The Emperor Masters' Challenge 2 (on Warlords)

[aelf]

To convert or not to convert, that is the question.

Whether 'tis nobler for our War Chariots to continue suffering the slings and arrows of the Spanish and maybe the Incans; or to take up Buddhism against our Confucian principles, and by embracing it end the war. Raze another city, no more, and by a peace to say we end the destruction and the thousand unnatural deaths that war is heir to.

I'm not particularly humanist in Civ, but converting to Buddhism and ending the war soon would pave the way for trading as soon as possible, which will benefit us when we get Alphabet. It will help us get techs that we are skipping (eg. IW, Hunting, Archery, Sailing). IW is especially important since we have much jungle to clear and getting iron is always good. We need to consider this option.

I think Courthouses should be a priority after the temples. We are starting to run into killer maintenance. I'm thinking of chopping and whipping for them in Madrid and Memphis. In the meantime, more plunder money would be good to keep us afloat. And I think Thebes should build another worker soon to improve the lands that we just conquered.

Should we research Masonry on our own or wait to trade for it? As Krikkitone said, it's good to get the marble quarry near Thebes up and then working it for extra hammers and gold from Bureaucracy. But that would be the reason for researching Masonry, not to found Judaism. Let someone on the other continent do that and cause more religious fragmentation. We don't want to have to face overseas AIs that hate us for our religion but love each other.

I'm receiving different advice on how to use first GG So should we create a warlord unit (who will get Leadership promotion for faster experience for 2nd GG, but who might be unfortunate enough to die) or plant the GG as military instructor (safer and constant benefit for new units that will become huge for the rest of the game) in our military city (probably Thebes)? As you can probably tell, I'm inclined to go with the military instructor, but I feel that not getting a warlord unit is just not true to the game Also, I like the weird promotions that the warlord unit gets

 

[Gnarfflinger]

I say either Military academy or Super specialist. Warlord units are just too fragile...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'm receiving different advice on how to use first GG So should we create a warlord unit (who will get Leadership promotion for faster experience for 2nd GG, but who might be unfortunate enough to die) or plant the GG as military instructor (safer and constant benefit for new units that will become huge for the rest of the game) in our military city (probably Thebes)? As you can probably tell, I'm inclined to go with the military instructor, but I feel that not getting a warlord unit is just not true to the game Also, I like the weird promotions that the warlord unit gets

One point, Are you sure that the exp bonus from Leadership translates into GG points?
If so that's an additional argument for them, but if not, well the main point I was thinking of was getting Heroic Epic... which is better than a Military Academy or a instructor, the actual Warlord is almost icing on the cake. For extra experience, we can always get Horseback Riding. But a new GG for the Epic quality, isn't always as easy to get. (unless we want to turn the Inca into a GG/Exp farm. Declare war, and anytime they have two units in any of thier last few cities attack it either for a GG or to build up a unit to the 26 exp.)

As for Monotheism.... Yeah you're right, that'll keep the other Continent Hindu/Jewish divided given that our path Should sweep the rest of the religions except Taoism.

But Monotheism would also give OR, good for development (and making religion spreading easier)

I personally think a continent of all buddy/buddy AIs isn't necessarilly as good as an empire continent that can be running large gold bonuses at 100% research. After all getting all the religions we should have on this Continent (Bud, Con, Chr, Islam) and giving them all shrines is a total of 6 more Prophets (over a fairly significant time period).. a seventh Prophet (for a Temple of Solomon) wouldn't be to hard to squeeze in.

In any case I'd say Masonry First and when it finishes decide...I can definitely see the argument for just sticking with the ones we'll get anyways. (and we could pick up Taoism, since A.W. can be nice with this Strategy)
[Mind you: part of this is me getting into Story telling mode..figuring sweep the religions as much as possible]

One point on the strategy in general, we would want to avoid Scientific Method if Practical, since that would eliminate the +2 Gold+Flasks from the Monasteries. (Cannons, Infantry, Machine Guns, Frigates all in range) as long as that is high enough compared to thier tech.

 

[Jaca]

I believe a Warlord may be interesting if your UU is a mounted unit. You will be able to give him the Blitz promotion, allowing a unit with at least strength 3 and multiple attacks. That will give you faster xp too (+50% of +1xp is till rounded down to 1xp I noticed, while winning two battles certainly gives you 2xp).

