Initial Rush - Evaluation of Early Game Wars

[kivanc]

Yes. There are similar threads, but I wanted to make this one as a quick and short summary of many available good starts.

Main Principles for all civ series:
1) Land is power.
2) The earlier your first rush, the better. Totally kill at least 2 of your closest neighbours
3) Don't waste very long time for warring. Make your plans for shorter, quick kills.
4) Don't waste very long time for peaces. After each big military tech, pause the peace time.
5) During warring period, don't hesitate on going a bit late on tech, after the war you will recover fast.
6) Don't capture all the cities and don't raze all. Do sth in between.
7) Start the game with building 1settler and 1worker.
8) Don't build too many settlers for new cities or too many workers in early game. You will have free of them during war anyway.

Some extra principles for Civ4
1) Build the great wall if you play on high difficulty. And build the stonehenge only if it really suits your trait combo. Don't build the mids unless you find the stone. Even if you find the stone, don't settle near it unless there are other good resources in the same city radius. Training units are 1st priority.
2) Acquire copper and/or horses early with your 2nd city. Build your 2nd city so as to obtain copper/horse in 1st 8 squares, not in 2nd 19 (unless you're creative)
3) Starting free techs are important. Agriculture, mining and mysticism are the better ones. Wheel is also fine, but in fact you don't need it before connecting copper/horse to capital.

In early game, who are the actors? Archers, axes, chariots, spearmen. Firstly, below are the general rules for early units. Then I will go one by one with UUs.

* Every military unit has adv and disadv, some have more advantages. UUs which has superior effect on more than 1 type opponent unit are the key to faster success. For example, immortals are good for attacking both axes and archers.
* Don't train units without barracks for the 1st rush. Units w/o promotion are useless.
* Archers are NOT attackers (except cho-ko-nu)
* Archers are tough defenders. So you need a promotion while attacking them.
* Promote axes as city raiders. If you're an AGG leader, your axes will start with combat 1, so promotion "cover" is also fine if you see an archer fortified in the enemy city.
* Attack enemy axes with chariots, attack archers, chariots and spearmen with axes. If it is hard to train both, then choose axes.
* Don't let the chariot attack your axe, you attack him. And don't waste time on training spearmen.
* Swords and horse archers are very late for the 1st rush.
* Don't waste time on working on techs archery, hunting, fishing and horseback riding in early game. Leave them to later unless there is no any resource nearby.
* While attacking, decide well with which unit to attack first. Then decide an attacking order.
* In early game, it is good to have a healer with 2 moves. Don't let him die. In mid game, you will need more than 1 healer.

 

[elthrasher]

This forum is for Civilization Revolution, not Civ4. Still, your general principles are sound for CivRev, where applicable. Lots of cities, try to kill your neighbors fast. Yes, that sounds familiar.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: moved to Civ 4 GD

 

[kivanc]

Moderator Action: moved to Civ 4 GD

Thank you guys, you both. Now, I will continue when I have free time.
Have fun!

 

[kivanc]

It's possible to make the first rush with axes. But a strong early game UU will increase your "killing success rate".

What is this "killing success rate"? It's about how good you apply your strategy. You should know

* where to enter the enemy territory, which direction to go ahead. Answer: Don't force yourself to surprise the enemy. If possible, start with capturing easiest cities. Start with the ones closest to you. Try to go with straight directions into the land of the enemy.

* how many stacks you need. Answer: 1/2 for early game, 3 for mid game also depending on what map suggests.

* how many turns the war should go on. Answer: Shortest possible. If it seems to take long time, make a cease fire. Cover wounded, continue training units. After 10 turn start warring again.

* how many units you need. Answer: 150 or 200%of the total number of enemy units which are fortified in the cities you want to get. So as to make the war shortest possible, almost all your cities should train units. This will make both preperation period and active warring period shorter. After you start the war, continue training units.

* when to stop the war totally. Answer: Either kill or capitalize. Leave 2-3 worthless city to the enemy and when you get all the rest, capitalize him. +1 happiness ratio is quite good.

* who to kill, who to capitalize. Answer: Depends on in which age you are. Before BC, kill everyone of them. During and after mid game, capitalize them.

* who to attack first. Answer: 1st rush should be made against the ones closest to you. If 2 AIs have nearly the same distance to you, start with the leaders which like warring. If you have experienced civ enough, you may know which leader likes war more. Don't let them grow strong, kill them when they are weak.

