The Romans

[troytheface]

Never insulted anyone in so far as i can read..the fact that someone takes offense does not mean that offense was given.... on another note how about some more latin.. "facto non verba" (deeds not words) perhaps a multi player team challenge, i'll take any partner or any civ and challenge any of the Magnificent 7.

 

[Nad]

@Drakan: highest score has very little (I would say next to nothing) to do with ability.

Having said that, I agree that there is no reason for anyone to be disrespectful to anyone else in this thread. The argument over whether an extra attack/move point beiing superior to an extra defence point is partially a matter of preference, partially a matter of style. So in a case of opinions there is rarely a correct answer.

I am more of a builder player. When I want to go on the warpath, my preference in UU is:

1) extra move point
2) extra attack point
3) extra defence point

However, there are situation where that would change. For example, if playing always war then I would (generally) prefer extra defence over extra attack.

I think one thing that should not be ignored in favour of the extra defence for offensive UUs such as legions and samurai is their relative defence in the time period. For example, IMO the extra defence for a samurai is stronger than the extra defence for the cossack or 3man chariot. This is because in the age of samurai, apart from UUs there is no unit with a higher attack or defence than the samurai until half an age later, cavalry. Thus the samurai is excellent since it can hold its own on attack and defence. Compare that to cossacks (defence 4), for example, where at the same time you have attack 6 units running about; or 3man chariots (defence 2), where at the same time you have attack 3 units. Thus, I would conclude that the legion and samurai benefit more from their defence point than the 3man chariot and cossack.

 

[Drakan]

Nad, I agree with you that score can be mostly due to milking etc...what I meant is that the players I have mentioned (and forgetting many others) have proven over and over again their prowess. I have read thoroughly how and what they write on and I can tell straight away when I'm facing a superior talent than mine. Plus, they are very helpful with other players and help newbies up the echelon of difficulty. It's just bothering me to see how these worthy people are being belittled by someone for no reason whatsoever.
I would love to see that challenge of yours met by any of them Troytheface. They play Deity for fun and Sid for the challenge. Just be more careful in measuring what you say and how you refer to other players. I, for one, respect them and any other forum member. No one is going to dogpile you for out-of-the-ordinary opinions, it's your command of the language that irritates me, I never said you insulted anyone. You might be an awesome player back at your town but for sure their always be someone better in Life.

As we say in my home country: "la excusa no solicitada es una acusación manifiesta"
excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta

 

[dgfred]

Nad, I agree with you that score can be mostly due to milking etc...what I meant is that the players I have mentioned (and forgetting many others) have proven over and over again their prowess. I have read thoroughly how and what they write on and I can tell straight away when I'm facing a superior talent than mine. Plus, they are very helpful with other players and help newbies up the echelon of difficulty. It's just bothering me to see how these worthy people are being belittled by someone for no reason whatsoever.
I would love to see that challenge of yours met by any of them Troytheface. They play Deity for fun and Sid for the challenge. Just be more careful in measuring what you say and how you refer to other players. I, for one, respect them and any other forum member. No one is going to dogpile you for out-of-the-ordinary opinions, it's your command of the language that irritates me, I never said you insulted anyone. You might be an awesome player back at your town but for sure their always be someone better in Life.

I too would love to see that challenge met , but I doubt it would happen due to
most players enjoying games between "friends" not for pride or glory .

 

[Samson]

I was reading this thread, and I wondered how the extra hit point in attack or defence dilema was changed in MP, where you will get your offensive units attacked heavily. Going from 3 attack to 4 is an increase of 33%, whereas from 2 to 3 defence is an increase of 50%.

Legion attacks Immortal, wins 66.4%
Immortal attacks Legion, wins 60.4%

So slugging it out against each other, perhaps the legions may win? Any thoughts?

 

[yankees]

i cannot imagine anything more boring for arathorn, ision or bamspeedy than playing against troytheface and his regent skills.

Y

 

[Arathorn]

@if_only_we_were -- I think all of Ision's and my discussions were directed towards single-player games, where you're facing the AI. MP games have whole hosts of different variables and the discussion about MP games is, obviously, a whole different beast.

I'm not nearly as familiar with MP games as with SP (time issues), but I think I would still rather have immortals, all other factors being even (which, of course, they aren't). Spears can absorb some counterattacks and neither side will produce their UU exclusively, IME (which I've already said is limited). Terrain issues also play a role, as neither have good odds attacking the other on a mountain, but things get complicated very quickly.

