Russia - the most overnerfed civ in the game! Should it be improved?

[0R4NG3]

It depends on your diplomatic situation. Against a backwards opponent, you have no need of Rifling because you should overrun him with just Grenadiers and Cuirassers before he ever gets them, particularly if you beelined. If you only beelined to parity, then Grenadiers and Cuirassers are still the better combo over Riflemen against Riflemen alone.

If someone does have Rifling, then guess what? You can steal it or trade for it, then you get Cossacks. Moreover, Military technology tends to trade a a nice premium for the economic techs, if you want them. If you beelined to Rifles and the enemy gets Rifling, you're SOL. If you beelined to Military Science and the enemy gets Rifling, you steal it and get a better army composition than he does. Let the ass-kicking commence.

Military Science is especially useful so you can get them drop on making the West Point wonder, which is an excellent wonder to acquire for war purposes.

You are right it depends on circumstances.
However I don't really think that beelining to Grenadiers and Curassiers is beelining at all, they are on different tech paths and I'm sure I could get Riflemen before anyone can get Grenadiers and Curassiers together.
Oh and I don't plan for 100 year wars, which are extremely costly on Emperor, my wars are always Blitzkriegs.
And as pointed out before Riflemen beat both Grenadiers and Curassiers (and Cavalry) on the attack.
Trading away military techs is unwise in my opinion unless you are 100% sure that the AI you are trading with will not attack you in the near future.
The west point is nice, shame though that it is so expensive.

 

[peter450]

I dont know about riflemen being better on the attack than grenadiers, while in theory 14 v 12 looks sound, they have neither the attack bonus of grenadiers, the city raider promo's of cannon or the higher str of cav, and since the AI likes to use terrain bonun's were possible and mixed stacks, having a force to heavy in riflemen i find leaves me lacking in options especially when attacking cities defended by riflemen, dont get me wrong riflemen can be potent especially if upgraded from melee units with the city raider 3, but without those city raider promo's i find them best used in defense

 

[0R4NG3]

I dont know about riflemen being better on the attack than grenadiers, while in theory 14 v 12 looks sound, they have neither the attack bonus of grenadiers, the city raider promo's of cannon or the higher str of cav, and since the AI likes to use terrain bonun's were possible and mixed stacks, having a force to heavy in riflemen i find leaves me lacking in options especially when attacking cities defended by riflemen, dont get me wrong riflemen can be potent especially if upgraded from melee units with the city raider 3, but without those city raider promo's i find them best used in defense

Yes if you are fighting a war on tech parity you will not get away with having only one unit type, but then why would you fight a war on tech parity?
And as I said it is faster to tech to riflemen than it is to Grenadiers+Curassiers.

 

[onedreamer]

Wow, it seems I got reinforcements. I started to feel cornered with that 1v2

You're right, I was wrong to suggest that my way of beelining is the best strategy there is.
However you said that you mostly play multiplayer, surely you will agree that multiplayer is a totally different experience, which obviously requires different tactics. And as I said most people play single player. So I'm not too sure that you still remember what it is like to play against the AI. It is nice to have a "multiplayer point of view" though.

I seldom also play alone but hardly get as far as Rifling
Anyways I must apologise for being unprecise, I play mixed multiplayer games, with both AI and human players, not just humans. This doesn't change the fact that it's different from SP, as you correctly noticed.

Yes, I disagree. Grenadiers aren't a good unit to attack someone who has Riflemen. Here's why:
Grenaders have the edge on Riflemen only when they attack, while Riflemen have the edge on Grenadiers when they attack. Thus, these two are a tactical match for each other. What ends up happening is that the one who invades is at the disadvantage, because the invader is stopped after each tile move, and the invadee can easily sally forth and return to the city all in the same turn.

Ok, uhm, let's see. Above it seems that my points were not valid because about MP games. Now, you answer with a scenario that does not happen in SP. The AI WILL NOT attack your grenadier stack with its Riflemen. The AI uses Riflemen with defensive purpouse, despite you laughing at this. Moreover, all you need is a terrain feature like forest or hill to make your scenario completely false, and this happens more times than not. You keep speaking in theory but the reality is that when I attack Riflemen with Grenadiers I wreck havoc, when I do it with anything else I don't.

So, Riflemen can easily be used to defend against the opponent who "beelines to Grenadiers", and meanwhile can easily take out any other opponent, such as the one who took a "combined arms" strategy but does not yet have Grenadiers.

