How to play Leaders with Protective trait

[karr]

I find protective works well for an active defense. Combined with forts, hills, and archers, protective can greatly damage/eliminate an incoming AI advance before they even get close to your cities. Of course, fewer defenders in a SOD also means more attacking units

 

[Rusty Edge]

The Snug wins at Diety playing protective civs ... He doesn't whip, either.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=280619

 

[Belisar]

When a stack comes, it's probably going to be a lot bigger than one that I can handle in the open field. When this happens, the "active defense" utterly fails - in general, it utterly fails unless your stack is at least almost as big as the enemy stack

I have really no idea if we play the same game, due to the way active defense works (siege, the movement advantage inside your borders, fast mounted flankers, practically no healing for the incoming units while they travel several tiles inside you border, nationhood and/or slavery civic) I can frequently wipe out AI stacks that 1:2 or even 1:3 (in the long run, even higher kill ratios are achieved) outnumber me initially (on immortal) - as said good reconassance is necessary.
On deity, in game-phases where you are not geared up for war, diplo- and espionage manipuation is way stronger than trying to match huge stacks.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I think the fact that AIs at higher levels can be manipulated via diplo removes some of PRO's best functionality. I'm mainly talking about knowing with confidence which AIs cannot declare war on you.

I find that most of the arguments against PRO are AI-dependent. The arguments used to support most other traits are only player-dependent i.e. economy improvements and so forth. PRO is a good trait but unfortunately, it often appears the way the AI behaves makes it less useful to the human player, but particularly useful to the AI player.

I wait for the day that Better AI turns AIs into more capable-warring machines, using collateral appropriately and defending their empires more effectively. Then PRO will become the best player trait.

 

[Belisar]

I find that most of the arguments against PRO are AI-dependent. The arguments used to support most other traits are only player-dependent i.e. economy improvements and so forth. PRO is a good trait but unfortunately, it often appears the way the AI behaves makes it less useful to the human player, but particularly useful to the AI player.

I agree to this, part of why PRO is weak compared to stuff like CHA comes from the fact that the human (ideally) is the active part, expanding by military, basically trying to win the game whereas the AI is there to prevent this, making traits like Pro/Cre/Imp easy-to-use traits for it, basically everything that slows down the human player.

This is also the reason why I think Pro is best used on the offense.
Capture city, bring up CG or Drill defenders (depending on enemy units) and await counter attack. You can afford this since you are in AI lands (or neutral) and thus pillaging is not a factor. Smash it with siege on your turn, mop up with drill and mounted and continue advance.
Of course, the main AI SoD is still best smashed on your turf to avoid WW if you aren't in PS.

 

[AfterShafter]

I have really no idea if we play the same game, due to the way active defense works (siege, the movement advantage inside your borders, fast mounted flankers, practically no healing for the incoming units while they travel several tiles inside you border, nationhood and/or slavery civic) I can frequently wipe out AI stacks that 1:2 or even 1:3 (in the long run, even higher kill ratios are achieved) outnumber me initially (on immortal) - as said good reconassance is necessary.
On deity, in game-phases where you are not geared up for war, diplo- and espionage manipuation is way stronger than trying to match huge stacks.

I'm really not so sure either at this point. 1:3 is a *longshot* with active defense in my experience assuming tech parity (something that can be another longshot on high difficulties). 1:2 is doable, but also questionable especially based on terrain - if your units lose fights, you don't do flanking damage... If the incoming stack is large enough, you need *lot* of siege to churn through all of those units and get it to the point where your knights (probably outnumbered 3 to 1, since a lot of your resources went into producing siege rather than straight up unit killers) are going to be winning/escaping a good numbers of fights. And why am I talking about knights? You'll likely be dealing with a horse archer VS pikemen scenario if you're playing on high difficulties And against a larger stack, there's a good chance you're going to lose a good number of fights as the CPU hops from hill to hill as it often does. Also, those flanking promotions that you're giving knights take away from other promotions you could be getting thus lowering base combat odds, meaning you may be fighting some *very* nasty anti-horse upgraded pikemen which just dwarf your horse/knight odds. And heaven forbid you have a really culturally contested border and don't have room to work all of your hit and run action as they move in on your first few cities.

And that's assuming you even have the ability to flank incoming units. If you've got a handy-dandy stack of knights when the opponent nabs steel, go figure - you can't flank those cannons and your defense becomes a faint prayer for cuirassiers.

Add to this... Small empire with no iron? Tough luck - no knights for you. No horses and you're just hooped from the get-go. What's the contingency plan? Restart and pray for resources? The early part of the game is when it's really tough to secure resources on higher difficulties, and active defenses requires not one but two resources to keep you afloat in the earlyish game.

