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

[Roxlimn]

I don't know about that. Even apart from stack sortie duty (attacking nearby singletons then returning to the stack) and mopping up city defenders, I find Cavalry to be quite exceptional at crippling enemy siege engines, which is one of the most deadly threats to a stack. This is particularly helpful just as your stack comes alongside a city, when it's most vulnerable to collateral damage attacks from Cannon based within the city.

I've had entire stacks rendered useless from Cannon fire, and it's worse now because Cannons don't even get collateral damage from my Cannons these days. The mounted units are a must-have in this case, although I'd wish they'd fix the Cavalry so they flank attacked all siege units.

 

[0R4NG3]

I don't know about that. Even apart from stack sortie duty (attacking nearby singletons then returning to the stack) and mopping up city defenders, I find Cavalry to be quite exceptional at crippling enemy siege engines, which is one of the most deadly threats to a stack. This is particularly helpful just as your stack comes alongside a city, when it's most vulnerable to collateral damage attacks from Cannon based within the city.

I've had entire stacks rendered useless from Cannon fire, and it's worse now because Cannons don't even get collateral damage from my Cannons these days. The mounted units are a must-have in this case, although I'd wish they'd fix the Cavalry so they flank attacked all siege units.

Good point, but as you said since cavalry's flanking does not work on catapults it is not always useful. So cavalry has to be improved in one way or another.

 

[Wodan]

Likewise, Cavalry were never meant to function alone as a troop type

Who says and why not?

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.

Agreed.

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.

OTOH you can draft them, not just build anew or upgrade. And, while they might get less XP, they don't require an extra building to achieve it, either. The saved production can be spent on something else. Plus, they benefit from Aggressive as well as Protective, so they might actually be more promoted than your Cavalry.

*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.

That seems to contradict some of what has been said, as well as be over-simplistic and ignore the multiple cases which have been discussed.

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

Why not?

, even certain improvements.

Certain ones, not in the Rifling path, correct.

On the other hand, quite a few of the helpful economic and production wonders, buildings, and improvements ARE on the Rifling path.

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.

Isn't that true only if the available wonders, buildings, and improvements are insufficient to the needs? What is the basis for making this logical leap?

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.

Why is that? Who's to say you can't make more Settlers while your neighbor is busy making Stables or Harbors or whatever? Actually, I would think that you have it exactly the opposite.

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.

Wait a minute... now Grenadiers are simply a contingency "in case my opponent(s) get to Rifling"?

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.

Interesting point. So, perhaps a beeline to Riflemen is even better than before.

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

Ummm... this discussion is about the nerfs to Cavalry and Cossacks. They are less strong against all units (including Pikemen). There have been several changes since Vanilla.

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

You made the statement after 3.13. I asked the question because I am not sure. You made a statement, therefore you must be sure. Hence, I asked the question.

The fact that you made mock of my question indicates that you are NOT sure and that your statement did not take into account the changes in the game.

Can you please confirm one way or another that you are indeed sure of your statement, or that you are not that that perhaps it should be verified before further unqualified statements are made?

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.

Whatever. Obviously one of us misunderstood the other.

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

By which time the beelining human can have any number of other units available, such as Cannons.

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

Correct. According to the definition we (including you) have agreed upon.

I made that statement because you nevertheless had a different original definition. This was intended to avoid confusion, not to invite mockery. Please restrain yourself.

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...

That would depend on if I base my strategy on my opponent having Grenadiers but leaving them fortified in his cities when I send in stacks of Riflemen. Again please restrain yourself please.

Of which is faster between Grenadiers and Riflemen: Obviously nothing would be allowed except clicking on either Rifling or Military Science at turn 1.

This ignores quite a few things, such as:
-- there are multiple paths. Clicking on an advanced tech does not often utilize the most efficient or the most desired path, or it puts the techs in an order that you would not choose if you planned it yourself.
-- discussion of advanced beelining as performed on CFC definitely includes lightbulbing. When and how to do it, and for what techs. How to get the GP. Etc. Ignoring this changes the entire concept of beelining.

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.

Sure. As does yours. Having Grenadiers assumes the same things. If your human opponent in MP has Riflemen then your Grenadier attack will fall flat on its face.

Nobody said that either unit was the "be all and end all" and solves all problems. The question is which is better, and how does that relate to the changes in Cavalry/Cossacks.

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

Can you please explain exactly how Grenadiers are superior over Riflemen, because I don't get it. Let's say you have beelined Grenadiers and get them at the same time as I get Riflemen. Exactly how do you exploit this "superiority"?

Have you never encountered a human who has Riflemen to defend against your Grenadiers in your MP games? What do you do to overcome the problem?

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

You can trade for happy resources, state religion, markets, forges.

The real question is, "is it worth delaying the beeline to spend X turns to get a tech and spend Y hammers to make a building, to get extra happiness?"

This question is impossible to answer without looking at the specific game. For example, it's not wise to divert to get Calendar if you don't have any plantation resources in your empire. On the other hand, if you have a large number, it might be worthwhile.

