Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Three

[Velociryx]

Other thoughts on Ancient Era Beelines

Now you've gone and done it Arri...lol...got my brain churning on teh subject, and I realized there was more to say about each of the beelines we've gone over here, so I figured I'd ramble for a bit and see what shakes out of this dust-laden noggin of mine....

Total truth to the statement that horsement have a much longer lifespan than swordsmen. IIRC, they cost the same, and for your (30?)--doing this strictly from memory here cos I'm at work-- shields you either get a 3/2/1 or a 2/1/2.

As has been discussed in various threads in this part of the forum, mounted troops have an almost insane advantage over their foot-based counterparts, and that is sheer survivability. The retreat option makes them powerful indeed. Some would argue (myself included), that it makes them too powerful.

But despite the power of horse-based troops, foot soldiers do have their place in your plans, depending on the civ you're playing.

For example:
If you're playing a Scientific Civ, you're only one tech out from Iron Working, and thus one tech away from being able to build Swordsmen. By the time you research that tech, unless you're alone on your continent, you've no doubt found at least one of your neighbors, and can get right on the construction of a very early game attack force.

Also, many of the disadvantages of the footsoldier vanish if you play an Industrious civ. Send a worker or two toward your enemy building roads and your infantry can speed their way to the site of the future (or pending) battle. (Of course, the same can be said--and even moreso--of horsemen travelling on your road network, so this is clearly not an advantage that your infantry based attackers have a lock on!

Another key advantage lies in and with combined arms. Infantry and Catapults move at the same rate, and with the aforementioned road network in place, you can speed your combined force along with frightening efficiency toward enemy lines.

And finally, there's each Civ's special unit to consider. In the ancient era, there are some truly awesome UU's based around infantry troops (esp. the Immortal, Hoplite, and Legionary). Perhaps most frightening of all though, is the lowly Jaguar Warrior of the Aztec, which combines the cheap price of the Warrior with all the key advantages of mounted troops.

So....I DO agree that if you're looking at economy of production (that is to say, build a cadre of units and preserve them so as not to have to spend time rebuilding), then horsemen are the way to go (at least until we see what, if anything, the next patch does with regards to toning down the retreat ability of mounted troopers), however, strong cases can be made for swordsmen produced in quantity, and certain civs simply beg for the production en mass of their UU, infantry based or no.

One thing too, that can extend the usefulness of swordsmen just a bit is this:

If you're building a hefty attack force, it's a good bet that you're going to be expanding, and probably by quite a lot. This, in turn then, will see your corruption problems increasing many times over.

So, as your early expansion wars end, and you're moving into the Middle Ages (where your swordsmen become obsolete in the face of Knights and Pikemen), a good final use for them is to port them to your corruption-ridden cities and disband to help whip out infrastructure, post-Reuplic switch (if you're in Despotism, you may as well burn a pop-point or two to get the basics in place). The swordsmen have already paid for themselves many times over by being the foundation upon which your expansion was laid, so you're not really "losing" anything from a mineral standpoint, and the shields (7?) they provide on the disband will help jumpstart the wretched production at your outermost cities as they offer up their armor and weapons to be melted down for the cause....

Of course, if you would rather opt for a more peaceful game, then build warriors and workers out the wazoo (has not been 100% verified, but as workers DO show up on your military screen as part of your military, it seems the AI counts them when it makes a determination about whether or not to smack you arouond), sit tight and gun for the GL!

-=Vel=-

-=Vel=-

[Skeletal Dragon]

I actually prefer Horsemen over Swordsmen in the Ancient Era because they have the extra movement The extra attack of Swordsmen doesn't really matter in the long run anyways because the attack/defense of the Ancient Era units are so low that battles usually go either way. A Swordsman and a Horseman would win about the same number of battles. The only time when Swordsmen would actually matter is when the opponent starts to get size 6 cities or enough city walls so that it becomes more difficult to punch through. Nevertheless, Archers/Horsemen still do a great job

And you can upgrade horsies later

[cully]

Vel/Arrian

Thanks very much for the replies, its nice to know that even though you fellas have been around for a while that your prepared to help the new comers.

The war in which i mentioned has gone well, the aztecs were a major force and after they declared war (which admitedly i was spoiling for because of their vast gem supplies) i enlisted the help of the non too small greeks. To say they were a help was an understatement, between us we calved up the aztecs practicallly 50/50, i even found myself rushing to beat the greeks to the final spoils just to keep things even! The AI has come a long way since CIV2.

