No range units challenge

[The Pilgrim]

Hi all!

This very interesting discussion inspired a new challenge idea.
Archers/CB/Crossbows rushes are used to death and probably mastered by many.
But do we have other options? Let's find out.

My suggestion: immortal difficulty, pangaea, domination victory. No preference on civ, just not one with OP UU's like Japan.
Special rule: no range units allowed. Including mounted range.

What do you guys think?

 

[Old Peter]

Would love it . But it would not be much harder actually (I think ranged units are overrated by the community), so make it diety (on immortal it would not be a challenge for many) and pick a good fun civilization for it. Ethiopia, Suleiman or such.

 

[Moriarte]

You didn't mention siege weaponry, yet they are ranged, technically.. Would they be allowed? Anyway, i'd play that either way. Immortal is perfectly fine. Let's have room for error first.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Old Peter, you're more than welcome to go for deity! Personally, I don't see myself being able to pull this off, considering that without self imposed obstacles deity is a hit or miss for me. And frankly I doubt it is possible on deity at all. But I'm ready to be stood corrected.

Moriarte, I think siege are fine. Although if you can succeed without them - kudos. In the thread I linked, Matthew suggests that melee are too weak. That will be the ultimate proof he's wrong.

 

[Old Peter]

If siege units AND planes are allowed, it would be no change to my normal game. I do not understand the challenge.

Which ranged units do you find so very overpowered, archer, composites? I often prefer a pikeman on a hill or in a fort for defence early than composites for example.

 

[budweiser]

I was going to do something like this. You beat me to it. I was going to post a map and ask some players to do cbows while others went for iron. But then I ran a few tests and came to the conclusion that some civs do not need iron.

 

[The Pilgrim]

If siege units AND planes are allowed, it would be no change to my normal game. I do not understand the challenge.

Which ranged units do you find so very overpowered, archer, composites? I often prefer a pikeman on a hill or in a fort for defence early than composites for example.

Well, on immortal I most definitely start fighting before planes. In fact, many times I don't even reach them. With CB's you can easily clean the pangaea in 150 turns. The challenge is to compete with that.

I was going to do something like this. You beat me to it. I was going to post a map and ask some players to do cbows while others went for iron. But then I ran a few tests and came to the conclusion that some civs do not need iron.

I was thinking about it for a while, to be honest. Still waiting for MadDjinn's Boudicca save from previous Beyond the Monument show to compare his Honor PW start with Tradition CB start.

As for iron, it's not crucial, imo. Pikes can work well too. Anyways, I don't think we should stick to one civ and everyone is free to pick whatever s/he wants. Of course, some candidates are more powerful than others, and I'll try to avoid them. Will go with something neutral like the Dutch.

 

[Old Peter]

If anyone can clean pangea in 150 turns, they should play diety or some level above it

 

[The Pilgrim]

Many people can clean pangaea in 150 turns (and less) on immortal, yet they don't score 100% on deity. It's a fact.

 

[Johan^^]

Hi all!

This very interesting discussion inspired a new challenge idea.
Archers/CB/Crossbows rushes are used to death and probably mastered by many.
But do we have other options? Let's find out.

My suggestion: immortal difficulty, pangaea, domination victory. No preference on civ, just not one with OP UU's like Japan.
Special rule: no range units allowed. Including mounted range.

What do you guys think?

Sounds like a good idea. I was so inspired by your suggestion, that i went on and started at game with your suggested setting and a selection of the better AI civs. (Bismark, Hiawatha, Isabella, Darius, Monty, Napoleon, Wu Zetian.)

 

[Moriarte]

Many people can clean pangaea in 150 turns (and less) on immortal, yet they don't score 100% on deity. It's a fact.

Yeah, that's my story too, Pilgrim.

But maybe you could make a single map for some of us to try. Like your map with the Dutch. I think it might be interesting to compare different strats in same environment.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

this is certainly an option to make naval maps a challenge. no more frigate dominance strategies.

 

[Matthew.]

Moriarte, I think siege are fine. Although if you can succeed without them - kudos. In the thread I linked, Matthew suggests that melee are too weak. That will be the ultimate proof he's wrong.

You aren't going to be proving much with mass siege and infantry support. It is hardly different than archers other than a bit more pre-planning on how/where to set-up siege.

