Civ choice for early warmongering

[rpodos]

Now introduce starting positions!!

So, Egypt or Japan for the earliest fastmovers...

I, like many, Ctrl-Shift-Q several times to get a good starting position.

How do you like... on a river, two cattle, and a horse directly adjacent? As Japan?

Random map, so China and India nearby. I feel badly for them.

R

[DrSpike]

I prefer random maps; I know lots like Earth maps but IMO earth maps take away a lot of what is fun about the game. I'm indifferent about the cultural link. I also think it is good to experience lots of different settings. I really enjoyed some of the tourney games I played because they used settings I hadn't played much with and provided new strategic tests.

I like the Egyptians, as should be obvious by now. However, below deity it is more a matter of taste, since you have more flexibility. Playing to the strengths of whatever civ you choose is IMO always what is important.

[DrFell]

Nice to see there are a lot more Egypt fans out there.

[Arrian]

DrFell,

Egypt has become, overall, my favorite civ to play. I hardly ever use them for early warmongering, though. To me, they're a builder civ, and I've had a lot of success with them. I play on Monarch, and the importance of that cheap war chariot isn't nearly the same as on Diety. I usually build up peacefully and wait for Greece or Rome to do something stupid.

rpodos,

Yeah, Japan is a great warmongering civ - unless, of course, you can't find any horses.

Your start sounds nice, but I've had many such spots, only to find out that the surrounding land is terrible. Good luck.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Arrian, you've described yourself as a Monarch builder, which is how I try to play... once I've fought my way to a decent size, and if the AI leaves me alone. I'm curious as to why, when playing Egypt, you avoid using the War Chariot, and bide your time.

I am now playing a game as Egypt where I have been successfully at war until 1500; more to the point, my immediate neighbors were the Greeks, and the chariots had to overcome the hoplites. In my experience, it almost doesn't matter what civ you have, if you're determined to expand.

If you agree with this last statement, then why wouldn't you be as aggressive early on with the Egyptians as you might be with, for example, the Japanese or Aztecs? In other words, why wait significantly to expand?

[hitchikingalaxy]

Imortals lots and lots of imortals.

if you want to crush early, who cares about the legions, give me the power of persia!

industry and a uu that will last you up until the industrial age.

as long as you NEVER defend with the imortal, you can crush knights, samurai, those pathetic chariots, and legionaries. hoplites die quickly as well. the whole time i am expanding at a rapid rate and just plain rampaging and kicking ass, i smile smuggly knowing that i will be able to rule once i hit the industrial age first. :

persia is just plain awesome if you want to warmonger early!

[notyoueither]

MP will be interesting. Should settle this Immortal vs Legion debate.

Somehow, I don't think either the Persian or Roman will be too happy. 4 to 3, 3 to 2... sounds like chopped liver(s) either way.

Salve

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Arrian
Iroquois: Neighbors Aztecs & Americans. Aztecs are dangerous - but the AI doesn't realize it, giving you time to start building the best UU in the game. The Americans may expand well, but they have nothing that can deal with the Mounted Warrior. You expansionist trait can be used to locate your prey. A+

Alas, it does. I started my second "warmonger style" game, after a great game with the Zulus. I'm the Iroquois (Monarch, standard, continents), and have Aztecs and Egypts as neighbors, and the Germans and Romans as other civs at my continent. All are polite, except Bismarck (cautious). It's about 1800BC, and I just bought Horseback Riding from the Germans; I have science at 0% and only 1 scientist in a jungle city. I have 5 cities, 3 of which are crappy (jungle and not yet irrigated plains). They are defended only by Warriors, I just built barracks in 2 cities and my first 2 vet MW's. Planned to rush Egypts first and Aztecs second.

Suddenly I see about a dozen Jags approaching my best productive city. Although I knew what would come, I asked them to go away. Of course, Monte declared war. I killed 1 Jag with a MW (who got wounded), triggered my GA (too early!), and got the 2nd MW in the city. Next turn, Cleo and Caesar allied up with Monte, and I see the first 3 or 4 War Chariots approaching from South. I can rush another 2 MW's, but I doubt that will save me. I had to stop the game (it was 2am already) and will continue this evening, but if either I lose my 2 productive cities or the Romans come with legionaries, I will be toast and this will be my 5th loss.

Thanks Monte, for the early rush!

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Txurce
I am now playing a game as Egypt where I have been successfully at war until 1500; more to the point, my immediate neighbors were the Greeks, and the chariots had to overcome the hoplites. In my experience, it almost doesn't matter what civ you have, if you're determined to expand.

