 |
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
I think they changed the healing rate for armies, so that it's 1 HP per turn per unit, 2 in a city. I don't know if they fixed the thing with the barracks, though. I didn't know armies can't pillage; I guess I never tried it and just never noticed the Pillage button was missing. Maybe they fixed that, too.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Its easier to get Great Leaders with Horse units than it is with Legions. They suvive more battles. I am playing the Chinese for the first time and I didn't get a GL till I was nearly finished with the Forbidden Palace. That was with a Rider. A lot of horsey battles preceeded that.
Usually I don't get leaders till I have tanks as I have mostly played a builder game. My last two games I have been warmongering starting with horses. Still don't get many leaders. I think nearly everyone claiming lots of leaders is playing on large or huge maps.
Tanks do help though. Units that blitz can attack two or even three times in one turn. Two succesfull attacks or two successful defenses in one turn ALWAYS promotes the regulars to elite. Thats not luck, its programmed that way.
Oh and Riders in an army can attack three times in one turn just like Panzers and Modern Armour. Cavalry and Mounted Warriors should do the same. Works best though when you are attacking inferior troops. I got my army of riders down to one hit each and that was two elite riders in the army. One less elite and the army would have been destroyed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
Yeah, that probably explains it.
bigger map -> bigger empires -> bigger armies
more civs -> more enemies
bigger armies + more enemies -> more battles -> more elite units -> more Great Leaders
Playing on a Huge map, I got quite a few great leaders. I wasn't even playing as a warmonger per se, nor was I Militaristic (I played as the Americans), although I did make a point of finishing off every civ I went to war with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Archers are only good till you get horses. Horses really help in spreading fast not just with the attack of two and the retreat. They are far better than archers which are good for a quick rush on the nearest enemy city and with a huge map and only 10 civs you aren't likely to have cities that near.
On a standard map I desperatly need the long range moves of horses so you must be really crippling yourself on a huge map.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Thrawn05
|
 |
All Your Posts Are Belong To Ming
Dec 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vmxa1
Not having Horsemen early hurts too much.You need the two movement unit to do some things such as get to the Barb coming for your worker/improvement/damaged unit, whatever. Besides they upgrade. I rarely make archers as I do not want 1 move unit that weak. Legionare, rifleman great, not archers. |
I disagree totaly. Archers are great so long as the enemy doesn't have spearmen. Many times I have cleansed the world of civs within 50-75 with them (I turn off respawn, I hate that) with my archers.
On the contrary, I lost many horseman. They are just archers with two movement. I lose too many to make me consider building them. At times I even skip Knights and B-Line to Cavalry, buying other techs to keep up so I don't become a "backwards" civ.
Speed is not an issue for me. I look for attack and defense numbers. The bottom line is the battle, and I for one rather build a legionary then a horseman, which have a hard enough time against spearman not to mention hoplites (which I need to go up against a lot). Also, horsemen die more often from enemy counter attacks, which is the reason I feel legionary's are better then immortals.
I know my views are not that very popular, but this is my opinion. I can find one good thing about horsemen, they are good for scouting. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vmxa1
|
 |
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001
time: 21:21
|
|
Originally posted by Thrawn05
"I disagree totaly. Archers are great so long as the enemy doesn't have spearmen. Many times I have cleansed the world of civs within 50-75 with them (I turn off respawn, I hate that) with my archers."
50-75 of anything can be good, but suoerman is no good if he can't get there or gets there late.
And how long is it before they have spearmen, not long. A huge problem with archers are they can not be upgraded to anything worth while. Longbow when you finally get it is junk as Knights or better will be smacking them.
Horsemen are weak, but they can become so much more.
I must say skipping Knights is insane 
Originally posted by Thrawn05
"Speed is not an issue for me. I look for attack and defense numbers. The bottom line is the battle, and I for one rather build a legionary then a horseman, which have a hard enough time against spearman not to mention hoplites (which I need to go up against a lot). Also, horsemen die more often from enemy counter attacks, which is the reason I feel legionary's are better then immortals"
If you dropped the speed is not an issue I could go along ith you. But speed is the issue much of the time, hence you could make use of Horses. True they are not good for many jobs, but a Hammer is a good tool, it just can't to everything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
As nice as an army is, I still manage without them. In games where i take a militaristic civ, the GL's appear from defending units that are killed that same turn, and bye-bye GL...
But I agree that you should be able to unload an army and reform it. With one provision: the army doesn't disband and you don't get the GL back. It would be nice to have a standing army that you could replace the swordsmen with a Pikeman and a pair of Longbowmen.
And it would not be unfair: if we can do it, the AI Civ's can do it. Just need to write the code to allow it. It might make some of the militaristic civ's into serious killer civ's.
D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thrawn05
|
|
All Your Posts Are Belong To Ming
Dec 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vmxa1
50-75 of anything can be good, but suoerman is no good if he can't get there or gets there late.
And how long is it before they have spearmen, not long. A huge problem with archers are they can not be upgraded to anything worth while. Longbow when you finally get it is junk as Knights or better will be smacking them.
Horsemen are weak, but they can become so much more.
