Great General Strategy/West Point

shulec

Grrrrr... I AM the force!
Hall of Fame Staff
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
4,424
Location
No longer Chicago :(
What do you do with your great generals; when do you go after West Point?

Warmonger: Do you keep adding them to your biggest production city? Do you try to attain a level 6 unit (so you can build West Point) with out adding your great general to a unit? After how many great generals settled in a city should you build the military acadamy?

Relative non-militant: Which great leader (1,2, or 3) do you add to a unit to get to a level 6 unit?
 
West Point usually comes after the point I start warring so it's usually irrelevant. Most of the time I just add them to cities as instructors.
 
I'm not a big fan of West Point but I build it more frequently with charismatic leaders with access to stone. With barracks that is 7xp, 9xp for mounted units with stables. Now add in a couple of civics/settled ggs and you're producing level 5 units. Typically I'll do this in my HE city.
I most often use GG 1 or 2 to make a medic (settle first more often for non-aggressive civs).
 
As a warmonger I used to settle them. I've come full circle - I often make them attached GG's now. I have 3 highly favored GG type units:

GG medic: Well, most people are familiar with this. I'll comment that mine usually winds up from a combat I axe origin. It gets medic, then a GG pushes it to medic III morale, giving it 2 moves. It will tend to stay an axe forever. Even regular combat axes defend before it so don't expect to lose it unless your stack goes squish.

The CR Sword ----> Mace---->Rifle---->Infantry route. GG gets CR III, then combat, then march after combat III, then more combat (which is a LOT of experience, just be happy with Combat III CR III). Swords are well-protected against counters by axes and spears, so this GG won't come up in defense to be lost very often. It also has very high odds when other units are around 60% or worse. Very handy.

The Combat VI Mounted unit: These are...easily countered by spearmen. But those are easily countered by axes. Mounted tends to have the highest base str in its time until infantry show up, and starting with knights or elephants this is a very nasty unit, especially with march. A combat VI march knight upgraded eventually to cavalry will win you a lot of battles your siege or other troops would lose, and at high odds, too.

Now that we have a means to keep these super units alive, why use them instead of a settled GG? Simply put, speed on returns. Yes, it's possible to settled 4-6 gg's into a city to make super units right out of the gate. You don't get these GG's until late usually though. A super CR sword is available very early, on the 1st or 2nd GG.

"but siege takes their hp down anyway"!

Yes, that's true, but how much siege do you want to give up? In my experience, it's best to keep as many units alive per city capture or stack fight as possible. What GG attachments do is allow you to reliably kill top defenders after no or minimal siege damage. This includes nasties like CG archers/longbows and so forth. A recent example comes from the current NC game, where I repeatedly did this with (breaking my above tendencies - wish I'd gone CR for one of them) a combination of a Combat VI maceman and a combat VI elephant (both supported by the axe medic). Having GG's of this nature in my stack allowed for ONE suicide CATAPULT, against LONGBOWS, then a successful capture of a city garrisoned by 5 units - 3 of them longbows but only 2 of those longbows promoted (AI had whipped the 3rd). Classical siege, and only a small handful of maces, the rest elephants, and I lost exactly ONE unit taking a city. The most I lost was vs the target AI (which was actually ahead in tech but pretty well on parity militarily) was 3, taking the capitol with about 8-10 units in it IIRC.

In other words, attaching GG's allow your few combat units to attack at the strength of an era ahead of the target. The scariest two medieval combat gg's are the 17.5 strength knight that heals super fast (and may even heal after attacking) and the mace that hits more like a knight with CR III (very high odds against cities). Both of these super units are well-covered by a couple shock maces or xbows - meaning they won't defend! This is important - you need them alive to get use from them. Even the mere elephant will have str 14 with this setup. What will elephants defend against? Horse archers and knights. At str 14, the AI will tend not to even touch that, especially when there are more elephants to protect it if it gets hurt ;).

The fun part comes with 2-3 attached combat GG's with your medic GG (very reasonable to get 3 relatively quickly with early wars). Few cities have more than 2 defenders that are actually strong on defense like longbows with CG, meaning after that other troops (or even more siege, now that it will have a much better chance of survival) can move in to clean up.

When a GG has 70+ xp, you'd have to wonder if the benefit from settling it would outweigh the advantage it bought. In many cases a fight saved me a catapult in hammers. Also note that early vassalage or theo will buy you a 2nd promo, meaning it would take several gg's to make a difference after them. In many cases I'd rather conserve units.
 
First GG typically goes into the first military production city, can be the enemy capital from a rush or even own capital, depending on map and available tiles, now units are level 3 with rax (HE also goes into this city as early as possible).

Use of following GGs depends a lot on leader and map.
I find that there is a natural XP-cap where adding additional GGs to a city isn't cost effective any more.
For charismatic, this tends to b 13 XP (level 5), for non-charismatic 10 XP (level 4).
You need 7 XP or 3.5 (average) GGs for the next level.
I generally build military academies in this advanced stage of the game to improve my unit production capability, much more return from a single GG.

I'm very reluctant adding GGs to units.
With charismatic or aggressive, I frequently manage to get 1 or 2 Woodsman axes to medic1, a great substitute for a GG generated medic3.
Creating combat GG-units, I have done this for experimental purposes but wasn't satisfied with the result.

