Initial Rush - Evaluation of Early Game Wars

[TheMeInTeam]

No, I know the odds quite well.

If that were true, you wouldn't count the lack of city raider as a major strike against early mounted warfare.

 

[kivanc]

If that were true, you wouldn't count the lack of city raider as a major strike against early mounted warfare.

you are not discussing about the thread but just trying to make a quarrel, and criticise my knowledge on game.

I replied your criticism about this combat odds stuff although I didn't have to convince you about what I know. but you continue insisting.

this thread is not about my xp or knowledge on civ4 but about early wars.

 

[FriendoftheDork]

you are not discussing about the thread but just trying to make a quarrel, and criticise my knowledge on game.

I replied your criticism about this combat odds stuff although I didn't have to convince you about what I know. but you continue insisting.

this thread is not about my xp or knowledge on civ4 but about early wars.

You have made a thread about early war strategy. Although well written, it contained alot of subjective or misunderstood opinions about UUs, which has been countered by TMIT and other posters.

Now you don't have to convice us about anything, but we are also free to comment and critizise anything you post here.

Sure TMIT is an argumentative besserweisser (no offense TMIT!), but I think he's right in this case.

Now it's easy to be mistaken about the Civ4 combat system as the game never really tells you correctly how % bonuses are applied. CR promos are still good, but not as indispensible as I originally thought.

Now if you concede that you might be mistaken on some points I think you will get better reception overall. If you're not convinced, then feel free to argue the point but expect to be contradicted alot.

 

[K.K.]

Berserker: worthless. This UU is only for the players who like fantasies/looks for different tastes

An early Marine with CR promotions available is worthless? On Archipelago/Island maps it's so strong it's almost broken. On Continents maps use it like a regular mace while taking over your continent, then upgrade to grenadiers for surprising and devastating overseas attacks with frigates/galleons. CR2/3 amphibious grens will tear through anything up to protective rifles.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

you are not discussing about the thread but just trying to make a quarrel, and criticise my knowledge on game.

I replied your criticism about this combat odds stuff although I didn't have to convince you about what I know. but you continue insisting.

this thread is not about my xp or knowledge on civ4 but about early wars.

Yes, and in early wars you have continued to insist on CR > Combat for an early rush without qualifying when that is true and when it is not. It is frequently possible to get better odds using combat rather than CR, even on axes, depending on the defensive bonuses. In an early rush guide/walkthrough/thread, that consideration is important and painfully relevant when discussing lack of CR as a weakness for mounted (when mounted would generally not want to take that promotion anyway!).

Sure TMIT is an argumentative besserweisser (no offense TMIT!), but I think he's right in this case.

Well, I'm pretty arrogant (and aware of it, curbing when I can), so it will take a lot more than that to offend me .

I generally don't select the map type. I just click start game (std rules), select speed as marathon, select the world size (large or huge), climate normal etc.
So this means there are 11 or 13 players in the world and I don't know the map type in the start. Up to emperor I have been able to kill closest neighbours every time.

ANd most of the time, what I get is a hemisphere map with 2 massive continent having 5-7 civs on each. And as the world is large or huge, thes continents are generally massive in the size of 100cities maybe. So no matter how fast you are (with keshik or not), it's nearly impossible to kill an entire continent with only 1 type of unit. That's the difference. I generally see that most players play on standart world. But that doesn't give me any taste.
So, as world is too large, as soon as I kill 2-3 closest neighbours, it's enough for me and it already makes 1BC and early era passes which forces me to attack me with new type of units. After I expand well enough, I attack a new civ. That's because of the dynamics of a large/huge world.
Well, after killing 2closest neighbours, the rest of the AIs are very far anyway. And when the world has -let's say- 4 continents, I can kill all neighbours any way. So I haven't felt a need for a faster unit.

Here is an entire hemisphere under control using nothing but keshiks offensively:

View attachment TheMeInTeam AD-0890.CivBeyondSwordSave

Emp/marathon, random opponents, huge world size. Every known civ has become my vassal, I'm generally equal or ahead of them in tech (vassal tech brokering ftw), and I'm in position to explode after bothering to build some infrastructure.

