Checking for interest in a Conquest AW - Sherman's War

[Greebley]

I have been thinking about the new armies in Conquests and their abilty to pillage. I am thinking that this could be a really powerful technique. I thought it might be interesting to test out in an SG.

If you have interest then post below. If we get enough ppl then we will try it. Here is the idea:

Sherman's war
Conquests Always War
Standard size map, probably continents. The rest not yet determined.
Difficulty: I am thinking Monarch or Emporer depending on how others feel.
Civ: Up for discussion (see below)

Special rules:
The primary use for armies in this varient is to pillage to destroy enemy production.
The first great leader must be turned into an army and sent off to pillage. If ever we don't have a pillaging army in the field, then the next great leader must be again used for a pillaging army.

If we already have 1 or more armies pillaging, we can use the great leader to rush say the FP, but only if we have a strong reason to do so or are at maximum armies. If we do make an army, its primary purpose will be to pillage.

Armies can attack, but should only do so when the odds of winning are good. Our attacks shouldn't be slowing down the pillaging due to taking large amounts of damage. An army can stop pillaging on a temporary basis to handle an emergency, but it should be only temporary.

The rule about only fighting with highly favorable odds includes enemy cities which means either heavy bombardment or using normal units against defensive units.

----------------

The idea of course is to seriously impeed the enemy by destroying all their improvements. Given the fact that the AI tends to not attack armies. One warning: One AI improvement that was made - the AI loves to bombard armies. Ending your turn on the coast is not always a good idea if the enemy has a big fleet in the area.

If you are interested, I would like to here opinions on whether to try emporer. One problem with emperor of course is the starting enemy units. It occurred to me that Sumeria might actually be an interesting Civ in this particular aspect It gets the 10 shield 1-2-1 defensive unit right at the start. It is scientific and Agricultural which may not be the best AW characteristics, but not the worst either. However, I would be open to discussion on which civ would be the best. I am certainly not an Always War expert.

Oh, for those not up on American history, the name comes from a fairly (in-) famous general of the American Civil war who cut a swath of destruction through the southern states.

Even if you can't join, feel free to express opinions on how this idea would work out.

 

[handy900]

I'm in, can't miss out on a good pillage.

Have not purchased conquests yet, what is new about pillaging in conquests?

Even though I'm 0 for 3 at AWE, I'm game for Emperor if you are. If we do go emperor, I suggest China and a good “corner start” on the mini-map so we only have to fight on 1 front. In my experience, AWE has been much much harder than AWM.

I’ve been mulling an AW SG with a twist; “Almost Always WAR Emperor”. It seems that any civ that conquers another civ would inherit all the conquered civilizations technology (granted, the Huns are a historical exception). This "technology capture" does not happen in a classic AW game. The “Almost” Always War twist would allow you to make peace with another civ 1 time only, when that civ is down to only 1 city and you have adequate units on the tile next to the AI’s last city to ensure probable capture on that turn. You would be allowed to make peace (if you so choose), extort any gold & techs the AI has in a peace settlement, but you must then re-declare war immediately on the same turn, attack and raze the AI’s last city. Doing this will of course trash your reputation, so you’ll want to choose this option judiciously.

Feel free to include or exclude this “Almost” Always War twist from your pillage variant.

Either way, count me in on an SG pillage–o–rama.

Gives me a good excuse to get C3C

 

[Gingerbread Man]

I've never done an Always War. Count me in. I am proficient with Emporer, but I'd stick with monarch.

 

[Greebley]

Welcome to both of you

China was the other civ I was thinking of mostly due to the speed 3 riders.

The difference is pretty large. Armies get +1 move and they pillage for "free". So assuming all movement 1 terrain

So in PTW an army of riders (3 moves) would go move-pillage-move or pillage-move-pilllage

Now it is free pillage-move-free pillage-move-free pillage-move-free pillage-move

China may have changed. I know industrius was toned down.

