What's your favourite civ?

Sorry but I'm having difficulty following your arguments here:

Buttercup said:

In terms of Shields, you forget that a Knight, while costing 70, also has a defence value of 3, so with a Knight you don't need to build Pikemen for your stacks, even if you do, the Knight will still be attacked first.

Click to expand...

Come on, this is Justanick you're talking to here. I doubt he's forgotten any of this...

An Immortal + Pikeman is 60 shields. Because Shields don't carry over, if your city is producing 20 Shields per turn, the most common total for a pre-industrial core city then:

2 Units @ 30 Shields each = 4 turns (Immortal + Pikeman)
1 Unit @ 70 Shields each = 4 turns (Knight)

And then on top of that, 1 Unit is half the price of 2 Units.

Click to expand...

What? This makes no sense on several levels. You just said yourself that Pike+Immortal costs less than the Knight! The wastage would be twice as high as when building just the Knight, but really, who wastes shields like this, even at Regent?

If I have a city doing 20SPT, it's not going to be building 30s-units and wasting 10s every 2T; it will build 20s into a Settler, short-rush the rest (40g) then switch to building a Knight in another 2T => 3T per Knight per city, with no wastage. Or it will e.g. swap a mine or two for irrigations, and build 4T-Knights at 18SPT (=2s wastage) and the same/more FPT, while the other city gets more SPT/less FPT. And in the meantime, any 30s units I want will be built in my 10- and 15SPT towns in 2-3T, also without any wastage...

On top of that The Knight is quicker.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll give you that

Both Mounted Warriors and Gallic Swordsmen have the chance to retreat which negates their likelihood of dying more by having an attack of 3 instead of 4 (which, as we all know, doesn't count for a huge amount when killing Spearmen).

Click to expand...

Even if it's not huge, I'd still rather have a unit with a raw 66% chance (4:2) of winning a combat-round vs a Spear on the flat, than one with a 60% chance (3:2). And while having the retreat-possibility is a definite advantage on attack, I wouldn't want to have to defend with MWs (GSs, maybe -- but I've never played as the Celts)...

And if I understood Justanick's point correctly, at high levels Immortals are at their strongest when you're trying to absorb the initial AI zerg-rush(es) during the 3-4T after an early DoW. Sure I agree that you'll want/need faster units for invasions/ expansions later, but first your Civ has to survive long enough for there to be a 'later'!

In that case, a 30s, A/D=4/2 unit with effective M=3 on your own roads (hence the comparison to the Rider...?), available only 1 (extra) tech into the Ancient Age (assuming Iron), is then hard to beat. And precisely because of the Immortal's early availability, AI outer city-limits are unlikely to have popped more than once -- so once the incoming has been mopped up (and if you can come in through the corner of their BFC, or plant a city on their border), your units will only be spending 1T stranded in enemy territory, before it becomes your territory...

On topic:
I generally play on Small- or Standard-sized, all-Random maps at Mon/Emp, and I like to go for Space, if I'm on a Continent, or Domination on a Pangaea. Of the Civs I've played as, my proudest moment/most fun game so far was probably my Space-win as the Dutch on a Small 60% Continents at Emp (my first solo-game at this level) last year. AG/SEA may not be a combination that immediately lends itself to Space, but the game let me do a bit of everything -- I built a fair few Wonders, won all my wars (even without Iron, initially), kept everyone else sweet with trading+diplomacy -- and launched a bloody great rocket at the end!

Favorite Civ? Probably the Zulu. Particularly when another yellow-colored civ is around, the black uniforms are the coolest and there's nothing that quite matches the fun of demolishing European civs (or the US) with Zulu armies.

Iroquois, Persians, and Ottomans are also favorites.

@tjs - too much random micro information and no governing point I'm afraid. Take a look at the HoF results, the primary point of my post was stating that the facts don't bare out whatever pedantry anyone cares to raise. If Persia was more common in the lists, by all means, explain away, but while Persia is dominated by Iroquois and Celts, and even China on high difficulty in some cases then it doesn't matter what pedantry you interject into my likely misunderstood attempts at explaining this result, it's the macro result that dominates any micro pedantry.

@Lexicus Yes, I think I said the Zulu are the 'coolest' on another thread of the same topic, great to hear someone shares this wonderful taste

Buttercup said:

In terms of Shields, you forget that a Knight, while costing 70, also has a defence value of 3, so with a Knight you don't need to build Pikemen for your stacks, even if you do, the Knight will still be attacked first.

Click to expand...

That should not happen. The Pikemen will be attacked first because at same defence value it has lower attack. It is different if the defence values differ because only the knight could fortify.

