1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

guerillas, missunderestimated?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by apparition, Jan 12, 2004.

?

Do you use guerillas?

  1. Always have

    28 vote(s)
    32.2%
  2. Not till I tried them

    7 vote(s)
    8.0%
  3. No I wait for rubber

    27 vote(s)
    31.0%
  4. I may do if I can be bother to

    25 vote(s)
    28.7%
  1. scoutsout

    scoutsout Minstrel Boy

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    4,263
    Location:
    Check Six!
    It's not so much that it's not useful. It's just that the shield cost to make a new one is almost as much as infantry. Given the choice (access to rubber) most people would rather invest the shields in infantry.

    Useful? Yes. Worth the cost to upgrade Medieval Infantry and Longbowmen? Yes - unless you're strapped for cash. Worth building? Only if you don't have rubber, or you have a ridiculous production edge over the AI... or you have a specific reason for building it.

    Basically, Guerillas give you 2 things:
    1) an option if you find yourself without rubber
    2) an upgrade path for otherwise obsolete units.

    There are plenty of uses for Guerillas, but none are so essential or unique that it justifies building them over infantry (which defend better) artillery (which can bomard offensively as well as defensively) or Cavalry (which attack just as well and can retreat).

    This upgrade path for Swordsmen/MedInf or Archers/Longbowmen is the thing I like about Guerillas (and TOW Infantry). When playing vanilla CivIII, I would generally avoid building swordsmen or archers if I could get away with it - mainly because of the built-in early obsolesence. I would send hordes of horsemen against hoplites and legionnaires simply because I didn't want a bunch of obsolete swordsmen lying around when my horsement could be upgraded to knights and cav...

    In a way you could argue that the Guerilla affects ancient wars more than modern ones...

    If I were in a real tooth-and-nail battle, needing every unit I could get to the front lines as quickly as I could get them there... and a couple of cities could produce an infantry in 5 turns or a Guerilla in 4... I might consider building some.

    The Guerilla, like any unit or improvement, has its place and its use. Before building anything you ought to know why you're building it. Does that size 2 tundra city really need a marketplace or cathedral?
     
  2. a4phantom

    a4phantom Perma-newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,062
    Location:
    MN, USA
    True enough, I oversimplified to the point of being sloppy. I think the point stands, that there is rarely reason to build guerillas, of course with upgrading you take what you get.
     
  3. scoutsout

    scoutsout Minstrel Boy

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    4,263
    Location:
    Check Six!
    The one I want to play with is the TOW Infantry. They defend better than regular infantry, almost as well as Modern Armor, and assuming they keep that defensive bombard capability, a stack of TOW gunners and a stack of Mech or regular Infantry should be able to thwart a tank assault.

    Unfortunately, by the time the AI gets enough tanks to worry about I'm usually launching my spaceship... <g>
     
  4. a4phantom

    a4phantom Perma-newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,062
    Location:
    MN, USA
    I am intrigued by TOW infantry, when I get a chance to start my shiny new Conquests game I suppose I will have to learn how to use swordsmen and mideval infantry. So far I've always been able to rely on defensive units until Chivalry, but as I'll be starting Regent I suppose I'll need counter-offensive units earlier.
     
  5. apparition

    apparition Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    262
    Location:
    Rotorua, NZ
    I was surprised to see this thread up again. In my current game I have many free warriors and no resources. The warriors came from goodie huts. I have avoided conflict thus far and raced to nationalism and upgraded my spearmen to riflemen.

    I've just built the adam smith wonder and I'm england so I have loads of money and I'm going to use the Gs for a suicide resource grab.
     
  6. seanos08

    seanos08 Monarch

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    Benalla - Australia
    If I don't have rubber I churn out Guerrillas.

    Guerillas have a 50/50 chance of surviving a cav hit and a great chance of killing or maiming a Cav.

    I use cav for raiding cos of their speed and deploy in groups of 3.

    Once I have inf I keep my Guerrillas as expendable shock troops for taking cities.

    A jungle or forest battle - guerrillas smear cav.
     
  7. a4phantom

    a4phantom Perma-newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,062
    Location:
    MN, USA
    Nonetheless, wouldn't infantry be a worser nightmare for cav?
     