I must say skipping Knights is insane
If you dropped the speed is not an issue I could go along ith you. But speed is the issue much of the time, hence you could make use of Horses. True they are not good for many jobs, but a Hammer is a good tool, it just can't to everything. |
Part 1: I skip knights because Cavalry is better, and you'll be suprised if you b-line for them how weak knights becomes. Not skipping and wasting time on researching knights is insane
Part 2: Speed is not an issue. So long if you have a well thought out plane. Keeping units in certain locations for chock points and such is FAR better then having a horseman sitting around waiting to intercept an army (no, the army unit, army as in enemy units) of swordsmen. I agree speed is an issue with the navy, but not with land battles. Sure you can get your horsemen to the enemy quicker, but good are they when they get there? Pulling down the enemy's pants? Get your legions right next the enemy border in key locations THEN DECLARE WAR! Or better, don't do it at all, this early in the game reputations can be ignored.
---
The thing with Rome is that you get archers right away, and a 2/1 unit is better then a 1/1 unit. So while I'm busy hammering my enemies, I'm researching for legionaries and then I withdraw my archers, dismantle them so that I build my legionaries much more quickly. Legionaries can act as pikemen while I'm b-lining to cavalry (which on the ways picks up musketmen).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thrawn05
Part 2: Speed is not an issue. So long if you have a well thought out plane. Keeping units in certain locations for chock points and such is FAR better then having a horseman sitting around waiting to intercept an army (no, the army unit, army as in enemy units) of swordsmen. I agree speed is an issue with the navy, but not with land battles. Sure you can get your horsemen to the enemy quicker, but good are they when they get there? Pulling down the enemy's pants? Get your legions right next the enemy border in key locations THEN DECLARE WAR! Or better, don't do it at all, this early in the game reputations can be ignored.
|
That is not always possible. My present game I was at war with EVERYONE on my continent. I had to keep creating horses and sending them out to newly taken cities or my offensive would grind to a halt because nothing but horses could get to the cities in time for me to continue.
With Riders I was actually able to blitz. That is, take a city and then from there take one even farther away on the same turn. I was often expanding two cities away PER TURN. That can't be done with one move units. Can't even be done with two move units but at least with two move units I was able to expand outwards at one city per turn. It takes two to three turns to expand one city out with one move units and then you have to stop again. Have to replace more loses as well.
It took a long time afterward the rapid expansion for me to replace all the Riders with one move units which are better defenders. I didn't finish the job till I had Riflemen. I now have 52 cities on a standard map and most were taken with Riders. Early on it was Horses and the last ten or so were with Cavalry and by then it was getting hard for the Riders to handle the pike that were finally showing up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
There is one use for them. You can disband them in captured cities while the city is still in resistance. I found that artillery is ideal for that. Three or four and you have the improvement while the population is ranting and raving in the streets. Archers however, that is going to take a lot them. Them must be rendering the bodies for fat or something because they aren't worth much.
I need a Demon Barber of Fleet Street improvement to get more out of obsolete foot soldiers:
Fleet Street Barber Shop and Food Center Complex:
30 shields
Disbanded foot units pay half shield cost instead of one quarter. Units are converted into Prize Winning Pie. Does not effect disbandment of Naval Units nor Tanks, or Modern Armor.
Decreases unhappy population by one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vmxa1
|
|
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Well, I wouldn;t call Archers exactly useless.
People forget that Longbowmen come with Invention, not Chivalry. There are times, for instance if you've got a Legion military, where adding a couple LBs to an attack stack can be useful.
Also, over time I've found that I can use up my non-upgradeable units pretty effectively as they become more and more obsolete. Home Guard. Armies. Insta-builders and extra garrisons in captured towns.
It's the price you pay for early power. |
No not exactly worthless, just nearly. Yes all obsolete units can be used to make shields or do home guard duty, which is what I do with some left over legionares. Archer will be hard to use for garrison of captured towns as they will not be there for some time (too slow)and can not be relied upon to defend once Knights or better are around, which is when I tend to do my real expansion. Note that does not mean it can not be done, only that I do not care for it.
Never bothered to make a longbow in all the games I have played. I will have discovered Chivalry already and not want any Bows of any kind. Talk about a dead end unit. Yeah I understand a LB could do this or that, but tell me who would trade me one Knight for one LB? Knights are not king, but they do become Calv and smack most of their contemparies with out much trouble.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
Personally, I think I might upgrade the swordmen to knights. Knights are basically mounted swordmen, right? (I mean functionally, as they're used in the game. I'm not talking about taking a vow of chivalry or anything like that.) They're kind of a combination of the swordmen and horsemen that precede them. That way you would preserve the unit's status as an "attacker", too. Of course, you would then be upgrading a foot soldier to a mounted unit.
Cavalry to tanks isn't a straight "upgrade", really, because the unit sacrifices a movement point. But that's already the case for upgrading some of the UUs, anyway.
It would help to tie things together if there was some sort of mounted archer unit, too. I don't know if any such unit has been used historically to any significant degree.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-08-2002 00:53
, well , you should start a couple times with some , both armies and great leaders , this way you can use the unit and learn more about it , ...
|