Buttercup said:

Similarly, you can apply the same mathematical logic to Gallic Swordsmen, which cost 50 Shields

Click to expand...

I might be tempted to agree that the Gallics are worth 50 shields, but unlike in earlier versions they only cost 40 shields in C3C 1.22.

Buttercup said:

Both Mounted Warriors and Gallic Swordsmen have the chance to retreat which negates their likelihood of dying more by having an attack of 3 instead of 4

Click to expand...

The possibilty of retreat only applies while the enemy has more than 1 HP left. That hopefully is made unlikely.

Buttercup said:

Ok, I guess you're convinced about this from a specific angle

Click to expand...

Indeed. I assume Sid or higher and likely a small map to offset the management needs when dealing with huge amounts of units.

Buttercup said:

2 Units @ 30 Shields each = 4 turns (Immortal + Pikeman)
1 Unit @ 70 Shields each = 4 turns (Knight)

And then on top of that, 1 Unit is half the price of 2 Units. On top of that The Knight is quicker.

Click to expand...

That kind of logic does not apply. Due to use of artillery the knight is not faster. For building up the stack one needs about 30 trebs, 30 immortals and 3 pikes. Replace the immortals with knights and the cost of the stack increase from 1890 shields to 3090 shields. That is 21 turns vs 34.33 turns at 90 shields per turn on average. Later losses need to be replaced, then the 30 shields instead of 70 shields are even "more" relevant. Knights might however reach the front a bit faster, so there they do have an advantage. Also they might defeat the last unit of a stack and afterwards return to their "home" stack. Not leaving single units isolated on a tile is a bit important.

Buttercup said:

Looking at the Hall of Fame

Click to expand...

HoF is a very specific angle. The starting positions are unusually good. Supplied with such advantages one needs to fight much less for simply survival. I refer to the more usual bread and butter games.

The Iroquos have very good UU. Using retreat instead of artillery you will suffer higher losses, but saving artillery your initial investment into the military will be substancially lower. Also you will be able to utilize some of the speed advantages. They will need some pikemen for protection. When playing Celtia you might even skip the defensive units and thus utilize speed even better. All 3 nations have strong offensive UUs in the early ancient age that help to survive at Sid. That survival is usually accomplished once you have a few armies. Immortals excel in armies and at Sid you will get plenty of MGL for armies.

With the Celtic UU the best defense truly is a good offense. With the Celts I'm almost entirely offensive in from the mid-ancient age to the late middle age. I expand pretty quickly when their UU is active, after which I just start building Knights and then Cavalry. I generally don't bother upgrading my GS to medieval infantry. I prefer the retreat option and the speed. They can serve as mop-up after the Knights.

buttercup said:

@Lexicus Yes, I think I said the Zulu are the 'coolest' on another thread of the same topic, great to hear someone shares this wonderful taste

Click to expand...

They have major nostalgia value for me as well being the civ that I would usually play back when Conquests was the most recent civ franchise release

Not forgetting sound effects either, the clash boom bang of the Impi is a really interesting and unique sound, arguably the best sound effect for any Unique Unit.

The right sound effects do add to the experience, eh? I like the Aztecs, but the dull thud of the Jaguar Warrior, is, well, just not as good as the sound of the regular AA warriors.

Lexicus said:

Favorite Civ? Probably the Zulu. Particularly when another yellow-colored civ is around, the black uniforms are the coolest and there's nothing that quite matches the fun of demolishing European civs (or the US) with Zulu armies.

Iroquois, Persians, and Ottomans are also favorites.

Click to expand...

I thought I was the only one who liked the Zulu! I am pleasantly surprised that I am wrong.

The impi is also a highly underrated UU.

I quite like those zulus too! Like Lanzelot, I like the cool black colour and I also agree with CelticEmpire that stomping around with impis is great fun. I lurve wrecking roads and irrigation with those guys.

Amazingly, I appear not to have stated my own favourite, which is Rome, although I never play them anymore having gradually learned they aint that good. But we are talking favourite, not best and there is nothing quite so crushing as a Roman sword rush.

Buttercup said:

Not forgetting sound effects either, the clash boom bang of the Impi is a really interesting and unique sound, arguably the best sound effect for any Unique Unit.

Click to expand...

When my son was small I used to do a passable impression of a regular warrior being promoted to veteran. He, now 18, occasionally asks me to do it now.

