Cradle Middle Game Thoughts

[Hermann the Lombard]

Most of the limited strat discussion here has been of the early game; I'd like to discuss the middle game.

I suppose I should be playing the tournament (now that the deadline has been extended a month), but so far I haven't. I've got the two Succession Games going, and a "relay" game with one friend (singing: "SG, for two, and I, for you...") and a 1.32 Global Empire game. In the latter I am (and in both SGs we are) breaking out on top of the Power Graph. I know how to get to this point, but I'm not sure where to go from here, and experimentation gets very slow with so many cities and units to control.

Status: a core group of cities built with our own resources, a larger number of cities taken from our neighbors (er, "our enemies," that's right). On a tech path Republic->Tribunal Empire->Caliphate, thus emphasizing tech (and now in rough parity with the leading AIs). City sizes ranging from 8 or 10 (for the original cities) up to 16 (captured plus slaves).

My inclination is to bulk up the cities (emphasizing growth), then bulk up the PW (emphasizing infrastructure) before embarking on the next round of conquest. I'm concerned about "losing momentum" but I suspect that once on top of the power graph I can stay there.

The next growth phase would emphasize granaries/aqueducts/apothecaries (the latter two from Wonders, hopefully) while temporarily reducing tech speed. Then I can fill the second ring with tile improvements, once I can use those efficiently. Further city specialization would occur at this point. Exploit new trade goods to have cash for the unit upgrades and selective rushbuying.

With the economic engine cranked up, go for a slight tech lead and exploit that edge for the next round of conquest (and to stave off AI rounds of conquest).

Does this sound like a reasonable plan, or am I losing my way in the middle game?

[Velociryx]

That sounds quite reasonable, and in fact, I just posted another essay in the strat section that pretty well mirrors this line of thinking.

It's gonna be your economy that keeps you at the top of the tech and overall power charts, and if you have a window of opportunity to expand the economy, then absolutely! I'd gladly sacrifice militaristic momentum for economic momentum, which is exactly what you'll get if you spend some *serious* time building that economy up! Once it's humming in high gear, it'll be VERY easy to switch back to a more militant stance, fully modernize the armies, and go hunting....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

I just GOT to the middle game in my latest exploration of Cradle, and I must say that up until the moment I got tanks, it was tooth and nail, but the AI just simply cannot handle modern warfare! (note that this is not a critism of the Cradle mod itself....I've NEVER seen a computer game, excepting for People's General, which is *entirely* modern war, where the AI could handle it.

The moment I got tanks and kept a force in the field, that's the last time the AI has won a significant battle against me. Initially, with three bigger empires pressing hard into my territory, I was losing core cities, and so, my first several (15-20) tanks were hastily put to field and literally HURLED at the enemy to stall the attack. After that, about a dozen turns of building up saw me with two tank forces of 12 units each, and the AI simply disintegrated.

Took about 25 turns to recapture all the lost cities (there were some half a dozen of these, in scattered parts of the realm, and then, my tank crews successfully fought a two front war, utterly destroying the Japanese, reducing the Harrappans to one miserable arctic island, and now, the full weight of my military might (some 70 tanks at last count) is aimed squarely at the former big dog of the planet, the Babylonians. They just simply can't hang in a tank fight, and I'm not sure if it's that they keep too many outdated troops around from previous ages, or that they're not building as many as they could be, but whichever is the case, the AI folds when you hit them with tanks (this, with my enemies having a 16-33 tech lead over me!)

Some interesting things I've noted about the middle game....that is the time for forging a new world order, with you at its head. There were NUMEROUS small, one and two-city civs that had sprung up, and I used my position of rapidly growing power (partly due to my sudden explosion on the military ranking chart, thanks to a massive tank buildup, and partly due to the rapid acquisition of a number of cities that I really didn't want for various reasons), I was able to secure peace treaties and trade agreements with six of the eight surviving civs, and further, I cemented alliances with a selected pair of them, tech shared and started giving them my "spare" conquered cities.

