Overcoming Parity in the Medival Age

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Alright, don't scoff. "Oh, if you haven't achieved dominance by the end of the ancient era, you're not a real Civ player." There are those of us who, despite our best efforts, can find ourselves still "tied" come the medival era. This thread is dedicated to them.

This thread is meant to apply to any game. I generally play against the max # of opponents on a huge map, SP, but this thread is meant to generate discussion for any scenario: a small MP game, a huge deity level game with few opponents, you name it!

So feel free to post your own questions, or random advice. Just make sure you're clear about what difficulty level you're dealing with, # of opponents, size and type of world, etc.

I'll just start out by asking one basic question:

If you reach the medival era and you don't have a great cavalry unit, and you're not necessarily ahead in tech, or only slightly so, what do you do?

I play Regent level on a Huge continents map, 4 billion years, roaming Barbarians. I have had trouble winning as the Romans under these conditions, so I now include a mid-game .SAV for you all to consider my conundrum.

But please, pitch in with your own questions, advice and .SAVs, so this isn't just about my game (I already have a thread dedicated to just Rome alone!)

I hope this will generate some interesting discussing. I appreciate any input.

[yxhuvud]

Personally, if I am not behind in tech I tend to favor getting feudalism ASAP. Then I attack an opponent that either doesn't have it or doesn't have iron.

pikes + med.inf vs spearmen + swords or horses is not a pretty sight.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I agree with that. But what if you lack iron, and aren't playing as the Scandanavians, Indians or Mongols? Do you just quit, or try something else?

[Arrian]

It depends. There are different types of parity. Tech parity. Military parity. Score graph/Power graph parity (ignore that, for the most part).

Military parity can be overcome simply through better tactics. The AI's tactics are terrible (though I remember CivII, and the CivIII AI looks like Rommel compared to that). Draw their good units (like knights, given the time period we're discussing) out onto open ground to kill them, or try to get them to attack you at a disadvantage (up hills, mountains, across rivers, etc). Meanwhile, cut their iron. All of a sudden, you're facing longbowmen instead of knights. Pikemen you kill cannot be replaced. Muuuuuch better. Don't throw your own units away in piecemeal attacks. If you have 10 knights, don't split them up! Send all 10 to attack at once. Take that city, hole up & heal, bring up pikemen to defend and any new knights you build, and move to the next city. Don't rush it. That's a recipe for heavy casualties. I only divide my forces when I know I have enough to have 2 (or more) groups that can each take cities FOR SURE on their own.

Tech parity. Again, it depends. One way to gain a lead is to simple beat up on the AI. That will cramp their research just a bit A variant of that is to get them embroiled in wars against each other (if you are still a Monarchy, and WW isn't a problem, you can jump into a war and pull in even more civs... no need to actually fight much - except maybe sneaking in a grabbing a luxury ). I don't really do that, though, because I do not feel confident that such manipulations will work out for my benifit (AI wars occasionally produce a superpower AI). I'd rather opportunistically jump in to wars already in progress and grab what I can.

Another, more peaceful, method is to draw off their income by selling them things for gold per turn. Luxuries, resources, tech (Printing Press is a great one, since they tend to research that late or even not at all). That will slow their research and speed yours. Only buy things from the AI if you think you need it. Once you reach tech parity, the goal should be to out-research them and (when you choose) sell them the tech that you get to further drain their economies.

One of the reasons I target luxuries in war is that it's a double whammy to the AI. 1) you hurt their ability to keep their people happy. Take a lux away from them, and they now either have to import one (perhaps that very one... from YOU), raise their luxury spending, or accept higher unhappiness. 2) you help your ability to keep your people happy, and now you don't have to import that luxury and you can sell it to the other AIs (as the former owner was surely doing). Taking control of a luxury represents an enormous shift in power. So, if you're fighting and you have limited offensive capability (you can only take a city or two), I suggest you hit the luxury supplies. Often those cities are out on the fringes, have low population and weak defenses, making them easy to take.

-Arrian

[minke19104]

I think Continent is easy. I would just go for Chivalry, get massive Knights and pikeman to conquer my Continent. This should give you good amount of leaders to blow on GWs. After that, I'd make marketplaces, temples, libraries, aquaducts, second FP, banks, and basically solidify my holdings until I try to cross the ocean to make contacts with other civs. If you're playing the Romans and have massive legions I would use them instead for defense or upgrade them if you have PTW.

Make sure u kill off the civs in ur continent whom you have broken treaties before to erase any wrongdoings. But leave some to use as contact deals. Distant civs will pay huge money and/or contacts for ur world map and contacts to the civs in ur land. This way distant civs will not know what happened and you will get cheaper and better deals.