Playing against real intelligence instead of artificial intelligence might well change the relative values of A/D/M. I honestly don't enough to really say, with any degree of comfort in my answer. I have my feelings and reasons, but they're little more than educated guesses in the MP world.

Arathorn

 

[Samson]

Spears can absorb some counterattacks and neither side will produce their UU exclusively, IME (which I've already said is limited).

Oh yes, of course. With immortals, spears would be attacked first, but with legions you expensive attackers will take the brunt of the attack. I guess this could be very important.

 

[zerksees]

I'm not nearly as familiar with MP games as with SP
Arathorn

I can't answer about realtime multiplayer, but I have been playing quite a bit of PBEM. At the moment it is the only Civ I am playing. IMO in these games the first order of business is your allies, and the second is the fundamentals of CIV. Both of these are more important than the civ you play or their UU.

Now I can see if you are playing with two human players the allies thing loses importance.

Also if you play someone with equal ability the fundamentals are a non-issue.

If these are addressed then I could see where these discussions would be relevant.

Thanks to this website I think I am ahead of most of my PBEM buddies in the fundamentals department - I just hope they don't gang up on me!

 

[yankees]

I think all of Ision's and my discussions were directed towards single-player games, where you're facing the AI.

exactly!

this is the only point that important in this discusion. also you should not look at uu alone but should also look for the civ trait and how they make differance against ai and the way ai play. playing persia with immortals is almost alway better than playing with rome. the important discusion here is about respect.

Y

 

[scoutsout]

This has been an interesting read...

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 <snip>

My next "Strategy Articles" submission will be entitled How to Argue with Ision. I have done it (privately). Not unlike "Scouting Sid", one shouldn't expect to win at this often... But based on my experience, I offer the following insight:

1) Make sure your argument is well considered.
2) Make sure your argument is well articulated.
3) Make sure your argument is, above all, consistent.

In this thread, I got about as far as this point here:

I stand by my theory that the Samarii (sic) and Legion are stronger invaders over speedier UU's.

This was the point I got lost, right here. How many movement points does the Samurai have? The Three-Man Chariot?

Leaving the present argument for the moment, I offer these insights, based on Succession Games that you can view and judge for yourself.

I am involved with GK2, a Training Day Game. The team is playing as Iroquois, and has Persia for a neighbor. Naturally, the students were nervous about the Immortal, so another player and I set up GK2.1, a little tactical excercise that pitted the Iroquois Mounted Warrior against Persia's Immortals. I wanted the students to learn "skirmishing" tactics. (Hit and run in the defense...I digress...)

After looking at the first version of the game, I asked the designer to "give me more Immortals". After asking me if I was sure, I told him that I wanted the students to experience some pain if they overextended... more Immortals were added, and the game uploaded. Even with "more immortals", most of the students were standing in the Persian Capitol by turn 6.

Speed does, in fact, kill.

Another insight - this one on Rome. I played in Bede01, Rome/Continents/Emperor/C3C1.15. My favorite thing about warmongering with commercial civs is that you have a better chance that acquired cities can be made productive. This one got ugly. I mean, really ugly. We went commie and created an absolute terror. By endgame we had Paratroopers and Marines, and were smacking the AI around so badly it wasn't funny. We razed 2 Great Wonders. I honestly don't know how many MGLs we got. I inherited a MGL fortified in Rome in one turnset, and he was still fortified at the end of my turns because I didn't have a good use for him. I posted a tactic for taking a city, only to be told "Sorry, I sacked that one on my last turn." We gave Cleopatra our Japanese holdings just so we could smack her around some more. (Somebody wanted to try Stealth planes).

Now, before you say "Legions! I told you so!"; I will tell you that the unit that made the difference was not the dreaded Legion, but....

Ancient Cavalry, from the Statue of Zeus.

Speed does, in fact, kill.

