A Few Theoretical Situations That Need Answering

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

I'm playing a game as Carthage (Emperor difficulty) where I'm in a resource rich, very fertile land to the north of my own continent. The only problem? No iron. Just some horses in some distant islands I intend to colonize.

The main questions are...:

1 - Should I mass build longbowmen in anticipation of a future iron-saltpeter war with my neighbors Japan and Sumeria, or should I just stick with building the horsies (2:1:2)?? In my experience horsies are fast but tend to suffer against spears and pikes, however longbowmen are tractors and they even tend to cut thru muskets like butter. Knights are also great but very expensive shield and resource wise, I can't build them.

Is it any good to build horsies except perhaps to rush a small and weak neighbor? Or is waiting for the medieval heavy hitters a more plausible stance?

2 - In this situation, is it better to wait for cavalry?? Or supposing I lay my hands on the iron, can I build a few knights?? Or just, like I want to and like I prefer to, specialize in longbows this time and just spam them?

3 - Numidians despite their cost are an excellent unit. They only really get obsolete with gunpowder but knowing most medieval wars I've been into, they retain their usefulness later because the AI rarely fields large numbers of cavalry or muskets until early industrial age.

4 - I'm not going to build a (real) navy until after Ironclads, playing on Continents 70% water. However I've been impressed by Carthage's Seafaring prowess, as in, the Seafaring trait is extremely powerful. I built most of my cities on the shoreline and also among rivers, and the extra commerce so far is making me tech very fast and stay ahead in the tech race. I'm on 200 BC, btw, just one tech short of Middle Age.

In your experience, how can I maximize Seafaring's boni??

Also despite being on Continents 70%, do you think I should build Magellan's to complement Seafaring? Reason is, well, later I might build a modern navy, and all of that is very neat. 60% of my neighbors seem on the other continent, that also plays a factor.

In what situations does building Magellan's become truly feasible?

5 - Should I trigger my GA in early middle age, with my UU, or should I wait until later?

 

[justanick]

5. It is best to wait till most cities have reached size 12 or are close to size 12. Size really matters for the golden age. Even better would be to wait till hospitals, but that is usually not practical.

For each town you must ask yourself: What is the best way to get them to size 12 ASAP? That is one aspect in which the gameplay you had shown in the past was most lacking. One way is to get up to 3 workers per city and at size 10 join 2 workers to get to size 12 and therefore back to only 1 worker per city. If prior to size 12 your food surplus is smaller than 5, then you need to change that if possible. Always ask yourself: By which turn number will size 12 be reached?

4. The cheap harbors enable you to use water tiles early on. Since they donnot need any improvements by workers this works well with an emphasis on growth.

Seafaring is powerful early on. The faster ships expedite exploration and contacts, which enable you to trade for cheap techs. That helps a lot.

In the long run Seafaring allows cheap commercial docks, cheap offshore oil plattforms and the faster ships give an important edge in naval warfare.

Magellan has the same effect on ships and is therefore less important for seafaring nations than for the other nations. Those might need it to even the odds.

2. The way i see it waiting for cavalry is almost always the best option. About 23 turns before you reach military tradition you should try to import iron to build knights. Importing strategic resources can be quite costly, but it can be worth those cost. Having 50+ knights ready for upgrading to cavalry is really neat.

1. The larger the map, the more slow units slow you down. That you need to aviod. Horsemen have a slighty better attack to shield ratio than knights. Knights are therefore not better in that metric. Spamming horsemen is a standard procedure for early domination. On larger maps this means more than 100 horsemen and if you have enough of them, then losses even from fighting muskets donnot really slow you down. Just spam horsemen if that is your thing. At some point though unit upkeep could kill you, so this early domination does work only mediocrely with republic. Repulic works better with waiting for cavalry.

 

[vorlon_mi]

My only addition would be to bring in the old chestnut -- look at the map. Where is the iron you intend to take over?
Consider using the ctrl-shift-M to toggle the AI cities on/off. One of the AI cities may be sitting on top of iron, which you might not see right away, but you would gain when you conquer that city.

If the nearest iron is 15-20 tiles away (even if it is within the core of an AI), you may consider building a large stack to go get it.
If the nearest iron is 30+ tiles away, waiting for cavalry may be a better option.

