Horsemen/Monarchy Conquest Strategy

[Divaythsarmour]

I read about this strategy in an article and have been testing it out on different tribes in PTW at monarch difficulty small maps. What a blast?

Tech for wheel first and settle near horses ASAP. Tech horseback riding then beeline to monarchy. Build horsemen and occasionally settlers.

I like getting about 5 or 6 good cities going before really beginning the conquest. I try to focus attacks on AI Capitols and cities with higher population. Settle peace for techs and quickly move to the next AI.

Capture workers and build roads from high production core cities to the rapidly changing fronts.

Iroqois are good for this strategy, but Mongols are even better. You'll own most of the world by the time the AI gets pikes. And by then you have knights.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Iroqois are good for this strategy, but Mongols are even better.

Er, what? Why would the Mongols be better? Why would they have any advantage over the Aztecs, Zulus, or the Chinese?

 

[vmxa]

They would not have an advantage over Zulu as both have the same traits and Zulu as Impi. They could be better for the style mentioned as compared to Iroq as Zulu are Military. Aztecs are also Mil and have Jags.

Az may be the best of those for horse rushing as they have a 2 move unit to find neighbors and huts. It would all come down to how you play them.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

Er, what? Why would the Mongols be better? Why would they have any advantage over the Aztecs, Zulus, or the Chinese?

My statment was that I liked the Mongols better than the Iroqois. I haven't tried the Aztecs or Zulus yet. I have tried the Chinese thinking that they might be better than the Mongols.

Here's my thinking about it:

Mongols - The benifit of the Keshik crossing mountains more quickly could be huge (specific to maps). - The Mongol scouts will pop a lot of goodies (nice but not necessarily helpful to an early conquest).

Chinese - I can't recall what the rider's advantages are, but they probably will help somehow. The Chinese workers will definitely build roads quicker to the front lines.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

My statment was that I liked the Mongols better than the Iroqois.

That's not what you *said*, though - you said the Mongols were "better" for the strategy, which would mean that they have some sort of advantage pulling off the rush.

Mongols - The benifit of the Keshik crossing mountains more quickly could be huge (specific to maps). - The Mongol scouts will pop a lot of goodies (nice but not necessarily helpful to an early conquest).

Scouts are available to any Expansionist civ, and the Keshik is a Knight UU - by the time you reach them, the strat's already failed or succeeded.

Chinese - I can't recall what the rider's advantages are, but they probably will help somehow. The Chinese workers will definitely build roads quicker to the front lines.

Again, the Rider's a Knight UU (4/3/3), so it's not terribly important to the strat you've outlined.

My point, though, is that given that the strategy you gave is a Horseman rush, so the civ's UU (unless it's a Horse or one of the Chariots) won't make a whole lot of difference, and it's the civ's ability to work the rush that affects the effectiveness of the strat. The Mongols have no particular advantage (especially given that there are other Mil/Exp civs).

 

[Divaythsarmour]

That's not what you *said*, though - you said the Mongols were "better" for the strategy, which would mean that they have some sort of advantage pulling off the rush.

Sorry but my written words are there for anyone to see. It's one thing for you to misunderstand it at first. I'm suprised after my clarification that you would defend your misperception of it.

Scouts are available to any Expansionist civ

Scouts being "available to any Expansionist civ" has nothing to do with my comparison between the Mongols and the Chinese.

the Keshik is a Knight UU - by the time you reach them, the strat's already failed or succeeded. .

You're entitled to your opinion that the strategy has failed/succeeded by the time of Chivalry. I don't recall having written or even suggested that as part of my criteria. For instance, in Civ 4 people talk about the strategy of a "Quesha Rush." No one would assume that the strategy has failed if you don't conquer the world with Queshas.

I do appreciate your thoughts and opinions. Keep em coming..

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Sorry but my written words are there for anyone to see. It's one thing for you to misunderstand it at first. I'm suprised after my clarification that you would defend your misperception of it.

