View Full Version : Why the english AREN'T the best for domination!


I-am-a-panda
Aug 01, 2008, 03:17 PM
People say horseback riding + monarchy = feudalism = knights. Fair 'nuff. But when your'e at 2200 bc. or whatever wit h a few warriors and 2-3 cities, feudalsim takes 47 turns!! Yes 47 turns! your better off studying writing and aiming for catapult units!

Minotaur24
Aug 01, 2008, 05:40 PM
That's true...you almost have to bank on a great scientist. However, if you crank out three cities in the start (capital, 100 gold bonus settler, and one production settler), you can start one city on the Samurai Castle, and by the time you get Feudalism you will either have +1 attack, or the ability to quickly crank out knight army's with your built up production. The latter is actually how I owned the map on King level.

NaZdReG
Aug 01, 2008, 06:51 PM
they're not bad.. but hardly overpowering.

knights can still lose to fortified archer army behind a wall. and realistically by the time you get it researched they're likely to have unlocked atleast catapults. if they skirmish defence and attack your knights before they can assault the town you've lost most of your advantage.

once they get to pikemen (or if they're the greeks) you've lost your entire advantage

NaZ

Aden52
Aug 01, 2008, 09:48 PM
47 turns, depending on your science. And you don't need a great scientist to pull this off. The first game I played on emperor I didn't use a great scientist, I just went horseback riding - > writing - > feudalism. It would be smart to pick up writing before trying to slingshot for feudalism. Building libraries and setting your cities to science should be enough. When I did this on Emperor I rushed Egypt with knights, and Egypt was way ahead in tech. What did they have for defense? Archers still...

And the point of being able to bee-line for knights is notone of the bigger reasons why England is great for domination. While it does mean that you have more potential for early dominance, it does not mean that you will be victorious no matter what. Naval attack +1, and Double Naval Support are huge bonuses in the end. It means no matter what, your navy is slightly stronger (anything to help increase the odds, even if it is just +1, it's better than nothing). Also, the double naval support is ridiculous. The other day I was playing and my fighters had 100 strength. Tanks had 170 strength. What can defend against that?

I think England is great for domination, maybe not the best, but they sure can be great. If you happen across a great scientist early on... then you can pretty much call the game right there...

You could always go for catapults, but they have less defense and movement. No point in being the English, if your going to race for catapults though, might as well be the Arabs.

Oh and another thing to cut down the tech time... build a city near dye! Thats lots of extra science right there, especially when you build a library.

vinstafresh
Aug 02, 2008, 01:05 PM
Build your second city with 2 dyes in the city radius and rush a library. Your lead will be enormous!

But that same strategy goes for India as well.

Cromat
Aug 02, 2008, 03:32 PM
I won using the English early Knights strategy twice, once on King and once on Emperor, and both times I did not have a Great Scientist. Building Libaries and focusing on science was enough to make Feudalism a 16-18 turn research, which isn't too bad since it practically wins you the game.

NaZdReG
Aug 03, 2008, 10:47 AM
3 knights is 12 attack yes?

a fortified archer army behind a wall and its an even fight

now that's assuming they're playing that defensively. and it's unlikely that all of their cities will be that defended

but catapults beat knights. so a skirmish defence would hurt this strat alot as well.

and if they get to democracy your advantage is negated completely

I guess it all depends on how fast you can get there and how quick you can leverage it. with a great scientist I can see it being truly brutal.

Aden52
Aug 03, 2008, 02:56 PM
3 knights is 12 attack without veteran. Veteran makes 18 (no reason why they should not be veteran). Infiltration adds another 50% to make 24, and attacking from a hill makes 30. If you get a great general in there too, then it adds up even more.

I've used knights in war against riflemen many times, and have been successful, so when I hear people talk about how they are even with archers, or its hard to even use them against archers... I laugh.

I don't really see how catapults beat knights, knights have more defense and movement... with the same attack.

Also, democracy does not negate knights completely. By the time they get democracy your knights should already have promotions to still give you the advantage. By the time they get riflemen you could still attack with knights, provided they are heavily promoted and you can attack from a hill. Great generals always help.