I personally think a continent of all buddy/buddy AIs isn't necessarilly as good as an empire continent that can be running large gold bonuses at 100% research. After all getting all the religions we should have on this Continent (Bud, Con, Chr, Islam) and giving them all shrines is a total of 6 more Prophets (over a fairly significant time period).. a seventh Prophet (for a Temple of Solomon) wouldn't be to hard to squeeze in.

This sounds good.
Question though? Do we keep running the priests in Thebe? I am inclined to say 'yes', and develop Memphis as the gold city, with cottages along the river tiles, at least one Shrine and a Spiral Minaret later. You'll have to defend the land around it though.

I would also keep Toledo, after capturing it, as Krikkitone suggested. The Gems should make the city maintain itself, although you'll have to keep some units there, and give extra hapiness.

Did you get some workers? Based on the screenshots I would say 'no'...

What about the barb city on the north east? Too early to take out? I'm inclined to say 'yes, too early': it has lots of food resources and hills for mines, so good for production (but what will we produce?). The city would cost us great maintenance.

Jaca

 

[carl corey]

aelf: I found that the Leadership promotion isn't very useful in the long run, since I usually attack when having very good odds with the Warlorded unit, and will only gain 1XP for the battle anyway.

Since you'll probably want to Warlord (ha! I can verb any noun...) a War Chariot, the Tactics promotion look good. Combat III + Tactics + another promotion looks interesting. I've played a number of Cyrus games and promoted my units with Blitz, but does it really help? You attack, you're quite wounded, and then you won't be able to attack a second time. Sure, it sounds great to be able to attack twice, but in reality it's not that useful.

So... maybe Combat III + Tactics + March? Or even Combat II + Tactics + Flanking I + Flanking II to give it 80% withdrawing chances.

And yeah, I always use my first Great General to create a super unit so I can build Heroic Epic. The next one(s) go as Military Instructors in the HE city. I had a game in which I think more than half of my units came from that city. It's insane!

 

[aelf]

Actually, I agree that Leadership doesn't really contribute much in the end. It can account for maybe an extra 4-5 xp towards getting the next GG (that is if the bonus xp is counted). But if the second GG is not that hard to get, it's probably a good option to create a warlord unit first (I think a WC with Flanking II, Tactics and CombatII). Anyone have a good estimate of how long it takes for the 2nd GG to appear in an average game?

I don't really believe in Blitz after frequently having my tanks die on the second attack in the past. Quite pointless unless you are fighting a clearly inferior enemy.

I think researching Masonry first is a good idea. But I'm not inclined to pick up either Judaism or Christianity since we should get Islam. 3 holy cities are enough. We can even do with 2 if it turns out we don't get to DR first. I want as much religious fragmentation as possible on the other continent. Spreading more than 3 religions is going to be costly and ineffective. I imagine we would have more important things to do than to keep building different types of missionaries, so having 4 or 5 holy cities will not make up for the disadvantage we're at if the other continent is peaceful, prosperous and trading extensively.

 

[StrangeNirthak]

I might take a chance on settling one NE. Less chance of resources in the fat cross, but you're basically in a high-production spot already, and if you go one NE you'll have one plains mine, 2 grass mines, and one plains marble quarry, plus the plains hill bonus. Probably need farms to work all of it!

Guys to be honest I do not understand the discussion - in my opinion the starting position is great when playing it the following way: Go to the NE to settle on the plain hill which will give you the 2 production on the city square from the beginning - this is a great benefit and together with the corn will make you really fast in producing workers and settlers - would be even possible from the beginning in this situation ! So you got a plain hill (defense bonus !), fresh water, corn and marble starting position - no doubt this is great !

Concerning the religion I don't think you should go for hinduism - I would prefer building a early worker and go for masonry to get the quarry - with the corn irrigated and the quarry being on the plain hill you will have enough production to build early wonders like stonehenge (would be worth trying it to get the obelisk for free in every city - even w/o stone) and of course the parthenon. You can easily get confucianism or theology quite early with your priests (another good reason for the parthenon, isn't it ?!).

