The Romans, the Early Game, and C3C

[monkeyman]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth

I have to disagree about that last point, Monkeyman, or at least, take issue with it. 5 legions are no garuntee of taking a city defended even by 2 spearmen, especially if it's over size 6. Is it likely that they will? Yes. But can you still lose this battle? Definitely, and if you lose, that's a big setback, especially if this is your first offensive. Trust me - I lost 4 legions alone taking on Constantinople, which was only size 6 - but I had sent 10, so this wasn't a major problem.

YS,
(in counterpoint)
So, I am playing a Monarch/Small world/random everything game using the Celts. I was on a continent w/ England and Portugal. I attacked England to the north with a stack of 4 UU's about 10 turns after I researched IW and hooked up an iron. I took a small border town w/ a vet (promoted to elite) and a reg. I waited in the captured town for 3 turns for a single reinforcement with more traveling en route. I found London w/in spitting distance and took out 2 units in the open spawning a great leader. The remaining 4 units (1 vet 3 regs) took out London(4 spears) with 1 loss (reg) over 2 turns. In no case did my unit retreat up to this point. I then got 2 or 3 reinforcements and loaded the elite + 2 others into an army. I took out 2 more cities with the help of the army, sued for peace and got a city + 4 techs + $$$. I waited 3-5 turns while my army + ~5 units went south and took all but 2 Portuguese cities. I started the offensive with 10-15 cities, 3 lux's, 1 iron, no horses, by the end I had ~25 (some AI cities autorazed) cities 5 lux's 2 irons, 2 horses and tech parity (at least). The only wonder I had was GL.

The point is, while YMMV, striking with a limited military earlier can really pay off if the RNG is not overly cruel to you. If I had waited, the net result would be that it would have taken many turns longer to get where I am now, and at a higher cost to my infrastructure, possibly putting things off long enough for the enemy to get swords or worse, pikes! The nice thing about the ancient era is that you can engage in small scale warfare and be pretty successful. You don't really get the same option later in the game (the later it is, the bigger the wars get), so take advantage of that early on, is my philosphy, especially if you have an ancient UU. UU's are unbalancing for a very short period of your game, make the most of 'em. Used well, they can be game winners, as was the case of this game…

ps I haven't met the other 3 civs yet, but I can guarantee they won't be the monster that I am now.

--mm

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Monkeyman: I don't doubt that that's a good strategy, especially when using the Celtic UU. In the case of the slower-moving Legionary, though, I think there's a lot to be said for waiting for many (4, in my case) wonders to be built by a poorly-defended neighbor, and then swallowing their empire wholesale, using the time before the offensive to REX and develop, and the GA to build even more, and supplement your military as needs be. Your strategy nets more MGLs, doubtless; I just finally got my first two of the game, and not from legionaries. My strategy is appropriate for the conquerer who does not wish to raze and rebuild, and also plays to the Commercial trait, in terms of empire maintenance.

But to play devil's advocate for a second, this commercial trait is greatly weakened due to the "corruption bug". Normally, I'd plunk my FP down early in my core and use the MGLs to move the Palace around. Now, I'm not sure how healthy my empire'll be after all the blood has flown (and much remains to be spilled ) but I am determined to take the entire continent... that's just my bag.

But with a fast mover like the Gaelic Swordsman, I'd say slash and burn with a few troops early is a solid strategy, especially against Europeans without a solid UU to defend themselves/fight back, early.

[monkeyman]

YS,

So, I've thought a little bit more about our discussion, and I really think that it comes down to some real strategic elements. I think Sun Tzu said that you should only raise an army once. This was a caution against keeping a large standing army, because it tends to place undue burdon upon your populace. I think the same holds true in Civ in general. If you can get the same things done earlier with a smaller force and save yourself the upkeep$$ then by all means do it. It was through reading the posts of some of our resident warmongers (war early war often ) that I was able to slip from 50/50 win/loss Monarch to 70/30 win/loss Emperor. I found that I was waiting too long to whack my first neighbor. I myself am not a crazy warmonger, but I don't hesitate nearly as much in helping myself to a weak neighbor's sugar bowl. It was just a nudge in the agression scale that really tipped the balance and helped my economy, since I'm a builder at heart .

Of course Sun Tzu said a lot of other things, so time and place are most important

What you say about the mobility of the GS is correct. There certainly is a much shorter lag both from my cities to the border and from the border to my future cities , which means alot in terms of strategic advantage. What I like about legions is that they are the ultimate pillaging machines. You can stand them out anywhere in enemy territory and not worry about being picked off, due to their great defense. "Oh pardon me, was that your horse?"

btw, I've enjoyed watching your threads over the past year or so, never had a chance to participate until now. As a wise man once said, "It's been a pressure and a plivaledge."

Regards,

--mm

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Ah no Monkeyman, I assure you, the pleasure is all mine. I'm glad you've appreciated my posts. I can't contribute much to the dialogue here at Apolyton strategy-wise, but in terms of clear written English I do try to do my part, as I sometimes find that element deficient in the conversations here. (Not in your case however)

I must admit, the sheer capacity for overwhelming devastation offered by a mass upgrade to legionaries, combined with the tendency of the AI to get Iron Working relatively early on, often deters me from researching it myself when playing Rome, building a few Legionaries, and whacking my nearby neighbors.

