Newbie Questions

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I have to admit I got hooked on Civ 2 and just got Civ 3.
I start out fine and get great milestone works but someone ALWAYS
declares war on me and wipes me out, or gets all the other civs to declare
war too and
attack me on all sides.
Should you go for things like Colossus ect or just build an army an kick
butt early on?
Also sometimes the AI seems to favor itself in defending the city.
What are the best units to attack a city with walls?
Thanks to all . Paul
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:51:33 GMT, "res0xur8"
<cf.seven@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:

>I have to admit I got hooked on Civ 2 and just got Civ 3.
>I start out fine and get great milestone works but someone ALWAYS
>declares war on me and wipes me out, or gets all the other civs to declare
>war too and
>attack me on all sides.

Make sure you have enough military force to deter an attack. It
also helps to keep the AI happy with you - polite or gracious if you
can manage it. You do that by trading with them, possibly giving
gifts (don't give too much, don't bother with more than one gift per
turn -- it is tricky to decide what is worth giving, but if you can't
get a good payback in gold, making the AI love you by giving it away
may be worth it).

The alliance thing you have to play as well. When a war starts, go
to all neighbors which can likely affect the war and ask them to ally.

That requires establishing embassies, which can be expensive early
in the game. But it is worth it if you need the allies.

> Should you go for things like Colossus ect or just build an army an kick
>butt early on?

Depends on if you feel you can conquer the enemy or not. If not,
build only enough military force so as to keep your military "average"
compared to your neighbors (ask the military advisor).

Early wonders aren't easy to get before the AI, and this gets harder
at higher difficulty, tending to impossible at Monarch and above.
Unless you have a high shield production size 12 city (or one which
will soon become that), it is hard to beat the AI to wonders --
especially when there are several competitors who have a good shot at
getting it.

>Also sometimes the AI seems to favor itself in defending the city.

It doesn't really, it is just that a stack of good defense units, in
a city on good terrain (especially size 7 or larger, even worse if it
is a size 13+ metropolis), with barracks (conquests shows that as a
sword on the map by the city), all combine to make it hard to actually
take one over.

Good defense units is of course critical. If your attackers don't
have at least twice the attack of the defense, you are going to burn
up a lot of units killing them.

Most important, don't dribble your attacks! Make sure that you have
enough units in one turn to kill every defender. The AI tends to use
at least two or three defenders in most cities, more in capitals and
other critical cities. If you have a 2:1 attack ratio before defense
modifiers, you will still likely need double the defenders, once the
defense mods are factored in.

Only poor defense terrain in small towns makes winning easier. A
city on grassland with no river by it, no walls, size under 7, is no
better on defense than if the units were in the open. Unfortunately,
the minimal defense bonus for fortified units (as all defense oriented
AI units will be) is 35% -- enough with rounding to make a horseman
vs. spearman (or even swordsman vs. spearman) likely as not to lose.

>What are the best units to attack a city with walls?

Walls are no worse than big cities, the same principle applies.
Likewise, if the city is built on good defense terrain (hills -- the
AI will use them; river is OK but not nearly as tough as a hill city).

If you don't have a significant tech edge -- knights. vs. spearman
or better -- then you can either use *lots* of units (4x defenders or
more), or try to get enough artillery to help out. Early on,
catapults are the best you can do, and they just aren't very good.
Figure that you'll want one good artillery unit for every defender,
more if your attackers aren't tough enough to easily beat the enemy.

An army, however, makes a good city killer. Three units combined
can generally kill what you'd use 3-5 units separately on. Since you
don't want to lose the army, it can be slow, picking off one unit a
turn, the AI replaces it with new builds for a while, until you
finally scrape the defenders down.

But the army is the ultimate first-attacker, good to get rid of the
pesky elite unit which otherwise chomps the first attacker to try the
place each turn.

As always, nothing is better than lots of units, no matter what they
are. It can be expensive, but you are almost always better off using
your forces to take over a city rather than destroy the enemy units
outside.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In article <Vti1d.4723$MS1.3752@trnddc02>, "res0xur8" <cf.seven@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
>I have to admit I got hooked on Civ 2 and just got Civ 3.
>I start out fine and get great milestone works but someone ALWAYS
>declares war on me and wipes me out, or gets all the other civs to declare
>war too and attack me on all sides.

