Some miscelaneous thoughts on the game

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Blitzer
Hopalites and Legionares aren't exactly wonderful matchups either, especially in the early game where you may well be fighting around hills or jungle.

I have not found any civ (yet) to be an impediment to Legions. They rule. They go where they want, they attack, they defend. They rule. Yes, having played the ancient era many times as Rome, I have faced Hoplites every time (just about), no problem. The silly Greeks die (sorry Markos).

The thing I haven't seen is the Iroquios or Persians next to Rome in the Ancient age. So... we'll see.

Salve

[notyoueither]

*Zulus? Aztecs? Ptuueee.*

A direct quote from Gaius Conquerous

Salve

[Aeson]

Legionaries have the same problems that all of the Swordsmen line suffer from. They move slow, they can't retreat from battle, and they can't be upgraded. They are still effective in the Ancient era though, especially with bombardment support. With the developement of Chivalry though, Swordsmen become second rate, while Horsemen become Knights.

As far as the Persians starting next to Rome, I've seen it happen 3 times for the AI. All 3 times the Persians came out on top very early on. Usually the AI doesn't go to war so early, maybe they just hate each other, or they can't stop arguing about whether 4.2.1 is better than 3.3.1. Of course there are a lot more factors involved than just UU's, but interesting to note nonetheless. The current Apolyton tournament game is one where they do start next to each other.

As far as the Aztecs and Zulu's are concerned, just remember its hard to build Legionaries when cheap, early two movement troops are running around your empire tearing up iron supply roads. Impies are especially good at this, as they can park on a hill or mountain with iron, and deny the only resource that can make them vulnerable. Jag Warriors need to rely more on hit and run tactics, but with how cheap they are, and how early they come, they are still very effective.

[Arrian]

Romans v. Iroquois? I don't know about an AI vs. AI matchup (the only one of this nature I've seen was looked like a bloody stalemate... until I jumped in and crushed the Iroquois), but I don't fear Legionaries. First off, AI Roman civs have always been weak and horribly lacking in culture in the games I've played. Second, I fear no 1-move unit once I have built my military (generally this means the late ancient/early middle ages... if I get attacked in the ancient era I'm usually toast). If I had the advantage of Mounted Warriors, Legionaries would be no more than a nuisance. Let him come to you with a big stack of 'em, and once they're next to a city of yours, hit the stack with all the MW's you can muster. Bloodbath. If Caesar showed up with a horde of horsemen I'd be worried.

Obviously, a human Roman opponent, who would bring catapults and horsemen along with the Legionaries, could be truely scary.

-Arrian

[Dry]

I disagree with people saying that cavalry becomes obsolete with Infantry.

First, let me say I play on monarch level.

Second, my strategy consist of taking cities in one go. The idea is that if you have to send an army against a city and if you need to camp one turn in the ennemy teritory before you can attack, you need to overpower your task force, not only 'to be sure to take the city', but because it gives also time to the ennemy to react. This means some of your units are uselessly 'not available' for one turn. OTOH, if you can attack the city in one turn, coming from your territory, you can send the exact number of needed units. Those units are more efficiently used.

I would estimate that you need 8-12 vet cavalry to take a standard 12-size city defended by 2 infantry (1vet+ 1reg) and 1 canon/artillery. Usually 8 are enough, but 12 is for sure. If I have to camp in the hills before I take the city, I will stack something like 20 cavalry, because the reinforcement (draft?) in that city is unknown.
I noticed that by being fast, you will find most cities weakly (2 units) defended.

When I face only riflemen, I take 3-4 cities per turn (my best score is 20 cities in 4 turns), when time comes to face infatry, it drops to 2 cities per turn. So what?

Tanks, OK, they are better units, but they are to slow and so you will face better defense.
I have roughly estimate that in wars I loose as many units if I choose tanks over cavalry.
The difference?
Cavalry are cheeper to (re-)build, you only need a few more; but most of all, war is shorter with cavalry, my e-citizens like that.

