Totem Pole?

[Comrade-Deux]

The Totem Pole allows Sitting Bull to create Drill III archers in the ancient era; and with a GG (I think) can create Drill IV Bow units. These would upgrade into Drill IV Rifles. Is this a bit OP? Especially if you combine it with Stonehendge . I bring this up because I remember some people on this board commenting that Zara Yaquob's Drill III & IV Oromo Warriors upged into Drill III and IV Rifles and later Infantry, but the Native American UB seems to make a more concrete effect throughout the entire game. Why doesn't the Bull get any love?

 

[mboettcher]

OH he definitely gets love. The only reason Zara Y gets more is because he has such fantastic economic traits. Prot is not the most beloved of traits (except by Deity players) as it doesn't give that tech race advantage that so many love.

SB is perhaps the leader most made or broken by having stone available. Being able to build SH easily as well as a little chop/whipping with walls/castle's (plus the extra TR) is a big deal when he has to build out all those Totem's and doesn't get that econ boost.

SB does have a great sling shot for cannons/rifles by upgrading xbows and trebs. That's three era's of effective infantry wars. Such beelining also avoid econ and astronomy that are expensive and obsolete his two best assets- cheap castles for TR and Totems.

 

[oyzar]

Archers are never amazing no matter what promos they have. Drill 4 longbows are pretty hot. There have been several threads on feud slingshot with sitting bull. He is a very good MP leader, and quite decent in SP as well. Not among the very top, but certainly not bad either.

 

[CornPlanter]

Is that upgrading thing really that amazing? I mean it costs a lot. Then there's upkeep for units if you just keep them and do nothing, waiting for modern eras.

I did try it with Shaka because move 2 riflemen seemed somewhat impressive But in pratice I didn't work out so good.

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

Units with multiple promos are usually worth finding the cost to upgrade. Especially in the case above with someone like SB, or when you have a few CR2/3 maces that you can upgrade to CR Rifles. Rifleman can't get CR on their own, so this is the only way you can do it.

 

[Ghpstage]

Is that upgrading thing really that amazing? I mean it costs a lot, upgrade itself. Then there's upkeep for units if you just keep them and do nothing, waiting for modern eras.

Most of the time upgrades are only worth it on units with inaccessable promo lines i.e. CR maces->Rifles or Gallic Swords->Maces or Grenadiers->Machine guns (many promos there!), rare promotions like Amphibious Bezerkers, free promotions like Sentry Privateers->Destroyers or many UUs such as Oromos or highly promoted units. Usually if you don't have to keep the units obsoleted for long such as the previous examples

Drill 4 longbows/crossbows come under the higly promoted units category, and it is a very powerful promotion to have en masse.
On occasion building a large force to upgrade once a tech is finished is a powerful way to quickly press a military advantage, such as Steel or Rifling.

I did try it with Shaka because move 2 riflemen seemed somewhat impressive But in pratice I didn't work out so good.

Yup the extra move point doesn't carry and mobility is worthless without it , it only becomes useable again when you upgrade to Mech inf

 

[The Rook]

The Totem Pole allows Sitting Bull to create Drill III archers in the ancient era; and with a GG (I think) can create Drill IV Bow units.

SB could get Drill IV without a GG if he runs Vassalage + Theo, and a free Heroic Epic to boot!

 

[Iranon]

Sometimes, Sitting Bull gets outright hate (including from me).

His UB obsoletes, and arguably isn't all that impressive anyway.
His UU is arguably a downgrade in many games, and replaces a very popular bread-and-butter unit with something more specialised.
PRO generally gets little respect.

For me '1 economic trait + total defensive overkill' is not enough, especially considering that we're potentially crippled for ancient/classical era offensive warfare... especially if we have no iron.

 

[Artichoker]

For me '1 economic trait + total defensive overkill' is not enough, especially considering that we're potentially crippled for ancient/classical era offensive warfare... especially if we have no iron.