One thing i have just thought of while writing was if the aztecs were trading the gems to the romans & babs, would the fact i secured these luxuries be part of the reason they were non too pleased? I can honestly say im not sure if they were trading the gems to these civs though.

I also need to tell you that im only playing on warlord at the moment, still finding my feet im afraid.

[Arrian]

Cully,

Yeah, I think that would do it! The luxuries are key, and the AI will get really pissed if you have stuff it doesn't, but aren't trading it to them. Besides, you can make money by doing it, so call 'em up and trade. Oh, about me being around a while.. LOL! I still think of myself as a "newbie" to this website. Not the game, though By the way, you're probably gonna have to take the Greeks down sooner or later, though I'm sure that had occurred to you.

Vel,

Ok, first off, we agree on the power of mounted troops, but probably disagree on the solution (I think a minor tweak to the AI regarding building barracks and upgrading will do a LOT). Check out the "units by era" thread again... I posted an example of a friend's war vs. the Aztecs and why I thought it illustrates perfectly that, if the AI built barracks and upgraded, we'd have a lot more trouble rushing them with nothing but Cav.

I still think horsies are the way to go, unless you are Persian (and maybe even then, if you want to hold the golden age for later) or you are fighting the Zulu or Aztecs. Like Skeletal said, there isn't much difference in a 3 vs. 2 and a 2 vs. 2, and the horsie gets to run away if it gets beat up. I see your point about disbanding the swordsmen, but that is simply a way of using them once they become useless for anything else... and the horsies don't become useless until Tanks come around, and even then can be used for pillaging (or disbanded a-la your swordsmen for 20 shields each).

I question. You mention the ease of getting Ironworking as a reason to use swordsmen early as a scientific civ. True, seeing iron and being able to build swordsmen is a really nice thing. But can you really build up enough swordsmen to cripple a civ before you have horseback riding. More to the point, doesn't this require that you stop expansion to build swordsmen? If you are really boxed in, then I definitely see the value in this. But if you have land to settle... wouldn't it be better to delay the fighting until you've built up a bit?

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Good points all, brother Arrian!

I think that speaks more to differences in our playing styles than anything....remember, I generally plant my cities with three blank terrain tiles between them, which is a bit closer than you IIRC. The turn advantage this creates in the early game is negligible, but it is still there (esp. with a focus on road-building early on), and I've found that I can generally have 3-5 cities up and running by the time Iron Working is added to my tech portfolio, the iron resource in my neighborhood has been tapped into, and I'm ready for my first attack.

Rush one barracks in place close to the front, and upgrade all existing warriors to swordsmen, and I'm ready to roll with an attack force of 7-8 Swordsmen (figure an average of four cities, each with a warrior garrisoned, and 3-4 warrior scouts that can easily be pulled back for upgrading and a quick war)--note here, that yes, this means I'm stripping my cities completely empty....NO defense anywhere....my closest cities will, of course, start working on Spearmen in between settler builds to bulk up the front, and my cities further out will do so when it's convenient or when they're threatened, but this generally does not cause significant delays to expansion.

During this time, assuming the AI has been keeping pace expansion wise, they'll have 3-4 cities of their own (I give them slightly less here, cos even on Emperor, I can usually outpace the AI's expansion), meaning my 7-8 swordsmen are more than enough to blow through whatever resistance might be found in their cities (generally, this is one of the following configurations):

2 Warriors

or

1 Warrior
1 Archer

or

1 Warrior
1 Spearmen

If it's the first or second case, I'll win nearly every time without losing a man (here's where the power of the swordsman really shines....while it's true that 3 v 2 (swordsman v. horseman) isn't all that big, when you compare it to a 1 defense, it's pretty significant!), if it's the third configuration (given that my swordsmen were built sans barracks, I may lose one). Repeat over the course of two cities, and the AI has been chopped in half, and is ready to talk.

That's the kind of speed and economy you simply can't get from horse troops. In tests I've run, I find that I can finish 1-2 wars with my rivals using upgraded warriors before I can even get a sufficient force of horse troops developed to think about making an attack with them (extra time to research the needed techs gives the AI more time to build and entrench), and the sheer turn advantage of having the productivity of all those cities that much sooner is really telling later on.

