Riflemen or Cannon?

[TW_Honorius]

@Roxlimn can you rename the thread, Rifleman or Cannon is very misleading as you have a choice between 1 or the other, which Riflemen are better. But in your posts you talk about musketman and chemistry, so your taking away from the straight militaristic strategy of Rifelmen vs Cannon and turning the discussion into a total strategy of rushing to Rifling or rushing to Chemistry.

 

[Roxlimn]

Could you suggest a more straightforward name? Truly, given limited resources, you can really focus only on a rush towards Rifling for a mainly Rifleman force, or rush to Chemistry for a combined arms approach featuring Cannon. You won't have the resources to do both at the outset.

 

[w a i n y]

I'll have to counter that. I always want a medic somewhere, particularly when I have Blitz Riflemen, because I'll be sure to have a lot of damaged Riflemen that will benefit from the extra healing. Not attacking twice a turn doesn't mitigate having more Riflemen available to attack, which necessarily means more Riflemen damaged after combat.

March lessens the need for a medic, because they heal well in friendly territory between city taking, but I like having a medic anyway, because I occasionally have to put a Rifleman somewhere where it'll be hit by enemy Artillery or enemy City bombardment, or attacked by enemy Riflemen, or all of the above. The extra turn of healing during defensive maneuvers or immediately after taking the spotting location is invaluable.

FWIW, I favor March on my Cannon and Artillery as well. Sacrilege, I know.

Maybe if you give a horse medic, you can arrange your march riflemen in such a way that they're all next to the horse and heal 2hp. I'll have to play around with this. I still think blitz/logistics's versatility make them more valuable promotions overall, whether to strike a finishing blow to a city or to attack a unit 2 tiles from the city and then retreat from the counter-attack.

Also, march for artillery seems very weak when it means forgoing logistics. Artillery rarely get hit except by other artillery, and logistics almost doubles the strength and usefulness of artillery.

 

[vexing]

I'm not entirely sure how getting Riflemen against Riflemen when you're playing beyond comfort level would be a better idea, having tried it myself. I'm always interested in using melee troops better, could you elaborate on the tactical plan for making that work?

it's the same except you have rifles in front of trebuchets instead of muskets in front of cannons. since trebs have a bigger vs city bonus (24 vs city vs 31.2 for cannons), it ends up being easier to take a city than muskets + cannons, and safer.

 

[w a i n y]

it's the same except you have rifles in front of trebuchets instead of muskets in front of cannons. since trebs have a bigger vs city bonus (24 vs city vs 31.2 for cannons), it ends up being easier to take a city than muskets + cannons, and safer.

Except that trebs have a much lower base strength than cannons. I'm not sure whether the AI will target siege over melee units with ranged attacks (they certainly seem to target siege over archery) but trebs are much more vulnerable to them in any case. Still, though, it's kind of a moot point, since if you can rush to one of rifling and chemistry you should be able to get the other fairly easily with RAs and GSs, both of which become powerful around this point in time thanks to the Porcelain Tower.

 

[vexing]

Except that trebs have a much lower base strength than cannons. I'm not sure whether the AI will target siege over melee units with ranged attacks (they certainly seem to target siege over archery) but trebs are much more vulnerable to them in any case.

ranged vs ranged combat uses ranged str, not base. if they bombard or archer shoot your treb, it'll generally deal one dmg, which is fine by me. rifles being at full health means safe city attacks.

 

[Roxlimn]

wainy:

I still think blitz/logistics's versatility make them more valuable promotions overall, whether to strike a finishing blow to a city or to attack a unit 2 tiles from the city and then retreat from the counter-attack.

It depends on usage, I suppose. A March unit wouldn't be able to retreat back from city fire, but it wouldn't need to, so long as the city didn't damage it more than 2 or 3 HP. In fact, it's better because the March unit would get that much more XP from being attacked.

Also, march for artillery seems very weak when it means forgoing logistics. Artillery rarely get hit except by other artillery, and logistics almost doubles the strength and usefulness of artillery.

I get it for two reasons. The first is that it unlocks fast. You can only get Logistics after Terrain 3, whereas March unlocks after terrain 2, so I get my useful upgrade faster.

The second is that it's easy. A Logistics Artillery will beat out a normal AI artillery, but if it gets shot first, it'll return less damage and ultimately may be unsuitable for action once it gets rid of the enemy artillery. Too, you're sort of obliged to manage range and such. March Artillery is much simpler to manage. It will absolutely win any like exchange with enemy artillery regardless of who goes first, just because it heals damage when the enemy Artillery does not, and it'll be ready for action immediately after.

It doesn't even matter whether or not you stay out of city fire range. I get really obnoxious about placement when I'm peeved - I just mount the artillery whenever and let the city fire land where it may - it doesn't matter anyway.

Even at the point of getting Logistics, I'm actually more inclined to get Range. Range Artillery gives me a useful ability which I cannot simply replicate with more troops - I can bombard enemy artillery and cities from absurdly far away. The thing that prejudices me most against Logistics for Artillery vis a vis other promotions is that it doesn't even come into play until the turn after you set up the unit, and it doesn't always come to that - many times, I bombard with multiple artillery once and the city's ready for taking. Functionally speaking, Logistics for set up units is more of a x1.5 adjustment, because of the setup requirement.

It's probably because I'm playing on the lower settings.


vexing:

Hm... That's exactly how I played it. The treb's lower ranged strength were an issue at the higher city CS strengths.

