mikehunt
Warlord
seeing discussions on chariots made me realize I don't think I've ever seen one in civ3
sad as they were main units in civ1 and 2
sad as they were main units in civ1 and 2
The worst unit overall
- Thread starter Homie
- Start date
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Don't intend to lecture anyone, but if you want to move up to higher levels, winning in a CONQUEST way (or domination, my favourites), you need to conquer more cities. My average is above 1 per turn. This means always wars from the end of Ancient ages till the end of game, Alliances politics, and a strong and ever growing land army!!! With the latest defensive unit and the fastest/latest offensive unit by the dozens! (BTW, I usually play 160x160 maps... or else I couldn't keep my average & I use Settler diarreha (spelling?) in the ancient age)Micky Onimusha said:
Just to say that land offensives are SOOOOO more effective than air ones...
Micky Onimusha
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 344
I'll give that a try, but I'm still adjusting to this mass expansion early on thing. I find it near impossible to amass enough Settlers at once and defend my new cities properly, and when I slowdown to make some spearmen I fall behind on the whole concept of Settler factory, but playing a war all the way seems a bit... dodgey. How do you amass enough gold to keep up? I always thought the best way was to let others fight it out for you while you play the friendly neighbour who's on everyone's good side. But I'll give it a tryPortuguese said:
Marcus Cicero
For I am "Thursday!"
I would gather that many of you single-player players would be dreadfully screwed over against human opponents, you use strategies that just plain don't work against a human opponent, this is why I have yet to really get into the Single player, it is a game, but constant war/sprawling out everywhere/Breaking RoP/Managing your country like you are hitler's germany 1000's of years at a time. He only made it last for about 4.
These kinds of actions are, though find for a game, not going to get you anywhere against real opponents.
On an aside, the stupid Explorer makes absolutely NO SENSE.!
These kinds of actions are, though find for a game, not going to get you anywhere against real opponents.
On an aside, the stupid Explorer makes absolutely NO SENSE.!
gunkulator
Emperor
Micky Onimusha said:
If the AI has knights and you have no iron, you're in for some big trouble. You can always build MI before LB and they are an upgrade from swordsmen anyway so, yes, I always have quite a few. Even after LBs are available, I never build them. Their defensive bombard is only 2 which is pretty underwhelming. A slow moving stack should have a dozen or so trebuchets with their much better bombard of 6. And while d=2 for the MI isn't great, it's not a guaranteed loss either, especially if there are any terrain/city/walls/fortified bonuses. And if you do manage to get an army, I don't think the AI would be deterred by a LB army, however they are loathe to take on a full strength MI army.
Micky Onimusha
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 344
I've never been able to make my game work online :'(Marcus Cicero said:
Your post kinda makes it sound like the computer is as easy as hell to beat though ><
I suppose you have a point about the use of Mountains for the defense, and I also forgot to take into a count that if you have no Iron, your Pikeman escort is gone anyway ><gunkulator said:
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
properly - define properly. I usually have many cities undefended early on. Just so I have, by the middle of ancient age:
1 city building a granary (a settler boomer)
7~8 building warriors
2~4 building spearman
2~4 building attack units (if there is barbs or "close" civs)
2~3 building workers (if they are low food, then change back to warriors)
>10 building settlers
Yes, I like Huge maps best...
And I usually play in Monarch/Emperor. Other levels are just too injust for me and I lost the fun of that...
Strategy is: put warriors out (1or2 scouts if available), scanning borders and send undefended settlers to places that you see, so you are not surprised by barbarians, always a very unhappy event. Many times I have 3or4 settlers moving to EACH direction by the end of tha Ancient Age.
Being EXP helps, as you never release barbs. So better civs are, say, PORT or russians, or zulus, so you can advance with your settlers more easilly, and get a lot of techs freely...
When you have grab a good piece of land, say 17%, or at least double of the biggest enemy (as you can see in F8 if domination victory is active) and there is no more free land to grab, start expanding the other way, building swordsman/medieval infantry/knights and keeping gaining a average of a city per turn (what requires several attacks being prepared at any given time).
