I havent seen a conquest victory on continents. Maybe it is me that is jut too lazy to do too much warfare with boats. That doesnt take full advantage fo your cheap courthouses though? Also please stay at monarch. Myself I seem to do alot like you when it comes to actually winning the game. I allways fiddle around a bit too much.
ALC Game 10 Pre-Game Show: Playing as Asoka
- Thread starter Sisiutil
- Start date
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
The journey is just as important, perhaps more so, than the destination, grasshopper.UncleJJ said:What is more that will suit Sisiutil's style, he can never stay in a civic for long or ever make up his mind about a victory condition
Which is a condescending way of saying that it's a game and I like to have my fun. I think I'm getting better about the civics changes though; in a recent off-line game I had very few--I was warring constantly and never once went into Vassalage or Theocracy because Bureaucracy and Organized Religion were more advantageous overall. Of course, who needs extra XPs when you've got Praetorians?
Now what about the other features of Warlords? We've discussed the UofS; it comes late enough that we can make a decision on it based upon the sitch, methinks. The worth of the Great Wall, as has been said, depends very much on the map and your neighbours. What about the Temple of Artemis? It looks a lot like the Great Lighthouse or the Parthenon to me--nice to have, but I'm likely to have bigger priorities, especially if I don't have marble.
Trebuchets sound awesome. I'm already starting to go after Engineering earlier to make warring a little faster, and Trebs just add to the attraction. (On my off-line Epic games I'm also a fan of the Hagia Sophia and its quicker worker improvement times, but I find that's less of a priority on Normal speed.) What about Triremes? It their value map dependent?
I'm really looking forward to my first Great General! What is the best use for these guys? Academy? Instructor? Warlord? Based on what I've been reading, it sounds so far like the third option is the preferred one. If so, what's the best way to implement the Warlord to distribute the XPs and protect him from destruction?
And finally--since I'm planning on doing some conquering (surprise surprise), what approach should I take to capitulation and vassals? Under what circumstances should I consider accepting capitulation, and under which ones should I refuse?
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
Et tu, Brute?oyzar said:
patagonia
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,025
I agree you're likely to have bigger priorities, but as soon as we say that you'll roll a coastal start and have marble, so... ToA gives a one-city 100% boost to trade route income that stacks well with the capital (think bureaucracy) and GL, and which aelf has taken good advantage of in EMC3. If you're planning on lots of warring, you may not have the trading partners to really take advantage of it.Sisiutil said:
Trebs definitely needed a slight nerfing in the patch, as once Engineering came around the only reason for building anything else for your offensive armies was to protect your stack of trebs. Since the AI loves to defend with longbows in that era, trebs are essentially maces with a reasonable retreat chance and collateral damage, so you definitely want to be building a fair few and piling on the CR promotions. Bear in mind that the AI tends to favour the Engineering path, so pursuing it yourself may limit tech-trading options, but if you're at war with them anyway, that doesn't really matter.
As for triremes, the AI always builds a couple of them, so if you've got seafood resources you'll need them to protect the fishing boats. Apart from that I've never been in a position where building them seemed worth the hammers.
GGs and Vassals have had a fairly big overhaul with the patch and I haven't played with the new settings yet, but I think the defaults (use the first GG to make a medic 3 unit and settle the rest in the HE/WP city; avoid vassals unless you're on the way to domination and can't be bothered capturing tundra/island cities) I tended to play by may well no longer be optimal.
Incidentally, I just had a quick breeze through a Warlords game (patched) up to 800BC, then flicked on worldbuilder to see what the AI was up to. City placement is definitely better - even the barb cities were in spots I'd have chosen - and there's a tendency to settle on top of resources to make best use of the land as a whole rather than grabbing specific tiles and a load of junk. Some of the AI civs also seemed to have built a lot more archers than before, especially the ones that hadn't got metal hooked up. If you're planning on rushing an enemy and taking their capital, you'll probably need a couple more units than in the past.
