The Romans

[troytheface]

The Legion, the Three Man Chariot, The Babylonian Bowmen, The Javalin Thrower, and the Samarii are UU's associated with civs that should be on top of the war mongering catagory- and they all share a common trait-attack uu's with beefed up defense. The UU's that fall into this catagory have a nice edge when launching an invasion or preparing a defense- an edge i think that is clarified when u see Legions in action. I think we can see the advantages of a strictly defensive or offensive UU (or one with xtra movement) But these in between UU's are the real killers if implemented at the right time. The Legion and Samarii can tear a neighbor apart and too they are both militaristic Civ UUs. (Zulu/Mongols are also first rate war mongering and they are militaristic-however ... the Zulu UU is defensive (but with movement...a real exception to the theory) and the Mongol UU may be offensive but with no defensive bonus...(another movement/cost issue-and being on a mountain is arguably enhanced defense)...and too i read somewhere that it now has bombard- a feature which reserrected the Babylonian Bowmen and the archer path in general) ) That said, no Civ's UU marches with more certainty than a stack of legions ...in a later age the Samarii take that role..but the point is that any Civ that fields an attack UU with a defensive bonus (add militaristic for even more intensity) will be first rate war mongering civs...even over Persia, Iroquios, or Celts, civs one would think would be the war mongerers choice. And only Rome and Japan meet both of the criterea-militaristic-with an Attack UU that has a defensive bonus . Both should be at the top of the list for those that like waring. (emperor/huge/Continent)

 

[Ision]

I strongly disagree...

Greater movement or attack factor ability will always trump greater defense with a UU handled by a human. It is the AI that benefits most from added defense. The humans ability to exploit his advanatge in being able to think long term and apply movement advantages along with quantative concentration of force at the decisive point - far outweighs any advantage in having a greater defensive/offensive combination at the expense of greater firepower or greater speed. In the hands of a human the 30 shield Mounted Warrior is a far greater AI killer than the 30 sheild 3MC - as is the Immortal over the Legionary. It's not even close. From a pure warmongers point of view this is even more pronounced as a truism. For the more methodical, conservative or non-warmonger point of view then the added defense at the expense of speed or attack factor makes more sense - since his warlike ambitions are far more modest and he intends to 'circle the wagons' far earlier or permanantly.

Ision

 

[e_a_olson]

I strongly disagree...

Greater movement or attack factor ability will always trump greater defense with a UU handled by a human. It is the AI that benefits most from added defense. The humans ability to exploit his advanatge in being able to think long term and apply movement advantages along with quantative concentration of force at the decisive point - far outweighs any advantage in having a greater defensive/offensive combination at the expense of greater firepower or greater speed. In the hands of a human the 30 shield Mounted Warrior is a far greater AI killer than the 30 sheild 3MC - as is the Immortal over the Legionary. It's not even close. From a pure warmongers point of view this is even more pronounced as a truism. For the more methodical, conservative or non-warmonger point of view then the added defense at the expense of speed or attack factor makes more sense - since his warlike ambitions are far more modest and he intends to 'circle the wagons' far earlier or permanantly.

Ision

You are my hero!

 

[Arathorn]

I have to agree with Ision, but I think he is guilty of one of my typical faults here, assuming the human is not only reasonably competent, but a good player. Yes, a good player will strike an AI much harder with a MW than a 3MC and much more effectively with a Rider than a Samurai (as much as I have a soft spot in my heart for samurai).

For a hardcore warmonger, the speed or attack value is a HUGE issue, maybe even the only issue. It's a rare game that sees a hardcore, good warmonger EVER see his offensive troops attacked -- I can play a whole game on deity and never see a horseman, knight, or cavalry be attacked (although I will sometimes reach a bit far and see it happen), despite winning by domination before tanks. Sure, samurai and legionaries may give you a feeling of power and invulnerability, but it's rather hollow and a reasonably poor allocation of resources.

BTW, there's a very good reason there's no 5/3/2 knight replacement. And a reason I always vote for the Ansar Warrior as my favorite UU -- if Arabia just had good warmongering traits....

Arathorn

 

[Ision]

but I think he is guilty of one of my typical faults here, assuming the human is not only reasonably competent, but a good player.

I see your point - and yes I am guilty of this it appears. Having said that, I am not in anyway seeking to demean or belittle anyone - I hope it did not come off that way.

Very few players truly understand what you do Arathorn - the overwhwlming advanatage of having a movement or attack factor bonus as opposed to a defensive bonus for an offensive UU. The arguments about Legions comparing to Immortals or Samurais to Riders is an old one that I long ago tired of addressing. Perhaps I have become a bit too impatient or snippy - lol- Also, a memory shortage on my part as well - I can well remember (if I am being honest) that I too once prefferred the defensive/offensive UUs over the purely offensive ones when I played at mid-level.