 

[troytheface]

The definition of the theory would be offensive UU's with a bonus defense/ which is intensified in those that are in militaristic civs.. (which would include the Mongols if the Keshik has bombard)...make the best war mongerers. Speed is a secondary issue -but was thrown into the forfront by a contrary opinion....so while the Three Man Chariot and Samarii have xtra movement they are included within this group by virtue of the defense point being added. (the pinnacle of the added defense attack uu would be those with militeristic trait) The movement is like a bonus, in particular for the Samarii which i contend may be the best UU in the game (Nad mentioned an idea about its duration and position in time, which may add to its value) and Japan and Rome (Mongols) -both by virtue of possessing the militeristic trait have a hi chance of being Army led. The "consistency" of this argument is flexible -i mean, whoever said "speed does not kill?"
If_ only_ we_were .. - interesting legion/immortal stat thing..and i did play MP for quite awhile there..which is to say it may have influenced my tactics..but Rome is not a great choice on mp-if attacked early Rome can be throttled...-but on Single Player one gets time to build.

 

[scoutsout]

The more clear definition would be attack UU's with a bonus defense.

That's what you argue, but by including units that have strong defense and speed you muddy the waters.

Speed is a secondary issue in so far as this theory claims

If you say so...then why do you keep including...

The movement is like a bonus, in particular for the Samarii which i contend may be the best UU in the game

But does the Samurai's strength come from its defensive value, or its speed? (or both?)

If you like the Legions then that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. If you like units with good defensive stats, then that too is fine. If your theory that defensive strength is a Good Thing, but continue to include units that are also fast, then you are mixing terms; making your argument harder to follow (and even harder to support).

Take away the Samurai's speed and what have you got? A Musket/Medeival Infantry in one, that I will skirmish to death with fast units. Take away that extra defensive hit point and what have you got? A Knight.

Comparing Legions to Samurai is like comparing apples to hand grenades. Both will boink you in the head, one will hit a little harder. It's not that I think you are necessarily "wrong", but your argument is just not consistent enough for me to take anything of value from it.

Ision's point is that "greater movement or greater attack will trump greater defense". By including units that have "bonus defense" but also have speed, you are using units that really have 2 strengths. Breaking the UUs into classes:

Group 1: UUs that are defensive in nature, or have equal Attack/Defense value, and movement value of 1.
Hoplite <-not good for warmongering
Bowman <- deadly archer rush, runner up candidate.
Legion <- candidate for best of class
Swiss Merc <- not good for warmongering
Enkidu Warrior <-very cheap, runner up candidate.
Javelin Thrower <- 50% costlier than Bowman

Group 2: UUs that have an attack bonus compared to their counterparts:
Immortal <- Inspires fear
Berserk <-not to be trifled with
Numidian Merc <- not bad in combined arms...defensive in nature.
Musketeer <-still defensive in nature, ties for worst in class with NuMerc

Group 3: Fast Units with a Defensive Bonus
3 Man Chariot <-potentially dangerous
Samurai <-best of class
Cossack <-Might as well be Cav, but not to be taken lightly.

Group 4: Fast units with an attack bonus
War Chariot <-potentially dangerous, same A/D/M as a horse, 2/3 the cost...
Mounted Warrior <-dangerous
Sipahi <-dangerous

Group 5: Units with a movement bonus over their counterparts
Impi <- pillaging nightmare, still worst of class
Gallic Swordsman <-dangerous
Keshik <-dangerous in rough terrain
Ansar Warrior <-dangerous
Rider <-dangerous

Group 6: Units that replace non-combat units
Chasquis Scout <-to be respected
Conquistador <-to be respected in rough terrain

Now - explain your theory using from units from that first group, and I'll listen. But if you think that the first group is to be feared more than groups 4 or 5, I don't think many would agree.

 

[troytheface]

Think that the Three man has an added attack as well so it needs its own group.
But this list itself points out that the Samarii and Legion are the best in their respective groups-basically u have created sub groups the first of which includes sword, archer and spear replacement UU's - this could go on forever...now take the ones that are militaristic ect. -the break down i gave was "offensive" UU's (sword, archer/ horse/ chariot/knight ect.) with defensive bonuses. From that group the Samarii and Legion come out on top for war mongering by virtue of other factors (speed/traits,timing). I understand how u have compiled ur list into UU categories tho.

 

[scoutsout]

I understand how u have compiled ur list into UU categories tho.

Good... you were arguing defense and speed, Ision was arguing attack [or] speed.

Apples and hand grenades.

 

[Bibor]

I can't believe this conversation is going this far.... i must comment

I'm currenty winning emperor with difficulty, yes, but flawless so far (3 wins) so i guess i don't actually count as a noob... well...