You still haven't proved that beelining Riflemen is faster than Grenadiers, btw (this would kinda change your statements above don't you think ? Since you wouldn't even have Riflemen to counter Grenadiers in the first place). Anyways beelining Rifling from turn 1 looks suicidal to me from a certain level on. You may have the tech, but not the infrastructure to exploit it in the ways you describe.

It depends on your diplomatic situation. Against a backwards opponent, you have no need of Rifling because you should overrun him with just Grenadiers and Cuirassers before he ever gets them, particularly if you beelined. If you only beelined to parity, then Grenadiers and Cuirassers are still the better combo over Riflemen against Riflemen alone.

Already tried to explain this with no luck. maybe 2v2...

 

[0R4NG3]

I am a bit confused, what are we arguing about? What's the best beelining strategy? What's the best strategy for fighting on tech parity?
Why are we even arguing about it?

Yes I agree with you that if you are planning to have a long war that might include fighting against riflemen then the Grenadier+Currasier route is the better one, in some part due to the fact that this way you get closer to cannons, which will improve your chances.

If however the plan is to get an advanced unit as soon as possible and have a quick war before your opponent gets anything better than muskets Riflemen are a better choice in my opinion, for the reasons that you can get them earlier and they are more resilient to any sort of counter-attack by outdated units, surely you will agree that 14 str is better against knights and muskets than 12.

So there you go, it is settled.

My desire is to have 3 choices when beelining, like we had in warlords: Riflemen, Grenadiers, Cavalry. This way there is more variation. If not then make Cavalry powerful enough to be worth using on its own before your opponents get Rifles, at the moment I don't think it is.

Actually here's another suggestion: Nerf Riflemen to str 12, increase their bonus against mounted to 50% or even 75%. This way they will not be able to do the job of cavalry as well, and will be solely used for defense.

 

[0R4NG3]

Ok, uhm, let's see. Above it seems that my points were not valid because about MP games. Now, you answer with a scenario that does not happen in SP. The AI WILL NOT attack your grenadier stack with its Riflemen. The AI uses Riflemen with defensive purpouse, despite you laughing at this. Moreover, all you need is a terrain feature like forest or hill to make your scenario completely false, and this happens more times than not. You keep speaking in theory but the reality is that when I attack Riflemen with Grenadiers I wreck havoc, when I do it with anything else I don't.

I suppose this can be used to prove that if you went for Riflemen and the AI gets Grenadiers you are not exactly screwed. At least not as much as if you went for Cavalry and the AI gets Riflemen.

 

[Wodan]

Ok, uhm, let's see. Above it seems that my points were not valid because about MP games. Now, you answer with a scenario that does not happen in SP. The AI WILL NOT attack your grenadier stack with its Riflemen.

You sure about that, with BtS 3.13?

Regardless, what I was talking about was YOU attacking the invading Grenadier stack with YOUR Riflemen. I very clearly said you can defend against the opponent who has Grenadiers, while you go on the offensive against opponents who do not. This is true in all cases, whether human or AI, MP or SP.

Regarding defending AIs... that's a moot point. The AI does not beeline. Period. So, the AI will not have either defending Riflemen or defending Grenadiers by the time a beelining human has one of those two.

(Yes, I realize that you do not beeline, so this comment does not apply to you.)

For a non-beeline situation, you have a combined arms strategy. The only question then is your combined arms vs. the enemy combined arms, which is balanced, or of your combined arms vs. the (human) enemy beeline. However, the point here is that your combined arms are of a "lower level" than the beelined opponent. He has a single stronger unit (whether Riflemen or Grenadiers, or whatever), which you have to face without a corresponding unit. Thus, you are facing Riflemen using Knights, Longbows, and Muskets.

The AI uses Riflemen with defensive purpouse, despite you laughing at this. Moreover, all you need is a terrain feature like forest or hill to make your scenario completely false, and this happens more times than not. You keep speaking in theory but the reality is that when I attack Riflemen with Grenadiers I wreck havoc, when I do it with anything else I don't.

That's because Riflemen are good units. If your opponent does not sally forth with Riflemen and ALSO does not have other units with which to defend, then your opponent is being stupid (whether human or AI).

What you're saying here is that you play MP, and that when your opponent is stupid, you win. Well, okay. That doesn't mean Grenadiers are a superior unit. It means your opponent was stupid, no more, no less.

