 |
| |
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
Fellow War Academy members,
I feel the urge to throw a couple of words in the discussion, as I keep to hear tunes of cowardice. The question is, what way Apolytonia shall go. Should it be the way of a puny and mediocre country, led by wimps? Or shall we go the way of strength and pride? There are many discussions about the way our Empire shall go in the years to come. Here are my answers to a couple of questions, raised in discussions elsewhere.
Is it better to build more defensive units?
No. This is utter nonsense. To build more than 1 or 2 defenders in a city against the AI is braindead:
- After the REX phase (which is over soon) the AIs launch massive attacks, and it doesn't matter much if there are 2 or 3 defenders if a city is attacked by 10 or 15 Swordsmen and Knights.
- Without a good mobile attacking force, we can not retake our cities once they fall. It will be to late to start building a mobile force, once this happens.
- Till musketmen show up, the attackers have an advantage over the defenders. But they are vulnerable, as they have a low defense. Conclusion: They will always win against our defenders, but with own attackers we can push them back. And it is a long way to go till muskets, especially for those of us who prefer cultural important techs like Theology and Education.
Should we plan to give in to AI demands and extortions, as planned by some of the so called "builders"?
I refuse to answer this question, as it is so obvious. It is double-faced on the one hand to say yes to blackmails, and on the other hand to demand a "rock hard" Apolytonia. I want to be proud to be an Apolytonian. And by the way: Giving in to extortions does not hinder an AI civ to attack, or to ally up with another one that already attacked.
Why do we need a good medieval war?
2 reasons:
- We need at least one leader to build our Forbidden Palace. Only warfare can grant us this advantage. To have a well placed FP would help above all the so called "builders", so I don't know why they refuse this feature so vehemently.
- We need to trigger our Golden Age. As we all know, it is most efficient in the first half of the Medieval Age. Our UU, the War Chariot, still has a chance to defeat weakened enemies and thus trigger the GA. This will change very soon. To rely on wonder building to generate a GA is faulty. We may get a GA in a time, when it is much too late to get a push ahead. And yes, dear "builders" (I hate this word, it's so wrong): We can use a GA to push up our infrastructure, which means Libraries, Cathedrals and Universities everywhere. It will help you at the first place.
Who could be the target?
The war should begin, after the Americans are gone. If we can get a couple of good alliances (and I am sure, we will), we could pick on the Greeks.
- First, they will give us our 4th luxury, Ivory.
- Second, we can gain a strategical important port to the northern ocean.
- And finally third: Their Hoplites are finally outdated, and they don't take advantage from Pikemen, so let's pick on them before they have muskets.
What units shall we fight with?
Knights. There's no other reasonable choice.
How to obtain Knights
Not by building them, like feared by some of the so called "builders". That would be faulty and insane. What we should build, are masses of our UU, the War Chariot. And upgrade to a Knight costs 100 gold. Currently, we gain gold much faster than production, and if we take advantage of our industrious trait and quickly build roads everywhere, we can make still more money. Switching to Monarchy (its too early for Republic) would help to lower corruption a bit. And if we aren't able to upgrade all Knights, no problem, the War Chariot is a decent and fast unit to hunt down and finish off wounded enemies. Our superior human (not artifical) intelligence will help us with good tactics.
Is there a choice between Knights and Cathedrals?
I say no. We can and must have both of them. Since we will research Monotheism earlier than Chivalry, it is reasonable to start to build the Cathedrals first, at least in our core cities. Meanwhile, we should go the build War Chariots and upgrade way in the other cities. At some point, change. So we gain both, a good infrastructure and a strong army.
What is your opinion about our way to master the Medieval age? Discuss!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
It's obvious your post is a reaction to mine in the DIA thread. So I feel obliged to answer (esp. because I seem to be the one called "some builders"  ).
I think your strategy is globally flawed : because of "pride", and your extreme refusal of giving in to AI demands, leads you to guess a hazardous strategy. "Pride" has no place in Civ3. Only victory matters, as you said earlier.
The major problem is upgrade to knights : with our current tresury (+19 Lytons per turn), we'd need 5 turns to upgrade ONE chariot into a knight. That's pretty expansive.
You forget something essential : if we want chivalry in less than 108 turns, we'll have to buy techs. And techs are expansive, very exapnsive (may I remind that our whole treasury + 19 £pt still can't afford monotheism or Republic ?)
Where will we find the money to upgrade, once we have ruined ourselves to buy chivalry ?
Secondly, I agree monarchy will help regarding corruption, and it's now way too early for Republic (since we don't have 3 luxuries yet. You'll notice my suggestion of the medieval era starts after the 2nd American campaign).
