The most important tech: Flight

[thadian]

He is half-right - destroyers can intercept, and take the navy scale by 20+ points of power per vessel you have.

Just think about having that exclusively. Of course we dont need to think of where that isn't awesome. BUT, i still believe that flight is the gamebreaker. You should all start in the industrial or modern era some time. Airports are a wonderful building, and planes are wonderful units.

 

[CLST]

I find that in a continents game, I conquer my continent, the other continent is bigger and meaner and more advanced, I'm behind in techs, but closing in.

Destroyers in this situation, necessary. Keeps those galleons useless, and nothing short of tech parity in naval combat is going to find a city on my edenlike utopia of a continent.

 

[r_rolo1]

Just think about having that exclusively. Of course we dont need to think of where that isn't awesome. BUT, i still believe that flight is the gamebreaker. You should all start in the industrial or modern era some time. Airports are a wonderful building, and planes are wonderful units.

Now we're getting somewhere....

I think nobody would argue that if you start in the industrial ages flight is much more important.

But in a ancient start game ( the default, remember? ), the advantages of Flight are balanced by the fact that you'll had played atleast 60% of the game when you get there and in games like civ , sooner is more powerful. Not mentioning that is not that dificult to have the game won by then, even peacefully....

 

[Plinko16]

Yeah, so you see...well it's just that...What I'm trying to say is that...basically, you're still just...BEELINING RIFLING!!!!

I think you're way oversimplifying. This is an incredibly complex game, people use a wide variety of methods to get to a tech/power advantage and then use it. Good players can and do adapt specific tactics and strategies to the leader/map/situation/opponent so they can make the best of what they've got and get to a point where they can overwhelm their opponents.

Complaining about people beelining rifling is silly (and many, many players do not really beeline rifling, since they're busy beelining Liberalism then returning to some point on the Feudalism/Guilds/Banking/Gunpowder/Replaceable Parts/Rifling path). The key to winning any competitive game is to develop an advantage and exploit it. Go hang out in the Civ IV strategy forum, you'll see that people are discussing a lot of strategies/tactics/situations. In pretty much every game I win, I win a war or two with rifles, but none of those games were much alike.

 

[Ricci]

I'm sorry Thadian, Sirsnuggles and anyone with you. I'm astonished this was overlooked all through the thread. If I must agree on a tech being military gamebreaking (ridiculous to name it "most important tech") this would be categorically nuclear fission rather than flight. A well prepared nuclear strike with no counter nuclear attack is far more destructive, devastating, flight overlooking, empire ruining in a glimpse, etc, etc.
Of course, I see your point with flight. It is a major step forward in the way a war is fought, as it should be.

On a side note, I also agree with some thoughts in this thread stating that earlier techs are more relevant, as they have a bigest impact over the world to come; in an exponential manner. Nevertheless, many things/variations can happen in this great game, specially if more than one human player is involved, so I would never say this importance in the early stages is definitive in how an endgame is "decided".

 

[Yesod]

I think you're way oversimplifying. This is an incredibly complex game, people use a wide variety of methods to get to a tech/power advantage and then use it. Good players can and do adapt specific tactics and strategies to the leader/map/situation/opponent so they can make the best of what they've got and get to a point where they can overwhelm their opponents.

Complaining about people beelining rifling is silly (and many, many players do not really beeline rifling, since they're busy beelining Liberalism then returning to some point on the Feudalism/Guilds/Banking/Gunpowder/Replaceable Parts/Rifling path). The key to winning any competitive game is to develop an advantage and exploit it. Go hang out in the Civ IV strategy forum, you'll see that people are discussing a lot of strategies/tactics/situations. In pretty much every game I win, I win a war or two with rifles, but none of those games were much alike.

Don't get me wrong, I used to always play like you do (I know thats assumptuous). My favorite was cannons and grenadiers. I usually started out with an early rush maybe, or failing that REX and bulb liberalism. Either way, by the time I grabbed cannons/rifles/muskets even, I was ready to take my continent. There's an awful lot of the game your missing that way though (maybe the boring parts) and you also will find that on Deity (or maybe immortal) When you can't gain tech superiority, you get smahed because you don't actually know how to fight a war.

Suppose you have less territory and inferior units compared to you enemy. Can you take him, or do you quit or choose another target? If you have fighter/airships you can actually make it work. If that aint a gamebreaker I dont know what is.

 

[r_rolo1]

Then Construction is also a game breaker: it allows you to use collateral damage. And that is simply the most powerful feature in game.

 

[Yesod]

You missed my point completely

 

[r_rolo1]

No I didn't.....

Suppose you have less territory and inferior units compared to you enemy. Can you take him, or do you quit or choose another target? If you have fighter/airships you can actually make it work. If that aint a gamebreaker I dont know what is.

I already won a war vs grens with inferior production relying in catapults mainly ( and some won vs infantry ) . The collateral damage in Civ allows that kind of stunts..... and if I take fighters/airships from your sentence and put catapults it still makes sense

 

[Yesod]

No I didn't.....


I already won a war vs grens with inferior production relying in catapults mainly ( and some won vs infantry ) . The collateral damage in Civ allows that kind of stunts..... and if I take fighters/airships from your sentence and put catapults it still makes sense

You're saying that rifles are inferior to grenadiers. They only have 50% bonuses attacking. Try muskets vs. rifles. And in any case when I msaid inferior production I was thinking more along the lines of "this guy has double my cities and some vassals", not just that they got a 10% advantage or something. Anyhow, saying that catapults are gamebreakers is as corny as claiming the attack button will conquer the world. Flight allows for alot of specific strategies that go into more depth and give more advantage than collateral dmg from catapults, which they more or less have anyhow.

Since you're gonna split hairs though, I guess I'll give ya this one.