Your military is too weak. You have been building your infrastructure such as
Temples and Marketplaces rather than units.

Periodically check with your military advisor (F3) and see if he thinks that
your military is weak compared to your neighbors. If he does then they will
start to bully you and you will end up in a war. The AI values offensive
units such as Archers (2-1-1) more highly than Spearmen (1-2-1)
(attack-defend-move).

Don't leave your cities undefended. The AI will try to capture them.

Once a war starts try to get as many allies as you can. If they are on your
side then they are not on the other side.

> Should you go for things like Colossus ect or just build an army an kick
>butt early on?

That depends. My personal point of view is that for 300 shields I can build
10 swordsmen while my neighbor builds a Wonder. After the war I will have 5
of those Swordsmen left and I will own the Wonder.

You always want to build as many cities as you can but once you have expanded
as far as possible you could specialize a city or two in building early
Wonders. You don't want to start building a Wonder before you have several
other cities that can continue your expansion and build units.

Do you know how to pre-build a wonder?

>Also sometimes the AI seems to favor itself in defending the city.

Defending units get an advantage. Fortified units get a bigger advantage.
Fortified units behind city walls get an even bigger advantage.

>What are the best units to attack a city with walls?

There are no really good choices before Artillery. I will build Catapults and
bombard but it is hard to get enough Catapults to do real damage. The best
you can expect is to take a hit point off a defender or two. Over
several turns you might knock down the city walls. Mostly I use a mob of
either veteran Swordsmen or veteran Horsemen. I find the the 4 hit point
veterans do so much better than the 3 hit point regulars that it is worth the
delay in building the Barracks.

The key is to win the city battle in one turn. You don't want the defenders
to get promoted and heal up. I find 3 to 1 odds (Archers or Horsemen to
Spearmen) to be the absolute minimum. Swordsmen are better.

>Thanks to all . Paul

Good Luck.


Mike G
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Mike Garcia" <mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu> skrev i
meddelandet news:ci4foo$vd$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <Vti1d.4723$MS1.3752@trnddc02>, "res0xur8"
<cf.seven@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
> >I have to admit I got hooked on Civ 2 and just got Civ 3.
> >I start out fine and get great milestone works but someone ALWAYS
> >declares war on me and wipes me out, or gets all the other civs to
declare
> >war too and attack me on all sides.
>
> Your military is too weak. You have been building your infrastructure
such as
> Temples and Marketplaces rather than units.
>
> Periodically check with your military advisor (F3) and see if he thinks
that
> your military is weak compared to your neighbors. If he does then they
will
> start to bully you and you will end up in a war. The AI values offensive
> units such as Archers (2-1-1) more highly than Spearmen (1-2-1)
> (attack-defend-move).
>
> Don't leave your cities undefended. The AI will try to capture them.
>
> Once a war starts try to get as many allies as you can. If they are on
your
> side then they are not on the other side.
>
> > Should you go for things like Colossus ect or just build an army an kick
> >butt early on?
>
> That depends. My personal point of view is that for 300 shields I can
build
> 10 swordsmen while my neighbor builds a Wonder. After the war I will have
5
> of those Swordsmen left and I will own the Wonder.
>
> You always want to build as many cities as you can but once you have
expanded
> as far as possible you could specialize a city or two in building early
> Wonders. You don't want to start building a Wonder before you have
several
> other cities that can continue your expansion and build units.
>
> Do you know how to pre-build a wonder?

I dont know, so you can tell me too :)