But we shouldn't waste time or money to get monarchy :
- nobody researched it yet, and when it comes out, you can bet it will be very expansive to buy. Esp. since the Civ that has it will be building Hanging Gardens.
- we'll need monarchy only in the mean-time, before affording Republic (when we have our 3 luxuries). That's a very small period, and buying monarchy will prove more costly than not buying it, at long term.
You're a smart person, and I'm sure you perfectly understood what I meant by a "rock-hard" Apolytonia : I want each of our cities being able to produce what it needs, including units. I don't want our rim cities being dependant of the core for their defense and offense. What I call "butter" is an ultra corrupt ciy which produces one shield, and is unable to produce a pikeman in less than 30 tuns.
If we don't massively invest in building our infrastructure, our borders cities will be "butter", even if it displeases your pride.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
Spiffor: Yes, I was referring mainly to you, but also to those who agreed to you.
I don't know if you cared to play the Apolyton University game AU102 "Give peace a chance". It was a game with the restriction, not to be able to build military units. Emperor, if I recall correct. Giving in to AI extortions was a must, as well as trading and trying to keep good relationships. It was hazardous game. Some managed to win, but rarely without being attacked. Others (like me) got defeated in an humiliating way, although they always gave in to demands and even gave luxuries and resources away for free at good will. I gave the game up, after 2/3 of my empire was taken or razed by a big AI alliance in the industrial age. Is that what you want? Your approach sounds familiar. There is not much difference between having no army and having only a few defenders. Go and play that challenge. The conclusion will most likely be, that only a strong empire is worth to survive.
Look at the modern America. Are they strong because they have more temples, cathedrals and universities than others? No, obviously. Or are they strong because they have a strong and up to date army? In that matter, Civ3 is a mirror of the World.
What you call a flawed strategy, is basically the way, most of the best players use to play and win this game. Stick around in the Strategy forum and read some threads from Theseus, Arrian, Aeson or Velociryx. So you complain, that we have no money? Build marketplaces! They are at the moment much more important than cathedrals, as they also help to increase happiness after the 3rd luxury. Settler building is over, connect luxuries after we conquered them, and let the population grow. Let the Public works minister build roads everywhere. This will skyrocket our commerce, guaranteed. I currently play a similar game (huge, 16, continents, emperor) as the Zulus, have 41 gold per turn and am still in the ancient age. Btw without a single war so far. Why do you think this should be impossible in Apolytonia?
A cowardly, defensive strategy leads nowhere. I don't say build only military. That would be wrong. We also need all the financial and cultural improvements in our empire. But we must have a mobile military. 10-15 Knights will do. Less is hazard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
As I said elsewhere, you risk being attacked if you're too easy to conquer, no matter how much you give in. I'm actually surprised people managed to win without a single unit, even defensive. In my experience, giving in to AI demands works only if you're not too easy to conquer.
I agree having some offensive units would be neat to make our overall defense more efficient. However, we don't need to waste bulbs and money with chivalry, since the 3 attack of our swordsmen can deal with the 3 defense of knights.
Sure, knights would be better, with their ability to retreat. But getting chivalry + upgrading to knights would prove way too costly before we have marketplaces, even if we get chivalry with a bargain.
But I'm happy you consider these 10-15 knights you speak about as a protection force.
I missed an important flaw in your first post : an agressive war against the Greeks. You already know why I'm against an agressive war, but Greece seems to be the worst target possible :
Unlike other Civ's pikemen, their spearmen only cost 16 shields (including the bonus), and don't require iron : even if we pillaged their iron deposit, the Greeks would still have a great defense, that can come in swarms.
Worse, Hoplites are the Greek UU : our first defeat against an hoplite (4.8 def when fortified on a grassland, more in a city) would trigger Greece's golden age, which will use their production bonus to storm us with unbearable strength
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The first part is wrong, fortification gives only 25%. The second part (11% per citizen) I have never heard. Could you please reveal the source of this information? |
RE fort.: true, my bad.
RE 11%: I saw this in the editor, never actually got a confirmation of this so I shouldn't have posted this IMHO. Can anyone confirm this?
Btw I think you don't get a bonus for the 7th citizen and on (meaning that cities and metropolises get a 66% defensive bonus). Again, can anyone else confirm?
Another thing I thought of: most of our territory is covered with jungles. While we were able to cut down some of the jungles in the core cities, the outpost towns are still ridden with jungles.
Jungle tiles give the defender a 50% attack bonus. Knights have a defense of 3, 4.5 after the jungle bonus. Our knights will have 4 attack points against them which will give us pretty bad odds if we choose to counter-attack with knights... what do you think of this?
