Race to Cuirassiers?

[squoink]

Hi all,

I've just watched a couple of high level civ games.
The winning method seemed to be to race to cuirassiers, build a load of these (and no siege) and then steam roll the AIs.

It seems to me that this method negates the need for siege and the idea of methodically taking down oponents city defenses etc.

It seems quite crude but obviously worked in the games I witnessed.

Am I missing something or do you think this crude approach negates the need for well thought out strategies ie. just build loads of Cuirassiers and win?

Any thoughts appreciated

Cheers

 

[Lexicus]

Well. I think that, just because Curs are the "easiest" way to play, doesn't make them a "crude" strategy. I mean, it takes focus to arrive at Curs at an appropriate date for a rush. And then depending on the size of your "window" you need to make pretty efficient use of the whip to produce a large enough stack of Curs to roll the AIs.

Mobile warfare (with all mounted units) is actually quite a bit less crude, IMO, than methodically reducing the AI's cities with a big stack of siege and infantry. IT requires you to think in somewhat different terms and to keep the AI off-balance. Whereas a siege-heavy army just requires you to break down the AI with superior firepower.

Now, I'm not as good as a lot of the posters around here, and I play on large maps instead of standard-size, so Cur rush rarely wins me the game itself. Usually, a cur rush brings me to a position of parity with the stronger AIs, allowing me to conquer/capitulate 2-4 AIs. Then I usually need to launch another big war when I get to Rifling (or in some cases even Assembly Line/Artillery, depending on how badly my teching suffers during the Cur wars) in order to get to a winning position, and then I wrap up the game after that with whatever's available.

 

[Qactus]

Combining Cuirs with Siege wouldn't make sense. One big advantage over their predecessor units - the Knights - is that they are gunpowder-based and thus ignore walls and castles. Removing more than that from the city defenses is not necessary, just bring more Cuirs. If there are tough cities you really want to whittle down, then at least don't use siege for it but use spy revolts instead so you can take full advantage from the speed of mounted warfare.

The reason Cuir wars are so popular is their position in the tech tree. All the things you pick up on the way to Liberalism/Military Tradition are good (Literature, Music, Great Artist, Education, Philosophy, Nationalism with Taj Mahal), and the AI usually techs other things instead, which lets you trade for practically everything else. Every Great Scientist can easily help you get there earlier by bulbing without having to plan carefully like e.g. in an Engineering rush using GSs.

Also, you can always try and make a Cuir war less "crude" and more elegant by prebuilding Horse Archers and having one or two trade missions ready for upgrades and attack one turn after Liberalism, etc.

 

[lymond]

There's actually a lot of tactics to mounted warfare, whether HAs or Curs, moreso than siege warfare. Granted if you are playing on lower levels, maybe not so much if the AIs don't have LBs or even Engineering.

As for methodically taking down city defenses with siege, that is not always the optimal strategy. It depends really on what those defenses are and the amount/type of defenders present. Sometimes just attacking is better and faster, especially if you have no issues with troop production.

 

[Lexicus]

As for methodically taking down city defenses with siege, that is not always the optimal strategy. It depends really on what those defenses are and the amount/type of defenders present. Sometimes just attacking is better and faster, especially if you have no issues with troop production.

Basically, yes. I would rather attack with 12 curs and face longbows and pikes than with 30 and face riflemen.

 

[ikotomi]

Not taking turns to seige can save you hammers, because you spend less resources on killing new units that AI whips.

 

[Windsor]

In single-player I don't find that much strategy in the actual combat. Once the units are produced and ready to attack 90% of the job is done. Researching the techs, building the units, choosing victim and creating the diplomatic situation that allows you to attack that victim is what makes the big difference between mid and high-level players.

Cuirassiers comes at a very convenient time in the game. Boxed in early? You can reach them with very few cities. REXed hard? Economy is recovered and infrastructure probably in place once cuirassiers comes along.

Cuirassiers are not blatantly overpowered like War Elephants. It's just that a straight forward liberalism-beeline with Cuirassiers at the end works in most SP-games. Slight changes to the AI would have made a huge difference in their popularity.

 

[DrCron]

As others pointed out, the Cuirs strategy is convenient because of the tech path. Also, while you take down 1-2 enemies you might get to rifling, and if you manage to get some gold you might be able to upgrade experiences Cuirs to Cavalry to finish the job. But if you are not fast enough, the AI will get rifles and then you will need cannons.