In the end, this strategy is same like a virus, always spreading from a zone to another until 66% of the map colapses to you...
If you are playing wimpmiddleearth.biq, like me
, this can take you 140h to complete 
Or much lesser, if you let the victory points option with the punny 50,000 original (I had move it to 250,000) or you let the cultural victory active and by the original values... But that's up to you and your tastes.
Just remember, 1st age is the most important, and the key is to never ever stop!
1 city building a granary (a settler boomer)
7~8 building warriors
2~4 building spearman
2~4 building attack units (if there is barbs or "close" civs)
2~3 building workers (if they are low food, then change back to warriors)
>10 building settlers
Yes, I like Huge maps best...
And I usually play in Monarch/Emperor. Other levels are just too injust for me and I lost the fun of that...
Strategy is: put warriors out (1or2 scouts if available), scanning borders and send undefended settlers to places that you see, so you are not surprised by barbarians, always a very unhappy event. Many times I have 3or4 settlers moving to EACH direction by the end of tha Ancient Age.
Being EXP helps, as you never release barbs. So better civs are, say, PORT or russians, or zulus, so you can advance with your settlers more easilly, and get a lot of techs freely...
When you have grab a good piece of land, say 17%, or at least double of the biggest enemy (as you can see in F8 if domination victory is active) and there is no more free land to grab, start expanding the other way, building swordsman/medieval infantry/knights and keeping gaining a average of a city per turn (what requires several attacks being prepared at any given time).
In the end, this strategy is same like a virus, always spreading from a zone to another until 66% of the map colapses to you...
If you are playing wimpmiddleearth.biq, like me
, this can take you 140h to complete Or much lesser, if you let the victory points option with the punny 50,000 original (I had move it to 250,000) or you let the cultural victory active and by the original values... But that's up to you and your tastes.
Just remember, 1st age is the most important, and the key is to never ever stop!
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Of course HUMAN opponents are much more difficult and make your choices goes thin: Humans adjust!!!
I have not yet play against any human opponent in CIV3 (I did once in 2), but as soon as I can I hope to do it... I just don't know how I'm gonna make it, but definitivelly I'll have to be more nicer
As a note, I never brake RoP and almost never brake a 20turns ceasse fire and I use a quite coherent strategy, just killing enemies in a row, closest 1st, others after, always trying to minimize the extent of my borders and to make cohalitions with Civs in the other side of my enemies, keeping that cohgalitions till the end of the game, unless they brake it.
I have not yet play against any human opponent in CIV3 (I did once in 2), but as soon as I can I hope to do it... I just don't know how I'm gonna make it, but definitivelly I'll have to be more nicer
As a note, I never brake RoP and almost never brake a 20turns ceasse fire and I use a quite coherent strategy, just killing enemies in a row, closest 1st, others after, always trying to minimize the extent of my borders and to make cohalitions with Civs in the other side of my enemies, keeping that cohgalitions till the end of the game, unless they brake it.
The worst two UU's IMO are the F-15 and the Man-O-war.
Man-o-War: comes way too late in the game and it doesn't do much anyway. Ive won a few games with the English but the Man-o-War never, ever helped. The ironclad is a much better unit and availible right after the Man-o-War. Also the man-o-war has almost the sme stats as other units in that time. I could almost never beat a frigate with a man-o war.
F-15: O the f-15 what can I say about this*cough*wort uu in entire game*cough* Who uses this i mean you gotta come up with a better UU for the U.S.
Man-o-War: comes way too late in the game and it doesn't do much anyway. Ive won a few games with the English but the Man-o-War never, ever helped. The ironclad is a much better unit and availible right after the Man-o-War. Also the man-o-war has almost the sme stats as other units in that time. I could almost never beat a frigate with a man-o war.
F-15: O the f-15 what can I say about this*cough*wort uu in entire game*cough* Who uses this i mean you gotta come up with a better UU for the U.S.
