Civ choice for early warmongering

[DrSpike]

The Germans aren't my first choice, but I curse loudly if I start next to them in a game where I want to do some early conquering. Starting with archers and spearmen is a killer, and if you lose the first couple of battles you're facing elite spearmen, which are hard to take out for a fair few turns

[rpodos]

Great discussion, and some good insights.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately... and I've come to some conclusions that are sort of in the opposite direction.

First, the stuff I agree with... like Arrian and Aeson I lean towards the fast movers in a UU, especially now that they are in the upgrade chain. Also, I fight a lot, so as long as I'm vet or elite the retreat issue doesn't bug me. I also prefer my GA in late ancient or early industrial, which leaves out the Germans. So, this points me toward Aztecs, Iroquis, China, Japan, India, Russia, Egypt, and Zululand.

But here are my other thoughts:

GA Timing - I HATE wasting the GA... I mean, what's the point if you have four cities pumping out a measly 5-6 shields each? Buh-bye: Aztecs and Zulus.

Characteristics - Gotta have that old-time religion. In early wars, I rarely raze cities (unless they're at 1 pop), and I need the ability to build temples FAST to overcome stupid AI poprushing. Also critical in the later game, to beat culture-flipping and resist war-weariness. Buh-bye: China and Russia (UU sort of worthless anyway). (interesting side-note: 5 out of 6 religious civs got fast-movers).

Now for my second characteristic and choice of UU, I'm left with:

1. Iroquois - Expansionist, which doesn't matter too much to me, as I build LOTS of warriors right away; they explore, they can rush, and they upgrade. Mounted Warrior comes a little early for the GA, but is strong.

2. Japan - Militaristic, which I'm torn about. Soren just confirmed that this does NOT help in GL creation, so this is cheap barracks and faster upgrades; I don;t think barracks are so expensive anyway, and I build a limited number (at first). The upgrades may sell me though... although I get a lot anyway since I fight so much, it would be useful for GL creation if they came earlier. The Samurai ROCKS.

3. India - Commercial, which is worthless. War Elephants are a good pick for risk management, but if by this time I don;t have iron and horses, I haven;t been fighting enough, and that just doesn;t happen!

4. Egypt - Industrious, which I like. War Chariots are OK, but I can live without'em until I get Horseman, and they trigger the GA too early. Buh-bye.

Now here's where I differ... when it comes to neigbors, I WANT them to be militaristic AND aggressive. I'm going to fight everyone of'em again and again, and where possible I'd like them to a) attack me, and b) use all of their resources creating military units which I use as training fodder. What's really important to me is that at any given time I have a relative strength advantage. I also consider tech and tech trading.

Iroqouis - Neighbors are Aztecs (Mil/Rel, aggr=1) and Americans (Exp/Ind, aggr=0). Jaguar Warriors could be an issue, but the AI doesn;t use them aggressively and early enough. No problem, and Tonto says they make great practice targets. The Americans, feh. Thus, excellent relative strength. In terms of tech, nothing special, and the neighbors have two that I can trade for. Between us, we only have one of the prereqs for Horseback Riding.

Japan - Neighbors are China (Mil/Ind, aggr=-1) and India (Com/Rel, aggr=-2). China, while Militaristic, never attacks. India is a good neighbor, which while it doesn't ever attack, builds a large empire to attack and take over. Relative strength is about equal, with a small edge over India. In tech, I have one of the prereqs for Horseback riding, and China has the other. The neighbors have three that I can trade for.

So on neighbor's characteristics and relative strength, I'd pick the Iroqouis. In terms of tech and tech trading, Japan (get to horses faaast).

The open questions for me then are a) the relative values of Expansionist versus Militaristic, and b) timing of the GA.

Tough, very tough. I give them both an A, if not an A+.

Nah, I just made up my mind... I go to early warmongering for GLs and to beat down my neighbors... hey wait a minute, thats the point, this is about EARLY WARMONGERING.