I have noted though, that my most successful runs with horses were made in games when I found neighbors who had relevant techs early on (Japanese - The Wheel), or got lucky with free techs from goody huts. If you find stuff like that very very early, you can make an early game horse rush really pay....otherwise, I like the sheer speed of upgrading those warriors!

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

AI unprovoked displeasure...

One thing that really dampens a relationship with the AI is withholding any spare resources/techs that they feel are important. Often in a war I will take over a few cities, and then everyone else becomes angry at me. Why? Because I just took the supplies of luxury or strategic resources they were trading with my enemy for. Sometimes even waiting a turn or two to trade a tech or luxury they need can mean the difference between polite and annoyed, so trade them right when you get them. Not sure if this is the reason you are having trouble Cully, but it's one I've run into a few times.

Monarchy tech beeline...

On the subject of tech beelines, often on the higher difficulty levels shooting straight for Monarchy (only if you start with ceremonial burial though) will give valuable trading techs that the AI hasn't researched yet. Even on Deity (with the patch) I can get Mysticism first half the time, and usually get Polytheism and Monarchy first as well. The exception is when there is a lot of landmass, as the AI seems to get most of the huts pretty quickly, which often gives them these techs they wouldn't research normally.

Getting 3 techs to trade to 8 or more AI can really catch a person up quick. With the "during your turn" tech trading though, it cuts into this a lot. Some games I've gotten as many as 10 advances for the 3, other times just 1 or 2. I don't see a problem with the AI trading on your turn if you just got the advance from another AI, but it really is cheap for techs you do manage to research first.

Early Swordsmen...

I think for very early city aquisition (pre-horsemen), Archers can do a better job than Swordsmen. Usually the first couple cities the AI has will be defended by Warriors, and an archer or two can get there in time to make use of the fact. Also the AI will have only a few cities, making them easier to get to the bargaining table. By the time Swordsmen are available, invariably the AI will have spearmen defending the city. 2a v 1d is better odds than 3a v 2d. It doesn't work on Deity, but I've made good use of Archers to gain an early city or two on every other difficulty level. And doing this doesn't mean you can't still go for Iron Working first, if you happen to be the Germans (Scientific, Militaristic), or can trade for Warrior Code with your non-Bronze Working starting tech very early (giving the AI Bronze Working defeats the whole purpose of getting Warrior Code).

GL (not that one) for possible tech superiority...

On maps with good amounts of water, the beeline for Map Making and the Great Lighthouse can be a lifesaver. It's a bit of a gamble, as sometimes there are safe Galley crossings without the Lighthouse, and sometimes the crossings are too far for post-patch Lighthouse aided Galleys. But when it does work, it can be huge. Often the AI won't try for the Lighthouse, and I've found it to be the only ancient wonder that I can rely on getting in Deity games (gotten it perhaps 80% of the time I tried). Pre-patch it was golden, and could singlehandedly keep me at the Tech front, better than even the Great Library. It still can be, but there is that risk that it wont help at all. Of course I have never been able to get the Great Library on Deity, even with extensive reloading, using the editor for the designing of "perfect" city sites, and even "sabotoge" (in the editor, and/or with military units in game) of other civ's placements to some extent have all failed. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but without a Great Leader, it might be. The Great Lighthouse is the only GL wonder that has helped me stay in the tech race without military action on Deity.

[Aeson]

A couple more things about the Great Lighthouse...

When I said it was the only wonder I could reliably get on Deity, the 80% success rate is assuming doing nothing other than building 2 warriors, hooking up a luxury, and building a temple. If I dont start with Ceremonial Burial, that is part of the "beeline", and usually after I've researched writing, it only takes 8-12 turns to research. I will also trade my non-Alphabet starting tech for it if at all possible. I was using this mostly in OCC Deity games with the Indians (Ceremonial Burial, Alphabet), and trading Ceremonial Burial for Pottery. The British (Alphabet, Pottery) would also be a good choice, and their UU would benifit as well. I was just using the Indians for their War Elephants, as Iron usually doesn't end up in my borders. With how cheap Pottery and Ceremonial Burial are to research (after the first '40' tech), it shouldn't make too much of a difference. Also, when applying this to non-OCC games, the chances for the Lighthouse are decreased quite a bit. Expansion could be delayed, as there would be island expansion opened up, or a later military campaign can make up for the lack of cities altogether. Of course if it doesn't pay off, this leaves you even farther in the hole than just playing normally, as trying to "spillover" into the Great Library never works... say hello to the 200 shield granery.

