 'bout getting paid to talk about Civ all day...ahhh, the joys of working a helpdesk on a slow day!

Battles:
The main reason I don't mind using regulars is this - even if a check of your military advisor reveals approximate pairity ("we have an average military compared to them"), you have two important elements in your favor. First, the element of surprise (you can dictate precisely when you declare war, making sure that your troops are already in position when the declaration is made, giving the AI no time (or at most, a single turn) to prepare/respond).

{Side note - I am sure there are a great many ways to accomplish this, but what I do is move my army toward the target city, and if the Civ-Leader calls me up and asks me to move my troops, I just ignore him and keep on coming. He gets ticked, but so what? LOL...My intention is to kick is tailfeathers anyway! And, when my troops are in position, my declaration of war is made by my army proper, launching an attack on his city.

Second advantage you've got is concentration. Even if you have roughly the same size military, the fact is, you've got the bulk of yours all in one place and his are...well...you have no way of knowing, but they're definitely scattered far and wide.

So...when it comes time to launch the attack, I'll usually lead in with two swordsmen. If they die, no biggie...they're my grunts and garrisons, and I've prolly got more en route anyway.

The swordsmen weaken or kill the spear-chuckers, and if there are any survivors from the first wave...in come the regular MW's. They kill anybody who's left, or weaken them down, and then one gets a couple lucky shots (and usually a promotion to veteran), and marches into the city.

As to the derth of swordsmen, here's my reasoning:
First - I bring my garrisons with me. I know that the AI loves to counter attack, and I don't want my vulnerable MW's to ever fight on the D if I can avoid it. My rule of thumb is 2 swordsmen per city on my hit list for garrison duties, and 3 more for good measure.

The "extra" swordsmen are along for the ride for a couple of reasons. First, they can occupy high ground and watch all ways for approaching enemy troops, allowing me good intel about where and how the enemy is approaching (and what he's got). Generally, one of them parks his butt on a nearby mountain or hill and just watches.

Second, targets of opportunity/covering. Sometimes, my MW's make little raids of opportunity on that lone archer the AI has sneaking up on my position. I'd rather hit him before he can hit me, BUT....doing so would leave my MW vulnerable to counter attack...so, I have a swordsman handy to step onto the tile with him to protect him while he's in the field.

Sometimes, I use my spares to pillage roads to muck up the AI's ability to get to the recently conquered city, especially if I"m about to do a 180 and head in a different direction to the next target town.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

eMarkM -

Conscripts, huh? I've never used 'em. Not once. Maybe I'm an elitist. Heh, at least I think I'm funny, right?

However, I agree with the idea that if you've got some, better to use them to garrison a city which may revolt. Typically, I yank elite units out of such cities asap, but the replacements are usually vets, as I don't have anything else. I also tend not to put more than 2 or 3 units in a newly captured city, as "quelling the resistors" doesn't take all that long, and the best way to keep the city afterward is to rushbuild temple/library/cathedral/university ASAP (along with starving the hell out of it while it's in resistance). That way I don't lose very many units if the city reverts. I tend to station good attack units next to the city for a bit, so that if it does revert, I can nail it right away.

The only time the AI has beaten me at war thus far was an early rush. That was pretty amazing (I was the greeks and I couldn't stop it). Once I'm rolling, I can fend them off. The reason I'm having trouble at Monarch isn't that I'm being defeated in battle, but because I'm behind in tech and wonders.... which I HATE.

-Arrian

[eMarkM]

Wow...thread's hoppin' today....cool!

My head is spinning, like a post a minute. And all quality stuff, too! Ok, except for this one.

Well, time for me to drop off the "chat". Hey, work day is almost over . Let's see, what did I get done today....hmmmm. Time to stop talking about Civ and go home and test some of these strategies.

Later, we'll have to have a thread on how Civ is ruining all of our lives. I've already gotten the "all you do is play video games" lecture from my wife . If she only knew what I did at work all day! My boss for that matter.

e

[Velociryx]

Mark: *outstanding* point! re: barracks and their position in the Empire. I hadn't thought of that....I generally solve that problem by running for Sun Tzu's but you're quite right....if you can't get that one, then serious consideration needs to be given to exactly WHERE those barracks are!

Drafting: I'm not sure on this one yet.....I've never done it myself, but I can definitely see the power of doing so! Will have to play a game and intentionally play with it!

Dyrlac: The French are still one of my favs....GREAT faction, even if their UU is kinna...::searching for a polite word:: yeah....'bout like that.

And I'd be inclined to agree 'bout the pairing thing...sheesh...I utterly decimated the poor, defenseless AI that way....::shiver::

Also, total agreement re: those CURSED GREEKS! Damn them and their Hoplites! GRRR....I'd rather fight the Persians twice before facing those damnable Greeks! At least with the Persians I can pick them to death with mounted troops, but with the Greeks, I have to SWARM them with unbelievable casualties cos they seem to build Hoplites EVERYWHERE (not that I blame them!)

Like you....I started off being gunshy about whipping my poor population but....I think I might be addicted to it or something now...lol

-=Vel=-