I just tried playing the Sumerians and their UU is very good for early wars. Biggest downside is a nearly useless GA (It can occur when you have a single city). I didn't play for too long as the starts were atypical ones.

 

[handy900]

WOW. Sounds like pillaging will be even more powerful.
I wonder if the AI is programmed to pillage more also


Playing a new civ would be fun, you decide.

Do you plan to begin before or after Thanksgiving? I'll have a house full of people from Wednesday thru Sunday, so it will be tough to play much on those days.

 

[Greebley]

After thanksgiving sounds good. A lot of people may be going away, so I think it would make sense to wait since it is so close.

It will give anyone who wants to play time to respond as well.

The Sumerians are incredibly good at early game AW survival. I tested it out with AW at Sid level 15 opponents on a Pangea map with the civs set to most aggressive. The idea was to survive to 1000 BC. I made it to 1050 BC. I don't think any other civ could have survived that long given the start. Man those Sid civs are nasty!

This doesn't mean they are the best for AW though. You pretty much can't avoid a GA when you still have 1 or at most 2 cities. Which means no "real" GA later on.

Agricultural doesn't seem a bad trait either. You can get starts with +4 food at size 1 which was impossible before.

I won't decide what civ until I hear everyones opinion. I may even do what space oddity did and vote on starting positions. I thought that a neat way to do it.

 

[handy900]

I've won with a 2 city GA (Carthage) in AWM before, but talk about a lonnnnnng game....
You have motivated me to go looking @ target or Wal Mart for a copy of C3C today so I can read up a little before the game.

 

[Greebley]

I tried a few emporer always war starts with the Sumarians just to see how it would play, but kept getting atypical starts. The last one had only a single civ find us (out of 7) - who was obviously at war most of the early game, and a single square choke point to guard our empire. I do think you are right that not getting a later GA would make the game long.

So I am not sure which civ or which level of difficulty I would want to play.

-----------------------------------------------

Anyone else interested in trying this? We need a fourth at the very least.

 

[barbslinger]

Was reading your thread and though I have not ever played AW I have read a lot of SG reports. In fact I think I have read almost every report here. I play at Emporer and would enjoy giving this a run. Can the AW conditions be explained more. If we're getting our butts handed to us can we get temp peace to restock?
I love the idea of destroying production. Lets buy/capture all their workers too. Did Sherman capture slaves?

 

[Gingerbread Man]

AW - Always war (Of course). As soon as you meet someone, at the end of that turn you declare war, and never make peace. No temporary peaces, no peace then redeclaration the same turn, we meet them, then we kill them.

I will be reading up on Sherman, so I can play in character. Maybe some more variants based on him...

 

[Gingerbread Man]

General Sherman and the Civil War

William Tecumseh Sherman was born on May 8, 1820 in Lancaster,
Ohio. He was educated at the U.S. Military Academy and later went on
to become a Union General in the U.S. civil war. Sherman resigned from
the army in 1853 and became a partner in a banking firm in San
Francisco. He became the president of the Military College in
Louisiana(now Louisiana state University) from 1859-1861. Sherman
offered his services at the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 and was
put in command of a volunteer infantry regiment, becoming a brigadier
general of volunteers after the first Battle of bull run. He led his
division at the Battle of Shiloh and was then promoted to major
general of volunteers. Soon after Sherman fought in the battle of
Chattanooga he was made supreme commander of the armies in the west.
Sherman fought many battles with such people as Ulysses S. Grant, and
against people such as Robert E. Lee before he was commissioned
lieutenant general of the regular army. Following Grants election to
presidency he was promoted to the rank of full general and given
command of the entire U.S. Army. William Sherman published his
personal memoirs in 1875, retired in 1883, and died in 1891.

William Tecumseh Sherman, as you have read, was a very
talented and very successful man. He is remembered by many
accomplishments, but probably most remembered by his famous March to
the sea. Sherman's march to the sea was probably the most celebrated
military action, in which about sixty thousand men marched with
Sherman from Atlanta to the Atlantic ocean, then north through South
Carolina destroying the last of the souths economic resources.