Warmonging and focusing on the Warchariots would not be my favorit as on a map with the default number of opponents the other civs might be too far away to be worth to conquer (and you won't have the strong economy you will need to pay all that upkeep). [I usually play large maps with at least 15 opponents - but that's a hard one on emperor and only possible to win with archipelago/snaky continents as you get the chance to "inprison" other civs in a corner of the continent in the early game and conquer them later)

Til later...

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

I'm receiving different advice on how to use first GG So should we create a warlord unit (who will get Leadership promotion for faster experience for 2nd GG, but who might be unfortunate enough to die) or plant the GG as military instructor (safer and constant benefit for new units that will become huge for the rest of the game) in our military city (probably Thebes)?

If you think you can get a level 5 unit on your own, without the help of a Great General, then military instructor is a no-brainer. If not, then keep in mind that you're delaying the Heroic Epic with your choice. I've usually used my first as a warlord unless my leader is Charismatic. The way I look at it, the warlord gets me both a superman and the Heroic Epic, so he's kind of like 2 Great Generals (or 5, since a military academy is only 1/4th as good as Heroic Epic).

In one of the threads on the Warlords forum, someone suggested using the first as a warlord and making sure you get one unit with the new Medic III promotion. The advantage to that is it lets your units heal in enemy territory at the speed they would normally heal in your own land. This guy basically covers all your medic needs forever. The disadvantage is that by putting 3 promotions into the Medic path, you wind up with a pretty weak warlord unit that isn't likely to see any combat action.

My recommendation is if you do use him as a warlord, use him on a melee unit. In my last game I made a warlord mounted unit (thinking it would be nice to have a 2 move medic), and that wound up taking him out of nearly all combat. Spearmen and pikemen are just too effective as counters to mounted units, so it's rare that your mounted units have a high odds battle to fight. Melee units, on the other hand, can easily get City Raider III plus a few Combat promotions which makes them nearly invincible if you use a little discretion.

 

[aelf]

Guys to be honest I do not understand the discussion - in my opinion the starting position is great when playing it the following way: Go to the NE to settle on the plain hill which will give you the 2 production on the city square from the beginning - this is a great benefit and together with the corn will make you really fast in producing workers and settlers - would be even possible from the beginning in this situation ! So you got a plain hill (defense bonus !), fresh water, corn and marble starting position - no doubt this is great !

Concerning the religion I don't think you should go for hinduism - I would prefer building a early worker and go for masonry to get the quarry - with the corn irrigated and the quarry being on the plain hill you will have enough production to build early wonders like stonehenge (would be worth trying it to get the obelisk for free in every city - even w/o stone) and of course the parthenon. You can easily get confucianism or theology quite early with your priests (another good reason for the parthenon, isn't it ?!).

Warmonging and focusing on the Warchariots would not be my favorit as on a map with the default number of opponents the other civs might be too far away to be worth to conquer (and you won't have the strong economy you will need to pay all that upkeep). [I usually play large maps with at least 15 opponents - but that's a hard one on emperor and only possible to win with archipelago/snaky continents as you get the chance to "inprison" other civs in a corner of the continent in the early game and conquer them later)

Til later...

First post? Welcome to CivFanatics!

I think you posted a little late, though. We've played our 4th round now and we've done things totally opposite of what you recommended. But it's alright. Take a look at the updates and just keep your ideas coming!

 

[aelf]

If you think you can get a level 5 unit on your own, without the help of a Great General, then military instructor is a no-brainer. If not, then keep in mind that you're delaying the Heroic Epic with your choice. I've usually used my first as a warlord unless my leader is Charismatic. The way I look at it, the warlord gets me both a superman and the Heroic Epic, so he's kind of like 2 Great Generals (or 5, since a military academy is only 1/4th as good as Heroic Epic).

Good argument there.

In one of the threads on the Warlords forum, someone suggested using the first as a warlord and making sure you get one unit with the new Medic III promotion. The advantage to that is it lets your units heal in enemy territory at the speed they would normally heal in your own land. This guy basically covers all your medic needs forever. The disadvantage is that by putting 3 promotions into the Medic path, you wind up with a pretty weak warlord unit that isn't likely to see any combat action.

I think that's pretty extreme. A Medic I unit is good enough since we probably want to do most of our healing in a friendly city anyway (fastest).

