How to play Leaders with Protective trait

[Jabarto]

Is it so important that everyone believes it's really just a terrible trait...

Yes, it is, because maybe then Firaxis will make it stronger and then we Pro fans will be reveling in newfound power.

 

[AfterShafter]

Yes, it is, because maybe then Firaxis will make it stronger and then we Pro fans will be reveling in newfound power.

Ha ha, you know, I'd never thought of it that way...

 

[PieceOfMind]

Emperor on continents at either epic or normal speed. I fully admit that deity players may find my opinions inapplicable to their games.

I play Emperor usually as well. I am not entirely sure but I think on Continents maps the strategic resources are a little more abundant than on Tectonics, which could explain why it's almost 100% of games you get at least one. Also, for memory continents maps can be a bit more squarish which might make a difference.

This is probably the fundamental difference between those who like protective and those that don't. If I get horses but not iron or copper near my BFC that's fine, because my nearest opponents will be dead before they can attack me anyway. (Unless one of them is Mansa Musa, but I can deal with him later once I get catapults.)

Well it's just the way I prefer to play, at least at this level. At higher levels I would probably not hesitate to take advantage of an early rush.

While I don't think that people who don't axe rush are bad players, I do think that early rushing is the strongest strategy on any level other than deity.

Exactly. I think using axes to obtain a 2nd capital-grade city so early in the game is a strong strategy at most levels and I prefer to not take so easy an approach each game. After all, I don't play for high scores.

The argument is that it boosts your power graph and thus helps stop the AI from attacking you. A couple of posts talking about this:

Bandobras Took is actually right. Protective does have a hammer-efficient means of bumping the power graph without adding troop maintenance (building walls and castles). This quotation from him doesn't say it will prevent a DoW.

Wodan's quote is correct as well. The walls and castles do impact the power graph. Keep in mind that having a castle and wall is cheaper than having a library for PRO leaders, and you can always view the power-boost as a small added bonus on top of the economic bonuses of the castle.

So they are arguing indirectly that it helps avoiding a DoW, and that is true. But as someone else pointed out, it's definitely not usually the main justification for PRO. Some players mention it in passing as something that is sometimes forgotten, as Wodan and Bandobras did.

I can find more posts, but those were the two I remembered. Though I'm still not certain what Bandobras Took meant by "without having to pay troop maintenance" since you do have to pay support costs for archers.

He was talking about walls and castles.

 

[PieceOfMind]

As far as I can tell, if I play a PRO leader and can make it to Feudalism and can build longbows, I will not lose the game (though I might not win), whatever the difficulty. With deity possibly the only exception (I haven't played many deity games to completion)... what I mean is that with such strong defenders and with the human player's inherent greater tactical ability, it would be difficult to lose a huge amount of ground in a defensive war. Cities can always be built on hills , especially in multiplayer.

When playing at difficulties where the AI cannot even challenge you in 90% of games, PRO is likely to have little practical use. But when you play at a level where you don't enjoy the advantages over the AI you usually get (like a tech edge) Protective starts to sound a lot better both on paper and in practice.

Most people who don't like Protective pretty much argue that greater advantage can be derived from improving the econ-side of your game and leveraging a tech edge. But PRO is probably the best trait for those situations where you have to go to war with someone more advanced. Personally, I give just as much attention to warfare as I do to economy and it's not unusual for me to look closely at even individual battles. To really enjoy Protective one has to (IMO) be prepared to micro individual combats in the game. One example of a reason I do this is to maximise my xp-gathering. Using just the right drill unit after siege attacks can make getting GGs a bit faster, multiplying the advantage when you can settle them in the Military city. Having D1 free on so many units means Protective players will usually have higher promoted units - even those that don't get the free promos, because those GGs are coming sooner. I would estimate the greater GG rate to be about 40% over normal. And unlike the bonus from IMP, this bonus would multiply out with the the actual gg-point boosters like the great wall.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Exactly. I think using axes to obtain a 2nd capital-grade city so early in the game is a strong strategy at most levels and I prefer to not take so easy an approach each game. After all, I don't play for high scores.

