ALC Game 14: Mongolia/Kublai Khan

[Sisiutil]

Dealing with barb axemen is easy: Get bronze working early. If there is copper nearby and you can hook it up really quickly, go build a city on/next to it.

Depending on your starting techs, Animal Husbandry for horses is another option, since Warlords' Chariots deal with Axes very handily. However, I'll grant that Axemen have a slight edge in dealing with barb Archers.

EDIT: Bhruic--great minds think alike.

Generally, if I start with Mining I'll go after BW right away. If I start with Agriculture I'll pursue AH immediately (especially if I'm Egypt--War Chariots rock!). Hunting is also an Animal Husbandry pre-req, but these days I'm finding myself going for Archery pretty soon if I start with Hunting.

If you don't start with any of those three techs, well, it's a crap shoot and your call. Just don't put off gaining access to a strategic resource and good barb-whompers too long.

When you knew you were going for domination, had about 57% of the required 64%, had the techs you really needed, why didn't you swtich nearly all your cities to Wealth generation, switch your tech slider way down, and your culture slider way up?

Wouldn't you have finished several turns sooner and got an even higher score?

Force of habit, partly. I'm not used to finishing games this early and milking the score. Guess I should start getting used to it since it's starting to happen more often.

Besides, I kind of enjoy the journey as much as the destination, you know?

 

[Yakk]

Chariots aren't that good at dealing with axes, simply because you have to attack the axe and not let the axe attack you.

Plus you get slavery and chopping from bronze working. Slavery lets you turn a high-food area into a high-production area, and lets you store production (read population) until the enemy approaches. Chopping is broken-gross-powerful -- the only thing more powerful is slavery!

Hunt/Ag: 40/60
AH: 100/1.2 to /1.4
WHEEL: 60

Mining: 50
Bronze: 120/1.2

So BW is 150 tech from nothing.
Assuming you have Hunting or Agricultuer, Chariots are 143-144 tech.

Now, I'll admit, often you need the wheel to connect your copper mine to your city. Which ups BW+Wheel to 210 from nothing.

 

[Bhruic]

I'd have to disagree with your conclusion. Yes, you need to attack with a Chariot to get the bonus, but it's rarely difficult to attack them at an advantageous location. Basically, they are either going to try to pillage, or are going to attack your city. If they are trying to pillage, they'll be getting a maximum of 25% defense bonus (on a hill) because you've cleared the spot. If they are going to attack your city, it's possible they might be on a really bad spot (forest/hill), but that's not too likely.

Specifically, however, the odds just favour the Chariot on the attack.

4 vs 2.5
or
5 vs 5

(barring Barbarian bonuses, but those are difficulty level dependent).

That's pretty much a no brainer. Even if the Axeman happens to be on a forest/hill, you still have slightly better odds to win on the attack.

So to sum up: Better odds to win, 2 movement so that you can get to them faster, meaning better ability to protect your improvements equals a complete win for the Chariots.

I will, however, concede that you'll want to get BW for other reasons. Slavery and chopping are obviously quite powerful. But I don't think that Axemen are the best choice to handle incoming Barbs.

Bh

 

[martin031]

Besides, I kind of enjoy the journey as much as the destination, you know?

That sums up my playstyle most of the time. I generally do not like to eliminate a Civ early, I like to see how things develop.

 

[Yakk]

B. Axeman attacking Axeman, Hill+Forest, fortified:
10 vs 5 (2:1)

B. Axeman attacking Axeman, Forest, fortified:
8.75 vs 5 (1.75:1)

B. Axeman attacking Axeman, Hill, fortified:
7.5 vs 5 (1.5:1)

B. Axeman attacking Axeman, fortified:
6.25 vs 5 (1.25:1)

Chariot vs B. Axeman on Hill:
4 vs 2.86 (1.40:1)

Chariot vs B. Axeman in Woods:
4 vs 3.33 (1.20:1)

Chariot vs B. Axeman in Wooded Hills:
4 vs 4 (1:1)

Chariot vs B. Axeman in Clear:
4 vs 2.5 (1.6:1)

B. Axeman vs Axeman, fortified in 20% city:
7.25 vs 5 (1.45:1)

You use them differently. Axemen go out, find hard points, and fog-bust. This reduces barbarian spawn and tends to result in the barbarians dieing.

