Exploration

[Alan_Nicoll]

At 2x2x I think Warriors are a better choice for exploration than Horsemen. Reasons:

Horsemen require a specialized tech at a time when Republic beckons.

2 Warriors can always explore more quickly than one Horseman. The rougher the terrain, the greater the advantage to Warriors.

2 Warriors (compared to 1 horse) double the chance you will meet an opposing civ during their movement.

A Warrior is fewer eggs in one basket. Fortify, disband, lose in battle, however you give up this exploring unit, it's cheaper.

There are some tradeoffs:

When entering a goody hut, you're more vulnerable to barbs because you don't get first strike as often.

2 Warriors increases chance that shield support will be required.

If you are offensively minded, Horsemen make better attackers. Since my stance from the getgo is to build many weak cities and defend later, early war is not my cup of tea.

 

[EyesOfNight]

Would you like to test that idea against me?

 

[SlowwHand]

Did you happen to make it through his entire post, Eyes ?

Not all people are flash and dash duelers.
Some actually build civilizations.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It

Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[Dogberry_Old]

I have to give this one to Eyes.. although he doesn't state it directly. In fact I would go so far as to say that given any game where there is the least likelyhood of any direct competion.. Horseback Riding is the preferred initial Advance..I believe that this will be the standard for MP play over time.. irregardless of settings.

There is simply too much to explore, to find out, to do.. & warriors just don't stand up to the task. You need to discover the shape of the game..at the very least your portion of it, as soon as possible.

Horseman not only have a good attack strength that works until well into the mid-game..they are also.. given the right terrain, decent early defenders & you can get them to that terrain quicker.

Most importantly, if you stumble across a nearby rival Civ ( AI or Human )..with a little luck & finese on your part & a little unpreparedness on theirs.. you can marginalize them real early.

Warriors defending at key positions.. quickly become a weakness..too easily killed or bribed. I have had quite a few games where I never build a single one.

Also Alan..if you are going for early Republic in a x2 resource game..you are asking for a dung-pile of trouble. You need to have at least Mysticism, preferrably one of the early Happiness Wonders.. & in reality a whole bunch of other stuff ( marketplaces ). In a x2 game..you need to realise that you are in a wargame, barring a huge map, & plan accordingly.

This is why I like 1x1 .. normal map games, then you have some choice in the matter.

Dog

Whew ! that was windy enough to make Phalanx-style Yakker !

 

[SlowwHand]

Horses are my first also, but in 2x it's a little less critical I think.
On small land, less critical.
So on small 2x, which is normally Eye's mandate, it isn't as much of a thing.



------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It

Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[EyesOfNight]

Sloww I'm getting to the point with you where I'm just going to throw you in the same category as Strategicking. It's like you go out of your way to be a moron and to tell the truth I'm getting tired of making fun of you. Soon you won't even be worthy of my scorn.

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

Thank you for your responses. I don't see anyone disputing my reasons, only my conclusions. I think the most important one is that 2 Warriors explore faster than one Horseman, and get a much quicker start as well. The worse the terrain, the greater advantage to the Warriors.

Come to think of it, the Warriors even have the advantage militarily: 2 attacking and 2 defending points, vs. 2 and 1 for a horse. When it comes to attacking a city, however, I would prefer a single horse to 2 Warriors. But put 2 Warriors and a single Horseman close together on a field, at the end, one wounded Warrior standing is the most likely result. But this is beside the point; the title of the post was, after all, "Exploration."

I know that horses are everybody's first choice; they were mine for ten years until a couple weeks ago, when I started rethinking some of the basics. On theoretical grounds, Warriors are the better choice unless one plans to attack early. In the latter case, I reserve judgment. Later on I'll tell you my theory about Bronze Working (leave it for later) and get you all excited again.

As for early Republic, I find that the very easiest way to win multiplayer 2x2x king level games, which is why I play that way. I don't win every game---most games end inconclusively---but I when I do lose I generally blame the lousy land, not the strategy.

 

[SlowwHand]

I think you have defense of warriors overstated.
If there is a lot of rough territory you are probably right in using a unit with more defense.

MouthOfNight-
I get the drizzles, I'm so worried over you.

All I said is you prefer 2x small world.
You do, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Just play your game.
Doesn't matter to me one iota.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It

Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

[This message has been edited by SlowwHand (edited May 21, 2001).]

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

When I was talking about 2+2 (attack and defense) vs 2+1, I was comparing the numbers for 2 Warriors versus 1 Horseman. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

 

[duennbrettbohrer]

The advance of Horseback riding is crucial in games against human opponents, since it is just one step away from Polytheism, which enables you to build elephants, the monster war units of early times. I'd rather have Republic a little later than be dead or in constant need of giving tribute. After that comes monotheism..the player who first builds Crusaders will most certainly win..I know this from my personal, disastrous experiences. To conclude..Riding has top priority, so if you have it you might as well build two horsemen, the difference's not that great.