Alpha Draconis1
Chieftain
The worst Unit overall in the context that they come out, at least in classic Civ3, is the Helicopter and Paratrooper. I can still use the explorer, especially in HUGE maps, and I just rush an airport if I ever needed to airlift tanks to another continent. In an archepelago map, I actually build/capture the Lighthouse and Privateers en masse early on to take out enemy galleys, caravels, galleons, frigates, and even ironclads. Privateers are also useful for scouting areas of the map, and when you get to the modern age, it's fun when you have ten elite Privateers (I set Barbarians always to Raging) hunting down a lone cruiser.
Of course, this is in Regent, so it will not work for Diety or such, where the AI can get to battleships before you have two Privateers.
Of course, this is in Regent, so it will not work for Diety or such, where the AI can get to battleships before you have two Privateers.
Admiral8Q
Prince
Helicopter. Useless.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Dropping 3 TOW infantrymen per copter behind enemy lines is fun stuff--better than paratroopers anyway.
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Unless you put 0 to science and steal techs to them, in a if-don't-be-successful-then-reload strategy. MihihihihihihAlpha Draconis1 said:
They rob, you may rob also.
Worst unit overall has to be slave workers. There is not one unit I can think that's worse.
F-15 is borderline useless, if only because I rarely battle serious threats in the Modern Age, but I can see where it might come in handy.
For the most useless military unit, I would have to say Chariot takes top spot. It's a gamble for you to locate and connect to Horses that early anyways, and the 1/1 attack/defense means that any city with 2 Spearmen is pretty much beyond their capability to attack significantly. I've gotten to use War Chariots and 3 Man Chariots and Horsemen and Archers, Impi, Hoplites, Enkidu Warriors and practically every unit the game has to offer. But I've never ever actually used Chariots effectively, even when I was lucky enough to make them before Horsemen became available. People are quick to point out how useless Chasqui Scouts and Jaguar Warriors are. Well, how about a Chasqui Scout that not only requries a non-guaranteed tech, but also requires you to connect to a strategic resource which may or may not be in your area? Pathetic. I would think that the Chariot deserves more than this.
Explorers are useful and even key. When you're planning a pincer maneuver or bait and switch, Explorers will tell you whether you're going to have trouble or not. They tell you where the enemy is and what sort of unit he's got. Instead of wasting resources spying on cities, use the Explorer instead. In fact, prior to espionage, there is no other way you can determine which city is defended by Swiss pikes and which one only has Spearmen. Especially combined with the use of Samurai, Cavalry, or Chinese Riders, you can simply take over every other city around the single well-defended one and force the defeat of a technically superior force with judicious use of territory and movement. I always build 2 Explorers for scouting purposes, even if I don't have anything to pillage or explore.
Longbowmen are definitely one of the more useful units all around, especially for Bow-centered civs like Babylon. Using Babylon, you can buid nothing but Bowmen for defense in the Ancient Period. With careful management on Regent or Monarch, you can actually knock out 2 or 3 civs right then and there. Near Middle Ages, produce 1 spearman per city. Once you upgrade to Pikes and Longbowmen, you can instantly resume hostilities at a great advantage.
The great thing about Longbowmen is that they're cheap. Of course, you will always have Medieval Infantry upgraded from your Swordsmen, and those are more flexible troops, being useful for both offense and limited defense. In a sizeable stack, however, you will almost always want Longbowmen in preference, as you will never want your 4 strength attacking troops to defend anyway, and the bombard helps out your Pikes where the Infantry just stands around.
In addition, because Longbowmen are cheaper, you will want to use them instead of Infantry in sorties against AI attacks into your territory. If something significant attacks your sortie unit, you can bet that 2 defense is only marginally better than 1, and the shield advantage means you will probably have another Longbowman in response anyway. The cheap cost means that you can practically flood your area with Longbowmen and attack any encroaching army with insane amounts of 4 attack units. With Longbowmen, the theory is that a good offense is the best defense. If you can kill every single invading unit, then there'll be nothing left for the Longbowmen to defend against.
I used to diss the Helicopter, too, especially in pre-C3C when they had one puny capacity. In C3C, however, Helicopters are king. If you're worried about tanks and Panzers, Helicopters can save your butt, provided you produce enough infantry. They combo especially well with Guerillas and TOWs.