Building a medium-sized army of high-attack units, even horses, might be useful to deter an AI from declaring on you. If you intend to wait until cavs, you will need to appear tough enough.

 

[Lanzelot]

Of course, as always, everything depends on the intended VC. Assuming you are aiming at a quick domination victory, then Horsemen are the way to go. Forget Longbows. Keep fighting with Horsemen, until you run into Musketmen. (If you have scouted the enemy's territory, you can even plan ahead and pillage their iron, before they get Feudalism, and their saltpeter, before they get Gunpowder. That way, you should be able to conquer your own continent just with horsies.)

For the other continent, however, on Emperor you might need better weapons, since the AI usually gets the chance to build a significant number of Pikes or even Muskets, before you get there. Hope that you can capture the Lighthouse from a nearby neighbor or build it yourself, if you have a powerful coastal city. (Why Magellan? Game should be over, before you or any AI can build it...) The extra movement really speeds up victory, because it reduces the amount of ships you need. -- And the less ships you need to build/cash-rush, the more horsies you can build... And if you are really lucky, a nice neighbor will build Leonardo for you. Then you only need to finish Military Tradition, stop research and mass-upgrade your Horsemen to Cavalry.

It also depends on the map (and the map size). If you can reach the other continent safely with just galleys & Lighthouse, you may even stop research after Philosophy (assuming you get Republic via the slingshot) and capture enough of the other continent with Horsemen. Or perhaps stop research after Chivalry on larger maps. Then use the gold for "disconnect/connect" and roll over the other continent with Knights. Early on, disconnect/connect can be quite powerful: you'll get a large number of Knights quickly, while the AI did not yet have much time to build up their defenses...
And if you discover in the process, that you have bitten off more than you can chew, it's still not too late to squeeze a few techs out of the AI and then fire up research again and go all the way to Military Tradition.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

I've already gotten all I need on this war by cutting them acess to horses, grabbing a source of iron and saltpeter, also destroying their capital and wonder.

They're much smaller and weaker now. It'll take a long time for them to recover.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

I really don't have a big appreciation for Chivalry as in the game.

I usually don't even bother researching it. But this time I got it by trading techs.

Unless of course I have an UU which is enabled by Chivalry, also, if I'm able to build Statue of Zeus, I definitely don't bother researching Chivalry for the Wonder.

I built the SoZ and the Ancient Cavalry were neat scouts and spearhead units. I lost a lot of them.

It's more worth it to build Medieval Infantry or even Longbowmen and escort them with pikes and muskets. Sure they're not very fast, but Knights are expensive and don't pack any difference in the offensive punch. I built a 58x stack of Longbows for this war, and I don't regret it, but I'm going to disband them all once this ends.

Conquering the continent can wait for cavalry. I've already all that I need, but yeah, the tips here are important anyway since I want to play and win on Deity soon .

 

[Lanzelot]

but Knights are expensive and don't pack any difference in the offensive punch.

They do. The "retreat chance when losing" is quite powerful. You will lose a lot less Knights than MIs/LBs, when fighting the exact same fights. And the extra speed means you can out-maneuver the AI more easily, so there are often situations, when the chosen attack target is less heavily defended by the time your Knights arrive there, than it would be by the time your MI/LB stack gets there.
I understand you are not necessarily playing for sharp quick victories, but rather for fun, but I can assure you that ultra-fast victories (or even BC victories) are not possible with slow units.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Yeah really, I wasn't aiming at that. And actually, by the time I was advancing on Tokugawa, he already had a lot of muskets. So far my LB stack went down to 32x, but still, I feel much less pain or problem losing a lot of LB's and MI's than losing expensive knights to walled city/musket attacks.

They do. The "retreat chance when losing" is quite powerful. You will lose a lot less Knights than MIs/LBs, when fighting the exact same fights. And the extra speed means you can out-maneuver the AI more easily, so there are often situations, when the chosen attack target is less heavily defended by the time your Knights arrive there, than it would be by the time your MI/LB stack gets there.
I understand you are not necessarily playing for sharp quick victories, but rather for fun, but I can assure you that ultra-fast victories (or even BC victories) are not possible with slow units.

