Hey!

I have a question about unit upgrades, I tend to put at least 2 archers in every city usually for defense and when example I get Feudalism and are able to build Longbowmen, is it worth to upgrade those archers with gold? Or just delete them and build longbowmen in production city to replace them. After Longbowmen next step is Musketmen for best right?

Maybe someone gives tips how would a default empire city defense look like anyway. Border cities more defense, deeper in empire only 1 unit maybe is enough? Coastal cities, should put ships on sea patrol and how many usually sufficent when there is no big activity from the enemy. They usually attack with only couple of ships at the earlier eras, and when I put ships then on land 1 unit is enough right?

When I notice bigger stack towards some specific city, then ofcourse I will move more units there to defend, but I'm more interested in the passive side when no huge threat is seen yet.

PS. I play on Prince difficulty and Epic speed.

The whole point is not to overwhelm yourself with unit upkeep costs by having loads of defense units. To have more money or just support for more attacking units.

Hey!

I have a question about unit upgrades, I tend to put at least 2 archers in every city usually for defense and when example I get Feudalism and are able to build Longbowmen, is it worth to upgrade those archers with gold? Or just delete them and build longbowmen in production city to replace them. After Longbowmen next step is Musketmen for best right?


I use 1 defensive unit everywhere. Border cities get offensive units and siege (especially siege). Exception is when I play Protective, more defensive units then (and less offensive ones).

As for Longbowman - Musketman, I didn't bother to do calculations but it seems Musketman isn't a replacement for Longbowman. Longs have inherited bonus on hills and cities so I keep them. Well, depends on situation ofcourse. Riffles are replacement for everything.


Maybe someone gives tips how would a default empire city defense look like anyway. Border cities more defense, deeper in empire only 1 unit maybe is enough?


I usually keep 1 unit at most in deeper empire, and that is not for defense but for happiness (we fear for our safety...). Border cities as I said, offensive units mainly unless leader is Protective.


Coastal cities, should put ships on sea patrol and how many usually sufficent when there is no big activity from the enemy. They usually attack with only couple of ships at the earlier eras, and when I put ships then on land 1 unit is enough right?

Well coast cities need lots of defense. Usually AI attacks the same turn it declares, meaning you can't really sink their ships before. It depends on map and so on, i.e. I wouldn't expect naval invasion from Ghandis side.

Unit upgrade is only worth it if said units have many good promos. Or, sometimes I intentionally build Macemen when I can build Riffles already. Promote with CR and then upgrade to riffles / grenadiers. Otherwise delete them or use for hapiness in inner cities or use for pure meat in border cities if you see huge stacks of aztec tourists incomming

Nice! Thx.

The inner core of my empire is usually defended by one 4000 year old, club-wielding warrior in each city.

Mostly warriors and archers, one per city or more if I want happiness from HR. Then sods as appropriate if I'm going to attack somewhere or I'm anticipating an invasion.
It's very rare that I upgrade any unit whatsoever, it's usually more efficient to build new units.

Double post.

When I first started, I never used to upgrade units, but the more I've played the more I've tended to upgrade. There are generally 2 scenarios in which I'll upgrade a unit(s): 1) a well promoted unit (e.g. UU having multiple 1st strikes, etc); 2) don't want to wait a long time to raise an army (in which case, I'll drop the slider down to 0% for a few turns and upgrade what I need plus a little extra money in reserve just in case). Otherwise, I'll stick the obsolete units in my interior cities or even in my border cities as fodder to buy me time to react to a sneak attack).

I upgrade good vets (like CR3 units or drill IV) or if I've just got rifling or steel and want to rush a backward rival. I wouldn't upgrade defenders unless I was in dire trouble.

I upgrade defenders reactively. When there is an enemy force incoming, I stuff expensive rifles into the hands of my longbowmen and encourage them to learn fast.

As for longbows vs muskets, I believe longbows are slightly weaker, but get a first strike. Since longbows are almost always fortified in heavy defenses, that first strike becomes very valuable. However, I would say combine the two where possible - one of each is probably a better bet than two of either.