>
> >Also sometimes the AI seems to favor itself in defending the city.
>
> Defending units get an advantage. Fortified units get a bigger advantage.
> Fortified units behind city walls get an even bigger advantage.
>
> >What are the best units to attack a city with walls?
>
> There are no really good choices before Artillery. I will build Catapults
and
> bombard but it is hard to get enough Catapults to do real damage. The
best
> you can expect is to take a hit point off a defender or two. Over
> several turns you might knock down the city walls. Mostly I use a mob of
> either veteran Swordsmen or veteran Horsemen. I find the the 4 hit point
> veterans do so much better than the 3 hit point regulars that it is worth
the
> delay in building the Barracks.
>
> The key is to win the city battle in one turn. You don't want the
defenders
> to get promoted and heal up. I find 3 to 1 odds (Archers or Horsemen to
> Spearmen) to be the absolute minimum. Swordsmen are better.
>
> >Thanks to all . Paul
>
> Good Luck.
>
>
> Mike G
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In article <zsk1d.3087$d5.23924@newsb.telia.net>, "Emelie & Nicklas" <nicklas.emelie@telia.com> wrote:
>
>"Mike Garcia" <mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu> skrev i
>> Do you know how to pre-build a wonder?
>
>I dont know, so you can tell me too :)

Its no big secret.

You start construction on something big that won't be finished until
after you get the tech required for the Wonder. Once you have the tech you
switch construction to the Wonder. The thing to remember about building
Wonders is that it takes "pure" shields. You can't chop down forests for
their 10 shields or disband units to speed the process. If you do use such
"dirty" shields in your pre-build then you won't be able to switch
construction to the Wonder.

The classic big thing to use as a pre-build is the Palace. Another popular
pre-build is an unwanted Wonder. You might start work on the Colossus and
then switch to the Great Library once you have Literacy for example. The AIs
do this when they get beaten to a Wonder. Its some times called the Wonder
Cascade.

The problem with using the Palace as your pre-build is you can't construct it
in your Capital so it works against having a cultural super-city. Also if you
mess up (say your tech research slows down) you might complete the Palace and
cause your capital to jump.

I like building the Military Academy in my capital. 400 shield Armies are
great pre-builds.


Mike G
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In alt.games.civ3 on Mon, 13 Sep 2004, res0xur8 wrote :
>I have to admit I got hooked on Civ 2 and just got Civ 3.
>I start out fine and get great milestone works but someone ALWAYS
>declares war on me and wipes me out, or gets all the other civs to declare
>war too and
>attack me on all sides.
> Should you go for things like Colossus ect or just build an army an kick
>butt early on?

Bear in mind that in Civ3, military units don't have a home city, so you
can set a few cities cranking out defenders, then move them to where
they are needed without creating unhappiness.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
 

alex

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
896
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"res0xur8" <cf.seven@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message news:Vti1d.4723$MS1.3752@trnddc02...
> I have to admit I got hooked on Civ 2 and just got Civ 3.
> I start out fine and get great milestone works but someone ALWAYS
> declares war on me and wipes me out, or gets all the other civs to declare
> war too and
> attack me on all sides.

If you want a peaceful game you must be "politically correct".
Ignore your military advisor. Build cheap defensive units to police
your cities, and AI will not perceive you as a threat. Embassy and
right of passage will greatly improve AI attitude towards you. Trade.
Trade. In C3C you can trade your last luxury for some other luxury;
your people will see no difference, but AI will love you and will often
even give some bonus cash. Normally around 1000BC your neighbors should
be gracious towards you, or at least polite.

Do not break your deals and treaties. Do not raze cities. Do not
have wars in the first place. Mutual protection pact is a misnomer,
it's actually mutual destruction pact. Enter MPP only if you have
elaborate plan how to utilize it. Keep at least some 200 bucks in the bank
at all times. The AI will demand a tribute, give it to them and rejoice.
They are going to mutually destroy themselves, 100 gold tribute is a great
price for that.

Do not let your units walk through AI territory, unless you have ROP.
All your misdeeds should go through the back door. Invite the ambassdor
of your mighty neighbor to the reception and offer him 100 gold for the ROP.
Then dispatch your troops to block their movements. Then give their enemies
Replaciblabe Parts for free. Do not forget to offer free Rubber too. If
you do not want to fight the war, let someone else fight it.
 

daran

Distinguished
May 21, 2004
150
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:53:05 GMT Mike Garcia
<mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu> wrote in message
<ci4foo$vd$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...

> In article <Vti1d.4723$MS1.3752@trnddc02>, "res0xur8"
> <cf.seven@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
> >I have to admit I got hooked on Civ 2 and just got Civ 3. I start out
> >fine and get great milestone works but someone ALWAYS declares war on me
> >and wipes me out, or gets all the other civs to declare war too and
> >attack me on all sides.
>
> Your military is too weak. You have been building your infrastructure
> such as Temples and Marketplaces rather than units.