Creating a stronger AI by giving it more land along with yourself can be dangerous. Sometimes it's better to expand into your own (better) land and strike later after tech trades. This isn't just imm/deity experience talking, but lower levels as well. If you're playing for HoF scores you're going to roll starts that let you rush w/o major consequences. On random maps, however, it's folly to assume that an axe rush (assuming you even get copper) is the best approach every time you can do it.

So they are arguing indirectly that it helps avoiding a DoW, and that is true.

Not on any level monarch+ it doesn't, because you won't get the necessary power without playing excessively poorly on purpose or rushing out tons of land (where again you're probably not using archers then...). Show me emp+ games where the human can get 150% of the average AI's power (barring ones he's killed), and I'll buy PRO as a meaningful "war deterrent". Otherwise, that argument is baseless (except on difficulties where everyone is already saying PRO doesn't shine).

As far as I can tell, if I play a PRO leader and can make it to Feudalism and can build longbows, I will not lose the game (though I might not win), whatever the difficulty.

You know, technically if someone else secures a victory condition, you lose . It's a good point about PRO longbows on defense though...on a hammer-for-hammer basis it is absolutely RIDICULOUS to cut through them. We're lucky the AI doesn't do garbage like we do or it would be almost impossible. Imagine if a PRO AI on emp+ moved all of its garrison longbows into the city you're attacking! Try to kill 15 longbows in 1 city! You'd need a lot of lost trebs...when used by the human against AIs that underbuild siege (virtually all of them), you can really get them to "throw away their bonuses" as Iranon puts it.

When playing at difficulties where the AI cannot even challenge you in 90% of games, PRO is likely to have little practical use. But when you play at a level where you don't enjoy the advantages over the AI you usually get (like a tech edge) Protective starts to sound a lot better both on paper and in practice.

PRO can cover weaknesses in play, but a lot of other traits can do so more effectively. No trait is needed in games where the AI isn't challenging (I could blow out monarch w/o traits every time, and almost every time on emperor). PRO isn't useless but I'd rather have a lot of other traits in its stead.

 

[Ghpstage]

Couldn't the walls power argument backfire too? I mean personally I gauge whether I can defend myself against a rival by my standing in the power graph, if walls and castles pollute the graph I would probably greatly overestimate my military

 

[PieceOfMind]

Creating a stronger AI by giving it more land along with yourself can be dangerous. Sometimes it's better to expand into your own (better) land and strike later after tech trades. This isn't just imm/deity experience talking, but lower levels as well. If you're playing for HoF scores you're going to roll starts that let you rush w/o major consequences. On random maps, however, it's folly to assume that an axe rush (assuming you even get copper) is the best approach every time you can do it.

IMO, at difficulties Monarch and below, and possibly even Emperor, having better cities yourself is a more important consideration than having the AIs relatively balanced, especially when we are talking about a capital location.

Yes, well the fact that the rush is a gamble so early in the game only contributes toward my dislike of the strat. Convincing me that there are many situations where a rush is suboptimal isn't going to make me speak any more highly of it. I still think it's cheesy even if it can be argued as a relatively "fair" gamble.

Not on any level monarch+ it doesn't, because you won't get the necessary power without playing excessively poorly on purpose or rushing out tons of land (where again you're probably not using archers then...). Show me emp+ games where the human can get 150% of the average AI's power (barring ones he's killed), and I'll buy PRO as a meaningful "war deterrent". Otherwise, that argument is baseless (except on difficulties where everyone is already saying PRO doesn't shine).

If the power of vassals factors into it, I'm pretty sure I can show you an Emp game where I have at times been over this threshold for some of the rival AIs.

I assume by "playing excessively poorly on purpose" you mean not following the "optimal" play style of researching through to Liberalism etc. It almost comes off as arrogant saying that. I don't play badly on purpose (though I may play badly) and I am fairly certain it is very possible to reach 1.5 times the power of AIs. And if one has 1.5 times the power of an AI, how is that poor? Wouldn't being so powerful be a strong position?

