COTM 05 Pre-Game Discussion

[dmanakho]

Horsemen in larger numbers are always better than swords if you are planning to spend most of your warfare attacking opponents.
They retreat, therefore better survival rate. You will have more elite horses than you would have elite swords, therefore more chances to get GLs
and overal faster war capmaign

 

[LeSphinx]

dmanakho , are you sure about that.

HORSEMAN : (30 shields) 2/1/2
SWORDMAN : (30 shields) 3/2/1

I always use swordman. Endeed, few are promote to elite and very few to GL.
But the horseman are less good in attack. against :
IMPI 1/2/2
SEARPAN 1/2/1
HOPOLITE 1/3/1
they have less chance of success , no ?

LeSphinx

 

[dmanakho]

dmanakho , are you sure about that.

HORSEMAN : (30 shields) 2/1/2
SWORDMAN : (30 shields) 3/2/1

I always use swordman. Endeed, few are promote to elite and very few to GL.
But the horseman are less good in attack. against :
IMPI 1/2/2
SEARPAN 1/2/1
HOPOLITE 1/3/1
they have less chance of success , no ?

LeSphinx

I agree swordsman has better attack value, but Horseman can retreat and has extra movement and it makes HUUUUUUGE difference.
Please look at Smackster SGOTM3 Rome thread, you will learn how to use Horsemen to the full extend, that's how i learned...
I would always build swords before, but after playing that game i never build any swordsmen anymore, well maybe just few... Horses and more horses that is my new motto for any warfare.

 

[Hannabir]

Holy cow!
I mean, I still can't see it, but I will know for certain as soon as my scout moves. With a lot of training I have learned to see Dyes sticking out from under the fog, if someone points them out, but that's it for my eyes.

Roland, great job with the plains/grassland forests. I think you have convinced me there!

 

[dmanakho]

So if there is a cow... we have to start discussion where we would settle all over again

 

[denyd]

You gentlemen are assuming that there are horses (or iron for that matter) on this continent !!!

It is worth having the scout check out if that is a cow. I'll have to rethink my original (DaveMcW's) plan of settler west. The fact that this is a panagea means to me that at least 2 more scouts are needed.

I'm thinking of alphabet->writing->code of laws->philosophy->free republic for research then literature for libraries - I'll probably leverage those in trade for the rest of the AA techs.

I'm hoping for an industrious (America, Ottoman & France preferred) for next door neighbors, so I can coax them into building the Pyramids for me. The Pyramids, Sun Tzu, Bach & Hoover should be very powerful in this game. I'm also hoping for a religious neighbor (India, Japan or Spain) to build the Temple of Artemis for me. Being able to have temples & granaries in new cities would allow for massive growth & expansion.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

I still don't understand how people can see things in the fog. I didn't even believe it was anything else than completely black. I thought people see it by just a few pixels pointing out of the fog. So i edited the pictures collor settings a bit, and yes, i see something but how do you know it's a cow?

And about the swords vs horses:
I made the battle calculator do some calculations on veteran horses/swords vs both regular and veteran spears fortified without other bonusses.

The chance to die was roughly equal for both.
The chance to win was MUCH higher for swords. (the difference is the chance to retreat)

If a horse retreats, the enemy is not dead and another battle is needed, again providing chance to die. So horses should cause more losses.

If you kill x enemies, you have x promotion chances. It doesn't matter with what you kill them, so leader chances are equal.

Since horses need more battles, you need more horses as well to conquer a city or area.

Of course, the movement of the horses does make up for a lot of things.
A mix of both is best IMO, so you use swords when possible, horses when faster movement is required.
For the battles themselves, the swordsman is superior.

 

[dmanakho]

I think there is a serious flaw in your calculation Swordsmen vs Horsemen

Yes, single swordsman is always better than a single horse when fighting spear, but 10 horses are always better than 10 swordsmen and have higher survival rate when attacking a city with spears fortified inside.

