I was wondering how you promote your city raider troops that survive as the game goes on.

I ususally get a core group of CR-troops (axes, swords, later macemen) but after CR1 - CR3 usefull promotions are scarce.
I often use combat-1 and then cover, which strikes me better than combat-2.
Particulary for aggressive and charismatic leaders when my units may get the 6th promotion later, this sometimes bites me.
But as long as one fights longbows, CR3/C1/Cover macemen really rock and I just accept that cover is useless after the upgrade to rifles.

Unless a city is on a hill, if my stack has enough trebuchets to soften the city defenders, CR3 is plenty for macemen, against either longbows or crossbows. Post-CR3 I usually go to C1, and because of the size of my typical stacks and how I tend to spread XPs around (rookies go first), by the time I'm past CR3 and C1 on the macemen it's time to promote them to grenadiers or riflemen, at which time I usually then go to Shock so they'll be ready for that magical time when the AI gets Rifling or Mil-Sci gifted to them by some other AI that wants to see my conquest frustrated, and enough gold to upgrade all the longbows instantly. (And for that reason, when I have a choice of which rivals to conquer, I'll tend to pick the higher-tech rival FIRST! His low-tech buddies can't gift him anything he doesn't already have, and in Civ's unrealistic combat engine, sufficiently high numbers can generally overcome most tech leads in warfare, albeit with some painful WW in the process).

Huh, I hardly get troops with that many promotions early on. Combat I is a pretty standard promotion as it opens up a lot of other things, but it's not Cover I'm looking for, it's Pinch. Most defenders when you have Rifles will be gunpowder units. Rifles already eat mounted units for breakfast, so no additional bonus is needed there. Pre-gunpowder units will have no chance against CRIII-CI Rifles. Cannons shouldn't be a problem either, their strength is too low anyway and they're rarely seen as city defenders.

Brain-farted on the promotion name. I did mean "that anti-gunpowder thingy" lol.

The City Raider line is not as flexible as the Combat line. After Combat II one can have Amphibeous,or Formation.
I too like Cover. In attempts to make Bowmen uber units this is an important promotion. Optimal for Bowmen shock troops are Combat II, Amphibeous, Formation with Cover.

Brain-farted on the promotion name. I did mean "that anti-gunpowder thingy" lol.

You can edit your posts. :)

C1-Pinch. Never, ever, cover or shock. If for some reason I have an axe or sword that has a promotion available to a CRIII-C1, I will almost always select CII. As noted above, that opens up Amphib with the next promotion.

I usually give the drill unless I have combat I (either from aggressive or upgraded Quechua that I turned into city raiders) then I give them cover or the other 25% vs something promotions based on the era.

I usually give the drill unless I have combat I
The problem with drill is that Drill-1 is an extremely lousy promotion and you are not gona see drill-4 (would be the 7th), the only really good drill promotion.

The City Raider line is not as flexible as the Combat line.
CR3 gets a 75% bonus, C3 a 30% bonus.
Against AIs, 3/4 of my fights are taking place when taking cities, so there's no question there.


I too like Cover. In attempts to make Bowmen uber units this is an important promotion.

Why would you do that? Fearing that the AI will rush you with archers? :confused:

The AI will throw their melee units at them until it runs out and then will switch to archers - which are actually optimal. Barbarian archers can also be a problem without Cover.

My .02 - After CR3 I start going down the C line. Depending on the era I'll either keep going down that line - C1, C2, C3 - or I'll take pinch if it's available. CR3 Pinch Grenadiers/Rifles are murderous!

The CR III troops are pretty godly upgraded. And...enough experience implies these will be upgraded.

Combat line makes most sense since you don't know whether what is defending will be gunpowder, archery (in the rifle era possibly), or bizzare crape like MG's (siege technically) or armor/mounted. Combat is the most versatile by far after CR.

The city raider troops (melee and siege) get the city raider. I do this mainly because if you pick a specific bonus then you will invariably get a different defender to attack where as the CR promotions are valid against all defenders. The bigger attack bonus is just the icing on the cake.

As pointed out the AI tends to huddle in its cities when attacked which makes a mainly CR promoted stack a valid one, it might not work in multiplayer.

For open field and stack defence then I will use other promotions, depending on the circumstance.

The true city raider troops are the ones that attack first after siege damage, and these are not normally considered the units that benefit most from Drill. The drill line should usually only be used if you expect to get Drill 4. This is easy when you are either Protective or Charismatic.

Remember that usually units that get CR promotions do not have access to Drill too. If maces could get drill after CR3 I'm pretty sure that would be better than combat (try it in WB if you want to check).

Before musketmen come about, my city attacks normally consist of a few knights, a couple CR maces, and a few longbows with drill 3 or 4, as well as siege of course, and a pikeman or two, plus a healer.

By the way, I would be willing to put forward the (virtual) bet that after CR3, the drill line would almost always be better than combat, unless you don't use any siege at all. Any takers? (I could be wrong)... and consider the comparison at least from C2 compared with D2... D1 is a very lousy promotion by itself.

By the way, if you can come up with a realistic test battle, where an attacker already has CR3 and you are wondering whether to choose C1 or D1 (or c1,c2 or d1,d2 etc.) then let me know and I'll run it through the calculator I have.

I'm worried about Drill cos it's not getting any love so far (0 votes :( ).

I didn't vote for anything. Let's say that you'll knock down cultural defenses first with accuracy-promoted siege. Once that's done, the drill could be interesting if you also have a healthy supply of CR or Barrage siege that can perform suicide attacks, since your opponents will already be badly hurt and few free rounds is all that's needed to finish them off. On the other hand if you can't afford to have suicidal siege units you'd need at least a few very strong Rifles to deal with the top defenders. Against a CG3 Rifle you'd be at 50% if you only have CRIII. With Drill I & II you'd be a bit over 50%. With Combat I & II you'd jump a bit more. But I bet that with Combat I + Pinch there would be no contest. I don't know how to include Drill promotions in the percentages exactly, but I think I got it right. You could probably do a test with these three cases to see what happens.

If you or the target are protective, charismatic, aggressive, have more/less CR/CG promotions, etc. things change of course.

I almost always go Combat I, Pinch, Combat II and III.

I'm not sure I'm doing things as best I could but usually my city raiders are Quechuas, axemen, swordmen and macemen that often have promotions like combat I, anti-archery and anti-melee plus city raider. I upgrade the survivors to the newest unit but after I upgrade them to riflemen the CR promotions isn't available anymore. I try to build a lot of macemen and upgrade them only when I have to.

In the renaissance I usually end up with a lot of riflemen that have the CR promotions and often combat I+ too. Then I start giving them drill. Should I continue up the combat path instead of going for drill?

In the renaissance I usually end up with a lot of riflemen that have the CR promotions and often combat I+ too. Then I start giving them drill. Should I continue up the combat path instead of going for drill?

I suggest you pick one or the other and stick with it. That is, either go all combat or all drill. Don't do combat 1 then drill 1.

I'm not sure I'm doing things as best I could but usually my city raiders are Quechuas, axemen, swordmen and macemen that often have promotions like combat I, anti-archery and anti-melee plus city raider. I upgrade the survivors to the newest unit but after I upgrade them to riflemen the CR promotions isn't available anymore. I try to build a lot of macemen and upgrade them only when I have to.