Japan = A+
Iroqouis = A

At the end of the day, it's having a fast-mover attacker, being Religious and Militaristic, and timing the GA.
____________________
Added on review:

OOPS!!!! I just realized that Impis upgrade in the defender path!! That is cool!!! So, use'em for exploration, but NO fighting until you have Horsemen, then use'em together, trigger the GA, and then when you're ready upgrade to Pikemen. That truly rocks. Characteristics of Expansionist (don't care much, although I could be wrong) and Militaristic are OK, I guess, but I would really miss being Religious. Neigbors are Babs and Persians... slow-movers, no problemo, good relative strength. Three techs to trade for, good, but while I have one prereq for Horseback the other is missing from the group. Definitely a contender, but without Religious, relegated to a B+ or A- at best.

[rpodos]

OK, OK, that was a long, roundabout way of saying "I agree."

R

[Txurce]

I tend to favor the UU that comes out of the box the fastest and the cheapest, which is the JW. My expansion will be complete that much sooner, after which I can settle into builder mode for the rest of the game.

However, I just finished a game with the Babs in which my bowmen destroyed first the Aztecs and then the Zulus. (Ironically, it was the Indians' elephants that brought me to a halt.)

I have also used the Egyptians once, starting in a low-pop area. I made peace with the attacking Greeks by taking one of their cities, and then eliminated the Romans after building a road through the jungle, because they still didn't have enough Legionnaires. (Dr. Spike and I think alike.)

I did it once with the French as well, just to prove the following point: while some civs are better than others for early warmongering, I think you can beat any neighboring civ with the least-suited civ, if you pump out enough vet horsemen (or, in a pinch, archers). The AI's fatal flaw in ancient war is not having the industrial base to counter a single-minded human opponent. Even the Germans are culture-loving peaceniks compared to a human-led civ bent on expansion via overwhelming numbers.

[Tingkai]

If I play the Egyptians, I'll go for an early GA, then build up a strong military force while at the same time having one or two cities working on a wonder. My main objective then is to work towards literature so that I can build the Great Library. By the time I get that tech, I can easily switch production and build the GL in a few turns.

The advantage of having the GL is that while you're out there fighting battles, you don't have to worry as much about falling behind in the tech race.

The Germans are fine with their starting techs, but usually I can overrun them with the production bonus from GA.

[DrFell]

'Egyptian war chariots are available after just researching the wheel, whereas horses require warrior code and horseback riding. This is a huge difference for early attacking, especially on the higher levels where a few extra turns matter. You can hit Rome with a stack of war chariots before they have any/many legions, even on deity.'

I agree, and the chances are that after taking out Rome you're going to have other soft targets nearby. I can have 15+ war chariots destroying a nearby civ by 1000bc, because in addition to the early (40 turns away from any start) and cheap UU, you're industrious as well = fast roads to horses, even if they are a fair distance away, and a quick change into a government if you manage to get a civ or two paying lots of cash tribute.

[DrSpike]

I'm glad a couple more people mentioned the Egyptians. They may not be militaristic but they have IMO the best timed UU for deity games. Coupla cities, some barracks perhaps, then you have the tech (and hopefully the resource) and can churn like there's no tomorrow.

[rpodos]

I still maintain the Egyptian GA comes too early, but I started a game as them last night, and I will say that overrunning the Romans was quite fun.

To their credit, they do make for a solid warmonger start, followed by excellent builder capabilities.

R

[DrSpike]

I agree in some circumstances. My statement was for deity games, where you get a huge boost from an early golden age. Remember you probably wont have many cities in this case, with reasonable population. You can vastly increase chariot production, and you need all the help you can get.

An early GA generally is an investment, one that may or may not yield a bigger advantage over the course of the game than a later GA. Ordinarily the GA is wasted in despotism with low pop, but the return to a few extra chariots in the early game at deity level is potentially enormous over the course of the game, whereas a more satisfying later GA doesn't help he who is out of the game due to not taking enough territory and extorting enough tech in the early game.