Chinese; awesome combination of strengths. Good UU with good timing.
Dutch; awesome combination of strengths and makes it lethal on water maps. Weak UU though.
Germans; Panzers just rules. They won't slow you down after Cavalry. Strenghts are so-so.
Vikings/Scandinavia. Gotta love the Berserks. Mil and Sea makes it a good island map civ.
Iroquois; great starting techs and strengths.
*Austria; great military Pangaea civ.

French

Commercial and industrious are great for my play style (mostly builder), and I love a defensive UU. If I can make musketeers when I get gunpowder then I won't bother building riflemen with nationalism, I'll just focus on factories and hospitals and wait until replaceable parts to update my defences. I love a mid to late medieval golden age if the AI are warmongering

Second choice is the Dutch for similar reasons. With Swiss mercs I'll skip musketmen and don't have to care much about having saltpepper. Other civs I tend to use are the Chinese, English, Mongols and Koreans. Not necessarily because of their abilities, just because I like to play them and have some personal connection to those countries. I've been playing with regicide on recently and always use my king as a scout so I don't care much for expansionist civs these days.

Thanks to the advent and refinements over the past few months of the Scout Gambit, I'll take Russia any day.

You just can't beat about 15 scouts,built ultra fast, leading to Philosophy discovery, switch to Monarchy and entry into Middle Ages before 2200 BC (in one case, 2630 BC). Soon thereafter, your entire home continent has been mapped.

The Science trait is bound to yield an SGL or two with such a massive science lead.

Cossacks come along soon thereafter while everyone else is mired in the ancient age; the golden age they bring is the icing on the sundae.

Going to rehash this since I'm waiting on coffee and Civ fanatics is the most interesting place to be early on a Sunday morning...


Based on my own experience, where shield cost is concerned, where you want a cheap shield cost is on defense. Forget speed and offense. If a point arises in the game where you need to build a military very quickly, those points tend to be in situations where you are in need of defense. If you have sufficient defense, you can afford to take your time in building an offense. Additionally, you are more likely to take out multiple AI units with 1 defender than you are with 1 offensive unit, making the defensive unit far more efficient in terms of shield cost. And the defensive units tend to be upgradable all the way to mobile infantry. Most offensive units cannot become modern armor. You simply cannot look at shield cost and stats vs. shield cost and stats and do a value comparison that reflects in-game impact. If I were playing myself, my self with the cheap defensive UUs is going to win.

Now, an offense, on the other hand, should begin when you are ready to begin. If you start an offensive when you are not ready to, you may succeed, but it is suboptimal. Being able to build an offensive force more quickly simply means you will be able to go on the offensive more quickly (which probably impacts the HoF representations - which have NOTHING TO DO WITH optimal play, unless its within a limited aspect of the game). If you want to win more quickly, go with fast, cheap, offensive units. If you want to increase your chance to win, go with cheap defensive. One of the greatest inefficiencies you can create for yourself in the game is having to replace defeated units. Pissing away shields on stacks of fast offensive units is like running in sand. You should be looking to play a game and lose less than 10 units. (note: obviously in my mongol/Russia campaign I've lost quite a bit more than 10 units, but c'mon, they start with over 40 cities, and I start with 1).

Speed, essentially, is crap. Not in the real world, but in Civ III it is. You do not need many fast units. Its been awhile since I've played the highest level (Sid/Deity), I admit, but there's little point in outrunning your artillery. Speed is great for taking lightly defended cities and knocking off retreating weakened forces so that they cannot heal - obviously unit replacement is also the primary inefficiency you force on the AI - don't leave those 1 bar AI units unattended... . You don't need huge stacks of cavalry for that. If you are playing at a level that is challenging for you, slow and steady wins the race. If you are not, what units you are building doesn't matter at all as long as you can defend your cities.

Blitz is something else entirely. Blitz of course increases the efficiency of a single unit. But not by as much as more defensive value does.

Frankly, I don't think a civ should be chosen based on UUs, unless it is for cosmetic reasons. UU strengths and weaknesses should/could shape your grand strategy, but they take a backseat to tech pace and city growth. They are the dessert, but not the actual meal. I will forever stand by my assertion that the best UU in the game is the industrial worker.

edit: as an additional note, what if you pick a civ based on a UU, but lack the resources to build the UU?

agonistes, you also need to take the difficulty level into consideration. What you describe here may be true for Deity/Sid, but on Warlord, for example, the AI is so weak, that it will never be able to attack (or even counter-attack) you. So why build defensive units in that case? They are a complete waste of shields. Speed is everything!