I'm "defending" my "misperception" because you did not say what you later said you meant. Your original post says:

Iroqois are good for this strategy, but Mongols are even better.

It does not say:

Iroquois are good for this strategy, but I like the Mongols better.

If I say "Spearmen are better than Hoplites," it does not mean that I like Spearmen better than Hoplites, I am saying that Spearmen *are* better than them. You did not post an opinion in the OP, you presented an argument.

Scouts being "available to any Expansionist civ" has nothing to do with my comparison between the Mongols and the Chinese.

Ah, but it does. Scouts being available to any Exp. civ means that any advantage being given to the Mongols is not a particular advantage of theirs - remember, I asked about the Zulus as well, and they are Mil/Exp like the Mongols. Furthermore, while Militaristic does give an advantage, it's not a terribly large one - there isn't a terribly large militaristic difference between using the Mongols or, say, the Americans.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

I'm "defending" my "misperception" because you did not say what you later said you meant.

Wow! Anyone who would resort to a sentence that contorted has probably nursed an argument far past it's natural life expectancy.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

You're entitled to your opinion that the strategy has failed/succeeded by the time of Chivalry. I don't recall having written or even suggested that as part of my criteria. For instance, in Civ 4 people talk about the strategy of a "Quesha Rush." No one would assume that the strategy has failed if you don't conquer the world with Queshas.

As for this .... It does depend on what you plan on the strat being capable of. Typically, rushes are meant to push the enemy(ies) off-balance enough for you to gain a sizeable early-game advantage, and in that case, it's certainly true that 'long-term' rushes can be said to have failed or succeeded by a given point.

However, re-reading your OP gives a different angle - it appears that your strat is really more of an early "Unit X"-spam, and continuing on until you decide to stop. In that case, the unit in question (Horsemen) matters even less - pick a Mil tribe and spam Archers, and you get a similar (if slower, in many cases) style, with the differences that you don't need a Resource (which you may not have), you start with the tech in question (thanks to the trait), and you can start much earlier (which could balance the typically slower movement).

Wow! Anyone who would resort to a sentence that contorted has probably nursed an argument far past it's natural life expectancy.

Oh? The ability to put together a moderately complex sentence is now a sign of grudge-holding? Well, I suppose you should just be glad I didn't use any big words, otherwise you probably wouldn't have understood it (assuming, of course, that you did).

 

[Calis]

I read about this strategy in an article and have been testing it out on different tribes in PTW at monarch difficulty small maps. What a blast?

Tech for wheel first and settle near horses ASAP. Tech horseback riding then beeline to monarchy. Build horsemen and occasionally settlers.

I like getting about 5 or 6 good cities going before really beginning the conquest. I try to focus attacks on AI Capitols and cities with higher population. Settle peace for techs and quickly move to the next AI.

Capture workers and build roads from high production core cities to the rapidly changing fronts.

Iroqois are good for this strategy, but Mongols are even better. You'll own most of the world by the time the AI gets pikes. And by then you have knights.

For this, you'll most naturally pick the Celts, or the Iroquios. Up to Emperor, you won't reach knights (or their replacements). You do not even have to change government to reach this.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

Oh? The ability to put together a moderately complex sentence is now a sign of grudge-holding? Well, I suppose you should just be glad I didn't use any big words, otherwise you probably wouldn't have understood it (assuming, of course, that you did).

I shudder at the thought of your "big words."

So anyway I had a real good start with the Chinese last night and chose to quit around 100 AD. I know that technically speaking (stat wise) the Chinese horseman and the Mongol horseman are the same. But somehow the Chinese horsemen just didn't perform as well as the Mongol did. I know it's just a feeling and not a fact. I'll attribute it to my high regard for the awesome real life Mongols who conquered most of Asia.

 

[Raliuven]

I think the deciding factor, IMO is the timing of the UU. The MW can be used for most of the AA during a time when the best available defender is 2 (against an attack of a 3). By the time that the Keshik are available, pikes will be around (maybe not on lower levels). The Keshik will be around until Cavalry and will need to face pikes (defense 3 against attack of 4) and later muskets (defense of 4 against attack of 4). To me the movement is of little value if you plan your invasion well. It has situational uses, and 10 shields cheaper, but that does not make up for the fact that it suffers a defense penalty of 1 (compared to knights).