I will measure my responses in the future.

Ision

 

[Arathorn]

Heck, I remember THINKING (and maybe even arguing) that the samurai was a better unit than the rider. I still like the no-thinking-required aspect of the samurai, but it's clearly outclassed by the rider, as much as part of me still doesn't get that fact.

I don't see your response as demeaning at all (mine's closer, IMO). It's just that something I think you might want to keep in mind as you write your reviews and respond. Not everyone realizes what we do... Also, in semi-competent hands, the samurai might outperform the rider, even though the rider shines brighter in better hands.

BTW, Ision, I should mention how cool these reviews are and how neat it is that someone is doing them -- it puts you into a position to take a lot of flak and I admire you for doing it. Keep at it!

BTW, I'd like to recommend
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=91015
as some good reading on skirmishing and how movement can defeat raw strength (MWs vs. Immortals which is good reading. Not quite the same argument but a similar vein)

Arathorn

 

[Ision]

posted in error

 

[Ision]

BTW, Ision, I should mention how cool these reviews are and how neat it is that someone is doing them -- it puts you into a position to take a lot of flak and I admire you for doing it. Keep at it!

Arathorn,

I truly appreciate that remark - especially from a player of your caliber.

Yes I do take a huge amount of flak - but tha t 'flak' was my original intention - to educate the new player while still learning a thing or two myself.

Sincerely, Ision

PS: I recieved a large number of PMs as a result of our debate over the Expansionist trait - if nothing else our intensity peaked the curiosity of many a player.

 

[troytheface]

I stand by my theory that the Samarii and Legion are stronger invaders over speedier UU's. The statement that the "difference between mounted over three man and immortal over legion are not even close" i am not so sure about. Rome and Japan- being militaristic -have a greater chance of Samarii/Legion armies-something that no immortal or mounted stack can match -I'd even say i'd favor the Three Man over the Mounted Warrior -for similiar reasons...they come earlier...and with added defense+ retreat ability = leaders. And Armies are for war mongerers more so then any other unit in the game. I always get a leader with the Hittites but seldom with the Mounted Warrior. The ThreeMan gets an extra attack , an xtra defense and has movement -a truely underated UU in the review-
The arguement that "speed is always better in the human hands and defense bolstered attack UUs favors the ai" is a bit broad....Which human? Which Ai civ?
As far as the Samarii question ..never knew it was a long ago argued point...but i would say it is the best knight replacement UU and maybe the best UU in the game (the other contender being the Hoplite). Musket defense...knight movement and attack...give me a break-nothing matches that-
Movement enhanced attack UU's are indeed a menace but a stack of horse can do the job (take a wonder city or something )those attack UU's with a defensive bonus can keep the momentum going longer further into the next age..once again a question of momentum and overall tactics-Three man should attack until Chivarly ect. And i don't know what was said about Expansionist but it is a great trait and adds to early action. should get a bonus for that.
Emperor/Huge/Continent)

 

[Ision]

I'd even say i'd favor the Three Man over the Mounted Warrior -for two reasons...they come earlier...and with added defense+ retreat ability = leaders

troytheface,

Assuming that you are playing at a level that still competitive - there is no advantage in having a 30 shield UU available from the start - in fact it is more often than not a dis-advantage. In the ultra-early game shields are hard to come by due to limited number of cities and the few tiles worked by workers - besides, an early commitment to produce 30 shield units will greatly ****** your intial REX. The exception being building early Immortals (second row tech UU) - who's power is so immense that the cost factor is well compensated for. As such, the best of the 30 shield UUs are the ones that appear after you have had at least a little time for REXing/infrastructure building. All things being equal I will pump out 6: 2-1-1 archers with China in less time it takes you to build 4: 3MCs. Less time because of starting with milataristic (half-priced barracks), and the industrious workers increasing shields faster. So in reality, I will probably have those 6 Archers before you have even 3 3MCs! By the time you have amassed 6 3MCs you will be facing 15 plus archers. In the case of the Mounted Warrior - My strat would be the same as China - early archer rush with a production switch over to MWs upon their availbality. While my military start will NOT be as fast as Chinas, My archer to 3MC ratio will still be in my favor and at least break even against the greater speed and/or defense of the 3MCs - and the infrastructure I have built by the time of MWs (with the agri Iro's)will completely overshadow the Hittite ability to produce enough 3MCs to keep up. What this means in single player (all things being about equal between myself and my AI Hittite opponent) is that as China or the Iro's I will more easily and quickly over-run my Hittite neighbor - than I could over-run my Chinese or Iro neighbor playing as the Hittites. China will do it much faster - the Iro's more safely and effciently, and in a better postion to pursue future military adventures.

