Nox Noctis

[Mailbox]

The main risk factor in a fight is weather you will win or not, and after that how easily you win. If you win, you won't have to worry about counterattack.

If fighting an enemy with a much larger army and in the open field, not worrying about a counterattack is huge. Often the AI fields huge armies and being able to whittle down the attacking force before it crashes against a city can be the difference between a loss and a win, especially for a builder civilization.

 

[avalonnn]

It's interesting to fight an AI with Nox Noctis. In one game, their cities weren't defended but they had a mega stack outside.

AI did not realize that when I conquered the Nox Noctis city, I'd reveal the stack, which was a problem. Got to fight some FoL heroes in the open in a plains square, which did not help them at all.

I like Nox Noctis because it's interesting. I'm having more problems with the overcouncil these days. Had one game where I had to go to war while using the Liberty civic (needed the trade routes from the overcouncil) and another where some key mana was banned.

Playing without either council is a viable option.

 

[cabbagemeister]

I think Nox Noctis is a big advantage when you're being invaded by an enemy AI stack. You can attack the stack without having to worry about getting your units to safety afterwards, meaning that it's easier to whittle the stack down. You can whack them with magic with impunity without worrying about protecting your mages. Assassins are AWESOME with Nox Noctis because their weakness, defense strength, becomes irrelevant. Basically, the bigger the enemy stack, the more benefit you get out of the Noctis. Also, your workers don't have to stop working, which is nice.

I think Nox Noctis is a big DISadvantage when you're defending against barbarians. The biggest problem is on maps like Erebus, where huge empty regions of the map that are chock full of barbs can be controlled by a single strong unit in a chokepoint. Nox Noctis "removes" that chokepoint control and allows all those barbs to stream into your territory, which is a pain (especially when you had set up that chokepoint controller and ignored it for ever, and now you have to worry about it again).

 

[xienwolf]

I've held off on mentioning it much till I knew it was up and working as I wanted, but go try Fall Further's latest patch. I've added the ability for a unit to decide if they want to be invisible or not when Nox Noctis (or the similar ritual) is active.

 

[onedreamer]

If fighting an enemy with a much larger army and in the open field, not worrying about a counterattack is huge. Often the AI fields huge armies and being able to whittle down the attacking force before it crashes against a city can be the difference between a loss and a win, especially for a builder civilization.

uh ? excuse me but how much sense can this have ? If you're fighting a huge army with low numbers and with offensive tactics, then you have MUCH more to worry than when you fight with defensive tactics, that's exactly the problem with Nox Noctis which I mentioned before: when a units defends it can kill more than an opponent per turn (drill works wonders), while an offensive unit most likely can't. So when you're facing bigger numbers it's much safer to fight on the defensive and I don't see how it could be otherwise. Also your supposed tactic looks just useless in the end:
1- fighting on the offensive outside cities means you'll have to heal after one fight, likely heal more than if you defended, and with less boni due to being out of a city.
2- some targets just can't be killed on the offensive due to their defensive boni.
3- inability to use your defensive boni.
4- so you will manage to kill some of the attacking stack. This however won't stop the rest of it from pillaging all their way through your nearest city, which will be where you will likely stop a bigger enemy stack. However, without Nox Noctis you could have achieved this much before, and you could have used high mobile units like horsemen to weaken the stack without counterattacks in the same way you'd do with Nox Noctis. Sure, it's nice to have invisible units, but not if the drawback is bigger than the advantage.

To tell the truth Nox Noctis does have a strategic value but only if you are playing the Svartalfar, because after using your world spell you can exploit invisibility to harrass your neighbors around the borders or your "friends" when they cross your lands.

 

[cabbagemeister]

So when you're facing bigger numbers it's much safer to fight on the defensive and I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Agreed that it's better to have defensive bonuses when you fight. But how often can you cause such a fight to happen? In other words, this assumes that a big AI stack beelining toward your city will stop to attack well-fortified units outside of cities that have strong defensive bonuses but are not necessarily defending strategically important tiles. Do they? I honestly don't know (I haven't been invaded late-game in a long time). If they do, then defending those strong points is a good tactic, one which Noctis removes. But if they don't, and if AI stacks instead go right for cities, then you'll only really be defending in those cities, and having Noctis doesn't hurt you at all.

