Rifles+artillery or Cannons+Infantry

[muxec]

I'm considering a tech path for industrial age war. Some infantry units will be drafted unpromoted or with one promotion, artillery and part of infantry will be built with 2-3 promotions. If my plans are correct I will attack when my enemy just got rifles but no cannons/cavalry. I can tech either for artillery or for infantry. What combination should work better?

 

[Huaojozu]

I prefer Maceman/Cannons. With enough cannons, every maceman is 99 per cent to win anyway. Gradually upgrade to Rifles and then to Artillery. If you are deciding between Infantry and Artillery, I would definitely suggest Artillery. It seems to me that Siege is the deciding factor. The other troops are merely a mop-up.

 

[nanomage]

i think rifles+artillery is better than infantry+cannons.
but, can't infantry go without siege at all? cannons will not help it much, and it's faster to get infantry than artillery.

 

[r_rolo1]

Artilery + rifles, definitely. Besides the higher strenght of the siege ( that will be the real nutcracker in this kind of scenarios ) and the fact that is relatively easier to get the techs needed, artilery can't be flanked until gunships ( and yes, that is a great bonus, given the love some AI have for huge and highly promoted mounted stacks )

 

[madscientist]

Rifles get a bonus versus mounted units
Infantry against gunpowder
Cavalry versus cannons.

Youe enemy has rifles, but no cannon/cavalry. Your rifles would have no significant bonus since there is no cavalry and the enemy has no killer counter unit to your cannons.

Thus

Infantry/Cannons.

 

[Loki Strikes]

I would definitely go rifles + artillery, the AI gets cavalry with decent speed, but Artillery really has no significant counter until gunships as r rolo mentioned. If I am going to be fighting a 1 turn/move war I will want my siege to be my post powerful unit, infantry are great, but by the time I have infantry my cannons tend to be in danger from cavalry, so I tend to go artillery first. Besides I don't need to be first to AL, the AI heads there on its own and I can usually trade for it after I grab artillery quite easily.

Also my Renaissance war path favors Arty... I tend to either take steel with lib or be in a position to do so, and I will usually fight a war with Cannons + maces + drafted muskets as I tech to rifling, from there physics-artillery is usually quite quick, the AI tends to avoid it for a bit, and artillery is just hard to counter.

I tend to trade physics away for pre reqs to AL or AL itself and then beeline industrialism afterwards if its needed (more often I shut off tech at this point, artillery/infantry takes down tanks with sufficient numbers)

An enemy with rifles and no cavalry does not stay without cavalry for long, at this point everyone will have nationalism, and MT is one tech away and Cavalry is very popular with the AI.

 

[mirthadir]

Arty + rifles is better for the short term. However, the techs to infantry are superior for economic performance (AL being one of THE most important techs for a heavy strat) and more directly on the path to tanks, the real game breaking offensive unit.

Also I prefer infantry if I've hitting amphib overseas or going to get an airpower monopoly early.

 

[madscientist]

One more comment.

Infantry against rifles are very overpowering, often I find Seige weapons are not needed.

 

[Loki Strikes]

I would say artillery is more game breaking than tanks... With arty + infantry I can take down a tech superior AI without issue. Cannons + infantry has a smaller window of effectiveness, and your next tech better be artillery. I suppose if you aren't planning an immediate war going AL is best because it gets your factories sooner, but if you are looking to take down an AI fast with a ridiculously superior unit, Artillery is the way to do it.

Mad I would be sending a stack that is 60% artillery with junk filtering behind it to clean up, I will not be taking any casualties whatsoever, infantry + cannons vs. rifles and cavalry works well, but it is not as sustainable for steamrolling a continent as attacking rifles in cities with infantry still damages the infantry and you have to pause to heal. You play marathon so you probably have a larger window of opportunity, however I play normal + epic and artillery is just not counterable in a reasonable timeframe on any speed, whereas the AI gets AL pretty quickly and my monopoly just does not last long enough, sure I am teching towards artillery at this point, but I will have a lull where I am getting enough artillery up to counter enemy infantry, whereas with an artillery first approach I arrive at AL at roughly the same time,maybe even a little behind the AI and I am replacing my clean up crew with infantry, which allows for me to keep conquering.

