Is it just me or does the expansionist trait totally suck?

[axehaxe]

Originally Posted By a

Expansionist and seafaring aren't bad for continental maps, especially very large ones. You get to meet all your opponents PLUS get to meet the ones on the other continent.

This is like having 1 trait instead of 2. I would get rid of one of them and replace. Probably expansionist in this case. Scientific, seafaring is MUCH better. Then you can meet ALL your civs at the same rate as before AND get monopoly free techs.

 

[azzaman333]

That is not a valid comparison, since AI's are stupid.

I would much rather have Ansars than Knights, since with the extra movement point the Ansar should never need to defend.

 

[MAS]

Since China has the industrious trait, this makes up for the shield cost bc cities will be producing more shields and/or the tiles will be improved faster, speeding up production. The militaristic trait on top of that makes the Riders more likely to get promoted to elites, making them more effective than the ansar.

Well said , as everybody seems to underestimate the war elephant drastically...

I wasn't discussing the civ traits, I only countered axehaxe his negative tone about the Ansar.

That said, exept for specific, extreme, or special situation I consider: movement>attack>defense.
I considder both Ansar and Rider superior to the jumbo. In fact I would considder a 3/3/3 knight superior. You'll have more losses, sure, but victory can still be secured with properly planned production and concentration of force. Nothing can supstitute movement however.

Considder this: Most of the time, the enemy city will be 2 tiles away from the border. With a 2 movement unit, you will first have to move your stack in his land, wait a turn, then attack the city. In this turn the enemy can 1) counterattack with his own offensive units, and 2) reinforce the target city/ secure workers.
With 3 movement you can enter enemy land and take city in one turn. This basically cuts your total time spend on conquering your enemy in half. So you will get more power earlier, with civ's exponential growth factor.

 

[axehaxe]

Originally Posted By Azzaman333

That is not a valid comparison, since AI's are stupid.

I would much rather have Ansars than Knights, since with the extra movement point the Ansar should never need to defend.

I wouldn't pick Ansars unless they were 5/2/3 70 shields. Even if I were competing against a real player, I would say the same thing.

 

[MAS]

Not really. Shield-wise the Ansars are better but consider this: AI have ansars I have knights. I land knights on one of the AI hills or mountains. This automatically raises the knights defense rating from 3 to 4.5 or 3 to 6. When fortified, knights automatically become defense 4. My pikemen have defense 4at the least when fortified. It is an even gamble to attack my pikemen even deep in my territory with Ansars. Ansars are then good only for this attack purpose because when you land ansars on mountains, they have a defense of 4. Knights on mountains on the other hand are pretty much riflemen on flat terrain with 2 moves to spare. So if the AI had a go at me with Ansars, I could have built tons of pikemen and have my knights fortified on the AI mountains and let their Ansars commit suicide trying to kill my knights and then swoop down and take out their cities when possible.

The Ansar could have a def of 1 for all I care. With 3 movement, I'll be attacking first. When the AI uses Ansar against me? oh, that is a different issue. And not one I'm too worrierd about, it is more likely I'll be attacking them on my turn, becouse the AI isn't smart enough to make proper use of the 3 movements.

I only build a limited number of defensive units (such as pikemen) for specific reasons. The rest is all fast attackers. (horseman/knight/cav) And If I lack horses, I'll build slow attackers, (archer/sword/bowman) and make taking horses a prime objective.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Well, for arabia, you kind of have to wait till ansars to get any warring advantages. With China, you get archers right off, cheap barracks and faster promotions, plus those industrious workers making improvements and building roads to your enemies!!

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I didnt' say they were optimal - I said OK. I would agree that expansionist and seafaring are the weakest general combinations.

 

[Tomoyo]

The Ansar's defense of 2 is actually an advantage. If you had a veteran pikeman covering an elite knight, the 70 shield knight would be attacked, injured or killed. an Ansar, the pikeman would be attacked, saving you a potential 40 shields.

 

[gunkulator]

I You'll have more losses, sure, but victory can still be secured with properly planned production and concentration of force. Nothing can supstitute movement however.

More losses = more WW

Considder this: Most of the time, the enemy city will be 2 tiles away from the border. With a 2 movement unit, you will first have to move your stack in his land, wait a turn, then attack the city.

Since the AI puts roads everywhere, you can usually park your knights or WEs at the due N, S, E or W point that is only 1 tile from the city.

In this turn the enemy can 1) counterattack with his own offensive units,

If you're worried about AI counterattacks, then the Ansar is definitely not the unit you want to attack with. Any city you take will also be subject to AI counterattack. Likewise your stack two tiles from the city is also vulnerable to attack even though it is outside of AI territory. If you have no fear of AI counterattacks whatsoever, then you are probably dealing with a weak civ anyway so you could have just have invaded with Med Infs or ever swords earlier. Otherwise, you are faced with the prospect of defending that new city against a bunch of AI knights at A=4 vs D=2.7 odds (only 29.6% chance of winning). In comparison, WEs defend against AI knights at A=4 vs. D=4.05 (64.3% chance of winning).

and 2) reinforce the target city/ secure workers.

They can do that anyway when you are two tiles away and outside their territory. The workers you'll get soon enough.

This basically cuts your total time spend on conquering your enemy in half. So you will get more power earlier, with civ's exponential growth factor.

Doubtful it cuts time in half when you consider terrain effects. Clever use of the 1 tile border position negates a good deal of the extra movement advantage. Terrain kills much of the rest.

Another consideration is the available window to conquer using Ansars. Once the AI has muskets and cities, your Ansars can't really go it alone anymore. You need trebuchets and/or cannons. Slogging along at one move per turn completely squashes the Ansar's power.