IMO beelining does not mean a mindless execution of the direct-click on the F6 screen. But, on the other hand, it does not permit "get every single tech before advancing to a new age", as you had previously stated, either. What it does mean is don't divert to get something that has marginal benefit, or whose benefits are long term (will not be realized until after the beeline). This has to take into account the beaker and production cost associated with the diversion, the cost in delay of turns of getting the end result (e.g., early Riflemen or Grenadiers), and the potential gain of the diversion (e.g., plantations); then making an intelligent decision by comparing these factors against each other.

Note also that this cost/benefit analysis will change as the beeline progresses. e.g., while it might not make sense to divert and get Calendar early on when it will take 12 turns to research and you only have a minor happiness problem, it might make more sense later when it only takes 3 turns to research, happiness is more of an issue, and there are multiple available plantation resources to exploit.

Wodan

 

[Roxlimn]

OR4NG3:

Hard to say. Even 2 points would be overkill, given that you can get them to level 4 quite easily. You can even get Blitz Cavalry right out the gate, and those always turn out to be combat monsters once they get the promotion gravy train running.

Off the top of my head, I'd say a base 40% retreat chance might suffice. If your opponent is still fiddling with Catapults, then your stack doesn't really have much to fear from it, if it's populated with Cavalry and Grenadiers and what not.

Of course, it's also possible to tech straight to Riflemen/Cavalry with Liberalism-Nationalism(free)-Military Tradition followed by Printing Press-Replaceable Parts-Rifling, although with two techs to go afterwards for the key Cannon and Steel (also leads to important stuff later), I consider it a more defensive play.

Wodan:

Well, Napoleonic and Civil War era armies usually relied heavily on infantry and cannon as a matter of course. The Cavalry they employed were mainly as a shock troop and for overrunning vulnerable artillery and infantry positions. Could you refer to a typical period army of the type that used only Cavalry and no other unit?

OTOH you can draft them, not just build anew or upgrade. And, while they might get less XP, they don't require an extra building to achieve it, either. The saved production can be spent on something else. Plus, they benefit from Aggressive as well as Protective, so they might actually be more promoted than your Cavalry.

All those factors considered, of course. When you're in the Age of Rifles, you Military Production Cities really ought to already have Stables in them, considering how cheap they are even by Renaissance standards and how useful Knights and Cuirassers are, even if only for inflating your power graph.

While you can build humongous amounts of these Riflemen, the efficacy of such Drafts, I've found, really is most dependent on having either the Protective or the Aggressive trait. If you're Stalin, you might want to consider a Rifleman advance, and definitely consider it as Tokugawa or Churchill. However, as Peter or Catherine, there's no great push for the Riflemen.

 

[Wodan]

Well, Napoleonic and Civil War era armies usually relied heavily on infantry and cannon as a matter of course. The Cavalry they employed were mainly as a shock troop and for overrunning vulnerable artillery and infantry positions. Could you refer to a typical period army of the type that used only Cavalry and no other unit?

Ah, you're talking historically.

Historically, probably NO trained army ever used only one type of unit. Early on, you get the simple concept of "arm the men in the populace" along with elite units (which could use multiple weapons and are not really implemented in CIV).

Once we get to actual trained units, we have swordsmen accompanied by sling throwers and such. Later, mounted raiders, archers, etc.

We were speaking of the Mongols; I'd say that they were the first period army which used only mounted units and no other unit (besides impressed / conquered peoples as "shock" troops they drove before them into the enemy).

Later on, I'd say my statement that no trained army ever used only one type of unit is accurate. That's true not just of mounted units, but units of any type.

So, in that sense, this is a question / distinction which is moot and irrelevant.

A better question might be where were cavalry used extensively in a single battle without supporting units? (And, by cavalry, I presume you mean late-medieval or renaissance cavalry, rather than mounted units from a previous period, such as heavy knights?)

If not, then the best example is probably the Teutonic Knights at the Battle of Tannenberg. Over 20,000 heavy cavalry (knights) with only a small infantry accompanying it.

Later on, which is probably what you're talking about, when mounted units had rifles or caracole-tactics with pistols, rather than lances, swords, etc.

Cavalry in that period were used mostly as raiders, as you say, moving at distance and striking at targets with minimal protection. In battle, they no longer charged the enemy of course, but as I said tended to use the caracole. This was because of pikes / muskets, not Riflemen.

Once true rifled breechloaders (or even flintlocks) appeared, I would say that Cavalry saw a slight upswing in use. Not because of an increase in their power, but because of the decrease in use of Pikemen. Cavalry could now actually charge a troop of musketmen or riflemen. They would take horrendous losses in the charge, but once there they would wreak a great deal of damage. This was a slight upswing only... for the most part they were not a major decisive force.

Anyway, what we're talking about here is gameplay, not sticking to the "letter of the law" of history. I'm not saying we should do something against history. But we should allow history in my world (my game) to unfold in a different way than it did on Earth.