* which age you should war. Let's say you have 4 neighbours in the continent. Kill 2 closest AI during axe/chariot era, capitalize 1 AI during maces time, capitalize 1AI during rifle time.

Shortly, a high killing success ratio means not to have a huge step back in economy, research and growth, production because of warring. The higher your killing success rate, easier and faster you recover the wounds of war. So attack with many units and make it quick.

 

[Bostock]

There is a lot of truth in what you write and a lot of... less-truth. Just a couple very superficial things:

- If you consider horses and swords too late for a rush, capitulation is even more out of the question - it requires feudalism!!
- If you consider horses and swords too late for a rush, I don't understand how you're still considering wonders, which slow you down much more than that.
- There are some non-UU horse archer strategies out there which *can* reasonably be called rushes.

 

[kivanc]

There is a lot of truth in what you write and a lot of... less-truth. Just a couple very superficial things:

- If you consider horses and swords too late for a rush, capitulation is even more out of the question - it requires feudalism!!
- If you consider horses and swords too late for a rush, I don't understand how you're still considering wonders, which slow you down much more than that.
- There are some non-UU horse archer strategies out there which *can* reasonably be called rushes.

- Horse archers and swords are too late for the 1st rush, can be used for the 2nd. I meant that, a player must start warring earlier than swords time.
- I said that, before BC war must end with killing (destroying civ totally), during after mid game capitulation is better. I thought, that was clear.
- As I specified, I don't make war all the time. Before starting the attack, i train many units and make the war shortest possible. Then I go on building city improvements etc. And specifically about wonder building, it is quite possible both being a warmonger and building some wonders, but only with some of the leaders. Of course, wonder building isn't priority #1. During peace time, it can be quite possible. And as i have lots of cities, it generally isn't a problem.
- I generally prefer non-mounted units because of promotion alternatives. Still, I like a few mounted units like immortals.

As an example, in my last game with De Gaulle, I killed 2AIs before 1000BC. And I'm about to kill the 3rd one in 1000Ad after a long peaceful period. And in the mean time I have built nearly all the wonders and missed only a few to the rivals.
By the way, I'm playing in large world with default rules.
I have nearly 15 cities now in 1000AD and will have much more. Especially during mid game, i expand a lot.
My style is generally a heavy SE with many farm-specialized cities plus some cities specialized for huge production and plus a few river cities specialized on cottages. My style doesn't change according to game difficulty. Only tuning is a little different.

 

[kivanc]

reserved

 

[kivanc]

Ballista Elephant: worthless. Having a little advantage on mounted units, this UU is a waste.

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

Bowman: worthless. 3 / 1 MP, +50% vs. Melee ??? Peh! 3*1.5= 4.5. Cannot beat neither axe/spear, nor archer

Camel archer: A knight which doesn't require neither horse nor iron seems good. SO if the player doesn't want to worry about strategic resources, he can pick Arabs. He can defend good with archers (being PROT) and once the guilds is IN, camel archer will be at hand for attack. Also this UU has a higher withdrawal chance which may help for having more XPs and great generals. Still, as this is a mid game UU, we cannot talk about early rush here.

Cataphract: A good unit but I expect more from a "UU". Having a 12 strength instead of 10 but not immune to first strike

Cho-Ko-Nu: Seems like a good UU in the hands of pro leader. But still, considering machinery era, i prefer a maceman with city raider promotion.

Conquistador: Seems like a good UU but is worthless if you don't have the tech lead. strong UU until rifleman (which comes in the same era with this UU) Together with +5XP spanish siege weapons, it can be better. Still, I don't prefer a war with them. I prefer gunpowder units or tanks after industrialism.

Cossack: Similar with conquistador

Dog soldier: worthless (although it doesn't require copper) beause it is weak against archers who are the main AI defenders.

Fast worker: Strong in fast speed but worthless in marathon speed. As we like marathon, it is worthless.

Holkan: Not worthless but still weak. Although this unit needs no resource, it is weak against anybody. Against early actors
axes-very weak, no chance
chariot-strong
archer-weak

Hwacha: Some guys like it and they say, this UU is like an axe with collateral damage but still I don't like it. And by the way as I find Wang-Kon a weak guy, uu is weak..

Impi: This is a spearman who has mobility free.
Its base strength is only 4 anyway. But as Shaka is aggressive, it will have combat1 free. And as the ikhanda will be very cheap for Shaka being AGG, it will not be sensible to attach w/o Ikhanda (barracks). So this means, else than free combat 1 and mobility, each unit will have a 3rd promotion, which can make Impi a killer.
The biggest effect of free promotions like mobility comes with the upgrade feature.