Duh, that's what Dog Warriors are for...

Let's look at the scenario you presented. Having no Iron means that unless you have Copper, normal Axemen will not be available. What are the chances of having Copper early in the game?

 

[Iranon]

the chances of having *either* Iron or copper available is quite good.

If I have neither, Dogs make pillaging barbs a little less of a problem on high levels. AIs rarely attack early enough, and attacking without a decent city buster... no. Dogs are nice to have, but it's rarely a biggie.

If I have copper but no Iron: NA is shafted. No decent city attackers until catapults / horse archers. Dog vs. Archer fights become quite expensive.

If I have Iron or both... dogs might be an asset or a drawback (better defenders against melee, can abuse unsupported axes. But: even more vulnerable to chariots, worse city attackers (dog vs. archer is worse than axe vs. archer or sword vs. axe).
I'd still turn in the UU without compensation in most games.

**

I pointed out the problems in a 'no Iron' scenario mostly to point out that dogs don't reduce resource dependence across the board. 'No Iron' can shaft Native America; it's ok for most other civs if they have copper because regular axemen are good enough as can openers.

 

[Monsterzuma]

The dog soldiers do have their saving graces. The main one is the fact that they allow for extremely smooth expansion in the early game. They offer complete freedom of where you settle your second city, completely exclude the need to tech archery (lol - talk about bad trait synergy) or AH when you wouldn't want to for tile improvement reasons and give near guaranteed protection from any unit the barbarians can throw at you, including axemen.

 

[JTMacc99]

The Totem Pole allows Sitting Bull to create Drill III archers in the ancient era; and with a GG (I think) can create Drill IV Bow units. These would upgrade into Drill IV Rifles. Is this a bit OP? Especially if you combine it with Stonehendge . I bring this up because I remember some people on this board commenting that Zara Yaquob's Drill III & IV Oromo Warriors upged into Drill III and IV Rifles and later Infantry, but the Native American UB seems to make a more concrete effect throughout the entire game. Why doesn't the Bull get any love?

If the random leader generator gives me SB, I don't complain. I do, however, try really hard to build Stonehenge. Actually, I try to build that wonder whenever I have a civ with a monument UB, and sometimes if I have a charismatic leader (with access to stone.)

For me, the big difference between upgrading the Native American bow units versus upgrading the Ethiopian muskets is cost. It costs an arm and a leg to upgrade longbows to rifles. For me, especially with his general lack of good commerce generating traits, it's more efficient to just build Drill III gunpowder units from scratch than it is to upgrade Drill IV bows.

If you want something to do with your drill IV longbows, you can always see if you can get them really early and use them as offensive weapons with catapults. Even more fun is to build lots of them as you attempt to get Steel from Liberalism. Package a bunch of them up with some newly constructed muskets and a big-old stack of cannons and you'll be fine. It's completely unconventional, but the cannons do such a great job of pummeling the city defenders that you could probably bring archers and chariots along for the clean-up. At least with longbows, you'll get some use out of the units that served to protect your cities for so many years before they become completely obsolete.

 

[mboettcher]

dog soldiers/archers can make for a great choke/pillage war while you massage the AI into making military mistakes. They are great at stealing workers in such cases as the defenders of workers will not be effective in such cases. Granted they are not a good can opener as Monsterzuma says but smooth REX/Choking your neighbor to death b4 they get off the ground and nobody can take back the land that has been REXed. Even if it has been over REXed. Also Dogs are effective at taking Barb cities due to the lack of cultural defenses. Dogs just require a different set of tactics. Not a dissimilar concept than the completely different tactics that Monty has to use with his UU.