All those factors considered, of course. When you're in the Age of Rifles, you Military Production Cities really ought to already have Stables in them, considering how cheap they are even by Renaissance standards and how useful Knights and Cuirassers are, even if only for inflating your power graph.

Well that's different question altogether. Do you advocate getting Horse Riding and building Stables, even if you don't have horse resources? Also, do you advocate building Walls and Castles, even in your interior cities?

I would guess that you already had or plan to get the "mounted" techs, and thus pre-building Stables makes sense to you. If, however, you did not plan to do so and you instead planned to conduct war mainly with Riflemen/Grenadiers/Cannons, then building Stables would not be worth your while.

While you can build humongous amounts of these Riflemen, the efficacy of such Drafts, I've found, really is most dependent on having either the Protective or the Aggressive trait. If you're Stalin, you might want to consider a Rifleman advance, and definitely consider it as Tokugawa or Churchill. However, as Peter or Catherine, there's no great push for the Riflemen.

I don't agree there. It all depends on your opponent. If you're facing Maces and Longbows, then even raw drafted Riflemen will do fine. Before you know it they will have all the promotions you could want.

I do agree that if you're planning to beeline, then Protective and Aggressive are good considertions. However, you have to balance that against the benefits of Imperialistic/Creative or Expansive/Philo. Either one has some huge advantages to a beeline strtegy. So yes, Peter and Catherine can still have a "great push" for Riflemen, even drafted Riflemen.

Wodan

 

[kniteowl]

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.

LOL City Raider Promoted Muskets, never seen them before, are you playing a mod? or did you mean a Musket that attacks a city?

Hard to say. Even 2 points would be overkill, given that you can get them to level 4 quite easily. You can even get Blitz Cavalry right out the gate, and those always turn out to be combat monsters once they get the promotion gravy train running.

Never heard of level 4 Blitz Cavalry... You meant Level 5 right? because a unit with zero promotions is considered level 1 and Blitz requires combat 3.

Anyway...

My opinion is the window of opportunity to attack with a technological advantage with Cavalry is smaller then Rifles, and Rifles smaller then Grenadiers because you require to research more techs therefore delaying your attack therefore allow the AI to tech further down the tech tree.

Grenadiers are the best Res Age Beelined Unit used for wars because you can get that tech required for them early and they have no major counter until Calvary which require two techs and is a long way off therefore they have a very large window of opportunity.

You can beeline to Rifles but delaying that war will mean the AI will be one tech closer to your Counter (Grenadier) but if you're going going to have a short war and you can cripple the AI before they reach Military Science then you should be fine.

Cavalry on the other hand just requires too many techs and even if you pull off a successful beeline the window of opportunity to attack with a tech advantage is very small, because we all agree that that You can technically get Rifles before Calvary which happens to be their counter.

Counters units being available before the unit they counter is pretty common in Civ 4, Axes come before Swords, Crossbows come before Maces. In Vanilla, Grenadiers come before Rifles and now Rifles come before Cavalry.

 

[Wodan]

My opinion is the window of opportunity to attack with a technological advantage with Cavalry is smaller then Rifles, and Rifles smaller then Grenadiers because you require to research more techs therefore delaying your attack therefore allow the AI to tech further down the tech tree.

More techs does not necessarily equal longer time. What's the cost of those techs?

Also, what intermediary techs are along the way, that speed things? For example, Bureaucracy is in the route to Riflemen, whereas is it not in the route to Grenadiers. Bureaucracy gives you more commerce / more research, which is significant.

And, if you are going for Riflemen, you can be making CR-promoted Macemen, while for Grenadiers you don't get Macemen at all. In fact, you don't even get mounted units, archers, or crossbows. Unless of course you deviate to get those units, in which case the argument "more techs" is impacted.

Furthermore, what about the ease with which the techs are researched? Some techs are lightbulbable, and thus this impacts the comparison one way or the other.

I'm not saying your opinion is invalid, but that the reasoning given ("require you to research more techs") does not seem to me to lead to the conclusion. More data is necessary before a conclusion would be, well, conclusive.

Grenadiers are the best Res Age Beelined Unit used for wars because ... they have no major counter until Calvary which require two techs and is a long way off therefore they have a very large window of opportunity.

This is still part of what I think is not a conclusive argument, but some more comments:
-- Rifles counter Grenadiers
-- I don't understand the "two techs" point... do you mean two techs beyond Grenadiers? Two techs beyond Riflemen?

Cavalry on the other hand just requires too many techs and even if you pull off a successful beeline the window of opportunity to attack with a tech advantage is very small, because we all agree that that You can technically get Rifles before Calvary which happens to be their counter.

I agree with this. Cavalry seem to be relegated to the mere role of anti-siege. They can't even pillage, not really. Even pikes can take them out on a very cost-effective basis. (The AI isn't smart enough to do that though.)

Counters units being available before the unit they counter is pretty common in Civ 4, Axes come before Swords, Crossbows come before Maces. In Vanilla, Grenadiers come before Rifles and now Rifles come before Cavalry.