You still haven't proved that beelining Riflemen is faster than Grenadiers, btw (this would kinda change your statements above don't you think ?

It might change some of them, not all certainly. To "prove" this in any sense of the word would require quite an exhaustive effort. We would have to discuss whether tech trading is allowed (and/or a good idea), lightbulbing, what kind of GP are used, which tech routes are taken, and more.

Regardless, the recent discussion has moved to a place where one opponent is presumed to have beelined Grenadiers anyway. My response there was, "defend against him and attack somebody else". A winning situation.

Note that the same option is true of the Grenadier player. Defend against the Rifle player, and attack somebody else. That is your wisest course (unless the Rifle player is AI, but I pointed out above that this will not happen in beeloine situations, so this is only true of combined arms situations, where this whole discussion is moot).

Since you wouldn't even have Riflemen to counter Grenadiers in the first place.

If you beeline Grenadiers and manage to do it faster than an opponent can beeline Riflemen, then you will have done the exact same thing as beelining Riflemen faster than an opponent can beeline Grenadiers. What you'll be facing is Longbows, Muskets, Maces, and Knights, with a Str 12 unit. Less advantageous than facing them wih a Str 14 unit, but you'll probably do nearly as well.

Anyways beelining Rifling from turn 1 looks suicidal to me from a certain level on. You may have the tech, but not the infrastructure to exploit it in the ways you describe.

This comment is nonsensical. Do you realize all of the economic and production techs that are in the Rifling tree?

Wodan

 

[KrikkitTwo]

^However, if you went for Cavalry.. you will also have Riflemen (not wodan's post, orange's)

I think the real advantage of Cavalry is mass production, you can produce level 3 units from All cities (not just the ones with West Point/Great Generals)

 

[Wodan]

I am a bit confused, what are we arguing about? What's the best beelining strategy? What's the best strategy for fighting on tech parity?
Why are we even arguing about it?

Yes I agree with you that if you are planning to have a long war that might include fighting against riflemen then the Grenadier+Currasier route is the better one, in some part due to the fact that this way you get closer to cannons, which will improve your chances.

If however the plan is to get an advanced unit as soon as possible and have a quick war before your opponent gets anything better than muskets Riflemen are a better choice in my opinion, for the reasons that you can get them earlier and they are more resilient to any sort of counter-attack by outdated units, surely you will agree that 14 str is better against knights and muskets than 12.

So there you go, it is settled.

My desire is to have 3 choices when beelining, like we had in warlords: Riflemen, Grenadiers, Cavalry. This way there is more variation. If not then make Cavalry powerful enough to be worth using on its own before your opponents get Rifles, at the moment I don't think it is.

Actually here's another suggestion: Nerf Riflemen to str 12, increase their bonus against mounted to 50% or even 75%. This way they will not be able to do the job of cavalry as well, and will be solely used for defense.

This is a good summary. We are talking circles around each other.

Ultimately, the change to Cavalry and Cossacks has reduced player choice. This reduces enjoyment. It also reduces replayability. The player has less strategic options to pursue.

Wodan

 

[Roxlimn]

The Cavalry Rush was silly, and in many ways, much too strong. You could easily overrun an enemy civ with a stack of 15-20 Cavalry very, very quickly. Without Siege Equipment.

I'm glad that it's out.

Grenadier+Cuirasser isn't only sensible in a long war. It's also sensible because you can't really tell when your enemy could be getting Rifling unless you have such a massive espionage budget that you can tell where everyone is in tech. Generally speaking, even the fastest wars when waged with 1 movement troops is going to take at least 20 turns or so, just for trudging through the tiles and taking the cities. That's plenty of time for one of the other Civs to acquire Rifling and trade it back to your enemy.

 

[0R4NG3]

The Cavalry Rush was silly, and in many ways, much too strong. You could easily overrun an enemy civ with a stack of 15-20 Cavalry very, very quickly. Without Siege Equipment.

I'm glad that it's out.

Grenadier+Cuirasser isn't only sensible in a long war. It's also sensible because you can't really tell when your enemy could be getting Rifling unless you have such a massive espionage budget that you can tell where everyone is in tech. Generally speaking, even the fastest wars when waged with 1 movement troops is going to take at least 20 turns or so, just for trudging through the tiles and taking the cities. That's plenty of time for one of the other Civs to acquire Rifling and trade it back to your enemy.