The thing with Helicopters, you see, is that they now carry 3 troops. In a Rebase action, they can carry these troops to any city you own, whether it has a Airport or not and when you wake them, they will instantly be able to act. This means that if you have 6 Helicopters, you can transport as many as 18 infantry across the globe while also reserving the use of your airports for tanks and mechanized troops. This works especially well for a combination of troops. A 6 Infantry 6 Guerilla stack on a Hill in a Metro is very tough to break, even for Panzers, especially when they have 6 Marines attacking them Panzers on sortie! It gets even better with even 2 Artillery, as you then have 8 bombards on defense. This is less of an issue when defending, as you almost always have Rail to carry your troops to and fro, but when attacking enemy territory which is almost always riddled with enemy controlled areas and pillaged rail, this is an invaluable resource.
Moreover, you can use Helicopters to isolate resources. Given sea power and enough Marines, you can invade a coastal city relatively easily. What then? Why, pillage the heck out of their strategic resources of course! Whereas Bombing resources takes out your offensive punch and is no guarantee of continued resource control, landing 2 Infantry and 1 Guerilla on the enemy's single rubber resource and then pillaging it not only diverts the enemy's defenses effectively, but also gives more lasting control of the resource. In fact, if the resource is important enough, you can land as many troops on it as you like (to the tune of 18 troops per turn with enough Helis and/or + Airports!) and lock your enemy out of Infantry and/or Tanks for as long as it takes you to finish the war. You can even ferry workers and build a fortress on the square.
Alternatively, you can isolate a city quite effectively prior to attacking it by landing troops on selected "prime" spots. This works best on peninsulas as you only have a small amount of land to cover, but if you can pillage enough roads with Explorers or Bombers, you can isolate nearly any city with ease. Of course, you should leave the rail connected to your nearest city completely intact.
Tactically speaking, the ability to land troops anywhere on the map area that matters changes combat tactics completely. Mountains suddenly become your resource, even if they're on enemy ground. A Panzer group can be a real headache, but if they can't recover because they're blocked off by a couple of Infantry/Guerilla combos on the return Mountain route home, they're dead meat. I haven't played beyond the Monarch level as yet, but I'm quite thankful that the AI doesn't do the kind of Helicopter shenanigans I do to them, because I imagine that that can be royally frustrating.
Paratroopers are less useful to me, just because I build so many Helis that I hardly have a use for troops with a built-in Heli function, but the Modern Paras are a good deal more useful on account of the Infantry strength defense. I did build a few once to penetrate an area where the enemy had air superiority I coudn't afford to contest and whether the Paras penetrated because they can't be intercepted or just because of pure luck, I can't guess. I just ran out of Helis and figured it'd be faster to just build Paras than to build Helis and Infants separately. They got to the resource, anyway, and after killing their remaining Infantry it was my Tanks against their Rifles. Sweet.
F-15 is borderline useless, if only because I rarely battle serious threats in the Modern Age, but I can see where it might come in handy.
For the most useless military unit, I would have to say Chariot takes top spot. It's a gamble for you to locate and connect to Horses that early anyways, and the 1/1 attack/defense means that any city with 2 Spearmen is pretty much beyond their capability to attack significantly. I've gotten to use War Chariots and 3 Man Chariots and Horsemen and Archers, Impi, Hoplites, Enkidu Warriors and practically every unit the game has to offer. But I've never ever actually used Chariots effectively, even when I was lucky enough to make them before Horsemen became available. People are quick to point out how useless Chasqui Scouts and Jaguar Warriors are. Well, how about a Chasqui Scout that not only requries a non-guaranteed tech, but also requires you to connect to a strategic resource which may or may not be in your area? Pathetic. I would think that the Chariot deserves more than this.
Explorers are useful and even key. When you're planning a pincer maneuver or bait and switch, Explorers will tell you whether you're going to have trouble or not. They tell you where the enemy is and what sort of unit he's got. Instead of wasting resources spying on cities, use the Explorer instead. In fact, prior to espionage, there is no other way you can determine which city is defended by Swiss pikes and which one only has Spearmen. Especially combined with the use of Samurai, Cavalry, or Chinese Riders, you can simply take over every other city around the single well-defended one and force the defeat of a technically superior force with judicious use of territory and movement. I always build 2 Explorers for scouting purposes, even if I don't have anything to pillage or explore.