Protective super units... I probably don't need to slavery - I don't need to keep around a bunch of siege to soften them up AND a bunch of knights to kill them after, so my force will be smaller, and each unit is cheaper. If I do need it, I'll need it less for the cheaper longbows. I do find it ironic that a lot of people worry about pillaging their land with a passive defense, while slavery popping a good portion of their force in a pinch is part of their defense plan with the active defense... With protective, I don't have to worry about resources. I don't have to worry about having enough land to do multiple hits before he reaches my city. I don't need to worry about what terrain they are sitting on (which can be a bummer if you have a lot of hills in your land, and kept forests become a *massive* liability). And even against higher tech opponents... Protective longbows and muskets can hold their own quite effectively (on the defense) against grenadiers and rifles, and pre-cannon siege has to work incredibly hard to do significant damage against them.

So many more hypothetical negative factors plague the active defense than the protective super-unit wall, I think *relying* on a 1:3 kill ratio for an active defense is wildly optimistic. With protective "passive" defense, the only factors that really matter are my upgrades and the terrain I'm on. I can control those a heck of a lot more than the factors weighing against the active knight/siege defense.

I've tried active D quite a few times, and it just seems more costly and less reliable.

Oh, and, just because I'm only talking about pro from a defensive perspective doesn't mean I don't find it offensively viable as well... Actually, I think it's pretty spectacular on offense.

 

[The_Dwarf]

I guess you guys went through all that discussion short after the Warlords Expansion came out. Thanks for pointing me to those threads. I guess I underestimated the power of drill quite a bit. Even though I dont really like to play defensiv Crossbow Archers seem to get very powerful even on offensive wars. So protective trait seems actually fine now to me, if it was stronger it would become very powerful and extremly lame. So im actually glad that is is like it is.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think the fact that AIs at higher levels can be manipulated via diplo removes some of PRO's best functionality. I'm mainly talking about knowing with confidence which AIs cannot declare war on you.

I find that most of the arguments against PRO are AI-dependent. The arguments used to support most other traits are only player-dependent i.e. economy improvements and so forth. PRO is a good trait but unfortunately, it often appears the way the AI behaves makes it less useful to the human player, but particularly useful to the AI player.

I wait for the day that Better AI turns AIs into more capable-warring machines, using collateral appropriately and defending their empires more effectively. Then PRO will become the best player trait.

"siege units" are the best trait. Attacking anybody remotely competent is hell, because they can just about *always* initiate with siege.

With a decent map traits don't really matter anyway. I would sell any trait for a non-boxed in gems + irrigated corn start with China's starting techs. Even FIN, PHI, and so forth. Hell, I'd sell some traits for guaranteed ivory.

IMO PRO is a little on the weak side but all the good deity players have won games at that level with it multiple times. PRO gunpowder is pretty stout and sometimes the earlier stuff isn't totally useless.

 

[Iranon]

Active defense is all good, but it involves expending resources in the form of suicide siege or flankers and can be costly against sufficiently large stacks... a 3:1 kill rate is cold comfort if several dozen units show up (although, thanks to the AIs utter incompetence at tactics, I think a 3:1 kill rate in my own land is actually on the pessimistic side at tech parity).

The AIs rarely bypass obstacles and will happily attack a fort on a hill at the edge of your borders. A guaranteed +25 defense that can't be bombarded away, you get the benefit of City Garrison and, with a few units protected along the Drill line, it's unlikely that attacking siege units will be a major problem.

PRO is a good trait if you declare war for the hell of it - let them throw away their stacks and wreck their tech pace. Maybe that will create a weakness that allows a counterattack, but even if it doesn't... many AIs will exhaust themselves until they are effectively out of the game.
On high levels, I fear peace more than war - it allows the techers to give me a run for my money and the warmongers to build up in peace until they become hard to manage.
AI-AI wars have their own risks (if it's very uneven and I don't have an expeditionary force to raze/seize contested cities, they might create a monster), so having the tools to wear down my neighbours with a moderate initial investment and almost no losses accumulating is very valuable.

I'd take most traits above PRO up to Immortal, but it definitely has its uses. On Deity, I don't mind it at all.

 

[Wizard of Void]

I didn't know that you can draft Mech Inf. If that's the case, I need to try this trait once more.

 

[Molybdeus]

Also, those flanking promotions that you're giving knights take away from other promotions you could be getting thus lowering base combat odds, meaning you may be fighting some *very* nasty anti-horse upgraded pikemen which just dwarf your horse/knight odds.

This is not much of a problem. If your opponent sends a big stack after you, pound them with siege then wipe out the defenders with whatever you have. If the AI is broken up into small stacks overwhelm them. Because the AI is so dumb when it comes to war, the only real danger is getting caught with your pants down and without a reasonable military to defend yourself.