I do not understand people that say that cavalry rush was silly. Why was it silly? Is a Tank rush silly? If I am better than my neighbour and acquire a certain unit earlier is it silly that I punish my neighbour for not being prepared?

Besides I can overrun my neighbour with 15-20 riflemen just as easily. Is it silly?

^However, if you went for Cavalry.. you will also have Riflemen (not wodan's post, orange's)

I think the real advantage of Cavalry is mass production, you can produce level 3 units from All cities (not just the ones with West Point/Great Generals)

Yes you would have riflemen with cavalry but attacking riflemen with riflemen is as effective as attacking riflemen with cavalry.

I do not understand: can't you mass produce riflemen even easier than cavalry? In which case mass production is an advantage of riflemen rather than cavalry?

 

[Roxlimn]

It's a concept thing. It's much the same as sending scores of siege equipment to war alone without any support whatsoever. That actually worked in the game, and strictly speaking, wasn't all that out of line with the game parameters, but the thought of hundreds of siege engines marching to war without so much as an archer escort is just too silly, even for Civ.

Likewise, Cavalry were never meant to function alone as a troop type, so it kinda didn't make sense for them to go out and conquer the world all by their lonesome Mongol-style. If you ask me, it should be the Keshiks doing that kind of sweeping rush. I'm still crossing my fingers that it'll happen. Hopefully.

And no, you wouldn't be able to overrun your neighbor with Riflemen as easily. They don't move as quickly and the Cavalry have the benefit of Stable XP.

 

[0R4NG3]

It's a concept thing. It's much the same as sending scores of siege equipment to war alone without any support whatsoever. That actually worked in the game, and strictly speaking, wasn't all that out of line with the game parameters, but the thought of hundreds of siege engines marching to war without so much as an archer escort is just too silly, even for Civ.

Likewise, Cavalry were never meant to function alone as a troop type, so it kinda didn't make sense for them to go out and conquer the world all by their lonesome Mongol-style. If you ask me, it should be the Keshiks doing that kind of sweeping rush. I'm still crossing my fingers that it'll happen. Hopefully.

And no, you wouldn't be able to overrun your neighbor with Riflemen as easily. They don't move as quickly and the Cavalry have the benefit of Stable XP.

If you play an aggressive leader, say Stalin for example, your riflemen are as upgraded as your cavalry is.
Yes Riflemen don't move as fast, but they have a much smaller chance of getting injured or killed against pikemen, they can have (if upgraded from macemen) CR promotions, meaning that they can take cities quicker. I usually attack using multiple stacks, 2 or 3 cities at the same time, so yeah I can overrun my neighbour just as quickly.

And again I do not understand: in warlords could you overrun your neighbour if he had Riflemen? I believe not. And why shouldn't you be able to overrun your neighbour if he doesn't even have muskets?

So you are happy that at the moment Cavalry is a defensive unit, used to protect riflemen from grenadiers and cannons? Is that histrorically accurate? Actually even if it is I'd rather have 3 choices: Riflemen, Grenadiers, Cavalry, rather than the 2 we have now.

 

[onedreamer]

I am a bit confused, what are we arguing about? What's the best beelining strategy? What's the best strategy for fighting on tech parity?
Why are we even arguing about it?

Yes, a summary of previous episodes is much needed: We are discussing the best beelining strategy of course. *I* am objecting to your theory that since beelining Rifling is better than any other kind of beeline, skipping Military Tradition is ok and hence Cossacks are not so useful as they used to be. It seems that you have a big problem remembering what I say, maybe because you don't care and keep repeating the same -incorrect- theory (the one above) over and over. Every now and then you pull out of the hat a new element that seemingly would show how beelining Rifling is better than beelining Grenadiers. The last one "en vogue" seems to be that Riflemen are good defenders vs Grenadiers, after all.

Yes I agree with you that if you are planning to have a long war

I would really like to get deeper into your strategies. I am totally puzzled at how you think. If you beeline from turn 1 you will be at a clear disadvantage in many aspects, you won't be able to build most wonders and buildings, even certain improvements. The only way I can think you can balance this is play a warmonger game as soon as you reached the desired tech and conquer others' buildings and improvements, or simply annihilate them and win by domination means. How would you plan a short war if you beelined is beyond me. Personally I only see a reason for beelining when I want to get rid of my neighbors, and that's not done in a couple of turns, even with superior units, because if you beeline you're unlikely to be big and your neighbor is likely to be huge.