Longbowmen are definitely one of the more useful units all around, especially for Bow-centered civs like Babylon. Using Babylon, you can buid nothing but Bowmen for defense in the Ancient Period. With careful management on Regent or Monarch, you can actually knock out 2 or 3 civs right then and there. Near Middle Ages, produce 1 spearman per city. Once you upgrade to Pikes and Longbowmen, you can instantly resume hostilities at a great advantage.
The great thing about Longbowmen is that they're cheap. Of course, you will always have Medieval Infantry upgraded from your Swordsmen, and those are more flexible troops, being useful for both offense and limited defense. In a sizeable stack, however, you will almost always want Longbowmen in preference, as you will never want your 4 strength attacking troops to defend anyway, and the bombard helps out your Pikes where the Infantry just stands around.
In addition, because Longbowmen are cheaper, you will want to use them instead of Infantry in sorties against AI attacks into your territory. If something significant attacks your sortie unit, you can bet that 2 defense is only marginally better than 1, and the shield advantage means you will probably have another Longbowman in response anyway. The cheap cost means that you can practically flood your area with Longbowmen and attack any encroaching army with insane amounts of 4 attack units. With Longbowmen, the theory is that a good offense is the best defense. If you can kill every single invading unit, then there'll be nothing left for the Longbowmen to defend against.
I used to diss the Helicopter, too, especially in pre-C3C when they had one puny capacity. In C3C, however, Helicopters are king. If you're worried about tanks and Panzers, Helicopters can save your butt, provided you produce enough infantry. They combo especially well with Guerillas and TOWs.
The thing with Helicopters, you see, is that they now carry 3 troops. In a Rebase action, they can carry these troops to any city you own, whether it has a Airport or not and when you wake them, they will instantly be able to act. This means that if you have 6 Helicopters, you can transport as many as 18 infantry across the globe while also reserving the use of your airports for tanks and mechanized troops. This works especially well for a combination of troops. A 6 Infantry 6 Guerilla stack on a Hill in a Metro is very tough to break, even for Panzers, especially when they have 6 Marines attacking them Panzers on sortie! It gets even better with even 2 Artillery, as you then have 8 bombards on defense. This is less of an issue when defending, as you almost always have Rail to carry your troops to and fro, but when attacking enemy territory which is almost always riddled with enemy controlled areas and pillaged rail, this is an invaluable resource.
Moreover, you can use Helicopters to isolate resources. Given sea power and enough Marines, you can invade a coastal city relatively easily. What then? Why, pillage the heck out of their strategic resources of course! Whereas Bombing resources takes out your offensive punch and is no guarantee of continued resource control, landing 2 Infantry and 1 Guerilla on the enemy's single rubber resource and then pillaging it not only diverts the enemy's defenses effectively, but also gives more lasting control of the resource. In fact, if the resource is important enough, you can land as many troops on it as you like (to the tune of 18 troops per turn with enough Helis and/or + Airports!) and lock your enemy out of Infantry and/or Tanks for as long as it takes you to finish the war. You can even ferry workers and build a fortress on the square.
Alternatively, you can isolate a city quite effectively prior to attacking it by landing troops on selected "prime" spots. This works best on peninsulas as you only have a small amount of land to cover, but if you can pillage enough roads with Explorers or Bombers, you can isolate nearly any city with ease. Of course, you should leave the rail connected to your nearest city completely intact.
Tactically speaking, the ability to land troops anywhere on the map area that matters changes combat tactics completely. Mountains suddenly become your resource, even if they're on enemy ground. A Panzer group can be a real headache, but if they can't recover because they're blocked off by a couple of Infantry/Guerilla combos on the return Mountain route home, they're dead meat. I haven't played beyond the Monarch level as yet, but I'm quite thankful that the AI doesn't do the kind of Helicopter shenanigans I do to them, because I imagine that that can be royally frustrating.