As for upgrades, I favour veteran units. The unpromoted ones tend to die anyway. :p Just remember that when you upgrade a unit with more than 10xp to its name, it retains its promotions and level but its xp is reduced to 10, making it suddenly very difficult to level it up again. Therefore, in battle, rather try to give your other units the experience where possible.

promotions is a way of improving your military if you are a commerce-heavy civ, rather than hammer-heavy. If I have tons of production cities, I usually just build units and delete obsolte ones. If I'm rich but hammer poor I will promote my army. As for defensive units...on border cities you really should upgrade them, for inner cities...welll, it doesnt really matter, I guess. Still, the last thing you want is to be in the industrial age withthe tech to build machine guns, and lose a city to a surprise attack because you only had archers in it.

promotions is a way of improving your military if you are a commerce-heavy civ, rather than hammer-heavy. If I have tons of production cities, I usually just build units and delete obsolte ones. If I'm rich but hammer poor I will promote my army. As for defensive units...on border cities you really should upgrade them, for inner cities...welll, it doesnt really matter, I guess. Still, the last thing you want is to be in the industrial age withthe tech to build machine guns, and lose a city to a surprise attack because you only had archers in it.

The key to avoiding the cost of this readiness is to not get surprised. :)

Thx for replies all, good info :)

Except from Cui->cav and treb->cannon, no other promotion worth the cost. Even a CRIII Rifleman promoted from an Axe/Sword does not have much higher survival rate than a CII cav, but the cost is out of my consideration.

I tend to upgrade, despite the cost-inefficiency. I tend to believe (rightfully or not) that the vets' ability to prevail overcomes the cost of the upgrade.

Also, I tend to build a lot of macemen with the intent to promote to top level city raider, and then upgrade to rifles/grenadiers so that I have early gunpowder city raiders - a promotion line that disappears after macemen until you get to tanks. I do the same with grenadiers and try to get them promoted to top level city defenders so I can upgrade them to machine guns, as the promotions carry over, but are not available to a newly built machine gun.

upgrades are very seldom worth it unless you need imeadiate offense / defense.

I'm with Oyzar - I upgrade typically in 3 situations: 1) when I need an advantage lightningfast - horde gold for 3-4 turns, and upgrade the masses and invade.

2) If I have CRI/II/III maces/swords/axes and can upgrade to rifles - the extra attack promotions are worth the gold.

3) Trebs to cannons are a cheap upgrade and can be devastating

But absent that, if I've done things right, I should by the mid-game have at least 2 cities capable of producing units at a fast pace, so I can either delete and replace in my SoD. I definitely don't upgrade city defenders, which are typically my warriors built way back in the BCs, unless the city is a border city in fear of attack.

One problem with upgrading defense units is the fortify bonus is removed and so you'd need 5 turns to build that up again. Having said that, if you're under threat it's probably still worth it if you can afford it as the higher base strength easily makes up for the +25% lost from the fortify.

Also, the single best unit to upgrade is the Oromo Warrior, IMO. Though it loses the immunity to first strikes by upgrading, it retains the 2 free promotions so Ethiopia can always have a nasty army of rifles, infantry or mech infantry.

Don't understand why so many players still favor those expensive upgrade. War should go with either flash attack with pure mount unit stack and/or siege/combo stack. In either case, units with CR promotion does not matter. CR promoted riflemans/Grens do not follow the pace of mount unit stack. In the siege/combo stack, even Axes/Swords clean the wounded units after siege units.

Veteran units are sooo good, i never delete units. Usually I will upgrade bowmen to longbows, and will usually upgrade all offensive forces to rifles when I get that, keeping some grenadiers if the enemy has rifles. Then, I usually upgrade rifled to infantry when that is available but on an as-needed basis. In the late game I upgrade everything, tanks to modern, infantry to SAMs or mech. Come to think of it, i'm an upgrade whore.

Don't understand why so many players still favor those expensive upgrade. War should go with either flash attack with pure mount unit stack and/or siege/combo stack. In either case, units with CR promotion does not matter. CR promoted riflemans/Grens do not follow the pace of mount unit stack. In the siege/combo stack, even Axes/Swords clean the wounded units after siege units.

You seem to think that upgrading units precludes mounted. In either case, there are many, many people on this forum who, like me, get great results with CR troops. Using mounted units against their contemporary anti-mounted units fails miserably.

