Holy Roman Empire

[The Raging Newb]

Just got BtS the other day, tried a few games as the HRE and can't quite get a feel for it. Anyone have any strategy and playstyle suggestions? What are your thoughts on Charlemagne's traits and on the Landschnekt and the Rathaus?

Thanks for your input.

 

[lilnev]

Imperialistic and Protective are, in my opinion, the two worst traits. The landschnekt is entirely unexciting -- you still want maces as city attackers and crossbows as stack defenders against melee (favored vs. enemy maces, whereas landsdudes are just even). So they're stack defenders vs knights/elephants, which they do exactly as well as pikemen. (Personally I think they should have +150% against mounted units instead of the melee bonus -- let them actually do something better, rather than do something else not as well as contemporary units.) Even the starting techs, Mysticism and Hunting, are not to my liking, making it slow to get a productive worker and slow to BW.

All of this is atoned for by the awesome Rathaus. The 75% reduction is huge, and means you can expand to far more cities than you normally would. It even makes corporations look interesting.

peace,
lilnev

 

[futurehermit]

Imperialistic and Protective are, in my opinion, the two worst traits.

100% agree.

However, I try and look for synergy wherever I can.

Rathaus = great for early expansion

Imperialistic = great for early expansion (settler bonus)

Protective = strong defenders to protect your early empire; strong offensive/defensive gunpowder units later

So, I would suggest early REXing combined with an oracle-col. Build the forbidden palace early to support your expansion.

Hunting means start with a scout to explore where you will expand to.

Mysticism means early religion (ideally).

So, I would suggest opening with hindu/buddha and scout-settler (it is an ok opening!).

Then once you have a large empire focus on teching to your UU (it is actually a decent uu imo). Once your UU is online then wage your first war to get promoted units and GGs. Then once gunpowder units come online you can wage an even more powerful war.

I think the HRE is best played as a steadily-growing juggernaut that gets stronger and stronger over time. Slow-but-completely-steady expansion.

...

But of course if you have copper and an opponent on your doorstep you should rush them.

 

[Figaro]

I can sum up my feelings about the Lansnechkt in one word, but the Moderators won't let me use it . What's extra silly is that the Civilopedia claims it's the most powerful Melee unit in the game! I quite like the traits though; and of course, as you said, the Rathaus is just amazing...

The strategy I assume would work would be to build as many cities as possible (Imperialistic), making sure you don't lose any (Protective) and make lots and lots of cash (Rathaus) by not paying too much maintenance; and take advantage of the corporations! Head for Time/Space Race/Diplomatic Victory perhaps. Found an early religion and try for an early diplo victory with the apostolic palace?

 

[popejubal]

Holy Roman Empire and the Zulu nation are probably the only civs that can really benefit from Corporations. The upkeep on corporations is truly obnoxious and while the benefits you get from them are remarkable (I'm getting +12 food per city with Sid's Sushi Emporium in a game right now), the costs are also staggering. I'm paying 30 gold of maintenance per city WITH a courthouse.

With a Ratshaus, that would be a much more manageable 15 gold for each city with the corporation.

 

[Chrispy]

While protective crossbows are useful as stack protection, the UU will suffice as unit protection from everything except crossbows. If you have mounted units in your stack, crossbows aren't a major issue.

As laid out above: early religion, slingshot to CoL. Use the IMP trait to quickly build settlers and REX, whipping out the Rathaus quickly. Teching to engineering makes sense because you have the UU and increased speed to build castles with protective.

 

[Bjorn190]

They are decent.. but only because of the new massive stack warfare style of combat..

Once those 2-3 crowwbows you have go down, yourCR macemen will shatter and fall..

And a landknecht beats a maceman because of the subtraction.. the 50% vs melee of the mace is subtracted from the 100% vs melee giving the landsknecht 6+50% = 9 str vs the maceman 8.. even beats an agg mace lol IF the mace goes for CR and the LK goes for strength, possibly shock, these odds are even MORE in the favour of the landsknecht. Put in some archer/cat resistant troops, like a few knights, combined with trebuchets for city takin (comes same as LK) and u got a nice army

Also, since many people think knights are the PWN, the landsknecht shere massive pike-numbers will tear those players to paper shreds like its nothin! Where a comparable stack with a few pikes a few crowssbows medium CR mace and cats/trebs would totally be destroyed by the shock knights!!

