Strategy

[CyberNinja]

First build city. then make 100 warroirs then find the other civs and attack. keep attack until all citys destroyed. if cant find other civs then keep trying. keep practice this strategy and u will win always.

 

[spycatcher34]

Question how long does it take to make all those warroirs?This isnt possible you would run out of sheilds and your city wouldnt grow

 

[Kefka]

From most of my experiances you would lose all 100 of those warriors if the Enemy has any defence!
warriors are not really good for attacking other civs and one city CAN NOT produce 100 warriors AT ONE TIME at the begining! something tells me that you never actually did this stratagy or if you did it was on cheftan level.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.grworld.com/vanillacubesgames/files/kefka.gif" border=0>"Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!"
"I will Create A monument to nothingness!"

 

[HIEROPHANT]

here is something better build a town near AI on a hill or mountain build diplamats and steal the next town and build lots of men even carvans works as defesne. also if you see a warrior or phanlax or something less than 3 attack put a settler next to it on a mountain because ai is will always attacks settlers.

 

[Smash]

I smell a rat.......

 

[starlifter]

by HEIRPHANT:

...
build lots of men even carvans works as defesne.
...

A caravan defends as well as a warrior, BTW. In early republics, since caravans pay no support, they are a good alternative to an unoccupied city in an SP game (while accumulating to build a wonder).

by CyberNinja:

First build city. then make 100 warroirs then find the other civs and attack. keep attack until all citys destroyed. if cant find other civs then keep trying. keep practice this strategy and u will win always.

Any moderately experienced Civ II player will instantly recognize this as nonsense in the extreme and dismiss this babble.

But for the newer players: this "strategy" is just plain jibberish. It is not possible to make and support 100 warriors in the early part of a single player game. Even under monarchy, you can't support the settlers and warriors for such a strategy, and your warriors will simply wasted when when they attack and are killed.

And even assuming a person could build a city and make 100 warriors early in the game, the phrase "u will win always" should be changed to "this strategy is nonsense, and you will lose always... if you could actually do it!"

For anyone who does not recognize this "strategy" and attendant baseless boasts of CyberNinja's as utter nonsense, a good place to start is the War Academy:
(http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2strategy1.shtml)

The war Academy has ideas, tactics, and strategies that are credible and have been proven.

To CyberNinja: if such a strategy works (which it won't) and you have implemented it as described (which you haven't), then post a few zipped early game .SAV files to a post (which you can't, since it won't work) so we can all see your guarantee of success in action. Thanks in advance, dude

.

 

[HIEROPHANT]

in caculation you put a carvan on a mountain and it has a fortess that would be 6 defesne 1*2*3 and that does count it being fortiyed which would be even more and i only put them in mountains even a crusader vertern might lose to it. but the cavravan it like a like backup with another unit on the mountain and it could be possable to lose a fighter plain attacking a carvan in a fortess mountain.

 

[starlifter]

posted July 18, 2001 02:06 AM
in caculation you put a carvan on a mountain and it has a fortess that would be 6 defesne 1*2*3 and that does count it being fortiyed which would be even more and i only put them in mountains even a crusader vertern might lose to it. but the cavravan it like a like backup with another unit on the mountain and it could be possable to lose a fighter plain attacking a carvan in a fortess mountain.

On a mountian fortress, the correct defense value for a non-fortified caravan is:

1 - Base value
+2 - Mountain bonus (200%)
+1 - Fortress bonus (100%)
---
4

The caravan would defend with a factor of 4, and 10 hit points. A slight advantage goes to the Crusader attacker (attack=5) you mentioned. If the Crusader is a vet, it will likely win (7 attack), but will take good damage.

Note: you do not multiply a fortress bonus. All bonuses are cumulative, and additive. The base defense value is used as the bonus computational basis.

 

[HIEROPHANT]

i thought is what muitlpyed thanks for telling me the exact way it works but of course this tends to be unfair at times so a carvans with 4 defesne still could win but the chance would be low. one time i attacked a settler with a crusader on the grassland and almost lost the crusader civ2 can be so unpredictable. if that that was the same luck against a carvan in fortess mountain there goes a crusader to its death.

 

[starlifter]

posted July 18, 2001 04:04 AM
i thought is what muitlpyed thanks for telling me the exact way it works but of course this tends to be unfair at times so a carvans with 4 defesne still could win but the chance would be low. one time i attacked a settler with a crusader on the grassland and almost lost the crusader civ2 can be so unpredictable. if that that was the same luck against a carvan in fortess mountain there goes a crusader to its death

You must remember the special property of a settler... no other early unit has it's special ability. That "special" ability is... 20 hit points. In effect, it is a "gunpowder" unit, albeit with a defense factor of one. This is why on defensive terrain (esp. mountains) in the early game, the settler is an excellent defender, particularly in an emergency situation. Personally, I would usually not attack a settler on a mountain, esp. if it was in a fortress, unless I had a vet Catapult or a vet crusader. The attacker will win more hit-point 'battles' when the conflict is resolving, but often the attacker just runs out of HPs (meaning it dies) before killing the settler.