A first or worst gamble, but hey, worst is where everyone starts in Deity anyways

On Vel's Warrior upgrading.

I had never thought of that, how much do Warriors cost to upgrade to Swordsmen? How often do you see no spearmen defending when using this tactic? With a good city site, the first Archer can be out and looking after 7 turns, which is usually quick enough to find the lone Warrior in an AI Capitol (which won't be razed, even if its size 1). The early Archers also double as Scouts, and happening upon a barbarian infested hut (the best ones, other than settlers) almost guarantees that they (elite now) will take their city. Archers don't upgrade to Swordsmen though right? (If you can't tell, I've never built or upgraded to a Longbowman). Nothing saying that the Archer and Swordsmen tactics can't be combined either way (Germans look good for that eh?).

[Arrian]

Ah-hah! I totally forgot about the warrior -> swordsman upgrade path. I do it myself, actually, just not as an intregral part of my strategy. Aeson - it's 40 gold per. I use them as city defenders - usually along w/a spearman. That way, if my main attack force of horsemen goes out to fight, I have some swordsmen ready to defend the homeland - defending with "defender" troops only is a surefire way to get pillaged to death. Swordsmen tend to work fine, b/c on defense you get the movement advantage of roads, and the invader doesn't.

Come to think of it, wow, Vel, that's a damn good idea, particularly if you're boxed in early on. You could "oscillate" with them, beating on your neighbors in turn, hopefully getting your troops up to vets and elite and maybe, just maybe a leader (why did my mind go there? Because, in my heart of hearts, I'd still want the Great Library) while gaining cities, tech and gold. Meanwhile, adding more here in there to beef up your force, or bringing in horsemen to reduce casualties. Or, alternatively, just hit once and settle down until the Middle Ages (knights).

Sortofunrelatedquestion: what do Jag Warriors upgrade to?

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Hey guys! And yep...Arri beat me to the punch there....40g each (which is easy to do if you leave your tax slider alone--50/50--since you won't be spending money on thechs from your neighbors....bust up a few barb camps while you're exploring and you should be all set with the money).

The upside to pulling your attack off that way is that you get a core group of effective attackers up and running with frightening speed....8 swordsmen heading toward your first rival in 2000-odd BC is almost impossible to counter, and as Arrian mentioned, it's altogether easy to pull 1-2 cities off of the expansion train and replace any casualties taken with horsemen as they become available.

Result: You create an absolutely terrifying assault force before your opponents can defend against it, you chop them in half or better before they can entrench, which all but guarantees their vassal status to you--and perhaps their eventual destruction--and if you repeat that basic pattern with every civ on the continent with you, you wind up in firm control of the continent long before you otherwise might be.

Best of all, since you're relying on your initially made warriors, you're not slowing your expansion down greatly, if at all (defensive replacements --spearmen-- can be made in-between settler builds, allowing cities more time to grow.

Downside: You *must* pay attention to the exact position of any and all units of your rivals (including sneaky flanking landings by the token warrior in the galley). Since you're sacrificing ALL defense to put the attack force together so quickly, overlooking even a single unit can really set you back!)

PS: Hmmm....I dunno what Jags upgrade to, if anything....I've never tried it....then again, IMO, the Jag is the best unit in the game....I'd prolly not be as happy with whatever unit it upgraded to anyway....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

To the question of how often do you see no spearmen:

First war: Figure that you'll capture two enemy cities, one of which will have a spear-chucker defending.

Second war (different civ as the target): Figure that you'll need to capture 3 cities to bring your foe to the table, all with at least one spear defending. MUCH more costly after that first war!

-=Vel=-

[Nakar Gabab]

Jags upgrade to swordsmen, if they work like most UUs... I much prefer 2 move to 3 attack... it's all about the timing, and jags are there right away.

[pchang]

expansionist is good

I just tried playing with the Iriquois and let me tell you, that early scout is awefully useful. It found me Moscow and Thebes just as I was completing that 2nd warrior. My 2 warriors marched over to Thebes and took it over (it was only defended by 1 warrior) and captured an Egyptian worker all before by 1st settler had founded my next city (build queue: warrior, warrior, settler). Talk about jump starting your development. Anyway, I killed off the last AI city in 280AD. It took a while to track down that last island with 2 AI cities on it. It also takes a long time to ferry invasion forces over when you only have galleys.