I don't agree. Infrastructure is good. A large military is a costly
burden. I almost never have a military worth spit until the late game, yet
I avoid being attacked. The secret is: 1. Never order anyone out of your
territory 2. Always have money in the bank, so that they demand tribute,
(and you can pay it), rather than preemptively attack. 3. Trade lots. 4.
ROPs deter attacks.

> That depends. My personal point of view is that for 300 shields I can
> build 10 swordsmen while my neighbor builds a Wonder. After the war I
> will have 5 of those Swordsmen left and I will own the Wonder.

Or you could build 10 horsemen, and have 8 of them left after the war.

There are two downsides to this. If the wonder is built in a distant civ,
you may not be able to reach it. If you capture a wonder, it doesn't
generate culture for you.

> >What are the best units to attack a city with walls?
>
> There are no really good choices before Artillery. I will build Catapults
> and bombard but it is hard to get enough Catapults to do real damage...

I don't. I build cannon, but I find catapults too weak to be worth
building, although I'll use any I capture.

In Conquests there's a unit between catapults and cannon - the trebuchet. I
haven't had enough experience with them to know if they're worth building.

> The best you can expect is to take a hit point off a defender or two. Over
> several turns you might knock down the city walls. Mostly I use a mob of
> either veteran Swordsmen or veteran Horsemen. I find the the 4 hit point
> veterans do so much better than the 3 hit point regulars that it is worth
> the delay in building the Barracks.

Definitely. I prefer horsemen to swordsmen. Not only do they get to their
target twice as quickly, but the losers are more likely than not to survive,
and this likelihood increases with experience. Generally I will always use
mobile units to attack, even if there are cheaper or better non-mobile units
available.

> The key is to win the city battle in one turn. You don't want the
> defenders to get promoted and heal up. I find 3 to 1 odds (Archers or
> Horsemen to Spearmen) to be the absolute minimum. Swordsmen are better.

You need more horsemen in the first attack, but you will need to *replace*
more swordsmen for subsequent attacks. Also horsemen make better defenders
during peace because they can more rapidly deploy in the event of threat or
actual attack.

> Mike G

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In article <tl1i12-575.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net>, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:53:05 GMT Mike Garcia
><mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu> wrote in message
><ci4foo$vd$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
>
>> In article <Vti1d.4723$MS1.3752@trnddc02>, "res0xur8"
>> <cf.seven@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
>> >I have to admit I got hooked on Civ 2 and just got Civ 3. I start out
>> >fine and get great milestone works but someone ALWAYS declares war on me
>> >and wipes me out, or gets all the other civs to declare war too and
>> >attack me on all sides.
>>
>> Your military is too weak. You have been building your infrastructure
>> such as Temples and Marketplaces rather than units.
>
>I don't agree. Infrastructure is good. A large military is a costly
>burden.

I think of my military as an investment. It pays off in territory.

>I almost never have a military worth spit until the late game, yet
>I avoid being attacked. The secret is: 1. Never order anyone out of your
>territory 2. Always have money in the bank, so that they demand tribute,
>(and you can pay it), rather than preemptively attack. 3. Trade lots. 4.
>ROPs deter attacks.

Sounds like OCC (One City Challenge -- win with just one city).


>> That depends. My personal point of view is that for 300 shields I can
>> build 10 swordsmen while my neighbor builds a Wonder. After the war I
>> will have 5 of those Swordsmen left and I will own the Wonder.
>
>Or you could build 10 horsemen, and have 8 of them left after the war.
>
>There are two downsides to this. If the wonder is built in a distant civ,
>you may not be able to reach it. If you capture a wonder, it doesn't
>generate culture for you.

The distant civ is a problem.

The lack of culture from a Wonder does not bother me. You get more culture
from one additional city. The only time I find Wonder culture to be an issue
is when the 20K single city culture win seems possible.


>> >What are the best units to attack a city with walls?
>>
>> There are no really good choices before Artillery. I will build Catapults
>> and bombard but it is hard to get enough Catapults to do real damage...
>
>I don't. I build cannon, but I find catapults too weak to be worth
>building, although I'll use any I capture.

