Civ choice for early warmongering

[Arrian]

Immortals do awful things to spearmen. That I know. I only really played Persia once, and I achieved my first Monarch victory with them. I crushed Babylon, taking three cities before losing a HIT POINT. So yeah, they are poweful. But oh, so secular. I've gotten seriously spoiled by religious civs.

This discussion of the Immortal reminds me of something I thought of when pondering why my Egyptian horseman rush wasn't working the way I wanted it to:

Immortals are a 1 move unit. Thus, it takes you longer to destroy civs. They have more time to build units to oppose you. More battles for you to fight, in other words. That, plus the fact that you will rarely lose (on offense, at least) may make all the difference. I may be winning too... easily. Wiping out a civ with 15 horsemen doesn't take very long. The AI has 2 defenders & one attacker per city. The first empire I hit usually has 5-10 cities, the second has 10-15. That's just not that many battles.

Thanks for the food for thought, rpodos.

-Arrian

[rpodos]

Yeah, I hadn't even thought of that, but I am fighting a LOT more battles. I'm culturally linked, so I've got dozens of Impis running around... errr, rather, they were running around for a while, and it was kinda annoying, so I KILLED THEM ALL....

I luckily got Russia as a neigbor too. This goes to my point in one of my earlier posts... I WANT aggressive civs nearby. I want them to be militaristic. I just want to know that I win on relative strength, and nothing pre-Feudalism (Riders) comes close to the Immortals.

BTW, shouldn't the charateristics of Hoplites be a little different? There was this place called Thermopylae...

R

[rpodos]

Not being religious does suck for Persia though. Although not as badly as pre-patch. Skip monarchy, and you lose maybe 5-6 turns for republic.

It doesn't feel so bad, because at this point you've sufficiently built your forces, and are busy conducting one or two wars. Post-revolution maybe a couple replacements, and then start the builder strategy.

As to the building discounts, it just changes the order a little bit. Still have to build temples first for happiness (and poprush a library here or there post-republic to prevent flips). Next a library and marketplace instead of cathedral. Then colosseum. Then it's either cathedral or university, but you have so much money at this point the discounts are irrelevant.

Whereas I would later switch to democracy if religious, I'm just staying in republic. I'm doing so well that the slight increase in corruption barely matters. I'm committed to ongoing wars, so I've got a benefit in terms of warweariness. The increased worker production from being industrious makes up for the worker rate under democracy.

DrSpike:

Yeah, my initial thinking on UUs was that they had to be on the two longer upgrade tracks. But these bad boys maintain there value for a looong times, starting with ironworking and lasting until at least until infantry and tanks. Even then, assuming I keep popping GLs, especially during the quiet period after the medieval GWs, I'll pack'em in 4-unit armies... figure 2 Immortals and 2 Pikemen, or 3 to 1... that will create all Armies at 4-3-1 with 18-20 hit points!!

R

[DrSpike]

By the time they get riflemen though they have city defence bonuses. A 1-move 4 attack unit is beginning to look a little jaded in those circumstances. Still in this thread we're talking about some early conquering. If (even in 1.17f at the higher levels) you can conquer enough before the AI gets riflemen then go for it.

[rpodos]

Even after early war, those Immortal / Pikeman armies will be useful out in the open for a long time. Also good for pillaging cover. Put one in a mountain fortress too, and it's going to be pretty useful.

R

[Txurce]

Arrian, arguments in favor of the Bowman include that it has as much punch as any first-generation unit, is pretty cheap, and doesn't die very easily. The latter may be roughly equivalent to the survival rate of a WC with its 1 defense and retreat capability. That said, I would rather have the WC's movement bonus, which likely benefits even more from a better road system.

In choosing between Egypt and Babylon as a warmonger-turned-builder, though, I lean slightly toward the free techs and cheap science builds of the Babs over the higher productivity of the Egyptians.

[Txurce]

Rpodos, you've tempted me. I've never played with the Persians, but they're next. I am currently playing with the Americans, whom I took to try Aeson's rapid expansion approach, only to find myself on an island with the Aztecs. I'm having to catch up the old-fashioned way.