 

[HIEROPHANT]

i know settlers have 20 hp but a crusader vs a settler on the grassland should never lose more than 3 hp realistly settlers in real life would not stand a chance against a archer.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Whilst still recognising that cyberninja is just trying to provoke flammage...

As for the CARAVAN DEFENCE:
doesn´t a caravan and diplomats etc have a 50% penalty in defence as they are non-combat units?

AS FOR THE POST B4 me...

hierophant...you were the one who posted that your pikemen in forest should beat an ironclads bombardment...hmmm a fine strategy but for the one flaw -it is bollocks.

[This message has been edited by kittenOFchaos (edited July 18, 2001).]

 

[starlifter]

As for the CARAVAN DEFENCE:
doesn´t a caravan and diplomats etc have a 50% penalty in defence as they are non-combat units?

I was unaware of such a "penalty". In fact, diplomats technically defend with 0, but in fact Microprose has explained that they really have a slight chance of winning a hit point here and there during the "battle" that resolves the outcome of an attack.

My informal (not rigorous) testing of the caravan & freight has shown me that they do indeed seem to have a defense of 1. However, I did not pursue a full monte-carlo style simulation to confirm the long-term odds match the theory. If you happen to know a reference about this "penalty" issue you're talking about, I'd be happy to learn about it too

.

 

[Sukenis]

I could be wrong, but I believe he is thinking of SMAC when the non-combat penalty was mentioned. It exits there (and sucks).

Just a though...

 

[starlifter]

posted July 19, 2001 08:52 AM
I could be wrong, but I believe he is thinking of SMAC when the non-combat penalty was mentioned. It exits there (and sucks).

OK, that could explain it. Unfortunately, I'm not very familair with SMAC, havning never even played half a game with it

.

 

[HIEROPHANT]

You are right a diplamat may say 0 defesne. it is possable to lose a pikemen attacking it like you attack a barbarain leader at 1/3 strength against a mountain the diplamat wins.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I am aware of SMAC and her penalty (removed by the simple addition of armour to crawlers, formers etc! so it did not suck).

In civ2 I am pretty sure there is a negative modifier for diplos and caravans and DEFINITELY for those barbarian leaders...though I have lost to a diplomat b4 when I attacked so it can´t have no defence!

Just don´t count it as sound advise to defend with caravans -the cost of losing would be major!

 

[starlifter]

In civ2 I am pretty sure there is a negative modifier for diplos and caravans and DEFINITELY for those barbarian leaders...though I have lost to a diplomat b4 when I attacked so it can´t have no defence!

There is no documented evidence or acknowledgement about that from Brian Reynold, Sid Meier, etc. that I'm aware of, but the I learn something new every day

. I have never noticed a statistical anomaly when attacking caravans, which I do quite often. When I first started playing, I assumed they had a defense of 0, and was mad when I lost a few battles, and I came to the conclusion after testing that they defended with a value of 1. Later, I had teh brilliant idea to check the wall poster and civilopedia, which also stated it, LOL.

Just don´t count it as sound advise to defend with caravans -the cost of losing would be major!

The only caravan defense I advocate is when the alternative is leaving a city unoccupied. Early in the game, this is not so bad, since attackers are often seriously injured or killed with a 2 v 1. The main thing it to stop an walk-in enemy, until dips or attackers can be rushed via road from a nearby depot. The advantage is pronounced in an early republic, when you don't want to use any more shields than necessary for support of defenders. With the right dip defense, you will often not even lose a city during the game; more often than not, the real threat is barbs, which are conrollable as lon as your citys have some sort of defender in them.

 

[shotdown08]

To: CyberNinja I would hope that before you concider posting a strategy that you would give some kind off proof for something so strange and outragous. Nice try though

 

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by starlifter:

On a mountian fortress, the correct defense value for a non-fortified caravan is:

1 - Base value
+2 - Mountain bonus (200%)
+1 - Fortress bonus (100%)
---
4

Note: you do not multiply a fortress bonus. All bonuses are cumulative, and additive. The base defense value is used as the bonus computational basis.

bonuses are multiplied IMHO:

1 * 3 (mountains) * 2 (fortress)

i.e. a non-fortified caravan has the defense 6

See <A HREF="http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=988">Info: Combat (GL)</A> thread