 

[Dynamic]

Using of swodsman or horseman depend on the game specific. If you haven't horse you must use some swords and archers to catch it. And don't forget: the sworsman can be made by upgrade of warrior (if you have enough money).
I think both swordsman end horsemen may be used for tactical purpose in the middle of AA. For example: killing nearest neighbors for grout; catching resources; getting the early leaders (actually for classic Civ). Better choice for global wars are Knights and Cavalries.

 

[Denniz]

...
The chance to die was roughly equal for both.
The chance to win was MUCH higher for swords. (the difference is the chance to retreat)

If a horse retreats, the enemy is not dead and another battle is needed, again providing chance to die. So horses should cause more losses.

If you kill x enemies, you have x promotion chances. It doesn't matter with what you kill them, so leader chances are equal.

...

Don't forget the horse that retreat can heal and rejoin the war which offsets the numbers needed. AND when they retreat they have still damaged the enemy. So subsequent horsemen will attack against weakened opponents. Increasing their chances to win and getting a GL. So while they have to fight more battles a percentage of those battles are more favorable than the raw stats would indicate. While swordmens may damage their opponent before they die, they do just that, die.

I have taken on Carthage both ways in recent GOTMs. Both were about the same in terms of casualties and time but in the game where I used Horsemen, I was in a much better strategic position to upgrade to Knights and Cav. With the Swordsmen, I ended up with a lot slow units Med. Inf only suitable for garrison. They just can't keep up with mounted units and it is not worth waiting for them.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

K you are right, i have nood checked it good enough. I did so now however:

I enter the following info in 2 battle calculators
(http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=75765 and http://www.safalra.com/other/civilization.html)

Attackers always veteran (who builds regulars)
results are written as: Win - Loss - Retreat(calc1) -:- Win (calc2)


Defender1: normal spearman, fortified, grassland.
. Horsemen: 48.9 - 26.0 - 25.0 -:- 51
. Swordsmen: 70.4 - 29.6 -:- 70

Defender2: veteran spearman, fortified, grassland.
. Horsemen: 32.9 - 32.8 - 34.2 -:- 34
. Swordsmen: 55.7 - 44.3 -:- 56

Defender3: normal spearman, fortified, city.
. Horsemen: 40.8 - 32.2 - 27.0 -:- 35
. Swordsmen: 62.5 - 37.5 -:- 55

Defender4: veteran spearman, fortified, city.
. Horsemen: 25.2 - 33.7 - 41.1 -:- 20
. Swordsmen: 46.5 - 53.5 -:- 39

Defender5: normal spearman, fortified, city, hills.
. Horsemen: 30.7 - 34.9 - 34.4 -:- 27
. Swordsmen: 51.5 - 48.5 -:- 46

Defender6: veteran spearman, fortified, city, hills.
. Horsemen: 16.8 - 37.4 - 45.8 -:- 14
. Swordsmen: 34.7 - 65.3 -:- 29

Now to the conclusions:
-The combat calculators give different results. :s

-In easy battles, the chance to lose is almost equal for swords and horses while swords have a far greater chance to win.

-In harder battles, the chance to lose for swords becomes up to double that of horses. However, it's chance to win is equally increased. Therfore, horses will need many more battles before defeating the enemy. if we take the toughest example vs veteran fortified in city on hill, horses have 17% chance vs 35% for swords. It is difficult to calculate the exact numbers because the defender will be damaged after earlier battles and also might get upgrades after defeating an enemy. I will leave this to better math scientists, but my estimate is that loses will be about equal again, but the swords needing only half the amount of troops to take the city.

-the difference between regular and veteran defenders is bigger than one might expect. It makes it almost as tough as a city on a hill.


basically it looks like this:
if you need 2 swordsmen on average (1 will win, 1 will die) you need 3 horses for the same battle (1 will win, 1 will die, 1 will retreat)

I would like you to explain why a large group of horses would be better than a large group of swords if a single sword is better than a single horse. Of course, if you bring groups of 10 to 1 city defended by 2 spears, the horses will get their earlier and thus be better. (losses are equal)
if however you split your swords in 2 groups, you can take 2 cities with them while the horses take one city.