And another thought: wouldn't it be much cheaper to defend our outpost towns with 2-3 pikemen and one longbowman, if we choose to research invention in the path to gunpowder? The longbowman will stay in the city tile, guarded by the pikemen, and attack any enemy unit that stays in a tile adjacent to the city.
Since our outpost towns will be surrounded by jungles, knights will have to end a turn in a tile adjacent to the town before attacking and we'll get a chance to counter-attack. On the other hand, if the attacking knights are in a jungle tile then they have 4.5 defense points which again gives us lesser odds.
I'm very tired at the moment. I hope I was clear enough.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
So you complain, that we have no money? Build marketplaces! They are at the moment much more important than cathedrals, as they also help to increase happiness after the 3rd luxury. Settler building is over, connect luxuries after we conquered them, and let the population grow. Let the Public works minister build roads everywhere. This will skyrocket our commerce, guaranteed. I currently play a similar game (huge, 16, continents, emperor) as the Zulus, have 41 gold per turn and am still in the ancient age. Btw without a single war so far. Why do you think this should be impossible in Apolytonia? |
Got to quote myself, just to show that Spiffors complaints have been answered long ago. Not a Chariots or Marketplaces are to be chosen, but Chariots and Marketplaces. The order of building matters, though. And what concerns workers: Roads, roads, roads. And mines. We are industious, let's play out this advantage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Treestumpx
|
|
New Brunswick
Jul 2002
time: 01:21
|
|
Using Spiffor's number above:
20 war whariots = 400 shields = 4 marketplaces
And Sir Ralphs argument to build War Chariots AND Market Places, are we not looking at 800 shields?
I believe that the argument for 8 War Chariots and at least 4 market places at least minizes total sheild production alloted to this endeavour: 8 War Chariots + 4 Market Places = 480 shields.
Remeber that the plan requires that we upgrade the units later at a cost of 100 lytons, meaning that we would need 800 in the coffers or 100/turn for 8 turns, or 50/turn for 16 turns to upgrade the lot.
IMHO still expensive but not too expensive. Certainly not in the realm of 20 Chariots.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
With one free content citizen, at least one more from military police, a temple and two luxuries (soon) we can safely reach 6 citizens. Of course cities with access to fresh water are gonna need more military police and a marketplace, but for small cities located in the middle of a jungle and located nowhere near a source of fresh water a granary (which will allow us to produce new workers or settlers if we decide to build more and pop rush more) will be more useful than a marketplace (which will add one happy face which isn't essential and increase the commerce output by 50%, which won't matter much because the city is very corrupted).
Edit: let me clear up an important point so I don't get misunderstood here: I too am against building excess granaries, only my limit at the moment is 2.
However, once we have 3 luxuries a settlement with 2 garrisons, a temple and a marketplace can safely reach 12 citizens (unless there's war weariness, in which case we'll need entertainment / entertainers) so building granaries before cathedrals will be a wise choice IMHO.
Keep in mind: 12 citizens means Metropolis, and Metropolis means 8 free support under Monarchy. 
Last edited by Shiber on 21-08-2002 at 00:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
adaMada
|
 |
"The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Mar 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
First, I wanted to say that this is a very interesting thread that I'm basically going to listen to but not say much, since I'm fairly undecided and believe that both sides have some valid points.
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Fellow War Academy members,
Should we plan to give in to AI demands and extortions, as planned by some of the so called "builders"?
I refuse to answer this question, as it is so obvious. It is double-faced on the one hand to say yes to blackmails, and on the other hand to demand a "rock hard" Apolytonia. I want to be proud to be an Apolytonian. And by the way: Giving in to extortions does not hinder an AI civ to attack, or to ally up with another one that already attacked.
|
I do, however, think that this specific comment warrents a reply defending the Foreign Ministry's policy re: demands.
The ministry has a clear obligation to try to keep our nation out of any wars that we have not planned for and are not prepared for. As such, the foreign minister must cede to demands that he thinks will start a war unless our military branch intructs us to try to get them into a war with a civilization (something that, as far as I'm aware, hasn't happened). Of course, if we became a very powerful civilization, then the Ministry's assessment of which nations to cede demands to will change, and perhaps (dare I say hopefully?) one day become none.
Basically, however, I don't see how the ministry can possibly not give in to demands if we believe that refusing will start a war against our nation. (This doesn't address our 'charity' nations, which we generally give whatever they ask for to affect the political climate, but I think that's a different issue than the one addressed in this thread).
Please note that in this post I do not speak with the sanction of the foreign ministry, or as their representative -- I'm just giving my personal reason that I accept the necessity of giving in to some demands.
-- adaMada
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-08-2002 13:27
...).
|