Jaguar: It doens't need any resource (which is more important in high level difficulties), plus free woodsman promo, but with 5 str intead of 6.
Also counting monty as AGG, this UU has a synergy. Plus, as map is full of forests and jungles in early game, this unit can be useful.

Keshik: Has 1 first strike and ignores terrain costs
A trait combo of AGG/IMP is good, GER is very good as well. Traits and GER being said, to me the keshik seems like a nerf for the mongols.

Landsknecht: Good UU. Rathaus is a good UB as well. Still, I don't find Charlemagne so good.

Navy Seal: comes too late. American UB is very good, but it comes late too.

Panzer: Worthless. Comes very late. Until then, destiny of the game is already done.

Phalanx: An axe which chariots cannot beat is good. But that's not such a great advantage for city razing. Only that the defense disadv against chariot is cancelled.

Samurai: This unit is a slightly stronger maceman, and with AGG trait, it will be even stronger. Still, if I would pick a leader having 2 warring traits, I would choose Churchill, Boudica or Cyrus. So considering Tokugawa overall, he is not so strong.

Skirmisher: Worthless. Cannot beat an archer fortified. Cannot beat axes neither.

Gallic Warrior: Hmm where to start with him.

*it is a swordsman which can be trained w/o settling near an iron resource. So Celts should learn Br Working as soon as possible and settle near copper. Then while researching Iron Working which will take some time, building barracks and duns (city walls) must be complete. An extra city for iron isn't required if copper is at hand already.
* As it already has guerilla1, the player may choose to continue with guerilla promos or city raider. As I generally prefer Boudica over Brennus, my gallic warriors also have combat 1 free. Promotions like cover and shock can also help in some cases if combat 1 is already free.
Before, I said that swords are late for the 1st rush, but gallic guys are exceptional. as this unit doesn't require iron, making the 1st rush with gallic warriors is also possible.

If the player can find a stone nearby, settling near that may also help as stonehenge, great wall and the dun are easier with it. For Boudica, barracks are easier as well.

Vulture: A good UU. An axe which is stronger against archers. As the leader is CRE, the player might concentrate on early rushes more. No need for monument or stonehenge. Early Ziggurat will help a lot as well.

Now, in fact there is much to say here. Although I don't like PRO and CRE traits very much, I believe Gilgamesh has a good synergy overall. As Ziggurat is a cheap and early UB, the player may easily REX w/o stiffling the economy much. He can either build many settlers or capture enemy cities with mighty Vulture.
By the help of early Ziggurat, espionage will also be good. Gilgamesh screams for the great wall.

Immortal: Well, 1 of my my favourite!

* A chariot which is also very strong against archer is a victor of ancient era.
* A chariot with tile defense. A stack consisting of only immortals are enough.
* Has weakness against spears and is not so strong against other chariots but still flanking is good for this case.
* moves 2 by 2 and that shortens the war time. The time that immortals are superior is quite long. And as these units move 2 by 2, it is easier to kill more than 1 AIs with only immortals.

The main strategy of Persia should- of course- be settling near the horse ASAP. Both leaders may get benefit of Immortals.
With Cyrus, immortals will be stronger. Rushes before BC will be easier with Cyrus. But on the other hand, Darius is better for recovery after the initial war. Darius gets benefit of the enlarged territory more than Cyrus after the war.

Numidian Cavalry: This UU is exceptional for me. I said, I don't like reserching archery and HB riding very early. But this unit is worth it. And together with Hannibal's cha trait, it has great synergy.
Carthage starts with Fishing/ Mining. Starting near the coast will help a lot. And as Hannibal has FIN trait, he will be fast in tech. Starting with a fishing boat will be good. When city reaches pop 3, a settler may be built. In that time, animal husbandry might be in and the 2nd city should be near the horse. And then some workers for both cities. Well, not such a hard start, right?


Praetorian: Just like Numidian Cavalry, this UU is exceptional for me. I believe, the first rush should be made with praetorians not axes. This is a very strong unit for early game.

There is a lot of truth in what you write and a lot of... less-truth. Just a couple very superficial things:

- If you consider horses and swords too late for a rush, capitulation is even more out of the question - it requires feudalism!!
- If you consider horses and swords too late for a rush, I don't understand how you're still considering wonders, which slow you down much more than that.
- There are some non-UU horse archer strategies out there which *can* reasonably be called rushes.