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
I noticed that the Medic III unit was what aelf chose to do with his first GG in EMC 3. So it sounds like you'd want to chose one unit rather than several for the Warlord unit so it gets all 20 XPs? (Level 1 - 2 XPs: Combat I; Level 2 - 5 XPs: Medic I; Level 3 - 10 XPs: Medic II; Level 4 - 17 XPs: Medic III, right?)patagonia said:
As for settling the other GGs, that sounds a lot like the Great Scientists--use the next one for an academy (military in this case rather than scientific) in the military city and use the remaining ones as instructors in the same city (super-specialists).
uncarved block
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2006
- Messages
- 351
Since you asked . . .
Temple of Artemis: a real sinkhole for Hammers. The payback is less than a Shrine- and you can't do anything, really, to improve it- and it obsoletes just about the time the payoffs start getting big (since Chemistry comes so soon after Astronomy, and enables such a great unit.) I've only built it as Ramses, when I've had GEs coming out my ears and half the wonders built anyway.
Triremes: Actually, this has made the threat of an invasion even more remote, since the AI builds the stronger unit to explore. With only Galleys, the AI didn't have to make a choice-- now they do, and it (usually) benefits the human player. On the flip side, you'll have to pump up your early navy even more, should you decide to go "over there", as there will actually be a defense force now, more often than not.
Great Generals: Before the patch (and yet another thing you won't have to unlearn, lucky you), the reason for attaching a GG to a unit was the increased Levels needed for Heroic Epic. Now, settling for XP is the main choice, especially with Barracks being reduced in effect. (With a settled GG, for instance, you can build Level 2 Siege units without a civics change.) Sure, you could get one great unit, but quantity is usually more important than quality, especially on Monarch, on a guess. 15-20 Level 2 units will get you further than one Level 6 as the AI SoDs react on defense.
Capitulation: One of the biggest headaches- Cultural pressure- has been taken away with the patch. Before, I had a strong incentive to leave a Vassal with only a couple crappy cities, because holding on to turf I'd won handily was such a headache. Basically, Capitulation makes Conquest a viable victory condition-- eliminate an early rival or two, then beat up on the remaining five or six for an early win (less if the other continent had someone like Monty or Napoleon on it.) Instead of trying to finesse percentages to prevent a Domination, you can just go kick butt until nobody's left standing.
Just the way things have gone for me, so far.
Temple of Artemis: a real sinkhole for Hammers. The payback is less than a Shrine- and you can't do anything, really, to improve it- and it obsoletes just about the time the payoffs start getting big (since Chemistry comes so soon after Astronomy, and enables such a great unit.) I've only built it as Ramses, when I've had GEs coming out my ears and half the wonders built anyway.
Triremes: Actually, this has made the threat of an invasion even more remote, since the AI builds the stronger unit to explore. With only Galleys, the AI didn't have to make a choice-- now they do, and it (usually) benefits the human player. On the flip side, you'll have to pump up your early navy even more, should you decide to go "over there", as there will actually be a defense force now, more often than not.
Great Generals: Before the patch (and yet another thing you won't have to unlearn, lucky you), the reason for attaching a GG to a unit was the increased Levels needed for Heroic Epic. Now, settling for XP is the main choice, especially with Barracks being reduced in effect. (With a settled GG, for instance, you can build Level 2 Siege units without a civics change.) Sure, you could get one great unit, but quantity is usually more important than quality, especially on Monarch, on a guess. 15-20 Level 2 units will get you further than one Level 6 as the AI SoDs react on defense.
Capitulation: One of the biggest headaches- Cultural pressure- has been taken away with the patch. Before, I had a strong incentive to leave a Vassal with only a couple crappy cities, because holding on to turf I'd won handily was such a headache. Basically, Capitulation makes Conquest a viable victory condition-- eliminate an early rival or two, then beat up on the remaining five or six for an early win (less if the other continent had someone like Monty or Napoleon on it.) Instead of trying to finesse percentages to prevent a Domination, you can just go kick butt until nobody's left standing.
Just the way things have gone for me, so far.
flamingzaroc121
Emperor
whenever i capitulate i always make sure my vassal gets caught up with me in tech, and is strong so that the become a use full ally
Jet
No, no, please. Please.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,431
One should say it's situational, but in almost every game I personally have chosen to use the first GG on a Medic III.
