Triple Threat - The Joys of Being a Bloodthirsty Barbarian

[King of Rasslin]

True, there are many ways to skin a cat. I tried to win a game with marines and infantry, no mobile units at all. Swordsmen, longbowmen, riflemen, marines, I used them all. I used artillery. I didn't use mounted units at all, not even tanks.

I had fun. It was weak, but it was fun. I think mounted units are still very strong compared to what is supposed to be the main component of an attack. The little guys.

[Txurce]

I agree about the lack of verisimilitude. And your ground game sounds like a blast.

[Nakar Gabab]

Infantry are pretty good. Same attack as cavalry, massive defense, slow and no retreat. You'll deal the same amount of damage, but will progress through wars VERY SLOWLY.

On the upshot, you won't lose much to counterattacks... err... well.

[King of Rasslin]

Infantry are ok. Marines need a serious power overhaul. Paratroopers are nearly worthless. Swordsmen shouldn't be a dead research path, and neither should longbowman. Chariot to Cavalry is too long, I think. I noticed that the 1 unit war depends heavily on artillery and cannon support. I also noticed how weak artillery and cannon are. I would rather have 12 more units than some artillery. It is good against a comp but it will be useless in multiplayer.

[T-hawk]

Monarchy Rush

Has anyone tried coupling a Monarchy rush with the jaguar rush? The Aztecs are unique in starting with the two techs towards Monarchy, and can revolt to it right away being Religious. It's a good government to stay in for a while, too, using the cheap jags for police. A jaguar rush doesn't need any other techs, either - and when you do want them, take them in a peace treaty.

Is it possible to get to Monarchy early enough to spend most of your golden age in it? That would result in truly frightening numbers of jags, or a sizable infrastructure buildup.

[King of Rasslin]

T-hawk, I always wait for republic or monarchy for the golden age. However, the # of cities you have and their size is more important than the government type. You need plenty of fair sized cities to take advantage of the extra shields you get. Government type just reduces the waste a little.

The reason people wait for republic or monarchy to get the golden age is because you will have plenty of cities by the time you get the higher governments.

[punkbass2000]

It also has to do with the despotism limit of -1 food/shield in every tile that has three or more.

[Txurce]

It's an interesting idea. You need to research three techs, and would max out science (for what it's worth). But a delay in starting the rush could prove fatal, since you may not reach a tough civ in time, and won't have the gold to upgrade your JWs to swordsmen. And if you don't delay it, you'll likely waste most of your GA in despotism (which you are seemingly trying to avoid). This may be the sort of strategy that you play circumstantially - trade early enough for mysticism, and it might be worth it.

[Nakar Gabab]

I mod swordsmen and longbowmen to both upgrade to riflemen. This leaves them obsolete for a LONG time (though still marginally useful), then lets them keep upgrading.

I figure, by the time of Nationalism, they're shoving a gun into anybody's hands.

"You guys used bows? Uh, yeah, real nice, here, have a rifle and go stand in line with the other guys."

"Swords? Swords are so primitive, we're in the *19th century* here! Please, get these men rifles and a decent pair of pants!"

Once, I also let cavalry upgrade to mech inf. Not doing that currently, no particular reason.

[dawidge]

I decided to take Vel's advice and test drive the little green mean machine. All I can say is "WOW". Standard, continental (middle setting) all random on age, etc. Just started cranking out the jags and didn't build a settler until I hit 5 pop (built a barracks after the first three or four were out exploring). By that time I'd already captured Babylon and razed Ur (they deserved it, they took offense when I accepted the peace offering of two slaves that were wandering around ). A goodie hut popped a settler smack dab in the choke point to France so I decided to wall them off and save them for later. A few turns later, Moscow is mine (buh-bye). Sack an Indian city, sue for peace to steal all their tech, all their gold and one of their two remaining cities (in another choke point). I got a GL out of the deal and built the pyramids. The French don't offer enough incentive to me to give them contact with the Indians, so I capture Delhi and wave goodbye. Shift all but minimal defensive troops over to the France chokepoint (which has iron, which the French thoughtfully taught me how to use even though they have none themselves) and convert them all to swords. Take all the cultured French cities, sue for peace, all their tech and cash. A GL gives me my FP in the heart of France. Wait a few turns for the inevitable settler border violation, and steamroll them into oblivion. The largest landmass is mine by 350 AD. Use the last GL I'll get for a while to build the Lightbouse and start looking for the rest of the world.