I agree with you about these 2 UUs.

Janissary: Very powerful UU! Just beeline gunpowder and you can make an easy medieval rush. If you can succeed before everyone gets to gunpowder, it is even more powerful.
I generally prefer settling great persons. But if you want to get to gunpowder even faster, bulbing techs with GPs is also fine with Suleiman.

Muskeeter: This UU is not that much good, only that it moves 2. But as France has 2 charismatic leaders (especially De Gaulle has a great combo) and good UB, I like playing France. Starting techs are also good.

Oromo Warrior: Good UU. Still, I don't find Zara Yaqob so strong.

Quechua: Very strong, cheap UU and doesn't need any resource. the player doesn't need to worry about culture. After the initial war period, terraces will be built anyway.

Redcoat: Very good UU. I know everybody likes Lizzy and some like Vicky but very few people like Winston Churchill. Redcoat UU, in fact, screams for Churchill.
CHA trait really shines with the redcoat. It has superior power over many unit types. It will get promotions fast. And besides, with PRO trait (which I normally don't like much) this gunpowder unit will have free city garrison and drill promotions. Drill promotions are good for attacking as well.

Moderator Action: please don't post 8 posts in row without need
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Willem]

Yes. There are similar threads, but I wanted to make this one as a quick and short summary of many available good starts.

Main Principles for all civ series:
1) Land is power.
2) The earlier your first rush, the better. Totally kill at least 2 of your closest neighbours
3) Don't waste very long time for warring. Make your plans for shorter, quick kills.
4) Don't waste very long time for peaces. After each big military tech, pause the peace time.
5) During warring period, don't hesitate on going a bit late on tech, after the war you will recover fast.
6) Don't capture all the cities and don't raze all. Do sth in between.
7) Start the game with building 1settler and 1worker.
8) Don't build too many settlers for new cities or too many workers in early game. You will have free of them during war anyway.

Some extra principles for Civ4
1) Build the great wall if you play on high difficulty. And build the stonehenge only if it really suits your trait combo. Don't build the mids unless you find the stone. Even if you find the stone, don't settle near it unless there are other good resources in the same city radius. Training units are 1st priority.
2) Acquire copper and/or horses early with your 2nd city. Build your 2nd city so as to obtain copper/horse in 1st 8 squares, not in 2nd 19 (unless you're creative)
3) Starting free techs are important. Agriculture, mining and mysticism are the better ones. Wheel is also fine, but in fact you don't need it before connecting copper/horse to capital.

None of these are principles, just your personal preferences. Don't pass off your own playing style as the way to play the game. Pretty much everything you've listed is either out-right false or can be worked around.

Moderator Action: keep it civilized, please - discuss other users' posts not other users' personality
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

OK, I guess I was being a bit harsh there.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What a joke. The keshik is weak, but the HRE UU is strong!!! Haha!

Rating the skirmisher as worthless is also a terrible joke. For its hammer cost its one of the best units in the game for the first half of the game. Iranon likes to point out that nothing but UU's can beat it on a hammer for hammer basis until knights...they certainly can take axes and can rush very quickly and without resources. On marathon, which is an insanely biased hammer production speed, skirmisher rushes are especially powerful as you can hit with 10+ of this discount UU before the AI can reliably hook up metal below deity with consistency.

Impi are better than you say too. With cover or even just CR they hit archers like war chariots, which you haven't touched on yet. Their terrain advantage might overtake the hammer cost vs some opponents.

Cataphracts are untouchable in their era...comparable to praetorians in terms of era advantage, the only reason they're weaker is they do come later.

Jags are better in MP but with reduced cost and retained 10% city attack inherent to swords they can be a force on marathon.

 

[michmbk]

Keshiks are weak....seriously?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=311236&highlight=monarch+student

Look at Gumbolt's game and my game here and tell me keshiks are weak. This is on emperor mind you.

Here's another one, where keshiks beat pikes, maces, knights and longbows.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=330018&highlight=keshik+cathy

TMIT played a game on here where he overran an entire continent with keshiks, including IIRC Saladin & Shaka. By the end he was taking on protective longbows - didn't matter.

The tile movement is an unbelievable advantage, since speed is key in rushing.

 

[kivanc]

First of all, let me impress I'm pleased with that I've found some warmonger friends so that we can have some discussion about wars, promotion, styles etc. It's always a pleasure for me to discuss about civ4.
I will try to comment all of your replies with my respect.

None of these are principles, just your personal preferences. Don't pass off your own playing style as the way to play the game. Pretty much everything you've listed is either out-right false or can be worked around.