Keshiks could have continued for another civ or two this way but I ran out of enemies.

Or course, huge/marathon is *not* MY usual settings, so I had to adjust and was still able to absolutely wreck the entire continent with nothing but keshiks. It would have been even faster but the horse was so far that I didn't get it until like city 6 or 7 or something. Didn't matter.

 

[mc-red]

@TMIT
I agree with you on Keshiks but I think you are not being very classy as a long time member of this wonderful forum.

It wasn't till around second half of 2009 that this combat odds thing between combat and CR was really made apparent by a poster in these forums.

I believe you were using Keshik rushes long before you understood that.

I think the OP while wrong has made a reasoned argument and post. Not a windup like that Troywhatever guy.

Your recent let's plays and write ups have been of the highest quality and it would be nice if you showed more respect to the newer posters.

Just my 2c of course. I love this forum and the class of the posters here and hate to see it degenerate.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

@TMIT
I agree with you on Keshiks but I think you are not being very classy as a long time member of this wonderful forum.

It wasn't till around second half of 2009 that this combat odds thing between combat and CR was really made apparent by a poster in these forums.

Now hold on a minute. Let's take a look at the conversation between me and the OP, relevant to CR vs combat I on keshiks:

* Keshiks can't have city raider promotion. I know Keshiks can get flanking promotion and by the help of +4 ger, it can get strong fastly but still for a mounted unit I would prefer immortal or numidian cavalry. Immortal gets adv on archers.

City raider is overrated. Combat I has BETTER ODDS than city raider when the defender has >120% defenses. An archer is already at 75% just for sitting in a city 5 turns. In other words, an archer fortified in a city with either walls or 40% culture is stronger against cr I than it is combat I. AS we're going for speed with mounted charges, CR doesn't seem very important now, does it? Also note that keshiks have a first strike, furthering its advantage against non-archers and generally breaking even with stock HA's vs archers. Oh yeah, they'll have combat II generally, rather than combat I.

He quoted the above then actually responded:

Seriosly, I've never played a peaceful game in my life and since 1993. Neither in any of the civ series nor in alpha centauri, nor call to power.

The only reason I called anybody's experience into question is the above ----> the OP brought it up himself. In other words, upon being corrected, he cited experience, rather than checking to see if what I said was accurate. I was a little bit meaner following that:

Your warmonger history does not mean you get a pass for not understanding how combat odds work in civ IV for the context of an early rush thread .

Which was ignored further:

No, I know the odds quite well.

It was only then that I made the comment in question, but while I might not win person of the year here, it's still a logical progression on the argument: 1 person makes a statement, another corrects it, the first person not only ignores the correction but actually attempts to counter the correction with something irrelevant!

Also, he's been a member of the forum longer than I have. I'm not exactly picking on a rookie here...

 

[AveiMil]

@TMIT
I agree with you on Keshiks but I think you are not being very classy as a long time member of this wonderful forum.

Not being very classy? What is required to be classy, really?

I disagree, the conversation was fine and direct. Sometimes I feel people actually try to get their panties in a twist.

 

[kivanc]

An early Marine with CR promotions available is worthless? On Archipelago/Island maps it's so strong it's almost broken. On Continents maps use it like a regular mace while taking over your continent, then upgrade to grenadiers for surprising and devastating overseas attacks with frigates/galleons. CR2/3 amphibious grens will tear through anything up to protective rifles.

yes. it is for arch/island maps. except that kind of maps it's worthless. that's why i called it for users who like fantasies. it is a fantastic map type. I favor larger continents, seems more realistic. but still i generally don't select map type.

You have made a thread about early war strategy. Although well written, it contained alot of subjective or misunderstood opinions about UUs, which has been countered by TMIT and other posters..

