 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
Confusion is over:
quote:
The Horse v. Spear is only slightly better option than Cavalry v. Infantry |
Horse vs Spear is more than twice as likely to be a win.
I was only estimating the odds, although I came pretty close. Odds and probabilities are related but are not the same values.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
My own wars are only those needed to secure resources.
1. If I'm sharing a land mass with exactly one oppoent, this will usally result in a late ancient era war. I usally perfer a stack of mobile Horsemen to a stack of Swords.
2. I'm not fond of early Middle Ages fighting unless I'm playing a race with a Knight replacement UU or if a second war was needed to finish the job in the above case. Also if upon my discovery of Gunpowder I have no Saltpeter and am playing the Ottomans, I may go to war with a neighbor right then to aquire it with my Knights before they reach Gunpowder.
3. My early industrial wars are only if needed to secure coal!) I try to have enough of a tech lead to where it turns out I don't have coal, I can take over some while my oppoent is still in the middle ages. Much easier to win when not facing Riflemen.
4. If when I discover Replaceable Parts, I don't have Rubber, I'll draw up military plans to secure some right away. This usally involves artillery, the left over mid inf (after upgrading them to Guerrlias), and riflemen.
5. If when I discover Oil, I don't have any and am playing the Germans, this would also trigure plans to aquire some before to discovering Mobile Warfare.
6. If playing the Germans, I try to trigure a domination victory on the strength of Panzers.
7. If in the modern era, I don't have Uranium, I'll go to war with Modern Armor & Mech Inf to aquire it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Petrus2
|
|
MB, you are right that neither is the desired. My only issue would be that in the cav v. infantry case you assumed the infantry in a city, but made no such assumption that the spearman was in a town, city, walls, anything. So really the last factor of "5" should be removed. That makes it 6:13, or roughly 1-2 odds. Still not great!
I don't have any problem attacking with horsies against spears, cause for a while it's about the only choice (swordsmen being slow to get to the front, and catapults typically, at least for me, not being built yet). Some of my horsies will retreat and not die, and I'll be trying to overwhelm the town anyway, so some losses to deprive the enemy of a town is worth it. Concentration of my force at the point of decision will bring down that spearman.
With cav v infantry, the numbers are notably worse, and in my experience there are multiple infantry defending. Sure I'll have more Cav, but it seems the overall unit ratio isn't as good as at the game beginning. Typically I don't attack at this stage, but focus on infrastructure and research. Or I go find a victim who is lagging in tech and beat him/her up  . Once I get tanks, then I'll look at attacking again. My remaining cav will be used for pillaging his lines of supply, picking off stragglers or obsolete enemy units, calming protestors in conquered cities, etc.
About the only balancing factor in the cav v infantry argument is that by this time I will have the ability to bombard before attacking, both from sea and land units, and this goes a long way toward helping, if I -HAVE- to go on the attack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
 |
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Petrus2
MB, you are right that neither is the desired. My only issue would be that in the cav v. infantry case you assumed the infantry in a city, but made no such assumption that the spearman was in a town, city, walls, anything. So really the last factor of "5" should be removed. That makes it 6:13, or roughly 1-2 odds. Still not great!
I don't have any problem attacking with horsies against spears, cause for a while it's about the only choice (swordsmen being slow to get to the front, and catapults typically, at least for me, not being built yet). Some of my horsies will retreat and not die, and I'll be trying to overwhelm the town anyway, so some losses to deprive the enemy of a town is worth it. Concentration of my force at the point of decision will bring down that spearman.
With cav v infantry, the numbers are notably worse, and in my experience there are multiple infantry defending. Sure I'll have more Cav, but it seems the overall unit ratio isn't as good as at the game beginning. Typically I don't attack at this stage, but focus on infrastructure and research. Or I go find a victim who is lagging in tech and beat him/her up . Once I get tanks, then I'll look at attacking again. My remaining cav will be used for pillaging his lines of supply, picking off stragglers or obsolete enemy units, calming protestors in conquered cities, etc.
About the only balancing factor in the cav v infantry argument is that by this time I will have the ability to bombard before attacking, both from sea and land units, and this goes a long way toward helping, if I -HAVE- to go on the attack. |
The assumption that the infantry would be in the city was not made by me. I listed the odds for both assuming the attack was made by and against veteran units and in open grassland with the defender given the 25% fortification bonus.