Paratroopers are less useful to me, just because I build so many Helis that I hardly have a use for troops with a built-in Heli function, but the Modern Paras are a good deal more useful on account of the Infantry strength defense. I did build a few once to penetrate an area where the enemy had air superiority I coudn't afford to contest and whether the Paras penetrated because they can't be intercepted or just because of pure luck, I can't guess. I just ran out of Helis and figured it'd be faster to just build Paras than to build Helis and Infants separately. They got to the resource, anyway, and after killing their remaining Infantry it was my Tanks against their Rifles. Sweet.
klopolov
WarBug
Roxlimn said:
Yay, I am first to raise an outcry!!!
The slave workers are the best workers!!! That means they are second best units in the game, right behind settlers!!! Sure, they work slower, but did you have to build them? How can one complain about something that came for free!!! (assuming you did not buy them through the negotioation, but captured them as is the majority of cases) Not only do you get them for free, but you get to keep them for free!!! Slaves do not cost upkeep!!! If you have 30 of your workers, they cost you big bucks (depending on the government of cource, but since Rep and Demo seem to be widely preffered, big bucks it is) In some games I had 50 or more of my own workers!!! Slave workers will do the work for free (no upkeep) and will allow you to add your workers to your cities and save money!!!
How is that any less useful than a helicopter or an explorer that most of the people on this site seem not to use?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAND
Armchair Philosopher
Privateer's are just enemy ship magnets... I put 4 out to sea only to have the entire world's ships automatically home in, and destroy them... pointless really.
klopolov
WarBug
Roxlimn said:
No, any unit produced in a captured city could be argued to be worse than another unit produced in that city and would still have an upkeep cost and in some governments you will not get any upkeep and therefore will only increase your military spendings... Honestly, how is it relevant when disscussing an advantages of a certain unit? And how can you possibly say "every unit ... is the best unit" that pretty much contradicts itself and does not make sence. Had you said "better than one produced in your original cities..." that would be a different argument... (which could be rebutted by "you build military units to capture cities, you could build settlers and build them yourself and thus those are not better than your own cities since they have less chance of culture flipping and if you captured them from AI - bad infrastructure... and on and on and on...")
amidah
Chieftain
Bombardment/bomber units are not a bad idea.
You need to be willing to invest in catapults, bombardments, artillery or bombers (depending on the technology period).
One catapult is not sufficient. You need to build 50. Most probably the city that could build them the fastest is distant from the border of imminent conflict. Move them as they are built nearby to that border. Not at the border, so your good neighbour who would be your enemy soon would not notice.
To induce war, trick your neighbour into attacking by moving around low tech units at the border - by that your potential enemy would believe you have no better units to protect the border. You want your enemy troops out of their cities onto your soil so they become more vulnerable to bombardment damage and no healing available.
Bombardment units are best defence/attack against enemy units because they reduce the health of enemy units without sustaining damage. Since they cannot defend themselves they are best placed among sufficient troops. Having a combat unit to attack an enemy unit weakened by bombardment is a cheap way to promote your unit to elite.
Bombardment units for offense may not be a great idea. They weaken the city and you need at least twenty bombardment units to attack a city over 3 or 4 turns. The advantage is they help reduce the enemy city population, which reduce the possibility of revolt. The disadvantage is they also destroy the city's infrastructure.
Once your enemy has spent its invasion forces, blitzkrieg into territory of your traitorous formerly good neighbour with 50 catapults. One city at a time. With huge troops to protect the catapults, conquer some cities within five rounds and blackmail peace in exchange for technologies, pull back rewarded before your citizens' productivity falls.
Once a neighbour is vanquished, dismantle all catapults to conserve gold but keep one or two to move around to scare your neighbour. Unless you are planning an assault on another country, for which you might already be too spent.
If you do not plan blietzkrieg, such mass number bombardment is too expensive - stay with having horses or tanks. After all, this is a game to test your skills at economics management and decision.
You need to be willing to invest in catapults, bombardments, artillery or bombers (depending on the technology period).
One catapult is not sufficient. You need to build 50. Most probably the city that could build them the fastest is distant from the border of imminent conflict. Move them as they are built nearby to that border. Not at the border, so your good neighbour who would be your enemy soon would not notice.
