Most Pointless/useless things

Very interesting list! Let me add my two cents:

  • Heroic Epic is quite useful: a) When going for a 20K victory - 4 culture for only 200s quite early is very strong! b) When doing "leader fishing", it will increase your odds for an MGL from 1 out of 16 to 1 out of 12. That's nothing to be sneezed at!
That's very true with regards to the culture. I hadn't though of that!

However, as far as probability goes, I can give you the example of my 2 most recent games (Note: I'm not just pulling out extreme cases from all my games, these are my actual 2 latest games).

In the previous game, I got a great leader with my first battle with an Elite. I rushed the Forbidden Palace. I had 4 other Elites units, and in the 2nd battle I already got another leader. That is 2/3 battles- a 66.6-% leader rate, in a non-militaristic civ without a Heroic Epic.

In my current game, I have 9 elite units. I can't tell you exactly how many elites I've lost, nor how many elite battles I have won. Thinking about it as hard as I can, I am going to estimate that I've won about 25-30 battles with Elite units. I haven't gotten a single leader! If i were to get one in the next fight, that would be roughly a 3% leader rate.

The game's default leader rate, as you mentioned is 1/16, which is roughgly a 6% chance. Compare that to my most recent 2 games: 66% and 3%. I wouldn't put too much weight an an improvement from 6% to 8% haha. EVEN if the game's probability were a little more consistent, that is still only a 2% increase. That is really not worth 200 shields. That isn't even worth 50 shields.

200 shields are roughly 7 Swords (likely overrun). Swords become MI. 200 shields are roughly 7 Horsemen. Horsemen become Knights.

In the end product you're playing with 7 less knights/Medieval infantry for a 2% chance. If you consider that even in the first encounter, 2 of those units are likely to become an elite, and you have let's say 7 elites already, then you've already increased your chance of a leader form an Elite victory by 28% from now having 9 elites compared to 7 before.

210 shields for a 28% higher chance of leader, or 200 shields for a 2% chance.
And that is not even counting the obvious impact that 7 additional units will have on your game.
 
The game's default leader rate, as you mentioned is 1/16, which is roughgly a 6% chance. Compare that to my most recent 2 games: 66% and 3%. I wouldn't put too much weight an an improvement from 6% to 8% haha. EVEN if the game's probability were a little more consistent, that is still only a 2% increase.

It is an increasement of ~2% points, but it is an improvement of 33.3%. If you are attacking and winning with elite units 10 times per turn on average you will receive 12.5 leaders on average in 20 turns without Herioc Epic and 16.67 times with it. So during 20 turns of war you gain 4.17 additional leaders on average saving 400 shields each for alternatively building an army by regular means. That is 1666.7 shields in total. Seems a like a bargain to me. In the long run one needs to face the upper limit of than 1 army per no less than 4 cities. So MGL might needs to be sacrificed for lower purposes such as rushing vp and other national wonders.

200 shields are roughly 7 Swords (likely overrun). Swords become MI. 200 shields are roughly 7 Horsemen. Horsemen become Knights.

Only at great expensive of gold maybe better invested in research. Knights become Cavalry and unlike Knights Cavs are a major and cost effective improvement. Knights fail at the later. Still compared to simple horsemen they are much more convenient as they effectively save both war weariness and unit support. It becomes even clearer when those troops need to be shipped, too.

That all however may favour to build those units via regular means. How valuable Heroic Epic is depends on how great an army you are able to field. If you are in a position to delay war till the advancements of the industrial age make your production explode, than Herioc epic is a no brainer. Also if you are able to delay war till you have lots of great cities and are able to field big amounts of Knights or better, than Heroic epic might very well be worth the effort. After all you get less than 3 Knights per 200 shields. A really tough decision the herioc Epic is only if one is forced into a too early war. Than 200 shields put on say horsemen instead may make a bigger difference.
 
I tend to use the rally point option a lot when I have railroads and I'm at war on some front. When half my empire is building military troops, a big part of them are automatically rallied near the battlefront.
 
Maybe Paratroopers might be more useful if they get a boost on their ATK and DEF attributes? I mean, they are indeed strictly situational Units (such as in RL); but they aren't buffed enough to make their Attributes useful by any stretch of the word.

They can't even take on Infantry on a 1vs1 fight...

At least Marines got buffed up in Conquests!, and are a must for all Arch maps.

I must say however, F-15 are as useless as useless gets. Sure, flying UUs sounds awesome; but because of the way the game has set up air combat, they just don't make the cut.

