From a gameplay perspective, not really. There's plenty of time to kill people before longbows come around. Unless someone manages to tech feudalism with the oracle I'll easily be able to kill 2 people before longbows come around (assuming they're average players). Longbows kind of need to be there since a huge stack of war elephants and catapults can blaze through them without too much effort.
Don't you think longbows come too early?
- Thread starter pi-r8
- Start date
azzaman333
meh
Normal speed is just too fast.
Beatrix202
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 18
This thread became obsolete after this quote.
"yeah longer game speeds are like cheating, they make the game sooooo much easier."
"yeah longer game speeds are like cheating, they make the game sooooo much easier."
maybe cheating is too strong of a word. But increasing the game speed is basically like lowering the difficulty level by one step.
On epic, I can sweep all my neighbors clean with just a small military edge early on. On standard, they'll quickly tech to longbows before I can reach their capital. and then just pump out longbows like crazy.
But the comps often take guilds and engineering before taking Civil Service.
Stoney the I
Prince
you read my mind.
Those people who like to call slower gamespeeds cheating may be forgetting that often people choose the slower speeds on bigger maps. Playing for a cultural victory on Quick on a huge map is IMO far cheesier than doing the same on Epic or Marathon speed.
Marathon does have the unique fact that units are built disproportionately faster but it's probably that way so it doesn't take like 100 turns to build the first warrior.
Without seeing how a player plays their games I think it's pretty insulting to even hint that these people are basically cheating.
If you want to call something cheating, try playing a No Espionage game on Quick and go for Cultural Victory. That is possibly the easiest way to win the game at all levels (probably even high levels)
. I might add, Cultural victories are disproportionately easier on Quick speed - something that seems to go unmentioned most of the time.
Marathon does have the unique fact that units are built disproportionately faster but it's probably that way so it doesn't take like 100 turns to build the first warrior.
Without seeing how a player plays their games I think it's pretty insulting to even hint that these people are basically cheating.
If you want to call something cheating, try playing a No Espionage game on Quick and go for Cultural Victory. That is possibly the easiest way to win the game at all levels (probably even high levels)
. I might add, Cultural victories are disproportionately easier on Quick speed - something that seems to go unmentioned most of the time.champ82
Immortal Ruler
My 2 cents
1.) I don't think long bowmen come too early. They do make a period where defense is stronger than offense, and that's fine with me. If it cools down warmongers for a little while, so be it. It makes siege, Spain, Japan and the Vikings much better than they would be otherwise.
2.) Genghis Kahn's Keshiks were most likely tougher than the Keshiks represented in the game, as people couldn't really stop them until gunpowder (according to Dan Carlin's hardcore history - which is pretty much all I know about the Mongols.) For game balance though, I don't think the Keshiks should be made more powerful. It is a game after all.
3.) Epic and marathon are not cheating. It's OK if someone doesn't like these settings because they find them too easy, but it's not cheating.
Furthermore, epic and marathon may be easy but normal can be cheesy. I'm playing a multi-player game now, I want to sack my buddy's religious capital. The boat trip is long. By the time I get there my attack force will be outdated. Kind of cheesy and certainly unrealistic as this would not happen in real life. Surely my people could go across the globe for a naval invasion in less than 15 years. Doing a Civ simulation of WWII on normal speed would be impossible.
4.) IMO the only things I can think of that are truly cheating are
A.) entering world builder
B.) re-loading the map until everything looks perfect
C.) re-loading in general
Ex. #1 - "Oh no that war didn't go the way I wanted it to"
Ex. # 2 - "I lost that wonder by 1 turn, I'll re-load and whip it."
-Re-loading for careless "un-realistic" mistakes is fine "Whoops, I clicked 'Your head would look good on a pole.' Definitely didn't mean to do that. I really just wanted to see if you wanted to buy some bananas."
D.)-Purposely choosing map settings and AIs to your advantage.
Ex. # 1 - Playing the Dutch or Portuguese on archipelago.