And even on Deity+ chances are that AI will keep a great portion of troops at home, thus leaving the attacking forces vulnerable. When presented with MedInf or even Longbows expected to attack you soon, do you wait, or do you attack them first? Due to their low defence values attacking them would seem the natural choice. At Deity+ the point would seem to be to avoid that "a point arises in the game where you need to build a military very quickly!".

agonistes said:

One of the greatest inefficiencies you can create for yourself in the game is having to replace defeated units.

Click to expand...

That is true to some degree. But attacking some cities earlier will have the double effect of decreasing the economic output of your enemy and increasing yours. That has the potential that in the mid run your losses will not be higher compared to a more defensive approach although initial losses will be higher. However, Chances are that the more aggressive approach will result in higher total losses, but still leaving you stronger not only relatively but also absolutely due to your increased economic output.

Defensive approaches seem only proper when you can construct your own little hamburger hill, a meatgrinder where AI musst go through but will fail to do so because a mountain with level 2 fortifications or at least a City on hills gives your defensive units severe boni.

agonistes, you also need to take the difficulty level into consideration.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess my thinking is that on the lower levels, you can pretty much get away with anything. Why even bother with a shield cost analysis there? Its pretty difficult to lose.

That is true to some degree. But attacking some cities earlier will have the double effect of decreasing the economic output of your enemy and increasing yours. That has the potential that in the mid run your losses will not be higher compared to a more defensive approach although initial losses will be higher. However, Chances are that the more aggressive approach will result in higher total losses, but still leaving you stronger not only relatively but also absolutely due to your increased economic output.

Click to expand...

I've never had trouble taking cities with a stack of defensive units and artillery, and a few offensive units. In fact, that approach seems to me to be the longstanding optimum attacking force - and its so effective it makes the higher levels boring, because it seems like you are doing the same thing every game. On the other hand, I've seen entire stacks of offensive units wasted when tossing them at a city. This latter effort is the one most often employed by the AI, and one of the reasons why the human player remains superior to the AI. Again, I'm not going to attack unless its a good time to attack - I will always have the advantage. But woe be the player who is attacked and not ready to repel it.

A great time to launch an attack is right after the AI has decimated their military by trying to overcome your superior defensive force. I think the last time I played SID, I was just trying to see if I could still handle it. I had the Aztecs and Zulu, I believe, next to me at the start. I weakened them both with spearmen, then took over most of their cities, and pretty much had the game wrapped up before the end of the ancient age.

I'm not suggesting I avoid building offensive units, not by any means. But my ratio of defense to offense is usually 100s to 1. Not counting artillery as offensive.

Its a Longstreet/Lee argument. I will back Longstreet every time.

agonistes said:

I'm not suggesting I avoid building offensive units, not by any means. But my ratio of defense to offense is usually 100s to 1.

Click to expand...

That does sound extreme.

agonistes said:

Not counting artillery as offensive.

Click to expand...

Does that mean that you count in artillery as defensive units, or are they counted as a neutral unit type?

Does that mean that you count in artillery as defensive units, or are they counted as a neutral unit type?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I just meant that I wasn't counting them as offensive for my ratios. Artillery pretty much IS my offense. And defense.

Let's take an example (and btw, I apologize for sounding like an elitist jerk in my previous post... obviously a lot of folks are still learning the game and struggling on lower levels, so it matters to them).

Usually in my Civ III games I play on Marla's World Map, with modifications. I most frequently play as Russia or Germany. In every game where I am one of these two civs, the two civs end up bordering one another. So, for many a year, I hold a defensive position on that line. I will build some forts, and put units in them. War happens. So I will tell you what I put in those forts.

But first, I will explain that I build every building in every city. While I am doing this, I am also building up my forces. Early on, I just build up enough of a force so that if I am attacked, I can repel any offense long enough to build and move units to the threat position. This allows me to create a great infrastructure and allows for ongoing expansion (to the point where I say, meh, if I expand any more, it would be unfair - I like to leave room for at least a few civs to get pretty big... I will even settle cities and gift them to civs that I feel need a boost).

At some point, Russia or Germany will attack the other. I know this, so am always prepared for it to happen. Usually I will have 3-4 cities on the border, and these I make sure to have 3-4 defensive units and an archer, early on, and then space out some swordsmen, maybe 3 or 4, on roads so my force can be concentrated quickly but also not leave any defensive holes.

Then I start stacking spearmen in the forts (or near where the forts will be). Around the time I can build Trebuchets, I usually have 1 or 2 cities stacking them (away from the front line) so I am prepared for cannons - I just upgrade. When I have about 12 cannons, I send them as a group to one of the forts. By then I have maybe 8 musketmen there already. I don't really build offensive units until cavalry because I skip chivalry all together and beeline to navigation - the most crucial wonders are down that line. If Germany or Russia is using Armies, I will trade for invention and build some longbowmen.