At this point, we regularly exchange technology, and they have been most helpful in battle, running interferance and generally chasing down rogue units of baddies while I go after the objectives with teeth. I've got one ally built up to 28 cities (this from the three he began with when he signed on with me), and have my other junior partner cranked up to 12 cities (this from his former 1). So....they're totally enraptured with the Celtic empire, and everybody's swimming in money thanks to the trade deals. The only empire that's fighting me still are the Babs, and I could force a peace with them any time I wanted to, since I've already broken their backs, militarily, but no....I think I'll just keep right on trucking....capture all of their cities, keep the ones I want, and dole the rest out to my most trusted lieutenants.....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Random side notes:

Personal bests so far:

14,000+ PW points generated by my empire in a single turn

Six (6) enemy cities captured or burned in a single turn.....next game, I'll try to top both!

-=Vel=-

[Immortal Wombat]

We need an anti-tank unit. Are SAM missile batteries high in the AI priorities? 'cos they really should be by the time the human gets tanks.

[Velociryx]

Yeah...that's true. The classic rock-paper-scissors of combat breaks (and breaks notably) at tanks, cos nothing but another tank can reliably BEAT another tank (well, the AI had a fistful of these MEAN fighter jets that tore me up on occassion, but there were never enough of them, and I'd be willing to bet money that they're lots more expensive than tanks).

Still, it's been great fun re-designing the world, I must say....

-=Vel=-

[hexagonian]

Vel,

Take a look at the unit pdf chart in the readme file and see what you think Tanks should be (as well as all the other modern and future units). I did not concentrate so much on Modern+ units when setting up Cradle, but this is something that can be easily fixed/adjusted.

I was thinking of making Tanks
Attack - 60
Range - 50
Defense - 45
Movement - 5
Cost - 3,300

I think I can also make the AI build more of them too.

BTW, what turn are you on???

[Velociryx]

Just saw this note, and so I have not had a chance to look over the actual data files to see what those numbers compare to, but the essence of the trouble is this:

Up until tanks arrive, the progression of armed forces is very gradual....one might even say a tad *too* gradual, in that historically, one could not expect to last long fighting machine gunners and artillery with infantry and cannon, but then, this is one of the tradeoffs that MUST be made in-game. Absolute historic accuracy must always take a backseat to overall balance and in-game fun, and were we to go purely "by-the-book" then the game would be a flat out race to a couple of key technologies, and that would be it. Completely linear. So....I like the gradual progression, but as I say, that breaks down at tanks, for two reasons.

Up until tanks, you have a need for three kinds of units. Machine Gunners as grunts to take the brunt of your casualties, Artillery for bombard-softening and providing power to your attacks, and cavalry for their speedy movement along your recently built rail system. This provides you a good mix of capabilities, and forces you to balance between these three radically different kinds of troops. It also accurately portrays Artillery as the "King of the Battlefield" which is dead-on. Historically, artillery fire has killed more troops than pretty much everything else combined.

With the advent of the tank you get, all rolled into a single unit:
1) The fastest moving unit on the map (a problem made more obvious by your rail system and offensive use of PW to extend that right up to enemy territory as quickly as possible.

2) A flanking unit, such that all you NEED are tanks

3) A quantum LEAP in power (IIRC, Artillery has a power of 30, while tanks are at 50).

Too many good abilities all rolled into a single unit.

To fix it, I would create a new unit (mechanized infantry or somesuch) with lesser attack but flanking ability, and remove flanking as an ability from tanks, while possibly cutting down on its movement and defense (leaving firepower alone).

Hand-in-hand with this, would be to introduce a new artillery unit right around the tank era....preferably one that's relatvely fast-moving and can keep pace with MI's and Tanks so they can stack together. This restores the balance. You MUST use combined arms once again, in order to excel (and the new arty unit should have a higher attack than a tank, such that pure tank armies would be cut to pieces by a more balanced force consisting of flankers, hard-hitting tanks, and punishing artillery).

I've not played past the era of tanks yet, so I do not know what's in store for me (tho some of my new trading partners are building GROOVY looking mag-levs, making me green with envy!