Having owning your own continent in a huge world with correct FP placement is a wonderful thing. First of all you get a huge landmass to work on for the next age or two. There is limited chance for warfare in ur continent, as AI civ barely ever gets the Intelligence to successfully load galleons of troops to land in your continent to ever pose a dangerous threat to you. Third is the possibility to incite wars in which you really take no part of

To further explain my last point, I'll give you an example. In my last game as a Babylonian, after finishing up my continent with medieval wars, a screen popped up that said "England have finished Copernicus Obs" in the other continent. Right away I researched Education all the way to Navigation and started sailing galleys to find them. After contacts I bought off the remaining techs that they have and luxuries.

Then I went and declare war against France, signed an alliance with England, and every other civs in the continent against France. Spain decided to attack England but I managed to stay out of that war and continue to profit from trades of techs, luxuries and resources.

The trick is that because there was no actual war that included my units and none of my units were in enemy territory and vice versa, there was little or no War wearriness. While the other civs builds military, I proceded to equipping every cities in my continent with Universities, banks, etc. In the end of the medieval era, I reached tech supperiority and so on.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

This leads to the next question:

WHO do you attack when you are at, say, "total" parity (i.e., same size, tech level and resources) as your neighbors? Assume, for now, that they have no luxury resources you want, and no wonders you especially need, but are working on building the same wonders you are.

Do you attack the most agressive neighbor?

The smallest?

The one with the easiest front?

Do you not attack anyone until much later in the game?

[Arrian]

I just had another thought:

If you have parity with the powerful AI civs, most of the time there is one or more weaker AIs out there. Pick on them.

For instance, in my current game, I finishing conquering my continent (destroyed Arabs, Mongols, Vikings), I wasn't all that strong. I had blown my GA in despotism (ack! big no-no for me). There are 2 very strong AIs on the "other continent", along with one that used to be fairly strong, but got ground down in a long, meatgrinder war against one of the others. Korea and Egypt are the strong ones, the Celts got beat up by Egypt.

Then there were the Zulu. There they sat on their little island off the coast of Egypt & Korea. They had 10 cities. They were behind in tech. They were broke. They had spices.

Until the Roman army showed up, that is. My offensive armed forces in this particular game are unimpressive at the moment. The wars to secure my continent were long and bloody, and due to the lack of a well-timed GA, my "builder mode" has been longer than normal. I did not feel I could spare the shields for more military units.

I was successful in destroying the Zulu without much trouble. At the end of the campaign, my offensive military consists of 11 Cavalry, 1 knight, 1 med inf, 1 horseman, and my 2xlegion + 1xmed inf army. That's it.

Upon first making contact with the Zulu, Koreans, Egyptians and Celts (Great Lighthouse was useful on this map), I found myself roughly at tech parity with the big boys, and ahead of Zululand. Via trades, I attained parity. Via my own economy, I slowly began to pull away (nailing the big wonders helped to, I admit. I have Sun Tzu, Leo, Sistine, Bach, Copernicus, Smith, Newton and Magellan). But the clincher game with Navigation. Now I could trade with the big boys. And trade I did. I have been selling my luxs to Korea for a while now, for heavy GPT payments. Egypt got off lighter - I had a 4 for 1 lux trade for a while, but recently switched over to selling to them for GPT instead of importing. I was able to do that because of my gaining spices from the Zulu war.

Not exactly middle ages parity, I admit. But militarily, I was close to parity... I did NOT have the offensive punch to invade Egypt or Korea. Invading the Celts would have been pointless, as they lost their luxury to Egypt in their war. So I found the weakest target that gave a return, and hit them.

Now I'm in the Industrial Age and I have a decent tech lead. They have nationalism, and I don't, but I have steam power (korea has, egypt no - maybe now, since their faux war ended), industrialization, medicine, electricity, sci method, replaceable parts, atomic theory and electronics. 2 leaders from the fall of Zululand give me Uni Suff & ToE free of charge. Hoover due in 2.

Game, set, match. If I had taken on one of the big boys, I probably would have managed to take 1 city (at most) and been forced to produce more military, hampering my industrialization plans... not to mention earning the hatred of that civ. Though Egypt now apparently is furious with me... I assume because of my atrocious treatment of the Zulu and my power lead.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Cross-post! Short answer: the weakest. Long answer: see above.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

In my current game, I intend to attack the Babylonians, take them in no more than 20 turns I think, and then move on to Japan, and India, successively, bringing me 2 more luxuries (the Babs are just "in the way")

My question to you all is, with all the other AIs already resenting me for being slightly ahead of them, how do I prosecute these wars and not have wars brought upon myself?

Obviously I will try to bring the others into coalitions with me, but if I can't, what then? I can't risk a war with certain of my big neighbors, especially more than one at once. (see saved game above for more detail)

[Arrian]

Bringing them in on your side is the safest method.

