How long can Legionaires go?

[Ericone]

I'm playing the Romans on a small, one contenient map at warlord. When I had about 10 cities and Rome had finished the pyramids, I built up ten Legionnaires, shifted Rome and my other largest city over to doing nothing but producing more of them, and attacked Germany.

I'm not bothering with catapults this game. I'm just building Legionnaires and I'm going to keep building them and keep attacking people until someone stops me. I'm sure someone will. A lot of improvements are not getting made to my civilization while my two biggest, oldest cities are pumping out troops. Eventually, I'm going to run into someone who has had their research staff looking into gun powder, and then I'm going to have to sue for peace in a hurry, but until then I'm going to see how big I can get my empire. Kingdom, actually, since I switched from despotism to monarchy.

Anyway, that's the question: Based on your experiences, how far can get? Can I knock out more than one of the other civilizations?

More stuff that may or may not interest:

When I had to stop this morning, I'd taken five German cities and was moving my stack to attack his last one.

I can't get a leader. Having an army would be really powerful right now.

If I can knock out the Germans, then the Russians are next. They have about eight cities, so I assume my chances of knocking them out before I hit the technology wall are slim, but I'm going to push them back as far as I can. If by some miracle I can take them out, then it will be the Japanese's turn, but I'm expecting the Americans to come attack me long before that. Still, my goal is to have enough land and cities when I buy peace that I can crank production over to culture and commerce and hopefully have enough of both to compete for the win at then of the game. If it doesn't look like that's going to happen, then I'll have to start another war.

Comments?

 

[Mr Spice]

Expansion is a good strategy.

Legionaries are as good as swordsmen offensively, which means they rule the ancient era. Once your opponents get pikemen and knights, they will be in trouble. But using your advantage as long as you have it is always a good thing.

 

[BillChin]

On Warlord difficulty, standard size map, my estimate is that Legionaires are good until around 1250 A. D. This answer will vary greatly depending on difficulty level, size of map and number of opponents.

Legionaires have the same defense and greater attack than Pikemen, but can not be upgraded like Pikemen. It is debatable whether it is still worthwhile to build them after getting Feudalism. At first it seems obvious, but the lack of upgrades for Legionaires is an issue. I think the answer is yes, if a player is at war or plans war any time soon. Otherwise, better to go with units that can be upgraded later. Pikemen have an upgrade path all the way to Mechanized Infantry.

 

[Mr Spice]

Knights are much better than legionaries. If you can build both unit types, the choice is easy. Legionairies also have trouble attacking pikemen in cities. These are two reasons why legionaries get less valuable after the end of the ancient era.

 

[Ericone]

The upgrades is obviously an excellent point, but 3 attack vs. 1. That is a hard trade to make.

But yeah, I should probably mix in some pikes.

The knights are also a good point. In my first game (the romans are my second) I romped over much of Russia with knights. And lost a lot of cannon while I was at it. I really suck at artillery.

 

[Mr Spice]

I did not mean that you should use pikemen for attack instead of your legionaries. For that purpose legionaries are obviously much better. I just meant that when your opponents get pikemen, you will have a hard time trying to take their cities with 3-attack units.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

If I can knock out the Germans, then the Russians are next. They have about eight cities, so I assume my chances of knocking them out before I hit the technology wall are slim, but I'm going to push them back as far as I can. If by some miracle I can take them out, then it will be the Japanese's turn, but I'm expecting the Americans to come attack me long before that.

The Japanese samurai will eat your legionaries for lunch, so I would avoid war with them until you have cavalry. Best of luck with the Russians.

 

[Ericone]

Yeah. This is my second game and I haven't run into Samuria before, so I'd forgotten about them, but they do look nasty. Oh well.

I could turn around and fight the French, but they they'll probably have knights by the time I'm done in Russia. If I get past Russia. Ditto America.

Since I can't upgrade the Legions, I'll let them do all the damage they can and then try to buy peace.

 

[Mr Spice]

Good choice.

When you have a decent army of knights you could try another round of warfare if you feel like it. Remember that alliances are always useful. AI civs fight well against one enemy, but have a hard time against two or more.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

If you go real fast you can sometimes secure an entire continent with Legs. But be sure to mix in a few Horsemen - thy can upgrade to Knights so you won`t have to stop the offensive when you encounter Pikemen. Then you should switch the Legs from attacker to pillager - use them (they`ll probably be elite) in stacks of 3 or 4 to blockade and for pillaging (remeber, if you take the other guys iron - he`s out. then you can use 1 or 2 Knight to hurt/kill his Pikemen and then mop up the Spearmen he hasn`t upgraded with your Legs again.....)


