The importance of the Medievil Wonders

[BRC]

Without recapping a lot of great commentary, here are my Medieval almost-must-haves:

Is Bach's more valuable to you than Sistine?

I know that you like to destroy things, but would you say that you keep a larger than normal "supply" of troops on hand?

[Theseus]

Originally posted by BRC


Is Bach's more valuable to you than Sistine?

I know that you like to destroy things, but would you say that you keep a larger than normal "supply" of troops on hand?

What gave you that impression? I build too!

Bach's doesn;t require Cathedrals, so yeah, it's a no-brainer for me.

Re # of troops, I've been all over the place. Given a choice, I would prefer overwhelming power via both unit strength and number of units. But I've definitely had to scramble with small "ready forces."

[yxhuvud]

dominae: You don't like Medieival infantry?

I know I do, and I build more of them for each game of PTW I play.

First, the stats of the different units is:

Knights - 70 shields, 4/3/2
Med. Inf - 40 shields, 4/2/1

This pricing seems pretty balanced to me. While the knight has much better stats, it is almost twice as expensive.

If we compare their strengths on attack, then I find that since you can usually decide where to attack, the movement doesn't matter that much, and sinec by the time you can build either, most cities have expanded their cultural sphere enough to make it impossible to attack with knights without counterattacking. This means the opponent will have at least one turn to counterattack either unit, and since your defensive units can keep up with the infantry, this should be a lot easier to survive. It might even quite possibly make cannons worthwhile

On defense both should be pretty equal, considering price, since you should have enough roads to give you the maneuverability advantage regardless of what unit you use.

I am not saying that knights is useless though, but rather that it's uses isn't to be the only viable offensive unit until cavalry, in that age. I also favor upgrading to knights rather than to infantry, since gold is easier to come by than shields It nice to have an army consisting of different types of units, since they compliment each other quite well

(and if anyone wonders, the reason this doesn't hold for longbowmen is the place in the techtree when they become available, and the fact that there usually is more swordsmen around than archers, at the time I do my upgrades. nevertheless some people used longbowmen + defensive unit for wars, since it is often a bit cheaper)

(edited away a typo)

[Dominae]

Originally posted by yxhuvud
Dominae: You don't like Medieival infantry?

Nope!

Originally posted by yxhuvud
Knights - 70 shields, 4/3/2
Med. Inf - 40 shields, 4/2/2

I know you know this (from your subsequent comments), but Medieval Infantry only have 1 movement point (Samurai outrun those suckers anyday!).

Originally posted by yxhuvud
If we compare their strengths on attack, then I find that since you can usually decide where to attack, the movement doesn't matter that much, and sinec by the time you can build either, most cities have expanded their cultural sphere enough to make it impossible to attack with knights without counterattacking.

High movement is a lot better than you make it out to be. Among a whole bunch of other things you can do with 2-movement, here's are my favorites: 1) pillage and retreat, 2) get to the military front faster, 3) retreat from combat against a slow-mover. The last one is obviously the best, mostly because the AI doesn't defend with fast-movers (I have nightmares of trying to conquer a strong Shaka).

Originally posted by yxhuvud
On defense both should be pretty equal, considering price, since you should have enough roads to give you the maneuverability advantage regardless of what unit you use.

2-defense is easily beaten by Medieval age units. 3-defense is average (i.e. acceptable). Knights prevent fast-movers from using their retreat ability.

Originally posted by yxhuvud
I am not saying that knights is useless though, but rather that it's uses isn't to be the only viable offensive unit until cavalry, in that age.

Funny you should mention Cavalry, as that was my next point: Knights upgrade to Cavalry at the bargain price of 20 Gold (I hope it goes without saying the Cavalry are really, really good). Medieval Infantry upgrade too...Guerilla. Bleh.


I do use Medieval Infantry, mostly when I need some extra support on offense (since I play with a smallish military) and Warriors are available. I would never build Medieval Infantry from scratch, however.


Dominae

[Aeson]

I think Sun Tzu's is the most powerful Middle Ages wonder. That's not to say it's the most useful, as a more peaceful approach to a game is passing on that power anyways.

Sun Tzu's isn't important for giving you Barracks for your units to be built with, those should be built earlier anways. It's power is in giving you Barracks for them to heal in. Conquests are so much quicker when your units have ready made Barracks waiting for them in each city. In a conquest it can save a turn or more per unit per city taken. If you're attackers can attack twice as often, that's a huge edge.

The AI's benefit from Sun Tzu's more than any other Middle Age wonder from a 'staying alive' perspective, so keeping it out of their hands is also important. Often it's the only way a non-militaristic AI will have anything other than regular units.