Chariots have to find spots to ambush axemen as they cross open terrain.

And, as you noted, your chariots suck against archers:

Chariot vs Archer on Hill or in Forest:
4 vs 4.5 (1 first strike) (.67:1)

Chariot vs Archer on Hill+Forest:
4 vs 6 (1 first strike) (.5:1)

Chariot vs Archer in clear:
4 vs 3 (1.33:1)

And once the barbs start spawning swordsmen, your chariots become useless against them: Meanwhile, the promoted axemen become better and better at dealing with barbarians.

I'll admit, my perspective is warped by playing with "super extra spawning barbarian" mods. It makes trying to be efficient about killing barbarians, and minimizing their ability to spawn near you, very important. It is rather easy to find some nice defensive points that are along the barbarian approach paths, meanwhile it is much harder to make sure that all barbarian approach paths have clear spots that the barbarians have no choice but to cross...

 

[Galileo44]

however for fogbusting, a chariot that gets 5XP (4 charismatic) will be able to get sentry, doubling its tiles covered. But that is another topic altogether.

 

[Bhruic]

You use them differently. Axemen go out, find hard points, and fog-bust. This reduces barbarian spawn and tends to result in the barbarians dieing.

You make it sound like Chariots can't do that.

Chariots have to find spots to ambush axemen as they cross open terrain.

Have to? I wouldn't phrase it that way - certainly it's optimal to have them do so, but that doesn't mean they are restricted to it.

The problem with your Axe vs Axe numbers is that you are assuming that the human is defending. Which means that Axes become a purely defensive unit against the Barbs. Which means that if the Barbs bypass your "fog-busters", and come in and start razing your improvements, you're rather out of luck.

And, as you noted, your chariots suck against archers:

And you neglected to mention there is no need for Chariots to attack the Archers if you are relying on defensive tactics. An Archer attacking a Chariot is always at a disadvantage. Certainly, the Axe is better, but even Warriors can deal with Archers if they defend in the right location - the real danger from Barbs is their Axemen.

And once the barbs start spawning swordsmen, your chariots become useless against them: Meanwhile, the promoted axemen become better and better at dealing with barbarians.

Again, you're implying a case that doesn't really fit reality. By the time the Barbs come at you with Swords, you will have advanced yourself - either getting to Axes by that point (there's no reason you can't have both Chariots and Axes, after all), or Elephants, etc.

I'll admit, my perspective is warped by playing with "super extra spawning barbarian" mods. It makes trying to be efficient about killing barbarians, and minimizing their ability to spawn near you, very important. It is rather easy to find some nice defensive points that are along the barbarian approach paths, meanwhile it is much harder to make sure that all barbarian approach paths have clear spots that the barbarians have no choice but to cross...

I can't say I've ever had problems finding such locations. Not to mention that you don't even need them, they just give you better odds. After winning a fight or two, and getting some promotions, you can easily win even on poor terrain.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that Chariots are always the way to go. Just that they are a very viable alternative if you decide to go for AH first, or find yourself with close horses and no copper.

Bh

 

[bardolph]

Also, Chariots can get Sentry, so if you're talking about fog-busting, Chariots FTW.

 

[pigswill]

Even if chariots are slightly better barb bashers axes have more long term potential if they start earning CR promos so you need to weigh short term vs long term advantage.

 

[UncleJJ]

Force of habit, partly. I'm not used to finishing games this early and milking the score. Guess I should start getting used to it since it's starting to happen more often.

Besides, I kind of enjoy the journey as much as the destination, you know?

Congratualations on another fine win and your highest score. The only thing that is slightly disappointing to me is that you could have finished quicker and had an even higher score.

The game was essentially won once you had the astounding good fortune with the huts and then took Bribacte easily. But there are several things that I would have done differently and I guess they would have made the victory even quicker.