Well in fact I tried to tell about my principles, you may agree or not. But still, i re-read what I've written. And I found that the 8+3 details I've mentioned are not so much specific. They are rough comments which can suit many different warring strategies. For ex, I just said settle near horse or copper, so i haven'texpressed this comment according to immortal or gallic warrior or holkan or any other unit. And they should be ok for any warmonger guy. It's just about being fast and attacking the enemy before they get stronger.

And about UU's. Well, first of all I can say that without having any UU, the game can still be won by warring. I have killed many AIs with just axes. So, the units I have commented as weak/worthless meant for me that they don't have a strong extra for the units they have been replaced.
I made short comments for all UUs consciously, and thought that I would write more if anybody replied.
By the way, I want to remind that I'm making comments on UUs, together with the leader combo, not only the UU itself.

@ TheMeInTeam
@ michmbk
Now I will go on with your comments, one by one on UUs.

What a joke. The keshik is weak, but the HRE UU is strong!!! Haha!

LANDSKNECHT: It's a strong unit having a +100% vs. melee. Rathaus is good too. Still, i agree HRE is not that much strong overall.

Keshiks are weak....seriously?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=311236&highlight=monarch+student

Look at Gumbolt's game and my game here and tell me keshiks are weak. This is on emperor mind you.

Here's another one, where keshiks beat pikes, maces, knights and longbows.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=330018&highlight=keshik+cathy

TMIT played a game on here where he overran an entire continent with keshiks, including IIRC Saladin & Shaka. By the end he was taking on protective longbows - didn't matter.

The tile movement is an unbelievable advantage, since speed is key in rushing.

I've gone thru your links michmbks, congratulations on the games. Let me go on with more comments on Keshik.

KESHIK: Considering that both Mongol leader traits are good for a warmonger also that GER completes keshik, Mongols may have a good medieval time. I can admit that.
But
* 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.

* by using a mounted unit, you're wasting glorious AGG trait. So the advantage of numidian cavalry (or immortal with Cyrus) here is that it's in the hands of a CHA leader (instead of AGG) and starts with flanking free. It's powerful although it has 5/2 instead of 6/2. For mounted unit strategies CHA is clearly better than AGG.

* If keshiks had a mobility promotion free instead of "ignores terrain movemnet cost", that would be great. so you could transfer that free promotion to upgraded knights.

Rating the skirmisher as worthless is also a terrible joke. For its hammer cost its one of the best units in the game for the first half of the game. Iranon likes to point out that nothing but UU's can beat it on a hammer for hammer basis until knights...they certainly can take axes and can rush very quickly and without resources. On marathon, which is an insanely biased hammer production speed, skirmisher rushes are especially powerful as you can hit with 10+ of this discount UU before the AI can reliably hook up metal below deity with consistency.

SKIRMISHER: What hammer discount, I didn't understand. Is this for an old version? In my refguide pdf, skirmisher is same with the archer. Or do you only mean that it's cheaper than an axe.
Also, I feel that a 4attack archer unit cannot beat an enermy archer fortified in a city. So how will it help the rush? You can say drill promotions would be good but Malinese leader don't have any warmonger traits.
I would prefer attacking with an axe instead of skirmisher.

Impi are better than you say too. With cover or even just CR they hit archers like war chariots, which you haven't touched on yet. Their terrain advantage might overtake the hammer cost vs some opponents.

IMPI: Similarly with Keshiks; I prefer an attack advantage. The power of Zulu comes from the synergy of Ikhanda and AGG trait. Impi is not a bad unit but still I consider it a nerf for the Zulu. Even inspite of that, Zulu is still powerful.
By the way, let's compare Impi with a simple axe (not even a UU):
* Impi requires copper just like axe. (neutral)
* Impi moves two (adv)
* Axe get's +50% vs melee. (disadv)
* Axe has 5, impi has 4.4 (with combat1) (disadv)
* Impi can get CR, axe can get CR (neutral)
* As Impi has combat 1 free, it can easily continue with cover, yes. But while attacking cities, CR gives better results. (neutral)
I generally don't fight outside cities. Enemy attacks and I defend on hills or forest. I generally move thru hills/forests with a melee unit.

Cataphracts are untouchable in their era...comparable to praetorians in terms of era advantage, the only reason they're weaker is they do come later.