I agree that infantry vs. rifles is overpowering, but that advantage just does not last as long as artillery does.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

One more comment.

Infantry against rifles are very overpowering, often I find Seige weapons are not needed.

I just use cannon for bombardment (maybe a little collateral), but I agree...infantry vs rifle is no contest*. Also, if you're against a competent (aka non ai) opponent you'd just get the rifle/arty stack murdered by a group of infantry anyway, and conveniently they'd take down the siege first .

The #1 reason for AL, however, is what Mirth mentioned, the vast increase in potential is really strong...!

 

[UncleJJ]

I'm with Loki Strikes here and take a contrarian view . Rifles and artillery is the best combination to take on rifles (who might have cavalry soon). Artillery are immune to flanking and easily cracks a city defended by rifles. Draft infantry (with weak promotions) don't do well against rifles fortified on a hill or if they have CG promotions and cannons used to soften them up take casualties too. Infantry upgraded with CR promotions can take on rifles but draft infantry have a high casualty rate.

Besides that I can't see what the production benefit of AL that everyone raves about is So you can build factories and coal plants and ruin the health of your cities... but is that what you want if you're a warmonger? You're caught in a dilemma. Small cities don't get health problems with the buildings but they don't produce enough base hammers to make building the factory and coal plant (totalling 450 hammers) worthwhile, so why not just continue to make units using forge + SP + PS = +60% production bonus (and drydocks if building ships) ? Large cities have plenty of population and hammers but the 10 unhealth introduced by factory and coal plant means either they have (say) 5 unhealth (stopping growth and efficient use of drafting or Slavery) or the city builds a hospital and public transportion (totals 350 hammers) and if its a really big city grocer and supermarket as well (another 300 hammers). That delays the output of units while all the infrastructure is built and it only adds +75% production. So what really is the benefit for a warmonger already using drafting and whipping (perhaps with the Kremlin)?

 

[dirtyparrot]

+1 on rifles + artillery. The strength of the attacker is not hugely important after the artillery has reduced the defenders to their minimal strength and remove the cultural defensive bonuses.

 

[nullspace]

Muxec is asking about a situation where the enemy doesn't even have cannons or cavalry yet, so he has a massive tech lead and either artillery or infantry would be a slaughter. But I wonder if that might be too optimistic and by the time he gets a good amount of infantry or artillery and moves them into enemy territory, the enemy will have been able to upgrade to cannons and cavalry. So I'll think about infantry or artillery versus all renaissance units, plus that might be more useful for other games.

Either infantry or artillery would be excellent when attacking. Artillery has collateral damage and city raider promotions. Infantry has higher strength, and a 25% bonus (and pinch) against the renaissance units that get defense bonuses and city garrison promotions. However, to conquer a city, the infantry stack would need as many infantry as there are defenders, since each defender would be fought at full health (unless you want to suicide some cannons). If you chose artillery instead, you'd only need enough artillery to do collateral damage until the defenders are easy pickings for your renaissance units.

When defending itself against counterattacks in enemy territory, a stack of infantry and cannons is somewhat vulnerable against renaissance units, especially collateral damage and flanking from cannons and cavalry. A stack of artillery, riflemen, and cavalry is more resistant because the artillery are immune to both the flanking and collateral. The biggest threat to the artillery stack would be a horde of riflemen and cavalry because the artillery would be the best defender, but they aren't that much stronger and they're vital to the eventual city attack.

So I'm seeing pros and cons both ways. I guess it depends. If muxec can really attack when the enemy only has riflemen and he's willing to draft for two population, then infantry sounds good. Although I'd like this more if he was an aggressive or protective leader so the drafted units would get a free promotion and could start with enough experience to then choose pinch. But if the enemy does get cannons and cavalry and muxec could wait long enough to build a good number of artillery then that sounds good. It probably doesn't even matter that much, both either way he'll have a very efficient war.