Considering many of my games are played primarily with infantry and siege anyway, I'm sure I will be impressed

My suggestion: No siege, no bombers (fighters for AA is ok, but no strike mode spam), no range, no Gatling/machine, no frigate/battleship spam. The challenge is to see just how valuable melee is, yes? Adding anything else destroys the original intention.

Basically: Infantry, cavalry, spear/pikes, tanks. Overwhelm your opponent with superior ground forces. Yes, taking higher defense cities will be tough, but it is a challenge...

Edit: I've never played a game like this myself. If I have some time later today, I may try a game or two.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Sounds like a good idea. I was so inspired by your suggestion, that i went on and started at game with your suggested setting and a selection of the better AI civs. (Bismark, Hiawatha, Isabella, Darius, Monty, Napoleon, Wu Zetian.)

Good luck! I'll try to avoid these, because I want something more generic. Although when I think about it, most civs have melee/mounted UU's, so the list is rather short.

Yeah, that's my story too, Pilgrim.

But maybe you could make a single map for some of us to try. Like your map with the Dutch. I think it might be interesting to compare different strats in same environment.

I suggested group therapy in other thread. If there are enough of us, maybe we will get a discount.
I'll post my map a little later.

this is certainly an option to make naval maps a challenge. no more frigate dominance strategies.

Oh yeah! Old Peter, here's the idea you should like. Suicidal somewhat.
Probably not something I'll be tempted to try soon though. For me all naval map fun is in logistics frigates and battleships.

You aren't going to be proving much with mass siege and infantry support. It is hardly different than archers other than a bit more pre-planning on how/where to set-up siege.

Considering many of my games are played primarily with infantry and siege anyway, I'm sure I will be impressed

If that's the case, why do you think non-archery options are lacking?

My suggestion: No siege, no bombers (fighters for AA is ok, but no strike mode spam), no range, no Gatling/machine, no frigate/battleship spam. The challenge is to see just how valuable melee is, yes? Adding anything else destroys the original intention.
Basically: Infantry, cavalry, spear/pikes, tanks. Overwhelm your opponent with superior ground forces. Yes, taking higher defense cities will be tough, but it is a challenge...

My intention was more to evaluate non-archery approach in relation to standard CB rush strategy. But again, if you feel you can pull this off with melee/mounted only, even better.

Edit: I've never played a game like this myself. If I have some time later today, I may try a game or two.

Good luck and keep us posted. Now I'm even more curious than before.

 

[Matthew.]

If that's the case, why do you think non-archery options are lacking?

It is more about power difference. Civ is largely a game of opportunity cost, and strategy games in general about making interesting choices.

You have your shiny new empire, and the enemy horde will be soon approaching (Immortal/Deity). What do you do? Choose to gather up a small force of archers that can eliminate the horde with little to no losses, no large detours away from bee-lining science techs, good on offense and defense, and relatively cheap/resource-free? Or do you take a detour, focus on infantry techs which cannot attack without being attacked, expensive and may need iron, have difficulty in taking enemy cities, and generally don't contribute as much as archers?

That isn't an interesting choice. That is either play smart, or purposely play stupid (for challenge, role-play, boredom, but certainly never because optimal).

My intention was more to evaluate non-archery approach in relation to standard CB rush strategy. But again, if you feel you can pull this off with melee/mounted only, even better.

And I am by no means going to steal the thread. You called me out by name, so I felt obligated to clarify my position. Actually, Budweiser's idea of having a game and comparing CB starts vs. Iron-rush starts sounds interesting. Someone posting a map and having players try out different starts and comparing results would be fun.

Good luck and keep us posted. Now I'm even more curious than before.

If I have time for a game, I will be sure to take some screenies. No doubt it will be a much slower game, but it will be fun to see what crazy-powerful melee I can get with stacked promotions by the end of the game.

 

[budweiser]

Here's a nice house rule: a player may only have 1 archer per city. Archers may not leave cultural borders unless stacked with a GG.

 

[sufficiency]

I was going to try this, then I saw this:

FML

 

[budweiser]

sufficiency - I chose to try a game with germany as well.

 

[BBMorti]

Without a ban to bombers and siege I don't see the point. Bomber/art and a quick unit for city capture is standard late game strategy..

 

[Monthar]

This sounds like a good time to go with the Huns. However, since this is no ranged units, using those battering rams will be a lot more challenging.