Bedford Forrest was in Tennessee, and with Atlanta secured,
Sherman dispatched George H. Thomas to Nashville to restore the order
there. John B. Hood threatened Thomas's supply line, and for about a
month, they both fought north of Atlanta. Sherman decided to do the
complete opposite of what the strategic plan laid down by Grant six
months earlier had proposed to do. In that plan Grant had insisted
that Confederate armies were the first and foremost objectives for
Union strategy. What Sherman decided now was that he would completely
ignore the Confederate armies and go for the "spirit that sustained
the Confederate nation itself", the homes, the property, the families,
and the food of the Southern heartland. He would march for Savannah,
Georgia and the seacoast, abandoning his own line of supply, and live
off the land and harvests of the Georgia Country. Grant finally
approved Sherman's plan, so Sherman set off on his march eastward,
"smashing things to the sea." On November 15, 1864, Sherman began his
march to the sea. "I can make . . . Georgia howl!" he promised.

Sherman left Atlanta, setting it up in flames as they left,
with 62,000 men, 55,000 of them on foot, 5,000 on cavalry horses,
and about 2,000 riding artillery horses. It was an army of 218
regiments, 184 of them from the West, and of these 155 were from the
old Northwest Territory. This army was remembered as a lean and strong
one. The bulk of the army was made up of Germans, Irish, Scotch, and
English. Sherman and his army arrived in Georgia where there was no
opposition, and the march was very leisurely. The army fanned out
widely, covering a sixty mile span from one side to the other. The
army destroyed, demolished and crushed whatever got in their way, the
land, homes, buildings, and people. Bridges, railroads, machine shops,
warehouses- anything of this nature that was in Shaman's path was
burned and destroyed. As a result of this march eliminating
a lot of the food to feed the Confederate army and its animals, the
whole Confederate war effort would become weaker and weaker and
weaker. Sherman went on toward the sea while the Confederacy could do
nothing.

Sherman's march to the sea was a demonstration that the
Confederacy could not protect its own. Many agree that Sherman was too
brutal and cruel during the march to the sea, but Sherman and his men
were effectively demolishing the Confederate homeland, and that was
all that mattered to Sherman. Because Sherman "waged an economic war
against civilians", he has been called the first modern general.
Sherman is remembered by some as one of the best generals of the U.S.
Civil War, and by others(mainly whom live in the south) as a cruel,
brutal, horrible, and evil man. William Tecumseh Sherman is believed
to have coined the phrase, "War is hell." "There is many a boy here
who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell. You can bear
this warning voice to generations to come."

from http://www.cyberessays.com/History/142.htm

Reading that, how about any city that presents resistance must be razed to the ground. It would mean destroying many wonders, unless you leave those cities till the very last turn of war.

 

[handy900]

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man

from http://www.cyberessays.com/History/142.htm

Reading that, how about any city that presents resistance must be razed to the ground. It would mean destroying many wonders, unless you leave those cities till the very last turn of war.

Very interesting idea. Another alternative would be that you have to sell any & all improvements in an enemy city you capture.

 

[handy900]

Originally posted by barbslinger
Was reading your thread and though I have not ever played AW I have read a lot of SG reports. In fact I think I have read almost every report here. I play at Emporer and would enjoy giving this a run. Can the AW conditions be explained more. If we're getting our butts handed to us can we get temp peace to restock?
I love the idea of destroying production. Lets buy/capture all their workers too. Did Sherman capture slaves?

As Gingerbread man pointed out, you must declare war the same turn you meet a civilization and never ever make peace. You can first trade with them on the turn you meet them before you declare war, but you must declare war after your trades on that same turn.

It is acceptable all game long to open the F4 screen to spy on your enemy, to see what techs, resources & luxuries they have.