Ex. # 2 - Playing against Hatty, Gandhi, Mansa, Roosevelt and turning off space and culture victories.
5.) Even using a "broken" combo (Darius of HRE for example) isn't cheating BUT one should not have the same sense of satisfaction upon winning that one would have if they didn't use a "broken" combo. So maybe playing the Dutch or Portuguese on archipelago isn't cheating either, but you can't brag about these victories if you win.
Just one man's opinion.
1.) I don't think long bowmen come too early. They do make a period where defense is stronger than offense, and that's fine with me. If it cools down warmongers for a little while, so be it. It makes siege, Spain, Japan and the Vikings much better than they would be otherwise.
2.) Genghis Kahn's Keshiks were most likely tougher than the Keshiks represented in the game, as people couldn't really stop them until gunpowder (according to Dan Carlin's hardcore history - which is pretty much all I know about the Mongols.) For game balance though, I don't think the Keshiks should be made more powerful. It is a game after all.
3.) Epic and marathon are not cheating. It's OK if someone doesn't like these settings because they find them too easy, but it's not cheating.
Furthermore, epic and marathon may be easy but normal can be cheesy. I'm playing a multi-player game now, I want to sack my buddy's religious capital. The boat trip is long. By the time I get there my attack force will be outdated. Kind of cheesy and certainly unrealistic as this would not happen in real life. Surely my people could go across the globe for a naval invasion in less than 15 years. Doing a Civ simulation of WWII on normal speed would be impossible.
4.) IMO the only things I can think of that are truly cheating are
A.) entering world builder
B.) re-loading the map until everything looks perfect
C.) re-loading in general
Ex. #1 - "Oh no that war didn't go the way I wanted it to"
Ex. # 2 - "I lost that wonder by 1 turn, I'll re-load and whip it."
-Re-loading for careless "un-realistic" mistakes is fine "Whoops, I clicked 'Your head would look good on a pole.' Definitely didn't mean to do that. I really just wanted to see if you wanted to buy some bananas."
D.)-Purposely choosing map settings and AIs to your advantage.
Ex. # 1 - Playing the Dutch or Portuguese on archipelago.
Ex. # 2 - Playing against Hatty, Gandhi, Mansa, Roosevelt and turning off space and culture victories.
5.) Even using a "broken" combo (Darius of HRE for example) isn't cheating BUT one should not have the same sense of satisfaction upon winning that one would have if they didn't use a "broken" combo. So maybe playing the Dutch or Portuguese on archipelago isn't cheating either, but you can't brag about these victories if you win.
Just one man's opinion.
You could add to that list the use of game settings to make the game easier. e.g. Raging barbs and stealing the Great Wall, or No Espionage paired with Cultural Victory.
By the way, champ,
Using longbows on attack is perfectly fine as well. Protective longbows are pretty decent for a while when paired with siege. Within a few days I plan to post a detailed example of how you can use longbows for capturing cities when you have no metal and are Protective.
By the way, champ,
Using longbows on attack is perfectly fine as well. Protective longbows are pretty decent for a while when paired with siege. Within a few days I plan to post a detailed example of how you can use longbows for capturing cities when you have no metal and are Protective.
IAM
Emperor
Glad to see this thread. Had my most daunting experience with long bows recently. Huge map, Prince, 18 civs. My first offensive war I declare on my neighbor Mansa. Before I reach the first city, extra turn used to capture 5 workers, he gets Feudalism and upgrades to longbow. Heavy losses for me in capturing the city. He was the first civ with Feudalism.
So I march on to the capital and while I'm on a hill before I reach the capital I get ambushed by longbows and loss several units. From the hill I can see 9 longbows in the cap. So I give an inspiring speech to the troops and we retreat. I make peace and a start looking for easier targets and he ask to be my vassal a few turns later. That was the most effective use of longbow and timing I've seen by AI.