It is unusual for me to build a Catapult stack but there are times when I need
one take a key city without bleeding units.

>In Conquests there's a unit between catapults and cannon - the trebuchet. I
>haven't had enough experience with them to know if they're worth building.

It is a little better than a Catapult but then the defending Pikemen are
better than Spearmen. The dynamic of a Feudal Period war is only a little
different from an Ancient Era war to me. The biggest difference is that
optional Knights have more relative power in the Feudal Period than Horsemen
do in the Ancient Era.


>> The best you can expect is to take a hit point off a defender or two. Over
>> several turns you might knock down the city walls. Mostly I use a mob of
>> either veteran Swordsmen or veteran Horsemen. I find the the 4 hit point
>> veterans do so much better than the 3 hit point regulars that it is worth
>> the delay in building the Barracks.
>
>Definitely. I prefer horsemen to swordsmen. Not only do they get to their
>target twice as quickly, but the losers are more likely than not to survive,
>and this likelihood increases with experience. Generally I will always use
>mobile units to attack, even if there are cheaper or better non-mobile units
>available.

Horsemen are better than Swordsmen because:

- Horsemen may retreat from a battle instead of dying
- Regular Spearmen will defend before Elite Horsemen, the Horseman's defense
of 1 can be an advantage at times.
- Horsemen are more mobile than Swordsmen.
- Horsemen have two valuable upgrades, first to Knights and then to Cavalry.

Swordsmen are better than Horsemen because.

- Swordsmen are under-priced, they are a 3-2-1 unit that only cost 30 shields,
rather than 40.
- Swordsmen make an workable (if expensive) garrison.
- Swordsmen are as mobile as their support troops (Spears and Catapults) so
they have the same _strategic_ mobility as Horsemen _on_offense_.
- The Swordsman's main upgrade (in C3C) is based on a required tech.

I think it is a matter of taste, unless you don't have Iron.

>> The key is to win the city battle in one turn. You don't want the
>> defenders to get promoted and heal up. I find 3 to 1 odds (Archers or
>> Horsemen to Spearmen) to be the absolute minimum. Swordsmen are better.
>
>You need more horsemen in the first attack, but you will need to *replace*
>more swordsmen for subsequent attacks.

This is not my experience. If the defense is weak (towns (pop < 6) defended
by one or two regular Spearmen or Warriors) then Horsemen have the edge, but
they out run their follow-up garrisons and the advance slows. If the defense
is strong (cities with combined arms defenders (two Spearmen and an Archer or
Catapult)) then the war becomes a meat grinder and Swordsmen have the edge.

>Also horsemen make better defenders
>during peace because they can more rapidly deploy in the event of threat or
>actual attack.

The AI's military advisor puts more value on Swordsmen (2.6 Warrior
equivalents) than on Horsemen (1.4 Warrior equivalents) so you are more likely
to need your Horsemen on defense. :)

Some people with absolutely no lives have cracked the Military Advisor. The
AI seems to compute a single number to represent you military strength. It
seems to be the sum of all your land units, bombard units are ignored. The
formula seems to be ((0.6 * attack + 0.4 * defense) * hit points) with no
modification for fast movers.

Mike G
 

daran

Distinguished
May 21, 2004
150
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:20:00 GMT Mike Garcia
<mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu> wrote in message
<ci9q2k$d7o$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...

> In article <tl1i12-575.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net>, Daran
> <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:53:05 GMT Mike Garcia
> ><mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> ><ci4foo$vd$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
> >
> >> In article <Vti1d.4723$MS1.3752@trnddc02>, "res0xur8"
> >> <cf.seven@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
> >> >I have to admit I got hooked on Civ 2 and just got Civ 3. I start out
> >> >fine and get great milestone works but someone ALWAYS declares war on
> >> >me and wipes me out, or gets all the other civs to declare war too and
> >> >attack me on all sides.
> >>
> >> Your military is too weak. You have been building your infrastructure
> >> such as Temples and Marketplaces rather than units.
> >
> >I don't agree. Infrastructure is good. A large military is a costly
> >burden.
>
> I think of my military as an investment. It pays off in territory.