In the renaissance I usually end up with a lot of riflemen that have the CR promotions and often combat I+ too. Then I start giving them drill. Should I continue up the combat path instead of going for drill?

For my offensive stack I wouldn't waste a promotion on drill. And I usually mix my offensive stack such that there are a few field-combat units with C1, C2, and some going to C3 and some going to Formation (since the AIs tend to be horse-addicts); but the bulk of that stack are siege engines and the axe/sword/mace city raiders. "Survive in the field; annihilate in siege!"

Probably the only CR units I would switch to drill after the CR line would be Samurai's, since they start with drill1 (and combat 1, since Toku's aggressive). Drill 1 is just so weak on its own that it's not really that useful for a CR unit unless if you can get a CR3/D4 unit, which would be insane (I don't know how, unless if you're talking about a charismatic Japanese leader, and attach a GG to it).

Usually, I spread my promotions around, but I often do have a few dedicated city raiders after a while. After CR3, and should I expect war with rifles, I'll work my way up to pinch. After that, any surviving veteran troops start making their way up to the Commando promotion.

I've had very few troops make it that far up the promotion tree without the use of a great general. ;)

I almost always go Combat I, Pinch, Combat II and III.

And after that, if you happen to get another promotion, march is lovely.

The true city raider troops are the ones that attack first after siege damage, and these are not normally considered the units that benefit most from Drill. The drill line should usually only be used if you expect to get Drill 4. This is easy when you are either Protective or Charismatic.

Remember that usually units that get CR promotions do not have access to Drill too. If maces could get drill after CR3 I'm pretty sure that would be better than combat (try it in WB if you want to check).

Before musketmen come about, my city attacks normally consist of a few knights, a couple CR maces, and a few longbows with drill 3 or 4, as well as siege of course, and a pikeman or two, plus a healer.

By the way, I would be willing to put forward the (virtual) bet that after CR3, the drill line would almost always be better than combat, unless you don't use any siege at all. Any takers? (I could be wrong)... and consider the comparison at least from C2 compared with D2... D1 is a very lousy promotion by itself.

I don't get your argument.
You seem to agree with me that the usefull drill promotiomn is Drill-4.
Consider a maceman that got CR-3, then you upgrade him to a rifleman, now I wouldn't use drill on him because drill-4 would be the 7th promotion, very unlikely most times and drill 1-3 is inferior to combat and surely to combat and one of the counter promotions (depending on usage).

I don't get your argument.
You seem to agree with me that the usefull drill promotiomn is Drill-4.
Consider a maceman that got CR-3, then you upgrade him to a rifleman, now I wouldn't use drill on him because drill-4 would be the 7th promotion, very unlikely most times and drill 1-3 is inferior to combat and surely to combat and one of the counter promotions (depending on usage).

In fact I'm not even convinced that on a rifleman C1 is better than D1 after the CR promotions. Unless your CR rifle is attacking a very very heavily defended and full health rifleman I'd claim D1 is better than C1, or if not D2 over C2.

If you have a CR3 rifleman, I would assume you are not willing to throw him in at bad odds like 80% or so. Above about 90% odds drill will work better IMO.

Like I said, give me a realistic test battle where you have a CR3 rifle attacking a city of some sort, and I will show you why D1 is better (hopefully). If I were to construct the test myself I'd probably inadvertently bias it in my favour.

If is survives to CR3 then it gets promoted with all the basic combat promotions.

Um, it would seem silly to me to promote all of them the same. In each stack I try to have at least one maceman with CRIII, CI, and Cover, but never more than two. I view this unit as more expendable than others of its level, because eventually the cover promotion won't count. The norm for other experienced troops is down the combat line. I do try to get a few CRIII units at 10 exp when I upgrade them to gunpowder units so that I can have several per stack with pinch promotions.

For an attacking great general I'd definitely go down the combat line after CRIII and leadership. But I also like to make withdrawing cavalry with leadership to rack up the great general points and mow down 4 units at a time if I get him to gunship. However, settling great generals to produce units that start with 3 promotions is nice too. If I have stone and an alternate military city (to produce military units while west point is being built) I'll only settle a couple in this city and use west point (3+2+2+4) so I can use 2 others for stack-leading great generals.

CR3/D2 or D3 Samurai are not that hard to get to be honest. I always war with japan like mad. These guys become veterans like mad and I love to upgrade them into rifles and infantry. They are virtually untouchable.

Normal upgrade line after CR is combat though and just combat unless I am in the gunpowder era.

While we're on the subject, someone refresh my memory here: what happens when say a 15XP CRIII maceman gets upgraded to a rifleman? Does his XP drop to 10 or does it get halved -- I can't remember? The reason I bring this up is that if you get the maceman to its 4th promotion before you upgrade him then it takes forever to get the 5th promotion because of the XP drop.

Unless attached to a great general, XP drops to 10. Promotions stay.

On the subject of maceman -> rifleman upgrade, I frequently leave CRII macemen unupgraded. After siege and a couple CRIII rifles, a CRII maceman has little problem even against enemy rifles. (CRII swords and axes and heck even CRII warrior can work as well...)

I'd consider drill promotions for the simple reason that being weaker than combat, my CRs would be less likely to be called upon to defend the stack...also because after siege in a given town, a CRIII -foo- will normally have a very great advantage, so drill might let it escape damage better. And then free march upgrade when they become mech inf. is useful too.

"There is no such thing as overkill"

While we're on the subject, someone refresh my memory here: what happens when say a 15XP CRIII maceman gets upgraded to a rifleman? Does his XP drop to 10 or does it get halved -- I can't remember? The reason I bring this up is that if you get the maceman to its 4th promotion before you upgrade him then it takes forever to get the 5th promotion because of the XP drop.

Yeah it'll drop down to 10. So if you have a maceman with CRIII and Combat III, where the maceman has 37/50 exp. It'll show 10/50 exp when you upgrade him. If I think I may be attaching a great general to the unit I'll leave him unupgraded and allow him to mop up units my cannons weakened in the meantime.

In fact I'm not even convinced that on a rifleman C1 is better than D1 after the CR promotions. Unless your CR rifle is attacking a very very heavily defended and full health rifleman I'd claim D1 is better than C1, or if not D2 over C2.

If you have a CR3 rifleman, I would assume you are not willing to throw him in at bad odds like 80% or so. Above about 90% odds drill will work better IMO.

Like I said, give me a realistic test battle where you have a CR3 rifle attacking a city of some sort, and I will show you why D1 is better (hopefully). If I were to construct the test myself I'd probably inadvertently bias it in my favour.

This is highly interesting, will see if I can come up with an example or 2 so that we can discuss it.
As you said, I want this core group of city takers alive so high combat odds are the first priority.
My gut feeling says that the random element of the drill line is the opposite to such a "secure" strategy, but it would be nice to back it up with numbers.

This is highly interesting, will see if I can come up with an example or 2 so that we can discuss it.
As you said, I want this core group of city takers alive so high combat odds are the first priority.
My gut feeling says that the random element of the drill line is the opposite to such a "secure" strategy, but it would be nice to back it up with numbers.

That surprises me. If you have a core group of city raiders and first priority is keeping them alive then why send them into battle at all? Obviously you have to accept some losses, and while you may incur slightly more losses with the lower drill promotions than with combat promotions, your units will generally retain more hitpoints and also earn xp faster and so get to higher promotions faster.