As for Leaders: I noticed (but I may be way off) that O get very few leaders when i use 1 kind of troops only. When i mix in Horsemen with my Legs I get many.... Don`t know why; usually they still all come from Leg fights.....

 

[eyrei]

When I play the Romans, my legions still have some effect even through most of the industrial age. I use them to attack cavalry that the AI sends into my territory. Many times they retreat, and sometimes the cavalry win, but many times the legion kills them. Obviously, I do not build more legions after pikemen and knights are available, but I still find some limited use for them.

 

[BillChin]

I think some players are overlooking the forest for the trees. Legionaires are clearly better than Pikemen, except they lack an upgrade path. They have the same defense, and triple the attack rating. If at war, many units will not survive until upgrade so that is a minor concern. As for Knights, yes they are better, but they cost 70 shields to build. For the cost of three Knights, a player can build seven Legionaires. On most maps, I'll take seven Legionaires.

What I suggest is a mix, maybe 20% Knights, 40% Legionaires, 10% Pikemen, 10% catapults, 20% Longbowmen. So in an attack stack of ten:
2 Knights
4 Legionaires
1 Pikeman
1 Catapult
2 Longbowmen
Two such stacks are a good starting base for an offensive. In the Ancient Age a stack might look like:
2 Horsemen
5 Legionaires
1 Catapult
2 Spearmen

Legionaires and Longbowmen backed by catapults can be more effective than Knights at lower cost. The advantage of Longbowmen is that they are cheap at 40 shields for a 4 attack rating. Again, I expect many of the Legionaires and Longbowmen to be consumed in the war so the lack of upgrade is a minor concern.

For attacking cities bombard with the catapult, send in Longbowmen as the first wave, followed by Legionaires. Catapults are cheap at 20 shields, so in the suggested mix they are only about 3% of overall production. Try not to lose the Knights because of their high replacement cost. Keep them in pairs or with the stack of slower units. Use the catapult to soften up fast units outside of cities and finish them off with Knights. Use the Pikemen to garrison to upgrade later.

Do not fear the Samarai. If your economy is equal or greater on Warlord difficulty you can build three or four Legionaires for every Samarai the Japanese can field. Three to one is great odds with the new fast retreat rules.

Another idea for a player that is at peace and getting tech at a good rate, is to skip Chivalry and make a beeline to Calvary. This gives a player time to build Banks, Cathedrals and Aqueducts to get an economy that can support the building of expensive units.

 

[royfurr]

Overall, BillChen's ideas are very sound. The key is that no one unit does it all. AT A MINIMUM you need bombard units with your offensive units, and you are foolish not to also have defensive units in the stack. You cannot go far wrong if you have the strongest available Offensive/Defensive/Bombard units in the stack. I personally do not worry if I somethimes lack fast units although in 1.16f the retreat ability can really make their use economical, as they die much less often- saving the money of building a replacement. Still, personally, I favor bombard over fast movers. Others will of course disagree with that. Obviously, fast movers can spread out further as pilligers. I'm talking about the schwerpunkt of your advance, though. Fast units to flank, pillage, scout and sometimes kill. Your style may differ!

Don't forget the support units. Settlers to rebuild after the enemy is razed are vital, at a minimum, but I often find an allotment of workers (initially, until you capture some) useful at times, once a stack of 5 knocked out a fast fortress for me and my stack of 9 catapults and 2 swordsmen held against over 10 swordsmen (they attacked across a river, that helped). Does anyone know if bombardment units suffer defensive disadvantage when firing over a river (ie does the defender gets his defensive bonus)? I was a little embarrassed that I didn't have any pikemen in that stack ... they were 4 tiles away.

One bummer- I tried building roads with my own workers across a desert that was in enemy land, to speed the movement of reinforcements and damaged units, yet my troops still moved at the normal rate over the road I'd built, until that area become outside of the enemy boundries. I wish we could use our own constructions. Maybe need a movement limit of 1 tile for a worker to still construct to still construct that turn, when in enemy land- to avoid exploits after you get railroads (using multiple big stacks you could still move RR building along at a good clip).