Now to be really honest, I usually have a mixture of both, because
- some ennemy cities are close enough to be taken in 1 turn by tanks
- some cities are too far to be taken in 1 turn even by cavalry, so tanks are OK.
But there are always a some cities that need to be taken by my elite cavalry (I almost never upgrade an elite mobile units: leader !!!);
So Tanks help, but they are not a NEED for me. Their absence is certainly not a reason to make a pause in my conquests.

[DilithiumDad]

In cavalry matchup against infantry in a city (size 7 or up), I have never seen the valary take off more than one hit point. Three times out of four, the unit retreats without effect on the defender. With one hit point left, the infantry is at its most dangerous because your cavalry will not retreat and you will lose it 7/8 of the time. So I think 40 cavalry and 2 infantry and 2 cannon would be about right. I would swap some of the cavalry for cannon, because they have better odds of taking off a hit point.

[Blitzer]

In cavalry matchup against infantry in a city (size 7 or up), I have never seen the valary take off more than one hit point. Three times out of four, the unit retreats without effect on the defender. With one hit point left, the infantry is at its most dangerous because your cavalry will not retreat and you will lose it 7/8 of the time. So I think 40 cavalry and 2 infantry and 2 cannon would be about right. I would swap some of the cavalry for cannon, because they have better odds of taking off a hit point.

Excellent point. I especially like when you bombard a conscript rifleman to 1hp and then attack only to see your cavalry die. To add insult to injury the conscript is promoted. Next Cavalry does one damage, then loses 5 straight rolls and dies. rifleman promoted to veteran, repeat.

I just completed a domination victory in the 1700's, playing as the Babylonians. I started on an island by myself, and it was a nice size. I colonized it and snagged the pyramids and the lighthouse. I made contact to the south with another island of similar size populated by the aztecs and the Iriquois.

I missed out on all the good middle age wonders as the 5 civs on the main continent were already in the middle ages before we had discovered literacy '. I did manage to be the one to discover it, however and through careful trading of communications and maps was able to bring myself up to speed. Unfortunately my infrastructure was solely lacking (only had temples), so I decided to ignore wonders except for the lighthouse, and spent my time building knights in a few minor cities and improvements in the rest.

I I allied with the Iriquois against the aztecs and crushed them with knights. The iriquois were next with cavalry... got a GL off their last city for my FP in the middle of the second large island. With two large islands with palaces in the center I was in good shape.

The tech leader in the game were the Persians. They and the Zulus were in the best position. The Germans were wiped out, and the English were in a subordinate position with a spread out empire. The Russians were the closest, and were lagging in tech (no cavalry), so they were the target. I built riflemen until getting Replacable Parts, and quickly rushed 10 artillery and upgraded 20 riflemen into infantry. I landed these 30 units (plus a few scrap cavalry) in Russia, and went to war. The Persians were already at was with Russia, but I managed to grab a nice foothold anyway. By this time I was firmly in the tech lead (Theory of Evolution and collosus/observatory/Newton in one city), and reached tanks a full 3 techs before Persia. The Zulus provided the flanking attack while I went after Persia. The English came in on Persia's side, and a 100 year world war ensued. Persia never did get tanks, as the Zulus and myself controled the world's Oil reserves, and I was very helpful to Zululand with gifts of tech up to Motorized Transportation and some rubber.

A quick stab of Zululand after Persia and England fell, and I achieved Domination... I doubt if I had waited for tanks or built more cavlary that I would had been able to achieve domination, as Persia was in the tech lead prior to my invasion of the mainland, and would surely have defeated Russa and become huge had I not come across with infantry and artillery.

[Dry]

Originally posted by DilithiumDad
In cavalry matchup against infantry in a city (size 7 or up), I have never seen the valary take off more than one hit point.

On my computer the typical results are following:
- against vet inf, cavalry either don't hit (80%) or makes 2-3 hits (20%). Very, very rarely they do only 1 hit.
- against reg inf, yes, they sometimes (30%) do only 1 hit, but as soon as the reg inf is promoted, you fall in the vet-inf case.

I think this is due to the random that is not completly random. Once you are on a winning track, you may win 2-3 times in a row.

BTW: I have noticed better results when I use vet cavalry against full health opponents and elite against wounded, maybe this could be a reason...