Maybe an *additional* UU may be created for the Americans? A Minuteman, if you will, replacing the Rifleman; with 6ATK, 6 DEF? Or a reduced Shield cost?

Because, come on, even British (I insist on playing all England games as UK by the way :p) Man-O-War are useful now with Conquests!. Build a couple of them, and watch your Navy grow with the captured Units...
 
It is an increasement of ~2% points, but it is an improvement of 33.3%

Yes you are technically correct about the 33% but that isn't how math works. The 33% is still relative to a very small number. It isn't as if you go from a 6% chance to a 39% chance with that 33%. The increment that matters is the one that comes after your 33% are applied to the original odds. For example, if the odds of being struck by lightning during a thunderstorm while you're taking a walk were 0.01 %, and having a Heroic Epic would increase that by 33%, that would still only be an increment of 0.003% to a final chance of 0.013%, and not 33.01%.

If you are attacking and winning with elite units 10 times per turn on average you will receive 12.5 leaders on average in 20 turns without Herioc Epic and 16.67 times with it. So during 20 turns of war you gain 4.17 additional leaders on average

That is correct, yes. Personally, I've never conducted warfare of such large proportions as to make such a large difference. In this case, I do concede that you are correct at such a large scale war, and, in that scenario, a Heroic Epic would indeed be a bit more effective.
I can make a few corrections to your figures. If you have 10 elite units, you will, on average, only be able to attack with them every 3-4 turns. Please keep in mind that unless we are talking about an easy game like Monarch, you're going to be fighting somewhat formidable units.

Let us take the example that you like best: Cavalry. In a decent game, Emperor and above, you are most likely to be encountering Musketmen, fortified in either a Town or City. In a town, not only is there a 25% percent chance your unit will die, but there is an 85% chance that your unit will take damage. If you take that into consideration, only 1-2 of your 10 elite units will be able to attack each time in 20 turns. For the ones that take damage, they will need 1 turn to wait, one turn to heal- 2 turns if they take more than one damage. That means they'll be able to attack 5-7 times in those 20 turns. Not to mention that with every attack it is most likely that you will lose 2-3 Cavalry. However, let's just say that you'll have a few Veterans becoming elites to make up for the losses so we can keep that figure as a constant.

So, 2 of your units will attack 20 times indeed. The other 8 will attack 5-7 times. The new figures are as such: 20*2+ 6*8 = 88 Elite Victories in 20 turns. So really your figure should be 5.5 leaders in 20 turns. (All of this is of course assuming that your logistics are impeccable and youre able to find the 3 units for an army within the exact turn in which your leader is produced). WITH the heroic epic your figure climbs to 7.3 leaders in 20 turns. Indeed you've gotten 2 more leaders in this time, if all circumstances are perfect. This does make the Heroic Epic marginally useful, but still far from overwhelming.[/QUOTE]

'
Only at great expensive of gold maybe better invested in research. Knights become Cavalry and unlike Knights Cavs are a major and cost effective improvement. Knights fail at the later. Still compared to simple horsemen they are much more convenient as they effectively save both war weariness and unit support. It becomes even clearer when those troops need to be shipped, too.

Cavalry? Sure, if you don't care about score that seems like a good enough choice. I guess it depends on the person. At this point in my Civs playing, I've beaten the game at every difficult, and my main objective isn't an easy ride but a fast victory. I mean, by your philosophy you could just as well wait for Modern Armor which is even more effective.

In conclusion: I personally have never conducted warfare on such a massive scale in the MA, but it is not to say that my way is the only way. I am by no means the best player here so I am aware that my personal style of play is not a standard. I will say that I can see that the Heroic Epic is indeed marginally useful if you conduct warfare on such a massive scale in the game.

One final thing to keep in mind is the timeline of events and the propagation of early events. Every city you attain adds to your overall science and shield count. With the 7 aforementioned Knights you coul have captured 3-5 MORE cities than without them in the time it took you to build the Heroic Epic. I guess it depends how important science is to you, or the quest towards more land for your Domination.
 
Just going over our current discussion I'm again fascinated by the complexity and variability of this game. It speaks volumes that game cannot be empirically proven to be most effective in a certain approach. This game is so much more interesting than Chess!
 
I can make a few corrections to your figures. If you have 10 elite units, you will, on average, only be able to attack with them every 3-4 turns.

There is a reason why i assumed 10 victories of elite units per turn. To get that one needs more like 20 elite units under very good circumstances and even more under less preferable circumstances. Not using militaristic civs and not using autopromotion due to multible victories per turn creating 20 elites will require 160 victories of veterans.