  8. scoutsout

    scoutsout Minstrel Boy

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    4,263
    Location:
    Check Six!
    Infantry attacking cav, no. Cav attacking infantry, probably. The guerrilla's ability to "bombard" an attacker could give cavalry fits, especially if the guerillas are on a tile that gives a defensive bonus.
     
  9. a4phantom

    a4phantom Perma-newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,062
    Location:
    MN, USA
    I'd still rather send my 6/3 cavalry up against a 6/6 guerilla with defensive bombard than a 6/10 infantry. Thus my questioning "Guerilla's - Cav's worst nighmare".
     
  10. scoutsout

    scoutsout Minstrel Boy

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    4,263
    Location:
    Check Six!
    ...try sending your Cav against a stack of 6/10 Infantry with an equal number of G's underneath. You'll suddenly find your first waves of Cavalry reduced by a hit point before they get a chance to get a lick in on the infantry.
     
  11. AdHHH

    AdHHH Chief Of The Infidels

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    252
    The only reason I keep them is because I always build Swordsman and rarely disband. Theyre only good for defence, and only then in a stack because they can bombard at 0 range.
     
  12. DragonRunner

    DragonRunner Certified Band Geek

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    471
    Location:
    New Jersey
    A feature I'd like to see in CIV4 would be that if there are resistors in your city, there's a chance that one of them disappears and becomes a guerrilla for the Civ it's a part of. That would make defending behind the front line more importaint.
     
  13. DragonRunner

    DragonRunner Certified Band Geek

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    471
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Sorry, Double Post
     
  14. a4phantom

    a4phantom Perma-newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,062
    Location:
    MN, USA
    scoutsout, yes, but once they've defeated the infantry they can fight the guerillas at 6:6, whereas if there're no guerillas and twice as many infantry, they'll always be going 6:10. the +4 defense seems worth more than the bombardament.


    DragonRunner, I agree, although you'd need a different guerilla unit for each Age, which there should be anyway. Bonus points for the C&H.
     
  15. a4phantom

    a4phantom Perma-newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,062
    Location:
    MN, USA
    A4Phantom's unifed theory of guerillas. The current guerilla unit 1. is redundant as a unit, when it comes at the same time as infantry and riflemen and 2. has no abilities or role that suit the name guerilla.

    Solution in progress -

    1. move guerilla to nationalism (it makes more logical sense, and since the role I have for them is pretty secondary it makes sense to put them on an optional tech).

    2. give the guerilla unit hidden nationality, so that they can be used as proxies without starting a war. this is much more in keeping with the role of a guerilla. The current unit is more of a militia, a defensive unit for when formal professional infantry are not available, and I think the rifleman unit is more suited to this.

    3. Change the stats to 5/3/2 and add easy movement through forests and jungles, so it can better act as a raider. Leave the defensive bombard as is. I am considering a -1 hitpoint penalty but I don't think I'll use it.


    I am considering giving it stealth attack. this lets it pick off wounded or offensive units with weak defense or artillery (i presume - does anyone know what happens when you use stealth attack to strike an artillery unit that's in a pile?) I don't know how this will work because there are currently no stealth land units to my knowledge.

    Under my system, a civ with no rubber should use riflemen as defenders until they get it. Mideval infantry and longbowmen now upgrade to riflemen, which upgrade to infantry, which upgrade to TOW infantry, which upgrade to Mech infantry, which makes more sense to me and leaves every other evolution of the defensive unit resource free.

    I am open to suggestions and particularly interested in what some of the experienced players think of this. I have not had the opportunity to try it out yet.
     
  16. scoutsout

    scoutsout Minstrel Boy

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    4,263
    Location:
    Check Six!
    First, if you don't have Conquests - get it. There are a couple of scenarios in there that have land units with "invisibility" and stealth attack capability. Check out the one that starts off in France with the religious relics that must be returned to Jerusalem... There's an Arab "Assasin" and a Christian "Inquisitor" that should be of interest.

    Stealth attack on artillery in a stack doesn't make sense, since these units are captured, not destroyed.

    I'm not saying I disagree with your ideas, but IMO modifying units should be done carefully. The Guerrilla has a place in the game, and changing its characteristics and moving it from that place may change the balance of the game.

    Making it available with Nationalism is too early. Riflemen are basically late 19th and early 20th century soldiers...

    Upgrading longbows and MedInf to Riflemen is also inconsistent. You're taking an offensive unit and turning it into a primarily defensive one... and putting it in a different upgrade path that extends to Mech Infantry. (You need to re-check the upgrade path... Riflemen>Infantry>Mech, and MedInf/Longbow>Guerrilla>TOW Infantry...)