So I march on to the capital and while I'm on a hill before I reach the capital I get ambushed by longbows and loss several units. From the hill I can see 9 longbows in the cap. So I give an inspiring speech to the troops and we retreat. I make peace and a start looking for easier targets and he ask to be my vassal a few turns later. That was the most effective use of longbow and timing I've seen by AI.
champ82
Immortal Ruler
@ PieceOfMind
Great name and avatar by the way.
Moving on, yeah my list of what I consider cheating could certainly be expanded upon, no question.
And yes, longbowmen can be used offensively, but in most instances they are not ideal. With siege everything is possible. I didn't realize this until I became a better player. Back in my noble and prince days I never would have brought obsolete units in with my SOD but now I do just to clean up and make sure I have enough units to take a city. You can use horse archers, axe men, even spearmen to take out units in a heavily besieged cities until maybe riflemen. Back in my noble/prince days if I were bordering Sitting Bull with Feudalism I would think "oh well, guess I have to wait until riflemen or at least cruisers until I bother with him." Now, however, the power of siege is obvious and Sitting Bull's longbowmen ain't nothing I can't handle.
So yeah, longbowmen aren't the defensive milestone I once thought that they were, but I still think they give the edge to defense for a few centuries, which is fine in my book. I will stick to my claim that they make Spain, Japan and the Vikings more valuable.
The longbowman is a hell of a unit though, no question. In terms of raw power, versatility, cheapness and shelf life it is really amazing. I think a UU that would be better than the stock long bowman would most likely be too strong.
Oh, and I have experienced the beauty of extended drill promotions being used on offense...as Ethiopia with the Oromo warriors...it is fun. What's great is that they don't get hurt much in the field since siege bounce off them. I love drill IV, but unfortunately the temptations of Organized Religion and Bureaucracy outweigh the temptations of Vassalage and Theocracy for me. So even though drill IV rules, I usually don't have too many units with them, except if I'm playing Ethiopia. Haven't played as Native America since my Prince days. I'm playing random leaders now. So if I get stuck with Sitting Bull some time maybe I'll have more fun with drill IV.
Great name and avatar by the way.
Moving on, yeah my list of what I consider cheating could certainly be expanded upon, no question.
And yes, longbowmen can be used offensively, but in most instances they are not ideal. With siege everything is possible. I didn't realize this until I became a better player. Back in my noble and prince days I never would have brought obsolete units in with my SOD but now I do just to clean up and make sure I have enough units to take a city. You can use horse archers, axe men, even spearmen to take out units in a heavily besieged cities until maybe riflemen. Back in my noble/prince days if I were bordering Sitting Bull with Feudalism I would think "oh well, guess I have to wait until riflemen or at least cruisers until I bother with him." Now, however, the power of siege is obvious and Sitting Bull's longbowmen ain't nothing I can't handle.
So yeah, longbowmen aren't the defensive milestone I once thought that they were, but I still think they give the edge to defense for a few centuries, which is fine in my book. I will stick to my claim that they make Spain, Japan and the Vikings more valuable.
The longbowman is a hell of a unit though, no question. In terms of raw power, versatility, cheapness and shelf life it is really amazing. I think a UU that would be better than the stock long bowman would most likely be too strong.
Oh, and I have experienced the beauty of extended drill promotions being used on offense...as Ethiopia with the Oromo warriors...it is fun. What's great is that they don't get hurt much in the field since siege bounce off them. I love drill IV, but unfortunately the temptations of Organized Religion and Bureaucracy outweigh the temptations of Vassalage and Theocracy for me. So even though drill IV rules, I usually don't have too many units with them, except if I'm playing Ethiopia. Haven't played as Native America since my Prince days. I'm playing random leaders now. So if I get stuck with Sitting Bull some time maybe I'll have more fun with drill IV.
Perhaps you can make sure your great generals get settled? I don't buy into this heavy reliance on supermedics that so many people seem to love. In the game I mentioned in my previous post, I had 3 settled generals before I could even build maces. I got that many great generals just using archers and longbows in a war with Tokugawa.