Good point. And that's why I don't use Swords. Maces base strength is 33% higher than Xbows, thus they are still worthwhile even against Xbows, especially if they have CR promotions.

Cavalry, however, are only 7% higher than their counter (Rifles). Thus, Rifles are a much more effective counter than Xbows vs Maces.

To me, Xbows are the death of Axemen, not Maces. Maces are still very worthwhile. Meanwhile, Rifles are the death of Cavalry.

Wodan

 

[peter450]

Xbows get a bigger counter bonus though 50% vs 25% which offsetts this, standard to standard both Xbows an riflemen have around a 70% win chance against there respective units.

The main advantage that maceman have is they have access to the assault promotions line, and 75% city attack can nulify a lot of counter bonus's that other units might have, and all for just 3 promotion upgrades, unless the defending unit can counter your raider promotions with city defender ones they will almost certainly not have a strong advantage over you,

cavalry is fast and mobile with a highish initial str rating an can flank attack, but the price for that is not having access to the assault promotions which means, there's no way for them other than having significantly more promotions, to effectively reduce a city defender units overall str, cavs are very strong on open terrain were there higher str coupled with the defending units lack of top up bonus's gives them a good edge, but vs cities units with the raider prmotions nearly always give far better odds

 

[kniteowl]

More techs does not necessarily equal longer time. What's the cost of those techs?

Also, what intermediary techs are along the way, that speed things? For example, Bureaucracy is in the route to Riflemen, whereas is it not in the route to Grenadiers. Bureaucracy gives you more commerce / more research, which is significant.

And, if you are going for Riflemen, you can be making CR-promoted Macemen, while for Grenadiers you don't get Macemen at all. In fact, you don't even get mounted units, archers, or crossbows. Unless of course you deviate to get those units, in which case the argument "more techs" is impacted.

Furthermore, what about the ease with which the techs are researched? Some techs are lightbulbable, and thus this impacts the comparison one way or the other.

I'm not saying your opinion is invalid, but that the reasoning given ("require you to research more techs") does not seem to me to lead to the conclusion. More data is necessary before a conclusion would be, well, conclusive.

It sounds like we're going around in circles aren't we? LOL

I agree we need more data before we can reach a proper conclusion but I was generalizing and speaking from my own game experience, that most of the time for me that I tend to get Grenadiers before Rifles.

It sounds pretty extreme to make a direct beeline to the Res Age from the Ancient age skipping a lot of useful techs just to get an advanced unit like a Grenadier.

I don't know what you'd consider a beeline, and I don't want to go into the details of things, like light bulbing and such, but generally speaking if you played a normal game... teching normally (not sure what you consider normal teching)

Everyone probably plays differently, but if I were to play my own normal game, then I generally beeline to Liberalism (not a direct beeline from the very beginning of the game by the way :S LOL), then beeline to whatever other tech I consider important to give me an advantage at the time.

For me most of the time for me it just happens that it's faster to beeline to Grenadiers then it is to beeline to either Rifles or Cavalry. Sure there are games where it's probably better or faster to beeline Rifles or Cavalry then Grenadiers.

But that really depends when I make the decision to make a beeline.

This is still part of what I think is not a conclusive argument, but some more comments:
-- Rifles counter Grenadiers

Fair enough, they counter each other depending on who attacks, I guess.

-- I don't understand the "two techs" point... do you mean two techs beyond Grenadiers? Two techs beyond Riflemen?

The two techs I was implying that Cavalry require is Military Tradition and Rifling.

 

[kettyo]

Celtia is worse

 

[0R4NG3]

Celtia is worse

In which way?

 

[kettyo]

In which way?

Those hillriders are totally useless

Though i like their music very much

 

[0R4NG3]

Those hillriders are totally useless

Though i like their music very much

I like their music too
Celtic UU and UB are quite useless but from the point of view of "flavor" they are better since you will use them in every game. As oposed to the Russian UU and UB which you might never use in the majority of your games.

 

[mboettcher]

Catherine is designed for state property (perhaps a historical thing). Anyway get a lot of gg (trust me imp is a good trait as a warmonger. Especially the longer the game speed because you can get two cities with lvl 6 units by the time cossacks come) and can easily acquire a large empire and the cities expand sooner. Oh and cossacks aren't out of way when teching because of a. westpoint b. trades.

 

[0R4NG3]

Catherine is designed for state property (perhaps a historical thing).

Why would it be a historical thing? I will probably agree though that historically imperialistic suits her better than financial.

Anyway get a lot of gg (trust me imp is a good trait as a warmonger. Especially the longer the game speed because you can get two cities with lvl 6 units by the time cossacks come) and can easily acquire a large empire and the cities expand sooner. Oh and cossacks aren't out of way when teching because of a. westpoint b. trades.

A lot of GGs? I'm not arguing here, but just out of curiosity exactly how many more GGs do you get with an imperialistic leader, considering you use the same strategy with all leaders.

West point isn't exactly game breaking, at least not for me. The AI usually will not trade Military Tradition straight away and by the time it does everyone has it, which is fine if you want to have long wars on tech parity.