[Catt]

Smith's

Without trying to grab a bunch of quotes from the thread, Smith's became much more powerful under PTW (although I liked it under vanilla Civ III as well).

Under PTW, Smith's covers the upkeep costs of:

Marketplaces (1)
Harbors (1)
Banks (1)
Stock Exhchanges (3)
Airports (2)
Commercial Docks (2)

Even at the beginning of the Industrial Corridor ("The Corporation") Smith's means 5 gpt free for most core cities (more if coastal). By entry into the Modern Age, if the game is still on, Smith's means minimum of 5 gpt per core city and often 7, up to 10 for coastal cities.

My view of Sistine vs. JSB is: Get'em both! But, if forced to choose, the most important factors for me are map configuration and civ traits (religious, and therefore cheap cathedrals, or not).

I also agree that Sun Tzu's power comes: (1) from instant healing during aggressive expansion, and later (2) from the free upkeep. Free barracks themselves (at least as applies to one's core) isn't a huge draw in the early/mid game.

Catt

[BRC]

My view of Sistine vs. JSB is: Get'em both! But, if forced to choose, the most important factors for me are map configuration and civ traits (religious, and therefore cheap cathedrals, or not).

I'll remember this. When do you usually build cathedrals? Before or after hospitals??

The AI's benefit from Sun Tzu's more than any other Middle Age wonder from a 'staying alive' perspective, so keeping it out of their hands is also important

Are there any other wonders that you get to keep out of the hands of the AI??

What gave you that impression? I build too!

Theseus: Let's just say that you have a........ reputation.

[Catt]

Originally posted by BRC

I'll remember this. When do you usually build cathedrals? Before or after hospitals??

I can't remember the last time I built a hospital in a city before it had a cathedral, though I will occasionally have a size 12+ city without a cathedral (those instances when I capture a city with a hospital). I find that without adequate contentedness / happiness infrastructure, city growth is more painful than helpful. Given the choice, I usually insist on cities having a marketplace, temple, and cathedral before I build I hospital -- though like all things civ, my attitude is heavily situation dependent.

Catt

[yxhuvud]

Originally posted by Dominae

2-movement, here's are my favorites:

1) pillage and retreat

Dominae

While that is true, I hardly ever use 2-movement units for pillaging. I usually use units with good defence for pillaging, preferably in stack, since the opponent have the speed advantage anyway in that case.

Originally posted by Dominae
2) get to the military front faster,
Dominae

This statement doesn't take into account that the unit will be available earlier, since it cost slightly above half the price. Every turn earlier means that the spot where the knight will have caugt up is moved 6 spots away from the city. Usually This will not impose a big defference, for me.

Originally posted by Dominae
3) retreat from combat against a slow-mover.
Dominae

As you said this is the strongest point of why multiple moves is better than one. I don't feel that it makes it worth 30 extra shields.

Originally posted by Dominae
2-defense is easily beaten by Medieval age units.
3-defense is average (i.e. acceptable). Knights prevent fast-movers from using their retreat ability.
Dominae

well, I did say to have defensive units as well in the stack of attackers.. And if I am attacking, I couldn't care less about the retreating of two mover units, since for one, it is a big chance it will be a sitting duck a step away, and for the second, I do have some knights around, to take out units or not that heavily defended cities. (I like to have about the same amount of inf and knights, and for each city it is the amount of turns that decide what to build. If it takes 5 turns for inf and 7 for knights I choose knights, but if it would take say 5 turns for inf and 8 for knights, I'd choose inf, for example)

Originally posted by Dominae
Funny you should mention Cavalry, as that was my next point: Knights upgrade to Cavalry at the bargain price of
Dominae

I agree that the cavalry mass upgrade is very powerful. however, the medieval age is long, and you have more tahn neough time to build enough knights to make your time worthwhile

I build infantry mainly when I think I will be warring a lot during the age. For me, warring is not limited to the windows between knight and musketeer, and between cavalry and riflemen. You wrote that you used a smallish military, and that may be part of the reason, since if you had a larger, you maybe would be involved in more wars during the medeival age.

(I generally upgrade all my warriors while i'm still in the ancient age, to help with the attacks. much cheaper to build a spearman and upgrade the warrior than build a horseman or swordsman from scratch)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BRC
Are there any other wonders that you get to keep out of the hands of the AI??

Obviously the UN, Hoover, and ToE. The Lighthouse is important on some maps, and is usually built late enough that you can determine if it's important or not in time to build it.

[Arrian]

Dominae,

I have nightmares of trying to conquer a strong Shaka.