Add to this... Small empire with no iron? Tough luck - no knights for you. No horses and you're just hooped from the get-go. What's the contingency plan? Restart and pray for resources?

In the 1% of games where you don't have either copper, iron or horses you can just use archers and catapults until you get gunpowder. But in the two games I've played like that, I actually used diplomacy to keep the warmongers occupied and did not have to fight until I was ready. Even in those two games I would not have opted to swap my normal traits for protective.

 

[Wizard of Void]

Tried this Qin-Shi-Huang. Conquered two of neighbours with only Cho-Ko-Nus (loving drill IV in here) and Pikemen in medieval war. Difficulty was monarch. I'm usually having really hard time with monarch, but this time it was almost too easy. Eventually I won by cultural victory, because of Pavillions and industrious trait.

 

[Tygari]

I am no where near as good as you guys mew.
I play on easier levels mew.
But my favorite trait is Protective mew.
I often make my primary assault and defensive armies gunpowder units with siege softeners mew.
Works well for me mew.
For now I use Aggressive as my secondary trait but I have considered changing this to Imperialistic mew.
Tokugawa is the leader I like to use with the Celtic Empire mew.
I like to find a nice resource rich place and build a massive military city in it mew.
I then build a Barracks, Dun, Military Academy, Pentagon, Red Cross, and West Point in this city mew.
Set Theocracy and Vassalage Civics mew.
And get 4 Great Generals in the City.
Each Gunpowder Unit comes out with 21 EXP, Combat 1, City Garrison 1, Drill 1, Guerrilla 1 and Medic 1 Free, plus any free promotions given by the unit itself mew.
I use the 5 exp promotions to specialize my gun powder units into different specialties mew. 5 exp promotions is enough to max out city garrison and drill mew.
Imagine Mechanized Infantry with Drill 4 and Woodsman 3 for 5-8 first strike with its 32 strength mew?
And with the Military Academy that means I am pumping out those units pretty darn fast mew.
Unfortunately this setup takes a little bit to set up but I always get the pentagon since I race for it mew.
And of course my military city is just massively protected with tons of units mew.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Wouldn't you be better off with the Heroic Epic in that city, and not the Red Cross? Also, not much point building the pentagon in the city that in the same time could have built 30 units. The pentagon's benefit applies to all cities so you might as well build that in a city that is not specialised for building units, but one with high hammers.

 

[PieceOfMind]

An example of how you can use D4 obsolete units in offensive wars, that popped up in my current game playing as China. (open spoiler box)

Spoiler :

I wondered what the odds would be with a similarly promoted Combat longbow (but still Protective) and also made the comparison with a CR3 mace and C3 mace.

Spoiler :

Obviously the CR3 mace is going to be far and away the best attacking the city, but consider that it is more expensive, only earns 1xp (not 4), can only be used to attack cities (not defend) and has a higher starting base strength.

The point I'm really trying to make here is that I really do mean it when I say units with many first strikes are superior to all others when attacking injured defenders. Here we have a longbow attacking a next-era grenadier, only about half-injured, and it will take away 4xp for a whole 94% odds.

Yes, I agree in this example the siege has done the heavy lifting (as TMIT would phrase it) but I can use a cheap crappy longbow who's only seen one battle so far (another 4xp battle - he started on 9xp and is currently 13 - about to get to 17 for next promo). Fighting battles like these all the time after using siege means you earn great generals faster than the "standard" approach of attacking cities with siege and city raiders or siege and flanking units.

The situation gets even better if I would have decided to use a cho ko nu. Additionally it would cause collateral damage. More than 80% of the time, the cho ko nu would not even take a hit. Compare this with the CR3 mace which would get injured almost half the time.

 

[Tygari]

Wouldn't you be better off with the Heroic Epic in that city, and not the Red Cross? Also, not much point building the pentagon in the city that in the same time could have built 30 units. The pentagon's benefit applies to all cities so you might as well build that in a city that is not specialised for building units, but one with high hammers.

I know mew.
But I don't like having to many cities mew.
And I am a bit paranoid of losing the city with Pentagon in it mew.
I figure the best place to put the Pentagon is in the City that is going to be the most secure mew.
As for the Red Cross vs Heroic Epic I neutrilize this by choosing a palce that is High Resources mew.
Even if your city can produce enough materials to make 2 units in a single turn you will always be restricted to only being able to build 1 unit a turn mew.
I focus the city on production such that it can always produce over 200 hammers a round when constructing gunpowder units mew.
This makes the Heroic Epic Obsolete and useless mew.
Where the Red Cross on the other hand gives a free medic 1 promotion garenting that even if my medic unit gets obliterated by some means that all my units will still at least gain +10% healing a turn no matter what unless thier all annilated in which point healing is a bit pointless mew.
Remember I am a defensive player mew.
I plan to always have my tail handed to me on a silver platter mew.