If however the plan is to get an advanced unit as soon as possible and have a quick war before your opponent gets anything better than muskets Riflemen are a better choice in my opinion, for the reasons that you can get them earlier and they are more resilient to any sort of counter-attack by outdated units, surely you will agree that 14 str is better against knights and muskets than 12.

Yeah, none said the contrary. But I prefer to consider the "what ifs" and "in case". So I would rather beeline Grenadiers because in case my opponent(s) got to Rifling at a certain point, it wouldn't be as big a problem.

My desire is to have 3 choices when beelining, like we had in warlords: Riflemen, Grenadiers, Cavalry. This way there is more variation.

Quite contradictory. First, it seems that for you it is better to have Riflemen period, second you do have a choice between Riflemen and Grenadiers... it is what we have been discussing until now
To my understanding BtS changes have been made to increase the importance of Musketmen and of the new unit Cuirassier. One error they made was probably that they delayed Cavalry and Grenadiers but not Riflemen.

If not then make Cavalry powerful enough to be worth using on its own before your opponents get Rifles, at the moment I don't think it is.

Why not ? Because of Pikemen ? This hasn't changed from Vanilla though.

Actually here's another suggestion: Nerf Riflemen to str 12, increase their bonus against mounted to 50% or even 75%. This way they will not be able to do the job of cavalry as well, and will be solely used for defense.

Defense vs Cavalry yes. But they are also supposed to defend from other units... if you make them str 12 Grenadiers will have it way too easy.

I suppose this can be used to prove that if you went for Riflemen and the AI gets Grenadiers you are not exactly screwed. At least not as much as if you went for Cavalry and the AI gets Riflemen.

But I didn't say that. I said that if you went for Riflemen and AI (or your opponent) went for RIFLEMEN you would have done better to go for Grenadiers. I wrote it pretty clear...

You sure about that, with BtS 3.13?

-_-"
I think this discussion started before 3.13, this must be your worst point in the thread.

Regardless, what I was talking about was YOU attacking the invading Grenadier stack with YOUR Riflemen. I very clearly said you can defend against the opponent who has Grenadiers, while you go on the offensive against opponents who do not. This is true in all cases, whether human or AI, MP or SP.

But I didn't consider this scenario, and I was talking of another scenario (the one above), so I can't understand how can you object my statements on this if I didn't make any.

Regarding defending AIs... that's a moot point. The AI does not beeline. Period. So, the AI will not have either defending Riflemen or defending Grenadiers by the time a beelining human has one of those two.

True... not by that time, but it can later.

(Yes, I realize that you do not beeline, so this comment does not apply to you.)

you realize funny things. If someone doesn't beeline like you, then he does not beeline ?

What you're saying here is that you play MP, and that when your opponent is stupid, you win. Well, okay. That doesn't mean Grenadiers are a superior unit. It means your opponent was stupid, no more, no less.

Wait... if I beeline for Grenadiers my opponent is stupid, but if I beeline for Riflemen my opponent is not ? Funny things you realize, really...

Of which is faster between Grenadiers and Riflemen:

To "prove" this in any sense of the word would require quite an exhaustive effort. We would have to discuss whether tech trading is allowed (and/or a good idea), lightbulbing, what kind of GP are used, which tech routes are taken, and more.

Obviously nothing would be allowed except clicking on either Rifling or Military Science at turn 1. You gave pretty clear ideas of your concept of beelining, I think around post #117, where you said that if I beelined Chemistry then I wouldn't have Horseback Riding (may not be the right techs but this was the sense). If you're going to take this back then I'm tired of discussing you, if you make a point to answer my statements you are supposed to stick with it during the whole discussion.

Regardless, the recent discussion has moved to a place where one opponent is presumed to have beelined Grenadiers anyway. My response there was, "defend against him and attack somebody else". A winning situation.

I didn't read this response, and then again you base your statements on possibilities, such as there is someone else to attack and that it is viable and/or convenient to attack.

Note that the same option is true of the Grenadier player. Defend against the Rifle player, and attack somebody else. That is your wisest course (unless the Rifle player is AI, but I pointed out above that this will not happen in beeloine situations, so this is only true of combined arms situations, where this whole discussion is moot).

I'd rather attack both, given the superiority of Grenadiers over Riflemen (you refuse to acknowledge it, but I don't).