The question is that I can often build far more MI and LB than Knights for the shiled ratio. As has been stated, Knights aren't very cost effective shield wise, so going with a 40+ stack of LB and losing perhaps 50% of that isn't that painful because LB tend to be cheap and easy to replenish in the long run.

 

[justanick]

The question is that I can often build far more MI and LB than Knights for the shield ratio. As has been stated, Knights aren't very cost effective shield wise,

That was meant to compare with horsemen. If we compare knights with MedInf or Longbowmen, then the possibility of retreat decreases your losses of knights by a degree that makes them more or less on par in terms of losses of shields. So thinking about it that way your argument is void. What however matters is speed and unit support. There knights have net advantage. Their disadvantage is that is takes longer to build up a decent sized stack that will cut through the enemy. If you had spend your 58*40 = 2320 shields into 33 knights that may have sufficed.

Slow movers like MedInf are better for deterrence and fighting within your cultural borders. For an effective offensive knights tend to be the better option.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

That was meant to compare with horsemen. If we compare knights with MedInf or Longbowmen, then the possibility of retreat decreases your losses of knights by a degree that makes them more or less on par in terms of losses of shields. So thinking about it that way your argument is void. What however matters is speed and unit support. There knights have net advantage. Their disadvantage is that is takes longer to build up a decent sized stack that will cut through the enemy. If you had spend your 58*40 = 2320 shields into 33 knights that may have sufficed.

Slow movers like MedInf are better for deterrence and fighting within your cultural borders. For an effective offensive knights tend to be the better option.

I don't think it would have made much of a difference. Knights are heavy hitters, but up against Tokugawa's walls, muskets and Samurai all with 4 defense it was much better, IMO, to use up a lot of LB because there is no difference in the attack ratio.

That said, if Tokugawa was smaller and more backwards, knights would have been more effective. But when an enemy has muskets, what matters is the quantity, that is, the number of 4 offense units attacking. In this way LB are better until cav appears.

 

[justanick]

I don't think it would have made much of a difference. Knights are heavy hitters, but up against Tokugawa's walls, muskets and Samurai all with 4 defense it was much better, IMO, to use up a lot of LB because there is no difference in the attack ratio.

Against Muskets behind walls LB are not the better option. Against the Samurai however they are because no retreat is possible against fast movers.

Veterans have a 58% chance of retreat in case they are down to 1 hp and the enemy is not down to 1 hp. On balance this may cut your losses by about 50%, therefore knights are better against muskets behind walls than LB.

If your attack stack contains a decent amount of artillery it changes as retreat becomes less relevant if not completely irrelevant. There is no retreat when the enemy is down to 1 hp. Then it is do or die.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Yeah I agree with that. But I just went with a pure quantity strategy.

Now I'm going to disband all these LB and wait until I can build CAV from scratch.

 

[justanick]

Against Samurai LB are still more shield-efficient than cavalry. Samurai are a special case. So the disbanding might not be a rush. If you have to decide between disbanding or dying in battle, then the later is often the better choice.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Against Samurai LB are still more shield-efficient than cavalry. Samurai are a special case. So the disbanding might not be a rush. If you have to decide between disbanding or dying in battle, then the later is often the better choice.

The thing is I took all their iron. So what little remains of Samurai is a nuisance.

 

[Lanzelot]

Now I'm going to disband all these LB and wait until I can build CAV from scratch.

This is one more advantage that Knights have over MI/LB: you don't need to build your Cav force from scratch, just upgrade the Knights for 30 gold a piece (or 15g, if you meanwhile captured Leonardo's...)
It's easy to save 600g or get it from the AI by selling something, and then you can have 20 Cavs the moment you discover or trade for Military Tradition...
MI/LB are more or less a "dead end", resulting in lot's of wasted production, if you can't finish all the warring of the current game with them.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Well let me say I still have to disband them. And I gotta build some culture buildings and courthouses in the former Japanese, corrupt outlier, so they're not exactly that much of a dead end.

That said I'm also a roleplayer, not a powergamer in the strict sense. Though on Deity and Sid I would probably need some powergaming pills myself.