 

[Plinko16]

Don't get me wrong, I used to always play like you do (I know thats assumptuous).

Since I've never posted a walkthrough or a strategy thread: yes, that's extremely presumptuous to claim you have any idea of how I play the game and what parts I might be 'missing'.
You're bringing your own assumptions to the table, please don't foist them off on anyone else.

Besides, claiming that using mass rifles to win a war is somehow inferior to using fighters/airships/bombers from a strategic (or even game enjoyment) perspective is obviously wrong on its face until you can show a way to develop Flight at about the same time said player could have developed Rifling, or could somehow leverage the much-later employment of Flight to be more beneficial than winning an earlier war with Rifles and then winning a later war (if needed) with Flight.

If you can't, the argument becomes that later military success is better than earlier, which is obviously false.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Gentlemen, gentleman... they are ALL valid strategies!

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight... don't bring a biplane to a jet fight.

Whether you've rifled your barrels to the opponents smooth bore, or you're dropping bombs on his head when he hasn't figured out how you mastered flight, anytime you hold a tech edge over your opponent, exploit it and enjoy it... you will win the day easily!

 

[Jerrymander]

Unless that tech is Music. I'll kill you with my great artist! D:

 

[TigerBotHesh]

Gentlemen, gentleman... they are ALL valid strategies!

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight... don't bring a biplane to a jet fight.

Whether you've rifled your barrels to the opponents smooth bore, or you're dropping bombs on his head when he hasn't figured out how you mastered flight, anytime you hold a tech edge over your opponent, exploit it and enjoy it... you will win the day easily!

Wolfshanze has it right here. The key thing is we're all getting our kicks by killing the AI, whether that's by axe, sword, bullet, plane, sub, nuke, culture or kindness.

When the AI loses, we're all winners.

 

[r_rolo1]

You're saying that rifles are inferior to grenadiers. They only have 50% bonuses attacking. Try muskets vs. rifles. And in any case when I msaid inferior production I was thinking more along the lines of "this guy has double my cities and some vassals", not just that they got a 10% advantage or something. Anyhow, saying that catapults are gamebreakers is as corny as claiming the attack button will conquer the world. Flight allows for alot of specific strategies that go into more depth and give more advantage than collateral dmg from catapults, which they more or less have anyhow.

Since you're gonna split hairs though, I guess I'll give ya this one.

1- Completely missed your reference to grens and rifles ... what do you mean with that is relevant for what I said?

2- Catapults and siege in general may win you the game by conquest even in a OCC ( beat that in terms of prod disparity ). I've done it 3 times until now, all of them posted here in the CFC ( Many Leaders Game V , Fox 9 and Fox 10, all in the SG area ) and can quote the no research Kylearan game as well. Collateral damage is that overwhelming if well used

3- Let me see... you said:

Suppose you have less territory and inferior units compared to you enemy. Can you take him, or do you quit or choose another target? If you have fighter/airships you can actually make it work. If that aint a gamebreaker I dont know what is.

and then you say:

Anyhow, saying that catapults are gamebreakers is as corny as claiming the attack button will conquer the world.

Sorry? You critique siege for the same reason you praise Flight ( being gamebreaking )? If siege usage is corny because it is a game breaker, why flight isn't? It is just not coherent.

4- You claimed one thing, I disagreed and said why, you responded why .... where is the hair splitting in here?

 

[thadian]

Unless that tech is Music. I'll kill you with my great artist! D:

I attribute a few of my wins to using a culturebomb after a naval invasion...

I can admit that siege is incredible. I just think "flying siege" has less limitations - like you dont need to control the borders to nail your opponents tile improvements or reinforcement troops.

I almost think this is becoming a one-dimensional arguement of "is flight better when you get it compared to rifles/catapaults WHEN YOU GET IT" or "flight can be stopped by sam infantry" well lets look at the other things flight does. it gives you more trade routes - lets you airlift - opens up another dimension of the game. Opening dominion over a dimension of any game is a gamebreaker weather your the first to siege, rifles or flight. But the reason i still think flight is a bigger gamebreaker than ground siege is that ground siege units can cause a lot of waste - albeit being great pawns and sacrificial units, i build them expecting them to die. I also normally don't see riflemen i just keep replacable parts and then when i research rifling, i get infantry instead. a little out of the way maybe, but i "jump" a step.

I like R_Rolo being in this conversation, because he is good at looking at the points being made, and addressing them without saying pathological 7th grader things like "bronze working can win before flight is even thought of".

Regardless of weather your a peacemonger or a warmonger, weather your in Flight Camp or not - i hope we all learned something. i learned the power of navy in this thread for example. I also learned more ways to use flight (airdrop missionaries and spies) so i would say it is a productive conversation.


I prefer ind/modern starts, now if i always started ancient, i might also never see flight. then again i never play multiplayer because of "grunt-rushes" so that also changes my views - if i did play it, i might think iron working is the best tech, or even horseback riding.

 

[DrewTate]

1. Bronze Working - Bronze weapons, chopping.
2. Iron Working - Swordsmen, and, obviously, Praetoreans.
3. Rifling - ya.

 

[GooglyBoogly]

Unless that tech is Music. I'll kill you with my great artist! D:

Getting the sistine chapel online gives you the largest culture bonus you will ever get (up until sci method anyway), it is almost stronger than going 50%+ culture slider. It won't win you many domination games directly, but music should not be underestimated.

 

[mystyfly]

Sistine chapel doesn't expire at scimeth and monasteries still give the bonus. You just can't build any new.

 

[Jerrymander]

I attribute a few of my wins to using a culturebomb after a naval invasion...

Settling is much better than bombing, and the borders will pop twice in 9 turns on Normal speed. Two border pops is fine for me. I don't culture bomb anymore, after I did the math. :3