Military traight: it's not just for war monglers

[Dimension]

"Traot" would be a typo, but "traight" isn't, and it's not like mattcj said, "Learn how to spell, moron." Honestly, most Americans on web forums write things that would make a 3rd-grade English teacher cry. If people got corrected, maybe 90% of them wouldn't say "your" instead of "you're."

I suppose things would really get out of hand if people bothered correcting you every time you said "capital" instead of "capitol." Oh well. I'm just saying it'd be refreshing if those of us who speak English as our first first language would give it a tiny bit of effort. You can't blame mattcj for trying to be helpful.

Anyway, I was actually going to try to add something here... Maybe I'll think of it...

[Dimension]

It's odd that joncnunn says he finds a high barbarian setting the best way to get early leaders, then proceeds to say he's never gotten an early leader. That's fine, though, because raging barbarians and Militaristic civs are not mutually exclusive. What I don't understand is how Konquest & Arrian can both say Militaristic isn't a big deal for getting early leaders.

I've gotten over 20 leaders a couple games with the Aztecs, and I got 14 leaders when I played the AU 101 game with the Japanese.

There will never be a clear answer for what civ trait is the best, because:

Religious = fast culture (and temple happiness)
Industrious = fast infrastructure (and luxury happiness)
Militaristic = fast elites (and garrison happiness)

You could argue that any of them are the best, and with the right playstyle you'd be right. That said, I do find it pretty difficult to play anybody besides Egypt, Aztecs, Japanese, Celts and China. BTW, does anybody else find it odd that they made the Celts Religious/Militaristic, when that was the only combination that two other civs already had? Yet there is only one Religious/Industrious and only one Industrious/Militaristic.

Anyway, there's no argument that Militaristic gives you fast barracks and fast upgrades, both of which give you more elites sooner. This in turn gives you slightly earlier wars, slightly shorter wars, and slightly more leaders. How can anybody say that ultra-early leaders are just as easy with non-Militaristic civs? That's completely illogical. All other things being equal, you will build your barracks faster, you will get elites faster, and you will therefore have a better chance of getting a leader earlier.

You can still farm for leaders with non-militaristic civs. Take over a continent, rail the whole thing and leave a dark area to spawn barbarians. You can have one or two tanks per turn upgraded to Elite. Leave an opponent with plenty production, but take away the important resources, and every turn you will be able to attack stacks and stacks of weak units with elite tanks. You'll get tons of leaders. This doesn't have much to do with strategy, though. It's just a cute way to finish the game when you've really already won.

The best GL is probably the one that gives you your FP, and I really find it hard to believe that Militaristic's edge doesn't give you the best chances of that..

I can't argue against the fact that more barbarians gives you more elites, but that really doesn't change the fact that Militaristic also gets you early elites. It's not a "one or the other"-type thing. Militaristic is to raging barbarians as Expansionist is to pangea maps. You want both factors for a given strategy.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Dimension

You could argue that any of them are the best, and with the right playstyle you'd be right. That said, I do find it pretty difficult to play anybody besides Egypt, Aztecs, Japanese, Celts and China. BTW, does anybody else find it odd that they made the Celts Religious/Militaristic, when that was the only combination that two other civs already had? Yet there is only one Religious/Industrious and only one Industrious/Militaristic.

Not as odd as PTW introducing two more militaristic/expansionist civs. I think the Vikings should have had a commercial trait as they were great traders and explorers as well as being prone to taking what they wanted by force. At least the Japanese start with a different tech to the Aztecs and Celts.

[Arrian]

How can anybody say that ultra-early leaders are just as easy with non-Militaristic civs?

Allow me to explain. First of all, I thought I made it clear that I was talking about the pre-PTW game, when barbarians would attack your units no matter what. It's no longer valid in PTW, because the barbs run away from your warrior on a mountain, and thus getting elite troops off of barbs is no picnic anymore.

Back when the barbs did that, you could quickly end up with a couple of elite warriors, whether your were militaristic or not (a regular unit that wins 3 times in succession always ends up elite). Militaristic allows cheap barracks/harbors/airports and quicker promotions, but it does nothing to the actual leader generation chance (1/16 on attack, 1/32 on defense for all civs, modified to 1/12, 1/24 with the HE).