Oh, and also factor in that you can use spies to decrease fortifications, which will help give you more of an edge against archers/pikemen/riflemen.

If you can get knights fast enough, it will pretty much win you the game. All you have to do is conquer 1 or 2 other civs and the rest of the game you can outproduce the AI. Also, the double navy support makes you really dominant in the end game.

Again, England may not be the best, but they are up there :D

rabidveggie
Aug 03, 2008, 06:26 PM
That's assuming your playing against a computer which lacks common sense, also their archers are more likely to have higher promotions since they've been around longer. I like Catapults more because they don't move when they attack, I think they are cheaper to build, but I can't remember, and roads pretty much negate the movement bonus. Why even have two movement when you have no defense units that can keep up? One catapult has equal odds with an army of knights if it attacks. I pretty much avoid knights now in the game since to me, their are just better cost effective units.

Aden52
Aug 03, 2008, 09:31 PM
The AI's archers are less likely to have promotions (how often do you see AI fight each other, doesn't happen too often) unless they are Russia. Archers are not around that much longer than knights, really (seeing as how you bee line for knights).

I also like how catapults don't move when they attack, however, I still prefer knights for the extra movement. Sure, roads will help your catapults move far, but a knight will still go farther through your road network, which means he gets into the action faster. The extra movement also helps you position your knights into defensive areas like forests/behind rivers, and in offensive areas like hills, while still having a movement point on that same turn. Which means more action.

No reason to bring defensive units up to protect your knights, if you rush for knights, they will have just as much defense as archers (which is enough defense to handle legions and horsemen).

There might be more cost effective units, but again, you're rushing for the knights, and early on they are really fearsome. It also depends on your play style, for what you consider to be cost effective, others may not, just because of the different strategies.

MKElderGod
Sep 11, 2008, 02:49 PM
People say horseback riding + monarchy = feudalism = knights. Fair 'nuff. But when your'e at 2200 bc. or whatever wit h a few warriors and 2-3 cities, feudalsim takes 47 turns!! Yes 47 turns! your better off studying writing and aiming for catapult units!

Not true at all, having one city with coast, dye , library and scientist if you get it. Can get you knights from 6-13 turns. Im actually going to make a thread about them being arguably one of the best if not best civ.

ATL Jones Bro3
Sep 11, 2008, 03:46 PM
double post... sorry.

ATL Jones Bro3
Sep 11, 2008, 03:46 PM
3 knights is 12 attack yes?

a fortified archer army behind a wall and its an even fight

now that's assuming they're playing that defensively. and it's unlikely that all of their cities will be that defended

but catapults beat knights. so a skirmish defence would hurt this strat alot as well.

and if they get to democracy your advantage is negated completely

I guess it all depends on how fast you can get there and how quick you can leverage it. with a great scientist I can see it being truly brutal.
Not nessasaily... I had a knight army with around 21 attack beat and longbow archer army with about 27 def about 3 times in a row...

Kev
Sep 15, 2008, 04:13 PM
I think this strategy is pretty level dependent.

On Deity, I'd be afraid I'd be out-teched too much to make this worthwhile. With fewer cities it seems to me that the AI (which settles land fairly quickly) would out-REX me and cause there to be one or two civs who would run off with things while I'm busy building knights and taking out one or two weaker ones - if that is even possible.

With England (playing them right now), I've had a better time Rexing out at the beginning. Their archers can hold pretty well, and instant access to dye is nice. I like better to grab as many good resource spots and block the AI with cities where possible - relying early on longbow armies to hold the gains. Concentrate on a number of gold cities and push the finances greatly. My current England Deity game I've cities all over the place and just finished rush-buying Oxford (gave me Networking - rushed Internet not long after), the Military Complex, Trade Fair and Leo's.

I did build knights, but with lots of gold I rushed them like crazy around mid-game while at tech parity. Why you ask? I was first to invention and used Atlantis to eventually get combustion. When I was ready to rush Leo's I had a tremendous upgrade to tank armies from there...