IMO this factor makes the Egyptians, Romans, Persians, Iroquois, Zulu, Babylonians even more compelling choices at deity level

[Txurce]

My feeling is that the AI has the biggest advantage at the start, with some of its civs in a better starting position and a tech lead due to the inevitable prior contact, combined with my not having flexed my human muscles yet. For this reason, I think there is a definite advantage to an early GA that helps me do what Dr. Spike says: jack up admittedly few cities, to create the basis of an empire that can more than carry its own weight in the later part of the game.

[rpodos]

I generally don't play Deity, for reasons similar to those that Vel and Arrian have laid out.

So, on Regent or Monarch, I'm not facing that uphill climb to catch up, and can a) go to early war with just warriors and archers and then later horsemen, and b) wait a little for a more productive GA.

In fact, especially on an Earth map, I'd probably reserve my War Chariots until I turned from the remnants of the Persians to Impi-hunting. Ooh yeah, a FLOOD of latish WCs down the Nile, then bring back north to upgrade to Knights.

On a random map though, faced with Rome who is Military and aggr=1, I'd feel compelled to use them at to early a point (for me).

Question: How many WCs do you usually build?

R

[DrSpike]

I would urge you to try deity a few times. It is admittedly annoying at times and the early strategy is reasonably forced, but it makes the player squeeze everything out that he possibly can, unlike another stroll to victory on Monarch level. Unless it's a tourney game I can't find that much enthusiasm for landing/conquering a few turns earlier in those games.

[DrSpike]

Oh, and the number of war chariots would be 6-10 initially. The exact number (and indeed number of cities) depends on how far away the opposition are and how many there are.

As Aeson has consistently said in deity threads you want to wait till the AI has expanded to a stretched defensive position, so don't attack straight off. Also, of course, you don't want the AI's cities to have much pop when you attack, because they'll rush like crazy and leave you with unuseable cities as well as having to face a load more units.

So 6-10 initially, get the golden age and churn like the wind until you have subdued the opposition. IMO the art at deity is picking your targets best to extort tech. Take too long and you can kiss victory goodbye.

[rpodos]

I just won't shut up.

Revisionist early warmongerer thinking (for me at least).

Early war is for a) punishment / denial, b) territory, resources, tech, workers, and possibly captured generating, and c) GLs.

Focus on the last, GLs. This will be determined by
- How many fights can you have as quickly as possible, and win.
- Being militaristic... build cheap barracks, and higher chance of upgrade.

Well, the second one is easy enough to determine...

The first argues for the early fast-movers... Impis, JWs, Chariots, and WCs.

- Aztecs get JWs immediately.
- Japanese get Chariots immediately.
- Zululand needs Bronze Working, which is available from both Babylon and Persia on a culturally linked map, but NOT from Egypt on an Earh map.
- Egypt needs The Wheel, which is not available from any neighbors on either culturally linked or Earth maps.

For everyone else, the first fast-mover is the Chariot, at 1/1/2, available with The Wheel. And the next is Horseman or Mounted Warrior, with Horseback Riding.

On a culturally linked map, Japan is just ridiculously great. Immediate fast-mover without burning the GA. Chariot eventually even upgrades to its UU. And as Militaristic, max benefit from early war.

On an Earth map, hmmm. On another post, I tied Egypt and Babylon at an A each. I think Egypt moves to the head of the class, even with the early GA, to an A+.

R


On an Earth map,

[rpodos]

DrSpike,

I was writing at the same time as you were.

I am starting to convince myself that the Egyptians rock, especially on an Earth map. I'm going to try them on Marla's map first at Monarch, although I suspect it will be too easy.

I'll try Deity again, but I echo Vel in that it's all catch-up, even with early war, then there's a very short period of parity, then I have clearly gained the momentum advantage.

Do you typically play Earth or random? Culturally linked or not?

R