CATAPHRACT: 12 instead of 10 is good. As you said, it's just like praetorian. But you said it yourself, it comes really very late.
If I wanted a late medieval UU, i would prefer a musketman replacement.
Justinian has IMP/SPI. And Suleiman has IMP/PHI. Well, if you want an IMP leader with a late medieval UU, I would pick Suleiman who has Janissary.

Jags are better in MP but with reduced cost and retained 10% city attack inherent to swords they can be a force on marathon.

JAGUAR: What have I written?

Jaguar: It doens't need any resource, that's good. But except that, it's woprthless. This guy is even weaker than the normal swordsman. And free woodsman promo will not help for city rushes.

What is wrong this? Else than not requiring any resource, it has no extra on attack.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

LANDSKNECHT: It's a strong unit having a +100% vs. melee. Rathaus is good too. Still, i agree HRE is not that much strong overall.

Later on, you say other units aren't valuable because you prefer offensive units. This unit is TRASH offensively. Any city it attacks will have longbows, and thus it will rely heavily on siege. In fact, the only thing this craptastic UU does is allow you a few less specialized anti-melee. It does not fit a city attacker role and is no better vs mounted than a stock pike. It is just OK in the field as xbows and muskets+ both own it hard (and it is not far and away better than a mace in the field, just a little better). Rating it ahead of some of the better UU's in the game just doesn't make sense.

* 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.

* by using a mounted unit, you're wasting glorious AGG trait. So the advantage of numidian cavalry (or immortal with Cyrus) here is that it's in the hands of a CHA leader (instead of AGG) and starts with flanking free. It's powerful although it has 5/2 instead of 6/2. For mounted unit strategies CHA is clearly better than AGG.

That's like saying you're wasting augustus caesar's traits by using praetorians rather than spamming wonders and expanding peacefully! At least come up with something reasonable. The UU/UB combo is so good it makes for one of the strongest military setups in the game (as long as you have horse), similar to rome's iron. Mongolia is a bit more one-trick-pony than rome though because the traits ARE geared for war. Regardless, keshiks will outperform most other rush units and stay viable longer.

* If keshiks had a mobility promotion free instead of "ignores terrain movemnet cost", that would be great. so you could transfer that free promotion to upgraded knights.

On the other hand, keshiks are the only unit pre-gunships that can enter a hill forest and not use up all its movement. Tactical use of the terrain movement can be amazing.

IMPI: Similarly with Keshiks; I prefer an attack advantage.

So you DO like impi then?! Because impi are an attack advantage. By the way, CR I is not better than cover vs cities if the defender is an archer.

You are sorely underestimating 2 moves + mobility here, but then you did that with keshiks too (I'm starting to believe you're not familiar with using that advantage). To illustrate, compare what a stack of axes does against 3-4 archers vs what a stack of impi does against 2 archers.

Impi can also chase/pillage metal rapidly so one can limit the axe count.

12 instead of 10 is good. As you said, it's just like praetorian. But you said it yourself, it comes really very late.
If I wanted a late medieval UU, i would prefer a musketman replacement.
Justinian has IMP/SPI. And Suleiman has IMP/PHI. Well, if you want an IMP leader with a late medieval UU, I would pick Suleiman who has Janissary.

Traits are of minimal relevance in this comparison. At any rate, cataphracts are stronger against most defenders than the musket UUs and will generally beat them outright, and they do come sooner. I wouldn't rate it above the oromo which is one of the better UU's in the game, but it's still a solid and very usable UU that gives quite a benefit over the base unit.

What is wrong this? Else than not requiring any resource, it has no extra on attack.

2 things missing:

1. It is also cheaper than a regular sword
2. Woodsman I is not important offensively, but woodsman II (which you can get with just a barracks) potentially is. Woodsman III adds a boatload of healing and 2 first strikes and is not a bad deal at 5 xp.

Because high-level AI hooks up metal very quickly and can afford to spam max units in every city, the forest mobility and choke/harass/fork potential of the jaguar is curtailed. So while it wouldn't make my top 10 UUs or anything, it's simply incorrect to say "except being resource-less, it's worthless".

 

[kivanc]

Later on, you say other units aren't valuable because you prefer offensive units. This unit is TRASH offensively. Any city it attacks will have longbows, and thus it will rely heavily on siege. In fact, the only thing this craptastic UU does is allow you a few less specialized anti-melee. It does not fit a city attacker role and is no better vs mounted than a stock pike. It is just OK in the field as xbows and muskets+ both own it hard (and it is not far and away better than a mace in the field, just a little better). Rating it ahead of some of the better UU's in the game just doesn't make sense.