I agree. In my experience, the Egypts are an awesome civ for both builders and warmongers. For builders, because they combine 2 of the best (cultural+improving) traits, for warmongers, because they have an early, cheap and powerful UU. If attacking early with War Chariots, even Greece has no chance, because their Hoplites usually aren't vets and 2 regular hoplites can be taken out by 3 or 4 vet chariots, 1 or 2 of which hopefully retreat after losing. Same (in a less amount) with Romans, because they have to research 2 techs for their powerful UU, while you have only 1.

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph, do you play out a game regardless of starting position? I play out maybe 80% of mine, because of the challenge and variety; the exception is usually when I'm surrounded by jungle. My mantra is that no moment is more important or dangerous than the start of the game, and your current experience seems to prove it. You have mostly crappy cities, and your opponents probably do not. That is a huge disadvantage at this point, and it is doing you in. This is a case where having one of the first UU's (Aztec, Zulu, maybe Babylon and Egypt) may have made the difference, as they could have been pumped out in sufficient numbers to possibly prevent your being overrun. Those civs give you some immediate options when adverse circumstances have limited the rest.

Speaking more generally, I think that the Aztecs - while clearly capable of rushing! - do so in the uniform "moderate" AI way. They don't dedicate themselves to it the way human players do. And the JW is too weak an individual unit to succeed in the long run unless one takes full advantage of its cheap price. From this perspective, the AI is likely to do better with the Immortal, for example, or its favorite early soldier, the swordsman.

Back to your game: if I were in your shoes, I'd probably stage a tactical retreat to marshal and augment my forces. The problem is that you can only kill so many JWs in one turn. Good luck.

[Arrian]

Ok, well, occasionally the Aztecs do decide to pick a fight. Ouch. Sounded like a terrible staring spot anyway, though.

I have been trying (a couple of times last night) warmongering with Egypt. With a twist, however:

I refuse (for now) to waste my golden age in ancient despotism. Accordingly, I build up a large force of horsemen instead of war chariots (either by building the horsies straight up or building WC's and upgrading them for 20 gold). I use this force to attack.

The wars have been successful. I have wasted whomever I've hit. The big problem, though, is unit promotion. Lack thereof, actually. In two games, I essentially destroyed 4 civs, and gained a total of roughly 8 promotions to elite. No leaders.

The strategy requires at least one leader (forbidden palace). Expanding is only really useful if the cities you capture are productive. Sure, gaining territory and resources is good, but the real power of the early war is in doubling your productivity very early on. As the Japanese, this wasn't an issue for me. I gained 3 leaders while destroying 2 civs. *sigh* Last night was frustrating as hell.

I am convinced that the theory is sound. I may, however, mix in some swordsmen. I lost a couple of elite horsemen last night while trying to defeat the last defending spearman in an enemy city. I like the idea of using swordsmen as "finishers." Even though I still think mounted troops are far superior, there may be a place for the footslogger in my army.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Oh, my starting spot was great, my capital has cows and a river. That was the reason why I continued playing. The 2nd city site is also quite good. But to the north (Aztecs) I have a huge jungle and to the south (Egypts) I have hills, plains and desert mangled. Not optimal. Aztecs and Egypts they have so-so terrain.

I think my problem in this game is, that both the Aztecs and the Egypts have UU's, that are both early and cheap. The had a lot of time to stockpile them, while I had to struggle to horseback riding. I suppose, both decided to pick a war for a GA. I am not prepared yet.

Oh well, it's not the first loss, and not the last one. I think I won't return to the game. It was my first try for the Iroquois though. They are good for warmongering, and I think I'll start another game this evening .

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Arrian
As the Japanese, this wasn't an issue for me. I gained 3 leaders while destroying 2 civs. *sigh*

In my Zulu game, while finishing the Persians (with Impi at their iron ), I also made 3 Leaders. An army (2 Horsies+1 Impi, a great mix), the Great Library and the Sistine. Seems, militaristic makes a huge difference, at least more than 16:12

Last night was frustrating as hell.

Yours too?

[Brinoch]

Like you Arrian, I've had trouble getting both leaders and promotions as Egypt (any non-militaristic civ, for that matter). For early warmongering, I've kind of fallen in love with Persia. Those immortals are wonderful units. But, I just don't generate the elite units in any kind of regular fashion -- even starting off with veterans. I have, however, seen the computer get GL's regularly!

Has anyone else experienced this?

When playing Germany or the Iroquois, this has not been an issue. I get upgrades all the time.

It can be frustrating.

[DrSpike]

No matter what level you play on with a builder focus you want 15-20 cities Unless you are lucky this probably implies some early conquering to get those cities up asap (no point in hanging around ). IMO opinion the only difference by difficulty level is the optimal timing of the rush.