Please keep in mind that unless we are talking about an easy game like Monarch, you're going to be fighting somewhat formidable units.

Increasing the difficulty setting usually helps, because than AI is spamming out military units eager to be slaughtered. 160 + 10 x 20 = 360 victories in 20 turns would require AI to rebuild 18 units per turn. So monarch would likely not suffice for that. It is best to limit the discussion to demigod or above.

Let us take the example that you like best: Cavalry. In a decent game, Emperor and above, you are most likely to be encountering Musketmen, fortified in either a Town or City.

Units fortified in a city receive 85% bonus on defence. Risking valuable elite units on that is a waste of potential. In the initial stage of a war against AI it is convenient to use a static offensive style of war. Let AI move its units on the plains before your cities. There they get only 10% bonus on defence. Further you can redline them with artillery. Trebuchets work well, cannons work better and obviously industrial age artillery is much more better. Once the enemy is redlined there is opportunity to slauther the invaders with elite units and veterans if you are short on elites and need to create more of them. In time your stockpile of elites with grow and in some more time your stockpile of armies created with MGLs will grow, too. Then time has come to carry the war into enemy territory and take cities with your armies.

Cavalry? Sure, if you don't care about score that seems like a good enough choice. I guess it depends on the person. At this point in my Civs playing, I've beaten the game at every difficult, and my main objective isn't an easy ride but a fast victory. I mean, by your philosophy you could just as well wait for Modern Armor which is even more effective.

Probably, but there is a strong reason for Cavarly. Tech rushing at 4 turns per tech through the medevial age is achievable fairly easy. Doing similar with the industrial age or even modern age is near impossible at the higher difficulty settings. And if it is possible one already controls such large portions of the world that the game is won by then anyway.

When it comes to efficiency simply nuking everything is probably even more efficient than modern armour. It saves a lot of trouble. Also one no longer needs to worry about such outdated concepts as diplomacy.

One final thing to keep in mind is the timeline of events and the propagation of early events. Every city you attain adds to your overall science and shield count. With the 7 aforementioned Knights you coul have captured 3-5 MORE cities than without them in the time it took you to build the Heroic Epic. I guess it depends how important science is to you, or the quest towards more land for your Domination.

The main reason to delay war is because science suffices without it and the cost of war outweight its gains. Getting enough land to fully utilize the low corruption core is imperative and justices any war. After that war takes a long nap till communisn is available. Whether one truely jumps into communism or one just builds police stations to limit corrruption to 70% max is almost minor. Of major importance is the relative scarcity of commerce and production. If commerce is plents it seems reasonable to use it to increase producion with better techs. If productions is plenty increasing commerce via war is reasonable.
 
-Increasing the difficulty setting usually helps, because than AI is spamming out military units eager to be slaughtered. 160 + 10 x 20 = 360 victories in 20 turns would require AI to rebuild 18 units per turn. So monarch would likely not suffice for that. It is best to limit the discussion to demigod or above.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I am of course saying that we should limit this discussion to higher levels. That is why I said that the AI will have stronger units on defense if you are trying to take cities.

--Units fortified in a city receive 85% bonus on defence. Risking valuable elite units on that is a waste of potential. In the initial stage of a war against AI it is convenient to use a static offensive style of war. Let AI move its units on the plains before your cities. There they get only 10% bonus on defence. Further you can redline them with artillery. Trebuchets work well, cannons work better and obviously industrial age artillery is much more better. Once the enemy is redlined there is opportunity to slauther the invaders with elite units and veterans if you are short on elites and need to create more of them. In time your stockpile of elites with grow and in some more time your stockpile of armies created with MGLs will grow, too. Then time has come to carry the war into enemy territory and take cities with your armies.

That is true but that takes too much time. You can fight that kind of warfare very early on, in the interim. It is not too difficult to see the benefit in constantly attacking city after city, even if it incurs more losses than the more intelligent warfare. You lose more units but it doesn't matter. It isnt just about your cities but the AIs cities. At high levels the AI can churn out units like nobody's business, from ANY of their cities. Every one that you take is severely decreasing the end amount of units you need to fight. While it's much more probably to win fights against stray stacks of units in the open, the numbers begin to even out when you consider how many MORE units the AI will have if you don't take their cities. You could essentially cut down their units for ages and they won't run out. Like I said, if you're trying to get a good score, there is absolutely no time for this or even to wait for Armies. They're a nice bonus but consider them a luxury. Artillery there is even less time for. Forget artillery.
--Probably, but there is a strong reason for Cavarly. Tech rushing at 4 turns per tech through the medevial age is achievable fairly easy.

