Hilarious (almost) loss

[Lanstro]

Allow me to share a story and a warning.

Immortal, standard map, continents, playing as Russia. Me and the 7 AIs are spread over two large continents. Fast forward to the 1800s, and I've killed 6 of them, with only the mediocre Siam left on the other continent.

I'm way ahead in tech, with mech infantry, cossacks and artillery rolling around, while he's got riflemen, cavalry and cannons. My army's substantially larger, and the AI sucks at naval invasion anyway. So there's no way I could lose, right?

Wrong. I declare war, and all those notifications about cancelled deals and my allied city states joining the war pop up. I ignore them all, blitzing a substantial portion of his army on the first turn. I end turn, content that I'm about to rack up another win and the achievement for winning with Catherine.

I hear the 'unit lost' sound. No problems - he probably just picked off one of my cossacks. But no! It turns out that he was allied to one of the city states tucked away in the corner of my continent. And being a city state, it was on par technologically with me. So it had 3 or 4 mech infantry zooming around my completely undefended continent, taking my fringe cities!

I rush buy my own mech infantry in my next border town, but when I end turn the three city state mechs take that town easily also. And so they come, deeper and deeper into my territory, almost all the way to Moscow.

Of course, I put them down eventually, and on the other continent, I take Siam's capital pretty easily. But it could've been a whole different story if the surprise allied city state was closer to Moscow to start.

So the lesson here: check who your last foe is allied to, even if it seems you have no way of losing!

 

[Syiss_]

Lol, thats pretty awesome. I'm normally allied to almost every city state by that point in the game, or at the least all the city states on my continent that aren't dead (if I'm not going to ally it, I'll usually kill it myself if another AI hasn't). Still, good story, which would have been even better if you actually had lost.

 

[guczy]

Im pretty sure you should have told it the way that you lost it

 

[H4run]

hey ty for the warning i will be becareful on my next game with the city states around me. But i usually give 1-2 unit between my 2-3 city, so if i summon unit in my empty continent (if i was at war with other continent) i can gather 15 or more unit in 3 turn, and most of them are gunship and artillery.

 

[Sainhann]

Which is why you have units in your cities since garrison cities under Honor helps with the Happiness issue.

 

[ColumbianCoffee]

That's hysterical, I always hate seeing City-States keeping pace with me in Tech when I'm trying to go to war with another Civ. Why should a tiny City-State be able to keep up with a vast empire? I'll never know, but it can be a rather painful discovery when that tiny little Civ is backed by 3 or 4 of those city states.

 

[H4run]

Which is why you have units in your cities since garrison cities under Honor helps with the Happiness issue.

Yep, many of the skillful civ player here (diety) recommend me to choose honor to chop the happiness issue and to get 2xp perks. But i prefer traditionalism, pick only two perk, first is to open the SP second is 33 % bonus strenght when fighting in my territory. Have u try it? its amazing, u can easily kick multiply foe with minimum number, im hardly loosing any of my city.

For happiness i just pick piety, order, and forbiden palace. After that, the world just keep smiling on me, peacefully.

 

[Lanstro]

On paper the garrisoning happiness doesn't make much economic sense. By the late game, each unit costs about 3gpt to upkeep, and provides what, 1 or 2 happiness?

Compared to the happiness buildings, it seems very inefficient. You could just build a new city and buy those buildings instead.

So it seems to me that the other +happiness social policies (in particular the ones in the commerce, patronage and freedom trees) are much better.

 

[Nunya]

I think the assumption was tht you'd have a unit in every city anyway for purpose of defense. Which may be true for small empires, but isn't for bigger ones. So yes, I agree that it doesn't seem very efficient.

 

[aimlessgun]

By the late game, each unit costs about 3gpt to upkeep, and provides what, 1 or 2 happiness?

Compared to the happiness buildings, it seems very inefficient. .

3gpt?! It's easily more than that, 4-5 with a decent sized army. Well not sure what you mean by lategame, I'm talking Stealth Bombers and Modern Armor I suppose.

 

[Syiss_]

3gpt?! It's easily more than that, 4-5 with a decent sized army. Well not sure what you mean by lategame, I'm talking Stealth Bombers and Modern Armor I suppose.