There simply is no counter for a massive stack of LandsKnecht combined with knights for crossbow/cat protection, and trebuchets for city takin, whereas the counter for a regular army is either crossbows or knights depending on the composition. If you face byzantium (12 str knight + shock) which is likely to be popular, then your army is obsoleted as soon as you build your first maceman. Your going to need alot of Landsknecht to face that, unless you have ivory

 

[Martinus]

As others said, I think you should go for a peaceful REX (Rapid Early Expansion), trying to fund many cities and prioritising an early religion (maybe even right off the bat) to help push your borders. Then, after getting the early essentials (Bronze Working, land improvement techs etc.) beeling for Code of Laws to build Courthouses, and get Archery and then Feudalism. Then turtle with Protective and grow upwards.

 

[Defiant47]

They are decent.. but only because of the new massive stack warfare style of combat..

Once those 2-3 crowwbows you have go down, yourCR macemen will shatter and fall..

And a landknecht beats a maceman because of the subtraction.. the 50% vs melee of the mace is subtracted from the 100% vs melee giving the landsknecht 6+50% = 9 str vs the maceman 8.. even beats an agg mace lol IF the mace goes for CR and the LK goes for strength, possibly shock, these odds are even MORE in the favour of the landsknecht. Put in some archer/cat resistant troops, like a few knights, combined with trebuchets for city takin (comes same as LK) and u got a nice army

You can't just subtract the percentages!

Maceman: 8 strength + 50% = 12 strength
Landsknecht: 6 strength + 100% = 12 strength

You can't just arbitrarily subtract the percentages so that the LK is better than the Maceman. For this reason, the Maceman is better than the LK, because simple promotions benefit the Maceman much more.

There simply is no counter for a massive stack of LandsKnecht combined with knights for crossbow/cat protection, and trebuchets for city takin, whereas the counter for a regular army is either crossbows or knights depending on the composition. If you face byzantium (12 str knight + shock) which is likely to be popular, then your army is obsoleted as soon as you build your first maceman. Your going to need alot of Landsknecht to face that, unless you have ivory

A simple and deadly counter: longbows. They have equal strength, but still get the same massive bonuses by defending cities. Macemen get 8 strength when attacking a city, LKs get 6, and the AI loves defending with archery units, especially longbows.

 

[DrLaban]

You can't just subtract the percentages!

Maceman: 8 strength + 50% = 12 strength
Landsknecht: 6 strength + 100% = 12 strength

You can't just arbitrarily subtract the percentages so that the LK is better than the Maceman. For this reason, the Maceman is better than the LK, because simple promotions benefit the Maceman much more.

That's how it's works though, as he described by subtracting percentages. It's nothing arbitrarily about that.

On topic: I noticed when I played HRE that they can expand endlessly. You can have any amount of territory you want and your economy can take it as long as you keep the Rathäuse coming. The traits are pretty bad and the UU is nothing to hang in the christmas tree but the UB is pure power.

 

[Bjorn190]

You can't just subtract the percentages!

Maceman: 8 strength + 50% = 12 strength
Landsknecht: 6 strength + 100% = 12 strength

You can't just arbitrarily subtract the percentages so that the LK is better than the Maceman. For this reason, the Maceman is better than the LK, because simple promotions benefit the Maceman much more.


A simple and deadly counter: longbows.

I reccomend this article about civ4 war mechanics: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/combat_explained.php which states:
"Determine the defender’s bonuses from terrain, general strength bonuses, bonuses vs. the type of the attacking unit, fortification bonuses, etc. Sum those up. Now, subtract any bonuses the attacker might have if it attacks this unit. Those would include attacker bonuses against defender combat type"

So if I read that right, the Landsknecht PWNs the maceman in 1 on 1 combat

As for the longbows.. the landknecht never attack them. The strategy is to use the shield of landsknecht, knights, and longbows to get a bunch of trebuchets to the city being attacked. Those trebuchets then dispose of the nasty longbows..

Usually, at least in multiplayer, the battle is decided on the field. However, for single player I guess macemen are better

 

[jkp1187]

With couple those -75% Rathauses with a religious shrine and a corporation in the Wall Street city, and Charlemagne is a money man. I was running 0% taxes and still raking in a good 60 GPT. Religious Shrine + Sid's Sushi was a wonderful combination. I went crazy spreading my religion all over the world -- and almost cried when someone else beat me to the Apostolic Palace by 5 turns....

Oh, and the HRE's financial advantage is only going to get better when inflation/corporate maintenance is re-adjusted in the forthcoming patch.

Thanks to the techs he starts with, you have a shot at getting a religion right off the bat (which is what I did in my first game.)

I agree that his Imperialist trait is great for early expansion....great for early peaceful expansion. I think that the HRE might suffer in a multiplayer game where, for instance, the opportunity to expand religions/corporations might be limited. Still, the UU is pretty strong.

I think this is a great builder/peaceful expansion civ whose military advantages (UU + protective) make it stronger than appears at first glance.