In my games, I find the time between me getting Chivalry and the AI getting Gunpowder to be pretty short. Even after you get Chivalry, it will take you quite some time to build up a sizeable enough force for conquest. The window is so small that I often just skip Chivalry altogether and head for cavalry instead.

 

[adog]

I totally agree with that last part, most of the time I skip chivalry altogether (unless my UU is a knight replacement of course) and head straight for cavalry. This works great if I get Leo's because I can build cheap horseman that whole time and do a mass upgrade once I hit cavalry to go take over the world!

 

[Runes]

Sumeria already is pretty good, special units don't matter all that much, expecially if you aren't Militaristic.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

if sumeria had a better UU, no one would play anything else.

Sumeria has a UU that is not only useless, but handicapping - you can't build a force of warriors to upgrade to swords because hey!! they upgrade to pikes!! And if the AI decides to attack you, you kick off a GA earlier than you want.

The enkidu is quite game balancing.

 

[Dreadnoughtt]

And you use that GA to slaughter that AI in military production .

 

[MAS]

More losses = more WW

True, but I can deal with ww. Still nothing can substitute movement.

Since the AI puts roads everywhere, you can usually park your knights or WEs at the due N, S, E or W point that is only 1 tile from the city.

And how often does that happen? Ok, its not rare, but more often than not, the shortest route to the city city is 2 tiles anyway.

If you're worried about AI counterattacks, then the Ansar is definitely not the unit you want to attack with. Any city you take will also be subject to AI counterattack. Likewise your stack two tiles from the city is also vulnerable to attack even though it is outside of AI territory. If you have no fear of AI counterattacks whatsoever, then you are probably dealing with a weak civ anyway so you could have just have invaded with Med Infs or ever swords earlier. Otherwise, you are faced with the prospect of defending that new city against a bunch of AI knights at A=4 vs D=2.7 odds (only 29.6% chance of winning). In comparison, WEs defend against AI knights at A=4 vs. D=4.05 (64.3% chance of winning).

The counter attack doesn't worry me all that much most of the time. When It does, I usually have a defender ready to move in once the city is taken. (so I controll the roads.) And I swallow some losses.

The highest level I play is empirer though. According to WackenOpenAir, the way to fight wars on much higher levels is to make a stack with defenders+artillary+fast-offenders in one. In this case, the low defense becoumes a blessing also, as stated before. And the 3 movement would still be a big improvement, IMO.

They can do that anyway when you are two tiles away and outside their territory. The workers you'll get soon enough.

What if you declare war then attack. With 3 movements, Its almost like a sneak attack without actually sneak attacking.

Doubtful it cuts time in half when you consider terrain effects. Clever use of the 1 tile border position negates a good deal of the extra movement advantage. Terrain kills much of the rest.

The map is always A factor. the map can make or break almost any strategy. Sure ther are situatiuons where I would wish I was an other civ on almost any map.

Another consideration is the available window to conquer using Ansars. Once the AI has muskets and cities, your Ansars can't really go it alone anymore. You need trebuchets and/or cannons. Slogging along at one move per turn completely squashes the Ansar's power.

In my games, I find the time between me getting Chivalry and the AI getting Gunpowder to be pretty short. Even after you get Chivalry, it will take you quite some time to build up a sizeable enough force for conquest. The window is so small that I often just skip Chivalry altogether and head for cavalry instead.

I usually have a sizeable enough force of horseman build up from earlier wars.
It depends, but I do often find myself rushing to cavs regardless. So there is not a big disagrement here.


Finally: I do understand that 3 def is a big part of the knights power. It is just I think movements usually adds more power.

 

[gunkulator]

True, but I can deal with ww. Still nothing can substitute movement.

Except strength. There's a reason nobody builds chariots even considering that horsemen are right around the corner.

And how often does that happen? Ok, its not rare, but more often than not, the shortest route to the city city is 2 tiles anyway.

If you are setting up for an invasion, you often have the time to find the spot. Typically, border cities are the smallest with the least culture. Failing that, you can search for a hills or mountain spot that is adjacent to a target city. Failing that, you stop two tiles away and fortify. Even regular knights will have better than 50% odds on defense.

The counter attack doesn't worry me all that much most of the time. When It does, I usually have a defender ready to move in once the city is taken. (so I controll the roads.) And I swallow some losses.

If you are fighting against an AI with no knights, it is a weakling anyway and I will fully concede that speed is what you want to conquer them quickly. However, if we are talking roughly equal civs, then you must have a way of dealing with AI knights. While you can certainly move pikes into the first city you take, after that your Ansars will quickly outrun your pikes.

The map is always A factor. the map can make or break almost any strategy. Sure ther are situatiuons where I would wish I was an other civ on almost any map.

And there are certainly times when speed is a huge advantage. I once had a continent with a thick swath of jungle in the middle. To get to the next civ, I had to build a single long winding road. When I finally declared war, my reinforcements had only that one long path to go down. I was thankful that I had chosen China and that my Riders didn't take forever to get to the front.

Truthfully, though, I rarely find myself bothering with knights at all. The window is too short. I think my affection for WEs is that they can extend that window, especially when trebs are added to the mix.

 

[MAS]

Except strength. There's a reason nobody builds chariots even considering that horsemen are right around the corner.

I'm going to give you that one. Unless I'm preparing to do some mass upgrading, I'll chose archers over chariots.
There comes a point where the movement isn't worth it anymore.


I'll admit I'm a bit of a movement addict. I'd chose horseman over swordsman, even without considering the 50% retreat chance.
I see the same thing when I play CRPG's. I'll almost always choose a character class/build that is ranged and fast at the cost of toughness/defense.