- The benefit is good and you can't get it any other way (except sort of through the March promotion but that's much harder).
- It preserves your "investment" compared to the option of a super-GG attacker that could die.
- Getting a level 6 unit (attaching the GG to a unit already with 6 XP or 5XP + one mop-up combat) ensured that you could build Heroic Epic and West Point. But in the Warlords patch they changed Heroic Epic back to the way it was in vanilla, requiring a level 4 unit rather than a level 5. (West Point is still changed from vanilla to require a level 6.) So the value of using the first GG on a Medic III is a little lower now.
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
A few additional changes stood out for me:
All of this sounds like it's intended to deal with the various CS slingshots. You need another prerequisite tech, the civic costs more (possibly offsetting the commerce boost in the capital until later when its cottages are more mature), and the last item sounds like a Great Prophet may pop for Masonry before CoL and/or CS--can anyone confirm?
Overall, I like the changes--it sounds like they've strived to close some "exploits", or at least easy routes to an advantage and victory. Usually that takes a whole version iteration, as it did from III to IV. The game may be a lot more challenging, and that means FUN.
On the other hand, I may need to insert substantial addendums to my strategy articles after I have some experience under my belt. Work, work, work...
I will try, in this first Warlords ALC, to take more time--playing fewer posts in each round so I can check back regarding decisions. There are so many minor changes to keep track of! Firaxis has also obviously attempted to make some of the under-used game elements (like Guerilla and Drill promotions, Divine Right, Forts, etc.) more attractive. Not only do I want to avoid blundering into a new challenge, I also don't want to miss taking advantage of a new or improved option.
- Bureaucracy: High upkeep
- Civil Service requires Mathematics
- Masonry has higher religious weight
All of this sounds like it's intended to deal with the various CS slingshots. You need another prerequisite tech, the civic costs more (possibly offsetting the commerce boost in the capital until later when its cottages are more mature), and the last item sounds like a Great Prophet may pop for Masonry before CoL and/or CS--can anyone confirm?
Overall, I like the changes--it sounds like they've strived to close some "exploits", or at least easy routes to an advantage and victory. Usually that takes a whole version iteration, as it did from III to IV. The game may be a lot more challenging, and that means FUN.
On the other hand, I may need to insert substantial addendums to my strategy articles after I have some experience under my belt. Work, work, work...
I will try, in this first Warlords ALC, to take more time--playing fewer posts in each round so I can check back regarding decisions. There are so many minor changes to keep track of! Firaxis has also obviously attempted to make some of the under-used game elements (like Guerilla and Drill promotions, Divine Right, Forts, etc.) more attractive. Not only do I want to avoid blundering into a new challenge, I also don't want to miss taking advantage of a new or improved option.
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
I could see that. If you have Heroic Epic, you already have a huge boost to military unit production. But the +2 XPs from a military instructor would allow you to build Level 3 units without using the "war civics" (Vassalage or Theocracy) or having West Point, so I can see that option being more attractive.Jet said:
A further +50% boost (as opposed to the original +25%) to military production, however, might be very handy in mid-game, when the units are about to become more expensive. By that time I often find I need a 2nd military city--so being able to give it that boost would be very attractive. Since the option lends itself to having more than one specialized military city, it may make the Red Cross a little more attractive for that city as well.
Agent Cooper
Lynch's Creation
Sisiutil said:
At first playing with Warlords, I used to use the first GG setting up the military academy/production in my main production city, but I lately became more found of Aalf's approach: burden af selected unit with XP's merging the first GG - the second GG will give additional XP's to all units in the city where he is located (main production city). The 25% boost I usually don't need because my main production city will already be outputting macemen every 3-4 turns...
Sometimes I merge the GG with a level 4 unit to get a level 6 unit -> unlocking building of all the military powerhouses down the road.Oh, this was my first post in the forum! (I found this forum only a month ago)
Looking forward to your first Warlords game!
disclaimer : I did not play patched warlords, and i never used blake's mod, so I may be wrong in many things
My idea on fast workers :
1) if you pair them, you can build a road in one turn on any terrain = road opening for settlers/army.