I really don't understand your arguments, troytheface. Speed vs. added defence? Sun Tzu would laugh, oh yes he would. Or he would not say a word:

Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon.
- Horatio Nelson

Troytheface, you are measuring idealised situations, not battlefield-wise ones. This is okay for post-game babbling and tech tree sightseeing, but not when you are in a middle of a war. To make my point more understandable:
No succesful military campaign was ever won without a GOAL in mind. In terms of eliminating an enemy civilization this means you have several choices (sometimes they all apply), i will list them without some particular order:

1) eliminate or reduce the chance of enemy counterattack(s) on your homeland
2) weaken the enemy's initial army size
3) reduce the enemy's wartime production capabilities (unit building)
4) shut down enemy's resource/luxury network

Strategies like "Boom! I captured one of your cities and my UU def value is so high that you can't take it back. Muahahah!" simply won't do.

In war, you are not fighting units, you are fighting the head, the leader (i.e. AI or player). So panic, undecisiveness, forgetfulness, global difficulties (resource shortage) are your ally and defender's nemesis.

Now tell me which is more effective? A 20 legion stack at the gates of your border city *or* having iron, dyes and ivory disconnected, four fast units moving towards your only horse resource? Or do you want another example? This time with samurai. You have samurai, the other player has movement 3 UUs. Tell me, exactly, which border city of yours has a city radius of 3 tiles? I think very few. This means that a 3-movement uu can move in your borders and attack the border town in precisely ONE turn. By the time you haul your samurai (which are fast no doubt about that) the attacker has already musketmen in the first of your towns that's captured). Now the attack/defence is even. You probably can't take that city back. On the contrary, if you attack an enemy city with samurai, the samurai stops before the gates for one turn. One turn of stopping - and their UU's movement greater - means that the opponent has exactly three more tiles (in radius) to haul his UUs in to attack your samurai.
To simplify your attack situation:
With movement 2 units, you can redeploy units from a 5-tile radius (and attack with the remaining 1/6 move), with movement 3 UUS you can redeploy units from a 8-tile radius (and attack with the remaining 1/9 move).
And since (as far as i saw) experienced players (again dependant on terrain) like to have cities in "city-2 tiles-City" or "city-3 tiles -city" pattern that can mean a difference in reinforcements coming from 5 or even more cities.

-bibor

EDIT: maybe this last comment isn't appropriate but im an Age of Mythology/Age of Kings veteran. Many times mere two knights near enemy town center harassing his undefended workers caused the player to quit the game. Not like he could not beat them...

Circumstances? I make circumstances!
- Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[troytheface]

The multi faceted use of attack uu's with movement is more than just the attack is what i am getting out of that, and true, i did not really think about that...when i get into the tactical realm i focus on the civ i'm using and who i am fighting...for one i would never wait for a neighbor to attack first - and a laughing Sun Tzu would be just fine as he is dated, quoting him is like going to an 18th century doctor and getting treatment-speed/enemy speed is relative to one's own movement-

 

[Bibor]

The multi faceted use of attack uu's with movement is more than just the attack is what i am getting out of that, and true, i did not really think about that...when i get into the tactical realm i focus on the civ i'm using and who i am fighting...for one i would never wait for a neighbor to attack first - and a laughing Sun Tzu would be just fine as he is dated, quoting him is like going to an 18th century doctor and getting treatment-speed/enemy speed is relative to one's own movement-

I suggest you go to the strategy root and read my new thread. And since you obviously don't know (not aware) that Sun Tzu's strategy is as important for all military operations in the last 1500 years as the chessboard is for chess... well... what can I say.

 

[scoutsout]

and a laughing Sun Tzu would be just fine as he is dated

I have not studied them all, but I have studied many. The short list includes the writings of Sun Tzu, Musashi, Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Rommel, Mao, Gueverra; the campaigns of many, and the military doctrines of several nations at various points in time.

Sun Tzu is the single most concise, timeless volume of military strategy ever written.

You lost me again there Troy, and that scratchy sound you hear is the sound of someone writing you off as one who simply does not respect the experience and perspective of others.

 

[Ision]

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This thread is about the Romans, their traits, strengths, weaknesses, UU, history, Rome specific strats, a place to praise or trash my review....take your pick.......BUT, it is NOT a forum for this type of discussion. To whatever degree I myself contributed to this, I stand guilty as well perhaps. But for Gods sake!

So now I have a small request - get the hell out of my thread with all this stuff - please-

pretty please with sugar on top...................

Sincerely,

Ision