1) Bribacte, was the basis of the finance for your expansion. You could have developed it much quicker by chopping and whipping in essential buildings. And you should not have wasted any hammers on building military stuff until it had no infrastructure left.

2) Rome and some other Roman cities could have been kept and developed to give a large injection of commerce that would have funded expansion and helped with research. The maintenace costs would soon have been overcome. The key to developing the Roman peninsula was the Colossus and chain irrigating all the way from the river to provide plentiful food.

3) Once Ceasar had been beaten I would have attacked Mansa with an army of catapults and war elephants, while researching trebuchets. I think it was wrong to wait so long before subduing him... longbows are not that tough. If he had been Vassalised earlier then the attack on Churchill could have started earlier.

4) As aelf has suggested (in post #405), I would not have researched towards grenadiers and cannon. Instead I would have researched towards Military Tradition and based my main attacking force against Churchill and then Bismark on cavalry (built with Gers) and trebuchets and catapults for collateral damage and reducing defence. Cavalry with 2 promotions make mincemeat of longbows and with pinch would later have taken Bismark's rifles. An advantage of delaying Chemistry is that the ToA and Parthanon would still be functioning and boosting a major source of income from trade and extra GPPs.

--------
Aside: I think these threads start with a great deal of analysis of the starting position, whether to move settler, whether to build a worker or a warrior and so on. We usually get 2 or 3 pages of ideas and discussion. But as soon as the game ends everyone congratulates Sisiutil (rightly for his hard work and entertaining style) and forgets what has happened and whether he (and his advisors) could have done better. I think we should have more emphasis on post match analysis and discussion as we can learn more and savour the possibilities, the what-ifs and might-have-beens.

So what do other people think? Would it have been possible to keep Ceasar's cities? Would war against Mansa with war elephants have been better? Would cavalry have led to a speedier victory? What do you think Sisiutil should have done differently to improve his score?

 

[cabert]

Congratualations on another fine win and your highest score. The only thing that is slightly disappointing to me is that you could have finished quicker and had an even higher score.

The game was essentially won once you had the astounding good fortune with the huts and then took Bribacte easily. But there are several things that I would have done differently and I guess they would have made the victory even quicker.

yep.
I took the save from 605AD and got a 1358AD domination win.

1) Bribacte, was the basis of the finance for your expansion. You could have developed it much quicker by chopping and whipping in essential buildings. And you should not have wasted any hammers on building military stuff until it had no infrastructure left.

this is dubious.
To get a faster win, you should have built military everywhere

2) Rome and some other Roman cities could have been kept and developed to give a large injection of commerce that would have funded expansion and helped with research. The maintenace costs would soon have been overcome. The key to developing the Roman peninsula was the Colossus and chain irrigating all the way from the river to provide plentiful food.

can't say for sure (didn't try) but I'm ready to bet that keeping the roman cities (at least rome) would have been good

3) Once Ceasar had been beaten I would have attacked Mansa with an army of catapults and war elephants, while researching trebuchets. I think it was wrong to wait so long before subduing him... longbows are not that tough. If he had been Vassalised earlier then the attack on Churchill could have started earlier.

I attacked MM with an army of macemen, catapults and keshiks, just a few (7? 8?) after 605AD. I built the HE in the double copper city in those turns, upgraded a few swords, built a few more catapults and keshiks, then hit him hard. LB don't resist cats+maces. And keshiks can pick wandering units with ease .
The Great Merchant (available in 605AD) was used for paper, and I rushed to liberalism (got it first, took nationalism). In the meantime, MM was my vassal and researched gunpowder for me , while I went for military tradition.

4) As aelf has suggested (in post #405), I would not have researched towards grenadiers and cannon. Instead I would have researched towards Military Tradition and based my main attacking force against Churchill and then Bismark on cavalry (built with Gers) and trebuchets and catapults for collateral damage and reducing defence. Cavalry with 2 promotions make mincemeat of longbows and with pinch would later have taken Bismark's rifles. An advantage of delaying Chemistry is that the ToA and Parthanon would still be functioning and boosting a major source of income from trade and extra GPPs.