 

[JammerUno]

Artillery is on the path to rocketry, which is nice if you want a SS victory or need ICBMs, but otherwise it might as well be a dead-end tech.

AL, on the other hand, gives you a huge boost in production, infantry, and is on the path to tanks and marines. Not to forget fascism and PS.

So infantry and cannon would have my preference, although I would probably tech through physics and use cavalry/airships for some blitz warfare.

 

[§L¥ Gµ¥]

siege is the key in BtS. Artillery is the stronger option.

But usually for me, I aim for Steel from liberalism and go on a romp from that point, taking down a few AIs, so by the time Artillery comes around I'm usually doing my best to consolidate significant gains and gearing up for a last mobile war to win a domination victory.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm with Loki Strikes here and take a contrarian view . Rifles and artillery is the best combination to take on rifles (who might have cavalry soon). Artillery are immune to flanking and easily cracks a city defended by rifles. Draft infantry (with weak promotions) don't do well against rifles fortified on a hill or if they have CG promotions and cannons used to soften them up take casualties too. Infantry upgraded with CR promotions can take on rifles but draft infantry have a high casualty rate.

Besides that I can't see what the production benefit of AL that everyone raves about is So you can build factories and coal plants and ruin the health of your cities... but is that what you want if you're a warmonger? You're caught in a dilemma. Small cities don't get health problems with the buildings but they don't produce enough base hammers to make building the factory and coal plant (totalling 450 hammers) worthwhile, so why not just continue to make units using forge + SP + PS = +60% production bonus (and drydocks if building ships) ? Large cities have plenty of population and hammers but the 10 unhealth introduced by factory and coal plant means either they have (say) 5 unhealth (stopping growth and efficient use of drafting or Slavery) or the city builds a hospital and public transportion (totals 350 hammers) and if its a really big city grocer and supermarket as well (another 300 hammers). That delays the output of units while all the infrastructure is built and it only adds +75% production. So what really is the benefit for a warmonger already using drafting and whipping (perhaps with the Kremlin)?

I must admit that I usually just wait for both infantry AND arty. That combo is good until the target gets advanced flight, modern armor, or mech infantry...a long, long time away. If I'm using cannons or rifles, I'm probably doing it sooner. CR II cannons aren't terrible against rifles, either. If I have the production abilities you mention here, then I'm probably not going to wait for physics, arty, and possibly even sci meth to strike...I'm probably going to bite the bullet, lose maybe 6-7 extra siege units from what I'd have lost anyway, and hit before the opponent gets anything too annoying.

If we're talking about the AI here, then cavalry flanks aren't too scary. Kill the SoD in your territory, then go in. Stray cavs aren't going to be hitting combat II or better rifles very much (better yet, formation).

Sometimes I forgo the factory/coal plant combo if I'm really cottage-heavy too, because those are ALSO pretty scary with kremlin + gold multipliers.

 

[madscientist]

You play marathon so you probably have a larger window of opportunity, .

You are correct, I always forget to add that to my suggestions!

 

[JonathanStrange]

I lost my whole regiment to artillery; never saw that before, never want to see it again either. I would however go artillery/infantry for the reasons given previously.

 

[oyzar]

Assembly line allows for factories and powerplants....

 

[Bleys]

I tend to get Steel from Lib, so around the point in the game being discussed, odds are I have a number of CR II and CR III cannons. I would get Infantry to go with those, because they will survive vs a city defended by Rifles, even PRO boosted ones.

If you dont have a good number of highly promoted cannons, then you should head to Arty vs Rifles, especially PRO ones. Unpromoted cannons dont do well vs Rifles. However, if you have a strong HE city with a couple settled GGs, you can get CR II, even CR III, cannons out of the gate pretty easily, so I might just head to AL before Arty. Infantry are very strong, especially against inferior opponents. I have been known to give AIs Gunpowder so they will build Muskets when I race to Infantry. Happens more than you think, even at my current level (Emp-Norm).