I'm sorry but "fairly easy" is a major overstatement. I would be very impressed if you could consistently 4-per-turn through the middle ages on Demigod and above. In order to do that you would have to allow yourself a very long build-up before beginning that. I cannot honestly believe that you can reasonably 4-per-turn in a game in which being time-efficient is even a minor priority. It just doesn't seem mathematically likely until after the point in which you're already a few techs in, or once you've got Education already in your net.

It's up to you. Those turns could've been used to generate money for upgrades of previous units into Knights.

--The main reason to delay war is because science suffices without it and the cost of war outweight its gains.
This is a complete falsehood that I used to believe as well. If I'm completely honest, it still "hurts" me when I sacrifice pretty buildings and thoughtful expansion for units and military efforts, but it pays off big time.
 
That is true but that takes too much time. You can fight that kind of warfare very early on, in the interim. It is not too difficult to see the benefit in constantly attacking city after city, even if it incurs more losses than the more intelligent warfare. You lose more units but it doesn't matter. It isnt just about your cities but the AIs cities. At high levels the AI can churn out units like nobody's business, from ANY of their cities. Every one that you take is severely decreasing the end amount of units you need to fight. While it's much more probably to win fights against stray stacks of units in the open, the numbers begin to even out when you consider how many MORE units the AI will have if you don't take their cities. You could essentially cut down their units for ages and they won't run out. Like I said, if you're trying to get a good score, there is absolutely no time for this or even to wait for Armies. They're a nice bonus but consider them a luxury. Artillery there is even less time for. Forget artillery.

I completely disagree. Certainly your arguments have merit, but as losses with artillery are minimal and armies are extremely valueable the high initial investment soon pays off, especially at higher difficulty settings. After all AI can only churn out one unit per turn per city. So even at Sid and higher this strategy works rather well:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=66169

I'm sorry but "fairly easy" is a major overstatement. I would be very impressed if you could consistently 4-per-turn through the middle ages on Demigod and above. In order to do that you would have to allow yourself a very long build-up before beginning that. I cannot honestly believe that you can reasonably 4-per-turn in a game in which being time-efficient is even a minor priority. It just doesn't seem mathematically likely until after the point in which you're already a few techs in, or once you've got Education already in your net.

At a standard map and demigod tech cost in the medieval age vary between 1097 beakers and 2331 beakers. The earlier is the more relevant threshold as early build up might be deficient. 2331 beakers is just 583 beakers per turn or divided over 20 cities 29 beakers per turn and city. As a republic base commerce is about 2.5 per tile on average. With 20% corruption on average and 50% bonus on average due to libraries that only requires an average city size of less than 10. Unless discussing Sid or higher the mathematics on this are rather clear. But even than it is possible. The real deal is to get to 4 turns per tech as soon as possible. Once that is achieved the growth needed to keep up with increasing tech costs within medieval age is minor. So consistently 4 turns per tech from entering the MA on is unreasonable because that might require to delay entering MA. But once 4 turns per tech are achieved things become fairly easy.

This is a complete falsehood that I used to believe as well. If I'm completely honest, it still "hurts" me when I sacrifice pretty buildings and thoughtful expansion for units and military efforts, but it pays off big time.

The decisions can be a tough one. But if militarily achieved gains suffer from 90% corruption the question of efficiency does arise.
 
I completely disagree. Certainly your arguments have merit, but as losses with artillery are minimal and armies are extremely valueable the high initial investment soon pays off, especially at higher difficulty settings. After all AI can only churn out one unit per turn per city. So even at Sid and higher this strategy works rather well:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=66169
I'm confused. You consider something as "working well" when by 1200 AD you're not even a third of the way to domination? :crazyeye:
 
NoAnswer, I surely do not intend to join your discussion, but I would recommend you make sure that you understand what you are talking about. Like, the game in the link which is called "Beyond Sid", is a classic in which one of the all-time experts of this game tried something that you most likely have never considered to do: to lower the costs for the AI considerably, and that compared to Sid costs. I am pretty sure you cannot judge what this means for the date of 1200ad from your experience.