If you, however, make combat odds the sole measure of the unit's effectiveness you are already biasing against drill a bit. It may be a matter of accepting a 2% lower odds of combat victory, but for the reasons I mentioned, it can be worth it.

Well, you have to send them into battle because otherwise they are useless. :lol:
If the difference in odds is just 2%, that may be acceptable.
Say the difference is 5%, then in an example of 90% versus 95% combat odds 2 times as many 90% units will die.
Because I cann't replace CR rifles, it does matter for me if 5 or 10 die from say 15.

Firstly, I doubt it's anywhere near a situation of 90% vs. 95%. Because of that, comparing 5 losses with 10 losses from 15 is highly unrealistic.

If you're using your CR troops at 90% odds when they have CR3 and D1 then something isn't right. If CR3/D1 gives 90%, CR3/C1 won't give 95%. Unless you can give me an example.

Firstly, I doubt it's anywhere near a situation of 90% vs. 95%. Because of that, comparing 5 losses with 10 losses from 15 is highly unrealistic.

If you're using your CR troops at 90% odds when they have CR3 and D1 then something isn't right. If CR3/D1 gives 90%, CR3/C1 won't give 95%. Unless you can give me an example.

Look C line makes you more likely to survive, drill makes your expected health after a fight to be higher.

If I'm only going to use CR troops in the gunpowder era as mopup after the cannons destroy the enemy, then I don't upgrade and give them the C line (normally C1 pinch) as that keeps them alive longer. If I plan to use them otherwise I go CI. It is a large amount of cash to upgrade and going from something piddling like 97% odds to 99% odds gives me three times as much life expectancy even 97% vs 98% is quite substantial in terms of life expectancy. The fact that the unit emerges bloody is rather irrelevant to me, if I have a significant number of CR III units, I'm normally looking at at least a MASH unit if not an uberMASH (woodyIII/MedicIII). CRIII rifles/infantry are there to crack the last few units before normal rifles/infantry can start hitting and those before draftees. All CRIII rifles do is either save me on cannon/treb costs or let me leverage an economic empire into something equivalent in hammers.

Occasionally I'm using CR rifles/grenades and spies against LBs, in which case I'm going to have to expect a few bad odds attacks on hills so at least a third of them will still be C1.

Look C line makes you more likely to survive, drill makes your expected health after a fight to be higher.

If I'm only going to use CR troops in the gunpowder era as mopup after the cannons destroy the enemy, then I don't upgrade and give them the C line (normally C1 pinch) as that keeps them alive longer. If I plan to use them otherwise I go CI. It is a large amount of cash to upgrade and going from something piddling like 97% odds to 99% odds gives me three times as much life expectancy even 97% vs 98% is quite substantial in terms of life expectancy. The fact that the unit emerges bloody is rather irrelevant to me, if I have a significant number of CR III units, I'm normally looking at at least a MASH unit if not an uberMASH (woodyIII/MedicIII). CRIII rifles/infantry are there to crack the last few units before normal rifles/infantry can start hitting and those before draftees. All CRIII rifles do is either save me on cannon/treb costs or let me leverage an economic empire into something equivalent in hammers.

Occasionally I'm using CR rifles/grenades and spies against LBs, in which case I'm going to have to expect a few bad odds attacks on hills so at least a third of them will still be C1.

It's good to know I'm not alone on the use of "risking" CR III troops to save on siege costs. A bunch of people (other than Dirk, who agreed with you too) kind of came down on me for suggesting using powerful troops against defenders that are disproportionately more likely to kill siege than the rest. I STILL don't understand the other side of the argument though...sacrificing massive hammers in siege to give your top attackers slightly better odds isn't for me.

TMIT I agree. If you have very powerful CR troops then by all means use them first. If you can get 85% or higher odds, say, with your CR troops but have 20% with your cats, then take out the toughest defenders first. But often it's the case that there are so many defenders that it is worth it to sacrifice 2 or 3 siege (occasionally they survive too) to ensure much greater odds with your other units. Taking a single hit from a siege unit first will make the job easier for your city attackers if it sends the battle across one of the jump points where the defender will take 1 (or more) less hit to kill.

TMIT I agree. If you have very powerful CR troops then by all means use them first. If you can get 85% or higher odds, say, with your CR troops but have 20% with your cats, then take out the toughest defenders first. But often it's the case that there are so many defenders that it is worth it to sacrifice 2 or 3 siege (occasionally they survive too) to ensure much greater odds with your other units. Taking a single hit from a siege unit first will make the job easier for your city attackers if it sends the battle across one of the jump points where the defender will take 1 (or more) less hit to kill.

You can always hit with a few siege so the CR guys have higher odds, still remove the tougher defenders left at very high odds, then go back to siege.

It's not high micro or difficult really, and i'm 99% sure it saves hammers.

You can always hit with a few siege so the CR guys have higher odds, still remove the tougher defenders left at very high odds, then go back to siege.

It's not high micro or difficult really, and i'm 99% sure it saves hammers.

Agreed, switching to CR and then going back to siege is no problem. I have to admit though I rarely open with CR units. It's almost always siege first for me, 2 or 3 at least.

It's good to know I'm not alone on the use of "risking" CR III troops to save on siege costs.

Ditto that. The whole point of CR troops is to kill city defenders in an efficient manner. And while I certainly find a suicide siege or two to be very useful (indispensable even) in tough situations, I could never maintain an offensive by slaughtering them to the degree necessary to make every assault a walk in the park. I use suicide siege until my CR troops have better than about 55% odds, which is where they get their shot at glory. During the Age of Rifles/Grenadiers I usually hold off until they have 70% or better odds, just to try to preserve them.

I usually find about 70% to be the "sweet spot", although if they have one strong defender, I won't mind wasting one unit at that 55-60% range to weaken them enough.

I usually find about 70% to be the "sweet spot", although if they have one strong defender, I won't mind wasting one unit at that 55-60% range to weaken them enough.

I agree with that. I said 55%, but at that range I'm still a little nervous. 70% is a good number. In any event, it seems that I usually get at least 70% for my CR troops once the defenses are down.

After all my siege has done its work I take what odds that leaves me, for the CR troops. Rookies go first, and if two in a row don't die, then whoever needs the XPs the most.

Hi

I do a mix of first two choices. If its very early in game and I am expecting to see lots of archers then after the CR3 promotion they will get combat 1 then cover, if it later in the game they just go straight down combat line usually.

As for order I send em in. I dont really have a set rule it just depends. If it is very early before seige then it is best odds go first UNLESS best odds is just sucky THEN it is like rookies go first to soften things up until vets get better odds. If siege available thne its like what sitch is after seige drops city defenses. If my best units have like 80% odds then they go first. If not then I will let a siege unit take a shot to sofetn things up a bit.

If siege dies I dont really look at it as exchnge of siege for one unit since with col damage it is more like siege died to help 3 or 4 units to survive.

And even THAT isnt always a hard and fast rule cuz sometimes you get a sitch with something like a say a cg3 drill2 longbow on a hill and all I have are cats. Now with bad rolls you can send in like 4 or 5 or even more cats at that long bow and while they MAY be damaging units behind it they wont put a scratch on that top defender. In THAT case I may send a CR unit first to weaken that top defender THEN throw in some siege. This one of reasons I just plain suck at warring cuz I dont really have set formula or pattern I just look at things first then go with what feels like thing to do at time. Like if I feel a mass upgrade coming on soon then instead of sending highest odds I may send in units one or twp exp points from promotion first especially if they over 10 exp since it may be last promo they will be getting once they get uprgaded or something.