Even 4-5 is a pretty low estimate imo. Don't forget that workers, scouts and great people that you are saving for later use also count towards your unit count and cost maintenance. By mid game I find its not uncommon to be paying 6-7 gpt per unit. In the late game if you are in a war heavy strat, it can get much more expensive. On the higher levels where the AI has huge armies, you will need even more units. The +1 happiness per garrisoned unit is probably one of the worst social policies in the game imo.

 

[H4run]

On paper the garrisoning happiness doesn't make much economic sense. By the late game, each unit costs about 3gpt to upkeep, and provides what, 1 or 2 happiness?

Thank you for the math Lanstro, now i dont have any reason left for go honor sp. It seem useless now.

 

[Nunya]

I don't know. I kind of like the other Honor policies. Especially double XP and cheaper upgrades, which are a great combination.

 

[Lanstro]

Yeah I rarely get honor now (at immortal diff). I now only do it if:
- my civ has some bonus for finding and dealing with barbarian encampments (Songhai, Germany, etc); or
- I need to rush very early and I need that free general to ensure victory.

Otherwise I like opening with tradition now, even for militaristic wins. If the capital has some decent hammer squares then the +1 food is quite nice to allow you to work those earlier. Then the wonder building policy helps push out the midgame wonders faster.

I'm also liking the commerce tree, especially when I have a lot of coastal towns and the capital's in a good spot.

When compared against those 2 trees, honor just seems weak. I think the double xp in the average game will rarely have a big impact: does having drill III over drill II really make much of a difference? Having blitz looks nice on paper over not having blitz, but I've rarely made use of those multiple attacks with my horsemen/knights who do end up with blitz. Likewise, march looks good but its practical effect on a game isn't huge. The extra shots on siege weapons is just about the only promotion that is consistently useful (as long as you're in a war). On the other hand, the commerce tree gives you a very strong economy for every single turn and tradition gets you those wonders and saves you hammers, which seem much stronger.

 

[tibbles]

Was it necessary, not really, but I really liked my trial of going Honor, buying/building archers, then cheaply promoting them to cho-ko-nus, then again to riflemen. I'm bad at details, but I think it worked out to like only 450g for a double attack rifleman. Couple that with 45% generals and the honor bonus for a nearby unit and they kicked some serious butt. The points spent on double xp gain were overkill though, I should have stopped after the cheap upgrade SP.

 

[Udey1]

Honor is totally worth it because of double XP branch alone. I usually take it, take the general, and take double XP when I use it. The right side is rather weak. Garrison being inefficient and professional army coming late enough that there are better policies (there are exceptions). On the whole ignoring honor because of that is silly if you are planning on winning by conquest.

 

[H4run]

My real problem in honor, they just take to many branch, at least i have to spend 2 branch before i got really what i want. In tradition, i pick up +1 food in capital it give me advantage on my oppening game also make me produce settler more faster. And pick up one other it serve me well until my last game. I usualy only pick up 2 branch of tradition, i save my other sp for piety, order and autocracy. This 4 now becoming my fix formula each time i play my game.

 

[Nunya]

I love double XP. Not so much for it's actual objective value, but because I like having highly promoted units.

And promotions are powerful. Shock 3 allows units to attack targets in open terrain and survive the conter-attack that follows while Drill 3 will make assaulting units in rough terrain much easier. March is not very powerful on it's own, but becomes much stronger when you also have a Medic nearby. Blitz is fantastic for overpowering weaker opponents and works even better on units with ranged attacks (Chariot Archer, War Elephant, War Chariot, Camel Archer).

And double XP also means double GG points. And you can always burn those on golden ages if you have no better use for them.

 

[tibbles]

It's not that it was bad, but once I had March then it was sticking Blitz/Medic on units that already had 2 attacks for 2 moves and healed every turn. Once past 200 xp it seemed a little excessive. I think I tend to either not war enough to justify it or war too much with the same upgraded units to need it.

Garrison is clearly junk. I doubt Professional Army will ever make it's gold worth in a regular game vs say just taking Commerce. But it allowed me to afford more beelined upgrades on beeline completion than I would have otherwise.