 

[w a i n y]

ranged vs ranged combat uses ranged str, not base. if they bombard or archer shoot your treb, it'll generally deal one dmg, which is fine by me. rifles being at full health means safe city attacks.

Sorry, I was unclear. Even though trebs have 70% of cannons' city attack strength as you mentioned, they only have 60% of their base ranged strength. But if they have crossbows or camel archers, they get 15 vs. 16, and with terrain promotions, one hit can deal a lot of damage. Trebs are 16 vs. 16.
Here, my treb gets 9HP of damage from 2 camel archers and a 30 strength city: http://www.youtube.com/user/Wainyciv#p/u/9/vfOqXDi6cRw (12:54 to 13:03). The one outside the city had open terrain and probably dealt 2 dmg, the one in the city probably had rough and probably dealt 4, and the city dealt 3. Obviously this is a bit of an artificial example, but not too far outside the pale on deity. So my point is that cannons are a safer bet on higher difficulties.

wainy:
It depends on usage, I suppose. A March unit wouldn't be able to retreat back from city fire, but it wouldn't need to, so long as the city didn't damage it more than 2 or 3 HP. In fact, it's better because the March unit would get that much more XP from being attacked.

But when the city strengths are very high (as on deity) you don't want to even expose the unit to counterattack, since they'll take enough damage to be out of commission for a few turns.

WRT logistics: yes range is sweet too, so get both! Getting march significantly increases the total cost to get both, since total costs of promos go up roughly proportionately to the square of the promotion cost (the nth promotion is 5n(n+1)). I just don't see march being nearly as strong as either of the two, if you micromanage.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not on deity! The AI has too many units. Also, cannons are really just a gateway to artillery, with which you can basically win the game. Cannons with 3 range are only situationally more useful without indirect fire, another attribute that artillery comes with for free. You're not going to be doing much serious warmongering between early medieval and artillery, so this really boils down to comparing upgrade paths.

Yes, such is true. Slogging on deity with pure warmongering can get a bit drab on decent sized maps.

 

[Roxlimn]

But when the city strengths are very high (as on deity) you don't want to even expose the unit to counterattack, since they'll take enough damage to be out of commission for a few turns.

WRT logistics: yes range is sweet too, so get both! Getting march significantly increases the total cost to get both, since total costs of promos go up roughly proportionately to the square of the promotion cost (the nth promotion is 5n(n+1)). I just don't see march being nearly as strong as either of the two, if you micromanage.

I don't play on Deity, so the AI doesn't spam as many units for me to kill. Getting both Range and Logistics isn't common before Modern on King. Maybe when I get up to Emperor on my particular preferences.

I was not aware that city strengths were modified by the difficulty setting. I thought that it was just a function of tech and population.

 

[w a i n y]

I was not aware that city strengths were modified by the difficulty setting. I thought that it was just a function of tech and population.

Yes, and the AI gets ludicrous bonuses to both tech and population. In my current game, Delhi has over 70 strength in the middle ages, and a population in the mid-20s (with the Kremlin).

 

[Rittmeyer]

Artillery wins games. 4 rifles+ as many cannons as you can/want to get put you in a position in which you can win out of artillery. That's how most of my Deity wins go. You really don't need more the 4 rifles. And in this game, rifles/muskets are the support unit in my opinion. Ranged is what wins wars.

 

[Roxlimn]

wainy:

That doesn't sound like the AI has a defense bonus. If India has Kremlin, they're already Renaissance Era, and with over 20 pop and Kremlin to boot, 70+ actually sounds around the right ballpark, if Gandhi also has Walls.

 

[w a i n y]

wainy:

That doesn't sound like the AI has a defense bonus. If India has Kremlin, they're already Renaissance Era, and with over 20 pop and Kremlin to boot, 70+ actually sounds around the right ballpark, if Gandhi also has Walls.

My point is that they effectively have a defense bonus since they tech, grow and build defensive buildings and Kremlin faster.

 

[Roxlimn]

Ah, alright. Got it. That's rough. I can't imagine taking down a 70 defense city without Range on the Cannon, which you might be able to get if the Deity AI spams enough troops for you to kill. For that matter, how can you possibly take down a 70 defense city with just Riflemen? Is that doable?

 

[w a i n y]

Ah, alright. Got it. That's rough. I can't imagine taking down a 70 defense city without Range on the Cannon, which you might be able to get if the Deity AI spams enough troops for you to kill. For that matter, how can you possibly take down a 70 defense city with just Riflemen? Is that doable?

No, but you can watch me take it down with artillery soon enough!

 

[chazzycat]

Artillery is such a game changer. In my current game I struggled trying to take Siam's capital ALL GAME...swords, catapults, trebs, longswords, muskets, rifles, cannons, all failed. But within 5 turns from discovering dynamite, it was mine no problem.

I recently moved up to immortal level. So far, it seems one of the recurring themes is "just survive until you can get artillery".

 

[Roxlimn]

I actually like that the modern combat is functional now. That was one of my pet peeves with all of the Civs before V. Hope they keep that going in future games (if there are future Civs).

That said, I'm a little unsure about how I feel towards initial game combat at the higher diffs. In Civ IV, you could get to a winning position with a Warrior Rush (okay, a Quechua Rush), but with the new Civ V patches, I'm finding it increasingly hard to take AI cities without siege, and the early siege weapons kind of suck.