Rat 24 - AWE Training Game

[Aabraxan]

I'm at GMT -6, U.S. Central Time Zone.

I'm very flexible on civ choice, but I have several thoughts on the matter.

Maya -- I still like the idea of being able to enslave workers early in the game, but that UU is awfully, awfully early.

Germany -- the late UU gives me pause, simply because I think there are some learning opportunities as to the timing of the GA.

Iros -- Not much to say here. Always a solid choice.

China -- Haven't played them in some time, but I like the idea of having the first 3-move unit on the ground.

I agree with gmaharriet regarding SGLs. I don't expect to be first to all that many techs, so SGLs will benefit the AI far more than us.

 

[ThERat]

ok, SGL's switched off...

Iro's or Chinese? I am fine with both actually. So far it seems we have a 50-50 about the choice.

Build order? That depends on the starting technologies. A warrior or 2 for some immediate exploration and MP duty. Getting out a second settler early is very important, if that's possible before meeting the first enemy.

A for techs, early on, archers are crucial to help defend against spear pillager. Of course, playing as Iro's it would be important to know where horses are, secure them time HBR so hat the GA won't be too early. Don't wait too long as MW's are that hot against defense 3 units (pikes).

 

[Greebley]

How about all trainees vote for Iroquois or China? The civ that gets 3 votes wins.

I think Archery is the tech I go for first most often in AW. It is slightly better than bronze working in that spears don't help vs pillagers so Archers seem better to get first. Also the early enemy doesn't tend to have units coming continuously so you can often get away with attacking without risk of counterattack.

 

[gmaharriet]

I'll vote for China. They start with Warrior Code for archers and Masonry for walls. Riders are great units and ensure a later GA. Love the faster workers!

 

[shinsei]

As for shinsei, there are 2 issues. What is the diffculty you can play a normal game at and win? Note that an AW is much harder than a standard game. Of course, SG's partially make up for hat as you tend to play above your skill in these.

Also, I don't want the list to be too long, we have already 5 trainees and that makes our team 7. This is already very long. I hope you're not too disappointed, maybe we keep you as a sub in case someone drops out. Do lurk and there might be an opening for other games.

The diffculty i usually play is Monarch or Regent,never get higher,and i know that an AW game is harder,but just wanna give a challange to myself since i never had a SG.anyways,i think the list is pretty much full aready,i'll lurk and pay attention to this threadnotify me if anyone drops out though,i'm always avalible

 

[Ansar]

How about all trainees vote for Iroquois or China? The civ that gets 3 votes wins.

My vote is Iroquois.

I can't pass up the Mounted Warrior and the Agricultural trait.

 

[Aabraxan]

Geez, that's a tough choice. I think I'm going to have to go with Iroqois.

 

[Othniel]

My vote is for China. I just feel like the Iroquois are such an obviously strong civ that I'm liking something just a little more out of the box. Since it's now down between China and Iroquois, I'll go China...

Map settings sound fine, although 70% (or 80%) water may make for a slightly more crowded and...exciting...map.

If we do China, burn research to Alpha --> Math for Cats, or will we want BW --> IW first? Of course, if we're Iroquois, TW has to top priority.

My time zone is Pacific, USA.

I've been following the other AW Monarch SG game going on right now, and that's been a little bit of a tough ride for the players. I think at least one of our trainers is in on that, too. An Emperor AW...this looks like fun!

 

[ThERat]

now we have 2:2 and TheOverseer714 will be the decisive vote though he indicted iro's as number 1.

Maybe Greebley, you could start off the game (I prefer to come in after 2-3 trainees).

 

[Greebley]

Ok, I can start after we have Overseers official vote. Agree you should be 4th or 5th in the roster.

Do all trainees know the basics of attacks and defense in AW? The primary idea is to attack only if you are safe from counter attack. This means you don't always kill the enemy. In the early game you might be able for your Archer to kill an enemy Archer, but if there is a Warrior or Archer behind it, then you don't want to attack unless you are forced to. For the situation mentioned above you instead want to defend preferably behind walls.