When you say 1.5 times the average power of AIs, do you mean 1.5 times the power of of each Ai on a case by case basis, or 1.5 times the average power of all AIs? Isn't the 1.5 reduced for some leaders (multiplied by 90% or lower), in which case it does not have to be 1.5 times for every AI - just some of the AIs. For other AIs it will be a lower threshold necessary. I've seen DanF's post but I didn't see anything saying 1.5 times the power of the average AI as being the only thing that mattered.

You know, technically if someone else secures a victory condition, you lose .

I knew someone would say this, but you know what I meant. I thought I already made it pretty clear when I said "though I may not win". Besides, by preventing AIs from space wins by espionage abuse, and being able to raze just a single city to stop them from winning by culture, time victory is about the only way they could possibly win in many games.

It's a good point about PRO longbows on defense though...on a hammer-for-hammer basis it is absolutely RIDICULOUS to cut through them. We're lucky the AI doesn't do garbage like we do or it would be almost impossible. Imagine if a PRO AI on emp+ moved all of its garrison longbows into the city you're attacking! Try to kill 15 longbows in 1 city! You'd need a lot of lost trebs...when used by the human against AIs that underbuild siege (virtually all of them), you can really get them to "throw away their bonuses" as Iranon puts it.

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the word "difficulty" because I meant to be talking about MP as well. Making it to longbows in MP as a protective leader almost guarantees your long-terms survival as a player in the game. It would take a very powerful player or coalition to wipe out a PRO player who has longbows scattered around, especially in hill cities.

PRO can cover weaknesses in play, but a lot of other traits can do so more effectively. No trait is needed in games where the AI isn't challenging (I could blow out monarch w/o traits every time, and almost every time on emperor). PRO isn't useless but I'd rather have a lot of other traits in its stead.

Most people who don't like Protective pretty much argue that greater advantage can be derived from improving the econ-side of your game and leveraging a tech edge. But PRO is probably the best trait for those situations where you have to go to war with someone more advanced. Personally, I give just as much attention to warfare as I do to economy and it's not unusual for me to look closely at even individual battles.

Any trait can cover weaknesses in play. I'm trying hard to assume you are not making subtle implications here because it sounds like you are saying people who can make use of the PRO trait moreso than other traits can only make use of it because their play is somehow inferior (but I don't want to put words in your mouth - I know this is not quite what you are saying). No player is perfect obviously. I could equally say that economic traits can hide weaknesses in play as well, because with enough attention, wars can be fought very successfully from a power-disadvantage and tech-disadvantage. From my point of view, over-reliance on economic traits can suggest weaknesses in the military play.

 

[PieceOfMind]

By the way, with the 1.5* power of AI thing, isn't it less for distant AIs? The values for iMaxWarDistantPowerRatio seem to more often be around the 60 mark. Unless you think nearby AIs are the only ones who can DoW you, how can you say that having a power ratio of 1.5 of all AIs is the only way to reduce the chance of a DoW?

Or am I greatly misunderstanding the mechanics here?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

IMO, at difficulties Monarch and below, and possibly even Emperor, having better cities yourself is a more important consideration than having the AIs relatively balanced, especially when we are talking about a capital location.

IMO, that's true only for the people who are playing down. If monarch is someone's true level, a big AI is still problematic.

By the way, with the 1.5* power of AI thing, isn't it less for distant AIs? The values for iMaxWarDistantPowerRatio seem to more often be around the 60 mark. Unless you think nearby AIs are the only ones who can DoW you, how can you say that having a power ratio of 1.5 of all AIs is the only way to reduce the chance of a DoW?

I'll clarify a bit because I definitely wasn't clear before. It's on an AI to AI basis. However, the AIs who are actually going to declare and do anything of threatening substance are the ones with higher unitprobs that will declare on people markedly stronger than them. There are exceptions in the XML but as a rule that's how it goes. Also, when I refer to deterring a DoW as being impossible from power, I am specifically referring to to the pre 1 AD and on higher levels up through 1000 AD time periods. If you're capturing land during these time periods, you're not "leveraging protective to deter war". You're "leveraging protective to CAUSE war", which is fine, but it doesn't refute my point . Keep in mind that if you're at war, you're a sitting duck for war checks, since anybody who would declare on you will count your target's power as part of their own for war checks. However, that's also true of the target, so if they like them less a dogpile on your target is quite likely.

