What do people think of this strategy?

[Greyhawk1]

A mate of mine suggested doing this but I havent had a chance to try it yet:

Basically, all he does is he finds a Barbarian camp and instead of destroying it, he just parks a few Veteran units next to it, not enough to surround it but just two or three. Then every time a Barby pops out there's a chance the unit it attacks will go to Elite and its pretty unlikely a Barby will destroy a Veteran unit. Just rinse and repeat as necessary.

That way he always has loads of Elite units for that elusive Leader.

Anyone else tried this? Is it worth it?

 

[Catt]

The strtagey your friend describes is often called "barbarian farming." I'm pretty sure it still works, though in vanilla Civ 3 it worked a lot better than in PTW. PTW included some changes to barbarian behavior so that now they no longer fruitlessly attack a strong unit -- they often run the other way and seek out more promising targets like workers, settlers, undefended cities, or tiles to pillage.

The strategy is also less effective at the higher levels. At every level except Deity, you have a "combat bonus" against barbarians -- at Regent the bonus is 200% (IIRC) which means your 1/1/1 warrior fights like a 3/3/1 warrior against barbs. At Emperor the bonus is only 50% and there is no bonus at Deity -- at those levels, unless you have a more powerful unit (like a swordsman), it is quite a bit easier to lose your units to barbs in a misguided attempt at barb farming .

I've used it before, but it does require a bit more micromangement and nowadays I usually don't bother with it -- but it certainly is a useful way to get promotions.

 

[elpadrino87]

It really does depend on what your goal in Civ 3 is. As Catt said, though, it's not worth it in PTW, but in vanilla Civ 3, it depends. If you're the peace loving kind, chances are you won't be involved in as many wars as a fellow warmongerer. This means that you'll have less opportunites to gain promotions, as well as GLs. Another factor is if you're playing as a militaristic civ(germany, etc). You don't need to do this if your militaristic, because your chances of a unit promotion are greater(the ratios are mentioned in several places in this site, i just can't remember where). And lastly, it depends how far ahead you are in the game and how much of the world is settled. If you're in the ancient age, and you can devote a unit or two to barb farming, then you're not loosing anything by doing this, because most of the world has yet to be occupied by civs. But as time progresses, the battle(s) for land will be relentless, and its better to just settle a city in an available space then have to protect the barb camp from AI units and culture(once a cities cultural border covers a tile with a barb camp on it, the camp is dispersed).

 

[Greyhawk1]

Hmm, I'll give it a shot in my next game. I play Regent/Non-Warmongering so it might be useful.

 

[NewDestroyer]

u gotta fight alot of wars to make the strategy useful

 

[spoc148]

I guess if you had a few extra units lying around it would work out, but i tend to use all of my units rather than camp a few out by a barbarian camp

 

[zerksees]

I have not tried this technique. Seems interesting. I don't think it would hurt but has some limitations:

1) You would need to put the elites to work fairly quickly, or else they get outdated and when you upgrade them they go back to veteran. If you are not a war monger those elite units could be outdated before you get to use them.

2) Any other civ that gets irritated could dispurse the encampment, and possibly drop a settler to build a city.

3) Won't work well on Emperor or Deity or with PTW - which I play.

I would think it would be easier to go with a militaristic civ

 

[Bouchehog]

Zerksees, you've got a good point about using the units quickly. This technique would still be useful to raise those regular warriors to vets either before (or prefereably after) upgrade. If you know that you won't be going to war for a few more turns (just signed a ROP, etc.) then by all means go barbarian hunting with your troops.

 

[Greyhawk1]

What? You upgrade Elites? I never upgrade an Elite unit at any time - there's always that little chance that the enemy has a few of its own obsolete units knocking about you can use your Ancient Elite's against.

This happened in my last game. I had an Elite Swordsman in a city but my lands were 100% railed and I was up to Mech Inf by then. A Civ did its usual inexplicable ploy of declaring war and landing a smattering of obsolete units on my territory. I railed up mr ancient swordie and he whacked the Archer the modern age civ landed and got a Leader from the combat.

Once I have railroads I corral all my old Elites into a city somewhere safe without a Barracks (to avoid the Shift-u) and if there's an opportunity I let the old geezers out . If they get a Leader I then upgrade them.