Additionally, sometimes you don't know if there is a unit behind. Sometimes it might be worth the gamble, but often it is better to wait/retreat until you know for sure one way or another. Towns especially border expansions help with this.

The ideal city distance is 3 apart. That way you can move defenders from one town to another if a city comes under pressure. One needs to pay attention to rivers and to building roads early. In AW I like having roads built before a new city is built. One mistake that is easy to make is to build an unconnected city only to have a few more enemy show up than expected costing said city.

Edit: Not sure why there is a smiley for the title. Must have pushed an odd button.


I find in AW I prioritize connecting roads higher than in ordinary games. I will wait on building a mine or irrigate if a city isn't connected - unlike ordinary game where the mine is more important. If you haven't met an enemy or the town is clearly away from the enemy then the road less important, but still a good policy for later.

I find I settle on hills more in AW. Front line hill sites are worth settling in a slightly less ideal spot. Of course since the front line is (hopefully) moving forward a town doesn't stay front line.

I have found that settling 'behind' a mountain (or even a hill) can be problematic. By behind a mountain, I mean that the mountain is next to a city in the direction the enemy is coming from. The AI knows enough to move onto the mountain and is thus double defense. If your enemy includes Persia, this becomes even more important. Immortals on mountains are def 4 and offense 4. If you attack or defend you have bad odds. Berserkers are even worse. I have abandoned and rebuilt a city in a different spot on occasion. Note that the other solution is to put defenders on the mountain. This is great if you have the defender to spare, but heavy pressure may mean abandoning the mountain to the enemy.

Catapults, Trebs, Cannon, Artillery are the real key to getting good combat ratios however. I use them in two ways. Sometimes when there are a lot of enemies I want to injure as many as I can. That way they retreat to heal. This is useful if many enemies come at you at once. The more common use is to red-line units so you can attack them at very good odds. Note that in the first scenario you spread out your shots on as many as you can and the second you want to concentrate your shots to injure the enemy as much as possible.

I often like to do one hp to spears and enemy defenders near a city on improved squares. Offensive units attack and Defensive tend to pillage. By doing a single hp, the enemy will usually retreat (not always) and not pillage.

Armies can be key to defending a city. Note however, that enemies will attack armies in cities so if there are many enemies - enough to take out the army, then this doesn't work. Note that a sword army with 3 units has a defense of 3 not 2. It will take less damage than a Spear will when attacked, so can hold off quite a bit.

If the Vikings are in the game, the AI will use amphibious assault to take/raze a city. Important cities really need 2 defenders (3 for good core cities) if Berserkers might be in boats. Don't always defend corrupt cities.

That is all I can think of for now. As you write up your logs if you run into situations where you are not sure whether to attack or defend, then feel free to post a picture/explanation and what you decided. We can comment on what we would have done and why.

Edit: Not sure why there is a smiley for the Title. Must have been a random button.

 

[Aabraxan]

Do all trainees know the basics of attacks and defense in AW? The primary idea is to attack only if you are safe from counter attack. This means you don't always kill the enemy. In the early game you might be able for your Archer to kill an enemy Archer, but if there is a Warrior or Archer behind it, then you don't want to attack unless you are forced to. For the situation mentioned above you instead want to defend preferably behind walls.

I thought I knew the basics, but I already have a question. Actually, it might be better to say that I want to be sure I understand the reasoning above. I understand that unit safety carries a high priority, but in the above scenario, where there's a Warrior or another Archer behind an enemy Archer, I'm assuming the analysis changes, depending on how many units I have. I probably would not (more accurately, probably should not) attack a Warrior/Archer pair with a lone Archer. OTOH, if I have 3-4 archers, I'd probably attack. If I were feeling really clever, I'd attack and kill one but not both, so that my attacker retreats into my stack, without leaving anyone exposed.