My exception of my own rule of thumb is when it comes to West Point.
Depending on the "war-history of the game", it doesn't get built every time, sometimes, the game doesn't last long enough to justify building it.
If I build it, 2 scenarios:
- Either to establish one more military city, say a production city is at 7XP with rax, pentagon and stables (or war civic)
- Or say I captured an AI city with tons of settled GGs (imp. leader like Cyrus are particular good targets) and West Point will bring it to the next level.
 
GG (Great General) #1: Attach to Super Medic.
GG #2: Military Academy.
Subsequent GGs: Settled.
 
GG#1: medic (seems like a lot of people do this)
GG#2: settle in my main military city

If CHA, GG#3/4 settle in my main military city, GG#5 Military academy in military city

If not CHA, GG#3 military academy in military city, #4/5/6 settled.
 
I do understand the merits of settled GG's, but I'm a little underwhelmed at the general lack of combat attached GG's. They can change the outcome of early wars...do players consider the "risks" too high?
 
I used to attatch them, but in a long war I figured i'd get more use out of settling them. do I consider the risks too high? Well...yes, but I'm far from good with special units.

+2 experience to all future units, though... surely thats better?
 
What if your attached GG saves you 10 catapults + over the course of its existence, along with the WW involved? Does that really get trumped 7 xp vs 5 once you're in vassalage or theocracy? My GGs usually get over 50 XP and in some of my games the first 2 combat ones I make push 70. That's a lot of kills, and at least a fraction of them are kills I'd have lost other units on at lower odds.

It's not very easy to quantify, but where GG attachments really shine is early on, where they allow you to take a city you might not have been able to otherwise. When you need...really need to capture that AI capitol THIS turn, and it's got 4 archers, and your 8-9 units are heading in, having a super GG CR basically guarantee one of the archers dies in 1 attack can mean winning or losing that war...but this guy is useful anywhere, from dominating longbows so that your siege is more likely to win to ultimately being a top of the line gunpowder unit that performs a similar function assisting cannons or artillery.

I usually only attack in the 95%+ odds or better with them, but you'd be surprised how often a Cr III C III sword dials up 95% odds when your cr I or cr II swords have odds in the 60s-70s.

Depends what you want, I guess.
 
I usually make military academy if i can(which i seldom can), otherwise i'll mostly settle them. Attached GG's die so easily... The odds of them surviving enough battles to matter isn't very high.. Sometimes i make a warrior into a super infantery medic or something though, saving a ton of cash on upgrades is needed if i am going to attach much(other than an early game super medic maybe or emergency defense attached GG(though thats mostly to upgrade a unit as welll).

The chance of your GG suriving his 5 first battles if he only fight at 95% odds is roughly 77%... Not particulary great...
 
I usually make military academy if i can(which i seldom can), otherwise i'll mostly settle them. Attached GG's die so easily... The odds of them surviving enough battles to matter isn't very high.. Sometimes i make a warrior into a super infantery medic or something though, saving a ton of cash on upgrades is needed if i am going to attach much(other than an early game super medic maybe or emergency defense attached GG(though thats mostly to upgrade a unit as welll).

The chance of your GG suriving his 5 first battles if he only fight at 95% odds is roughly 77%... Not particulary great...

They can make allllllllllllllllll the difference though ;). And sometimes the odds are much nicer than 95%, even as other guys are still attacking at 80% you can have a GG at 99%. If you don't like risk you can use them more conservatively, but my experience with them vs settling has gradually leaned me towards attaching in many cases! An exception would be to get a west point city to the next XP level or something, as that would be a very significant contribution also.
 
I don't remember last time i built west point...
 
I don't make it often, but if I go with a cuirasser or cavalry war it often shows up before my final military production push, especially if I go with rush buy anyway.
 
In Huge Marathon 18 civ domination / conquest runs. Generals are much better settled. Having units with 5 promotions coming outta the barracks in 1 - 2 turns in the early modern era (CHM) or even 4 makes for a ridiculous modern era domination run. Marines with Combat IV and Commando, tanks with CRIII/Barrage II, Machine guns with Drill IV, it's pretty sick. Match that with 5 crazy good units.... meh.
 
Well, I don't always go with the most efficient strategy, which I'm sure is why I'm still at low-monarch. Personally, I prefer the attached general strategy - mostly because it's cooler.

It's worth noting though, that at times, having four highly-ranked units at the front line when a new-era military tech comes through, and being able to upgrade those guys for free is *awesome*. I have won many, many wars by taking advantage of this.
 
The only thing is that a late game push can mean that I'm invading multiple civs at once. That's really where the settled GGs surge past the attaching GGs. The best way attached GGs seem to work is putting them together in an attack stack. Spreading them out will only do a marginal bit of good.
 
I do understand the merits of settled GG's, but I'm a little underwhelmed at the general lack of combat attached GG's. They can change the outcome of early wars...do players consider the "risks" too high?

I haven't really though about it. It would seem you'd need to work hard to defend him. I'm intrigued by the idea that it's possible though.
 
You generally won't lose a combat GG as long as it's not left alone ;). But I still feel that having a medic is very important since a GG cannot win the war by itself. Far from it. That's why I rationalize at least having 1 GG medic. I choose not to attach the rest of my generals because I'd rather have a modern army stack with 30 units that ALL have 4 promotions (non-CHA or AGG leader) or 5 promotions (CHA or AGG leader). It's like having 30 newly attached GGs. And rolling them out of my military city at 1 per 1 - 2 turns is so much more fun for me.

At that point, the AI should just vote me in as the UN Emperor :lol: since all it would be able to do is hunker down in its cities as I steamroll.
 
Back
Top Bottom