SM4 - The Great War

[ThERat]

since we have to fight right from the start, a Civ with a strong UU might help...your choice

By the way, do we need to declare immediately without initial trading (if it's possible in the first place)?

and finally, this game is conquests, right?

 

[Smart]

since we have to fight right from the start, a Civ with a strong UU might help...your choice

I thought so too - I'll chose Celts, also I had successful AW experience with them.

By the way, do we need to declare immediately without initial trading (if it's possible in the first place)?

I don't see why we should ban initial trading, it's pangea and probably we will meet every civ in Ancient Ages, so we will be able to make initial trading only one time with first civ - or they will have to be destroyed before second contact

and finally, this game is conquests, right?

Of course.

 

[choxorn]

lurker's comment: The trading part didn't make much sense... You're probably going to want the militaristic trait- Zulu, anybody?

 

[Smart]

Defensive unique unit and ultra-early GA isn't good. And you're wrong about trading part

 

[adz106]

Smart,

Sorry for taking long to respond. I usually play demi-god level on large pangaea or continents. I have a couple deity wins when I get good enough starts.

I don't post much just do a lot of reading, but I wanted to try a succession game on a hard level to see what bad habits i have that are holding me back. I don't play anything lower than emperor and those games are cakewalks.

Given the nature of the game I think your suggestion of celts is good. Although AA uu's are typically not ideal we're gonna be at war extremely early and it could really facilitate our cause having either mounted warriors or GS. Hopefully we can avoid a despotic GA.

 

[vmxa]

Lurker:

Actually having an AA special unit is almost mandatory in AWDG or higher games. If you do not kick off an early GA, you will not be able to survive, unless you get a favorable location, where you do not face several civs at once.

Something like a huge map wit less than optimal civs, could let you get away with no AA unit, maybe.

 

[choxorn]

@vmxa: this is NOW, not AW. It's only AW with one civ at a time, which isn't that hard, except with the first civ or two.
Well, if you want an early offensive UU...
Aztecs!!!!
[sarcasm mode activated] Or the Americans. [/sarcasm mode off]

 

[Smart]

Well, if you want an early offensive UU...
Aztecs!!!!

You're probably going to want the militaristic trait- Zulu, anybody?

Well, we don't want ultra-early UU to get GA with 3 cities producing warriors
Also UU must be effective during lond time, not just 20-30 turns like Jaguar warrior or what you suggested. Celts are pretty good for this kind of games and Gallic Swordsman can be used even in middle ages.

I was busy today and couldn't roll the map, I'll do it tomorrow...

 

[choxorn]

Then the Romans would work well, too, as would the Persians- these two also have sword UUs, though Celts has best sword UU IMO, however, Rome has Mil trait. It depends on which you want.

 

[Aabraxan]

lurker's comment: I've been playing solo games as the Romans lately. I know militaristic isn't all that highly regarded, and the Legionary isn't a spectacular unit. It's a decent, solid one, though, and I've decided that I like the commercial trait a lot.

 

[adz106]

I would have to go along with what smart said about the jaguar warriors being more or less worthless. They are obsolete from turn one because any civ that has bronze working is impossible to take over with them.

Speed kills, and having the ability to retreat cuts losses by atleast 50% so any two MP unit is much better than even the 3/3 legion of rome in my opinion. I would say the GS is the best ancient age UU but I'd prefer to have mounted warriors because you can upgrade them through the ages.

On a side note I think the agri trait is must for higher difficulty REX'ing so I see two choices, celts or iroquois. Either will do just fine. Commercial is one of my favorite traits as well, but I think it's a better trait for a builder game where you're going for economic superiority. In this case I think being religious will be better because we'll be getting our research by pounding the AI and our money from capturing their cities.

 

[Beorn-eL-Feared]

lurker's comment: I think you need something that can make a quick difference on the field. The first war will inevitably drag, and I almost wish for you to drag it along with your despotism. This way you buy more time and build up.
Not having an early UU would help for that, and powerful knight UU's, such as the jumbo, rider and ansar, would make the job much much easier henceforth. It is not AW, so you can still build up, trade, etc. and I do think knights early are an option.

Iroquois and Celts always remain good options for any variant on any map though.

 

[ThERat]

it'e either Iro's or Celts. They are both agri, which is great...

 

[choxorn]

lurker's comment: I've been playing solo games as the Romans lately. I know militaristic isn't all that highly regarded, and the Legionary isn't a spectacular unit. It's a decent, solid one, though, and I've decided that I like the commercial trait a lot.

lurker's comment: It's a NOW, so Mil trait is worth more than normally. I agree, though, Celts and Iros Rocks!!!!!!!
Commenting on what Beorn Said, if early MA UU, Vikings! A 6 attack Berserker might will help.

 

[Smart]

Ok I rolled few starts with Iroqous, I think they will be better for this game - comercial trait and starting with Alphabet gives more advantage then religious, also we will be able to upgrade UU to Knight and then to Cavalry.
I looked for river and food bonuces with at least 2 extra food make 4-turner settler factory and got two starts - first one have nice production potential and much forest to chop, second one is really unique - we have 5 wines (already moved settler SW from worker's wine), they gives 3 food each when irrigated and can be MM'ed between towns.

 

[adz106]

Just some thoughts...

The second start worries me with that tundra showing on the west corner, but it looks like from the position of the start that we might be able to have our backs covered by the ocean and only have one front to cover during war.

What type of city placement are we going for? I think if we're going for CxxC in the core it may have been better to settle in place so the second city could get on that river to the west. Looks like lots of grassland to the north and east though which could be really nice.

First start looks good but I think I'll vote for two because of the luxury and overall map position. I think the first puts us in the middle of several AI's and grassland is more powerful than plains in imo.

 

[TimBentley]

The extra commerce from wines is also a useful bonus, although the tundra is unfortunate. The second start will be even stronger when out of despotism (5 3f/1s tiles, since keeping them irrigated would be food overload at that point I think). I'd go for the food (should be two 4-turn settler factories) and luxury of the second start over the production of the first. Moving the settler S and the next city E of the worker, with another city to the north, may be a possibility. I see no good way to have three cities on a river sharing the wines.

 

[Smart]

First start looks good but I think I'll vote for two because of the luxury and overall map position. I think the first puts us in the middle of several AI's and grassland is more powerful than plains in imo.

Well, I think position doesn't matter because we are going to be at war only with one civ at the same time, unless we will need to fight with somebody else. But anyway second start is better with all those food and luxuries to export.

think if we're going for CxxC in the core it may have been better to settle in place so the second city could get on that river to the west.

Settling in place will let us loose bonuce from the wines, so we would have to move anyway. I moved the settler SW to see if this start worth playing, else I could just exit and roll next one...
Better move would have been NE, but who knew that I rolled around 15 starts before getting this, so I couldn't fog-gaze all of them...

I'd go for the food (should be two 4-turn settler factories) and luxury of the second start over the production of the first. Moving the settler S and the next city E of the worker, with another city to the north, may be a possibility. I see no good way to have three cities on a river sharing the wines.

Yes, we will even have one extra wines for third city, because 4-turner needs only 2 extra food + 1 from our trait. So it will be two 4-turners and one 6-turner, if we will manage our workers to build all mines at right time for requiered SF productivity.

 

[choxorn]

lurker's comment: *Looks at starts. Rubs eyes when sees 2nd Start*
FIVE WINES!!!!!!???????

 

[Ansar]

lurker's comment: I definetily need to subscribe to this thread.

Welcome back Smart! and good luck everyone!