Any trait can cover weaknesses in play. I'm trying hard to assume you are not making subtle implications here because it sounds like you are saying people who can make use of the PRO trait moreso than other traits can only make use of it because their play is somehow inferior (but I don't want to put words in your mouth - I know this is not quite what you are saying). No player is perfect obviously. I could equally say that economic traits can hide weaknesses in play as well, because with enough attention, wars can be fought very successfully from a power-disadvantage and tech-disadvantage. From my point of view, over-reliance on economic traits can suggest weaknesses in the military play.

I'm saying that any reliance on traits covers weakness in play . I've fought the wars you describe and won (one of my favorite very high level wins was using prats, catapults, and war elephants in the 1700's AD to polish off domination...). Some traits cover similar weaknesses, others don't. IMO PRO works best for tactical warmongers and people who don't know diplomacy (or just get supremely unlucky...it happens sometimes in the RNG where the AI had a huge chance to DoW someone else but goes you). Things like AGG can do similarly, while you get philosophy to address the oft-woeful GPP production (one of my weakness often and one for many, many players other than me), or CHA to cover early happiness (for those who over-rely on pyramids or a non-monarchy tech path early).

In sum, though, PRO's advantages feel weaker. Especially if the player self-nerfs himself by avoiding something "cheesy" (PRO could benefit an axe-rush if the next AI declares while still trying to recover, for example, but that benefit would be forfeit if you didn't do it, or wall chops/chokes). Also you say it's better when backwards, but I feel the opposite is true - siege + drill gunpowder can and will just cut swaths through AI territory.

I know you talk up the longbow, but AFAIK part of the reason you tend to do that is because the use of longbows as a versatile attack troop is more novel. Longbows are not better attack units for their era nor are they more versatile than rifles or infantry (which are godly attack units with a tech lead that fully benefit from PRO on both attack and defense when capturing cities, and are still useful at parity). Draft PRO rifles are pretty scary because they reinforce captured cities so easily (there's nothing the AI can build even @ parity that could take down an unfortified draft rifle in a city with favorable odds, that's kind of interesting).

A tech edge isn't the only way but it's a very favored method against the AI because it offsets their hammer advantage. I'm sure you know why the lib path is so favored in SP. If the AI ever pulls its head out of its rear and goes for something other than engineering/guilds ASAP every game, then maybe EDU/Lib wouldn't be such excessively strong trade bait.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I know you talk up the longbow, but AFAIK part of the reason you tend to do that is because the use of longbows as a versatile attack troop is more novel. Longbows are not better attack units for their era nor are they more versatile than rifles or infantry (which are godly attack units with a tech lead that fully benefit from PRO on both attack and defense when capturing cities, and are still useful at parity). Draft PRO rifles are pretty scary because they reinforce captured cities so easily (there's nothing the AI can build even @ parity that could take down an unfortified draft rifle in a city with favorable odds, that's kind of interesting).

Just for the record, I talk up the longbow in examples where I want to demonstrate that even units that are typically considered purely defensive can be used in attacking roles. I don't pretend they are the best attackers, just that they can be used as attackers if necessary i.e. if short on maces etc. Clearly since they get situational defense bonuses using them for defensive roles will often be the easiest way to use them. But as you say, the gunpowder PRO units are where it's at. It's just that recently my decisive wars seem to have been fought before gunpowder so I have been finding examples left right and centre of longbows being useful in city attacks. As far as I'm concerned, any unit with access to the PRO promotions is a handy city attacker, except for archers, and I tend to like musketmen a lot less than most for some reason.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I actually find a lot of people dislike muskets...and feel somewhat alone in my liking them .

