Civilizations and their Golden Age

[Theseus]

Re: Civilizations and their Golden Age

Originally posted by Konquest02
- An ANCIENT GA is good for REX and great for early war. It can successfully build the foundations of a great empire later in the game. See, REX, An essay and Theseus’ Early War threads. REX in GA is good, but not great, because you need more food than shields in the early game to pump out settlers effectively. Moreover, you typically are in despotism through most of the Ancient Age, suffering the appropriate tile penalties. Your GA bonus is not as good as in Republic or even Monarchy.

Nobody else seems to be bringing it up...

EARLY WARMONGERING!!!

Say after me: Legions! Immortals!! Celtic Swordsmen!!!

And what about: War Chariots! Mounted Warriors!!

Given the right situation, you can basically "win the game early" the game with a GA-supported military build-up.

[Arrian]

I thought that was obvious, so I didn't really go into it. But yeah, the GA-fired military buildup works pretty well. But the huge jump in production IMO warrants using the GA to produce important expensive infrastructure (marketplaces, libraries if you're not scientific, etc). Particularly when I'm Egypt... war chariots are so cheap anyway, using a GA to build more of them is a bit wasteful.

-Arrian

[Robber Baron]

Theseus raises a great point, particularly with regard to the Celts, IMO. The Gallic Swordsman (or "Red," as I've taken to calling him) is kick-a$$ on the battlefield, but bloody expensive! (Pun intensive.) But building one, then using him to trigger a GA, should suddenly create a productive capacity equal to the task of churning these guys out. I'm thinking this might be a very effective strategy. Hold off on using him until a basic REX phase is over, but definitely while the AI civs are still defending with spear. Erect a first round of infrastructure, esp. barracks and temples. Build just a few Reds. When everything is ready, let 'em rip.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Arrian
I thought that was obvious, so I didn't really go into it. But yeah, the GA-fired military buildup works pretty well. But the huge jump in production IMO warrants using the GA to produce important expensive infrastructure (marketplaces, libraries if you're not scientific, etc). Particularly when I'm Egypt... war chariots are so cheap anyway, using a GA to build more of them is a bit wasteful.

Granted, there are cities that can build horsemen and swordsmen just as quickly as war chariots, but my usual answer to that when engaging in Egyptian warmongering is to let them do so. Other than that, the cheapness of War Chariots opens the way for hoardes of them to overwhelm any enemy that doesn't have three-value defenders. (By the way, all else being equal, I tend to use war chariots in higher-risk battles and horsemen in lower-risk ones in the hope that a disproportionate number of horsemen will survive to become knights. They are, after all, cheaper to upgrade.)

One interesting strategy for civs with horseman-level or swordsman-level UUs is to time an offensive and golden age for just after the switch from Despotism to a more enlightened form of government. That provides a window of opportunity to get more efficient use of the golden age and still strike before enemies have pikemen.

Nathan

[DrFell]

I reckon the best way to use Gallic swordsmen would be to build about 5 or so, and to back them up with many more horsemen, say 10-15 depending on map size. That way you'd get their defensive bonus, not slow them down, and save a ton on shields. I've not tried them though, don't have PTW yet.

[Theseus]

Pikemen... Use a GA for Sword- or Horse-level UUs, and I'll take on Pikes all day long.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus
Pikemen... Use a GA for Sword- or Horse-level UUs, and I'll take on Pikes all day long.

If a GA lasted all day long, I might try that myself.

Seriously, I tend to regard the kind of casualty rates that result from that sort of fighting as rather wasteful, and a GA doesn't really change the level of waste involved, just the player's ability to afford it. Given a choice, I prefer to focus on city improvements during the times when defenders have the advantage and save my warmongering for when attackers have the advantage.

Nathan

[Theseus]

AU 108 (right? Rome?) convinced me... wasteful, perhaps, but a concentration of overwhelming force does the trick. We'll see... that's against the AI.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus
AU 108 (right? Rome?) convinced me... wasteful, perhaps, but a concentration of overwhelming force does the trick. We'll see... that's against the AI.

Turn it around and you have my point: it might do the trick, but it does so in a wasteful manner. There are times when a player has no choice but to fight on unfavorable terms because the AI has a tech lead and will continue to have one unless and until the human player does enough successful warmongering to get more territory. That's the situation Son of SVC created; even with the Great Library, the best I could hope for without attacking was temporary tech parity. But if I'm big enough that I can use my production to build city improvements and then leverage those city improvements into a tech lead that lets me fight with fewer casualties, I regard that as a lot more efficient.

Nathan

[Arrian]

Originally posted by nbarclay

Granted, there are cities that can build horsemen and swordsmen just as quickly as war chariots, but my usual answer to that when engaging in Egyptian warmongering is to let them do so. Other than that, the cheapness of War Chariots opens the way for hoardes of them to overwhelm any enemy that doesn't have three-value defenders. (By the way, all else being equal, I tend to use war chariots in higher-risk battles and horsemen in lower-risk ones in the hope that a disproportionate number of horsemen will survive to become knights. They are, after all, cheaper to upgrade.)

One interesting strategy for civs with horseman-level or swordsman-level UUs is to time an offensive and golden age for just after the switch from Despotism to a more enlightened form of government. That provides a window of opportunity to get more efficient use of the golden age and still strike before enemies have pikemen.

Nathan

That's exactly what I do. I beeline for Monarchy while building my attack force, and as soon as I switch governments, I unleash my horde.

The first part of my GA will be spent building more units (horsemen over WCs, agreed, if the turns are the same). Then, once ravaged AI civ #1 coughs up their tech, the core cities will switch to markets & libraries, while the periphery goes to courthouses (if available). The war machine rumbles on w/o reinforcements for a bit now. Like you, I will use WCs over horsemen in "high-risk" combat.

DrFell,

That's how I see the Gallic Swordsmen as well: build a small number (or rather upgrade them from warriors) and use them in concert with larger numbers of horsemen. I would probably build 5 vet warriors, connect my iron, blow 400 gold to upgrade them, and then send them off to fight barbarians, hoping to get them elite and make some of that money back.

The problem with them is this: they're powerful, not invincible. I'm finishing up a game as the Iroquois right now (with 1.29, not PTW) and I can tell you that I lost several MWs to regular spearmen. Hell, I lost at least two MWs to 1-defense units (an archer, a jag warrior). Imagine losing a 50-shield unit to a regular warrior on flat ground. I might throw the monitor out the window.

With CivIII's combat system/RNG, I'd rather have a horde of WCs than a smaller number of MWs or an even smaller number of GSs. I lose a WC, no big deal. I lose a MW, that hurts. I lose a GS, and its a minor catastrophe.

-Arrian