I wanted to discuss in particular the application of military units that out-strip enemies in terms of movement points. From what I read, these units, (I.E, Riders, Ansars) have a diminished role in besieging cities, as they are less efficient in terms of cost when compared with their slower counterparts (such as medieval infantry), and this is a problem, as besieging cities include most of Civ IIIs combat, at least in my experience. The best idea I can come up with is an ultra-responsive open combat aggressor, snatching away units that wander astray of cities and mountains.
Speed Tactics
- Thread starter SKS
- Start date
It depnds on the cities they are going for, if you mean by besieging you are attacking the city. Their movement is not important once they get on station. The attack value vs the defense is what counts.
A 4 attack unit is great on a spear or archer or any defense of 1 or 2. Not so good beyond that and those units tend to cost more than the melee units of the same strength.
The speed is important to get on station, especially if you can do it before defenses can be put in place. Riders are hell on the open field vs those AA units you often get to face. Well as long as they are not some of the def 3 UU units like Legions and Hoplites.
Conq are super at harassment, as they have the special moves. Many of my most annoying AW games were caused by having to defend so many more tiles to stop conqs from taking workers or empty towns. Towns that were in hills and normally are safe.
A 4 attack unit is great on a spear or archer or any defense of 1 or 2. Not so good beyond that and those units tend to cost more than the melee units of the same strength.
The speed is important to get on station, especially if you can do it before defenses can be put in place. Riders are hell on the open field vs those AA units you often get to face. Well as long as they are not some of the def 3 UU units like Legions and Hoplites.
Conq are super at harassment, as they have the special moves. Many of my most annoying AW games were caused by having to defend so many more tiles to stop conqs from taking workers or empty towns. Towns that were in hills and normally are safe.
Well if you are talking about the AA and very early MA then yes its more cost effecient to build swordsmen and then medieval infantry. Knight's however not only have 2 movement but also 3 defense, meaning they have a much greater survival rate on the way to the enemies cities. But their cost, chivalry being an optional tech, and having to slow down for siege weapons makes their use as a besieging force kinda iffy. Once you reach calvary though, your entire city attack force will most likely be fast units.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
Siege? With 3-movement units as Riders you don't siege. You can strike at enemy cities from quite afar which means several things:
1. As you don't spend interturns in enemy territory there is no chance that your units are going to be harrassed on the move.
2. You don't have to make do with panic rushes and panic upgrades. A stack of Riders which sits 4 or more tiles away from a city is simply not judged as a direct threat by the AI. A grave mistake. The difference for you is, that you might just have to deal with 2-3 spears, instead of 4-5 spears or pikes. (Just an example).
3. You find yourself often in a situation where you have a relatively large stack of Riders sitting outside of enemy territory, and yet are able to strike at 2 or even 3 different enemy cities. Which means of course that you can attack a city with just enough units; e.g. if a city falls after 2 attacks - fine, if a city turns out to be a little tougher - take some more, at least you won't have a failed attack. Very efficient.
Chance that to:
"... with these units laying siege to cities has a much diminished role ..."
1. As you don't spend interturns in enemy territory there is no chance that your units are going to be harrassed on the move.
2. You don't have to make do with panic rushes and panic upgrades. A stack of Riders which sits 4 or more tiles away from a city is simply not judged as a direct threat by the AI. A grave mistake. The difference for you is, that you might just have to deal with 2-3 spears, instead of 4-5 spears or pikes. (Just an example).
3. You find yourself often in a situation where you have a relatively large stack of Riders sitting outside of enemy territory, and yet are able to strike at 2 or even 3 different enemy cities. Which means of course that you can attack a city with just enough units; e.g. if a city falls after 2 attacks - fine, if a city turns out to be a little tougher - take some more, at least you won't have a failed attack. Very efficient.
Chance that to:
"... with these units laying siege to cities has a much diminished role ..."
I would generally use my riders for forwards defense, mainly protecting the cities that I recently conquered by intercepting any invaders, or merely as the only reinforcements that my far away core cities could produce that wpuld get tere in any decent time. (9 squares a turn = happiness.) Otherwise, they would never touch a city unless God smiled on me in this one video game and gave me a Rider Army. Then I would just blitz any rivals off the map.
I see now they have much better capabilities in the
beginning of the war than I expected, thanks Ensworth.
I see now they have much better capabilities in the
beginning of the war than I expected, thanks Ensworth.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
were I to have riders or ansars, i would A) beeline them and B) build nothing else until I got cavs.
speed kills in Civ III.
speed kills in Civ III.
Great point! But what about plain old knights? In your opinion are the optional tech and high shield cost really worth it?
Siegmund
King
Against an AI that primarily builds slow-moving units, fast attackers are sure as hell worth it. Their ability to retreat instead of dying is HUGE. Attacking spearmen I'd much rather have an army of horsemen than an army of swordsmen.
I am sure not everyone agrees. There are certainly different styles. But I am a big believer in fast units for the outlying cities and lots and lots of artillery bombardment for the well protected ones. Can't remember the last time I built an archer. If I build swordsmen it's because of the tech situation. Typically I am building horsemen in the cities with barracks and building or poprushing catapults in the cities without them, when I fight an early war. I try to start the middle ages with a big pile of cash to upgrade the horsemen to knights.