 

[danieldaniel]

I bit off topic... Why is the Kremlin wonder attached to comunism? All russian Kremlins were built long before comunism, the one in Moscow was built during the XV century or before I believe. The Kremlin would actually make a nice UB for Russia taking the place of the castle.

 

[0R4NG3]

I bit off topic... Why is the Kremlin wonder attached to comunism? All russian Kremlins were built long before comunism, the one in Moscow was built during the XV century or before I believe. The Kremlin would actually make a nice UB for Russia taking the place of the castle.

Yeah I totally agree. Attaching Kremlin to communism is probably the most ignorant/propagandistic decision in Civ4. It is like saying that the Red Square is called that because of the Red Army or Communism or whatever. Besides the graphics for Kremlin are those of St Basil's Cathedral and not of the actual Kremlin.... But oh well I suppose it is too much to ask from them to change it now, will just have to live with it.

 

[Roxlimn]

Wodan:

Historically, probably NO trained army ever used only one type of unit. Early on, you get the simple concept of "arm the men in the populace" along with elite units (which could use multiple weapons and are not really implemented in CIV).

We were speaking of the Mongols; I'd say that they were the first period army which used only mounted units and no other unit (besides impressed / conquered peoples as "shock" troops they drove before them into the enemy).

That actually not true. Most of the Central Asian steppe "armies" even during the Roman period used only light and heavy cavalry for the same reasons the basic Mongol armies did - they were directly derived from their own nomadic populace.

Aside from that, we have several accounts of specific Chinese armies formed during the Age of Fragmentation (?) some centuries before the Mongol invasion specifically being made only of cavalry for the purpose of strategic maneuvers and tactical speed. The Chinese were probably the first to use mostly heavy cavalry armies, not the Europeans, and these were countered through the use of disciplined formation infantry, armed with both spear and crossbow. The same cycle pattern of army composition would be replicated in Europe a few centuries after.

It's also untrue that the Mongols would drive civilians ("peoples") before them as shock troops to soften up enemies. That's patently untrue and also tactically stupid, and it's not often than a Mongol general can be accused of stupidity. What is true is that the Mongols would demand tribute in the form of a certain quota of fighting men from each nation they conquered. Some of these were light and heavy infantry, which of course would form the main static body of any subsequent army they formed.

Anyway, what we're talking about here is gameplay, not sticking to the "letter of the law" of history. I'm not saying we should do something against history. But we should allow history in my world (my game) to unfold in a different way than it did on Earth.

That may be all well and good, but there's a certain amount of homage being paid to "realism" here. After all, we don't particularly like having all-siege armies go to war, even though that's also a "possibility" that "should be allowed." I think that the move to relegate the Cavalry to a less prominent position than they had before is a good one, and it's not like you can't mow down an enemy with just Cavalry if you've a big enough tech advantage.

Well that's different question altogether. Do you advocate getting Horse Riding and building Stables, even if you don't have horse resources? Also, do you advocate building Walls and Castles, even in your interior cities?

The question of Horseback Riding and Cavalry itself is completely moot if you won't have access to Horses so it's not a factor that's even worth discussing. It goes without saying that you can't use your Civ's UU if you don't have the right resources. That's as true of the Cossack as it is of the Praetorian.

Incidentally, I do advocate building Walls and Castles even in your interior cities if you happen to have Stone. It's just so fast to build, and the increase in power rating is phenomenal. Well worth the effort. If you can swing the Castles early in your bigger Commerce Cities, that's an extra Trade Route each.

I don't agree there. It all depends on your opponent. If you're facing Maces and Longbows, then even raw drafted Riflemen will do fine. Before you know it they will have all the promotions you could want.

The main problem with the Rifleman beeline is that it doesn't grant you Nationalism, so you can't draft that early. With the Military Tradition line, you get Nationalism so it's not a problem. You'll be drafting Musketmen, sure, but as you say, if it's against Maces and Longbowmen, it's going to okay.

However, you have to balance that against the benefits of Imperialistic/Creative or Expansive/Philo. Either one has some huge advantages to a beeline strategy. So yes, Peter and Catherine can still have a "great push" for Riflemen, even drafted Riflemen.

I've been expounding on the escalating strengths of a Cuirasser/Grenadier beeline. Perhaps you can be more specific about the wartime benefits of Printing Press and Replaceable Parts to an Imp/Creative and Expansive/Philo during war.

Also, what intermediary techs are along the way, that speed things? For example, Bureaucracy is in the route to Riflemen, whereas is it not in the route to Grenadiers. Bureaucracy gives you more commerce / more research, which is significant.

That makes no sense. All Renaissance beelines, whatever their ultimate target, have to go through Liberalism. The advantage gained with the free tech is just too large to ignore. En route to Liberalism, the Civil Service tech is definitely the way to go. The advantages of it is just also too large to ignore. Even a Grenadier tech-up HAS to go that route.

I agree with this. Cavalry seem to be relegated to the mere role of anti-siege. They can't even pillage, not really. Even pikes can take them out on a very cost-effective basis. (The AI isn't smart enough to do that though.)