If you beeline Grenadiers and manage to do it faster than an opponent can beeline Riflemen, then you will have done the exact same thing as beelining Riflemen faster than an opponent can beeline Grenadiers. What you'll be facing is Longbows, Muskets, Maces, and Knights, with a Str 12 unit. Less advantageous than facing them wih a Str 14 unit, but you'll probably do nearly as well.

already discussed this. Good point, sure... but I'm not totally sold to it for the "what ifs".

This comment is nonsensical. Do you realize all of the economic and production techs that are in the Rifling tree?

No, I'm too busy thinking at those that are not, and most of them have to do with happiness. No happiness, no production.

 

[onedreamer]

Wanted to say one more thing... as I already said, the way to Grenadiers is nice also because Cannons are one step away. Why are cannons good ? Well because you can promote them with city raze promotions, and because the collateral damage from siege machines is the most overpowered aspect in warfare in this game that I found.

 

[Roxlimn]

If you have 3 stacks of 10 Riflemen enough to overrun an opponent quickly, then you could have more easily gotten 2 stacks of 15 Cavalry each which would have done the job twice as fast or faster.

The AI usually only stacks 2 Pikemen to a stack, if then. Sometimes, there isn't even a Pikeman. By the time it's reacting to Cavalry, it's usually much, much too late to have any effect.

I once actually carried out a Cavalry Rush in Warlords, even though the enemy had Riflemen. Still doable, as long as he's exhausted from teching and can't upgrade everything.

The concept of Cavalry being a support unit is not a game-dependent one but a reality based one. It's the same reason Battleships don't fly in the air and do strafing runs, even though strictly speaking, that would be a feasible unit idea.

My usual tech up to Cuirassers/Grenadiers is Nationalism from Liberalism, then Military Tradition, then Gunpowder to Chemistry to Military Science.

The attack plan is to go with the Cuirassers once I have enough of them. Since they're usually a well-pronmoted 12 strength unit, they usually can blow through a lot of enemy units by themselves, given enough numbers. Muskets can deal with the occasional tough Pikeman once Gunpowder comes online.

Chemistry signals a shift to Nationhood and Caste System for the Workshop boost, then Grenadiers and then Cannon (through Steel). The concept is both for a "beeline" and for a "continuing evolution of force." The wartime power of the Civ escalates with each tech acquired, until it becomes irresistible once the tech to Draft Rifling and Cossacks is complete.

This way, leeway is made for any tech advances the enemy may make while the invasion is in progress. If you skip Nationalism for Printing Press for Replaceable Parts for Rifling, you delay the onset of conquest, and once the enemy acquires Rifling, your halt is inevitable.

There's a further advantage to the tech-up scheme. Nationalism also opens up the Taj Mahal. If you lay off war until you gather enough Cuirassers and City Raider Muskets just as you enter your Golden Age, your advance behind drafted units and a production-boosted and commerce-boosted war machine is all but assured, sometimes even before you actually tech up to Grenadiers.

For added oomph, add the Mausoleum of Mausollos and one Great Person. A 24 turn long Golden Age will all but assure victory.

 

[0R4NG3]

If you have 3 stacks of 10 Riflemen enough to overrun an opponent quickly, then you could have more easily gotten 2 stacks of 15 Cavalry each which would have done the job twice as fast or faster.

Yes except that Riflemen can come 2 techs earlier than Cavalry, so I'll still be faster with Riflemen.

The AI usually only stacks 2 Pikemen to a stack, if then. Sometimes, there isn't even a Pikeman. By the time it's reacting to Cavalry, it's usually much, much too late to have any effect.

Fair point. However it is possible for the AI to have more pikemen.

I once actually carried out a Cavalry Rush in Warlords, even though the enemy had Riflemen. Still doable, as long as he's exhausted from teching and can't upgrade everything.

As you say that's a special case and you would've probably done better with Grenadiers.

The concept of Cavalry being a support unit is not a game-dependent one but a reality based one. It's the same reason Battleships don't fly in the air and do strafing runs, even though strictly speaking, that would be a feasible unit idea.

Oh and Airships are not supposed to damage destroyers.... Oh and pikemen are not supposed to even scratch cavalry..... And spearmen can't kill tanks, almost forgot that one...

My usual tech up to Cuirassers/Grenadiers is Nationalism from Liberalism, then Military Tradition, then Gunpowder to Chemistry to Military Science.