I am sure not everyone agrees. There are certainly different styles. But I am a big believer in fast units for the outlying cities and lots and lots of artillery bombardment for the well protected ones. Can't remember the last time I built an archer. If I build swordsmen it's because of the tech situation. Typically I am building horsemen in the cities with barracks and building or poprushing catapults in the cities without them, when I fight an early war. I try to start the middle ages with a big pile of cash to upgrade the horsemen to knights.
Archers are definitely worth building if your Civ starts with warrior code, and if your civ starts with warrior code, it's probably also militaristic, meaning you can toss a whole bunch of vet archers at your unsuspecting opponent before he has anything to defend with.
Great point! But what about plain old knights? In your opinion are the optional tech and high shield cost really worth it?
Plain old knights may only be worth it if you are a republic (no MP means more units floating), and want to keep your upkeep low. Faster speed means a more responsive defensive, meaning less units have to be build to cover your cities. However, you're going to want to field a bit more units than that if your facing off in the early-mid middle ages with Arabia or China.
Especially against a human.
were I to have riders or ansars, i would A) beeline them and B) build nothing else until I got cavs.
Beeline....? You mean, research feudalism and then mono? Is that considered a beeline, something that short?
And in my experience, you're going to run yourself down if all your units are riders, because chances are, they're going to die at a less efficient rate than medinf, pikes, or longbows combined.
Great point! But what about plain old knights? In your opinion are the optional tech and high shield cost really worth it?
Plain old knights may only be worth it if you are a republic (no MP means more units floating), and want to keep your upkeep low. Faster speed means a more responsive defensive, meaning less units have to be build to cover your cities. However, you're going to want to field a bit more units than that if your facing off in the early-mid middle ages with Arabia or China.
Especially against a human.
were I to have riders or ansars, i would A) beeline them and B) build nothing else until I got cavs.
Beeline....? You mean, research feudalism and then mono? Is that considered a beeline, something that short?
And in my experience, you're going to run yourself down if all your units are riders, because chances are, they're going to die at a less efficient rate than medinf, pikes, or longbows combined.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
Well, yes - I suppose it's a short beeline
But I would go for those before cavalry, or astronomy.
There are tricks you can use - get chivalry, turn off research, disconnect iron and build horses, then upgrade.
There are a couple of reasons why you use them:
1) They are as good as the dominant offensive units.
2) They can attack from your territory into most AI cities on the border and many in the central parts, at the first turn.
3) When made into armies, they are stupidly powerful (at least in conquests), because they get 4 attacks a turn.
But the big thing is the speed at which you can conquer with them. What an Ansar or Rider can cover in 1 turn takes three for MDI/Pike/LB, which gives your opponents less time to react and to tech better defenders.
if you are fast/fortunate with research or find someone without iron, you might catch early opponents with spears/horsemen/archers.
Try it sometime - get to chivalry, build only Riders and attack when you have a stack of 10 or 12. You can build some pikes after awhile, to help with stack defense.
But I would go for those before cavalry, or astronomy.
There are tricks you can use - get chivalry, turn off research, disconnect iron and build horses, then upgrade.
There are a couple of reasons why you use them:
1) They are as good as the dominant offensive units.
2) They can attack from your territory into most AI cities on the border and many in the central parts, at the first turn.
3) When made into armies, they are stupidly powerful (at least in conquests), because they get 4 attacks a turn.
But the big thing is the speed at which you can conquer with them. What an Ansar or Rider can cover in 1 turn takes three for MDI/Pike/LB, which gives your opponents less time to react and to tech better defenders.
if you are fast/fortunate with research or find someone without iron, you might catch early opponents with spears/horsemen/archers.
Try it sometime - get to chivalry, build only Riders and attack when you have a stack of 10 or 12. You can build some pikes after awhile, to help with stack defense.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
If I just had plain knights, it would depend. In a game like that, I'd probably go to Mil Trad, which unlocks LB's and Musket's, anyway. Actually, I could spend more time building horsies and build Leo's along the way... then upgrade the horsies to cav and go ape.
drpolarbear
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 6
it depends. some games were I get a tech lead then yes. they are very hard on spearmen, swordmen and horsemen. If I am behind then I try to by pass them and only pick it up if a good trade is in on the table.
Nice bump
IMHO…
Knights are always useful as offensive defenders and/or as full attackers. Of course, for the cost of 4 Knights you can build 7 Medieval Infantry/Longbowmen (which also come earlier and don't need the resources) so I'd think about it… of course, if you're Persia with their 30-shield Immortals then it's a no-brainer.
If you're Greece or th Netherlands then you might want to just make a specialised mobile force and send the Hoplites/Swiss Mercs at leisure, the ArtificialIdiot won't be able to intercept them. The same doesn't apply to French Musketeers because they're much more expensive.
IMHO…
Knights are always useful as offensive defenders and/or as full attackers. Of course, for the cost of 4 Knights you can build 7 Medieval Infantry/Longbowmen (which also come earlier and don't need the resources) so I'd think about it… of course, if you're Persia with their 30-shield Immortals then it's a no-brainer.
If you're Greece or th Netherlands then you might want to just make a specialised mobile force and send the Hoplites/Swiss Mercs at leisure, the ArtificialIdiot won't be able to intercept them. The same doesn't apply to French Musketeers because they're much more expensive.
Similar threads