The Samurai is a great multi-purpose unit - no doubt. However, for the hardcore warmonger it is outrclassed by both the Rider and the Ansar - while about on par with the Keshik in value. Remember my use of the word 'hardcore' - I am not speaking here of a player aiming for a 'balance of power' game or a 'peaceful builder with a mobile response force' game. I am NOT even speaking about a player aiming to destroy his neighbor or take on the strongest AI 1 on 1 - I am talking about the player committed to achieving world conquest or domination in the absolute fastest manner possible - aiming to break his own personal best for such a thing. The added mobility of these units gives the player an offensive flexibility that the the Sammies do NOT have. Even assuming a high attrition rate (which is NOT the case when Riders/Ansars are in the hands of a good player) the value of that speed will outweigh a higher casualty rate.

Nothing kills in CIV as effciently as speed - the next closest factor is attack factor - after that - cost effciency - last among the qualities for effective warmongering is : added defense. This has been born out countless times over the years by players whos skills are of the very highest.

Ision

 

[Ision]

The arguement that "speed is always better in the human hands and defense bolstered attack UUs favors the ai" is a bit broad....Which human? Which Ai civ?

Okay - I mean absolutely no offense here - word of honor, but here is my response:

which human? - the human with the greater playing skills

which AI? - ALL OF THEM! They all suffer from attacking piecmeal and with lack of concentration - they ALL benefit from greater defense factors due to thier high rate of attrition against each other, tendency to be on the defensive against humans, and tendency to use defensive units in offensive roles.

Ision

 

[troytheface]

those numbers were truely frightening. but one has to remember that the Hittites usually get a free city and take awhile to hook up to horse so u don't have to build those three man to early. - and even tho that was a large number of archers ..one movement attack units can always be hit first- but the real point was not the hittites, it was Rome and Japan being best war mongering Civs because of traits and UU's.
I am not sure that this mysterious group of "best players" that have played for thousands of years are all that "proven". In regard to the definition of which human or ai, ...interesting...(Emperor/huge/cont)

 

[Ision]

I am not sure that this mysterious group of "best players" that have played for thousands of years are all that "proven". (Emperor/huge/cont)

I can see from the sarcasm in your response that you are intentionally attempting to make an ad hominem attack.

I will now discontinue any further discussion between us, both now and in the future. Have a good day.

Ision

 

[Zardnaar]

those numbers were truely frightening. but one has to remember that the Hittites usually get a free city and take awhile to hook up to horse so u don't have to build those three man to early. - and even tho that was a large number of archers ..one movement attack units can always be hit first- but the real point was not the hittites, it was Rome and Japan being best war mongering Civs because of traits and UU's.
I am not sure that this mysterious group of "best players" that have played for thousands of years are all that "proven". In regard to the definition of which human or ai, ...interesting...(Emperor/huge/cont)

Have a look at some of the succession games or story games. Pay attention to Bamspeedy, Arathorn and Charis amoung others. These are players who have won 5 city challenges on Deity, or played beyond Sid level etc. They're not mysterious. I'm a reasonably good player but compared to some of these guys I don't know squat. I'm an Emperor to Deity level player- these guys play on Deity for fun and Sid when bored.

 

[yankees]

very true zaardnar!

troytheface

you do not know what you talk about. player like arathorm, ision, bamspeedy, alexman, aeson, sir pleb are the very best in game. they have proof this in sgs, articles and help so many player like ME too in playing better. player like ision and arathorn and bamspedy have more information and tips about the civ game than any other. all them play deity level, do you? i know that they sometimes can be incorect but not about the basic strat. in this they are true expert. why you have no respect for the best player that try to help everyone? ison has help so many player and he alway take time and write you back when you pm him. he take time to help me move from emp to demi. i still have problem with demi and he still help me! he take more time than i think any other player take with lower level player. player like arathorn help me also with his sgs. isoin most helpfulll deity expert player in forum.

you talk about mount warrior not being so good like 3mc. no player i know even low level player say thing so stupid. but you say this and you say you emp player i do not beleive you. you say so many thing that tell me you not really high level player. you say you almost alway get free settler when you play exp civ. this not happen so often i think you reload 100 time until you get it. i think you cheat in game so you do not have real idea about uu's or anyting.