[Aeson]

On the power of 2 movement troops...

I was looking at some save games for my GOTM2 over at CivFanatics, and noticed something very weird. During the whole game I had built roughly 60 Horsemen units. I hadn't built a single Knight or Calvary in the game, all I had were from upgrade Horsemen. By the end of the game, I had 30 of those units still alive. This was over the course of several hundred battles. I had taken out over 100 AI cities with them alone(Monarch/Large/Pangaea with 2 seperate landmasses), and later on they were part of the final Mech Infantry/Modern Armor invasion that took out 100+ more cities. I was almost constantly at war in some area of the world from 500AD till 1850AD, even when not taking cities. A very conservative guess of 10 battles per horse unit (more likely 20+) would mean that I lost ("its too close to retreat") about 1 in 20 fights with them. A 5% mortality rate is pretty darn good.

This is the main problem I have about using Swordsmen against anyone but the Zulu's (Not sending Horsemen against Impi's ever again). They do quite well in the early game, but the production invested in them is wasted after the ancient era, as they never have an upgrade option. You can disband them for a limited return, but compared with upgrading horse units, that is pitiful indeed. With upgrading as cheap as it is, the Horsemen-> Knights-> Calvary path just becomes that much more powerful. The game needs a Middle Ages footsoldier with offensive punch (man-at-arms type 5.2.1) that swordsmen can be upgraded to, and later to riflemen. Mobile units were a big part of Middle Age offensives, but ground troops were as well.

[Arrian]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Horsemen are nearly immortal, in two different ways:

They retreat, so most survive.
They upgrade twice, and their final incarnation is faster than anything other than modern armor.

Swordsmen, useful as they may be if you plan on using Vel's upgrade gambit for an early war, just don't cut it once feudalism rolls around. They probably should upgrade to musketmen.

Given the way Civ III combat works (strange things happen... you run into that UBER spearman or whatever that eats up 4 attacking units w/o a stratch, for instance), the retreat ability is the best way to make sure you don't lose units you "shouldn't" lose. For instance, a Cavalry unit, based upon its stats, should thrash spearmen. Normally, they do. However, the vagueries of Civ III combat mean that eventually, the Cav's gonna lose. Retreat means you don't lose that unit unless you leave it out in the open undefended. My decision to concentrate on mobile troops, a decision made soon after I got the game, probably kept me out of the "Civ III sucks b/c the combat system is screwy! Where the hell is firepower!" crowd. By the way, I understand their frustration, and mean no offense to either side in that unsavory debate.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

You won't hear a peep of disagreement out of me about the sheer usefulness of horsemen! Especially with their withdrawl ability as it stands right now (and I think Aeson's 5% Mortality figure is proof enough that *something* needs to be done to re-balance fast troops), there's just no comparison!

However, I'm a pretty big believer in swordsmen-driven early wars (and I'm talking *very* early here!), and as I've been playing more, I've been able to come up with ways of getting that early game attack force without resorting to pop-rushing swordsmen (warrior upgrades, with spearmen rebuilt later to re-garrison my cities).

It is certainly true that swordsmen have a relatively short shelf life, but considering how quickly you can put together a truly terrifying force of them--and do it without significantly hindering early game REX-ing activities--they actually wind up being *faster* than horsemen in the very early game (Japan being the likliest exception, since they start with "The Wheel" and have a terriffic shot at getting a "Mongol Horde" up and running in about the same timeframe, esp. with a bit of goody hut luck).

Consider that, at the time you launch your attack you have 4-5 cities.

Your first war, you capture two enemy cities, and found two additional ones while your troops are off fighting.

For the duration of the war then, you've doubled your expansion rate, and are now sitting on a pretty substantial Empire of 8-9 cities (all this in the 4-digit BC's!). Your now veteran and elite swordsmen, augmented by whatever horse-troops you have been able to build in the interim do an about-face and go bother your next nearest neighbor.

Attrition during the course of the wars you fight will slowly whittle your swordsmen away, thinning their ranks to be replaced by horse troops, but in the meantime, you clamp down hard on your nearest rivals, pulling their teeth before they have a chance to even think about becomming a viable threat, and, when the dust settles, the swordsmen that remain can still be sac'd for a few shields.

As far as gaining early game momentum goes, it's mighty hard to top the swordsman (and of course, replacing their losses with mounted troops will help ensure you KEEP that momentum!).

-=Vel=-