The Fabled "Warrior Gambit"

[commodified]

What is this fabled "Warrior Gambit" and how can I pull it off successfully? Would Jaguar Warriors help? How can I produce enough warriors to whip some butt before other civs start producing swordsmen/spearmen?

Also: can somebody tell me the exact number of turns a game is if you go until 2050 (that's the last year of the game, right?

Thanks!

 

[God]

Warrior gambit you need 2-3 warriors.

If you're lucky you'll come across another close by civ with a warrior defending, another exploring and the city near finished producing a settler.

2-3 warriors can take out 1 defender easily. I have been able to do this on all the levels up to monarch. On emperor I can't do it, because the AI will have a spearman and another warrior or two around.

You don't need Jaguar warriors. They are good at it, but not a must. With Jaguars you can eliminate 2 civs possibly on regent or monarch. On warlord I have managed to eliminate 4 civs with Jaguar Warrior gambit.

 

[No.Dice]

Originally posted by commodified
Also: can somebody tell me the exact number of turns a game is if you go until 2050 (that's the last year of the game, right?

Thanks!

540

 

[commodified]

coolness, thanks for the help.

540, eh? I wonder if there are mad geniuses who have input that number into some crazy formula that tells them exactly what to do each round in order to win!!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by commodified
What is this fabled "Warrior Gambit" and how can I pull it off successfully?

The Warrior Gambit requires two lucky events. One, find a rival civilization very close to your capital, then field 2-3 warriors before they can build a spearman. Two, attack and win.

If you lose the gambit, you will not necessarily be out of the game. Just defend successfully against the counterattack and set your diplomats to work to reach a peace treaty. If you win, you will have doubled your empire in size.

I generally play every opportunity for the Warrior Gambit, and win as often as I lose the Gambit. While losing doesn't inevitably lead to disaster, winning always reaps great rewards.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I only try the Warrior gambit on Regent and below. It only really works if your neighbor is pretty close to you. It's great if you can reach their city before their city has grown to size 2 or has just completed a settler. This way the AI can't pop-rush a spearman at the last minute. You usually want at least 2 warriors. 2 warriors is probably what most players use, because if you wait to build more the AI will almost certainly have a spearman or two by then. If taking on a lone spearman, 5 warriors almost always works for me. When I discover the civ I position my warriors from the diagonal and don't contact them. Come in from the diagonal (shortest distance from outside their territory to get right next to the city square). Then on the AI's turn they will greet me instead of demanding me to leave like they would have done if we had already been greeted. This way the AI is not prepared for the assault and does not pop-rush that spearman or extra warrior.

On chieftain, if you start very close to the AI (real small maps with very little land) you might get 1 warior to their capital before they complete their first warrior. Or with a single jaguar warrior since it has extra speed.

 

[philippe]

i did that once my 3 warriors defeated by a single warrior....
then the counter and it was over..well thats civ3

 

[el_kalkylus]

It's soooo much about how lucky you are.

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by el_kalkylus
It's soooo much about how lucky you are.

Or how many times you are willing to reload

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by allhailIndia


Or how many times you are willing to reload

Bravo philippe! Your perseverence (not reloading) will be remembered in the annals of Civilization. We don't always remember the winners in history, but often those who die fighting (e.g. Alamo, Gettysburg, Thermopylae).

 

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by allhailIndia


Or how many times you are willing to reload

Quite. The fact is there is nothing clever at all about the "warrior gambit"; it only works at all because you can take any potential gain and forget any potential losses. IMO percentage attacking strats are far more rewarding.

And it isn't even a gambit, since in a gambit you give something up in order to take another advantage.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Quite. The fact is there is nothing clever at all about the "warrior gambit"; it only works at all because you can take any potential gain and forget any potential losses. IMO percentage attacking strats are far more rewarding.

If you play it without reloading, like philippe, it is a worthy attempt at greatness.

 

[DrSpike]

You are of course correct. In that case it is merely a dumb strategy. It is better IMO to wait until the AI has expanded to a poor defensive position before attacking. Attacking prematurely is not a gambit. Sure, on lower levels if you do that and succeed you will get an earlier finish than someone following a percentage strategy. But you will lose games unnecessarily, and that bothers me. On the higher levels attacking with your first units is plain stupid.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DrSpike
You are of course correct. In that case it is merely a dumb strategy. It is better IMO to wait until the AI has expanded to a poor defensive position before attacking. Attacking prematurely is not a gambit. Sure, on lower levels if you do that and succeed you will get an earlier finish than someone following a percentage strategy. But you will lose games unnecessarily, and that bothers me. On the higher levels attacking with your first units is plain stupid.

You make a good point in that you may be throwing away a winning position. Slow and steady may be a more reliable way to ensure final victory. But actually, wouldn't it make sense to use this strategy more on a higher level or more difficult position, where the win is not so certain, or even unlikely?

 

[DrSpike]

Reasonable logic but for one fact. Unfortunately the AI gets lots of units on the higher levels. If you attack with your first warriors you will die on the counter. Noone can fend of 10 angry warriors or more early on. You must wait until the AI expands to a poor defensive position when the free units get spread out a bit. This happens quickly because of the rate of expansion on the higher levels. I usually attack with horsies/swordsman between 1500BC and 1000BC depending on the level and the map. You should be able to field a nice army of vets by then. It's very important that they are vets, those barracks will repay themselves many times on deity.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Reasonable logic but for one fact. Unfortunately the AI gets lots of units on the higher levels.

On deity, I've never seen the gambit work as they almost always have spearmen. On any level, it still depends on one factor. You must stumble into them immediately. Then you must evaluate the possibility of success, which is not always feasible. It is certainly not a strategy for most positions.

 

[DrSpike]

So we're agreed. It doesn't make sense on the higher levels, and it is suboptimal at lower levels over the space of a few games. Lets rename the strat "lazy warrior kamikaze"

 

[JuicyCivNewbie]

I've never used this strat, play on deity almost exclusively... and it could be called 'warrior suicide' on those levels. Anyway it's too cheesy, it's the same as losing to the AI right at the start of the game when they have tons of units compared to the human. No skill involved, not fun.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DrSpike
So we're agreed. It doesn't make sense on the higher levels, and it is suboptimal at lower levels over the space of a few games. Lets rename the strat "lazy warrior kamikaze"

We don't quite agree. I find the Gambit a good strategy in certain limited circumstances. Think of a multiplayer game, and three warriors appear next to your town, which is only defended by a solitary warrior. Would you be worried?

It's just one more tool in your arsenal.

 

[DrSpike]

Now you've introduced a new dimension. It is entirely possible that MP will degenerate into a rush fest. I hope not, but it remains a possibility. We were discussing whether or not the lazy warrior kamikaze as it shall henceforth be known is a good strategy against the AI. It is not.