To induce war, trick your neighbour into attacking by moving around low tech units at the border - by that your potential enemy would believe you have no better units to protect the border. You want your enemy troops out of their cities onto your soil so they become more vulnerable to bombardment damage and no healing available.
Bombardment units are best defence/attack against enemy units because they reduce the health of enemy units without sustaining damage. Since they cannot defend themselves they are best placed among sufficient troops. Having a combat unit to attack an enemy unit weakened by bombardment is a cheap way to promote your unit to elite.
Bombardment units for offense may not be a great idea. They weaken the city and you need at least twenty bombardment units to attack a city over 3 or 4 turns. The advantage is they help reduce the enemy city population, which reduce the possibility of revolt. The disadvantage is they also destroy the city's infrastructure.
Once your enemy has spent its invasion forces, blitzkrieg into territory of your traitorous formerly good neighbour with 50 catapults. One city at a time. With huge troops to protect the catapults, conquer some cities within five rounds and blackmail peace in exchange for technologies, pull back rewarded before your citizens' productivity falls.
Once a neighbour is vanquished, dismantle all catapults to conserve gold but keep one or two to move around to scare your neighbour. Unless you are planning an assault on another country, for which you might already be too spent.
If you do not plan blietzkrieg, such mass number bombardment is too expensive - stay with having horses or tanks. After all, this is a game to test your skills at economics management and decision.
klopolov:
Huh? This statement makes no sense whatsoever. You talk of upkeep and cost. Since it requires a military unit to actually generate a slave worker, we're assuming the waiving of the military unit cost it takes of capture a worker or a city. In any case, this tends to be variable, so it makes no sense to quantify it.
Whatever city you capture, you are apt to generate at least a couple gold in it per turn. Otherwise, why capture it? Even better, it generates additional unit support in some forms of government. Therefore, if we count unit support, any unit generated from a captured city is essentially free, whatever form of government you may choose to have. This underscores the ridiculousness of factoring upkeep for evaluating unit value.
Not precisely. You build military units to defend yourself and also to capture enemy cities. Even an enemy city with practically no value is still worth the land you conquered and in addition it's worth the population you bring into your civ. You could build settlers instead, but there is a limit to that, and in excluding settlers from comparison, we are assuming that the map no longer supports settler expansion.
If we include settlers, then they are by default the best unit there is, as they actually allow you to expand and produce more units. By the same argument, the best invention in the world is language and cultural memory, as they allowed every other advance and invention in the world. It's not really a valid comparison, as you see.
Even considering that slave workers cost nothing, they are still not as good as normal worker who require upkeep. They are acquired unreliably and they work extremely slowly. If you had to depend on slave workers to develop your land, you would lose in short order. They are a bad unit, and probably the worst unit there is, though that is probably on purpose.
Huh? This statement makes no sense whatsoever. You talk of upkeep and cost. Since it requires a military unit to actually generate a slave worker, we're assuming the waiving of the military unit cost it takes of capture a worker or a city. In any case, this tends to be variable, so it makes no sense to quantify it.
Whatever city you capture, you are apt to generate at least a couple gold in it per turn. Otherwise, why capture it? Even better, it generates additional unit support in some forms of government. Therefore, if we count unit support, any unit generated from a captured city is essentially free, whatever form of government you may choose to have. This underscores the ridiculousness of factoring upkeep for evaluating unit value.
Not precisely. You build military units to defend yourself and also to capture enemy cities. Even an enemy city with practically no value is still worth the land you conquered and in addition it's worth the population you bring into your civ. You could build settlers instead, but there is a limit to that, and in excluding settlers from comparison, we are assuming that the map no longer supports settler expansion.
If we include settlers, then they are by default the best unit there is, as they actually allow you to expand and produce more units. By the same argument, the best invention in the world is language and cultural memory, as they allowed every other advance and invention in the world. It's not really a valid comparison, as you see.
Even considering that slave workers cost nothing, they are still not as good as normal worker who require upkeep. They are acquired unreliably and they work extremely slowly. If you had to depend on slave workers to develop your land, you would lose in short order. They are a bad unit, and probably the worst unit there is, though that is probably on purpose.