Obviously if you can set up defenders on strategically important tiles (like chokepoints in an Erebus map), then Noctis really hurts you.

 

[onedreamer]

Agreed that it's better to have defensive bonuses when you fight. But how often can you cause such a fight to happen? In other words, this assumes that a big AI stack beelining toward your city will stop to attack well-fortified units outside of cities that have strong defensive bonuses but are not necessarily defending strategically important tiles. Do they?

They will if they have decent chances to win. If they do: good ! And if they don't, good ! You've achieved what you wanted: defend strategically important tiles or soften up the enemy stack killing or damaging their strongest units; both of these extremely important events aren't likely to happen once you built Nox Noctis.

 

[Zechnophobe]

uh ? excuse me but how much sense can this have ? If you're fighting a huge army with low numbers and with offensive tactics, then you have MUCH more to worry than when you fight with defensive tactics, that's exactly the problem with Nox Noctis which I mentioned before: when a units defends it can kill more than an opponent per turn (drill works wonders), while an offensive unit most likely can't. So when you're facing bigger numbers it's much safer to fight on the defensive and I don't see how it could be otherwise. Also your supposed tactic looks just useless in the end:

So, answer me this, when you get attacked by a stack of say 40 units, do you just move all your guys into the closes city and wait for it to move on?

What if it has catapults, or Pyre Zombies? Putting all your eggs in one basket while they siege your city is a really bad idea, because stack damage, and collateral damage are very strong.

If you have units that are strong, and try to just fortify them in your city, they might attack somewhere else. Raider trait is a . .. .. .. .. .. Further more, against enemy stacks with a lot of weak units, or equal strength units, you could do massive damage to it while it walks (non raider) through your empire, except that your victorious warriors will end up being killed on counter attacks most likely.

1- fighting on the offensive outside cities means you'll have to heal after one fight, likely heal more than if you defended, and with less boni due to being out of a city.

Sure, if you are just going to have big stack vs big stack, it makes more sense to be on the defensive, unless they have siege, which can greatly modify this equation, because they have high withdrawl and collateral damage.

2- some targets just can't be killed on the offensive due to their defensive boni.

And some armies are too strong for your defenses, this doesn't seem like a real talking point.

3- inability to use your defensive boni.

Defensive Bonuses, yes, I believe you've mentioned that already, in this list, in both of the proceeding two items.

4- so you will manage to kill some of the attacking stack. This however won't stop the rest of it from pillaging all their way through your nearest city, which will be where you will likely stop a bigger enemy stack. However, without Nox Noctis you could have achieved this much before, and you could have used high mobile units like horsemen to weaken the stack without counterattacks in the same way you'd do with Nox Noctis. Sure, it's nice to have invisible units, but not if the drawback is bigger than the advantage.

Woa, now we are just completely theorycrafting. We have Nox Noctis, and horses that won't lose, and we assume we could have just fortified on the border and they'd have attacked us there. This is just fantasy. Large AI stacks walk right up to cities, and ignore most things else that aren't easy prey, and then kill the city, it is how they are programmed. Are you going to defend each square with fortified units? Put them all on the border?

What if, dare I say, you've got units that aren't good at defending? Horsemen or Assassins, or whatnot. Fortify those in cities two?

 

[BillSeurer]

Before I get into my real post I have a question. Is the invisibility provided by Nox better than "normal" invisibility? The AI doesn't seem able to see my units (or at least it just ignores them) even when it has units that can normally see invisible ones.

I actually am in the middle of a big war now in my current game with the 3 other remaining civs who are almost of equal size and power to me. I decided to give Nox a try and it is saving my proverbial rear end. Here's why...