2) they are your best scouts. Typical example : you move one worker into the next tile of your early settler. He sees if there is a threat or not. If there is, he moves back, regardless of terrain!
3) they are much faster for chopping/jungle clearing (no turn of work lost). Meaning that pyramids may be doable? highly dependant on available forest, but I'd try it if the map allows it. + mathematics is required for CS and masonry will be popped by a prophet if you don't research it (if i read well
)
My thoughts about build/researching order :
1) it depends on the map! If you have forest all around, going for BW is a must. And I'm with VoU about warrior first, then worker (in fact i'm one of those guys who argued about this strat a while ago) . If you have a few oasises, religion first and buddhism is cheaper (if you have 2 oasises, you may grab buddhism and hinduism, but i'm not fond of the hydra strat : it costs too many great people IMHO). If you have none of those 2 situations, it comes down to commerce available or not for the religion strat. If you have gold and wait a religion, work the gold hill while building a worker... (no growth lost, and commerce comes in)
2) CoL is a big thing for organized and for spiritual, it's really high priority IMHO. A good enough goal for the Oracle
3) Even though caste system allows you to run scientists without libraries, a library still gives 25% research boost. So it's better to whip away some unhappies for a library than to stop growth by running "early specialists"
4) great wall is really strong. Barbs were hard to deal with at vanilla monarch, they are much harder to deal with at warlords monarch, and i don't recall any nerfing of barbs in the patch. The GE GPP are not the only advantage!
My idea on this game :
go for it! Your honor won't be lost if the game is lost. So stick with monarch. going for an early patched public game.
edit : you're not playing gandhi, so i was a little overboard
My idea on fast workers :
1) if you pair them, you can build a road in one turn on any terrain = road opening for settlers/army.
2) they are your best scouts. Typical example : you move one worker into the next tile of your early settler. He sees if there is a threat or not. If there is, he moves back, regardless of terrain!
3) they are much faster for chopping/jungle clearing (no turn of work lost). Meaning that pyramids may be doable? highly dependant on available forest, but I'd try it if the map allows it. + mathematics is required for CS and masonry will be popped by a prophet if you don't research it (if i read well
)My thoughts about build/researching order :
1) it depends on the map! If you have forest all around, going for BW is a must. And I'm with VoU about warrior first, then worker (in fact i'm one of those guys who argued about this strat a while ago) . If you have a few oasises, religion first and buddhism is cheaper (if you have 2 oasises, you may grab buddhism and hinduism, but i'm not fond of the hydra strat : it costs too many great people IMHO). If you have none of those 2 situations, it comes down to commerce available or not for the religion strat. If you have gold and wait a religion, work the gold hill while building a worker... (no growth lost, and commerce comes in)
2) CoL is a big thing for organized and for spiritual, it's really high priority IMHO. A good enough goal for the Oracle
3) Even though caste system allows you to run scientists without libraries, a library still gives 25% research boost. So it's better to whip away some unhappies for a library than to stop growth by running "early specialists"
4) great wall is really strong. Barbs were hard to deal with at vanilla monarch, they are much harder to deal with at warlords monarch, and i don't recall any nerfing of barbs in the patch. The GE GPP are not the only advantage!
My idea on this game :
go for it! Your honor won't be lost if the game is lost. So stick with monarch.
going for an early patched public game.edit : you're not playing gandhi, so i was a little overboard
aelf
Ashen One
I say stick with Asoka since you've gotten this thread started, but do go back in the alphabetical order to play the Celts after this and demonstrate their real power! Please don't play Carthage, though. It would be like playing Rome. Maybe worse.
About the use of a GG, it really depends. If you see yourself building lots of units (especially expendable ones) in one production city in the early game, settle your 1st GG as instructor. If you want to rely on a smaller army or speed up your campaigns without having to build many units, go for the Medic III warlord. Besides giving you access to Heroic Epic and (potentially) West Point, the effects of Medic III are not to be considered lightly. You can always settle your subsequent GGs for future benefit.