So try a fast REX and gold strat and see how it works with England. It does leverage the early Monarchy knowledge with one of the UU's nicely.

ctmarco3
Sep 16, 2008, 01:11 PM
To Kev: Well consider that when you take over other Civs cities you will probably learn some techs from them. Also you will gain some cities in the meantime allowing you to grow stronger to fight against the other Civs, who may be ahead in the tech race. And it is definitely "possible", I mean why wouldnt it be? Likely, now thats a different story, meaning Im not sure what your odds are, but I would say at least "fair" to "good".

Plus remember English have large Naval Support bonuses so a domination victory is entirely possible later in the game as well as possible early.

damnation
Sep 16, 2008, 03:49 PM
I tried Adens strategy and a freindly village gave me fueilesm(spelling) and i could just take over the contenint easily :lol:

MKElderGod
Sep 16, 2008, 04:03 PM
I think this strategy is pretty level dependent.

On Deity, I'd be afraid I'd be out-teched too much to make this worthwhile. With fewer cities it seems to me that the AI (which settles land fairly quickly) would out-REX me and cause there to be one or two civs who would run off with things while I'm busy building knights and taking out one or two weaker ones - if that is even possible.

With England (playing them right now), I've had a better time Rexing out at the beginning. Their archers can hold pretty well, and instant access to dye is nice. I like better to grab as many good resource spots and block the AI with cities where possible - relying early on longbow armies to hold the gains. Concentrate on a number of gold cities and push the finances greatly. My current England Deity game I've cities all over the place and just finished rush-buying Oxford (gave me Networking - rushed Internet not long after), the Military Complex, Trade Fair and Leo's.

I did build knights, but with lots of gold I rushed them like crazy around mid-game while at tech parity. Why you ask? I was first to invention and used Atlantis to eventually get combustion. When I was ready to rush Leo's I had a tremendous upgrade to tank armies from there...

So try a fast REX and gold strat and see how it works with England. It does leverage the early Monarchy knowledge with one of the UU's nicely.

not true ive beaten diety with english with only 2 cities of my own with 3 knight armies ready by 0 ad took 2 civ easily 3rd one fairly easy 4th with tanks. English are number 1 offically in my books.
1. strong early defense, offense, culture, science and navy they are truly unstoppable.

MKElderGod
Sep 16, 2008, 04:09 PM
also rexing out with the english is a complete waste of their potential and complete nub status.

Kev
Sep 17, 2008, 03:31 PM
Sorry, but beating the game on Deity with two cities and 3 knight armies would have to take a very beneficial setup. Interesting to shoot for, though I wonder where it might leave you if it fails.

Yes, one gets techs from taking over cities, but unlike CivII it does not seem to happen for every city. I seem to get a tech from the first city I take but not the others - perhaps that's a DS thing I don't know.

My point is that with the correct map on Deity it could be beneficial to beeline knights, and perhaps it allows you to eliminate some competition, but would not (to me) be a strat that will win you the game a vast majority of the time. I believe that the game is tilted to the player who can utilize the gold - get more of it and know when and where to spend it - and with this the English have some very good advantages.

Yes, later in the game when you have ships (fleets) that can properly support you, the results are incredible and should allow you to slam every coastal city. Recall that the ability comes later, however, so I choose to build up and buy myself just about all I need and quickly move from there to domination.

So MKElderGod - I believe that I am making good use of their potential by REXing and do not consider it "nub" status. With Monarchy early, make use of dye and turn it to gold from the get-go. With the Longbows hold your cities early. With increased naval support use your strong ship fleets to win you the game by guarding Atlantis and later supporting every attack on coastal cities.

Still, I'm interested in the early knights aspect and will try to see what might be done there too.

MKElderGod
Sep 18, 2008, 10:28 AM
Sorry, but beating the game on Deity with two cities and 3 knight armies would have to take a very beneficial setup. Interesting to shoot for, though I wonder where it might leave you if it fails.

Yes, one gets techs from taking over cities, but unlike CivII it does not seem to happen for every city. I seem to get a tech from the first city I take but not the others - perhaps that's a DS thing I don't know.

My point is that with the correct map on Deity it could be beneficial to beeline knights, and perhaps it allows you to eliminate some competition, but would not (to me) be a strat that will win you the game a vast majority of the time. I believe that the game is tilted to the player who can utilize the gold - get more of it and know when and where to spend it - and with this the English have some very good advantages.

