Praetorians and Keshiks are worse than jaguars and skirmishers

[Manco Capac]

Yawn, yawn, yawn.

Why bother yourself reading other's posts!? It's boring, damn narrow-minded, inclusively BTS thinking, stoopid.

Yer RIGHT! No need to keep discussing with someone who has truth!

Now, just return to your holy land and let us rot in our heathen mindset.

 

[Manco Capac]

^


Haha. Sometimes, I have such a bad attitude.
Just ignore it. Sometimes, I wonder if I have a mood disorder...

But sometimes, you should be more respectful and less haughty in the way you present your counterattack.

 

[noto2]

I was just annoyed that someone suggested I don't know what I'm talking about because, gasp, I must be a noobie.

 

[lindsay40k]

Of all the resource dependent UUs, Numidians are my favourite. Since they're a 'free promo' unit, it doesn't matter if you get Horse too late to use them in combat - it's still worth building them and upgrading straight to Cuirs without even bothering to acquire Guilds in between. CI FII Cuirs without a GG, Theo or Vassalage, 3XP from CII? Yes, please!

And since you're Hannibal, you don't need a UU win button since your economy can give you a good tech lead, and a GM from the GLH/Artemis can do a mission and raise the funds for the mass upgrade to Cuirs.

 

[Manco Capac]

I was just annoyed that someone suggested I don't know what I'm talking about because, gasp, I must be a noobie.

Well, I'm glad of such mature reply. I was wrong after all.

Anyways, I don't think you are a newbie, but the problem why the conflict still occurs is the difference of paradigms. K-Mod set up a very hostile environment while most BTS games can be manipulated to almost certainty with experience and knowledge. I would be a case who knows too much...breaking the magic of a random AI/game.

Anyways, what bothers me is that need to make such war of attrition against an AI to secure a winning position in a K-Mod game. Yeah, I forgot the content of the whole thread (I read it like over a week ago), but that type of environment is clearly not sine qua non on BTS.

Those infamous archers rushes are the tip of the iceberg...
At least, in multiplayer, although the unbalance of starts, handicaps should be grounded similarly. When it's IMM+ AI, well, that's crippling if warring against us all the time.

Yes, it enforces your initial idea that resourceless UU are great, but they are greater in such hostile environment...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^


Haha. Sometimes, I have such a bad attitude.
Just ignore it. Sometimes, I wonder if I have a mood disorder...

But sometimes, you should be more respectful and less haughty in the way you present your counterattack.

I could give you lessons in having a nice, friendly attitude towards others on the internet if you're interested... <3 <3 <3.

.

Anyway, the problem with an AI choke ---> iron rush is the following:

1. You have to get some choke units ASAP, and unless you want to risk AI settling for (or maybe even ON) copper you have to get them early. This has an impact on early worker/settler production of your own.
2. You are going to have to shore up defenses further, in case of AI wandering archers and also barbs now that your spawnbust units are occupied.
3. These units outside of your territory have a significant cost.
4. AI spams the ***** out of archers, which means you have to engage in some masterful baiting tactics to expose them and then stick your sword (er...jags) on them between cities to whittle their numbers.
5. Choked cities are only marginally better than settled cities, because they won't have wonders, great infrastructure, or a normal amount of tile improvements (you DO want to allow less archer spam after all).

These things add up to a pure choke being somewhat suboptimal. Now, if you can lullerfarm 6 workers off this sucker or it's a desperate situation enough to merit that, such can be fine. However, jags as a pure bum rush unit are not consistently viable to any significant degree more so than a stock sword rush + choke is consistently viable. The constraint is frequently not iron in such a scenario anyway.

I don't find choking to be significantly better in kmod actually. In fact, it's probably worse since they'll actually attack your choke more often ^_^.

 

[noto2]

I guess I should add that I'm a big fan of a choke and rush strategy to begin with. If I have horses, I rush to HA's and choke off the enemy and then invade with nothing but HAs (not all the time of course, but it's one of my favourite things to do), similarly with iron. I've found that a choke and copper pillage attack followed by a sword rush is easier to pull off in many situations than going straight for catapults. So I guess that's why I like jags, because they suit my style of play. I just find that when playing Rome I have horses and no iron, and when playing Persia I have iron and no horses.

 

[Iranon]

If you're relying on early archers anyway (much safer, but I didn't take that for granted) that's another point in favour of Mali.
You get a stronger choke, can turn it into a proper rush earlier, and can research whatever techs improve your position instead of being locked into economically dubious Iron Working after an already economy-unfriendly start.

Even if early Iron Working isn't that much of a sacrifice (jungles?), Mali starts with more expensive techs and the Wheel is reliably useful where Mysticism isn't... that's a 80 saving right from the start.