Now if everything is equal say my best CR unit has 80 plus% chance to live and a seige city attacker also has 80% plus chance to win I will let seige go first since my thinking is CR unit has two choices it wins and a defender dies or it gets sucky roll and unit dies. WHere with siege choices are it wins and now CR unit is even MORE likely to live and odds also go up for more units fighter after or seige gets sucky roll and dies but next units STILL get nicer odds so it just seems using siege has less downside when everything more or less equal. So while I dont THINK I waste siege TOO much they are the units MOST likely to end up being suicded if it looks like suicde for SOME unit is gonna be unavoidable.

I dont factor WW much with 3.17 since ever since that patch ww is VERY rarely a factor. So while I probably wont send in siege after siege to die JUST to get 99.9% odds for everybody else, IF there is a point where siege all has nice odds to win then yeah I will use em them up to help my CR units get best odds they can. I will especially look to do that if I am trying to get some of my siege promoted to accuracy or if I have a GG unit I want to make sure doesnt die but still get promotiopns so it can get super medic. And there have been some games where seige all goes first just cuz they ARE my best city butsers like games where its my rifles and cannon against their infantry or something then usually cannon going to be doing most of the fighting and LOTS of dying.

And yeah sometimes I will sac a seige just to help out vet units that been round a looong time and I dont want to lose since I gotten attatched to em. But units like that usually earned that kinda of preferential treatment and besides its fun when at end of game u get a cpl of units that look like this :)

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll203/KaytieKat91/ncshaka/sargonnboys.jpg

Kaytie

It's good to know I'm not alone on the use of "risking" CR III troops to save on siege costs. A bunch of people (other than Dirk, who agreed with you too) kind of came down on me for suggesting using powerful troops against defenders that are disproportionately more likely to kill siege than the rest. I STILL don't understand the other side of the argument though...sacrificing massive hammers in siege to give your top attackers slightly better odds isn't for me.

The other side is that you husband these elite troops to get a better return on you investment of cash. In a nutshell normally upgrading CRIII troops costs you a turn or two of science. In order to get that back you should increase dS/dt (via territorial conquest) enough to make up the difference so that when you integrate over the long haul you come out ahead. This then dictates that you want your CRIII troops to be perpetually moving; idling those very costly units decreases dS/dT.

This works when the AI has a numeric deficit, a promotion deficit, and a tech deficit. It fails miserably when an immortal AI is spamming CGII units or worse siege. You simply have to play the attrition game, once you get into that dynamic your :hammers: output is your limiting factor, not you :science:.

TheMeInTeam:

For my part, I don't hold CR Maces in such high esteem because they're not all that capable of taking on LB defended cities efficiently without siege anyways, and if I'm using siege, it'll likely be Trebs, which I'll also be promoting down the CR line. In a city attack, I prefer to take a CR2 Treb over a CR2 Maceman for shock purposes, because the treb unit can bombard defenses, and has collateral.

I don't often prosecute wars using Axemen and then proceed to make further wars with Macemen - I like for these wars to be decisive one way or the other. In any case, even if it is so, the cost for upgrade is significant enough that I can often find other ways to use the cash, and simply send in the CR Axes unupgraded with the siege stack.

Going forward, I look to Curies and CR Cannon (or even CR3 Cannon from Trebs) to provide most of my offensive shock power. I won't shy away from using a CR unit when the odds favor it, but I don't bend over backwards to arrange it, since I find it of marginal value at best, and it doesn't happen all that often.

Firstly, I doubt it's anywhere near a situation of 90% vs. 95%. Because of that, comparing 5 losses with 10 losses from 15 is highly unrealistic.

If you're using your CR troops at 90% odds when they have CR3 and D1 then something isn't right. If CR3/D1 gives 90%, CR3/C1 won't give 95%. Unless you can give me an example.

Close example:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=197152&stc=1&d=1229245490

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=197153&stc=1&d=1229245490


It's good to know I'm not alone on the use of "risking" CR III troops to save on siege costs. A bunch of people (other than Dirk, who agreed with you too) kind of came down on me for suggesting using powerful troops against defenders that are disproportionately more likely to kill siege than the rest. I STILL don't understand the other side of the argument though...sacrificing massive hammers in siege to give your top attackers slightly better odds isn't for me.

Here's an illustration of why:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=197150&stc=1&d=1229245490

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=197151&stc=1&d=1229245490

City raider promotions aren't available to gunpowder units unless they're upgraded melee units. Basically, they're IRREPLACEABLE. And as you can see from the example above, they are a lot better at attacking cities than their combat/pinch counterparts. Note that CRIII not only gives +30% city attack, but also 10% versus gunpowder.

So if I have a less than 20% chance of winning with my cannon and a 95% chance of winning with my infantry, yeah I'm going to use the infantry and mostly use the cannon for tearing down defenses. But if I have a 70% chance of winning with my artillery and a 85% chance of winning with my infantry, I'm definitely going to use the artillery, especially if it isn't even a city raider III. Another example: 30% artillery, 70% infantry, definitely use art. first, especially if there are other strong units in the city. If there is only one strong unit, and the odds for my strongest units are around 50%, I'd probably sac a withdrawal promoted cavalry unless the cavalry wouldn't attack that unit (like if there's a longbow and a pike or something).

More succinctly, using siege instead of your veteran CRIII gunpowder will save you hammers in the long run since CRIII gunpowder are so much better than pinch ones, even if it has a risk of costing you more in the short term. The scenarios I suggested above would be adjusted depending upon if my empire is weaker in production or commerce. If I have a good shrine, as I usually do, it's definitely more worthwhile to save my veterans.

It probably depends on the speed you play on too. I play on marathon, so professional army with siege sac strategies work better than zerg strategies than if I were playing on quick.

Note that it's mostly CRIII gunpowder units I value. I'm perfectly fine with sacrificing CRIII macemen in more circumstances, especially if they're cover-promoted.

Upgrading units isn't that expensive. The cities you take will pay for it. And it's certainly not "2 turns of research" as another player suggested. More like 1/10th - 1/5th of a turn of research by the time you're into gunpowder units, unless your economy sucks.

It's great and all to have a couple, even 6-7 CR III guys. That's nice.

But you can easily wind up taking cities more successfully by using your hammers more efficiently earlier. So rather than comparing a CR III guy to a combat II pinch guy, you're compare a CR III guy to two combat II pinch guys at least.

Also, that CR III guy came from a mace anyway. You have slightly fewer of them if you aggressively attack with CR troops, but the flip side of that coin is, don't forget, that the CR troops that do win get more xp. Alternating CR vs siege to get the best :hammers: return will DEFINITELY still yield you an appreciable amount of CR III guys.

If it really bothers you, take all the saved hammers and put them into a couple extra CR II maces. Those upgrade OK too. But, I'm surprised I'm being shown a CR gunpowder unit. Every battle you put it in is a risk right? Why don't you weaken that rifle with mass cannons first :rolleyes:? Just in case...