Yes, later in the game when you have ships (fleets) that can properly support you, the results are incredible and should allow you to slam every coastal city. Recall that the ability comes later, however, so I choose to build up and buy myself just about all I need and quickly move from there to domination.

So MKElderGod - I believe that I am making good use of their potential by REXing and do not consider it "nub" status. With Monarchy early, make use of dye and turn it to gold from the get-go. With the Longbows hold your cities early. With increased naval support use your strong ship fleets to win you the game by guarding Atlantis and later supporting every attack on coastal cities.

Still, I'm interested in the early knights aspect and will try to see what might be done there too.

- The two cities = 1st the Capital set for growth than production 2nd set near dye, rushed library you might even get a scientist from monarchy. Simple as that. If it fails you wont be set behind because its early game your only getting 3 techs bronze horse and feud.
- You wont be behind in tech because Your connected to DYE Duh
- See what I learned in MP is you can utilize all the gold you want but when someone attacks you with knights and all you have are archers at best your F'ed. Thats why I like playing against the Romans Mp because they build like 5 cities when i have knights and I just add his cities to my feudel empire. See if I was rexing he would have more cities and be even that much harder if not impossible to even stop the romans when they reach their top.
-Your nub if you think rexing with the english is the best strat and the one that would win the majority of games.

Kev
Sep 18, 2008, 12:33 PM
@MKElderGod:

OK, had a look at some of your other posts to see if you are this rude to just me or to everyone. I see that you have a long lineup of self-aggrandizing, immature, and often offensive comments made throughout the forums. Too bad.

I also see that you feel that everyone in the world plays MP and that all strategies and comments should be made through that prism. That's not the case, and in this one specifically I am speaking from the standpoint of single player with Deity AI's (which seem to have bonuses well beyond the human player at the early stage of the game). Yes, the AI can play stupidly, especially when it deals with warfare, but at the early stages their bonuses can lead to an early tech and expansion advantage - making the English knights strategy a bit more difficult to pull off.

Not saying that one is right over the other (as you are fond of doing), but that in my experience the strategy I prefer and have found great success with is different. Yes, in MP it is likely NOT the best way - I would not know as I've done played MP and therefore cannot comment. I still want to try getting knights early a bit more as well to see if there was something I had missed in my earlier attempts, so who knows if my thoughts will change - but for now I think I make a fairly good argument for the situation I am considering (Deity, DS, SP).

I have to assume that you are a young child with feeble social graces at this stage and encourage you to discourse more rather than name call (by the way, it's "noob" not "nub"). And to study your spelling (I think you are from the US, but if English is your second language I will apologize). I don't say this in a mean way, but if you want people to take you at all seriously it's important.

Hope we can debate more on these boards and that you will eventually learn to respect others and their opinions.

MKElderGod
Sep 18, 2008, 02:07 PM
You still dont understand that knights work better than rexing in Sp diety and mp king than rexing. For one main reason being you have knights in the ancient era. From my experience on sp diety I almost everytime take 2 civs out and cripple one. Also taking that amount of cities from someone is a whole lot better because you elminate comptetion while taking devloped cities. Where as when you rex youll have to fight everyone at the peak of the game. That wont be easy even with double naval support.


if you have the oppurtunity to attack twice why would only attack once.

damnation
Sep 18, 2008, 02:29 PM
@MKElderGod:

OK, had a look at some of your other posts to see if you are this rude to just me or to everyone. I see that you have a long lineup of self-aggrandizing, immature, and often offensive comments made throughout the forums. Too bad.

I also see that you feel that everyone in the world plays MP and that all strategies and comments should be made through that prism. That's not the case, and in this one specifically I am speaking from the standpoint of single player with Deity AI's (which seem to have bonuses well beyond the human player at the early stage of the game). Yes, the AI can play stupidly, especially when it deals with warfare, but at the early stages their bonuses can lead to an early tech and expansion advantage - making the English knights strategy a bit more difficult to pull off.