 

[Molybdeus]

Tried this Qin-Shi-Huang. Conquered two of neighbours with only Cho-Ko-Nus (loving drill IV in here) and Pikemen in medieval war. Difficulty was monarch. I'm usually having really hard time with monarch, but this time it was almost too easy. Eventually I won by cultural victory, because of Pavillions and industrious trait.

I don't see how protective did much for you. The Cho-Ko-Nu -regardless of the protective trait- is great. Mod Qin back to financial/industrious like he was before warlords and you can still dominate medieval warfare with the Cho-Ko-Nu.

 

[Gustavus]

Just like to start out by thanking everyone who emphasized how awesome Drill promotions are in comparison to City Garrison. A few muskets with Drill IV tear the hell out of siege, and make taking cities that much harder. I think I might actually play as the Native Americans for once.
A few questions though. Is there any situation where CG is better than drill? Or perhaps where CG and Drill are better together? In general, should I always promote along the drill line, or if I have muskets as stack defenders, should I mix promotions based on territory? For instance, if I'm running through forests to get to someone, should I promote with one forest promotion, then a drill, or just drill? Same with hills.
On a different note, WTH?

I am no where near as good as you guys mew.
I play on easier levels mew.
But my favorite trait is Protective mew.
I often make my primary assault and defensive armies gunpowder units with siege softeners mew.
Works well for me mew.
For now I use Aggressive as my secondary trait but I have considered changing this to Imperialistic mew.
Tokugawa is the leader I like to use with the Celtic Empire mew.
I like to find a nice resource rich place and build a massive military city in it mew.
I then build a Barracks, Dun, Military Academy, Pentagon, Red Cross, and West Point in this city mew.
Set Theocracy and Vassalage Civics mew.
And get 4 Great Generals in the City.
Each Gunpowder Unit comes out with 21 EXP, Combat 1, City Garrison 1, Drill 1, Guerrilla 1 and Medic 1 Free, plus any free promotions given by the unit itself mew.
I use the 5 exp promotions to specialize my gun powder units into different specialties mew. 5 exp promotions is enough to max out city garrison and drill mew.
Imagine Mechanized Infantry with Drill 4 and Woodsman 3 for 5-8 first strike with its 32 strength mew?
And with the Military Academy that means I am pumping out those units pretty darn fast mew.
Unfortunately this setup takes a little bit to set up but I always get the pentagon since I race for it mew.
And of course my military city is just massively protected with tons of units mew.

"Mew"? Is this a bad attempt at quoting Super Troopers? A troll? Or an OCD impairment?

 

[AfterShafter]

Gustav... A few CG guys are good to keep around so they'll be the ones to step up to the plate when your drill guys are getting hit by first strike immune units. I still build at least 75% drill units, probably more like 90% drill units, but a few CG heavy are good to keep around - also a few combat heavy guys just in case you get caught with your pants down in the field. Terrain situational upgrades are, well, situational - if the terrain calls for it, do it. But, 75%+ of my units end up being drill heavy on average. Moral of the story? A bit of variety can be beneficial, but heavy drill is your beneficial.

As for Molybdeus... I don't have time to formulate a proper response right now. Give me a few days and I'll hop in. Just to give you some heads up though, that 1% number you dropped shows either that you have astronomical luck or you're *hugely* exaggerating. I scarcely go through a game where I don't see some poor Civ that got stiffed for a vital resource... And with some frequency, it's me. When I'm not protective some of the scrambles I am forced to make for iron or horses or copper are just ridiculous - and not always successful... And they are *way* more frequent than 1% of the time. But, in due time - got to have the latter two sections of Caleb Williams read by tomorrow.

 

[Molybdeus]

As for Molybdeus... I don't have time to formulate a proper response right now. Give me a few days and I'll hop in. Just to give you some heads up though, that 1% number you dropped shows either that you have astronomical luck or you're *hugely* exaggerating. I scarcely go through a game where I don't see some poor Civ that got stiffed for a vital resource...

I have probably played over two hundred games over the past few years, and can honestly only recall it happening in two games. You will very frequently miss out on one of the big three (copper/horse/iron) and sometimes two, but it is a very rare game that you will get none of the three if you expand and look for them from the start of the game. If you are not expanding quickly your chance of getting screwed on resources goes up dramatically, of course.

The real problem, though, is that even if I knew I wasn't going to get any of them, I still wouldn't choose protective. One extra first strike chance isn't going to enable archers to consistently beat spearmen and axemen in the field. You are going to have to rely on siege units and diplomacy to win.

The primary justification for protective seems to be that it help you avoid getting DOW'd, but I don't really see how this works better than building melee or mounted units and paying attention to diplomacy. Could someone explain it?