Maybe I think too short term. I don't think so though. Promotions and battle tactics are best suited to win the war NOW first, not one you might have later if you do well in the current one.

On a side note, medieval war is really slow :(. With the disparity of hammers between trebs and cats, and the length of time spend bombarding a target city (=multiple defenders whipped, lots more turns for the AI to build), I'm starting to seriously question the use of trebs at all. 3-4 cats seem to take most of the defending troops to half health or so (cats are superior for pure collateral, if not bombarding). The remaining CR troops would be able to clean up pretty easily then. I don't know, I might be mistaken but the more I war the more going slow seems to encourage whips and unit spam by the AI, whereas taking the city ASAP...

Well, it appears to be the difference of 4-5 extra defenders per city early in the war. I'm not a numbers guy outside of school (I do this to relax), but maybe some time I'll run a couple wars with more cats and just suicide/no bombard vs trebs, camp, bombard to 0%, use CR trebs to inflict collateral.

I bet it's not cut and dry though.

Edit @ directly above: Yes, you have to weigh the risk of losing the top unit with the risk of losing a siege unit. A top notch troop like a GG attachment or cr III gunpowder having only 15% odds better than a throwaway siege is very, very different from a CR II or III sword/mace in the medieval period, where trebs are at the 40-55% range but a CR mace might be, say, 85-90%.

Edit @ directly above: Yes, you have to weigh the risk of losing the top unit with the risk of losing a siege unit. A top notch troop like a GG attachment or cr III gunpowder having only 15% odds better than a throwaway siege is very, very different from a CR II or III sword/mace in the medieval period, where trebs are at the 40-55% range but a CR mace might be, say, 85-90%.

Yeah as I said, sac'ing CR maces is no big deal compared to CR gunpowder.

90% is my "magic number," but every percent point makes a big difference in survivability. To get the odds of survival for consecutive battles you multiply them together. So odds of surviving 10 battles (rounded):

10 battles@98%: 82% chance of no death.
@95%: 60%
@93.3%: 50%
@90%: 35%
@80%: 11%

The CR gunpowder are irreplaceable, but they really only need to survive until you get tanks as they attack better than infantry anyway, but the gap between riflemen and tanks can be large depending upon what you want to tech first. It is nice, however, to get CR mechanized infantry, but the game almost always is over before I get those.

The "sweet spot" is just under 99% because you still get 2 xp per battle at that point, giving you the best bang for your buck in terms of producing great generals without losing units too often.

cr3, c1 pinch... duh, it's not that hard :p

and more then 5 promos, you won't smell anyway, since those troops are used almost exclusively in city taking and how many cities could there be on a std. map...

usually keeping them as maces till I get 10 xp(cr3). Then as rifles trying to take them to 26xp even if I have to sacrifice a siege or two when the enemy gets it's own infantry. After pinch, reset to 10xp as c1 pinch cr3 infantry and usually that's that(I'm at 10 xp and next promo is at 37xp and with safe attack you get only 1xp/fight). But a cr3 c1 is much worse then a cr3 c1 pinch unit, so usually trying to get pinch is worth the effort.

Close example:





Thanks for the example. To be honest I hadn't considered swords vs. archers, assuming you wouldn't get to a fourth promotion on a swordsman.








Here's an illustration of why:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=197150&stc=1&d=1229245490

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=197151&stc=1&d=1229245490

City raider promotions aren't available to gunpowder units unless they're upgraded melee units. Basically, they're IRREPLACEABLE. And as you can see from the example above, they are a lot better at attacking cities than their combat/pinch counterparts. Note that CRIII not only gives +30% city attack, but also 10% versus gunpowder.

So if I have a less than 20% chance of winning with my cannon and a 95% chance of winning with my infantry, yeah I'm going to use the infantry and mostly use the cannon for tearing down defenses. But if I have a 70% chance of winning with my artillery and a 85% chance of winning with my infantry, I'm definitely going to use the artillery, especially if it isn't even a city raider III. Another example: 30% artillery, 70% infantry, definitely use art. first, especially if there are other strong units in the city. If there is only one strong unit, and the odds for my strongest units are around 50%, I'd probably sac a withdrawal promoted cavalry unless the cavalry wouldn't attack that unit (like if there's a longbow and a pike or something).

More succinctly, using siege instead of your veteran CRIII gunpowder will save you hammers in the long run since CRIII gunpowder are so much better than pinch ones, even if it has a risk of costing you more in the short term. The scenarios I suggested above would be adjusted depending upon if my empire is weaker in production or commerce. If I have a good shrine, as I usually do, it's definitely more worthwhile to save my veterans.

It probably depends on the speed you play on too. I play on marathon, so professional army with siege sac strategies work better than zerg strategies than if I were playing on quick.

Note that it's mostly CRIII gunpowder units I value. I'm perfectly fine with sacrificing CRIII macemen in more circumstances, especially if they're cover-promoted.

Upgrading units isn't that expensive. The cities you take will pay for it. And it's certainly not "2 turns of research" as another player suggested. More like 1/10th - 1/5th of a turn of research by the time you're into gunpowder units, unless your economy sucks.

Of course, I can see why you'd value your CR units more, playing on marathon.

If you're attacking rifles with infantry though surely it's not a big consideration? Unless they are defending cities with 1 or 2 riflemen you're still going to need a good mix of other inferior units. Having a super medic paired with these CR3 infantry might help though.

Did that rifle have the 25% fortify bonus? If not it could be more realistic to adjust for that.

Thanks for the example. To be honest I hadn't considered swords vs. archers, assuming you wouldn't get to a fourth promotion on a swordsman.



Of course, I can see why you'd value your CR units more, playing on marathon.

If you're attacking rifles with infantry though surely it's not a big consideration? Unless they are defending cities with 1 or 2 riflemen you're still going to need a good mix of other inferior units. Having a super medic paired with these CR3 infantry might help though.

It seems like a big consideration to me because 95% is much better than 70%. Under that circumstance (70%) I'd consider whether or not to use a siege unit (not in this case though, as he's the only defender in the city). If I had sac'd all my CR gunpowder units in favor of siege units, then I'd be stuck with the 70% pinch attacker. That would suck unless I'm about to get tanks or planes.

Did that rifle have the 25% fortify bonus? If not it could be more realistic to adjust for that.

Na I was on the first turn of a game in worldbuilder to do the test real quick. I chose to attack a civ with their city on a hill which is much like him being fortified without a hill I believe. I think only the combat promos work differently. It was meant to simulate attacking a fortified CGIII rifleman (as if he were on flat land) with different infantry with three promos each to show how valuable CR is in the common situation where you're attacking rifles with infantry.

If I found myself deciding between whether my CRIII siege or CRIII gunpowder units should die, it's definitely time to work on air superiority or tanks.

It seems like a big consideration to me because 95% is much better than 70%. Under that circumstance (70%) I'd consider whether or not to use a siege unit (not in this case though, as he's the only defender in the city). If I had sac'd all my CR units in favor of siege units, then I'd be stuck with the 70% pinch attacker. That would suck unless I'm about to get tanks.



I'm still thinking it could be worthwhile using siege beforehand. Unless the city has only one or two defenders (where siege would be pointless), I reckon sacrificing a siege or two is normally going to be worth it, even if it increases the odds for the CR guy from 95 to 98.