Of course my comments were subjective. Consciously, i overrated some units i like and underated some units that i don't like. i did it very consciously.
in my beginning post, i listed some very general principles. then in the following posts,i have written my point of early war strategy and then listed which UUs suit this more.

It's just like that i said "berserker is worthless" doesn't mean berserker is totally worthless but worthless for me, for my style.
but maybe i haven't figured out my strategy well enough in the beginning so i might have been misunderstood. i could have given many details before commenting on UUs.
So all my comments about UUs are, for sure, subjective.

The very aim of this thread was to open some discussions. i knew, some users wouldn't like my subjective comments.
Now after i read the rest of the replies, I will edit this post or write another. As there are many posts, I cannot reply all in one time

 

[K.K.]

yes. it is for arch/island maps. except that kind of maps it's worthless. that's why i called it for users who like fantasies. it is a fantastic map type. I favor larger continents, seems more realistic. but still i generally don't select map type.

Even on pangea maps I'd say the addition of 10% extra CR + no penalty for attacking across rivers to one of the game's key units is a decent bonus. It becomes worthless only if you normally don't build (or upgrade to) maces.

Besides, the dual-axe combat animation is hilarious...

 

[Wodan]

yes. it is for arch/island maps. except that kind of maps it's worthless. that's why i called it for users who like fantasies. it is a fantastic map type. I favor larger continents, seems more realistic. but still i generally don't select map type.

Worthless is a pretty strong word (since it covers 100% of situations).

Consider:

• on pangaea and continents coastal cities are quite frequent, and desirable (coastal trade routes, coastal health resources). Attacking from sea with early amphibious is extremely powerful.
• amphibious works across rivers. You have the river bonus vs counterattack, while you can ignore it with impunity.
• +10% city attack
• Amphibious, as a free promotion, provides value all game, as it stays with the unit when it upgrades.

It's just like that i said "berserker is worthless" doesn't mean berserker is totally worthless but worthless for me, for my style.

Isn't the point of a discussion to learn some new tips and styles from other people? Either you are trying to learn, or you're trying to teach others by sharing your wisdom. If the latter, counterpoint is fair game; if the counterpoint bears true in the discussion then the listener learns better than you were teaching; if not true then your teaching is validated.

The very aim of this thread was to open some discussions. i knew, some users wouldn't like my subjective comments.

"Like" might be the wrong word. Perhaps "disagree" or "disbelieve" is better.

 

[kivanc]

Yes, and in early wars you have continued to insist on CR > Combat for an early rush without qualifying when that is true and when it is not. It is frequently possible to get better odds using combat rather than CR, even on axes, depending on the defensive bonuses. In an early rush guide/walkthrough/thread, that consideration is important and painfully relevant when discussing lack of CR as a weakness for mounted (when mounted would generally not want to take that promotion anyway!). .

First of all, i never made a combat - CR comparison. You said that CR is overrated and compared it to combat 1. i didn't say you were wrong about that comparison.
i have re-read posts 14 and 15. i realized that i have forgotten to reply your comments of comparison combat-CR. it seems i have pasted your comment on CR in post 14 but forgotten to make a comment below it in post 15.

now, i shall comment about combat-CR
i am pretty sure both promotions can work well in different cases.
For some units I do continue to CR3 and for some of them i use combat 3, some of them combat 2 cover or some units only for healing etc.

and by the way, i must say that you pick a few words from my whole paragraphs and make comments of them.
i listed a few disadvantages of keshik and you just stuck on CR promotion. Another big disadv is that mounted units (except immortal) doesn't get defensive bonuses.

Here is an entire hemisphere under control using nothing but keshiks offensively:

View attachment 242440

Emp/marathon, random opponents, huge world size. Every known civ has become my vassal, I'm generally equal or ahead of them in tech (vassal tech brokering ftw), and I'm in position to explode after bothering to build some infrastructure.

Keshiks could have continued for another civ or two this way but I ran out of enemies.