If you go the same route with the MW - which is available an entire age early - and upgrade to knights, you almost eliminate any advantage the Mongols may have gained. And if I have to pick traits, the last ones I want are militaristic and expansionist (they have their place individually but I think there are others that are much better and I don't like that combination period).

 

[Divaythsarmour]

And if I have to pick traits, the last ones I want are militaristic and expansionist (they have their place individually but I think there are others that are much better and I don't like that combination period).

For most of the years I've been playing this game, I wouldn't have chosen those traits either. But at Monarch level I completely fail using a science or commerce type strategy. The only way I can win a game is to damage all the AI before they grow too big. I realize it's a pretty narrow way of playing.

I like to play PTW because I can use a GL to either form an army or build a wonder in a single turn. Militaristic is an advantage toward that outcome. I've come to appreciate expansionist as Iimmeidately get the lay of the land and can quickly reach my goal of establishing monarchy either directly or indirectly by popping free techs from the huts.

I had a slower start when trying this approach with the Chinese. I also lost a ton of horsemen to the AI spearmen. I liked the chinese workers and could very quickly gain road access to any areas that I conquered and was in the process of conquering. I even got the Great Library from the AI. But I wasn't happy with the performance of the Chinese Horsemen. It was probably "luck of the draw." I also didn't receive many promotions to Elite and no great leaders after taking a half dozen AI cities. Sometimes that happens.

 

[Spoonwood]

Iroqois are good for this strategy, but Mongols are even better.

I have to agree that this has the form of an argument.

 

[darski]

This (op) sounds suspiciously like the Iro Domination Strategy which actually is a Rush to the finish.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

This (op) sounds suspiciously like the Iro Domination Strategy which actually is a Rush to the finish.

Yes, that's the article that I read. It's a great idea and the Ringo Kid deserves the credit for coming up with it. I think it's an excellent strategy and it's fun.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

I have to agree that this has the form of an argument.

If anyone wants to argue that the failure to properly distinguish an opinion from an argument provides ample license for someone to make a written conclusion/inference about what I was communicating in my thread without me having expressly written it than I'm up for it.

It's kind of a shame that the thread went so far down that road. But Chaosarbiter did give me the idea of testing the strategy of the Aztecs, Zulus and the Chinese. I'm more interested in the drama that happens when I'm playing Civ 3, then the drama that happened on this thread.

 

[Raliuven]

If anyone wants to argue that the failure to properly distinguish an opinion from an argument provides ample license for someone to make a written conclusion/inference about what I was communicating in my thread without me having expressly written it than I'm up for it.

It's kind of a shame that the thread went so far down that road. But Chaosarbiter did give me the idea of testing the strategy of the Aztecs, Zulus and the Chinese. I'm more interested in the drama that happens when I'm playing Civ 3, then the drama that happened on this thread.

I'm a little confused. Are you going to open a new thread so we can do that or should we just continue with that here?

 

[Spoonwood]

If anyone wants to argue that the failure to properly distinguish an opinion from an argument...

See, but he probably can distinguish an opinion from an argument. What you originally said though didn't have an indication of it as an opinion. It only had indications of it as an argument. I simply don't understand why you didn't say "sorry, I meant..." But instead you've made it seem as if he misunderstood what you wrote. Thing comes as, he didn't. He misunderstood what you meant, sure. But what you wrote, was NOT consistent with what you meant, so you can't reasonbly hold him accountable for that.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

I'm a little confused. Are you going to open a new thread so we can do that or should we just continue with that here?

I suppose that analysis of a strategy in a game with finite variables is less alluring than the infinite possibilities of human interaction. As I wrote before "I'm up for it."

BTW - I liked you analysis of Iroq MW vs. Mongol horsemen both upgrading to knights earlier in the thread.