It's an either-or situation. Either we're talking about the AI and Cavalry aren't countered effectively by Pikemen, or we're talking about players and Grenadiers are the unit of choice for several obvious reasons (they'll try hard as heck to get Rifling for defense). There's no in-between.

Therefore, either the Cavalry will carve up the AI, or the Grenadiers will ensure a good advance against a rival player. In both cases, the tech up to Military Tradition is the preferable route for a militarily-minded player.

Good point. And that's why I don't use Swords. Maces base strength is 33% higher than Xbows, thus they are still worthwhile even against Xbows, especially if they have CR promotions.

Cavalry, however, are only 7% higher than their counter (Rifles). Thus, Rifles are a much more effective counter than Xbows vs Maces.

To me, Xbows are the death of Axemen, not Maces. Maces are still very worthwhile. Meanwhile, Rifles are the death of Cavalry.

My experiences differ. The tech up through Military Tradition not only grants you Drafting, Nationhood, and the Taj Mahal. It also grants you first dibs on West Point, easily built if you snag the GA.

Once you get the Taj Mahal and that second Great General, your West Point Cavalry will be coming out the gates with at least 11 XP. That's a level 4 Cavalry with 3 promotions of your choice. If you're Charismatic and have a few more XP to add, you can get Blitz (!) Cavalry with Military Science.

That's one tough horsey right there. What can you do with 3 or 4 promotions? Lots, you can imagine. A few mere CG1 Riflemen won't stop you. I know because I've done it. The Riflemen were no match. Heck, Redcoats couldn't stop me, and I didn't even have Riflemen.

Promotions are one of the reasons Macemen are so strong. They come at a time when you can get level 3 units. That's Cover or Shock or CR2. This is a much more important factor than the raw strength comparison. In fact, I've successfully invaded nations with level 3 units (specifically) much more than with Macemen (specifically), Crossbow or no Crossbow.

This is the reason why I consider Monarchy and Theology to be key wartime Civics. If I'm Aggressive AND I get the jump on my neighbor to Theology or Monarchy, you can bet I'm going to war very soon, even if I haven't quite got to Civil Service just yet. Combat 1 Cover/Shock City Raider 1 Swordsmen are just that good. If I can swing Macemen, it'll be great, but the "upgrade" to Macemen just isn't that big a swing for me.

For much the same reasons, the West Point, the Nationhood Civic, Taj Mahal, and Cuirasser/Grenadier all coordinate for me to create a powerful military push, much more so than the simple upgrade to Riflemen.

If you get Riflemen, you'll still need to get Nationalism to draft. Once I get Cuirasser/Grenadier, I KNOW I can draft. I'll be drafting Musketmen, sure, but ten Musketmen NOW is better than 5 Riflemen a little bit later.

Finally, you can actually delay Military Science (for the Grenadier) in favor of Steel (for Cannon) if you find that the Cuirassers/Musketmen are doing a good enough job of finishing off city defenders after the siege engines do their work.

Please forgive the blow by blow. Some of the synergies of the tech-up isn't that apparent to people who haven't actually tried to implement it in a game. If you try the route, these interconnecting options will be immediately apparent.


kniteowl:

LOL City Raider Promoted Muskets, never seen them before, are you playing a mod? or did you mean a Musket that attacks a city?

My bad. I didn't realize I could also be referring to a promotion. I rename my units based on the promos I give them. I name my city-attacking Musketmen City Raider, even though they don't have the City Raider line of promotions.

Never heard of level 4 Blitz Cavalry... You meant Level 5 right? because a unit with zero promotions is considered level 1 and Blitz requires combat 3.

No. Actually I meant level 4. It's easy to get Level 4 Cavalry. It's NOT easy to get Blitz Cavalry (level 5) out of the gate, even though it CAN be done.

Cavalry on the other hand just requires too many techs and even if you pull off a successful beeline the window of opportunity to attack with a tech advantage is very small, because we all agree that that You can technically get Rifles before Calvary which happens to be their counter.

You're just saying that because you've been used to Cavalry sweeping the map before BTS. It's not like that now (thank god) but it's not like it's a useless unit. The window of opportunity for a Cavalry reinforced army (all other things being equal) is rather large, and a nicely promoted Pinch Cavalry will still punch through a couple Riflemen no problem.

 

[onedreamer]

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.

What the heck, I don't contradict just for the sake. In fact I never contradicted that BEELINING Riflemen is quicker than beelining Cavalry. I contradicted that they come 2 techs before. If you beeline it's true, but if you don't then they can come together, this is what I have repeated all the time. Then I broadened the discussion saying that anyways beelining Rifling instead of Grenadiers first and Military Tradition then is IMO not the best strategy, because
- it's faster
- it's safer in the majority of situations
- cannons are one tech away
- West Point
Rifling is convenient only because of that +2 Strength, as far as I can tell.

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.