It does if you're fighting (and winning) a territorial war. If all you're
doing is maintaining the peace, then you don't need it.

> >I almost never have a military worth spit until the late game, yet I
> >avoid being attacked. The secret is: 1. Never order anyone out of your
> >territory 2. Always have money in the bank, so that they demand tribute,
> >(and you can pay it), rather than preemptively attack. 3. Trade lots.
> >4. ROPs deter attacks.
>
> Sounds like OCC (One City Challenge -- win with just one city).

Well, I don't play with just one City. :) Plus I get *very* aggressive in
the late game, when my investment program has paid off, and all my cities
are producing tanks every two turns.

> >There are two downsides to this. If the wonder is built in a distant
> >civ, you may not be able to reach it. If you capture a wonder, it
> >doesn't generate culture for you.
>
> The distant civ is a problem.
>
> The lack of culture from a Wonder does not bother me...

It's a minor consideration, I agree. I mention it for the sake of
completeness.

> It is a little better than a Catapult but then the defending Pikemen are
> better than Spearmen. The dynamic of a Feudal Period war is only a little
> different from an Ancient Era war to me. The biggest difference is that
> optional Knights have more relative power in the Feudal Period than
> Horsemen do in the Ancient Era.

I agree. knights have double the attack (and triple the defence) for a
little over double the cost of horsemen, musketmen only get double the
defence for *triple* the cost of spearmen. This tips the balance in favour
of attack. I don't normally bother to build/upgrade to musketmen.

However, horsemen are quite usable, even in the middle ages against
musketmen. You just need twice as many, but at less than half the cost, you
get twice as many. :)

[...]

> Horsemen are better than Swordsmen because:
>
> - Horsemen may retreat from a battle instead of dying

Veteran and elite horsemen *probably will* retreat when losing against enemy
swordsmen etc. Enemy horsemen etc., *will not* retreat from horsemen when
losing.

> - Regular Spearmen will defend before Elite Horsemen, the Horseman's
> defense of 1 can be an advantage at times.
> - Horsemen are more mobile than Swordsmen.

Which means that horsemen get to attack swordsmen two times out of three
(more with skillful play).

> - Horsemen have two valuable upgrades, first to Knights and then to Cavalry.
>
> Swordsmen are better than Horsemen because.
>
> - Swordsmen are under-priced, they are a 3-2-1 unit that only cost 30
> shields, rather than 40.
> - Swordsmen make an workable (if expensive) garrison.

No better than a spearman.

If the swordsman attacks a lone enemy unit outside the city, then the
swordsman will left in the field. Depending upon terrain, a horseman may be
able to return to the city the same turn.

> - Swordsmen are as mobile as their support troops (Spears and Catapults) so
> they have the same _strategic_ mobility as Horsemen _on_offense_.

I don't see how you figure that, unless you think horsemen need to be
accompanied by support troops on offence. They don't.

[...]

> >> The key is to win the city battle in one turn. You don't want the
> >> defenders to get promoted and heal up. I find 3 to 1 odds (Archers or
> >> Horsemen to Spearmen) to be the absolute minimum. Swordsmen are
> >> better.
> >
> >You need more horsemen in the first attack, but you will need to
> >*replace* more swordsmen for subsequent attacks.
>
> This is not my experience. If the defense is weak (towns (pop < 6)
> defended by one or two regular Spearmen or Warriors) then Horsemen have
> the edge, but they out run their follow-up garrisons and the advance
> slows. If the defense is strong (cities with combined arms defenders (two
> Spearmen and an Archer or Catapult)) then the war becomes a meat grinder
> and Swordsmen have the edge.

I disagree. If the defence is strong, then six horsemen will lose for every
four losing swordsmen, but three or more of those horsemen will survive,
which means that you need to replace 3 or fewer horsemen for every four
replaced swordsmen. Also, your replacements can get to the front twice as
quickly.

It's true that you need 50% more horsemen than swordsmen to prevail in a
*given battle, which increases the investment ante. In addition, if you've
*assumed* that you need support units, then you'll have build them as well
which increases that cost still further. No wonder swordsmen assaults seem
cheaper!

> Mike G

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----