Or course, huge/marathon is *not* MY usual settings, so I had to adjust and was still able to absolutely wreck the entire continent with nothing but keshiks. It would have been even faster but the horse was so far that I didn't get it until like city 6 or 7 or something. Didn't matter.

i will comment after i examine your save file. generally during the day i am in this fan site and during afternoons i play. i cannot play civ4 at work

by the way, i want to summarise what I have told about that keshik up till now and add this to my UU post, so new readers won't misunderstand me:
A trait combo of AGG/IMP is great, GER is very good as well. Traits and GER being said, the keshik having only tile advantage seems like a nerf for the mongolian empire to me. If mongolian empire had a good UU together with all other boosts, it would be overrated.

Worthless is a pretty strong word (since it covers 100% of situations).

Worthless and weak are of course strong words. That's why I used it. As I just said, I did use words like worthless and weak very consciously
Now I will admit one thing. As you notice, I have underrated most of the UUs. I did this consciously, yes. Why?
Because, I wanted to highlight one thing (while doing that i angered a few guys with words like weak and worthless): without using any UUs the game can already be won, if the player has a good strategy. So in fact (except a few) most of the UUs don't shine that much. It's either the promotion or the good strategy or unit training/production capacity which makes a win.

 

[michmbk]

Camarilla, I think part of your view on keshiks comes down to the settings you use. If you're playing solely huge marathon, you're playing a setting that makes one move units a lot better than if you were playing on epic or normal.

Marathon makes war a lot, lot easier - in my opinion, it's a setting that favors the human so significantly (because of our ability to war better than the AI) that it's not fun to play. My opinion only, but that setting really favors warring. In addition, it somewhat neutralizes the advantage that speed brings.

Try your same huge game on epic or normal, and you'll see exactly why the keshik shines. I don't believe there's any way you could kill off multiple AIs on a huge map on normal speed with any other UU - by the time they got to the other AIs, they'd start becoming obsolete.

Keshiks have a speed advantage, they have a first strike, and they start with 7 XP w/barracks & ger. Promote them correctly (half with flanking 2, half with C2, one supermedic) and they're a devastating UU. Even more devastating on normal or epic - the speed bonus is critical on those levels. The defensive bonuses aren't that important - I find I'm rarely playing any defense with keshiks.

 

[kivanc]

Camarilla, I think part of your view on keshiks comes down to the settings you use. If you're playing solely huge marathon, you're playing a setting that makes one move units a lot better than if you were playing on epic or normal.

Marathon makes war a lot, lot easier - in my opinion, it's a setting that favors the human so significantly (because of our ability to war better than the AI) that it's not fun to play. My opinion only, but that setting really favors warring. In addition, it somewhat neutralizes the advantage that speed brings.

Try your same huge game on epic or normal, and you'll see exactly why the keshik shines. I don't believe there's any way you could kill off multiple AIs on a huge map on normal speed with any other UU - by the time they got to the other AIs, they'd start becoming obsolete.

Keshiks have a speed advantage, they have a first strike, and they start with 7 XP w/barracks & ger. Promote them correctly (half with flanking 2, half with C2, one supermedic) and they're a devastating UU. Even more devastating on normal or epic - the speed bonus is critical on those levels. The defensive bonuses aren't that important - I find I'm rarely playing any defense with keshiks.

Yes friend. Of course it is. Every level of speed makes a huge difference on game dynamics. Well, the starting articles would be quite long if i tried to comment units by different map types and different speeds.

such as, a UU not requiring strategic resource is not strong in noble while it can save your life in deity. as AI starts with 2 settlers, some extra units and many extra techs, getting a strategic resource is harder.
And also just like the berserker issue, map is important.
so some UUs, some UBs, some traits, strategies depend on settings and some others don't.
and organized trait doesn't depend on any setting, always solid while CRE is worthless in some settings and powerful in some settings.

 

[Wodan]

Because, I wanted to highlight one thing : without using any UUs the game can already be won, if the player has a good strategy.