Of course we're barring the exceptional UUs here (musketeer is ok IMO, but jans and oromos are crazy). Stock muskets are best as a general-purpose attacker, stack defense, and city garrison. The two uses I get the most with muskets are 1) cannon cover and 2) drafting

Cannon cover muskets get 2 promos available to them. On defensive terrain, they substitute as superior defenders vs virtually anything ---> a guerrilla II or woodsman II musket on their terrain is scary (guerrilla II muskets on hills are better than pikes, and substitute well when moved into hill cities as defenders). Of course, protective and its CG III off 2 promos make for some pretty stout defenders in all cities.

Drafted muskets are just collateral and garrison fodder. But, they can be an important part of a late medieval war, a cannon push, or one of those mounted-exclusive blitz attacks using siege (combines well with nationhood and spy missions to drop defenses, draft muskets and leave them behind instead of the cuirassers). Sometimes the attack window that opens up allows muskets to be useful.

They can be pretty scary on slower speeds too, since they beat ALL previous units in the field except knights, and knights get no defensive bonuses so a tiny bit of collateral screws things up. Also, almost everything they'll face won't have a counter-promo to them.

I still feel that longbows used as attackers w/ PRO should do it ASAP, aka definitely before engineering and preferably before the target has maces. Protective drill longbows with cats are pretty good, weaker than swords against non-axes but since they don't have a counter other than a bad unit to stick in a city as garrison (horse archers) and take less damage, they're viable thanks to needing to leave less of them behind and having to worry less about unit distribution.

In large stacks later in the game, unit specialization is less of a problem. However early on, stack sizes are often small enough that adding some pure city defense, pure city attack, or pure anti-mounted stack defense (you'll probably still want 1-2 spears to stick with the stack, but now don't have toe leave them in cities) can mean a pretty tiresome/limited stack because you wind up with like 2-3 of everything if you try to balance it . I hate leaving melee or few archers in garrison because a HA comes and snipes them (then the city whips more archers ), but it's a pain to leave axe/spear everywhere. Longbows do fit the bill there, but later on stacks are bigger and they are sort of relegated to their defensive role again.

Part of me hates them though, for the simple fact that I have to kill more of them than any other unit...!

 

[Iranon]

I don't really see the time pressure; Longbows and Trebuchets will do just fine. Trebuchets to take cities, Longbows as solid defenders against any unit. Throw in a pikeman or two (while longbows hold their own, I want a dedicated counter to mounted units to cut down attrition by flanking. The same is not needed for melee).

Not needing to specialise as much leads to a higher siege-to-cleanup ratio... and the stack is excellent at taking advantage of meat grinders of either kind: Impregnable hill fortresses where our longbows will be nigh-unkillable and shot-to-hell cities where our CR trebuchets will inflict collateral hell on the opponent's stack.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Oh. I just remembered why I dislike muskets but like longbowmen. Muskets don't get a free first strike, but longbows do!

Of course, I like units that start with 2 or 1-2 first strikes even better! (cho ko nus, oromos (start with 1 first strike unlike muskets and musketeers), skirmishers, samurai etc.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't really see the time pressure; Longbows and Trebuchets will do just fine. Trebuchets to take cities, Longbows as solid defenders against any unit. Throw in a pikeman or two (while longbows hold their own, I want a dedicated counter to mounted units to cut down attrition by flanking. The same is not needed for melee).

Not needing to specialise as much leads to a higher siege-to-cleanup ratio... and the stack is excellent at taking advantage of meat grinders of either kind: Impregnable hill fortresses where our longbows will be nigh-unkillable and shot-to-hell cities where our CR trebuchets will inflict collateral hell on the opponent's stack.

I'm assuming you still have some maces of your own? Or do you just go with MASSED longbows/trebs/couple pikes and stick mostly to defensive terrain and cities?

Oh. I just remembered why I dislike muskets but like longbowmen. Muskets don't get a free first strike, but longbows do!

I'll take the equivalent of combat V over a first strike . Muskets have 50% more base strength after all, although they don't get the same bonuses they're still stronger overall than longbows.

Longbows might be more hammer efficient, though, with the very notable exception of the draft (a very, very favorable food:hammer conversion) since the hammer cost of muskets is somewhat moot.