There are still some areas of wilderness (no time to colonize with all the wars going on) that are producing steady streams of barbarians. Earlier I had to clump my workers up and provide them with tough escorts and even then I would still lose them regularly. With Nox the barbarians just charge on past for the cities and die when attacking. I leave a few mounted units/chariots around to clean up the ones that don't actually get to the cities so they don't loot but this has freed up significant numbers of units for more important duty PLUS some of these defenders get to be super tough and then I rotate them out to the "real" front and swap in fresh units.

On defense against other civs Nox has turned out to be fabulous. The AI has no idea where my units outside cities are at and so I can move them around with impunity. They are sending lots of assassins in with their attacking units and I just leave my vulnerable (i.e., mage, priest) units out in the countryside. I can strike at the attacking stacks (with mounted/chariot units) to soften them up and not worry about the wounded that such attacks produce. The AI loves to pick off wounded and weak units near borders. My workers just plug away even while there are huge battles taking place right on top of them. I've picked off more than 6 big stacks of attackers this way losing only a handful of units in the process.

I leave some small stacks of 2-4 mounted units scattered around on the border to strike into enemy territory and nab workers or pillage and then retreat to safety back across the border. It's almost a cheat how well this works.

On attack it works well too. One concern I always have if it some powerful unit gets badly injured in an attack on a city and then can't move in. The AI loves to assassinate or just plain attack these guys. With Nox I take the city, move the non-injured units in, pop a priest of some sort of add to the culture, and my injured units outside the city are safe. I can then even immediately move in workers.

 

[onedreamer]

On defense against other civs Nox has turned out to be fabulous. The AI has no idea where my units outside cities are at and so I can move them around with impunity.

You guys have a serious problem understanding the point of this thread. What's the point ? For the last time, the point is not that Nox Noctis plainly sucks, but that it forces you to adopt a certain strategy rather than another. You all moved the discussion to weather this other strategy is better or worse, etc. I don't really care, it is irrilevant for this discussion, the relevant point is that you have to adopt that tactic, like it or not.
Many players like to soften up enemy stacks taking an offensive stance, and in this Nox Noctics works wonders for them. Fine, but thanks God we're not all the same and I don't see how this can be called a strategic game if we all adopted the same strategies. One can choose to adopt a certain strategy for any silly reason, it doesn't necessarily have to be the most efficien.

So if you want to discuss how you p4wn your enemies thanks to Nox Noctis, please do it in another thread. This one is about Nox Noctis forcing you to play on the offensive inside your borders, and if you have tips for players who won't defend with assassins.

 

[cabbagemeister]

Okay, well, one of the most effective Nox-related strategies I've used is to get an Entropy adept and park him next to an invading stack, casting rust every turn. Really helps in those situations where none of your units have good attack odds.

 

[BillSeurer]

This one is about Nox Noctis forcing you to play on the offensive inside your borders, and if you have tips for players who won't defend with assassins.

If your strategy on defense is to let the other guy batter himself against your dug in defenders then don't build Nox. End of discussion.

Nothing wrong with that kind of defense but building it isn't going to help you and will hurt you.

 

[citizenalex]

Great wonder, really. Sure, you have to click the mouse more once you defend your towns...but on the bright side, your workers don't get picked at anymore. Who wants to waste a perfectly good node when you found CoE...I'm sure that a human vs human it would be way more vicious...

 

[phoulishwan]

I find more often than not trying to play defensively just gets your tiles pillaged, if your defensive force is too strong. Which it should be if you plan on playing defensively...the AI will ignore it and move past it, which forces you out of your defensive position anyhow in order to save your tiles and then you start worrying about leaving exposed units which the AI will without a doubt pick off...this is without the Nox Noctis, in my opinion the only thing the Nox Noctis does is it relieves the worry about leaving exposed units, because either with it or without it if you plan to preserve your tile improvements you best have a decent road network setup along with strong attacking units to pick that stack apart in a hurry to prevent it from pillaging everything on it's way to your nearest city, in fact most times when it realizes it's not strong enough to take out the target city it will continue on merrily pillaging it's way to the next closest city, I can't live with rebuilding a bunch of tile improvements because the stack is too strong for me to bring down but not strong enough to bust through my own defenses, so I'm forced into this style of play because trying to play defensively is most times ineffective and a waste of resources which could be spent on an offensive army, the one that will, if you're playing aggressively not go to waste but be used and therefore be earning it's upkeep.