As for other factors not covered in the direct odd calculations, remember that a few of the attackers will lose the battle but retreat. Also, although artillery might be available for attacking, it might also be possible for the defender.
Typically, I don't use Horsemen as a main attacker, I use them as a mobile reserve and a ready upgrade for a useful unit (Knights). However, If I am put in a position where I must use them I will use them in conjuntion with foot and catapult units. Cavalry is much the same after replaceable parts. Whereas losses are heavy, but still acceptable against rifles; losses rates are unacceptable against infantry and guerilla units without the support of 'slowmovers'. Even with slowmovers, they become a support unit until motorized transportation, at which time they are only good for shields
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Petrus2
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
The assumption that the infantry would be in the city was not made by me. I listed the odds for both assuming the attack was made by and against veteran units and in open grassland with the defender given the 25% fortification bonus.
As for other factors not covered in the direct odd calculations, remember that a few of the attackers will lose the battle but retreat. Also, although artillery might be available for attacking, it might also be possible for the defender. |
Ok, I guess I missed something when I went back and read the post as I was replying. And yes, there are many factors that can apply; so long as it's apples-to-apples, it's all good.
I think we have about the same thoughts though. Artillery availability certainly depends a lot on SP or MP, since I never see the AI load up on artillery as much as a human.
All of this discussion still makes me enjoy medieval combat the most, with a little overlap on both the front and back end. Variety!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
barbeerhj
|
|
Truely...
You have not played until you have seen a Nuclear Holocaust unfold through-out the world on a Monarch level map.
I remember on one game where the world decided "Enough was enough" and vaporized a good 70% of the world population, and very much polluted most of tiles in the game. The aftermath was a very interesting scenario: devesation and destroyed power-bases. But the utter and complete distruction created really invigorated me.
One does enjoy a game where the M.A.D doctrine displays it's frightening possibilities.
-Ron
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
barbeerhj
|
|
Not very fun...for them
They were devastated, as I said, a good 70% of the world population was gone, and a lot of tiles looked like deserts with sludge.
I had managed to block a good portion of the damage with my SDI shield, and managed to dish out a lot of damage as well. I soon used my tactical advatage to rub-off my neighbors, as well as secure their resources so they couldn't mount a sufficient counter attack, even assuming they had cities with 10 shields left.
All in all, the view was very neat, atomic wastelands where there used to be grasslands. And reduced cities as far as you could see. Just be prepare to picture the world if it happened to you!
-Ron
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
barbeerhj
|
|
Indeed
It's not everyday that over 1 billion people get whiped out and the rest are force to starve. Not to mention the ecological hell that would insue....can we say 5 eyed fish and human mutants?
-Ron
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PresidentMarcos
|
|
That is nothing. Absolutely nothing. I was in one game where about 17 civs were wiped out in the nuclear exchange. Europe used to be really crowded, but then a whole bunch of cities were reduced, and that orange goop was everywhere. The French, Dutch, and Germans starved away quickly, as did the Romans, British, Spanish, and Portugese. Then the Byzantines, Turks, Hittites, Babylonians, and Sumerians. Then the Arabs, Carthaginians and the Egyptians. Then the Vikings and the Mongols. After that, global warming took it's toll. I ended up having to invade Russia to destroy their cities and use their workers to clean up the mess and irrigate the deserts. I played as the Americans, and I only lost Mexico. The nuclear war started when the Romans nuked the French, who had some MPPs, and so on, and so forth. It was horrible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PresidentMarcos
That is nothing. Absolutely nothing. I was in one game where about 17 civs were wiped out in the nuclear exchange. Europe used to be really crowded, but then a whole bunch of cities were reduced, and that orange goop was everywhere. The French, Dutch, and Germans starved away quickly, as did the Romans, British, Spanish, and Portugese. Then the Byzantines, Turks, Hittites, Babylonians, and Sumerians. Then the Arabs, Carthaginians and the Egyptians. Then the Vikings and the Mongols. After that, global warming took it's toll. I ended up having to invade Russia to destroy their cities and use their workers to clean up the mess and irrigate the deserts. I played as the Americans, and I only lost Mexico. The nuclear war started when the Romans nuked the French, who had some MPPs, and so on, and so forth. It was horrible. |
You MUST post a save, or die a very personal and horrible fiery nuclear death in your own kitchen!!! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2004 21:02
What was it like playing on after that?
Attachment: 
|