This is something that works well mostly on Pangea maps, and when you don't need an early rush to get at least 6 decent cities. If you get boxed early in the game, you'll have to DOW before that. If you play an archipelago map, everything changes. If you play continents you are somewhere in the middle, but you will still probably want to "own" your continent before Cuirs.

So if you want to be able to win any type of game via war, you should be familiar with the other important strategies: HA rush, Elepult, Riflemen drafting... even crossbows rush (if you play with China). If you need an early rush and start without horses or elephants, you will need to attack with maybe swords and catapults. Or maybe you start with horses but your closest enemy is SO close that a chariot rush is doable (especially if you are Egypt). Don't limit yourself to just one way of warring.

I'm assuming you are watching Chris' channel, since he loves to destroy everyone with Cuirs. I can only recommend you to look for other strategies, even in his channel. He has good videos with elepult, HA rush and Crossbow rush.

 

[squoink]

Hi and thanks for the feedback.
I'm not actually familiar with Chris's channel or channels at all actually.
Could you point me to these please?

Thanks a lot

 

[DrCron]

Hi and thanks for the feedback.
I'm not actually familiar with Chris's channel or channels at all actually.
Could you point me to these please?

Thanks a lot

Chris (Absolute Zero in this forum) has his channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/Chris67132. There are lots of Deity games, and in several of them he rolls with cuirs, but you can find other strategies too, including many early rushes.

 

[Lazteuq]

The problem I have with Cuirassier rushes is that I only seem to have around 30% odds against longbows in major cities. When the longbow has 60% def. from culture, and over 50% from being in a city, and the fortify bonus, and often another 50% from a hill, the cuirs end up dying like flies! It seems like the only way is to bring siege, but then I might as well have just fought with medieval units. This is on emperor or immortal. What might I be doing wrong? Do you need to get cuirs before the AIs get longbows? That seems far fetched...

 

[timmy827]

If your cuirs have 30% odds they shouldn't die like flies...likely about 1 dies per longbow, at 30% you're likely to wound the LB significantly. So its about
1) getting a good size stack quickly enough that you can take cities (expecting/accepting that you might lose around 1 unit per medieval AI unit in a city)
2) moving fast, so AI whips each city only once before you attack it.

 

[sampsa]

Then there is the spy revolt mission, which takes out all cultural defence. Goes in very well with cuir attacks. Best used in 1-3 of the most difficult cities.

 

[rah]

Well. I think that, just because Curs are the "easiest" way to play, doesn't make them a "crude" strategy. I mean, it takes focus to arrive at Curs at an appropriate date for a rush. And then depending on the size of your "window" you need to make pretty efficient use of the whip to produce a large enough stack of Curs to roll the AIs.

This sums it up best for me. And since I usually play "no tech trading", alphabet isn't even necessary.

 

[gaash2]

This sums it up best for me. And since I usually play "no tech trading", alphabet isn't even necessary.

Do you find no tech trading puts you at an advantage or disadvantage to the AI tech wise?

 

[rah]

all depends how you look at it. Without it, if you get a lead, you keep it longer and the window stays open a few more turns.
But overall, I can't abuse the AI in trades to back fill. So if I fall behind the AI, it's harder to catch up.
The other issue is bribing to go to war. PRO- AI finds it harder to bribe other AI to dogpile you. CON- without it, much harder to get an AI to friendly and harder to manipulate them.

I'm sure you'll find that those that play tech trading on will say it makes the game harder and those that play no tech trading will say it makes the game harder.

 

[sampsa]

Tech trading on should be easier. How could AI ever have an advantage in the trading game? Also without tech gifting you need to be able to gift cities for diplo bonus.

 

[DrCron]

I'm sure you'll find that those that play tech trading on will say it makes the game harder and those that play no tech trading will say it makes the game harder.

I disagree, I play with tech trading on and I'm pretty sure it makes the game way easier. In fact, I don't know how people can win the game in the highest difficulties without tech trading, it sounds impossible to catch up with the AI.

 

[gaash2]

Tech trading on should be easier. How could AI ever have an advantage in the trading game? Also without tech gifting you need to be able to gift cities for diplo bonus.

Well they won't trade with you beaker for beaker so they get the better of every exchange? I assume they trade with each other more fairly.

 

[sampsa]

Well they won't trade with you beaker for beaker so they get the better of every exchange? I assume they trade with each other more fairly.

That doesn't mean that (an intelligent) player doesn't have a huge advantage in trades. AI to AI trades don't lead to "fair trade" diplo bonuses either.

Teching a tech nobody else has and sharing it around leads to player getting a lot more beakers than anyone else plus the diplo bonuses. AI can never pull off the same move.