Then again, I always play against 16 civs on a huge continents map, with roaming barbarians. I do this strictly for reasons of personal enjoyment - I like the long, drawn out game, and it reminds a bit more of the complexity of real life history. I am also a "UP" player à la Arrian, which leads me to desire swallowing empires wholesale instead of picking them off bit by bit - although with the right unit, I'm certainly willing to consider that approach.

On a smaller map, with fewer opponents, the prospect of sending forth 3-4 veteran legionaries, perhaps made elite by fighting barbarians (say, Restless barbarians) seems much more appealing, and useful. A handful wouldn't really cut it when your other cities are underdefended, facing off incoming horsemen perhaps, and still REXing or prebuilding wonders, on a huge map. Not a slow mover like Legionaries. Now, give me ~10 Gaelic Swordsmen or even Mounted Warriors, and I will take a different approach. Same goes for my beloved Jaguar Warriors, whose cost upgrade I most certainly don't appreciate.

An Important Off-Topic Observation

In taking on the Incas, whose empire is large and backed by the pyramids, I thought I'd be in for a meat-grinder war, but a winnable one, as I saw nothing on their borders except archers, spearmen and horsemen - indicating a lack of iron. I don't yet have their map - I'm the tech leader in the mid-Middle Ages - but as I saw no iron-based units, I wasn't too worried...

Boy was I surprised to see knight after knight after knight pour up to MY borders when I began this war. Not to mention pikemen defending nearby Inca cities. Ok, I can still win the war. But this leads me to speculate:

Is the AI now so advanced it will HIDE it's best units to encourage a player to launch a foolish attack?

This is obviously just speculation... but I saw many, many horsemen in play, and not a single knight until I started the war. Then, I saw many.

On another note: there were 8 horsemen fortfied in an Inca border city when I began my offensive! I've never seen that many offensive units massed by the AI in one location.

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Is the AI now so advanced it will HIDE it's best units to encourage a player to launch a foolish attack?

This is obviously just speculation... but I saw many, many horsemen in play, and not a single knight until I started the war. Then, I saw many.

Interesting. Even if the AI is not actively hiding its advanced units (which to me would seem to be a more complex behavior than an AI could display - but what do I know about AI programming?) I could always depend on catching a glimpse of the best unit as it paraded it into my field of view in one of those patrolling loops the AI likes (liked?) to do. This has on occasion saved me some of the heartache of being under prepared.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Yes, well, me too. Had I seen Inca knights, I would have held off my war, switched to democracy, and headed for MT, and waged a cavalry war.

As it is, I'm on the "upper path" of research. I don't even have gunpowder. And I have to fight the second-largest empire in the known world, which has at least one source of iron, and the Pyramids. Oy... Well, this will give me a good idea of what it's like to face an empire of this size without knowing their map, and, of course, plenty of opportunities to gain MGLs and build those wonderful new armies.

[Arrian]

Your advisors should tell you "the best unit the incas have are knights." I think it's the guy on the F4 screen, oddly enough (should be the F3 screen - the military advisor). You may have to let him cycle through his various silly things until he mentions the unit. But they will tell you what each civ's "best unit" is. So the AI can't really hide knights from you.

EDIT: It just occurred to me that this is based on my PTW experience, and it could have been changed in Conquests. So I might very well be wrong.

-Arrian

[monkeyman]

Hi again,

IIRC, in my above-mentioned game, in both cases my F4 advisor told me my adversaries best units were warriors, when I could clearly see spearmen . I guess it depends on what your definition of "best" is . Seriously, that could have something to do with unit types...

--mm

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Hmmm. Interesting. I'll be sure to check the F4 screen out and make sure when I resume my game... which will be who knows when, as my computer won't TURN ON for some reason... Shouldn'ta bought the dang piece of junk, but c'est la vie...

[Patch61]

Originally posted by monkeyman
IIRC, in my above-mentioned game, in both cases my F4 advisor told me my adversaries best units were warriors, when I could clearly see spearmen . I guess it depends on what your definition of "best" is . Seriously, that could have something to do with unit types...

It seems to me the advisor is telling you the best OFFENSIVE unit a civ has. That could be why he told you that the other civ's best unit was a warrior... because the spearman is a defensive unit and isn't counted.

-Patch

[TheArsenal]

It would be interesting to know what criteria the advisor basis his assessment on. Because it seems – observationally speaking – that he is a little behind the times at least for a few turns. I have also found that the units that he tells me other civs “fear” of mine, are out of sync as well. They will often fear, say, my swordsman, when I have plenty of Chinese Riders on hand.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Well, after over a week of my computer being out, I got the thing working over the weekend, and had the chance to put in a good 8-9 hours of Civving, on the game in question. Thought I'd post a little update in case anyone is interested... I feel my game represents a good cross-section of common Epic Game observations so far.