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by Greyhawk1
What? You upgrade Elites? I never upgrade an Elite unit at any time - there's always that little chance that the enemy has a few of its own obsolete units knocking about you can use your Ancient Elite's against.

I think that's a good tactic and I too keep around some elite swords into the late game if I have them. But with other units that have a better upgrade path, I tend to upgrade when I have more than enough elites of more more advanced units. For example, I might keep an elite horseman into the age of cavalry, but if I have several elite cavalries, the horseman will probably get an upgrade sometime soon to turn it into a more useful unit for everyday duties (I also consider the utility of a leader -- by the end of the Medieval Age the utility of leaders usually equals the utility of armies for me).

And of course I upgrade those elite* units that have already generated a leader.

 

[Grille]

I tend to upgrade all defensive elite units. It's very hard to get a GL from a spear or pike (if they are really outdated), since they got just A=1 and *defensive* GLs appear w/ chances halfed.

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by Grille
I tend to upgrade all defensive elite units. It's very hard to get a GL from a spear or pike (if they are really outdated), since they got just A=1 and *defensive* GLs appear w/ chances halfed.

Good point! I forgot to mention that -- I do that too. I often keep pikes (elite or otherwise) around until Replaceable Parts (and skip Nationalism) upgrading some border cities' defenders to muskets, but beyond keeping around an elite spearman during the age of knights, I rarely avoid upgrading defenders just to keep an elite around. The outdated but elite offensive units have the advantage of picking their battles; it's tough to position an outdated but elite defender in a way that both gets it into the action and ensures a decent chance of winning a battle (particularly with offensive fast-movers that can retreat).

 

[Sirp]

The strategy is useful in many contexts, but possibly uninteresting/uninspired/exploitive.

As for upgrading elite units, it really depends. Elite swordsmen -> MDIs, probably not, since the stats difference between a sword and an MDI isn't great.

But, an elite warrior -> sword, or an elite horseman -> knight is much more likely, since the stat difference is greater. Also depends on speed of the unit, since knight -> cavalry I'll often do because a knight would be too slow to see combat.

Also depends on how much money I have lying around. If money is tight then I'll be less inclined too, how much I want a great leader, and if I'm militaristic or not: typically if I'm militaristic I have so many elites that it's no big deal to lose one. In fact, my strategy with elite units is completely different with militaristic vs non-militaristic: I'll generally attack first with elite units if I'm militaristic, and last with them if I'm not militaristic.

As for defensive units, I generally try to upgrade them on an "as needs" basis, unless I'm rolling in money so I can easily afford to upgrade them all.

-Sirp.

 

[Bouchehog]

Does it make any difference who you fight with your elite units? Barbarians aside, do I have a greater chance of receiving a GL from a sword/spearman battle than a sword/warrior battle?

 

[Sirp]

Bouchehog: no, as is detailed in the FAQ, you have a 1/16 chance of getting a great leader when an attacking elite unit wins a battle. 1/12 if you have built the Heroic Epic.

Chances are halved (1/32 and 1/24) for defending elite units.

EDIT: (And, as you implied, you can never get a great leader from fighting barbarians, and promotion chances are halved against barbarians).

-Sirp.

 

[mrlight]

In my current monarch game, I am (Germany) finghting Zulus in middle age. They don't even have iron so they just keep making Longbowman 4.1.1 and they are so easy to beat by my elites. So I just stayed in war with them and they make more and more units on the battlefield for me to kill. I got 3 leaders from this war.

 

[RegentMan]

I've heard of this strategy, but since I never play with barbarians, I don't know how effective it is.

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

Here's my two cents on the matter.

Since I play with regular old Civ 3 (I can't yet spend the $$ to buy PTW), I just use the swordsmen I have left laying around in the Modern era for barbarian defense duty and riot suppression in newly conquered cities.

I also like to have armies of veteran sworsdmen, because they are decent at garrisoning, and as mentioned above, they are handy to have when an opponent sends obsolete units at you.

Can anyone answer this question for me? Is your chance of gaining a promotion affected by the tech level of the units involved in combat? For example, when attacking a sworsdman unit, would a regular longbowman or regular modern armor be more likely to earn a promotion to veteran?

 

[Ben II]

You should use your units in better ways, but if you had extra units maybe

 

[LordKestrel]

Originally posted by Sirp
promotion chances are halved against barbarians

You still get an upgrade if you win two battles in one turn against barbs.