I really should set up a more complete experiment, perhaps where we consider the hammers invested in units and see how many hammers it takes to take a city down. Of course, the tests will be at the mercy of the RNG though, and I don't know if I can be bothered. :p




Na I was on the first turn of a game in worldbuilder to do the test real quick. I chose to attack a civ with their city on a hill which is much like him being fortified without a hill I believe. I think only the combat promos work differently. It was meant to simulate attacking a fortified CGIII rifleman (as if he were on flat land) with different infantry with three promos each to show how valuable CR is in the common situation where you're attacking rifles with infantry.

If I found myself deciding between whether my CRIII siege or CRIII gunpowder units should die, it's definitely time to work on air superiority or tanks.

Good point with the hill being like the fortify bonus. Still, I don't know if it's because of betterAI but I'm pretty used to seeing AI cities on hills more often than not. Also the rifle has no promotions? I understand you're only doing a simple example but I don't competely agree that it's realistic.

Also, I just realised the sword from before couldn't have drill I either, so in all fairness it's not really a good demo of D1 vs C1 giving greater than 5% odds discrepancy. Also, the C1 promotion there is a bit luckier than on an average occasion because it sends the battle through one of the significant jump points - namely N_D going from 5 to 4 (i.e. C1 allows defender to be killed in 4 hits compared with 5 hits for the D1 guy). Not to discount the use of that jump point if you know how to use it, but it's not typical I don't think.

Combat for sure.

Combat increases survivability in most battles.

Drill decreases damage taken in battles you win generally, but doesn't do as much for survivability.

You want the promotions that will most guarantee survival for your highly promoted units. Combat basically always is the correct choice for this, unless you are focusing on defense survival, for which city garrison, drill, etc. can be better.

CR rifles/infantry are irreplacable (well the rifles can be if your game things a bit), but they are are temporary unit until you tech out tanks. I'm perfectly happy having all my CRIII/Pinch infantry dead when the tanks are rolling off the production lines. My only question then is what gets me the most :hammers: for when tanks rolls around or the most good land for vertical expansion (slight differences on what makes up "good land" depending on if I want to whore :science: for space, :culture: via resources, or pop for diplomacy).

Husbanding CRIII gunpowder really doesn't work all that well. At higher difficulties the AI has so many crappy defenders you pretty much can't depend on CRIII to do the heavy lifting. The :gold: cost to upgrade enough CRIII troops delays your tech progression by 4-5 turns; which spirals out of control quite quickly (that's enough time for an attack to go from rifles vs a few muskets/lbs to rifles vs rifles, to lose a "free" GP from communism or physics, to lose out to the AI on a good corp, or to lose a wonder like SoL). I find it far more worthwhile to have a higher burn rate, but to take down the one or two GOOD defenders in a stack of crap. The CG III LB when everything else is one promo, the two MGs the AI has that would otherwise eat 2 infantry or 4-6 cannon, etc. - these are allow me to nab a city quick (and more importantly press onward) that would otherwise slow me way, way down.

At the end of the day, the only reason you upgrade CRIII units is to spend fewer :hammers:/turns on normal gunpowder units/siege. If fear of losing them doesn't make this true, don't bother upgrading.

Also the rifle has no promotions? I understand you're only doing a simple example but I don't competely agree that it's realistic.

The rifleman has city garrison I, II, and III. Not a worst case scenario, but a likely top defender for a city after you take the defenses down.

Also, I just realised the sword from before couldn't have drill I either, so in all fairness it's not really a good demo of D1 vs C1 giving greater than 5% odds discrepancy. Also, the C1 promotion there is a bit luckier than on an average occasion because it sends the battle through one of the significant jump points - namely N_D going from 5 to 4 (i.e. C1 allows defender to be killed in 4 hits compared with 5 hits for the D1 guy). Not to discount the use of that jump point if you know how to use it, but it's not typical I don't think.

The sword couldn't have drill I? Why not? It'd take 17 exp points, but it's not impossible. I wasn't trying to present a typical case, only an exception.

The rifleman has city garrison I, II, and III. Not a worst case scenario, but a likely top defender for a city after you take the defenses down.



Ah I didn't even notice. I stand corrected, and that certainly makes it more realistic.


The sword couldn't have drill I? Why not? It'd take 17 exp points, but it's not impossible. I wasn't trying to present a typical case, only an exception.

Only that Drill I is not available to swordsmen.

It just means the decision of drill vs. combat after CR is already a very unusual situation to be in (it's a very unusual question from the OP), and only possible with the first round of gunpowder units upgraded from ancient melee units.

Ah I didn't even notice. I stand corrected, and that certainly makes it more realistic.



Only that Drill I is not available to swordsmen.

It just means the decision of drill vs. combat after CR is already a very unusual situation to be in (it's a very unusual question from the OP), and only possible with the first round of gunpowder units upgraded from ancient melee units.

Yeah I think I was confused by the OP combined with using Japan recently. Samurai can get drill promotions.

Only that Drill I is not available to swordsmen.


Why do people so frequently ignore random events. :p
It is possible for swordsmen to have drill 1.

Quest12:
Elite Swords
Prereq: IRON_WORKING AND State Religion
Obsolete: MACHINERY or FEUDALISM or MUSIC or PHILOSOPHY or CIVIL_SERVICE or THEOLOGY
Active/Weight: 25/200
Aim:
Build default number of players for this world size +1 Swordsmen (8 for standard)
Result:
1.All Swordsman units gain the City Raider 1 promotion
2.All Melee units gain the Drill 1 promotion

Of course, I'm assuming BTS here...

Hi

I think it is cuz giving swords freebie cr1 which = cr2 out of the box with just a barracks and 2 exp points away from cr3 is just soo much better that most ppl hardly ever take free drill 1. Maybe it might be neat to take if it let you keep going down the drill line but it wont they just stuck with drill 1. so getting chance at a TON of cr3 swords and then upgraded to maces then gunpowder as game progresses just seems better move both in long and short term.

Kayte

I do not see why CRIII rifles are so hot. About that time battles are decided by siege and mass drafted meat.

If you need CR rifles just play Toku. Samurai are not obsolete at that moment. If you wish to pay for upgrades that is.

I do not see why CRIII rifles are so hot. About that time battles are decided by siege and mass drafted meat.

If you need CR rifles just play Toku. Samurai are not obsolete at that moment. If you wish to pay for upgrades that is.

If it's ONLY during the Rifling era CRIII rifles are meh, but, in modern wars there's really no effective answer to a CRIII mech infantry. That's the holy grail. Tanks at CRIII still have anti-tank units to deal with, and the AIs tend to beeline artillery (on the way to rocketry).

For this reason I change up my strategy a bit when I get Industrialism. Tanks become the expendable fodder, promoted initially to CI and Barrage. One or two will go down from the anti-tanks, but the collateral damage they do combined with their strength makes them better "siege" artillery than the cannons I usually have by then. When it gets to a point the tanks don't do anymore collateral damage I switch over to the cannons, as their attacks can further weaken the defenders WITHOUT a WW hit (versus a tank attack which carries a WW hit). I lose fewer cannons this way (if any at all, in fact it's extremely rare that any cannons are lost), and the bulk of the work my CRIII Infantry are doing at that point is just generating XPs for Combat-line promotions, and biding time until Robotics. Due to the siege tactics I use they "almost never" die (and I end up with perhaps far more than I really need). Tanks that survive their siege duties are promoted along the CR line to make them more viable, such that eventually I get a few who have Barrage, and up to CRIII.