 

[samildanach]

I have had a number of bad experiences with horsemen. Remember a horse won't roll back if the defender is red-lined. I have had a an elite fortified spear kill three vet. horses on numerous occassions. For a redlined spear to take at least one horse with him is so common place that it seems to happen virtually every turn when I'm on the war path. I may have 30-80 horses in combat but still - its vexing.

 

[dmanakho]

I have had a number of bad experiences with horsemen. Remember a horse won't roll back if the defender is red-lined. I have had a an elite fortified spear kill three vet. horses on numerous occassions. For a redlined spear to take at least one horse with him is so common place that it seems to happen virtually every turn when I'm on the war path. I may have 30-80 horses in combat but still - its vexing.

That is exactly what happens when you don't pay much attention to RNG gods.

 

[smackster]

I agree with Dynamic, and looking at his results so should everyone in this discussion.

Everygame is different, but assuming a standard start with both horses and iron available, I would start by building warriors until HBR is researched and horses are hooked up, and then switch to horsemen exclusively. Typically you find yourself with a good stack of 20 or so warriors built before the horses were hooked up therefore once the iron is hooked up I'll upgrade the warriors and invade my first opponent with swordsmen. As the horseman can move quickly they soon join the fight. As I build more horses and take more opponents land the swords start getting used for resistance busting and perimiter defence, as they are not fast enough to get to the front lines.

Once I get in range of Chivalry, I'll stop the fight, gather cash, and upgrade and continue with the same, through MT if needed. I'm sure this game will be won with Knights, and I think a Knight victory will beat any horseman conquest, SirPleb aside.

smackster

 

[Dynamic]

I agree with Dynamic, and looking at his results so should everyone in this discussion.

Everygame is different, but assuming a standard start with both horses and iron available, I would start by building warriors until HBR is researched and horses are hooked up, and then switch to horsemen exclusively. Typically you find yourself with a good stack of 20 or so warriors built before the horses were hooked up therefore once the iron is hooked up I'll upgrade the warriors and invade my first opponent with swordsmen. As the horseman can move quickly they soon join the fight. As I build more horses and take more opponents land the swords start getting used for resistance busting and perimiter defence, as they are not fast enough to get to the front lines.

Once I get in range of Chivalry, I'll stop the fight, gather cash, and upgrade and continue with the same, through MT if needed. I'm sure this game will be won with Knights, and I think a Knight victory will beat any horseman conquest, SirPleb aside.

smackster

I agree. This tactics is good for most games. But sometimes when you starting position is very good but opponents have strong defence the better way is no wars before Chivalry or MT and using horseman only for upgrade, like classic GOTM35.

 

[eldar]

Of course, this might not be a 'traditional' Pangaea map. Remember the Roman choke point of GOTM33? Or there the one in the save file I've attached here

Neil.

 

[smackster]

I agree. This tactics is good for most games. But sometimes when you starting position is very good but opponents have strong defence the better way is no wars before Chivalry or MT and using horseman only for upgrade, like classic GOTM35.

Are you sure, I think our scores were very close and I didn't do that. But then that is still a spoiler game, so wont say anymore.

smackster

 

[Dynamic]

Are you sure, I think our scores were very close and I didn't do that. But then that is still a spoiler game, so wont say anymore.

smackster

Look at SirPleb's result.

 

[smackster]

Look at SirPleb's result.

Now that is unfair

edit:sorry my mind is going, I'm thinking of my COTM4 game.

 

[solenoozerec]

Solenoozerec,

you want to build roads anyway, to get your units - especially your settlers - out faster. Also, you'll be in Republic or Monarchy soon enough so why waste time by taking two turns to enter those squares instead of just one.
In Conquests, I am noticing that I don't even mine all bonus grasslands of my core cities because the food bonus from irrigating them comes up so quickly and at a time that the city still needs to do a lot of growing.

It is just a matter of priorities. The question is not to build or not to build. Indeed eventually it will be built. The question is what to build first. If your city is not placed on furs, you would like to build a road to it after pop 3 if you do not want to pay money for entertainment or keep units in the city. Within few first turns there are a lot of other things to do for your worker (e.g. chop forest).
Plus your score comes from happy people. I know that one happy guy is not that much, but it so early