Me too. Even a fairly weak shaka is a pain until Cavalry - all he needs to hurt you are a few size 7 cities. I had a Japanese game where I hit him with Samurai (after having destroyed Babylon, China, India and Persia) may of which were elite, and I still suffered appalling losses. And I had hurt him earlier with swordsmen and horsemen (you can guess how my poor horsies did). This was prior to PTW, but I actually would have like to have used some Med Inf (upgraded from swords, of course) to soften his cities prior to using my Sams to mop up.

Back to the topic at hand: Wonders. I admit I have an illogical attachment to the Sistine. I have the number "6" in my head. Of course, "6" requires a cathedral, which for a non-religious civ costs 160 shields, otherwise it's a "0" So I understand the argument for Bach's over the Sistine. But you're talking to a guy who builds temples and cathedrals ASAP even when playing a non-religious civ in the middle of a war.

Catt,

Under PTW, Smith's covers the upkeep costs of:

Marketplaces (1)
Harbors (1)
Banks (1)
Stock Exhchanges (3)
Airports (2)
Commercial Docks (2)

Even at the beginning of the Industrial Corridor ("The Corporation") Smith's means 5 gpt free for most core cities (more if coastal). By entry into the Modern Age, if the game is still on, Smith's means minimum of 5 gpt per core city and often 7, up to 10 for coastal cities.

This partially explains the 30,000+ gold I had by the end of my first very successful Celtic PTW game. I literally couldn't spend it all. I love Smith's.

-Arrian

[punkbass2000]

I recant my Smith arguments for the purposes of PTW

[joncnunn]

Point taken about Airports.

However, in the case of Banks, just about every city benifits from this.

Banks become adivable with "Banking". Adams Smith becomes adviable with Economics, which requires as a pre-req Banking.

Baracks are completly free in Civ III already.

This does though making Adam Smith less useful in Civ III (original) than Civ II.

Originally posted by punkbass2000


IN addition, there is at least barracks, and possibly others that I don't recall. Anything that costs 1gpt, anyway.

Also, you list bank and airport under Civ3's Smith's. However, banks only become available with economics, and airports even later. Everything from civ2's list would likely be built from the get go in the core cities. Also, a lot of cities don't need banks or airports, while just about every city could use barracks, a temple, and a library.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by joncnunn
However, in the case of Banks, just about every city benifits from this.

True enough, most cities do need banks.

Banks become adivable with "Banking". Adams Smith becomes adviable with Economics, which requires as a pre-req Banking.

Oops, but in any case, I'm just saying that many of them won't be up and running by the time you complete Smith's.

Baracks are completly free in Civ III already.

This may be true, but in all honesty, I think this is a non-sequitar. It's not relevant to this discussion because we're discussing Smith's in their own game, not each other's.

This does though making Adam Smith less useful in Civ III (original) than Civ II.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you agreeing with me?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by yxhuvud
I hardly ever use 2-movement units for pillaging. I usually use units with good defence for pillaging, preferably in stack, since the opponent have the speed advantage anyway in that case.

'Move and pillage' works well because the fast-mover may be able to avoid counter-attack the next turn. 'Pillage and move' also works well because you can pillage at the rate of your best defender (Musketmen, if you're using a Knight-Musketmen combo). I'm a fan of pillaging because it ensures I conquer the city at its weakest possible moment. Pillaging around the enemy capital is especially sweet.

Originally posted by yxhuvud
This statement doesn't take into account that the unit will be available earlier, since it cost slightly above half the price.

Good point. This argument is situational (depends of how far the front is, how many turns you need to build each unit type, etc.), but valid nonetheless.

Originally posted by yxhuvud
As you said this is the strongest point of why multiple moves is better than one. I don't feel that it makes it worth 30 extra shields.

The retreat ability allows your units to live longer. This means, in the long run, you don't have to produce as many to achieve the same goals. This opens other avenues of production for your cities (such as, gasp!, cultural improvements).

Originally posted by yxhuvud
I agree that the cavalry mass upgrade is very powerful. however, the medieval age is long, and you have more tahn neough time to build enough knights to make your time worthwhile.

Ideally you want to produce as many Horsemen as possible, and upgrade from there. Yes, there is plenty of time to build a Knight force from scratch, but that whole time you're doing so it won't be in the field causing havoc.

Originally posted by yxhuvud
You wrote that you used a smallish military, and that may be part of the reason, since if you had a larger, you maybe would be involved in more wars during the medeival age.

Perhaps paradoxically, I use a smallish military but always try to be involved in some war or another. This reflects my current attempts to make most of Monarchy, since I found myself going to Republic too often before.


Dominae