Similar policy for determining who goes first: if a city has mad anti-tanks, the rookie tanks go first, and if two tanks don't die (and they're still dealing collateral damage) the veteran tanks finish up the initial collateral damage softening round, followed up by traditional siege units.

All in all, on the average modern war campaign I lose about 2 tanks for every 3 or 4 cities I tank, no other losses, when tech is AT PARITY. When I have a clear tech lead I just own with no losses. That's prior to Robotics, after which conquest is like slicing butter with a laser.

Other units that I nurse for XPs and later upgrades are Cavalry, to CIII + Blitz. When Advanced Flight comes in, chaching, CIII/Blitz gunships are excellent for "mop up multiple crap enemy units" missions. Up to 4 per turn per unit. Prior to that, Cavs are pretty good too (except vs. rifles).

You fear the low-tech unit spam of an aggro civ? ::smirk::

If it's ONLY during the Rifling era CRIII rifles are meh, but, in modern wars there's really no effective answer to a CRIII mech infantry. That's the holy grail. Tanks at CRIII still have anti-tank units to deal with, and the AIs tend to beeline artillery (on the way to rocketry).

For this reason I change up my strategy a bit when I get Industrialism. Tanks become the expendable fodder, promoted initially to CI and Barrage. One or two will go down from the anti-tanks, but the collateral damage they do combined with their strength makes them better "siege" artillery than the cannons I usually have by then. When it gets to a point the tanks don't do anymore collateral damage I switch over to the cannons, as their attacks can further weaken the defenders WITHOUT a WW hit (versus a tank attack which carries a WW hit). I lose fewer cannons this way (if any at all, in fact it's extremely rare that any cannons are lost), and the bulk of the work my CRIII Infantry are doing at that point is just generating XPs for Combat-line promotions, and biding time until Robotics. Due to the siege tactics I use they "almost never" die (and I end up with perhaps far more than I really need). Tanks that survive their siege duties are promoted along the CR line to make them more viable, such that eventually I get a few who have Barrage, and up to CRIII.

Similar policy for determining who goes first: if a city has mad anti-tanks, the rookie tanks go first, and if two tanks don't die (and they're still dealing collateral damage) the veteran tanks finish up the initial collateral damage softening round, followed up by traditional siege units.

All in all, on the average modern war campaign I lose about 2 tanks for every 3 or 4 cities I tank, no other losses, when tech is AT PARITY. When I have a clear tech lead I just own with no losses. That's prior to Robotics, after which conquest is like slicing butter with a laser.

Did they ever get around to fixing barrage? Last I checked that promo on tanks was worthless with after 3.17. Hoarding units until mech inf is, frankly a waste. A CRIII mech inf costs :gold: which is tantamount to delaying your strike which is REALLY expensive (if the AI gets mech inf of their own or stealth or laser). Additionally because you were less aggressive in the gunpowder era your RoR on your :hammers: and :commerce: was lower so you have had fewer turns to bring your conquests online (or perhaps missed some you could have had entirely). Modern Armor are only weak against choppers and choppers (like anything other flanker) are worthless if they've been hit with enough siege. For the opportunity cost of upgrading to CRIII mech Inf I'll estimate I can get at least two MArties and a MArmor; perhaps a MArmor, a MArtie, and a stealth. No matter how elite your unit it can only kill a fixed number of AI units per turn, your rate of conquest is much more dependent upon how quickly you can mop up left over weak units than how many super soldiers who can kill anything you have in the field.

Last I checked that promo on tanks was worthless with after 3.17.


I had thought I'd done the 3.17 but there was one other behavior that acts pre-that release when I play some something must be amiss.


Hoarding units until mech inf is, frankly a waste. A CRIII mech inf costs :gold: which is tantamount to delaying your strike which is REALLY expensive (if the AI gets mech inf of their own or stealth or laser).


No, I don't wait, and my CR infantry are not idle, they're fighting and gathering XPs, typically against riflemen so there's the bonus versus gunpowder units thrown in. All I was saying before is that at the rifling stage that's not the be-all end-all goal of nursing CR macemen for gunpowder upgrades. When I get my mech infantry CR units the strongest AI on the map is usually just starting to field infantry and anti-tanks.


Additionally because you were less aggressive in the gunpowder era your RoR on your :hammers: and :commerce: was lower so you have had fewer turns to bring your conquests online (or perhaps missed some you could have had entirely). Modern Armor are only weak against choppers and choppers (like anything other flanker) are worthless if they've been hit with enough siege. For the opportunity cost of upgrading to CRIII mech Inf I'll estimate I can get at least two MArties and a MArmor; perhaps a MArmor, a MArtie, and a stealth. No matter how elite your unit it can only kill a fixed number of AI units per turn, your rate of conquest is much more dependent upon how quickly you can mop up left over weak units than how many super soldiers who can kill anything you have in the field.

Those are interesting points. Although I'm pretty much full-on in conquest mode from the time I get macemen (usually), so I don't see how I'm "delaying" anything, but I do see how MArts and MArms would be deadlier, but here again I think it's that combination which amounts to a "delay" since you get mech infantry earlier. (I beeline Radio and then Computers, and after that, Robotics is right there staring at me, like a bottle of whiskey to an alcoholic! Or a bottle of napalm to a war-o-holic!)

The mop-up duties I think are the best fit for gunships with Blitz, though. Tanks kill 2, gunships kill 4. It takes more promotions to get the gunships ready, but that's why I get a head start with cavs down that promotion path.

It just means the decision of drill vs. combat after CR is already a very unusual situation to be in (it's a very unusual question from the OP), and only possible with the first round of gunpowder units upgraded from ancient melee units.
Your "very unusual situation happens in 2/3 of my games and because of that the option was included in the poll. My games that have no axemen rush usually future a macemen expansion, both lead to a core group of CR3 units.
I also must say that I was more interested if players used counter promotions that would become useless later to get a short term advantage (i.e. cover vs. C2) as for me, drill wasn't the option of choice because of survivability.

I had thought I'd done the 3.17 but there was one other behavior that acts pre-that release when I play some something must be amiss.



No, I don't wait, and my CR infantry are not idle, they're fighting and gathering XPs, typically against riflemen so there's the bonus versus gunpowder units thrown in. All I was saying before is that at the rifling stage that's not the be-all end-all goal of nursing CR macemen for gunpowder upgrades. When I get my mech infantry CR units the strongest AI on the map is usually just starting to field infantry and anti-tanks.



Those are interesting points. Although I'm pretty much full-on in conquest mode from the time I get macemen (usually), so I don't see how I'm "delaying" anything, but I do see how MArts and MArms would be deadlier, but here again I think it's that combination which amounts to a "delay" since you get mech infantry earlier. (I beeline Radio and then Computers, and after that, Robotics is right there staring at me, like a bottle of whiskey to an alcoholic! Or a bottle of napalm to a war-o-holic!)

The mop-up duties I think are the best fit for gunships with Blitz, though. Tanks kill 2, gunships kill 4. It takes more promotions to get the gunships ready, but that's why I get a head start with cavs down that promotion path.