Longbowmen were a staple of many armies, not just the English. The Japanese and Koreans also did have their own longbowmen formations, and let's not forget that MI is also a blanket for all sorts of infantry fielded by arriere ban during feudal age.

But one of the things that displeases me is how teching is so insanely fast in the higher levels. As in, there should have been an option for epic game, or delayed teching in my view, exactly for the sort of epic large map game at higher levels. So we would stay longer in timeframes like early Middle Ages and churn out more of these period specific units, rather than just waiting and betting everything upon cav.

 

[Lanzelot]

But one of the things that displeases me is how teching is so insanely fast in the higher levels. As in, there should have been an option for epic game, or delayed teching in my view, exactly for the sort of epic large map game at higher levels.

Completely agree. And this is one point, which in my opinion is much better solved in Civ5 and Civ6, where you can choose different "speeds", and if you choose "epic" speed, the game progresses indeed much much slower, you stay much longer in a certain era.

(Plus that the combat system is much better in Civ5 & Civ6, especially air units and naval units. Having a powerful Navy can really decide the game sometimes, and naval battles become much more important and thrilling. Ok, one-unit-per-tile may not be to everyone's taste, but you really have to plan your military campaigns more carefully, like where to position your catapults, put some strong defenders in front to cover them from enemy raids out of the besieged city, some fast-moving cavalry units on the sides to cover the flanks or intercept enemy reinforcements, etc... Combined-arms tactics really rule the battlefield in those two installments of the Civ series, whereas in Civ3 it is more a brute-force strategy ala "build a monster stack of Horsemen/Knights/Cavs and then steamroll the enemy...)

 

[Spoonwood]

Well let me say I still have to disband them. And I gotta build some culture buildings and courthouses in the former Japanese, corrupt outlier, so they're not exactly that much of a dead end.

That said I'm also a roleplayer, not a powergamer in the strict sense. Though on Deity and Sid I would probably need some powergaming pills myself.

Longbowmen were a staple of many armies, not just the English. The Japanese and Koreans also did have their own longbowmen formations, and let's not forget that MI is also a blanket for all sorts of infantry fielded by arriere ban during feudal age.

But one of the things that displeases me is how teching is so insanely fast in the higher levels. As in, there should have been an option for epic game, or delayed teching in my view, exactly for the sort of epic large map game at higher levels. So we would stay longer in timeframes like early Middle Ages and churn out more of these period specific units, rather than just waiting and betting everything upon cav.

If you play Always War at a mid level, then the tech pace can be slower.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Completely agree. And this is one point, which in my opinion is much better solved in Civ5 and Civ6, where you can choose different "speeds", and if you choose "epic" speed, the game progresses indeed much much slower, you stay much longer in a certain era.

(Plus that the combat system is much better in Civ5 & Civ6, especially air units and naval units. Having a powerful Navy can really decide the game sometimes, and naval battles become much more important and thrilling. Ok, one-unit-per-tile may not be to everyone's taste, but you really have to plan your military campaigns more carefully, like where to position your catapults, put some strong defenders in front to cover them from enemy raids out of the besieged city, some fast-moving cavalry units on the sides to cover the flanks or intercept enemy reinforcements, etc... Combined-arms tactics really rule the battlefield in those two installments of the Civ series, whereas in Civ3 it is more a brute-force strategy ala "build a monster stack of Horsemen/Knights/Cavs and then steamroll the enemy...)

I gotta try Civ6, really.

I was stuck for a long time with EU4 and CK2 really. And previous installments. Like I said I still play Civ3 out of nostalgia, I remember back when they had SGOTM and Games of Democracy for this sort of stuff here in Civfanatics. That was a long long back then.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Actually, let me also say that I haven't tried CCM, but will withold that until later.

The max I use is still mostly vanilla, with the exception of the C3X Flintlock mod and Rhye's terrain which makes the game much more aesthetically pleasing.

Still let me say that 20 years later, Civ3 kinda shows its age as a platform when compared to the new civs anyway, and its limitations are clear. Lanzelot has already underlined this.

That said, by playing on Monarch and enforcing always war, I could possibly achieve a satisfactory, slower tech pace, so that things start happening more or less "on time", eg, no railroads before 1830's, and so on.