Well shoot. Here are some more tips, then:
-- without making any buildings, the game can be won, if the player has good strategy
-- without using any specialists, the game can be won, if the player has good strategy
-- without using cottages, the game can be won, if the player has good strategy

All in good fun, but seriously, I'm not sure your point. Yes, UUs to some extent are over-rated. And, I'm a big believer that sometimes I think players give too much weight to a UU. It's not a good idea, for example, to purposely start a war just because you have a UU, when otherwise the war is not a good idea at that point in the game.

Bottom line, UUs provide a benefit, and it's foolish to ignore any benefit which could be leveraged to your benefit. Don't blindly try to use the benefit, but use it intelligently and to good effect.

 

[mc-red]

Also, he's been a member of the forum longer than I have. I'm not exactly picking on a rookie here...

I didn't realize that and it does make a difference but I got the impression from your posts that rather than clearly explain (via link or explanation) you were not really trying to communicate a rather difficult concept but score points. It just bothered me when I read it so I posted what I did based on the OP being a newer poster.

On the topic of C2 V CR2 I would like to point out it is quite complicated and not just dependent on the defensive bonuses being approx 120% but also on the ratio of base strengths of attacker to defender being about 2:1.

 

[Willem]

yes. it is for arch/island maps. except that kind of maps it's worthless. that's why i called it for users who like fantasies. it is a fantastic map type. I favor larger continents, seems more realistic. but still i generally don't select map type.

There you go again imposing your preferences and making them a general rule of the game. While I don't personally like Archipelago either, there are plenty of people who do. The consensus is that the AI doesn't know how to use it as well, giving the human an edge at higher levels. It's certainly not worthless though.

Of course my comments were subjective.

Then don't try and pass off your comments as some sort of objective analysis. They're nothing of the sort.

 

[Wodan]

Regarding CR vs C... this might be a good time to point out that Combat is always applied to the strength of the unit itself, while CR is applied as a negative percentage to the defender. Thus, Willem is quite correct that there are many instances where a 10% Combat bonus is numerically better than a 25% CR bonus.

 

[Willem]

Thus, Willem is quite correct that there are many instances where a 10% Combat bonus is numerically better than a 25% CR bonus.

Sorry, but your pointing out the wrong person. I never commented about that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Camarilla, I think part of your view on keshiks comes down to the settings you use. If you're playing solely huge marathon, you're playing a setting that makes one move units a lot better than if you were playing on epic or normal.

Marathon makes war a lot, lot easier - in my opinion, it's a setting that favors the human so significantly (because of our ability to war better than the AI) that it's not fun to play. My opinion only, but that setting really favors warring. In addition, it somewhat neutralizes the advantage that speed brings.

Try your same huge game on epic or normal, and you'll see exactly why the keshik shines. I don't believe there's any way you could kill off multiple AIs on a huge map on normal speed with any other UU - by the time they got to the other AIs, they'd start becoming obsolete.

Keshiks have a speed advantage, they have a first strike, and they start with 7 XP w/barracks & ger. Promote them correctly (half with flanking 2, half with C2, one supermedic) and they're a devastating UU. Even more devastating on normal or epic - the speed bonus is critical on those levels. The defensive bonuses aren't that important - I find I'm rarely playing any defense with keshiks.

Actually although marathon takes away some of the *relative* power of keshiks to other units, it still makes using them easier. I had no trouble capping that entire continent on emperor. The AI could produce very few extra units at war so I just ran around taking all the easy cities and then capitulation, and since this was happening so fast culture couldn't even put me in revolt trouble yet...

Pathing right through forests to threaten multiple cities at once essentially forces the AI to shift its garrisons to 1 city and lose the others or endure a field battle. I played this trick clean to and through cyrus, although toku bombarding one of the cities down caused me to re-route over there and vulture a city too . Cyrus had longbows but I suffered very few losses against them due to mainly attacking only cities defended by 2 longbows or that were already bombarded down by toku(high combat keshiks aren't too bad vs longbows without culture d)

Adjusting to huge expansion was a bit iffy though, as was the mara unit discount. Getting to monarchy seemed like it was grueling, but once I was there things went pretty nicely.