This includes enemies with 'abusive' UU which quickly get eaten when attacking your Dogs. (I find abusive an exaggerated concept as the power of UU varies with difficulty level to the point that Praetorians become game-breakingly powerful on Emperor and Prot trait is useless to Praets being far less useful, even irrelevant, than even Prot defenders on Deity)

Yes at first glance and under 'normal' analysis Dogs are not effective and Praets are game breaking but then again Praets are the 'idealistic' UU requiring perfect circumstances to maximize their efficiency (the possibility of heavy currency city sites to afford high expansion, forests to chop troops, iron access able and nearby, not getting rushed b4 ready, not being near an enemy with a good counter). So ironically Praets give you an advantage in situations when you already have a good chance to win as a good player. (Dogs require the same resource (iron) to have 'can-opening' as the Romans do for their Praets. This evens the analysis in a way)

Basically Dogs allow you to settle a lot more land by choking nearby AI's and then blocking off more land as desired. Its possible to choke more than one AI nearby easily even on Deity. Settling land w/o having to conquer cities, good fogbusting and preventing Keshiks, Praets, Vultures and many other powerful UU's from attacking you and breaking the SOD when they do is a nice trick to have in the bag. Very, very underrated UU.



The only imbalanced UU's on the side of being useless that I can think of off the top of my head are Navy Seals and Panzers. Navy Seals because they perform way too much of a spot duty/resource replacement role late in the game and don't even have +25% vs gunpowder as infantry do making them weak offensive units even b4 their time. Panzers because the AI is so poor at Industrial warfare and later that it doesn't build nearly enough tanks to justify Panzers coming that late. Not even on Deity does the AI build that many tanks. I want industrial warfare to be fun. The AI should mass dozens of tanks and planes (as this is the optimal strategy in this era). That way Panzers would actually be a proper late-game final punch that the last available UU should be. (The combat percentages of a Panzer army with pinch calvary are as devastating even hammer for hammer (including Anti-tanks which are ironically German graphic) as any other UU for their era.)

 

[mboettcher]

@JTMacc99

Stone is nearly irrelevant for SH. By the time masonry is researched and its hooked up the wonder should be nearly built. You have to settle on stone for it to be relevant

Ind civs have an unusually major advantage when building this wonder. For one, even if you start with Mysticism you have to spend that 'research time' building other units in the capitol. Better to start with mining and an Ind leader, get BW>myst and chop it out. IN this sense its a hard and lucky wonder to get. So on high difficulty with SB one would have to literally settle the capitol on stone to have a good chance at SH w/o the mining and/or myst start. Also have to be lucky on opponents. Incans are basically guaranteed to get SH on higher difficulty.

However if SH is acquired somehow for NA then it can be nearly game breaking early for one of the best REXing civs to have free border expansion and such a great defensive UU. Yes, pls rush a massive SOD Monty. My Prot Super archers need to get some exercise.

Great Wall is far more likely with stone and possibly even more effective as Totems poles can be built easily in cities that have the capacity to pump units and the Double GG can be really powerful when the enemy just breaks SOD after SOD on you cities. With GW its almost worth declaring war on Deity Civs with really powerful early UU and watching them lose wave after wave to fortified Dogs on Hill cities. 6-7 GG is easy by maces in such cases.

 

[JTMacc99]

@JTMacc99

Stone is nearly irrelevant for SH. By the time masonry is researched and its hooked up the wonder should be nearly built. You have to settle on stone for it to be relevant

I know. I just left out a few facts. I meant that I would consider building it as a Charismatic leader if I somehow had a shot to build it really quickly. (This would have been a much better way to say it than by mentioning stone.) I wanted to agree with the OP about the concept of building Stonehenge as a solid strategy for Sitting Bull, and then I kind of ran off in a new direction. Oops.

 

[PotatoOverdose]

**

I pointed out the problems in a 'no Iron' scenario mostly to point out that dogs don't reduce resource dependence across the board. 'No Iron' can shaft Native America; it's ok for most other civs if they have copper because regular axemen are good enough as can openers.

