Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by KevinMiles90000, Dec 25, 2011.
That implies liberty. Is honor the better route? If so, what does the norm become?
No, it's quite correct, any non-range (with the obvious exceptions of civilians and helicopters) unit with 1 hit point can take any city with 1 hit point. I've done it loads of times. Just knock a city's defenses down to 1hp and any non-range unit, regardless of it's health, can take the city and survive.
Saying turn 80 Chivalry when taking the liberty bulb path is the norm is probably a bit of a stretch. I have played many games that way and I think it'd be fairer to say that about turn 86 is more like the norm. On a great start you can get there in the late 70's and in a poor start not till the early 90's.
Now let's compare that to going honour and delaying the keshik attack by about 30 turns.
In the honour path you have highly promoted keshiks from the outset and every subsequent unit you build starts highly promoted also, you also get gold for every kill and extra happiness and you have a khan from the very start of your attack. You can see this goes well with an all out war strategy as happiness management is key and more gold equals more units. KevinMiles9000 recommends having about 6 keshiks and a horseman by this stage, roughly turn 110.
Taking the liberty path you can begin, on average, to attack in the mid 80's with about 5 keshiks and a horseman with the khan to be added during the first war. Now, by turn 110 you're usually at the point where you've taken out 2 civs and are attacking the 3rd with a larger army of keshiks, perhaps in the 10 - 15 range (providing you have been able to acquire additional horses, which is almost always) and your first generation keshiks will be highly promoted by then also. You'll have generated at least one additional khan which has been either kept or burned for a GA.
So I guess that's what the comparison is about, the earlier start for the wars against the honour buffs.
KevinMiles9000 reports that it is 100% effective going honour and delaying, if you really know what you're doing. So if something is perfectly effective then it's perfectly effective - you can't argue with that lol. Seems to me that you're probably better off attacking earlier against pikes, archers and swords for the first couple of civs, but if you win every time doing it differently then more power to you.
I reply to the 1 hp units taking cities, I can say from experience that this is correct. In defense of the OP and his strategy, having horsemen is the most effective way to do this. They don't need to be fully healed. As long as they are alive, they can take a 1 hp city. Horsemen are superior to other units because of their movement. Melee units will fall behind the advance of your Keshik horde while Horsemen will keep up.
Yeah that part goes almost without saying, everyone uses horseman as the city taker no matter which way you go about getting the army assembled. But it does help to know that your 1hp horseman can zoom in from range and cap any city so long as it's been fully bombarded.
I've had horsemen die attacking cities when they were in the yellow/red. It has a low percentage of happening, but it does. The advantage of horsemen over melee units is that you get an extra hex to place a keshik and the unit capping the city isn't damaged by the city itself or a garrisoned unit in the city.
snarzberry, you are correct. I should have said 80s instead of 80.
That percentage becomes 0 if you keep track of the city hp or give it an extra ranged shot to confirm that it's at 1hp
This seems like a sidetrack but a City has 25hp. For reasons unknown the developers decided not to make this statistic readily available or let us check a cities current hp in numerical terms. When a city is down to 1/25hp and its health won't drop any lower on the visual health bar then ANYTHING can take it. A Giant Death Robot and a 1hp scout will both take the city just the same. This feels kind of cheesy later on in the game where you can just shell cities to death with Artillery then run a low hp horseman in to cap it, as previously stated in this thread.
The OP's strat probably will have a very high success rate. This is more due to the broken nature of Keshiks and the A.I's general incompetency when dealing with ranged units however, instead of a new discovery or previously unseen tactic.
More like perfection of an already existing tactic. The problem with RAing to hit chivalry is that you are relying on not getting a DOW from the civ(s) you signed the RAs with. That can often be avoided, but my purpose was not to develop a strategy that works a lot of the time, my goal was to develop a strategy that works all the time. In addition to being simple and straightforward.
There is no "perfection" in your thread. This is an old strategy and I haven't noticed a line of new advice/strategy that you have added and wasn't around this foruns before. You are extremely pretensious.
I started developing a Mongolia strategy a month or so after they released it and this is the correct strategy for Mongolia domination wins on pangea.
Pretensiousness is also dependent on ones importance being not important.
you are not important. vexing and martinalvito are. you are just claiming other people's work.
Moderator Action: Please don't troll around.
I developed this strategy mostly by myself, I initially used horsemen but someone suggested chariots and it enhanced the effectiveness of this strategy.
Ok, then I invented the wheel.
I don't have responsibility for any current Domination strategies. I'm pretty sure that DaveMcV deserves the credit for Mongol abuse and most other modern Horse approaches. I know that he pioneered the Chariot -> Knight jump in a Songhai GOTM where he signed Open Borders with everyone, abused the bug that let you upgrade in enemy territory, then simultaneously backstabbed.
Let's give credit where credit is due here. One in Tradition and the rest in Honor is novel for this type of game. It's unfortunate that the OP apparently was unaware of the duplication, since this makes him look like a member of Congress trying to claim responsibility for things he had nothing to do with. But there is some innovation, and we should recognize that.
My point is that keshiks are so ridicoulously overpowered against the ai that it has completely ruined the game for me.
You can't simply play as some other civilization? Better yet, make sure that one of the AI you are playing against is the Mongols, so you can enjoy fending off their keshik attack....
if the ai knew how to properly use keshiks mongolia would win nearly every single time on pangea and probably continents.
Which doesn't contest Rittmeyer's point that you're being intellectually dishonest (by not recognizing the substantial contributions of others) when you claim that you developed the strategy by yourself. That's self-contradictory as well, as it doesn't jive with the first sentence of the OP.
I understand your claim, which is that you're achieving a higher success rate than you have with more traditional approaches to the problem and that this is replicable. If verified, you deserve plaudits for that.
However, you would do yourself a service in your presentation if you recognized the exact portions which are new and highlighted them. Regular users of this forum are well aware of the Keshik rush, and would only be interested in the specific changes to that general approach you have made to improve the success rate. Also, focusing on the specific differences would permit you to more easily defend your argument from criticism. Those of us that hang around this particular forum are generally reluctant to accept any claim without substantial proof, which means that we spend lots of time picking holes in arguments.
For instance, I don't see why Honor is producing better returns for you than getting Keshiks (and the empire) up and running earlier via Liberty. Where's the value-added there?
Separate names with a comma.