And for Sid, there is not *the* single way to beat it. You rather take the way to victory that you can find. Sometimes that means that you have to go through a long curve and just make it before the game ends. On few occasions the start is so strong that you can beat the AI early. But I do not find your name on the Sid tables for fastest conquest or domination anywhere... so maybe just demonstrate to us in a story how you would go there from a random start. I have seen justanicks superb knowledge of the game while I have not yet seen him play; and I have seen neither from you, while I am highly interested in outstanding Sid strategies.

t_x
 
Please allow me to call time on the paragraph wars on the subject of the Heroic Epic. I think if you're playing a game which focuses on Army production then you'll likely want it, even just for the aesthetics on the lower levels, but if you're doing a peaceful win or a unit-spam win then it's rarely used/needed. I wouldn't class it as a useless item though, I'd rather have this than the Espionage Small Wonder, but that's a different topic.

Back on the subject of whether the thread is useful, well...



Sometimes the game laughs at you and sometimes you laugh at the game ;)

(bottom left hand corner...)
 
NoAnswer, I surely do not intend to join your discussion, but I would recommend you make sure that you understand what you are talking about. Like, the game in the link which is called "Beyond Sid", is a classic in which one of the all-time experts of this game tried something that you most likely have never considered to do: to lower the costs for the AI considerably, and that compared to Sid costs. I am pretty sure you cannot judge what this means for the date of 1200ad from your experience.

And for Sid, there is not *the* single way to beat it. You rather take the way to victory that you can find. Sometimes that means that you have to go through a long curve and just make it before the game ends. On few occasions the start is so strong that you can beat the AI early. But I do not find your name on the Sid tables for fastest conquest or domination anywhere... so maybe just demonstrate to us in a story how you would go there from a random start. I have seen justanicks superb knowledge of the game while I have not yet seen him play; and I have seen neither from you, while I am highly interested in outstanding Sid strategies.

t_x
I did read that game and some other Sid ones. It is indeed a fantastic performance there's no doubt about that. I've learned quite a bit from those games.

In unusual challenge games such as that one, date is less of a factor. However, in most cases isn't that the point? Go for earlier domination? I still find scarcely a situation in which the effort spent on a Heroic Epic isn't damaging to the game.

I'm not in the leaderboards because I haven't participated in any of the GOTM or COTMs, or tried for a Hall of Fame. I don't need to defend this too much, since I've taken care to point out myself that I am not one of the best players in here. Nevertheless, I do consider myself a very skilled player in this game, and when I disagree with somebody else then I'm happy to say so for the sake of discussion.

I'm playing in the current COTM and I'll be trying for a good Domination date. Fingers crossed!

Anyway, iif someone here is offended by the discussion then I must've gotten across the wrong message. Part of the fun of this game is its complexity and all of the varying amounts of strategy that surround it. Rather than any kind of resentment or hostility, what I look for in these discussions is great interest and enjoyment. :health:
 
Please allow me to call time on the paragraph wars on the subject of the Heroic Epic. I think if you're playing a game which focuses on Army production then you'll likely want it, even just for the aesthetics on the lower levels, but if you're doing a peaceful win or a unit-spam win then it's rarely used/needed. I wouldn't class it as a useless item though, I'd rather have this than the Espionage Small Wonder, but that's a different topic.

Well, on the lower levels armies and artillery are hardly needed, in that case they are aesthetics only, true.

Artillery and armies are needed to counter the much higher unit production figures of AI at higher levels. If AI produces 10 times the amount of units you will start to appreciate fighting with more than 90% chance to win a battle. If the AI had a weak military anyway the substancial investment into artillery will hardly pay off and attacking its cities directly without waiting for armies is the better choice.
 
Well, on the lower levels armies and artillery are hardly needed, in that case they are aesthetics only, true.

Artillery and armies are needed to counter the much higher unit production figures of AI at higher levels. If AI produces 10 times the amount of units you will start to appreciate fighting with more than 90% chance to win a battle. If the AI had a weak military anyway the substancial investment into artillery will hardly pay off and attacking its cities directly without waiting for armies is the better choice.

I agree that artillery is VERY helpful once you're facing Riflemen, and pretty much essential once Infantry are defending cities. However, if you're facing units with pikes and muskets, it's still OK to use Cavalry and forget about artillery, especially with 1-2 Armies, but even without that. Remember that the immense drawback of Artillery units is how much they slow down your advance as well as how much longer you need to be able to even begin your war because you're waiting for them to be built- or, you built thenm first and are now waiting for your actual units to be built. :)

"Speed is the essence of war" and pre-riflemen this is very fitting to C3C.
 
Top Bottom