The attack plan is to go with the Cuirassers once I have enough of them. Since they're usually a well-pronmoted 12 strength unit, they usually can blow through a lot of enemy units by themselves, given enough numbers. Muskets can deal with the occasional tough Pikeman once Gunpowder comes online.

Chemistry signals a shift to Nationhood and Caste System for the Workshop boost, then Grenadiers and then Cannon (through Steel). The concept is both for a "beeline" and for a "continuing evolution of force." The wartime power of the Civ escalates with each tech acquired, until it becomes irresistible once the tech to Draft Rifling and Cossacks is complete.

This way, leeway is made for any tech advances the enemy may make while the invasion is in progress. If you skip Nationalism for Printing Press for Replaceable Parts for Rifling, you delay the onset of conquest, and once the enemy acquires Rifling, your halt is inevitable.

There's a further advantage to the tech-up scheme. Nationalism also opens up the Taj Mahal. If you lay off war until you gather enough Cuirassers and City Raider Muskets just as you enter your Golden Age, your advance behind drafted units and a production-boosted and commerce-boosted war machine is all but assured, sometimes even before you actually tech up to Grenadiers.

For added oomph, add the Mausoleum of Mausollos and one Great Person. A 24 turn long Golden Age will all but assure victory.

Good strategy, probably best strategy, but you could hardly call it a beeline though.

 

[0R4NG3]

Ondreamer you are really annoying, I agreed with you on many occasions, you however just contradict for the sake of contradicting.

All I said is beelining Riflemen is quicker than beelining Cavalry. You can't contradict that, if you do you're just being stubborn. Beelining Riflemen is also quicker than beelining Grenadiers+Cuerassiers. And lets not argue about the meaning of the word beeline, it is silly.

Yes I do have a problem remembering what you said because this thread has grown to 10 pages and was started awhile ago.

I would really like to get deeper into your strategies. I am totally puzzled at how you think. If you beeline from turn 1 you will be at a clear disadvantage in many aspects, you won't be able to build most wonders and buildings, even certain improvements. The only way I can think you can balance this is play a warmonger game as soon as you reached the desired tech and conquer others' buildings and improvements, or simply annihilate them and win by domination means. How would you plan a short war if you beelined is beyond me. Personally I only see a reason for beelining when I want to get rid of my neighbors, and that's not done in a couple of turns, even with superior units, because if you beeline you're unlikely to be big and your neighbor is likely to be huge.

Yes I usually get rid of my neighbours, but since I beelined this usually doesn't take that long, so my wars do not drag for 100 years.

Quite contradictory. First, it seems that for you it is better to have Riflemen period, second you do have a choice between Riflemen and Grenadiers... it is what we have been discussing until now
To my understanding BtS changes have been made to increase the importance of Musketmen and of the new unit Cuirassier. One error they made was probably that they delayed Cavalry and Grenadiers but not Riflemen.

Not contradictory at all. I want to have a choice between Riflemen, Grenadiers and Cavalry, not just Riflemen and Grenadiers (I use "your" strategy of beelining to grenadiers sometimes). Yes I agree with you that the fact that they didn't delay Riflemen is what is causing the problem

Defense vs Cavalry yes. But they are also supposed to defend from other units... if you make them str 12 Grenadiers will have it way too easy.

Why? Why can't they just be counters to cavalry? The same way that Grenadiers are counters to Riflemen. I'm not saying that that is the best solution, but I think it is possible, they would still be potent in killing outdated units.

Why not ? Because of Pikemen ? This hasn't changed from Vanilla though.

Because Riflemen can perform similar tasks to Cavalry. And partly because of pikemen.

 

[Roxlimn]

Assuredly not a beeline. I think that the beeline to Cavalry was what Firaxis was trying to kill with the Rifling requirement. They seemed to have done a great job of it.

 

[0R4NG3]

Assuredly not a beeline. I think that the beeline to Cavalry was what Firaxis was trying to kill with the Rifling requirement. They seemed to have done a great job of it.

Agreed. But in my opinion they overdone it. I think they killed cavalry rather than just killing the beeline. Frankly just raising Cavalry's str by 1-3 points would correct the problem.

Another suggestion: make cavalry independent of military tradition. At least this way you will always have cavalry and riflemen at the same time. Or a worse case scenario only make cossacks independent of military tradition.