There is little debate that the best combination of traits for an AW games would be 1. Militaristic and 2. Industrious or Scientific. IMHO the best easiest AW tribe is China. For a special challenge try non militaristic civilizations such as the Ottomans who are not militaristic, but have a kick butt UU. Another challenge would be the Celts, who pair militaristic with religious. Although I’ve never played AWM with an expansionist tribe, it’s on my list of things to do. Expansionist will get me in war with the world that much faster. I’ve won with both the Ottomans & Celts, but it does take a little longer. My current solo AWM game is as Babylon against Germany, Russia, China, Celts, Zulu, Rome & Egypt

If you can beat the game on emperor, then you can win at AW monarch. But there are a few special strategies you’ll need to use that are not often used in regular games such as building walls & barracks first in new cities, building a lot of catapults, and pillaging effectively. There are a couple of good threads that will help you a lot that I’ve linked for you below:

Offensive pillaging

Betazed Always War Diety Win

One last thing, you may want to try your first AW game with no barbs. This allows you to selectively send a couple of settlers away from the war zone with no escorts.

 

[Greebley]

Welcome barbslinger I am glad you could join us.

Your idea is an interesting one, though I don't know anything about premade maps to know if there is a good US one.

Gingerbread Man,
An interesting read. I had forgotten the details as it has been so long since I took American History in school.

-------------------------------

I am thinking that Monarch is better given that some players are fairly new to AW including me. I think you will be our "expert" Handy

What do you all think about trying out the new Agriculture trait for always war rather than something well known? I would choose a start with a river which means our central square gets 3 food which in turn means faster growth, more workers, etc. I am thinking it will be a decent trait for AW.

The agriculture civs are:
Aztecs with Military
Iroquois with Comercial
Celts with Religious
Sumerians with Scientific
Dutch with Seafaring
Maya with Industrious
Inca with Expansionist

Of the UU's of these civs, the following are interesting:

The Sumerians have a 1-2-1 warrior that costs 10 shields and is probably the one of the best defensive civs because of this.

The Mayans have the Jaguar warrior which can turn into captured enemies into workers. With industrious, it may never have to build a worker.

The Incans have a scout with a 1-1-2 that treats most movement costs as 1.

The dutch have a 1-4-1 pikeman.

A lot of early golden ages in this group, but some neat abilities as well.

Any thoughts of this?

Handy,
An interesting article. I hadn't read it before. I mostly have become a fan of the pillage via trial and error. One can also use normal units by trying to stick to mountains and hills as much as possible. I am hoping we can do large scale pillages that will make the AI's territory look like that "Finally Ready For Regent" SG where they are trying to win without building any improvements. We will see

As for a razing rule, I am fine with that. If we go with Monarch, then we can build any wonder we really want. A milder form might be you have to sell all improvements and starve the city to size 1 before allowing it to build back up again.

[Edit: I was thinking Sedentary Barbarians (i.e. almost no barbs).

 

[handy900]

I like the milder version, sell all improvements & starve to 1 before you are allowed to build. I would like to be able to "buy" workers for 36 gold in the totally corrupt cities while we starve them if the team is okay with this. You set build to worker, let 1 shiled accrue, then "buy" the worker for 36 gold. It's exploitive, but hey, it's war!

The agriculture trait sounds fun. Do civs now have 3 traits, or did Celts give up a trait (militaristic) that was replaced by the agriculture trait?

Playing without any of the big 3 traits for AW (militaristic, industrious, scientific) would be a steep challenge on monarch, but winnable I think if we have a good "corner start" with bonus + fertile lands. If we decide against the "big 3" no or sedentary barbs would help us.
I found & bought my copy of C3C today. Let me read up on the new civs and their UU's before I vote. I have won 2 AWM's as the Celts, and let me tell you, their UU is awesome. 4.2.2 is basically a knight in the ancient age. Huge advantage that offsets the early GA. You can get an early FP, Pyramids, and the GL with leaders as the Celts.