With Vassalage my units were already coming out with 11XP. But even with only 1 or 2 generals it was pretty easy, but with Vassalage I admit. With your D2 and D3 longbows though, just pick their battles so they earn the required XP in few battles. eg. if your units are 5XP and you need 10XP for drill IV (Protective), then fight a 2XP and 3XP battle or two 2XP battles and 1 1XP battle to get to 10. It really doesn't take long. Using any drill promoted unit attacking for 1XP is a bit of a waste.
Check out my stack just before I attacked the city.
(see pic) This was Churchill who's Charismatic so the promotions were coming a bit easier but all Protective leaders can more or less do the same thing as this.
Hey at least I'm not going off-topic for once ranting about longbowmen. You are absolutely right about them being very versatile and cheap.
With Vassalage my units were already coming out with 11XP. But even with only 1 or 2 generals it was pretty easy, but with Vassalage I admit. With your D2 and D3 longbows though, just pick their battles so they earn the required XP in few battles. eg. if your units are 5XP and you need 10XP for drill IV (Protective), then fight a 2XP and 3XP battle or two 2XP battles and 1 1XP battle to get to 10. It really doesn't take long. Using any drill promoted unit attacking for 1XP is a bit of a waste.
Check out my stack just before I attacked the city.
(see pic) This was Churchill who's Charismatic so the promotions were coming a bit easier but all Protective leaders can more or less do the same thing as this.Hey at least I'm not going off-topic for once ranting about longbowmen. You are absolutely right about them being very versatile and cheap.
Spoiler :
Attachments
Arlborn
Legendary Noob
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,939
Oh wait, I play on settler, darn, I must be a cheater. I also changed a few things in XML, using the awesome mod potential of CIV4 for my enjoyment. No, I am a cheater!
I could go on by the way, but I guess you got the point. Forget about "cheating". Anyway, what makes the game easier in one situation and for one person may make it harder in other situation or for other person. That is not my main point though. My main point is, it matters not what somebody does with their game for enjoyment, as long as the game isn't public that is(multiplayer, HOF, SGs and etc, and even then, the "rules" are different each game anyway). The game was paid for enjoyment, so let people have their enjoyment the way they want with their games without having to read somebody saying that "this is cheating, that is cheating"(basically, "YOU ARE A CHEATER"!).
Just try to weight your words, really, that is all. Not trying to flame, just putting my position about it.
Ps: Ah, and longbows are just fine, maybe not in quick and normal speed, but they are too fast and not very much fun anyway(for me).
1. Attack earlier
2. Build enough catapults. Bombard to zero defense bonus. Suicide catapults.
3. if you don't have macemen, you will have some difficulty. This makes sense since longbows and macemen are medieval units. Swordsmen and Axemen are ancient/classical units and horsemen aren't much better.
2. Build enough catapults. Bombard to zero defense bonus. Suicide catapults.
3. if you don't have macemen, you will have some difficulty. This makes sense since longbows and macemen are medieval units. Swordsmen and Axemen are ancient/classical units and horsemen aren't much better.
You know well that's not what I meant.
Assuming you are still replying to me, if you'll look at my posts carefully you'll see I never call anyone a cheater. I know you don't want to flame but perhaps you could consider not quoting me out of context, especially when what you are quoting makes it appear I am supporting a position I do not agree with. (Refer to my post before the one you quoted)
I find rolling over my enemies with longbows when I have no iron or copper incredibly amusing. So much so I almost sigh when I see iron is right beside my capital.
I don't know whether I'm kidding or not anymore. 
Arlborn
Legendary Noob
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,939
You know well that's not what I meant.
Assuming you are still replying to me, if you'll look at my posts carefully you'll see I never call anyone a cheater. I know you don't want to flame but perhaps you could consider not quoting me out of context, especially when what you are quoting makes it appear I am supporting a position I do not agree with. (Refer to my post before the one you quoted)
I find rolling over my enemies with longbows when I have no iron or copper incredibly amusing. So much so I almost sigh when I see iron is right beside my capital.
Uh, sorry, I guess I got the wrong impression from your posts then, I apologize!