 

[fantsu]

Tokugawa's gunpowder units are nice.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'll take the equivalent of combat V over a first strike . Muskets have 50% more base strength after all, although they don't get the same bonuses they're still stronger overall than longbows.

lol obviously. If you were going to give me a longbow or musket I'd take the musket, but if I could only build one type it'd be the longbow! Even hammer for hammer, I might prefer 5 muskets to 8 longbows (same cost) with my siege stack, but really I'd probably prefer mostly longbows with a few muskets as well for the tougher enemies. The fact the longbow is both weaker and gets the first strike makes it the superior (IMO) mop up unit until you start attacking units with base strength more than about 12. Even then I'd probably still prefer several cheap D4 units over the stronger muskets. After all, if I use enough siege it doesn't matter which units do the follow up, so I might as well rake out the xp and promotions onto longbows for later upgrading to rifles etc.

Longbows might be more hammer efficient, though, with the very notable exception of the draft (a very, very favorable food:hammer conversion) since the hammer cost of muskets is somewhat moot.

Yes, muskets are better for drafting, but I rarely see a point in a game where I can draft longbows. In my recent game I was drafting macemen before I could build muskets but not longbows.


***********

By the way, in my current game I've managed to get 4 MIs in my military city with West Point and running Theocracy. I'm buidling grenadiers with a Protective leader, and straight away upgrading them to machine gunners. These machine gunners can be either D4/CG2 or D3/CG3. If I wanted I could pop a few D2/Formation/CG1/Pinch in there as well, to really cover all bases!

 

[Iranon]

@ TMIT: I'd probably have a token Macemen in my stack for the off chance the AI tries something incredibly silly like attack with Pikes. I'd need a specific reason for more, like going up against Praetorians: those warrant a counter and Maces work better than PRO crossbows (crossbows don't really counter Praets; Axes do better on a per-hammer basis).

I generally find Macemen a unit that looks much better on paper than it is in practice... the medieval period simply has less need of a solid generalist from my experience. what exactly do they shine at?
Fend of siege on non-hilly terrain, cleaning up in the closing stage of a siege with 99% rather than 98% odds, attack stacks in the field where their better odds for survival outweigh the collateral damage of catapults, take cities only defended by a few non-Macemen melee units (??) more efficiently than Trebs...
All of these are niche roles that I can live without at this time of the game. I'd rather diversify my longbows with different promotion trees.

 

[UncleJJ]

I actually find a lot of people dislike muskets...and feel somewhat alone in my liking them .

Of course we're barring the exceptional UUs here (musketeer is ok IMO, but jans and oromos are crazy). Stock muskets are best as a general-purpose attacker, stack defense, and city garrison. The two uses I get the most with muskets are 1) cannon cover and 2) drafting

Cannon cover muskets get 2 promos available to them. On defensive terrain, they substitute as superior defenders vs virtually anything ---> a guerrilla II or woodsman II musket on their terrain is scary (guerrilla II muskets on hills are better than pikes, and substitute well when moved into hill cities as defenders). Of course, protective and its CG III off 2 promos make for some pretty stout defenders in all cities.

Drafted muskets are just collateral and garrison fodder. But, they can be an important part of a late medieval war, a cannon push, or one of those mounted-exclusive blitz attacks using siege (combines well with nationhood and spy missions to drop defenses, draft muskets and leave them behind instead of the cuirassers). Sometimes the attack window that opens up allows muskets to be useful.

They can be pretty scary on slower speeds too, since they beat ALL previous units in the field except knights, and knights get no defensive bonuses so a tiny bit of collateral screws things up. Also, almost everything they'll face won't have a counter-promo to them.

I still feel that longbows used as attackers w/ PRO should do it ASAP, aka definitely before engineering and preferably before the target has maces. Protective drill longbows with cats are pretty good, weaker than swords against non-axes but since they don't have a counter other than a bad unit to stick in a city as garrison (horse archers) and take less damage, they're viable thanks to needing to leave less of them behind and having to worry less about unit distribution.