This is even more true when you have built a large number of keshiks .
Upgrade can be done near the front in a recently captured city.

Going for chemistry and steel in this situation was like using the path you know better, and which leads to victory. Going for a fast MT would have been more in mongol style IMHO.

 

[aelf]

Where is the next pre-game thread?

 

[lukep]

Congratualations on another fine win and your highest score. The only thing that is slightly disappointing to me is that you could have finished quicker and had an even higher score.

The game was essentially won once you had the astounding good fortune with the huts and then took Bribacte easily. But there are several things that I would have done differently and I guess they would have made the victory even quicker.

...

4) As aelf has suggested (in post #405), I would not have researched towards grenadiers and cannon. Instead I would have researched towards Military Tradition and based my main attacking force against Churchill and then Bismark on cavalry (built with Gers) and trebuchets and catapults for collateral damage and reducing defence. Cavalry with 2 promotions make mincemeat of longbows and with pinch would later have taken Bismark's rifles. An advantage of delaying Chemistry is that the ToA and Parthanon would still be functioning and boosting a major source of income from trade and extra GPPs.

I have no insight on the other points, but for that one in a parallel game (different map, large one), i did try the all horseback strat. built an insane amount of keshisks that later upgraded to highly promoted cavs.

was steamrolling on the AI even against rifles. Siege weaponery was never able to keep with the pace of advance & the lvl 13 and 11 warlords were taking care of the odd highly promoted defender.

So yes, i think this strat would have worked even quicker.

 

[pigswill]

Whilst I'm usually a fan of gren/cannon it would have made sense for the Mongol ALC to have gone keshik/cavalry in terms of exploiting the Mongols' benefits, i.e. its UU.

 

[cabert]

Whilst I'm usually a fan of gren/cannon it would have made sense for the Mongol ALC to have gone keshik/cavalry in terms of exploiting the Mongols' benefits, i.e. its UU.

and UB! The ger makes a bunch of fine cavalries

 

[UncleJJ]

yep.
I took the save from 605AD and got a 1358AD domination win.

Nice win and I bet it could be done even faster if you took the save from when Bribacte was captured (I forget which that was)

this is dubious.
To get a faster win, you should have built military everywhere

I'd say that the main limitation of the domination effort was generating enough gold. Domination was not possible until a strong source of gold was available. Bribacte effectively funded the whole empire in Sisiutil's game and it was best place to do that. I maintain if it was developed faster it would have made more gold (using markets, grocers etc) and more GMs. More units could be built and whipped anywhere else, including Caesar's or Mansa's cities.

can't say for sure (didn't try) but I'm ready to bet that keeping the roman cities (at least rome) would have been good

Rome was an excellent city and could have run a mixture of scientists and merchants for either gold or beakers and at least one GP with Parthenon helping (and who cares which type pops out, just adjust the research slider)

I attacked MM with an army of macemen, catapults and keshiks, just a few (7? 8?) after 605AD. I built the HE in the double copper city in those turns, upgraded a few swords, built a few more catapults and keshiks, then hit him hard. LB don't resist cats+maces. And keshiks can pick wandering units with ease .
The Great Merchant (available in 605AD) was used for paper, and I rushed to liberalism (got it first, took nationalism). In the meantime, MM was my vassal and researched gunpowder for me , while I went for military tradition.

This sounds a good way to approach the subjugation of Mansa and managing the research path with his help.

This is even more true when you have built a large number of keshiks .
Upgrade can be done near the front in a recently captured city.

Again this stresses the importance of gold over research in this situation. Hence my assertion that Bribacte and Caesar's cities are the key to a more rapid victory.

Going for chemistry and steel in this situation was like using the path you know better, and which leads to victory. Going for a fast MT would have been more in mongol style IMHO.

Agreed it is the Mongolian way, Kublai would be proud of his horde of cavalry

 

[Sisiutil]

The pre-game thread for ALC 15 is now underway HERE.