Not saying that one is right over the other (as you are fond of doing), but that in my experience the strategy I prefer and have found great success with is different. Yes, in MP it is likely NOT the best way - I would not know as I've done played MP and therefore cannot comment. I still want to try getting knights early a bit more as well to see if there was something I had missed in my earlier attempts, so who knows if my thoughts will change - but for now I think I make a fairly good argument for the situation I am considering (Deity, DS, SP).

I have to assume that you are a young child with feeble social graces at this stage and encourage you to discourse more rather than name call (by the way, it's "noob" not "nub"). And to study your spelling (I think you are from the US, but if English is your second language I will apologize). I don't say this in a mean way, but if you want people to take you at all seriously it's important.

Hope we can debate more on these boards and that you will eventually learn to respect others and their opinions.


Realy? I think that just because Mkeldergod has a good arguent to counter yours, you feel as if you have to bully him. Realy says something about your security. I've found that if you have a single knight army, you can take over most citys from a civalization, and just take their capital after that. Besides, if you get behind in tech, just attack the spanish(if they're in the game) build a galien, and find atlantis. If you find knights templer, you get tanks, even if you just got knights, and that can be a big advantage.
From my experiance, the english are the best domination civalization in the game, yes, even better then the zulu and aztec, and i realy dont see why you would rex early and attack later, when the english are capible of early domanation.

Kev
Sep 18, 2008, 03:07 PM
Sigh.

@damnation - I was not going after MK's argument but rather his presentation. I thought he was unnecessarily rude and put that out there. The writing aspect (spelling, etc) WAS more of a dig, but it does reflect on any written argument that you are trying to make I think - as it affects yours. Again, I looked back and saw that many of his other posts were like this, and asked that HE try debating rather than calling people who don't agree with him "nubs" and then challenging them to an MP game.

I've been trying the early knights as I said I would, and I found that for me it still takes the right set-up to be 100% effective. Too much land in-between and it slows things down fairly quickly.

To his credit, his last reply was reasonable and left off with the other stuff. With that...

@MK - I totally understand your point about eliminating early competition - it's a viable strategy in Civ IV as well since "land is power". In a sense, I do that too with REXing whereby my early cities are established to block expansion by the AI. The AI is not so good at using a galley to get around this - though they can sometimes settle islands - and so it's a workable play to keep them at bay.

Whatever the case, I can see where the early knights work and can be an interesting way to get a very early finish should it pay off. I still am not convinced that should it fail that you are in a better place compared to REXing - though any game is pretty much salvageable where the AI is involved. With REXing and putting a major emphasis on gold (with some science, yes), I find that I take on the civs with tanks/planes while they have pikes or just barely into rifles. In this way, my armies are more numerous, I can work with the awesome naval support, and I don't have to worry about a cruddy dice roll that might set me back.

So, in essence, for me the early knights will mean either a very early win or a later win compared to REXing. With REXing I seem to remain consistent in the time frame of wins.

A quick beeline to combustion is possible as I go for navigation early and stalk Atlantis with the more powerful sea-going vessels, and by the time the early mid-game is here I can usually buy whatever I need. With more cities, I can rush buy several armies of superior units quickly. Having the "first-to" bonuses and economic goal bonuses just steamrolls and the cash will allow me to purchase wonders right off too. Nice to get Leo's this way, and last game bought the Trade Fair, East India, Oxford and the Military Complex along with it (the latter was overkill).

So I don't argue that the English should not ignore the domination victory - I just choose to get there in a different way.

An interesting debate to be sure, and I'll keep trying at the early knights to see if I can improve on my efforts there. One thing you had stated in an earlier post was that you just went with three techs to start (Bronze, Horse, Feud), but also stated that you rushed a library. Can you describe your early set up a bit more?

caketastydelish
Sep 18, 2008, 04:47 PM
I personally don't think the fact that the english can do this is such a bad thing. The Aztecs/Germans pwn at military, so its good that someone besides them can have a nice advantage.

If only one or two civs had a great military strategy the game wouldn't be fun. Imagine a game of four where you have the aztecs with there healing, the germans with there veterans, the english with there navy + knight rush, and some other one.