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! =-----