I guess it's time to move up from Regent. The Aztecs are just too easy

[Velociryx]

Glad to hear it was a smashing success!

One of the oldest truisms of military strategy is that mobility trumps raw firepower. The Aztec, played in this fashion, excel not because they have units of superior strength, but simply because by being faster, sooner, they get the benefits of knowing the lay of the land before the opposition, and the ability to dictate precisely when and where combats occur.

That advantage is....huge.

-=Vel=-

[dawidge]

Absolutely. I switched to the swords against France because they had had time to put two spears in every city and were sending archers against me. I'd rather have my defender kill them than run away hurt. Besides, I had such numerical superiority by that point, that I had to pace myself to allow their cities time to build up enough culture.

Throughout the game I've practiced the "It's mine! I earned it" policy of not razing any cities intentionally. It probably slowed me down a little bit, but as it is I'm on a pace for my earliest ever victory. It's currently 1500 AD and my cavalry should secure enough of the Persian countryside by 1600 for a domination victory (Speaking of mobility advantage... Persia just achieved Knights, which cuts out my retreat, but I seldom need it). I stopped tech development after Nationalism+RR at about 1350. I'm not sure, but that may be the earliest I've ever made it to RRs, too (which is strange consider the number of times I've played the Babs in builder/hybrid).

Yowza!

[King of Rasslin]

Power always wins over finesse. Watch someone like the Undertaker absolutely murder someone like Jeff Hardy in the ring. See what I mean?

Fast little 1/1/2 jags are not very good at all after the first few turns. Cossacks are useful for so long, it isn't even funny. Cavalry is used longer than any other unit, in most of my games. They are one of my favorite UUs, but I don't like Russia enough to get them.

I love bowmen. They have the raw power early in the game, but they defend so well too. They are just plain tough.

[vulture]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Power always wins over finesse. Watch someone like the Undertaker absolutely murder someone like Jeff Hardy in the ring. See what I mean?

Wrestling? I'm not sure how a scripted and carefully choreographed bit of dancing compares to an actual confrontation...

Fast little 1/1/2 jags are not very good at all after the first few turns. Cossacks are useful for so long, it isn't even funny. Cavalry is used longer than any other unit, in most of my games. They are one of my favorite UUs, but I don't like Russia enough to get them.

I love bowmen. They have the raw power early in the game, but they defend so well too. They are just plain tough.

Jags have a reasonable shelf life. At a time when I had about 10 cities, I was trying to take the French capital defended by 4 spearmen. A stack of 20 Jags did the job pretty well, with men to spare. And with several cities producing 5 shields and turning out a veteran replacement every 2 turns, the stack was just getting bigger. Of course, I still upgraded to swordsmen at the first opportunity.

Never tried Cossacks, since I've never played the Russians. But I agree that medieval UUs are useful for a long time (apart from Indian war elephants and French musketeers, which are hardly useful at all).

I remember that everyone thought that the attacking UUs with beefed up defense were stupid when the game first appeared (a la legions, bowmen, samurai). In practice it seems that most people have found them to be much stronger units that their stats would suggest. I'm still not sold on the cossacks though, since their beefed up defence (ADM of 6/4/3 IIRC) is still that much weaker than than the usual attack values of their era, while those of the legions, bowmen, samurai have defence values equal to the best attackers they are likely to be facing for a while. Anyone have any good experiences of using cossacks? (Aside from the benefits of a late medieval golden age...)

[dawidge]

I was actually mad when I was forced to start building Swords instead of JWs. After all, I had gold to burn in upgrades, I could crank out a JWs every couple of turns, and they had 2 move points to reach the front quickly. I seriously considered pillaging a road or two.

1560, BTW. A record best for me. The only reason it took that long is that I had toi decide to declare peace to get out of mobilization so I could grow culture in captured Persia. Declare peace, rush temples, wait 5 turns, I win. I probably could have gotten a conquer victory by 1600. I was poised to go through the Zulu like grass through a goose.