Because Riflemen are the only main "city defender" in their age. If you make them JUST counter for Cavalry with Strength 12, the main defender will become Grenadiers, but Cannons will be very powerful against them. I think throughout the whole game there is a certain patter of units that have a main defensive or offensive role (some are support). You can use them as you prefer and some defensive units can also work in offense with proper promotions, still they work BEST as their main role. I think the devs thought of Riflemen as a defending unit, that's evident from the fact that the AI upgrades denfending Longbowmen and Musketmen to Riflemen, and not to Grenadiers. So they will want to remain consistent with this, this is my idea. Also because otherwise they would need to reprogram part of the AI, it wouldn't just be a mere -2 strength on Riflemen.

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

This is where we disagree mostly, Cavalry has 2 movements, higher strength and is the counter to Grenadiers and Cannons (especially with the new flanking feature). Unlike what is suggested I don't think that attacking Grenadiers with Riflemen is a good strategy.
But since I don't just reply for the sake of contradiction, yes I did agree that
- Cossacks have been nerfed too much
- Cavalry has been delayed too much in BtS, I don't think it's bad if it comes into play at the same time of Riflemen (and that's what normally happens without beelining etc), problem is that if you go for Rifling (not even beeline) and want to counter Grenadiers and don't have Military Tradition yet, you'd probably want to go for Industrialism for Infantry (is that one tech away ? I don't remember well).
I would think of changing Cavalry or Riflemen prereqs. Maybe make Riflemen require Military Tradition or make Cavalry require Military Science and Military Tradition.

 

[Wodan]

That actually not true.

I've read your reply several times and I am unable to find where you are disagreeing with me. You add more information, which is helpful.

It's also untrue that the Mongols would drive civilians ("peoples") before them as shock troops to soften up enemies.

I didn't say civilians. I was talking about conscripts. Doing a simple google search shows me many references which back this up.

The subject we're talking about here is homogeneous army vs combined arms. I'm saying that the Mongols themselves were 100% mounted, but that they supplemented themselves with conscript units (who were not mounted) as well as specialists such as Chinese combat engineers.

So, we agree (again). Just don't assume I mean something when I was talking about something else. That said, no harm done!

That may be all well and good, but there's a certain amount of homage being paid to "realism" here. After all, we don't particularly like having all-siege armies go to war, even though that's also a "possibility" that "should be allowed."

Siege is a poor example, because most people think the implementation is a poor one (even after BtS changes we still have the conceptual implementation of a siege unit engaging in melee combat... all that is changed is that the siege unit can't actuall kill the opponent).

I think that the move to relegate the Cavalry to a less prominent position than they had before is a good one, and it's not like you can't mow down an enemy with just Cavalry if you've a big enough tech advantage.

That's hard to imagine, since even Pikes can defend against them. The AI has gotten better and focusing upon building "counter" units, so with 3.13 it will focus more on Pikes if it sees you with a lot of cavalry. A human will do even better.

That's a big difference between Cavalry and Rifles or Grenadiers. Rifles/Grenadiers have NO effective counter from the previous techs. Either the opponent is on a technological parity with you, or he isn't.

This is exactly what we're talking about, and it's why the changes to Cavalry and Cossacks make them even worse.

The question of Horseback Riding and Cavalry itself is completely moot if you won't have access to Horses so it's not a factor that's even worth discussing. It goes without saying that you can't use your Civ's UU if you don't have the right resources. That's as true of the Cossack as it is of the Praetorian.

You missed my point. You said (or implied) that it was worth-while to build Stables simply to get the bonus on the Power graph. So, I responded, is it worth-while even if you don't have horses?

If you say yes, then I would challenge that, but I'll respect your opinion. I personally would not find this worth while.

If you say no, then this belies your earlier assertion.

If you continue to say "moot", then to me that sounds like you mean "no".

Incidentally, I do advocate building Walls and Castles even in your interior cities if you happen to have Stone. It's just so fast to build, and the increase in power rating is phenomenal. Well worth the effort. If you can swing the Castles early in your bigger Commerce Cities, that's an extra Trade Route each.

Understood.

The main problem with the Rifleman beeline is that it doesn't grant you Nationalism, so you can't draft that early. With the Military Tradition line, you get Nationalism so it's not a problem. You'll be drafting Musketmen, sure, but as you say, if it's against Maces and Longbowmen, it's going to okay.

Can't really respond to this until I look at the tree.

I've been expounding on the escalating strengths of a Cuirasser/Grenadier beeline. Perhaps you can be more specific about the wartime benefits of Printing Press and Replaceable Parts to an Imp/Creative and Expansive/Philo during war.

Why would you pull out those two specific techs, unless you think they're weak? Isn't that like saying, "can you be more specific about the wartime benefits of Machinery to a civ (without archery)?" Or, pick any choice of seemingly-useless techs from the Cuirasser/Grenadier beeline.

Both trees have their share of techs which are more or less useful to the immediate goal. There's no point in this line of discussion. It's a tit-for-tat argument.

That makes no sense. All Renaissance beelines, whatever their ultimate target, have to go through Liberalism. The advantage gained with the free tech is just too large to ignore.