Remember to combine, esp. adding in bombardment units, and your success will increase.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

BillChin, royfurr:

The one time where there`s no time for combined arms is early ancient, and There Legs are the best kind! Aside from that: I often just forget about bombardment and go in quickly with mounted units, followed by Legs. The other guy is dead before my built up troops are all gone, so I don`t have a problem if I loose many. Can be very effective when the other guy is the last opponent on your continent.....

 

[Ericone]

Hey –

After five days in Florida, I finally got to get back to my game this morning. Played from 640 to 900 A.D. before I had to come to work. BillChin’s original prediction of 1200 for the legionaries is still looking good. Germany is gone and Russia is down to its last two cities. During all the fighting, two Japanese and one American city culture flipped over to my side. No one has attacked me, so I have been free to keep sending all my builds to the Russian front where they have been mostly slaughtering regular spearmen trying to hold the cities. I’ve run into a few swordsman, but never a stack of them.

I am actually taking so few loses that I’ve mostly shifted my cities to building temples, markets, courthouses, and coliseums. I launched one galley to clear up the barbarians, and I’m turning out a few pikemen to take over garrison duty from regular legionaries.

I’ve developed gunpowder and bought chivalry from the Japanese. I can build knights now, but I haven’t yet. I want some culture and some commerce before I start my next war build, by which time I’ll hopefully have found some saltpeter.

Anyway, a couple questions:

People post about pillaging. I never have. I always take and garrison cities and I’ve torn down any improvements either in the cities or in the countryside. I can see the point of depriving the other side of vital resources, but so far I’ve never needed them to be deprived to win, and I like having the improvements there to take over. Am I missing something?

Secondly, and this maybe the answer to the first, am I actually doing well, or is warlord difficulty just so easy that anything I was doing would be getting me about the same results?

Thanks for all the comments,

-- Eric

 

[BillChin]

Pillaging is useful to deny resources, or if you lack enough force to take cities. Resource denial is most important when attacking a more powerful opponent. If you have enough force to take cities, it is better to take the cities and the improvements. Preferrably several cities, relatively quickly.

My opinion is that you are doing well. Some new players have a hard time on Warlord. Warlord is quite a bit easier than Regent or the higher levels, but if you play scatter-brained the AI can beat you. On Chieftain (easiest level), you can get away with almost anything and still win.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Pillaging is especially usefull for depriving your enemy of strategic resources and luxuries. Plus, you can seriously obstruct enemy movement withing their own empire if you take out key roads.

 

[Ericone]

Thanks for the answers. If anything else interesting comes up, I'll post it.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Ericone

People post about pillaging. I never have. I always take and garrison cities and I?ve torn down any improvements either in the cities or in the countryside. I can see the point of depriving the other side of vital resources, but so far I?ve never needed them to be deprived to win, and I like having the improvements there to take over. Am I missing something?

Secondly, and this maybe the answer to the first, am I actually doing well, or is warlord difficulty just so easy that anything I was doing would be getting me about the same results?

-- Eric

as for 1) I will attach an image where you can see where I pillaged a Russian road to Furs. Why??? I have Furs myself, 4 of them so pillaging won`t hurt me once I take the town. Also, the Russians loose one face right now - and that can be a serious disadvantage for them. Remember: civil unrest halts production! Also, they had no chance to hinder me from pillaging since I could easily land from a ship - this way pillaging is fast - and that`s why it`s effective.....

I did the same before - surprise attack, and right away cut their iron. They never even got time to change to swordsmen production. That`s the way to pillage (except for in drawn out wars and stalemates (like when Infantry comes round)

2) Try Regent! This game is. Here you don`t get a bonus, but since you are able to focus your efforts on one goal, then swing round for the next - something the Ai miserably fails at - you should do well there, too.

But warned, Monarch is a lot tougher though!

Have fun!

 

[royfurr]

Hey, Killer!

I noticed some numbers near the center of your screen shot, a little hard to make all of them out, but look like " 752 X ?52" - like coordinates or something.

Know what those are? Is there a way to show a reference pt. to tile location like a coordinate system? IF so, that would be REAL useful to know. I often note down something in a tile and have to reference it relative to the nearest city, counting out vectors from the city to the tile in question. A reference coordinate system would be most convenient.

???

Thanks for any info you might have.