[vmxa1]

I have played at Diety, Warlord, Chief, and now Monarch and have not had much sucess with Calv attacking cities with infantry. In fact I do not do it. I would use tanks and some form of bombardment, unless the city only had one unit to defend it. As was mentioned, I would fear the 1 hp unit having my Calv stay and fight to the death. I do not like to attack pop 12 cities until I have bombed the defenders down to 1 or 2 HP. Better yet if the size was dropped below 12. If you do not want to lose Calv, you surelyt do not want to lose tanks. A 12 defender with bonuses is a load to kill, too much for horses.

[Arrian]

Cav vs. Infantry is a bloodbath, but it can be done. I've done it, either on Warlord or Regent. I was fighting Persia, I forget who I was, prolly the Babs. I needed oil. And so I build a large stack of Cavalry, with infantry and artillery (lots) support and went off to war. It was ugly, but slowly, EVER SO SLOWLY, I was winning... and I got my oil. But, IIRC, they got Tanks right around the time I took the oil city, and that area turned into a psuedo-Kursk, a Tank junkyard. The city, and oil, changed hands 3 or 4 times in that many turns. I don't recall how that ended... or if I even finished it.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

I find Calvary very useful once Infantry are available to the AI, but not in attacking Infantry. Usually the AI will still have cities defended by outdated units, and those can still be taken by Calvary. Also, once Tanks are available, I use my Calvary as support units, so my Tanks dont have to worry about fighting anything other than Infantry or the occasional Tank on a good defensive square. All other battles are fought with the Calvary.

[vmxa1]

I did not mean to imply that calv are of no value at that stage, they are. I have many uses for them. They are great at finishing off the unit that was bombarded to 1 hp or recapture of workers or to hold a new city until I can get infantry in. I use them to cover tanks that won a battle but are down to 1 or 2 HP so a wandering unit can not try to finish it off. I hate it when an archer comes by and manages to kill a tank that was down to 1 HP. If I can put a calv with it, the archer is going to die or not even attack 95 out of 100 times.

[Ironikinit]

It's nice if you can skip a war in one of the ages. If you do a lot of expansion in the ancient, maybe you can skip knights and cav altogether and have a war once tanks come around. A lot depends on the civ you take. If you're the Germans, you really don't want to build a lot of cavalry if you already got your basic empire. Japan, on the other hand, you want to have a war with your samurai and they can all be upgraded to cavalry. A good Iroquios strategy would be to bypass chivalry and sprint for military tradition. In that case, a Sun Tzu/Leonardo's combo is great. It's tops to capture Leonardo's just before a big horseman to cav upgrade.

The Russians would want to do the same thing as the Japanese.

I should note that I haven't played the Iroquios yet. All in time.

[Arathorn]

Well, I must say I respectfully disagree with the cavalry are worthless against infantry (on higher levels) assessment.

I just persecuted my second successful cavalry-based offensive in Civ3 on the deity level, in the same game. Yeah, it was a fair bit of a bloodbath, but it was quite successful.

With non-superior offensive forces (cavalry vs. infantry, horsemen vs. pikemen/musketmen, knights vs. riflemen), you really need to use combined arms. Shrink the city size, remove those walls, etc. Defend your offensive stack.

I guess if the idea is that a cavalry-only offensive against infantry is suicide, I guess I can agree with that. But the whole idea of tactics is to maximize your strengths. I've found that with semi-comparable military (i.e. not too inferior, no swordsmen vs. infantry battles), it's pretty easy to beat the AI with just tactics.

YMMV, of course,
Arathorn

[Blitzer]

I guess if the idea is that a cavalry-only offensive against infantry is suicide, I guess I can agree with that. But the whole idea of tactics is to maximize your strengths. I've found that with semi-comparable military (i.e. not too inferior, no swordsmen vs. infantry battles), it's pretty easy to beat the AI with just tactics.

I've refined my industrial era tactics somewhat, and I do use cavalry to some extent, but I don't build any new ones that is for sure... I would stand by my assesment that once infantry are available, you may as well build those, as they are upgradable and have the same attack rating and much higher defense. Cavalry can be useful, but infantry are the backbone of my pre-armor assaults