Once I hit Cav, I will usually keep a couple of stacks of 20 or 30 around for emergencies... usually used to reconquer cities of other civs and gift them back in order to preserve the balance of power and not have a civ die off. However, if I am Russia, I DO use a stack of cav along with Muskets to take any Japanese cities that are on the Kamchaka (?) peninsula or thereabouts, simply because Russia is so damn big, muskets take like 25 turns to move from Moscow to down there.

So, anyways, for my forts, I may have 3 cav, 20 cannon, and 10 muskets, and about 10 muskets in each border city (I find that 10 is usually a safe number of defenders against a tank invasion). The cav are used to pick off redlined troops and weakened armies. I try to avoid any loss of improved land, but almost never risk sending a unit out of a fort or city simply to stop an incursion unless doing so will not put my unit in jeopardy, AND I have a health advantage.

Now, when I invade for real (usually as Germany), I send my workers out first to build roads. I will have enough workers on a tile (of any type of terrain) to build a road in 1 turn (+ railroad if I have the tech), on occasion a fort as well, if I think it necessary, and will safeguard them with as many as 20 defensive units. I take cities by having my artillery run in and bombard, then send a few cav to finish up. I may have a stack of 40 artillery, 10 musketmen, and an army of musketmen to do this. I continue to build roads and railroads as I go. I will make RoP treaties so my workers can build roads and rail through a neighboring civ to speed things up.

So, ultimately, lets say as Russia, with infantry and artillery, I have maybe 6 stacks of 50 or 60 artillery, each defended with 20 infantry or so, plus another 200-300 odd infantry lying around for emergencies, maybe 100 workers, and possibly 20 to 30 cav total. Once I get bombers, I put just about every city onto building them, until I have a 100 or so.

Now lets take a look at more challenging games, like a SID generic game or my 42 city Russian start. In these games, I build defensive units almost exclusively so I don't lose cities, and just concentrate on expansion. For a long time. Yes, if I see an opportunity, I will exploit it with some offensive units. But I can't justify the expenditures for an early offensive campaign. I'd rather build more cities. If you're building offensive units, you're either going to lose quite a few, or you need to protect them with defensive units. How many cities could you have built? I tend to expand until there is no more open land, or until I'm attacked by a force large enough to force me to modify my plans, and then I will go on the offensive to take the villain's primary industrial city or 2. If I don't have cannons at this point, yes, I will use whatever I have instead - archers, swordsmen, or knights.

In one of my greatest campaigns ever, I was playing as the US on a random map, and there was a civ across the ocean in danger of being wiped out (may even have been Russia, I forget). Anyways, it was a hellza long way there. I sent out (defensive) forces and Crusaders to save Russia - I didn't have any offensive forces to send.

Soon enough I'm at war with everyone and their mother on that continent. I was moving my troops in steps, building forts with the Crusaders each turn or every other turn if I wasn't on a road. At some point I took a city and upgraded my units to Riflemen. I had maybe 30 units in a fort, COMPLETELY surrounded by hundreds of units. And I just whittled the enemy down every turn. Now, ultimately, the plan may have failed, I guess, because Russia went on to be a juggernaut and I ended up at war with them, but I DID save them. If I had sent out cavalry to do the same thing, or Knights, or whatever, my troops would have been wiped out.

In another game on SID, that I started because a fellow Fanatics member questioned my tactics - and I've mentioned this game before - my start position was triangulated in between Zululand, the Aztecs, and France. Again, I only built defensive units while I expanded. The Aztecs came after my iron, the Zulu declared, then the Aztecs and Zulu fought as well. I just put some defensive units on hills and whittled down my enemies, and when they had been weakened, then I captured some cities with small forces of offensive units. Game was over pretty quickly... I mean, I didn't finish it, but when I'm 5 cities ahead of everyone else, there's no point in continuing a standard game. France was the civ giving me issues, and that's only because I sent out a few settlers way into no-man's land to claim some resources, and those cities were closer to France than to me.

While the Aztecs and Zulu were building offensive units, I was building buildings, workers, and settlers. And defensive troops, maybe on a ration of 1 to their 4. They lost troops. I lost nothing except (maybe) some worked tiles. With my city advantage and worked tiles, I could pop out 8 offensive units pretty quickly, enough to take a poorly guarded city.

Now, this all from memory. I guess I could open a save and actually do a head count. That would be very interesting. Maybe I actually have no clues as to what my force numbers look like.