Y

 

[troytheface]

strange responses...
....I agree that the help and reviews provided are great (and fun), however this ain't the bible, there is room for arguement..the fact that a small group of self appointed experts which reaffirm each other state certain opinions , does not mean that there are not alternative paths of equally sound reasoning-i think Freud wrote about three books on humor, must have been a good reason i suspect.....for those that play (emperor/huge/continent-random) the defensive enhanced attack uu coupled with the militeristic trait
makes for strong war mongering -in my experience- in so far as reloading and ability..reloading would be cheating and u'd never lose so what would be the point of playing...in so far as ability- hell, i may be the worst ever, i don't know, made it to #6 on Multi player ladder thing (mostly with Greece), but u use Civs like Aztecs and Summarians on that (although i did win a game with the Hittites once but it was only because i was isolated) and on single player i adjust the settings to ,Emperor, Huge Map, Continent, random all else.....and win about 50%. i suspect some of the Sid level players don't play using a huge map-but this i do not know. I have found, however, that many "winners" do make it a point to set the conditions in their favor. (Byzantines-Isle Map, ect.)
Saw it happen quite a bit on Multi Player. I suggest that there is a danger of experienced players unconsciously setting the conditions to favor themselves
(i guess you could random everything to avoid this) . Now setting the field in one's favor seems natural - but the best thinking comes reportedly when we are "on the edge" or when our "field" is compromised....
I did not try to negate the appeal and useability of a movement enhanced UU
and i thought it was funny when the one guy wrote ....u say three man better than mounted, i never heard any player even low say anything so stupid"..lol ... or something like that- to this i say the movement UUs were reviewed as the most "efficient"....a rather cool word...seems to me a true war mongerer would want Armies and a bloody (empassioned) assault. (non efficient? or maybe hi loss but u don't care)
Which brings me to another point, perhaps the real question is...how far on the overall tactical scale does one lean in the ..play by efficient calculation...or more of a gamble....scheme

 

[Longasc]

I agree, troytheface, people should have taken your arguments with much more humor.

But you should not wonder that they got rather furious, I also fail quite often to see the point of your arguments and often rather disagree. The hints of those self appointed experts haven proven helpful, while your ones where sometimes so absurd that I just had to try it myself to believe it - and I could not confirm anything what you said.

This happened to Galilei, too - not many listened to him and the church wanted to burn him, but there is a difference, Troy: His claims were valid, not unreasonable as yours have been - at least to me.

 

[Drakan]

Troytheface, if you already have 487 posts at CFC you ought to know by now who are the best players in town, just to mention a few: Sir Pleb (just read his threads in the HOF forum or some of his Articles, he opened a way for the rest of us; hes´s a brilliant strategist and storyteller), Moonsinger, Bamspeedy, Aeson, Alexman, Arathorn, DaveMcW, Ision....these people are top ranking players the World over. Just read their articles, their threads and you will see their profound insight to this wonderful game. You are deliberately making us angry with those comments.

BTW, you say that you doubt that these "misterious self-appointed players" play in huge worlds:Sid players play on Huge maps usually for milking purposes to get max score (see Sir Pleb's great article on that issue, top ranking scores, 60k plus, have necessarily HUGE maps on Sid). Why don't you check the Scores at the Hall of Fame and see at what level they play at and the size of the World they do it in. Now compare it with your best score. Have you even attempted playing at Sid? Your remarks are highly unlikely in a skilled player.

Current level: Emperor, aspiring to Deity.

 

[troytheface]

Again i am at a loss as to the the responses. Longsac made some points when he said he tried my theories and they were absurd and could not be confirmed ..lol (nor denied?)- ...and i hope he's a bit bemused... In so far as these guys posts, i use what was written, i try out different civs and tactics...what i don't get is why some are so touchy about "tactical considerations in C3C."

 

[Drakan]

Everybody here at CFC welcomes new PROVEN approaches, new tactics. Just read Sir Pleb´s thread:"Sir Pleb, going to Sid" and he was the first player to introduce concepts such as the FoD and the FoDe which were, IMHO, completely new to us, leading the way to win at Sid or beyond. Now here you have a player who bothers to write down his findings and who's backed on what he's saying by his scores (HOF). Nobody is going to feel aggraviated by new ideas and tactics (no matter how absurd they might be, uhum) what bothers us is your use of sarcasm to refer to key players who have helped all of us excel in our gameplay and which we have in the deepest consideration Troytheface.

Troytheface I have only lost twice in my lifetime at Emperor in all these years since civ came out (you say you win at emperor 50% of your games) and I do not dream in comparing myself with the afore mentioned key players.