 

[Sarisin]

You make some good points.

The reason I don't build the Wonder is because I like to close off choke points and having units you can pass through defeats that purpose.

I find in a raging barbs game once you are the Chosen One and targeted by the barbs they will keep coming after you. So, I try to use blocked choke points, or even captured Elephant blockers to keep the barbs out of my civ borders or at least channel them into one killing zone if I cannot secure my whole civ.

Nox Noctis is not good for this strategy.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

There are many things in this game that "force" you to use a specific strategy. It begins with which Civilization you choose, which branch of the tech tree you take, which religion you adopt, what wonders you build...
..Nox Noctis is just another choice. Build it or don't. Choose the Sidar Civ or don't. Pick the Hippus or don't. Adopt Ashen Veil or don't. Build the Guild of the Nine or don't... I think that complaining that the Nox Noctis wonder "Forces" to adopt a specific strategy is like complaining that the Tower of Necromancy gives you bad modifiers with the Good Civs, because it provides Death mana and needs entrophy and chaos mana to build....

Everything has advandages and disadvandages. You do not need to build Nox Noctis to have the Counsil of Essus religion, you do not even have to *found* Counsil of Essus to gain access to Shadows... I think that the wonder goes with the spirit of the religion, you do not like it, do not adopt this religion. You can always be FoL and have a city or two with CoE among others. Choose your game and play it as you like... Just have fun, this is what we are playing for .

 

[popejubal]

I deal with it by having so much more money than every other player that I can utterly dominate the game.

Nox Noctis is a cash machine since you don't consume the Undercouncil representative when you infect a city with your religion.

I'm delighted to spend 25 gold (and no hammers) to get an extra 1 to 3 gold per turn for the rest of the game.

 

[lordrune]

There are many things in this game that "force" you to use a specific strategy. It begins with which Civilization you choose, which branch of the tech tree you take, which religion you adopt, what wonders you build...
..Nox Noctis is just another choice. Build it or don't. Choose the Sidar Civ or don't. Pick the Hippus or don't. Adopt Ashen Veil or don't. Build the Guild of the Nine or don't... I think that complaining that the Nox Noctis wonder "Forces" to adopt a specific strategy is like complaining that the Tower of Necromancy gives you bad modifiers with the Good Civs, because it provides Death mana and needs entrophy and chaos mana to build....

Yes and no...
The penalty with good civs for using Death/Entropy mana makes sense from a roleplay perspective and a gameplay one.

But for Nox Noctis to absolutely prevent your units from being able to defend your territory? That doesn't make sense either way. It's a failure of the mechanic, the idea is great but it needs a more flexible implementation. Basically - invisibiility needs to be 'opt/in', not mandatory, especially for your core army units.

Maybe we're not going to get one - but that just means that I'm never going to build the Council of Esus shrine in my games. I don't like deliberately limiting my choices, but even less do I like breaking my game.

 

[Demus]

i personally prefer the fall further method of handling the nox noctis: give units within your borders a spell which allows them to "put up or take down their cloak", adding or removing the invis at will. This will still give you invisible workers, assassins and mages, but also allows you to defend chokepoints.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

One of my recent games had me as the Illians trying to attack the Svartalfar who had Nox Noctis. When you're a magic heavy army (priests of winter, guys with maelstrom, the whole nine yards) running into invisible guys, not knowing if you should cast your spells or not is tricky.

True, you can't sit on a hill and watch the enemy bash themselves senseless against you. But you can.........

Build units with huge attacks and tiny defenses, like the big recons or mages, and not care about defending them.

Attack units without fear of counterattack, because they can't see you.

simply relocate further out, to take up defensive positions outside your own borders where nox noctis doesn't apply.