Ah, after I saw your screenshot I am really interested in playing a game now relying on drill promotions! Darn, just bad that I am not much of a warmonger!
Ps: Ah-Uh, anybody gets it?
IAM
Emperor
I've used longbowmen offensively but only when the AI has crossbomen versus my axe/spear/sword stack. Have to put something in there that won't get chewed up by crossbowmen.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Perhaps you can make sure your great generals get settled? I don't buy into this heavy reliance on supermedics that so many people seem to love. In the game I mentioned in my previous post, I had 3 settled generals before I could even build maces. I got that many great generals just using archers and longbows in a war with Tokugawa.
With Vassalage my units were already coming out with 11XP. But even with only 1 or 2 generals it was pretty easy, but with Vassalage I admit. With your D2 and D3 longbows though, just pick their battles so they earn the required XP in few battles. eg. if your units are 5XP and you need 10XP for drill IV (Protective), then fight a 2XP and 3XP battle or two 2XP battles and 1 1XP battle to get to 10. It really doesn't take long. Using any drill promoted unit attacking for 1XP is a bit of a waste.
Check out my stack just before I attacked the city.
Hey at least I'm not going off-topic for once ranting about longbowmen. You are absolutely right about them being very versatile and cheap.
Spoiler :
1. Medics matter more on faster speeds, where healing in effect takes longer. That said, medic III units essentially grant large stacks permanent healing (you just keep damaged people in and they heal on bombard or post attack turns). Sacrificing 1 general to give your stacks more speed/impetus longevity isn't that big of a deal, and IMO gives higher returns than post-war production of more experienced troops. Although again, this probably means more on normal than marathon, and epic is of course somewhere in between. Note: this has tremendous synergy with drill (since drill units with high str take less damage), and if you are doing this with infantry the turnaround is insane (drill III-IV infantry really shine). In a recent emperor game I went the drill line (while not even protective!) for an intercontinental invasion around the late 1600's - infantry/cannon using frigate galleon. I...capitulated 4 AIs, and not one had rifles before I blasted them all to pieces so it was just a city to city march fest. The medic helped heal the minor damage.
2. Good as longbows are, where are the mass cuirassers or rifles that late in an epic game
? Or if you are Unconquered Sun, where are the infantry 
? My point is that longbows and cats are an early-mid ADs force at latest, and they hit hard then. Military in any era is served by striking ASAP once the advantage is secured. Whip, hammer, do what it takes to assemble the decisive force quickly! Drill III bows in 400 AD are better than Drill IV in 1200.3. I love later-game GG's as military academies. Those ARE strong on slower speeds, perhaps stronger. How important is 2 extra XP, really? I'm usually happy with good cities cranking 2 promo units, and my HE city will frequently get west point (sometimes WP goes with ironworks instead depends on the game). Point is that you only need to settle 1 GG to make a triple-promo unit straight out of the gate...and guess what? The super medic unlocks WP instantly! A HE/WP/MA city with 40+ base hammers and later forge/factory/power is where it's at - those things can crank out some strong nonsense - my favorite being CR III artillery.
Longbowmen are actually more expensive than the metal units
axemen = 35
swordsmen = 40
catapult = 50
longbowmen = 50
So generally for attacking, unless you have a lot of free production atm, it is better to use the axemen and swordsmen still. Throw in some shock longbows for stack defense against axemen, or to hold cities once you capture them.
axemen = 35
swordsmen = 40
catapult = 50
longbowmen = 50
So generally for attacking, unless you have a lot of free production atm, it is better to use the axemen and swordsmen still. Throw in some shock longbows for stack defense against axemen, or to hold cities once you capture them.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
The problem is metal defenders - specifically enemy axes. Even axes are weaker there than bows, and so are swords. Of course, you can just use cats, but then better stack defense that takes less damage per kill and can garrison makes plenty of sense. Still when I take longbows when not PRO it's usually for garrison purposes - xbows, horse archers, and later maces/knights are all better attackers.
Similar threads