A few notes:
1. I just WBed a barrage III tank into a save and it gave no collateral.
2. Your CR infantry are effectively idle :hammers: and idle :science:. In order to keep the buggers alive you had to delay your tech rate and you have to devote more :hammers: into suicide siege. This slows your overall rate of conquest and dimisses your RoR.
3. You again idle resources when you upgrade the second (third?) time to Mech Inf when you could have tech harder towards stealth or gone Kremlin and rush bought more units or begun WSing over your cottages sooner.
4. Yes a CRIII mech inf is one of the best modified attacker in the game, who cares? For the cash cost of upgrading him and :hammers: cost of using more siege to to keep his attack odds high (let alone compounding RoRs) you could have a MA and MArty which is far stronger than any one unit.
5. Being in full on conquest for that long means that you are likely playing below the level of skill you have. WW alone, if you ignore Fascism like in your beelines, means you are sacrificing FAR more potential for these few strong units.
6. Every cannon you sacrificed to not risk a CRIII infantry at good, but not ultra-good odds is at least one fewer gunship you'd have on hand than you'd otherwise have when you finally go for your Mech Inf war.

The question is what is the fastest rate of conquest. There is no way the numbers are going to say CRIII Mech Inf are it.

Exuce me, but you are in conquest mode from maces to mech infantry:eek:?

What size of map (and difficulty)?

Modern times obsoletes the need for gunpowder with CR.

And tiny bit of collateral will give CR tanks the ability to cream all defenders...in fact they usually do anyway if you bombard/use spies. If anti-tank is a problem just leave some old cavalry around in your 2 move tank stack or something. Anti-tanks are usually terrible in cities against tanks, and with cavalry tanks won't even defend vs them in the field. Usually not worth the effort though as times where anti tanks gave me serious trouble against the AI were few and far between (even airships screw them).

CR infantry are good of course but again tanks will hit harder and require no special tactics to produce. Just some oil.

CR mechs? No way. I'll go for modern armor or air superiority first. Gunships aren't very sturdy against CR modern armor defensively (they don't even get defensive bonuses, do they?), so you just need something to cover vs them. Mobile SAMS or just more air superiority should do the trick. Or, if you can make mech infantry and not mobile sams, just throw in a couple mechs for stack D.

A CR III MA will own the hell out of basically anything defending, other than mech infantry with mass CG, but even then they're superior to CR III mech infantry...!

Don't fight your current war to prepare for another war. Win your war, then abuse the returns to win even more easily later.

A few notes:
1. I just WBed a barrage III tank into a save and it gave no collateral.


Was the defender already damaged? They have a max collateral damage limit higher than the siege, which is why I prep for siege with a tank barrage (less likely to die right away than siege). When the tanks no longer do collateral, it's time for siege work.


2. Your CR infantry are effectively idle :hammers: and idle :science:. In order to keep the buggers alive you had to delay your tech rate and you have to devote more :hammers: into suicide siege. This slows your overall rate of conquest and dimisses your RoR.


The alternative on conquest at that tech level is CII or equivalent infantry, which "do okay", but die more frequently than the CRIII promoted. The game isn't 100% a calculus of hammers and coins, but also other factors like WW.

Either way you are going to lose a few units. But losing the few siege does the collateral damage such that a large portion of the stack can be semi-obsolete units like cavalry. Thus recouping those coins and hammers you were so worried about there.

Of course a lot depends on how much of a tech lead I have. If it's total modern parity the whole enterprise is very iffy from the get-go, but I've had many games were I could send the siege home to their families because I got all the siege work done by bombers for CG-softening and spies to wipe out city defenses.


3. You again idle resources when you upgrade the second (third?) time to Mech Inf when you could have tech harder towards stealth or gone Kremlin and rush bought more units or begun WSing over your cottages sooner.


How many beakers to Stealth? That's an enormous stack of mech infs, oversized actually, for quicker domination via upgrade. I just can't agree to hold off for a hoped-for advantage with very-late-game techs when you can really kick culo NOW.


4. Yes a CRIII mech inf is one of the best modified attacker in the game, who cares? For the cash cost of upgrading him and :hammers: cost of using more siege to to keep his attack odds high (let alone compounding RoRs) you could have a MA and MArty which is far stronger than any one unit.


But again we're talking about a delay here. Delay when facing fast-techers is suicidal. There's more luxury to wait when all that's left in the game are knuckle-dragging aggressives, so I can see doing what you suggest there, but a Willem Van Oranje after he gets steam engine isn't someone you want to just leave in peace, any single turn longer that absolutely necessary.


5. Being in full on conquest for that long means that you are likely playing below the level of skill you have. WW alone, if you ignore Fascism like in your beelines, means you are sacrificing FAR more potential for these few strong units.


Of course there are more cool-off periods if I don't manage to take a mids city. But that's an early priority for conquest.


6. Every cannon you sacrificed to not risk a CRIII infantry at good, but not ultra-good odds is at least one fewer gunship you'd have on hand than you'd otherwise have when you finally go for your Mech Inf war.

The question is what is the fastest rate of conquest. There is no way the numbers are going to say CRIII Mech Inf are it.

You're apparently forgetting SAM infantry. There is no similar nemesis to the Mech.

Modern times obsoletes the need for gunpowder with CR.


Assuming no anti-tanks. And assuming no SAMs. And the AIs bee-line artillery and rocketry. Hmmmm, something wrong with your assumptions, much?


And tiny bit of collateral will give CR tanks the ability to cream all defenders...in fact they usually do anyway if you bombard/use spies.


The vast majority of defenders anyway, which is why I combine barrage with the CR line for tanks. After the tanks have done their CR, siege is 99.999% surviveable for attacks that GENERATE NO WW. That's free damage to the enemy, why not take it?


If anti-tank is a problem just leave some old cavalry around in your 2 move tank stack or something. Anti-tanks are usually terrible in cities against tanks, and with cavalry tanks won't even defend vs them in the field. Usually not worth the effort though as times where anti tanks gave me serious trouble against the AI were few and far between (even airships screw them).


It's not uncommon that I'm raiding a city with 3 or 4 anti-tanks. That's not a total deterrent to using tanks "at all" but in those situations it's hella handy to be able to answer that by bringing CR infantry to the front. Infantry takes out infantry, the remaining defenders can't kill my siege, and siege collaterals the anti-tanks to where the tanks own them. Game, set, match, for the city raid. You people are saying it's better to leave the infantry at home, and I simply disagree.


CR infantry are good of course but again tanks will hit harder and require no special tactics to produce. Just some oil.


That's another reason for the infantry. Not all of us worldbuilder in oil squares for ourselves and take what the map gives us. If the map gods say "no tanks", then "no tanks" it is. But if you didn't prepare infantry for that purpose, your conquest will have such high losses that WW will choke you down.


CR mechs? No way. I'll go for modern armor or air superiority first.


Do what in the mean time? Trust that the AI fast-techers will be idle?


Gunships aren't very sturdy against CR modern armor defensively (they don't even get defensive bonuses, do they?), so you just need something to cover vs them.


The problem isn't to cover versus gunships (SAMs, duh), but how to attack a city effectively when THEY are covering WITH gunships. Siege dies. Tanks die. CR Mechs do NOT die.


Don't fight your current war to prepare for another war. Win your war, then abuse the returns to win even more easily later.

Rebuilding the entire war machine for each new war, how was that supposed to be efficient again?