Well, I just said HRE uu is good and you're still trying to tell how bad it is. I've never played a game with Charlamagne, and I'm not an advocate of him UU just has an adv on melee and not much to say about that UU

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.

That's like saying you're wasting augustus caesar's traits by using praetorians rather than spamming wonders and expanding peacefully!

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 UU/UB combo is so good it makes for one of the strongest military setups in the game (as long as you have horse), similar to rome's iron. Mongolia is a bit more one-trick-pony than rome though because the traits ARE geared for war. Regardless, keshiks will outperform most other rush units and stay viable longer.

A mounted unit with GER (plus IMP or CRE) seems good. But AGG is wasted except that you would have half-cost barracks.

On the other hand, keshiks are the only unit pre-gunships that can enter a hill forest and not use up all its movement. Tactical use of the terrain movement can be amazing.

Keshik doesn't receive defensive bonuses. So what's the point on moving thru hills or forests? you can just move them thru flat land. And while moving thru flatland, keshik doesn't have any advantage. But I don't know if keshik can move 2 by 2 in enemy land. if so, it's good. But still, that is not very important for me.
I know that moving 2 fastens the rush. And that's why I have used chariots for the early rush in some games. It's about whatever the map lets anyway. I just found the copper very far and horse nearby.

Shortly, talking about mounted units I would prefer other UUs. Immortal, war chariot, numidian cavalry etc. There are some more good mounted UUs which are late.

So you DO like impi then?! Because impi are an attack advantage. By the way, CR I is not better than cover vs cities if the defender is an archer.

You are sorely underestimating 2 moves + mobility here, but then you did that with keshiks too (I'm starting to believe you're not familiar with using that advantage). To illustrate, compare what a stack of axes does against 3-4 archers vs what a stack of impi does against 2 archers.

I re-checked the manual and found that the boost of Impi is "free mobility promotion", not just a 2 movement instead of 1. So you can transfer this promotion while upgrading. That makes Impi a very good unit.
So you are right here. I will correct my comment on this from the 1st post about UUs. Thanks.
But as I said earlier, Keshiks don't have mobility. It's just an ability to move 2 on forets / hills. Normal horse archers can move two as well, but they can do this on flatland only.

Traits are of minimal relevance in this comparison. At any rate, cataphracts are stronger against most defenders than the musket UUs and will generally beat them outright, and they do come sooner. I wouldn't rate it above the oromo which is one of the better UU's in the game, but it's still a solid and very usable UU that gives quite a benefit over the base unit.

No. As I Told earlier, I'm making comments about the power of UUs together with the traits. because I don't play restricted leaders anyway. So each UUs power comes together with the power of the leader.
Restricted leader option is a cheat.

2 things missing:

1. It is also cheaper than a regular sword
2. Woodsman I is not important offensively, but woodsman II (which you can get with just a barracks) potentially is. Woodsman III adds a boatload of healing and 2 first strikes and is not a bad deal at 5 xp.


Because high-level AI hooks up metal very quickly and can afford to spam max units in every city, the forest mobility and choke/harass/fork potential of the jaguar is curtailed. So while it wouldn't make my top 10 UUs or anything, it's simply incorrect to say "except being resource-less, it's worthless".

I haven't played Immortal yet. I'm planning to move on it. For immortal / deity, yes jaguar might be stronger, as you don't have to hook up any resource. I will correct this from 1st post as well.
But I continue insisting on Keshik. I think it's a waste

 

[AveiMil]

If you think the Keshik is a waste I'm pretty sure you've never played multiplayer :O

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

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 .

That a trait is wasted is irrelevant if an action wins the game. Keshiks are that good.

Keshik doesn't receive defensive bonuses. So what's the point on moving thru hills or forests?

Getting to enemy cities before they can build or whip additional units. Also, if their road network is weak, literally out-maneuvering your opposition in their own territory.

Shortly, talking about mounted units I would prefer other UUs. Immortal, war chariot, numidian cavalry etc. There are some more good mounted UUs which are late.

Immortals and war chariots are also candidates for best UU. Numidians suck pretty bad in single player due to the base str nerf. With that their 50% vs melee is not enough to overcome spears, and they are worse against the most common defender.

I re-checked the manual and found that the boost of Impi is "free mobility promotion", not just a 2 movement instead of 1. So you can transfer this promotion while upgrading. That makes Impi a very good unit.
So you are right here. I will correct my comment on this from the 1st post about UUs. Thanks.