You are far from alone in liking muskets, I have long been an advocate of using muskets. I have advocated an immediate switch to Nationhood and drafting muskets rather than waiting for Rifling. Muskets are perfectly adequate attacking troops when combined with cannons and also provide stack protection and city garrisons. The key to using muskets is to draft them and not build or whip them. They are expensive at 80 hammers when compared to a mace at 70 which is a superior attacker with CR promotions and a longbow is a more cost effective defender at only 50 hammers. But done correctly a draft musket only costs 1 pop which is only worth 30 hammers or 37 with a forge. Draft muskets are cost effective and versatile.

I would go further and suggest that of the non UU muskets Protective ones are the best, being superior to Aggressive when drafted. This is why I think that many players underestimate the attacking potential of a Protective civ, they don't appreciate what can be achived early in the game with just muskets and cannons (and a few supporting troops). Waiting until rifles are available although they obviously are an appreciable increase in attacking power is a missed opportunity.

I frequently advocate this research path but it is even more worthwhile with a Protective civ. After picking up the economic techs Currency and Col and the military tech Construction I'll often bypass middle age technology and beeline to Liberalism and take Nationhood. Even if the race is not tight I do not hold off and try to get a "better" free tech. If you're a Protective warmonger the key tech is Nationhood and you want it quick. Then research Gunpowder and trade for middle age techs including Engineering and Theocracy. Switch to Nationhood, Slavery and Theocracy, then build trebuchets and a few pikes and maces and Draft muskets. Meanwhile research Chemistry and Steel. If the enemy is weak you can attack with trebuchets and muskets, but if he's strong just wait until Steel and upgrade the pre-built trebuchets to cannons. That should be more than enough to tackle any force until rifles are common although cuirassiers can be tough to deal with in the field as they can flank the cannons.

Then after a brief detour to Military Science for grenadiers and MAs I'll reserach towards Rifling. Unless Spiritual I'll stay in Nationhood the whole period drafting slowly each 10 turn (30 turns on marathon). A golden age might be another reason for a brief civics switch but it would be back to Nationhood afterwards. That means when Rifling is researched the draft just gives improved troops. I often find that a few of my draft muskets are so well promoted (eg. Guerilla 3) that they're worth upgrading to rifles along with the CR3 maces.

Protective is an excellent warmongering trait in the gunpowder age so it makes sense get there as quickly as possible, hence the research path outlined above. The 2 free promotions are worthwhile on muskets, rifles and infantry and drafting is the key to leveraging Protective. The gunpowder troops provide the basis of the army and seige provides firepower with cannons and artillery able to break the enemy's main army with collateral damage and the reduce defences and weaken defenders of his cities afterwards. It is a very powerful and evolving combination that covers most of the renaissance and industrial ages that can do all jobs required of a military even if a little slowly. But if the task is started early there is enough time to win more quickly than waiting for a faster method (e.g. cavalry rush or tanks) to be researched and army built up.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, the draft really helps the muskets shine. Sure, people can say "cannons are doing all the work", but that's not really true. Cannons DO cut down defenses and badly damage the city defenders, but you still need enough units to 1) secure the city and 2) keep the stack viable from counter-attackers. Hammers are finite and in this time period i'd prefer to be BUILDING the siege.

In this sense, I agree that PRO is better here than AGG. You want the muskets to perform their DEFENSIVE role as a priority, and draft PRO muskets still can get CG II - enough to hold off even rifles once fortified for 5 turns.

@ PoM:

One of the things that makes hitting with a tech lead more likely, even on higher levels, is planning ahead. Say you unlock heroic epic, and decide to go down the steel line. If you build cats, then trebs, in the HE city, then upgrade them to cannons @ steel, you can have a considerable # of cannons (sometimes over 30) in the 1000-1300 AD range. Combined with draft muskets, anybody without rifling or at LEAST gunpowder/MT and a good SoD is SCREWED. If you're fast enough to get them in 1000 AD, that should be good for most levels/situations.

Draft rifles are another option though I worry about sending a ton in vs the AIs that like the military science or rifling routes.