Failing that... well, make sure your border defenses are solid - enough to hold long enough for reinforcements to arrive from elsewhere.

From your posts, it sounds to me like you have direct borders with China, Carthage and Babylon. Carthage has been a real pain, China is powerful but hasn't been a problem (yet) and the Babs are weak.

I've been in that situation, and I hate it. It is another reason why I love having my own continent - no enemies behind me.

I think I need to see the save (or at least some screenshots) prior to giving more advice. There are so many variables.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I generally keep all of my cities with 3 of the best defensive units, obviously rushing interior cities' def units to the front(s) when needs be. I am considering adding a 4th def unit to my China and Carthage fronts for this game, and then taking on the Babs.

Of course, that takes away from time I could spend building my army... but I could wait until I get MT to do that anyways, and skip the knights entirely.

btw, how do I post screenshots? How do I capture screenshots to begin with?

[Konquest02]

I sometimes do what you just mentionned: skipping knights and beeline for MT and cavalry. If you're lucky, you might get to fight cavs vs. pikemen (or spearmen if facing a REALLY backwards civ). But Cavs vs. musketmen will do the job alright!

You press the PrntScrn button on your keyboard (usually located at the top right of the instrument...) Then, you get a graphic editor (Paint will do the job) and paste. TADAM!! You just need to save as a jpeg (because bmp's take a lot of space.)

To post it here, when submitting a reply, use the attach file at the bottom of the reply form...

[Arrian]

3 top defenders in each city????

Wow. That's WAY more than me.

I might have that in a border town (perhaps a bit more), but in the interior? That's just a waste!

If you are running a republican or democratic government, those interior units are doing nothing but drawing paychecks. Now it's true, in my games I tend to have 1 unit in each of my "home" cities (my continent), but if there was ever a threat - like a border with another civ - I would pull my units from all non-coastal interior cities and put them up on that border, either in the cities or on key defensive terrain at or near the border.

So you could probably muster 5-6 top defenders in those border cities w/o building any more units!

By the way, I often have more attack units than defenders. At least when I'm intending to fight. You're investing a lot of shields in defense, when it's offense that wins wars. Sure, you need some defense, but the fact is that having 50 Cavalry and 10 riflemen is probably better than having 30 Cav and 30 Rifles. Having tons of attack troops will allow you to break through the enemies defenses and capture or destroy his cities (production centers) and thus hamper and eventually destroy his ability to continue the war.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Actually, the main reason I keep 3 defensive units in each city is to police them. I generally skip Republic. I tried it for the first time in a long time during one of my recent Republic games, and found it quite dissappointing; didn't bring me THAT great a tech edge, and led to consistent unhappiness.

During Democracy, which I always switch to at some point (definitely by the industrial era's beginning), I drop this rule... although I'd hate to lose out to some punk sneak-attacking me via ship and grabbing an important coastal/"interior" city...

[Arrian]

If memory serves, only 2 units per city matter for MP purposes under Monarchy. I could be wrong, but I was pretty sure about that...

Regarding government choice... sometimes I do what you do (Monarchy until Democracy) and sometimes I go republic to demo. It depends.

I grant you that government switching as a non-religious civ is painful, and thus you have to cut down on it as much as possible (the Monarchy -> Demo route works for that).

Monarchy is good for having a large military - and even better if you are using that military (no war weariness).

My basic rule of thumb is this: Monarchy is better if I'm still fighting for my continent and my infrastructure is weak. But once my cities have their marketplaces & libraries, and my conquest is winding down, I want out. Depending on how close I am to Democracy, I will either stick it out in Monarchy (and deliberately prolong the mop-up operation vs. the AI on my continent hoping for leaders) or switch to Republic.

In my current Roman game, I went straight from Monarchy to Demo (but I switched ASAP, not in the industrial age!).

In games as religious civs, though, as soon as I think my infrastructure can support paying for my military, I switch. Hell, if I need to fight more, I can always switch right back. I love the religious trait.

The representative governments (rep/demo) are generally superior to the others in the game. This is particularly so if you aren't a raging warmonger (you're not) and if you can grab one or both of the key happiness wonders (Sistine or Bach). Sistine is obviously more powerful for religious civs, but Bach rocks for all civs (though, once you make the required investment of building cathedrals all over the place, the Sistine wins, IMO).

The reason I'm a raging warmonger is so that come the mid-to-late game, I can play builder! That's the point of all that ancient/early medieval slaughter. If I conquer a 4-civ continent, I'll have 4 luxuries and be strong enough to snatch a couple more from weak overseas AIs. Those wars will be short, and won't upset my fickle people too much.

-Arrian

p.s. Fear not the luxury slider.