Additionally, sometimes you don't know if there is a unit behind. Sometimes it might be worth the gamble, but often it is better to wait/retreat until you know for sure one way or another. Towns especially border expansions help with this.

I don't understand how border expansions help me know how many units are in an enemy stack.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Iroquois for this one. I like a decent 2-move unit early. I agree the early GA is a problem, but Riders are a looong way away when we can't freely trade tech and we need to do self-research. I am ready, and slot me at the middle or tail end of the roster. Shinsei, I might encourage you to read my SG, and maybe you can be in our third go of it. I'm thinking of a try at a Russian or Ottoman diplo or cultural victory after we get Isabella of to Alpha Centauri.

 

[gmaharriet]

For the situation mentioned above you instead want to defend preferably behind walls.

How do you determine when or how often to build walls? I don't think I've built one since my Chieftain days. Is it the first thing you build in a front-line town, or only built if you're under pressure?

I guess I'd have a similar question about spears. In a regular game I might build one to guard a stack of cats when attacking another civ, but not always even then. I know more are needed in AW, but a discussion of when and/or what % of your military should be defensive would be helpful.

@Aabraxan - I think a border expansion lights up the area one additional tile out from the town center. Especially with slow movers, you can see them coming.

 

[Greebley]

I thought I knew the basics, but I already have a question. Actually, it might be better to say that I want to be sure I understand the reasoning above. I understand that unit safety carries a high priority, but in the above scenario, where there's a Warrior or another Archer behind an enemy Archer, I'm assuming the analysis changes, depending on how many units I have. I probably would not (more accurately, probably should not) attack a Warrior/Archer pair with a lone Archer. OTOH, if I have 3-4 archers, I'd probably attack. If I were feeling really clever, I'd attack and kill one but not both, so that my attacker retreats into my stack, without leaving anyone exposed.



I don't understand how border expansions help me know how many units are in an enemy stack.

I meant an Archer with a warrior unreachable behind it (assuming on flat). Attacking the Archer will win but leaves the Archer vs a Warrior which can attack it and probably win. I guess another assumption here is that you don't have an available Spear to cover the Archer. If it is only a Warrior, attacking with an Archer and then covering the Archer with a Spear is ok, since the Warrior have poor odds and may not even attack.

You are quite right that with 2 or more archers you can kill an Archer warrior.

 

[Greebley]

How do you determine when or how often to build walls? I don't think I've built one since my Chieftain days. Is it the first thing you build in a front-line town, or only built if you're under pressure?

I guess I'd have a similar question about spears. In a regular game I might build one to guard a stack of cats when attacking another civ, but not always even then. I know more are needed in AW, but a discussion of when and/or what % of your military should be defensive would be helpful.

@Aabraxan - I think a border expansion lights up the area one additional tile out from the town center. Especially with slow movers, you can see them coming.

I think the amount of pressure definitely plays a role. I don't automatically build walls. If a town is going to be the center of action then I suggest building them. You can sometimes tell ahead of time.

The primary reason is that if you and the AI have Archers and Spears, your best odds are defending with a spear on the flat. An enemy stack of Achers and Spears are slightly worse than even odds the player is attacking the stack. However enemy Archers attacking a Spear behind walls will usually lose. Even a sword has worse than even odds if attacking your fortifide Spear. In such a town having spears for defense is better than archers for attack. When the player gets swords, then this becomes less important - both walls and Spears, but still you will not always be able to kill every enemy - they will sometimes attack you. In that case you want to risk a Spear rather than a Sword, and have walls for better odds.

Catapults also make walls less important since again you attack more often and injured units often retreat so you are attacked less.

Sometimes the AI sends a stream of single units. If it is solid you can't attack them without risking the unit because there is one right behind. But that means they get to attack you. If you had only Archers you can't get good odds - Attacking will lose the attacker. Defending will lose a defending warrior or archer.

Walls are often important with 'initial rushes'. When you first meet a civ, they send their units at you which can be a lot of units. After you kill the initial rush, you are now killing units at the speed the AI builds them. These initial rushes can be quite large and threaten to overwhelm you. Having walls in place before the rush can really help with this.