My recommendation is if you do use him as a warlord, use him on a melee unit. In my last game I made a warlord mounted unit (thinking it would be nice to have a 2 move medic), and that wound up taking him out of nearly all combat. Spearmen and pikemen are just too effective as counters to mounted units, so it's rare that your mounted units have a high odds battle to fight. Melee units, on the other hand, can easily get City Raider III plus a few Combat promotions which makes them nearly invincible if you use a little discretion.

Good point. Should we give the melee unit Leadership or Tactics promotion? Or none of them?

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

Should we give the melee unit Leadership or Tactics promotion? Or none of them?

Tactics on a melee guy is really nice, especially for a warlord unit. You're basically covering the one area where his natural promotions can't help him and at the same time covering the one case where you could lose him in an extreme case of bad random number generating.

The threads I've read on Great Generals seem to imply that Leadership isn't very useful. I've only used it once and late in the game, so I can't really speak from personal experience. My intuition is that most battles the warlord will fight are going to give him 1 experience. Leadership would give him +50% or 1.5 which, if it's like most numbers in CivIV, is likely to be truncated back down to 1. That would be something worth experimenting with in the World Builder. The other question with Leadership, of course, is whether it helps create Great Generals. I don't know the answer to that, but even if it does, I'm thinking that an occasional .5 experience bonus from one unit isn't going to make a huge difference.

You didn't ask about Morale, but my feeling is that's kind of a waste. All that really does is let your warlord unit outrace his defensive backup, which isn't generally a good thing. I guess if you gave him all the defensive promotions (Guerilla I and II, Woodsman I and II) with Morale, then you could have the ultimate pillaging unit with the defensive bonuses to survive on his own, but that seems like a really niche unit and a waste of a good general.

I'd be inclined toward Tactics.

 

[Jaca]

Good point. Should we give the melee unit Leadership or Tactics promotion? Or none of them?

You conviced me about not getting Blitz, though I was happy to use it to fight off wounded guys or two weaker ones.

I wonder though if Tactics is so useful too? I noticed the withdraw odds go down fast if you're fighting a somewhat weaker unit, and what's 30% worth anyways?

I don't know. I also once used the 'Morale' promotion on a Cavalry, which allows for quick pillaging (if you want to...) or need to get somewhere fast

Can't really help...

Jaca

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

I think that's pretty extreme. A Medic I unit is good enough since we probably want to do most of our healing in a friendly city anyway (fastest).

I don't disagree, though it's worth pointing out that Medic III increases healing everywhere. In a friendly city with Medic III it's rare to see a healing time longer than 1 turn, and I don't think I've ever seen more than 2 turns. In theory it would let you get your warlord back into combat that much more quickly, but in practice I've found that with 3 medical promotions he doesn't get into combat all that often anyway.

I wonder though if Tactics is so useful too? I noticed the withdraw odds go down fast if you're fighting a somewhat weaker unit, and what's 30% worth anyways?

Let's say you have a 90% chance of winning with a unit that has Tactics. Since he'll only withdraw from a losing battle, the 30% withdrawal chance from Tactics turns into displayed odds of 3% (30% withdrawal * 10% chance of losing). So the higher your odds of victory, the less useful withdrawal becomes. You still withdraw 30% of the time when you would otherwise lose the battle, but since you would so rarely lose the battle, it might not matter much.

 

[aelf]

In a friendly city with Medic III it's rare to see a healing time longer than 1 turn, and I don't think I've ever seen more than 2 turns.

Really? An increase of 5% (10 to 15%) healing doesn't sound that great. And I've always thought the adjacent units healing is very situational and not worth promoting the unit for.

I just played a game where my 2nd GG didn't take long to appear. I did a lot of fighting in that game, but we probably will in this game too. Until we've gotten rid of the Spanish and the Incas anyway. So, first a warlord unit with Tactics it is?

I can't play tomorrow so the next round will have to be played the following night. Meanwhile, keep throwing your ideas in.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

Really? An increase of 5% (10 to 15%) healing doesn't sound that great. And I've always thought the adjacent units healing is very situational and not worth promoting the unit for.

Maybe it's one of those things where you hit a breakpoint that cuts off a turn or two by avoiding a rounding issue.

About the only time I find Medic II useful is after you've conquered a city when you have a bunch of injured units one tile outside the city where you had your units parked for the siege and one more injured unit inside the newly captured city (he's the guy that killed the last defender). Medic II means you can start healing all the injured units immediately on the next turn without moving any of them to reach the medic.