 

[jkp1187]

As for the longbows.. the landknecht never attack them. The strategy is to use the shield of landsknecht, knights, and longbows to get a bunch of trebuchets to the city being attacked. Those trebuchets then dispose of the nasty longbows..

Just a reminder, though, trebuchet (or any other siege weapon,) can't dispose of any units on the offensive anymore. They can damage, and possibly red-line the units, but you'll still need regular forces to mop up the opposition. So, at some point, you will have to risk your landsknect in offensive combat.

 

[Defiant47]

This... this is madness! You can't do that!

You can't just subtract percentages, because a percentage to someone might be bigger than the percentage to someone else.

Since LK has +100% and MM has +50%, if you subtract 50% from each, LK loses 3 strength, and MM loses 4 strength! That's the most mathematically broken type of combat that I've ever seen!

 

[uberfish]

The best thing about this civ is how ridiculous it looks when the real Romans ask you to declare war on them, or vice versa.

 

[Alternator]

This... this is madness! You can't do that!

You can't just subtract percentages, because a percentage to someone might be bigger than the percentage to someone else.

Since LK has +100% and MM has +50%, if you subtract 50% from each, LK loses 3 strength, and MM loses 4 strength! That's the most mathematically broken type of combat that I've ever seen!

Given that the entire combat system is built around subtracting percentages, why is it broken?

 

[popejubal]

This... this is madness! You can't do that!

You can't just subtract percentages, because a percentage to someone might be bigger than the percentage to someone else.

Since LK has +100% and MM has +50%, if you subtract 50% from each, LK loses 3 strength, and MM loses 4 strength! That's the most mathematically broken type of combat that I've ever seen!

Because adding a percentage and then adding another percentage... and another and another and, and, and...

That's exponential growth. Exponential growth results in degenerate combinations that break the game. Mathematically, if you add 50% to something and then add another 50%, you should end up with

thing x 1.5 x 1.5

In Civ, you end up with

thing x (1 + .5 + .5)

Add all of the percent bonuses together. Then apply that one single percent bonus one time.

The only two things that work differently in Civ are Great Wall + Imperialistic and the commerce bonus for Bureaucracy.

The math is wierd for people who know the "right" way to do it, but it makes for better game balance.

 

[Polycrates]

Just tried it in worldbuilder:

Landsknecht vs macemen, no promos: 69.4%
Both with Combat I: 71.0%
Both with Combat I+Shock: 71.0%

So yeah, landsknechts do very nicely vs maces.

 

[Defiant47]

Because adding a percentage and then adding another percentage... and another and another and, and, and...

That's exponential growth. Exponential growth results in degenerate combinations that break the game. Mathematically, if you add 50% to something and then add another 50%, you should end up with

thing x 1.5 x 1.5

In Civ, you end up with

thing x (1 + .5 + .5)

Add all of the percent bonuses together. Then apply that one single percent bonus one time.

The only two things that work differently in Civ are Great Wall + Imperialistic and the commerce bonus for Bureaucracy.

The math is wierd for people who know the "right" way to do it, but it makes for better game balance.

I know all of that! I'm in a Mathematics program at University, so I should know.

The only thing I have a gripe about is the subtraction of percentages. I can understand and agree that percentages are added (from the respective defensive bonus). However, subtracting percentages from both sides isn't right, because they give different impacts.

50% of LK =/= 50% of MM

So why subtract it?

I always imagined that the combat system always added ALL the percentages up, came up with the final result for each side, ended up with a ratio, and would just scale down the ratio if it's a weird situation.

Maceman: 8 strength + 50% vs. melee units
Therefore a maceman should have 12 strength versus melee units

LK: 6 strength + 100% vs. melee units
Therefore an LK should have 12 strength versus melee units

I think it's preposterous that if MM and LK face off, it's not a 1:1 ratio.

 

[popejubal]

So why subtract it?

I always imagined that the combat system always added ALL the percentages up, came up with the final result for each side, ended up with a ratio, and would just scale down the ratio if it's a weird situation.

Maceman: 8 strength + 50% vs. melee units
Therefore a maceman should have 12 strength versus melee units

LK: 6 strength + 100% vs. melee units
Therefore an LK should have 12 strength versus melee units

I think it's preposterous that if MM and LK face off, it's not a 1:1 ratio.

It wierded me out for a while too, but this is another game balance issue that makes sense to me too. If you are really specialized at doing something, then you should be better at that than a generalist. This makes that happen.

It's certainly weird, but it's consistant with the rest of the game. Add everything up and then apply it once. In this case, it's just that some of the percent changes are positive and some are negative.