On the border expansion: Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

 

[Tad Empire_0_o]

Lurkers Comment:

Ill Be Watching
never really played a AW before :/ but GL

 

[Aabraxan]

I meant an Archer with a warrior unreachable behind it (assuming on flat).

Oh, duh. I was thinking "behind," as in "under it in the stack."

 

[Greebley]

4000 BC: Hmm... A tricky start with several possibilities. Do I want to pop the hut right away? If we have no Warrior yet we can't get Barbs, same if I settle next to it. However, I want the worker on the cow. Also the Settler is a bit close to the Tundra for my likes. I decide to move the worker onto the Cow and Settler onto the hill - so we can see farther.

3950 BC: Here is what I got. I went for Warrior Code first. I also wanted to not build a Warrior right away but go for Granary, Barracks, or Settler so we can pop the hut. This has some risk of course, but I like it. For early contact we go for Barracks - if not then Granary or Settler. The biggest risk is we will lose shields.

Decided to Mine first. I want to boost the shields to get the expensive building/settler faster and lessen the risk.

Got Ceremonial burial from the hut when the border expanded.

Built Granary, 2 Warrior, Settler.

Was worried we were on a small island, but I don't think we are. Played 30 to determine this.

Notes:
I think there was more than one way to play this that would be equally good or perhaps better. Certainly a settler before Granary can be made to work, earlier warrior and grabbing the hut with a worker has merit. I chose Granary because I like keeping shields higher in the Capitol.

I would build Barracks before building any more units.

I mined each time first. I think on the BG that I am currently on, I should have roaded first.

I would not send the Warrior exploring farther, though I would check to see if we can get to the capitol by a western route. Once this is determined, sit the Warrior on the current square if it is the only way north. If the warrior is there the AI will know it can't go North and not try. This could delay contact which would be nice.

I would go for Bronze Working after WC.

BTW, I like putting the BC or AD before the date as they sort better (ad and bc don't mix) when they sort Alphabetically. So Rat24_BC2750 is the save. Feel free to use your own naming scheme however.

Note that I MM'ed the settler to 1 turn after taking the image. We still grow in 1. I like grabbing the whale by putting a city NW of the Cow. That would put a choke city 3 squares away on the bonus grassland. Note that with only one square nearby to the south, I think this is the best spot. Only one enemy can come at us at once and we can make our northern cities safe by land by putting an def Army on the plains square to the south of it. The AI will not attack the army to get to the city. Note that we hope to expand beyond this so it isn't that vital - I do like coastal cities to be 3 apart for self protection. There are other ways of doing this though. Players should look at the situation and see if they agree. There may be a better dot map

Here is the picture.

 

[Ansar]

Nice turns, Greebley.

Shame that the start doesen't seem to have freshwater nearby, so Agricultural trait is useless until a change of government. I would have never thought of building a granary at first; I would have just built a warrior and gone and popped the hut and wish for the best, obviously not the brightest idea out there.

I can confirm that we have a chokepoint:

Well, at least from the right side, I think. The area seems to be less than 21 tiles (which is the max for freshwater) and since it is saltwater, it means it isn't surrounded by land on all sides.

NW of the Cow looks fine to me. I was actually thinking the exact same thing.
I have a couple ideas for city spots, but I'll wait to see what other players think (also, my idea seems to incorporate spacing that is a little too far apart for the towns).

 

[shinsei]

Shinsei, I might encourage you to read my SG, and maybe you can be in our third go of it. I'm thinking of a try at a Russian or Ottoman diplo or cultural victory after we get Isabella of to Alpha Centauri.

Sure,i have aready read your second SG topic,its really interesting,notify me if the third begins

Lurkers Comment:

That start location is really a trick one,but not bad at all with some extra bonus,the only problem is that there is no river The warrior is neat one,but why keep uncontacted?(still learning)