 

[Greebley]

The celts gave up a trait. The gallic swordsman is also 3-2-2, not 4-2-2. I think they also cost 50 shields which a lot of people thought was too high. I just looked at conquests and Breakaway games seems to agree as the the cost is now 40 shields.

So their UU is 10 gold cheaper but they lose military.

 

[Greebley]

Ok, I decided to do something similar to what space did and allow all players to vote on which start they want. I chose 4 of the "most likely" agricultural civs (If I missed your favorite, I can add another).

In all cases, it is a standard map, sedentary barbs, Monarch, Normal AI aggression.

I always chose wet, temperate, and 4 billion years.

I "took the first turn" so we can see a bit around us though I didn't do first turn science choices yet.

The first civ is the Sumerians (continents 30% land)
Scientific and Agricultural (Bronze Working and Pottery)
UU is Enkidu Warrior 1-2-1 for 10 shields. Replaces warrior AND spearmen.

Marsh is removable but takes a while like jungle. You have to clear before settling in it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second civ is the Mayans (continents 30% land)
Industrial and Agricultural (Masonry and Pottery) Ind is a 50% increase rather than double in conquests.
UU is the Javelin thrower 2-2-1 for 30 shields with enslave (losing opponent becomes worker 1/3 of the time. It replaces Archer (warrior code).

Note that with the +1 food in the center square we can irrigate the one cow and get a 4 turn settler factory. This would probably be the easiest start.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third civ is the Dutch/Netherlands (continents, 20% land)

Seafaring and Agricultural( pottery and alphabet).
UU is Swiss Mercenary 1-4-1, 30 shields that replaces pikes (feudalism). The same shield cost with +1 defense. It requires iron.

Netherlands biggest advantage is that it has the latest Golden age and coastal. Still it might be the most challenging option

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final civ is the Celts (continents, 40% land)

The are now Religious and Agricultural (ceremonial burial and pottery)
UU is the Gallic swordsman 3-2-2, 40 shields which replaces the swordsman (iron working). It requires iron of course. Note that the cost is cheaper now by 10 shields compared to PTW Gallic swordsmen

It also has a later GA, though it is still likely to occur during the despot years.

I thought about also including the Militaristic Agricultural which is the jaquars, but decided not to. If anyone has a strong hankering for them, I can add them. I didn't think their Jaguar warriors went well with a "pillaging by armies" game.

Everyone vote on which start you want to play. You are allow to change your vote if you want. I am not yet sure which one I want to vote for myself

 

[Gingerbread Man]

GBM's vote: Sumerians

 

[barbslinger]

They all have pros and cons. 2 already have the cities settled. The sumerian marshes give me pause. It will be tough to develop this area quickly and we need growth. Are we looking for a fight immediately or let them find us? If we are concentrating on core growth I don't see much exploring happening except for a 7 tile radius which 1 warrior can handle. Though I like that the Sumerians have the stronger early Endiku the land looks rough. the Mayans have only 2 BG available on cultural expansion as do the Sumerians. The Swiss look to have the best start when a second city pops grabbing the cow but who in the world ever heard of the Swiss at war! The Celts have 3 immediate BG and another one on expansion. It also looks like it may be towards the end of a continent while Dutch and Sumeria are in the middle. It's a tough call but I have to go with the Celts.

Also, can we rename all cities to famous cities, generals and battles Sherman was involved in? I'm sure a list could be made.

 

[Greebley]

What you are call the swiss is actually the Mayans. It is confusing because the dutch have a Swiss UU (Swiss mercs).

Renaming cities is fine, either when you build them or capture them. Since America may be in the game, there already may be cities out there with some of the names like Atlanta which could be cool. If I had thought of it I could have made America one of the included civs (I went all random).

I am really torn on which one to choose. The mayans seem neat with their slaving ablity, I like the sumerians, the Celts have 5 bonus grassland and I haven't tried seafaring yet.

I think I will cast my vote for the Mayans. I do want to try the enslavement out in AW.