In my last game I tried drill IV archers as my primary city attackers in the pre-catapult era (and post catapult too). They do surprisingly well. While they may not seem the best unit on paper, they are *guaranteed* to do some non-negligible damage to defenders because of the sheer number of first strikes. The same cannot be said of axemen and swordsmen, where bad luck with the rng can cause problems for a pre-cat offensive (I hate it when cr axes/swords attack a city and do no damage). The fact that they are dirt cheap means you will be able to field a *lot* of drill IV archers. Combined with dog soldiers for defense against swords and some formation archers for the odd mounted unit and you can do just fine without copper/iron. Mind you I'm not saying swordsmen aren't better, but with a horde of cheap first strike archers, you can get work done. Also if you do have iron, you can get highly-promoted crossbows which are pretty damn good. So iron certainly helps, but is not necessary.

I suppose the value of resource independence varies from player to player. I love being able to rush/choke my neighbors immediately with dogs. It's great to not have to settle my second city on a tactical resource but on more profitable lands with gold/gems and the like. It's also great not being shafted when you don't have copper and you start next to a warmonger that does.

 

[JTMacc99]

Somebody explain "choking" to me. Are you saying that you'll build a pillaging stacks of dogs/archers and declare war on a neighbor with no real intention of city busting? I can see how that would be brutally effective, pretty much cutting them off from expanding or using their strategic resources, which is like making yourself the new corrupt sheriff in town.

If that's what you mean, how long do you keep that up, and what are the side effects on things like diplomacy with other civs? I can only think of one game when I thought it was a good idea to pillage somebody back to the stone age. Mostly, if I don't think I can achieve a quick and total victory early on, I go completely peaceful.

 

[TheFastCat]

Hello I was trying to find a "synergy" guide for playing as Sitting Bull and haven't any luck (seems like a cool, unconventional guy and I like the town names)

apparently a common strat is to attempt to build stone henge, barracks, and then pump out archers and dogs for a later-game rapid expansion.

I am going to try this tonight I think, with a "cheat" map to help (eg with stone near starting loc) but have some questions

I don't really know how to take advantage of spirituality trait though- can anyone point me to a guide? Is this a warmonger trait? Not sure how to use it effectively.

what should my initial build order be? I am somewhat unclear on the tip thrown around to set build to warrior until city pops to 2 before training a worker. Don't you lose the hammers in the switch and therefore isn't the net result the same? (or maybe I am doing it wrong)

how many cities should I have on a large map? My common problem is that I expand early but am then halted by AI boundaries and blocked in. I guess that's when I need to lay the hammer to them, huh?

PSI dog rushed one civ early on last game and then attempted to choke Caesar... might have worked (had 10+ dogs) but then he got praetorians and floored me. ended up stagnating my empire in the process.

 

[Neal]

In my current King of the World game as Sitting Bull, Dog Soldiers saved my bacon. Admittedly, I was (almost) totally isolated, so my major threat was from Barbarians, but Woodsman 2 or 3 Dog Soldiers are effectively invincible fogbusters until Macemen come along. Heck, the game is on Immortal, and I was able to put off Archery until the 800's AD! Now, admittedly, if I'd had a juicy neighbor worth plundering nearby, I'd be pulling my hair out. But, when it's you against the black-flags, Dog Soldiers are amazing.

 

[mboettcher]

@JTMacc99

Yes thats what's meant by choking.

The excessive worker stealing ability of dogs is nice too. 3-4 woodsman dogs can keep a civ basically fully occupied and useless until you are ready to take their cities with what ever.

The only 'disadvantage' of choking other than the support costs (which can be troublesome at high Difficulties where it tends to be most useful) is that it causes the AI to go into a build a 'sh*t ton of archers' loop that by the time you want to take the city may have 10+ defenders. However, its likely that a good early choke can keep the AI at only 2 cities on Deity as the dogs can easily kill any escorts for the settlers, especially with out resources for better units. The settlers also become nice worker force additions so the cost of building the dog soldiers actually starts to even out to having not choked and built the standard fare of workers and such