All this in the 1850's, btw....good game....MUCH fun!

-=Vel=-

[mapfi]

If you could make units that have a combat bonus against tanks, that'd be great - but since I don't see another way than using the IsMountedFlag which would result in giving pikeman also a bonus against tanks...
New units like an infantry unit with guided anti-tank-missiles (mechanized infantry sounds good) would be great, maybe even two of those - a ranged one and a flanking one. If the first thing could be made to work maybe even a better artillery (howitzers) and a ranged tank fighter.
To take away the ranged ability of tanks wouldn't be realistic but there might be no other way...

[Immortal Wombat]

Somebody might want to check if the BonusAgainstWoodenBoats (? - I'll check the name of this...) and IsWoodenBoat flags work. They aren't used, but if they work, then the name is arbitrary, they can be Tanks and anti-tank guns.

[Turambar]

What about getting the AI to use bombers more to bomb tanks? Or adding / improving air units for this?

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by Velociryx

3) A quantum LEAP in power (IIRC, Artillery has a power of 30, while tanks are at 50).

-=Vel=-

Speaking from a purely scientific perspective, quantum leaps are really quite tiny. Sheesh ...ignorant Yank

[hexagonian]

Well, here are the stats from Cradle regarding Modern/Future land units. I'd rather not add new units, but alter the existing ones.

Machine Gunner
Cost - 1,400
Attack 60/Range 45/Defense 50/HP 20/FP 3/AR 1/Movement 2/Vision 2

Fascist (G)
Cost - 1,200
Attack 65/Range 45/Defense 45/HP 23/FP 3/AR 1/Movement 2/Vision 2

Marine (E)
Cost - 1,750
Attack 70/Range 40/Defense 55/HP 23/FP 3/AR 1/Movement 3/Vision 2

Paratrooper
Cost - 2,000
Attack 60/Range 30/Defense 45/HP 20/FP 3/AR 1/Movement 3/Vision 2

Tank
Cost - 2,500
Attack 60/Range 60/Defense 45/HP 20/FP 3/AR 2/Movement 7/Vision 3

Artillery
Cost - 1,750
Attack 15/Range 70/Defense 25/HP 15/FP 3/AR 2/Movement 2/Vision 2

Mobile SAM
Cost - 2,300
Attack 10/Range 80/Defense 20/HP 15/FP 3/AR 1/Movement 4/Vision 3

Hover Infantry
Cost - 2,800
Attack 85/Range 40/Defense 70/HP 25/FP 4/AR 1/Movement 5/Vision 4

Fusion Tank
Cost - 6,000
Attack 70/Range 70/Defense 65/HP 25/FP 4/AR 3/Movement 8/Vision 3

War Walker
Cost - 4,000
Attack 55/Range 95/Defense 60/HP 25/FP 4/AR 3/Movement 5/Vision 4

Leviathan
Cost - 9,100
Attack 90/Range 90/Defense 100/HP 30/FP 5/AR 4/Movement 3/Vision 3

Discuss...

BTW Vel,
I have you AAR map almost done for your next game. If we all can finetune the Modern game, I can get this posted

[J Bytheway]

What kind of defense is supplied by city improvements by this stage in the game?

[Velociryx]

Hmmm.....some juicy things coming ahead for me then, looking at the units ahead....VERY cool!

Offhand, I'd say if we knocked 1-2 movement points off of the ol' tank, and moved his flanking ability from tank to Machine Gunner, that looks like it'd do the trick. One other potential thing to do would be to make the "close" attack of Mobile SAM's a smidgeon higher (at least on par with Artillery...possibly a bit higher than that even).

If testing still reveals an imbalance, then another potential tweak would be to reduce the defensive value of the tank. Given its historic use, I think that'd be a fair tradeoff to restore balance there.

And GREAT news re: the map and AAR! I'm learning the ropes with this run through, but I think that by the time I'm ready to start on the next one, I'll have a pretty good handle on things! Impossible level?

-=Vel=-