[hitchikingalaxy]

trust me the imortals rule!!!
i crush everyone who opposes me as soon as i get about 4 or 5 imortals. nothing, and i mean nothing, can stand up to the power of persia before the middle ages. i even crush those pesky musketmen with them. i use immortals instead of knights. they have same attack and they build faster .

artexerxes forever.
fear persia!

[Aeson]

Persia is very powerful. They do best on smaller maps though, and lower difficulty levels. The lack of an upgrade path for Immortals really hurts when the AI is getting into the Middle Ages by 1000BC on Deity. On a Huge map it's even worse, because of slow movement the Immortals have trouble reaching their targets before they are obsolete.


Txurce -

Sorry if I led you astray. The Americans don't offer any advantages on small landmasses. I was just so suprised to find an area where they actually preformed well that I had to post it.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Aeson
Persia is very powerful. They do best on smaller maps though, and lower difficulty levels. The lack of an upgrade path for Immortals really hurts when the AI is getting into the Middle Ages by 1000BC on Deity.

Agreed. As I posted before for higher levels swordsmen are obselete too fast, and one move attackers are too slow, even on standard maps IMO. The retreat factor is relevant, but also the speed of conquering.

On Monarch I'd have no problem with the Persians. On deity they can still work, but their problems are just one more thing that can go wrong.........

[Arrian]

I was thinking more about getting leaders as Egypt, and clearly it would be easier on a larger map. I usually play normal maps, because large maps take so much longer to play, and huge maps give my computer fits. But a large map Egypt game, with the industrious advantage for expansion, and a whole lot more fighting to do, may be the best way to go if I want to pull off the early conquest/plant forbidden/settle down game.

I'll see if it helps. There is definitely a different flow to the game on a large map as opposed to a normal. I've only played 1 huge map game - Marla's map, and couldn't finish it due to computer lage time. I've never played tiny or small. Heh, Tiny, Pangea, Persia. Get iron, and the world is yours. Kinda silly, actually.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Reconsidering the Aztecs.

Aeson, your game as the Americans seemed worth emulating, if only because I'd never tried anything remotely like that. I would never have chosen the Americans for a small land mass, but you don't know where you are when you start, do you?

I can restart, of course, but I like the surprise and challenge of varied starting positions on Monarch. This led me to reconsider which civ may be best for the reformed-warmonger approach, given an unknown starting position. Initial warring ability is key, as well as some longterm building/research edge... but so is flexibility. That miserable peninsula map you posted is a good example of a starting spot, for example, where using some sort of ICS strategy at first makes more sense than traditional building followed by war.

As you point out, having a scout helps with any ICS strategy, but expansionist civs aren't very balanced (mainly because the expansionist trait is often not very helpful). This led me to reconsider the Aztecs as a top all-around civ for the sort of approach that is being discussed in this thread. The JW is very effective in the early game, which is when this strategy calls for war. That the Aztecs are militaristic helps even more with the possible generation of GL's. Longterm, the religious trait has its cultural and anarchy-suppressing benefits, and is key for the approach in question. But you could also say that the JW's movement rate makes it the equivalent of an "unlucky scout" - the same abilities, just one that doesn't find the best huts.

This combination seems to be very balanced and flexible. The only drawback obvious to me is the short lifespan of the UU. But in all likelihood, you will encounter other civs early enough to benefit militarily; if you don't, you can settle for using the JW as a tough scout. If your goal is to get a jump on the AI early on, when you are at your weakest, and build the core of a dynamic longterm civ, then the Aztecs may be worth taking seriously.

[rpodos]

I think the JW does not offer enough benefit early, nor would I want to trigger a GA so early. Also, if you reserve using JWs to trigger a GA at a more optimum point, they have little to no value, except as saboteurs.

Also, I've decided militaristic is not necessary... as long as you go to war enough!!

See my next post.