Therefore, if you try for an "ultra early" leader by taking barb promoted warriors and hitting an AI settler team and the warriors/archers it will send against you, it doesn't actually matter whether or not you are militaristic. When I do this, it is with 2-3 units (warriors) and I do not intend to bring in reinforcements. It is limited to hitting a settler team, killing a couple of units, and making peace. If I get a leader, great. If not, I've hurt an AI civ badly.

I know that the chances of getting a leader or leaders from rushes with a non-militaristic civ are not great, so if I have a couple of elite warriors and am presented with an opportunity to use them, I will. As a militaristic civ, I probably would too, just 'cause, but in that case the trait wouldn't help me. It would help me later, when I unleash my hordes of horsemen.

I was in no way arguing that militaristic doesn't end up producing more leaders. The misunderstanding, I think, was semantics: I wasn't talking about getting leaders in the ancient age, I was talking about getting a leader before 1000bc (my concept of "ultra early"). As someone who has played a lot of games with militaristic civs, I know the power of militaristic w/respect to leaders. I was talking about a very specific circumstance.

-Arrian

[joncnunn]

I'm never gotten an Ultra-Early leader, true.

I have once gotten an Early leader in time to rush the Great Libary. (As non-Military France) This was right at the end of the second English war taking London, with the Great Libary built there, and previously involved taking England's Iron & a luxary. (First War was knocking the English out of the first Iron city.) The 3rd English war was the one where Elizabeth was exiled to a smaller landmass following my conqest of all remaining English cities on that landmass.

I'll usually agressively peacefuly REX out in early game unless it's clear that the best land is on the far side of my neighbors capital, as was the case in that French game.

Originally posted by Dimension
It's odd that joncnunn says he finds a high barbarian setting the best way to get early leaders, then proceeds to say he's never gotten an early leader.

[joncnunn]

I find playing all the civs I've actually played easy so far on Emperor level.
I adjust the playstyle based on the geography more than my race.
My non-military civ improvements list is based upon my civ.
I have seen a couple of unplayable starting positions.

I don't have PTW though, and I hear the AI was improved.

Of the civs on that orgiinal list : I've won with both Eqypt (Domination with Modern Armor) & China (Space Ship)

I'm currently playing the Aztecs. (Now roughly 1300 AD, 2/3rds thru the Middle Ages.)

I haven't played the Japs yet. (Except for a few turns discovering that the starting position was unplayable.)

Originally posted by Dimension
You could argue that any of them are the best, and with the right playstyle you'd be right. That said, I do find it pretty difficult to play anybody besides Egypt, Aztecs, Japanese, Celts and China.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by aaglo
No matter what I do, I never have gotten ultra-early leader (earliest is around 300 BC).... OTOH, once the americans (who declared a war on me) got a GL in 1825 BC from the first battle between us (I attacked their elite warrior with my regular archer).

I'll say they were soo lucky...

thats because the americans secretly have a third, militaristic trait, no matter how much they deny / shroud it

[Dimension]

Originally posted by Arrian
...you could quickly end up with a couple of elite warriors, whether your were militaristic or not... Therefore, if you try for an "ultra early" leader by taking barb promoted warriors and hitting an AI settler team and the warriors/archers it will send against you, it doesn't actually matter whether or not you are militaristic.

I understand what you're saying, but that's a very big "if" you're putting in there. You are assuming that:

1) You are just building a couple warriors.
2) Before meeting the enemy, these warriors will encounter enough barbarians to become elite.
3) Your are very lucky in combat.

Given those conditions, it doesn't matter one bit whether you're Militaristic or not. If any one of those elements is missing, though, you must say that Militaristic would've given you a better chance at an earlier leader.

First, if you're really trying to get some early leaders, you will probably build more than just a couple warriors. With four or five warriors looking for a fight, there is almost no chance of them running into enough barbarians to all be elite by the time you find your neighbors. You'd be better off to build a quick barracks, which would also let you heal after your first attack.

I suppose I've just interpreted "ultra-early" a little differently than you. If you only mean building two warriors then getting a leader with them before there is even a chance for a militaristic civ to build a barracks, you're correct. I have to give an example of my AU 101 game, though. I built a barracks before I built anything else, and then produced four warriors. The first one found the English, and by the time the 4th one was produced, I was able to level York, pillage production around London, capture a settler and sue for peace. My first three warriors were elite, and the only huts I popped didn't have any barbarians. I would argue that, even though I didn't get a leader, I was in a position where I had a better chance of getting a leader because I was militaristic.