Skirmishers have so little economic overhead and are so cost-effective that I doubt any Archer Choke/(Unique) Cleanup competes. Certainly not one with Jaguars.
Skirmishers may not appear as strong as they are because players attribute the economic breathing room to a good start when it's the civ.
If one can get a credible rush for half the usual economic investment, it's tempting to get distracted and do it half-heartedly rather than throwing everything behind it.

 

[lindsay40k]

Skirmishers may not appear as strong as they are because players attribute the economic breathing room to a good start when it's the civ.
If one can get a credible rush for half the usual economic investment, it's tempting to get distracted and do it half-heartedly rather than throwing everything behind it.

Well put.

Monty's Jaguar rush often leaves a strong impression on Noble players, but easy access to Woodsman III is the thing I love about about the unit.

 

[digitalcraft]

Skirmishers are alright. They're good for an extended early rush.

The thing is, generally my economy can't handle that big of an early rush. I might go womp one initial civ with warriors, but I don't want to expand too fast.

After that, my main rush is going to be whatever goes well with catapults. They're really the main unit. If you're already at that tech level, the best unit is still axemen with just a couple of something else. You're going to want copper or iron even simply for the production bonus of seeing it, and they're going to be much better at defending your units and last for quite a long time. It takes quite a few hefty techs to come out with a unit that clearly trounces them. Generally metal casting + engineering for crossbows.

I could see in mulitplayer if I'm worried about an opponent coming to womp me, skirmishers might be good for defense, they're just not quite the right time era for a strong unit for me though.

 

[Iranon]

I mostly consider Deity (possibly Immortal depending on mods) play; really not sure what's advisable on settings where I'd be confident about womping anyone with warriors.

Nevertheless:
Skirmishers go very well with catapults. Catapults do the heavy lifting offensively, Skirmishers excel at defense and cleanup (first strikes are particularly powerful against wounded units).
I consider resourceless Catapult+Skirmisher about as strong as Catapults + all regular units; the only reason I don't rate it higher is because flanking Horse Archers can be a pain.

Jaguars are also nice here. Catapults and stack defenders do most of the work so we don't miss regular Swordsmen too badly, it's nice to have easy access to decent medics and a guaranteed cleanup unit stronger than vanilla Archers.

 

[digitalcraft]

I mostly consider Deity (possibly Immortal depending on mods) play; really not sure what's advisable on settings where I'd be confident about womping anyone with warriors.

Nevertheless:
Skirmishers go very well with catapults. Catapults do the heavy lifting offensively, Skirmishers excel at defense and cleanup (first strikes are particularly powerful against wounded units).
I consider resourceless Catapult+Skirmisher about as strong as Catapults + all regular units; the only reason I don't rate it higher is because flanking Horse Archers can be a pain.

Jaguars are also nice here. Catapults and stack defenders do most of the work so we don't miss regular Swordsmen too badly, it's nice to have easy access to decent medics and a guaranteed cleanup unit stronger than vanilla Archers.

You only ever end one civ by spamming warriors, but its enough to get that early lead. Its slightly faster taking a city than building your own but mainly it gives you extra space without that other civ breathing down your neck. Warrior rush is a pretty common strategy!

But do you just beeline construction and completely ignore bronze working? Seems like you might get that fast but you'd have a hard time maintaining any sort of conquering momentum with no civ basis.

 

[Iranon]

Throwing Warriors at Archer-defended cities seems rough, baiting first or not.
Wiping out one AI to have another one settle the free land seems rough.
Wiping out the only potential partner/victim of opportunity seems rough.

I'm sure Warrior rushes can work, but I believe I'd throw perfectly winnable starts away or at least make my life much harder if I try on Deity without prior information.

*

Bronze Working is a fairly useful economy tech that I don't want to ignore for too long. A catapult-driven war doesn't require blindsiding the AI, so I don't need to make unreasonable tech concessions.
Mali just doesn't depend on resources to make it attractive.
Cats + vanilla Archers is possible, but not necessarily pretty.
Catapults + Skirmishers alone is often better than Catapults + Vanilla metal units; doesn't meant metal units don't have their place (round out stack defense, take small garrisons that don't warrant throwing multiple catapults at them).

 

[AdamCrock]

I would say just "no" -> dependant on conditions, recon, simplified thread question but to the point "no" means "yes" depend on promos and situation Than again feel it on yourself (or inflict) why don't Ya xD

 

[awesome]

At the same time, most players still start a new game of CIV with a prefferance of which tactic and strategy they want to play. 'Playing the map' is incredibly boring when you have a favorite strategy you want to pull off instead.

yeah, but then you might as well not go random.