By the way, it still fits the character of Asoka if you fight lots of wars and expand like crazy early on but adopt a peaceful build-up strategy after that And don't worry about not utilizing the Mausoleum if you're not fighting in the late game. It's percisely because of the +2 happiness that they're worth building even if you're not planning to fight anymore.
Please don't play Carthage, though. It would be like playing Rome. Maybe worse.About the use of a GG, it really depends. If you see yourself building lots of units (especially expendable ones) in one production city in the early game, settle your 1st GG as instructor. If you want to rely on a smaller army or speed up your campaigns without having to build many units, go for the Medic III warlord. Besides giving you access to Heroic Epic and (potentially) West Point, the effects of Medic III are not to be considered lightly. You can always settle your subsequent GGs for future benefit.
By the way, it still fits the character of Asoka if you fight lots of wars and expand like crazy early on but adopt a peaceful build-up strategy after that
And don't worry about not utilizing the Mausoleum if you're not fighting in the late game. It's percisely because of the +2 happiness that they're worth building even if you're not planning to fight anymore.Lance of Llanwy
King
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 710
Don't forget he's going to be playing with the patch, meaning he cannot make a military academy before Education, and that it gives +4 Culture and a 50% military unit production bonus. I find this pretty useful for my non-HE production power-house...having two cities who can pump out Tanks at 2-3 turns a pop is pretty nice
As for whose next...stick to Asoka now, but definitely go back and play Brennus. He's like the new Monty....nice traits, and a UU that is(IMO) maligned to an unfair extent. Hannibal though....he really is as good as he was predicted to be, but that's up to you. I'm sure you haven't played him, and it is the ALL Leaders Challenge....
As for whose next...stick to Asoka now, but definitely go back and play Brennus. He's like the new Monty....nice traits, and a UU that is(IMO) maligned to an unfair extent. Hannibal though....he really is as good as he was predicted to be, but that's up to you. I'm sure you haven't played him, and it is the ALL Leaders Challenge....
aelf
Ashen One
Lance of Llanwy said:
But Sisiutil did say he'd skip leaders that are too popular, IIRC.
Sam_Yeager
Another Original Geezer
Pedant mode on
I believe the idea of ALC was to play the less popular leaders.
/pedant mode off
aelf said:
I believe the idea of ALC was to play the less popular leaders.
/pedant mode off
aelf
Ashen One
Sam_Yeager said:
And? Too popular = not less popular.
drkodos
Emperor
Sisiutil said:
Yes. Masonry will be lightbulbed if it has not been discovered.
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
Well, the idea was to skip the leaders that are popular because they are, in some way, arguably overpowered. Thus I have avoided Catherine, Elizabeth, Washington, and Caesar. I had already played and won games with them--and I still do, off-line; they're my favourites, after all. (Though I see poor Cathy and George have been nerfed in Warlords, as have the Redcoats and Cossacks.) As a result of the ALCs, I just win even more handily with them now.
I am a former teacher and I see the purpose of the ALCs as educational, both for myself and for others. And one of the key words in the title is "challenge". Thus, while I'm attracted to playing as a leader with a great trait combination and awesome UU off-line, he/she becomes a lower priority in this series.
On top of that, I'm anal retentive. I'm going through the civs in alphabetical order--which ensures that I'm using the leaders who may be overlooked otherwise. I may not get to all the leaders before Civ V comes out (!); all the more reason to play with the underutilized ones.
Anyway, I will start the game thread with the opening position tonight. I actually started the game just before hitting the sack last night, and the opening position is sure to engender, as per usual, a LOT of debate.
I am a former teacher and I see the purpose of the ALCs as educational, both for myself and for others. And one of the key words in the title is "challenge". Thus, while I'm attracted to playing as a leader with a great trait combination and awesome UU off-line, he/she becomes a lower priority in this series.
On top of that, I'm anal retentive. I'm going through the civs in alphabetical order--which ensures that I'm using the leaders who may be overlooked otherwise. I may not get to all the leaders before Civ V comes out (!); all the more reason to play with the underutilized ones.
Anyway, I will start the game thread with the opening position tonight. I actually started the game just before hitting the sack last night, and the opening position is sure to engender, as per usual, a LOT of debate.