You seem to think that upgrading units precludes mounted. In either case, there are many, many people on this forum who, like me, get great results with CR troops. Using mounted units against their contemporary anti-mounted units fails miserably.

I agree with the first part, CR units and siege (or from terbs on, CR siege) are one effective way of attacking AI cities.
But you give the mounted units not enough credit, they can be devastating.
First, what does contemporary mean to you? In praxis, you have good-sized windows for your attack.

Ultra early, a chariot rush can take out an AI before they get metal (or pillage their only source fast enough), Persia and Egypt excel in this.

Later, a typical horse archer charge is carried out when the AI already has access to spears. I say access because they build only few.
Ever seen a AI city defended by 3 spears and 1 archer? My typical AI cities always have 3 archers, 1 melee and 0.5 spears ;)
yeah, a rockin half one (some cities have one, some don't).
A flanking-2 horse archer (stables) has decent survival chances, sometimes you loose one but not a big deal, then the combat HAs mop up.

Even later in the game after a Lib beeline, cuirassier charges with the help of spies to knock out the city defenses instantly is a great
strategy and one I have numerously carried out even on high difficulties. You can blitz so fast trough an enemy, it is not funny, the first cities are
still under revolt when you reach the other side of their empire.
Justinian and his mighty catas can do similar things from the bottom of the tech tree even earlier. A few pikes? Laughable!

Then later again, a mixture of flanking-2 and C2/3-pinch promoted cavalry eat grenadiers for breakfirst and can take out rifles without too much problem (again after spy revolts), I even use them to take out MGs.

Generaly speaking, mounted charges and their speed gives you a number of advantages.
The speed means facing fewer defenders (from production, whipping and drafting), you stay way less turns in a WW-state and
you can attack cities that are still underdefended when you catch the AI off-guard.
Do not despise the horses :)

Many times I don't upgrade, don't build siege, and don't even run theo but draft riflemen with 1xp and no promotions whatsoever.
It doesn't matter when your target is using longbows and musketmen, not even if they're protective.

You seem to think that upgrading units precludes mounted. In either case, there are many, many people on this forum who, like me, get great results with CR troops. Using mounted units against their contemporary anti-mounted units fails miserably.

Plus upgrading troops is the only way to create them quickly (less than 5 turns) other than mass drafting. It's the only way that we can use the slider to make hammers, which is essentially what we're doing. The quicker someone can send their technologically more advanced units into the field, the sooner the war should be done.

Many times I don't upgrade, don't build siege, and don't even run theo but draft riflemen with 1xp and no promotions whatsoever.
It doesn't matter when your target is using longbows and musketmen, not even if they're protective.

If you facing a protective leader, you'll fall in awkward situation.

Even CGII Musketman defeat unprompted rifleman with >50% odd.
And your winning odd against protective LB is not that high, you will expect to lost 3~4 riflemans per 10 LBs.

The above results assume that you are able to revolt every AI's cities. (I doubt you can afford that) Moreover, how about hill cities.

If you facing a protective leader, you'll fall in awkward situation.

Even CGII Musketman defeat unprompted rifleman with >50% odd.
And your winning odd against protective LB is not that high, you will expect to lost 3~4 riflemans per 10 LBs.

The above results assume that you are able to revolt every AI's cities. (I doubt you can afford that) Moreover, how about hill cities.

I'm not saying it's optimal warfare but it lets your cities do other stuff and sometimes that can be beneficial. As long as the main objective is reached and you conquer the cities you have your eyes on that's the most important. But yeah musketmen can't be the dominant unit for this to work with a protective civ, but if there's only 1/4 or less musketmen then it's usually all good. I usually have cavalry for this sort of war as well though and it is rare that at least my HE city is not building some siege.
3-4 rifles per 10 LBs is fine, that's about 2 cities for you, meanwhile that's what I'm assuming my empire is producing every turn from drafting, whipping and perhaps building. My main point is you don't always have to prepare the optimal assault, diplomacy can often be the most important aspect of a war, and the preparations often started thousands of years before the DOW, blocking trade creating antagony etc to make a target fall behind.