1. Corruption and the Second Core So I put down my FP using an MGL from the end of my ceaseless war against the Incas. Did my first core go to hell? No. But was the benefit almost nil? Yes. My overall income/tech rate raised hardly a blip, which was most dissappointed, because in PTW adding this second core would've made my profits shoot through the roof - it's a really beautiful core area. I am developing it now, so eventually it'll pan out, but in the meantime, the "in between" cities, as has been pointed out, are now utterly worthless (as opposed to plain old worthless)

2. Overseas I found much greater leverage in trading overseas. Selling resources and luxuries, not to mention techs, is bringing me huge amounts of gpt. The relative tech standard is: I am entering the Industrial Age, and the most advanced overseas Civs - India and Korea - just landed Physics.

3. Still no SGL Ok, I've had the tech lead for a while here. Where's my DAMN SGL?!? I know I don't need one, but I want one and I deserve one dammit! I've stuck with this game for a long time now.

4. Island Nations with Tons O'Troops Those little isolated countries - stuck on an island with themselves, or perhaps merely lacking strategic resources - build a TON of outdated troops. Lordy! Using some spare cash to build embassies, I found 20+ in the captials of Spain (island), Sumeria (island), and the Maya (a huge empire), and always an assortment of spearmen, warrios, and archers. Pathetic! Irritating to conquer, I suppose, but only on a time-consuming level. I hope this is fixed in a patch at some point.

Well, that's it. If this is corruption under a COMMERCIAL regime, I'd hate to see it under anyone else!

Anyone else have some Roman stories?

[monkeyman]

I suspect that 1) 2) and 4) are related. I've found in my latest game all three of these things happened. I suspect that El Corruptino is harder on the AI than it is on you or I. Once replacable parts comes around, the Civil Eng is a godsend for barracking and culturing your newly captured territory. All in all, the game feels much easier on Monarch here.


--mm

[notyoueither]

After thinking the game was severely easier by difficulty on a Monarch game, I went back to Emperor, fat continents with 12 civs. Still playing Rome.

Handicapping myself by making very sparing use of camp cities (1 max) and never accepting gpt from the AI. Further straining old tactics by using a looser city spacing (shooting for minimum 4 spacing with as little overlap as possible, taking 3 spacing on the coasts sometimes).

It is tough.

2 starts I tried I was 13 and 22 to iron and horses in one and 27 and 23 in the next.

In the first game I made the mistake of rejecting some AI demands at a bad time, and compounded that by not lining up allies before they did. It was still OK, I almost had the iron hooked up. Then as the neighbour on that side joined in and had troops positioned at the iron city, 3 barb horse showed up. So much for the iron road, as I was fighting to keep and take back core cities from war chariots with my archers. I let the war chariots take a few more cities before I restarted.

Second game the iron and horses were all the way across the Byzantines. Had to fight through 4 layers of cities to secure them and finally thought I had it set. I had a few horse built by the time the Egyptians moved into my territory with a large number of war chariots. Leave! War! OK.

Did very well for the longest time. Then ran into a string of atrocious RNG results. Most of my counter attacking reserves were used up when my neglect/inability to form my normal border defence garrisons caught up to me. The war chariots got lucky and went on a rampage through the conquered Byzantine lands taking mutiple cities per turn for a few turns.

Oh, in the second game I lacked all luxuries in both my start area, and the 85% of the Byzantines that I conquered (the remaining 15% didn't have any either). I think there was a single wine about halfway into the Egyptians (other side of the Byz) from what I could see of the map. I had several tobacco though. Yaay!

I tried the 50 turn Republic in this 2nd game. HUGE massive mistake of BIBLICAL proportions. Though shalt not shirk tech in C3C should be the 11th commandment. Stuck in despotism with knights coming on and getting very curious about resourse distribution, I put all those saves into a seperate folder for future enjoyment and started a new one.

Hot damn! I have iron (close) and horses (far, 14) and even a single incense in my start area! This could work, except for having Bismarck as a neighbour...

Otto makes a demand for tech at some point, which I'm prepared for because he's Otto, so I tell him to shove it. I also signed RoPs with the other nearby, but not bordering, civs to forestall them joining Otto. The first war is over after some very good maneuvering by the AI with swords. I declined to build Legions until shortly before Feudalism to forstall a wasted GA. A timely MGL and a horse army helped me keep the guys with the funny hats on the shelf. Then some counterattacking swords smoked the army after the razing of Konigsberg, but it was time to trigger the GA and make peace. WW is a factor in Feudalism as I found out. Second war is coming up shortly after a GA spent developing and while I have knights and am close enough to Berlin to knock Otto for 6 in 2 turns max.

So, this 3rd one is going OK. I am slightly behind the leaders early in the Medieval, but with a palace move coming up and a major peninisula all to myself after Otto departs, it should go my way.

Thus it is recorded in the chronicles of Rome. To this point.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

@notyoueither:

Be careful with that Palace move... it might not be wholly beneficial... then again, I don't know the state of your core. If you're in Feudalism, I assume your cities are smallish, so a move might be an alright idea. Do you have the FP down?

Yes, the resource distribution can make things downright difficult. 1 luxury on a continent? Yeowch. That is ridiculous.

Well, good luck troopers. My computer's down again so there's going to be a delay before I test the SPHQ and see if it's worth the effort...