I disagree.

En route to Liberalism, the Civil Service tech is definitely the way to go. The advantages of it is just also too large to ignore. Even a Grenadier tech-up HAS to go that route.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The decision of whether "the free tech is just too large to ignore" depends on a lot of factors. We can't just say "hey, we get a free tech" and say that conclusively is better. Plus, the free tech is far from guaranteed.

This is probably the heart of disagreement here. Personally, I feel that a Liberalism beeline is far from an obvious choice. It depends upon strategy, comparing pros/cons of the whole tree from game start, lightbulb possibilities, and pros/cons of attempting a calculated risk to get Liberalism first.

It's an either-or situation. Either we're talking about the AI and Cavalry aren't countered effectively by Pikemen, or we're talking about players and Grenadiers are the unit of choice for several obvious reasons (they'll try hard as heck to get Rifling for defense). There's no in-between.

Whoa, that's way off.

If we're talking about the AI, and the AI has tech parity, then he has Riflemen and your Cavalry are dead meat. If the AI does not have tech parity, then it's moot: Cavalry, Riflemen, and/or Grenadiers will all be very successful against AIs who are behind you technologically.

If we're not talking about the AI, and your human opponent has tech parity, then either he has Riflemen and your Cavalry are dead, or he has Grenadiers and will probably end up fighting you with Pikemen. If he does not have tech parity, then he will fight you with Pikemen.

Therefore, either the Cavalry will carve up the AI, or the Grenadiers will ensure a good advance against a rival player. In both cases, the tech up to Military Tradition is the preferable route for a militarily-minded player.

Again Grenadiers are countered by Riflemen.

My experiences differ. The tech up through Military Tradition not only grants you Drafting, Nationhood, and the Taj Mahal. It also grants you first dibs on West Point, easily built if you snag the GA.

Once you get the Taj Mahal and that second Great General, your West Point Cavalry will be coming out the gates with at least 11 XP. That's a level 4 Cavalry with 3 promotions of your choice. If you're Charismatic and have a few more XP to add, you can get Blitz (!) Cavalry with Military Science.

That's one tough horsey right there. What can you do with 3 or 4 promotions? Lots, you can imagine. A few mere CG1 Riflemen won't stop you. I know because I've done it. The Riflemen were no match. Heck, Redcoats couldn't stop me, and I didn't even have Riflemen.

Building the Taj and West Point will take time, and then you can only build one Cavalry/Cossack in one city. So, you're talking about a later point in the game, and you're talking about limited # of units.

Promotions are one of the reasons Macemen are so strong. They come at a time when you can get level 3 units. That's Cover or Shock or CR2. This is a much more important factor than the raw strength comparison. In fact, I've successfully invaded nations with level 3 units (specifically) much more than with Macemen (specifically), Crossbow or no Crossbow.

This is the reason why I consider Monarchy and Theology to be key wartime Civics. If I'm Aggressive AND I get the jump on my neighbor to Theology or Monarchy, you can bet I'm going to war very soon, even if I haven't quite got to Civil Service just yet. Combat 1 Cover/Shock City Raider 1 Swordsmen are just that good. If I can swing Macemen, it'll be great, but the "upgrade" to Macemen just isn't that big a swing for me.

What do you do for knocking down defenses? Spies? Or do you only attack defenseless cities? (Seriously, I'm asking.)

For much the same reasons, the West Point, the Nationhood Civic, Taj Mahal, and Cuirasser/Grenadier all coordinate for me to create a powerful military push, much more so than the simple upgrade to Riflemen.

Don't argue with you that it's powerful. It's far from all powerful, and it's debatable that a human opponent wouldn't have overrun you by then with drafted Riflemen, Riflemen combined with some other strategy, Grenadiers/Cannons, or whatever.

If you get Riflemen, you'll still need to get Nationalism to draft. Once I get Cuirasser/Grenadier, I KNOW I can draft. I'll be drafting Musketmen, sure, but ten Musketmen NOW is better than 5 Riflemen a little bit later.

Depends on relative speed each player needs to get there, I suppose. That's why they call it a beeline... it amounts to a race.

I also question that you would adopt a heavy musket draft strategy when you are happily churning out Cuirassers/Grenadiers. That makes no sense to me, unless perhaps you are on the defensive and facing invasions.

Please forgive the blow by blow. Some of the synergies of the tech-up isn't that apparent to people who haven't actually tried to implement it in a game. If you try the route, these interconnecting options will be immediately apparent.

I understand and have played these strategies. Where I disagree is whether is it an obvious do-this-all-the-time strategy. Beelining Rifling is just as powerful, if not more so. And, Cavalry/Cossacks were weak before BtS, and now they're even weaker.

and a nicely promoted Pinch Cavalry will still punch through a couple Riflemen no problem.

A nicely promoted anything will punch through a couple unpromoted units no problem. Seriously... take your pick... Sword vs Axe, Mace vs Crossbow, Cavalry vs Rifleman, ... we could go on.

Wodan