Of course, even then there are a variety of reasons why it might not help. If they're hurt badly enough, moving into the city to heal might cut off a turn. You might want to move them into the city to fortify it against a counterattack. Maybe the guy that took the city is a mounted unit, so he can move back out to the medic on the same turn when he captured the city. And so on ...

Anyway, I usually find most of my medic needs are adequately met by Explorers (barracks + Theology / Vassalage). They're so cheap to build that you can easily have medics all over the place healing everyone. Like I said, I agree that using the warlord for Medic III isn't the best plan. I just thought I should clarify my original comment about healing in enemy territory, since it seemed to imply that was the only benefit of Medic III.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Few thought on mechanics
+15% of Medic 3 that doesn't stack with Medic 1+2?... even if not, thats's 33% fater healing in enemy territory (5+10=15, v. 1+15=20)

Second, does anyone exactly know how Leadership works
example (War Chariot attacking a Warrior)
This
[1.5*[4 base exp * (str 2/ Str 5)]]=[1.5*[1.6]]=[1.5*1]=1
OR
This
[1.5*4 base exp * (str 2/ Str 5)]]=[1.5*(1.6)]=[2.4]=2

If the second, then there should be quite a few times you attack with Overwhelming odds and still get a benefit out of leadership (actually a lot of the odds types you attack with may get you 2 v. 1, meaning leadership may get a bit under rated by saying it is +50%)

 

[Jet]

I'm a fan of attaching the first GG to a 6XP unit to ensure that you can build HE and WP.

And then giving it Medic III, and using it in an attack stack but not in combat. I don't want to risk losing my investment/opportunity. The +15% is indeed added to the bonuses from Medic I and II and applies no matter where you are. There's no other way to get the same effect; having many units with March is the only thing analogous. It helps you take sets of cities faster. I've found that to be a big help.

There are exceptions for particular circumstances but I don't think any of them apply here. Right now your military advantage is war chariots. A super war chariot isn't that great; war chariots can't get CR and they have a strong counter. +2 XP are less worth it for the same reason.

In this game main reason I'd use the first GG as an Instructor is if you think you'll get the second GG before Literature. I suspect you won't, though.

 

[Hey Joni]

IMHO, you don't need WP at all and can maybe reach HE without the great general. It's not like you have 10 opponents on the continent - it's just two. You already crippled one of them, the next one will follow her soon... If you need a bonus from a great general, you will want it as soon as possible.

Joining a city with yout GG gives you half the efect of WP and it gives it much sooner, without any shields wasted. This will help taking the continent for yourself sooner and once you do that - you'll have the lead! If you reach to a point, where invading the other continent is best (I hope you won't), you will use the second GG in the same city to get the full efects of Westpoint without spending any shields (WP is not cheap) and a national wonder slot. I think this option is the best.

Not to mention that you will not suffer the loss of the warlord unit at 99% chance of survival.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

Keep in mind that the game speed is Epic. In my experience that makes Great Generals somewhat more difficult to come by. The necessary points scale by the 1.5 factor, but the world has the same amount of land with roughly the same number of cities defended by roughly the same number of units. In other words, opportunities for combat remain about the same, but you need 1.5 times more experience before you get a Great General.

 

[NaZdReG]

Aelf,

I know this is a break from my role-playing input. I have participated in multiple threads concerning great general use. heres the deal. individual units are always expendable and rarely survive the entire game. also, you are likely to only see 3-5 generals during the ENTIRE GAME because our continent only has 2 neighbors. so you need to find the best use for them.

think about it this way. barracks is 3 +2 from theo +2 from general. 2 exp to level 1 five to level 2 nine to level 3 and so on.
your units starting with 7 exp are just short of level 3. if you put a 2nd general there they start at level 3. producing an infinate stream of city raider 3 macemen etc. 2 more and they START at level 4... (devestating)

look at your army, if you have any level 3 guys you're close to the heroic epic anyway. if you produce a warlord you're trading HUNDREDS OF EXP for the meager 20.. quite a waste in all single and multi player games i've played since the warlords launch.

ultimately its your decision.. but consider it carefuly. compare it to sinking super specialists into a single city

NaZ