Mobility is only relevant to impi though. Nothing they promote to matters until mech infantry ----> not a likely scenario.

Although keshiks don't have mobility, their ability for the duration they are keshiks is even stronger than mobility.

I haven't played Immortal yet. I'm planning to move on it. For immortal / deity, yes jaguar might be stronger, as you don't have to hook up any resource. I will correct this from 1st post as well.

IMO jaguars are not best on high levels, but rather certain terrain types vs the AI and in multiplayer. High level AI screws them as their tactical element is nerfed by the fact that the AI just stacks several strong units in EVERY city and gets away with it because it has hammers to spare.

But I continue insisting on Keshik. I think it's a waste

Your logic so far for disliking the keshik is as follows:

1. The trait doesn't directly boost it
2. The absolutely insane special abilitIES don't carry over to further mounted
3. Some completely mistaken interpretation on the importance of CR against cities with defensive bonuses.

But what can anybody do? You've already seen 2 examples of keshik dominance. I also made a thread right here in this very subforum where I mowed down pretty much the entire world with them on immortal/normal (I had to use cuirassers for my final war). You can ignore all those examples and the fact that only a couple other UU's can do things like that, but that doesn't give you a firm argument. Your arguments about keshiks could be applied to praetorians, immortals, war chariots, and so on just as easily. Virtually every UU is going to "waste" one or both traits when used to its potential. Except that game-winning moves are hard to define as a waste, that is.

 

[michmbk]

If you want another demo of keshik abuse, someone could probably design one of those same start things on a pangaea, fractal or continents map.

You could pick whatever civ you want, and whatever UU you want, let me or TMIT or someone who knows how to use keshiks have Mongolia in the same start, and see who conquers the land more quickly. As long as there's horse anywhere near the capital, on any level up to immortal, I'm pretty confident keshiks will compare favorably with any other UU.

The beauty of keshiks is that you don't stop with taking out one civ - they can overrun the entire continent. They don't become obsolete for a long, long time, unlike most other early UUs. Then, all those keshiks that survive get promoted into insanely experienced cuirassiers or cavalry to send to another continent.

 

[kivanc]

First of all, I didn't know keshiks had so many fans by heart

If you think the Keshik is a waste I'm pretty sure you've never played multiplayer :O

Bravo!
Yes, I didn't xp multip much. I'm an engineer and I'm married and for my position it's not very easy to play multip. Plus, in Turkey civ4 is not so widespread and I have no close friends playing civ4.
So as I'm used to play against AI, and as dynamics of multiplayer is of course much different, I cannot say much about it.

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 .

No, I know the odds quite well.

And about the adv of Keshik you're talking about, I'm starting to feel we're used to play with different dynamics. I think in your game preferences fastness is more important than mine so it's quite strong.
And let me remind a few things. I guess I told you my favourite game settings. Let me go over it with more detail once again.

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.

And also my style is too much different than most guys. I haven't talked about it in this thread as it's not directly related with the topic. Some players do play like me (many few) and most don't.

I have lots and lots of cities. I generally have nearly 10 cities during 1000BC, 15 in 1AD and I have nearly 60 or sometimes 80/100 cities during the end of the game. I don't like religious endings so I prefer dominant victory, cultural or space.

That a trait is wasted is irrelevant if an action wins the game. Keshiks are that good.

Yes, i see your point. It's always ok if you win the game. In some cases only a little boost effect on the start of the game is enough to win a game so it's not obligatory to get full benefit of all options that your civ has. I also, in some games, finish the game w/o getting benefit from a UU or UB. Every civ suggest a kind of play but the player doesn't have to do it that way.

 

[kivanc]

The beauty of keshiks is that you don't stop with taking out one civ - they can overrun the entire continent. They don't become obsolete for a long, long time, unlike most other early UUs. Then, all those keshiks that survive get promoted into insanely experienced cuirassiers or cavalry to send to another continent.

Yes, similar to my reply to TheMeInTeam, I have already understood all you meant with the fastness of the UU. I also like not stopping after taking out one civ.
I want to share two snapshots and save game files from one of my typical wins (EMPEROR)
You can see that I've killed 3 civs in a row before BC and capitulized the 4th protective one during mid game, then I was alone in the massive continent.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7302843&postcount=158

I think TheMeInTeam might have seen these files as I remember him from WE thread. By the way, I'm not a heavy WE player but I just get some use of it. I'm generally an SE player who motivates half on GP farms and half on huge production (many mines and workshops with state property).