    Perhaps the "Guerrilla" is more of a mis-placed moniker, rather than a misconfigured unit. Its upgrade, the TOW Infantry, is a good fit, name-wise and capablity-wise.
     
  17. a4phantom

    a4phantom Perma-newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,062
    Location:
    MN, USA
    ==First, if you don't have Conquests - get it. There are a couple of scenarios in there that have land units with "invisibility" and stealth attack capability. Check out the one that starts off in France with the religious relics that must be returned to Jerusalem... There's an Arab "Assasin" and a Christian "Inquisitor" that should be of interest.==

    I have it, but have only played through Rise of Rome. That's why I wondered what would happen to artillery targeted by a stealth attack. And as for invisibility, someone said that he tried making guerillas invisible and then the computer built an insane number of them, no matter how he adjusted their stats.

    ==I'm not saying I disagree with your ideas, but IMO modifying units should be done carefully. The Guerrilla has a place in the game, and changing its characteristics and moving it from that place may change the balance of the game. ==

    I realize that modifications have to be done carefully to preserve balance, that's why I'm asking for the advice of older and wiser players. And I appreciate your quick response.

    ==Making it available with Nationalism is too early. Riflemen are basically late 19th and early 20th century soldiers... ==

    Guerillas were very effective against Napoleon's troops in Spain in the beginning of the 19th century. My guess would be that's the origin of the name.

    ==Upgrading longbows and MedInf to Riflemen is also inconsistent. You're taking an offensive unit and turning it into a primarily defensive one... and putting it in a different upgrade path that extends to Mech Infantry. (You need to re-check the upgrade path... Riflemen>Infantry>Mech, and MedInf/Longbow>Guerrilla>TOW Infantry...)==

    I think my upgrade path actually makes more sense, because disciplined formal regiments of midieval soldiers become modern soldiers rather than turning into guerillas. The footsoldiers of the mideval world become the footsoldiers of the Industrial Era. What also seems inconsistent is having infantry that can't upgrade to TOW infantry and TOW infantry that can't upgrade to Mech infantry. (I do know the upgrade path, I was describing the way I'd reconfigured it, but I wasn't clear about that.)

    ==Perhaps the "Guerrilla" is more of a mis-placed moniker, rather than a misconfigured unit. Its upgrade, the TOW Infantry, is a good fit, name-wise and capablity-wise.==

    As for TOW infantry, I don't think it's that good a fit namewise, unless I'm very much mistaken noone uses large units of troops primarily armed with TOW missiles. Instead a small number of TOW equipped soldiers are assigned to an infantry unit armed with rifles, to defend them from tanks.

    I agree that the current guerilla is misnamed, but as it's also a redundant unit I'm trying to make a real guerilla of it.

    ==And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
    With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
    Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
    Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;==

    An excellent choice.
     
  18. scoutsout

    scoutsout Minstrel Boy

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    4,263
    Location:
    Check Six!
    Much of what you said in this post makes sense. It sounds to me like your thinking would be more consistent with creating an additional unit, rather than modifying an existing one.

    Some of what you describe in your vision of what a guerilla ought to be is consistent with the "partisan" guerrilla...like the French Maquis who worked/fought in occupied France during WWII.

    Perhaps the existing Guerilla ought to be re-named "Light Infantry" (which tend to be crack troops, just armed a bit lighter) and a "guerrilla" unit ought to be something ... hmmm... lemme think here...

    Here's a thought: captured workes have a 1 in X chance of becoming "partisan" workers... whose partisan characteristic is imperceptible until they act. Give them the movement and pillaging capability of an explorer...
     
  19. a4phantom

    a4phantom Perma-newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,062
    Location:
    MN, USA
    If I had the time or skill to create new units I would create a hidden nationality pillager unit for every era. Raiders, Mercenaries, Guerillas, Commandos/terrorists or somesuch. What I would really like would be an "invisible in X terrain" option.
     
  20. AdHHH

    AdHHH Chief Of The Infidels

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    252
    What about giving a Guerilla the road movement ability that a unit had in Civ2? (Was it the old guerilla, or partisan or something). The only reason I have guerilla units is because swordsman and med inf are useful units in their age and i tend not to disband units.
     

Share This Page