R

[rpodos]

So, although I love the Immortals, they are actually a little to strong on Monarch. The game I've been playing got ridiculous... I finally went after the Babs territory, and they showed up with a knife at a gunfight: 30 or so Spearmen and Bowmen versus 20 Knights and Immortals. Sheesh... I actually felt pity looking at their stacks. One thing I'll do is play Persia at higher levels, and see how they work.

But, as has been stated, I prefer religious. Thinking of some of Arrian's points, I decided to play Egypt again. Here was my thinking on setting up:
Monarch - I just find the play more enjoyable.
Huge, with 10 civs - I need to give time for other civs to build large standing armies, and max the benefit from industrious.
Rampaging - Training tools.
Far left Pangaea - Why not.
Culturally linked - I think Rome and Greece are tough customers in an early warfare scenario.

My intention was to refrain from using the WCs to optimize the GA, unless I got in trouble.

I found a decent start position, and off we go. I ended up with Japan as a neighbor as well.

Strategically, the question is as follows then... when are you at maximum relative strength, assuming no WCs until the era of Horsemen (and appr. 8-10 productive cities).

Especially considering Rome. I figured that I had to fundamentally take them out, if not altogether, before they got Iron Working.

Relative strength comes from:
- Unit or UU characteristics
- Number of units
- Use of terrain and other tactics

I knew that Bronze Working, The Wheel, and Warrior Code would shortly be known to all four of us.

The Greeks were in jungle, so no worries. Japs on open terrain, and Rome mixed.

BOOM! Warrior rush on Japan, before they could connect to horses and build Chariots, and before the had time to trade for Bronze Working. This was around 3400 BC. (boohoo, no GLs, but I cut'em up real good).

Peace peace peace. Regrouped and healed up. Next I traded a Japanese city to Rome for Warrior Code!!

BOOM!! Archer rush on la bella Roma herself, approaching via mountains and hills. This around 3000 BC. Still no GLs, but life is pretty sweet.

Peace peace peace. Regrouped and healed up. Long time of no war, I wanna build too, and take advantage of the lebensraum to build more cities. Japan is such a pitiful vassal, I made'em give me horses for my next rush. Rome is a joke. Greece is starting to look threatening, but I can;t touch them yet. Infrastructure time, and I need to spend my gold on upgrades. When the Japs declared war on Greece, I gave'em an ROP to suck forces onto my territory.

BOOM!!! Horse and WC (veterans) and Swordsmen and Archer (mostly elite) rush on the Japanese. Their offense is wiped out trying to get home from Greece. Greece asks me to ally against Rome! Blood runneth over the ground!! This runs from about 1500-150 BC.

No Japs. No Rome, at least not near me (see note below). 21 cities, all connected, lots of elites, FP in place, used the next GL for the GL, an Army (I'm just building the HE straight out), tech lead, and I'm still in my GA!!

I'm now at further infrastructure build, and when I get to Chivalry the Greeks are wheat toast.

Early, early war. Relative strength. Archer rushes (!). Take the capitol first.

Mmm mmm good.

R

Sidenote:

I took out the last Roman city in 150 BC. They respawned beatifully:
- Great starting point, directly adjacent ot both horses and iron.
- 100 gold
- Settler, worker, 2 archers, and 5 spearmen
- All techs

[Arrian]

Ahh, the seeds of the search for Ultimate Power (tm).

Besides that, however, good discussion of the strengths of various civs for munching on the AI in ancient times.

Vel, now that you're back on the strat forum, care to comment (and explain to the ignorant the greatness of the Aztecs?).

Anyone managed to pull of decent Great Leader generation early on with a non-militaristic civ? I'd LOVE to hear about it. I never did. I don't have the patience for maps larger than Standard, so I never did test the theory re: Egypt on Large maps.

How about the increased value of a powerful (or cheap :nods to Egypt fans ancient UU on the highest levels (Emperor and Deity)?

How about the targetted archer strike vs. the horseman rush vs. the swordsman rush vs. a combo of the three. What are the advantages & disadvantages of each?

Come waste your time with me..... - Phish.

-Arrian

(note: rpodos = Theseus)