 |
| |
|
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
I've found some cool uses for the Militarytrait, even if you NEVER fight an offensive war for the whole game.
1. Half Priced Harbors: On my games on random generated tiny maps, it seems that almost every city site adjoins the ocean. (8 of 10 cities in my Chinese game on one landmass [shared with Japan], 14 out of 14 cities in my Aztec game, 11 on Pangena [nearest neighbor Irq], 2 on a twenty-something tile island [with 1 city spot free of enemy culture left in the northwest, the north eastern section is under foreign culture from a city across the straights], 1 on a five tile island [shared with Eqyptains] )
This in turn has allowed:
A. Faster trade connection with the Irq. (They built a harbor before I got alround to making a direct land connection.) It's likely that the Americans or Eqyptains will build a harbor before a natural connection is built as well due to the mountain tile choke points a road must pass thru.
B. Cheaper Rush buying of the Harbors to islands. Bringing their luxaries to them without too many entertainers.
C. More food in certain food shortage cities. (Two of my cities have a lot of Jungle, and another has a lot of hills.)
D. After hospitals, I'll also be able to use additional harbors on the core cities for exploding the commerence that much earlier due to the half price.
2. Half Priced City Walls: With the Irq as a neighbor, city walls on the two bordering cities with them were definately needed on Emperor level during the ideal time for a Mounted Warriror rush just in case.
3. Half Priced Baracks: On the Emperor level, some modern military is also needed to keep the peace along with fast healing just in case, and so being half priced let the cities start on their Court House earlier. In fact corruption was so bad initally on these city sites that I dought I could have built the Walls and Baracks without a Court House without the military discount.
Edit: Airport deleted since Workers can't be airlifted.
Last edited by joncnunn on 17-12-2002 at 03:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaveMcW
|
|
All those extras still don't add up to the value of Militaristic's greatest benefit: the ultra-early great leader.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncnunn
|
|
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
Like Konquest02, I find that barbarbian setting is the most influentical setting for getting ultra-early leaders.
Myself, I've never gotten an Ultra-early leader, the earliest I've gotten one was with France during the second war (mostly Horsemen) with a leftover Swordmen from late in the 1st war. I used that one for the Great Libary.
The most leaders I've gotten was with Eqypt: 4 but all of them in the modern era. 3 of them were turned into armies, with the 4th relocating my palace to reduce corrpution / waste in the newly annexed territory. (That palace relocation was actually a waste of time though because the game ended the next turn via domination victory.)
The other time I got a Great Leader at all with Persia, with my Calvary vs Russian Musket Men.
(4 complete games with NO Great Leaders appearing at all, including as China)
quote:
Originally posted by Konquest02
In regular Civ3, the ultra early leader is as easy to get with a military civ than with a non-military civ. The mil trait only affects the promotion of units, not leader genereation. Popping a barb hut, surviving and taking this unit to the enemy territory might generate a leader, and the process is the same with a mil or non-mil civ. You usually don't get REALLY early elite units on the AI's units because they often don't have enough to promote your guy to elite.
Thus, millitary early leader generation is not really affected. Of course, you can get early barracks, but it does not change that much.
Personnally, I only had 1 UEGL, and it was it the Babs (i.e. non-military civ).
--Kon-- |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dimension
|
 |
Columbus OH
Feb 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
It's odd that joncnunn says he finds a high barbarian setting the best way to get early leaders, then proceeds to say he's never gotten an early leader. That's fine, though, because raging barbarians and Militaristic civs are not mutually exclusive. What I don't understand is how Konquest & Arrian can both say Militaristic isn't a big deal for getting early leaders.
I've gotten over 20 leaders a couple games with the Aztecs, and I got 14 leaders when I played the AU 101 game with the Japanese.
There will never be a clear answer for what civ trait is the best, because:
Religious = fast culture (and temple happiness)
Industrious = fast infrastructure (and luxury happiness)
Militaristic = fast elites (and garrison happiness)
You could argue that any of them are the best, and with the right playstyle you'd be right. That said, I do find it pretty difficult to play anybody besides Egypt, Aztecs, Japanese, Celts and China. BTW, does anybody else find it odd that they made the Celts Religious/Militaristic, when that was the only combination that two other civs already had? Yet there is only one Religious/Industrious and only one Industrious/Militaristic.
Anyway, there's no argument that Militaristic gives you fast barracks and fast upgrades, both of which give you more elites sooner. This in turn gives you slightly earlier wars, slightly shorter wars, and slightly more leaders. How can anybody say that ultra-early leaders are just as easy with non-Militaristic civs? That's completely illogical. All other things being equal, you will build your barracks faster, you will get elites faster, and you will therefore have a better chance of getting a leader earlier.
You can still farm for leaders with non-militaristic civs. Take over a continent, rail the whole thing and leave a dark area to spawn barbarians. You can have one or two tanks per turn upgraded to Elite. Leave an opponent with plenty production, but take away the important resources, and every turn you will be able to attack stacks and stacks of weak units with elite tanks. You'll get tons of leaders. This doesn't have much to do with strategy, though. It's just a cute way to finish the game when you've really already won.
The best GL is probably the one that gives you your FP, and I really find it hard to believe that Militaristic's edge doesn't give you the best chances of that..
I can't argue against the fact that more barbarians gives you more elites, but that really doesn't change the fact that Militaristic also gets you early elites. It's not a "one or the other"-type thing. Militaristic is to raging barbarians as Expansionist is to pangea maps. You want both factors for a given strategy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimension
You could argue that any of them are the best, and with the right playstyle you'd be right. That said, I do find it pretty difficult to play anybody besides Egypt, Aztecs, Japanese, Celts and China. BTW, does anybody else find it odd that they made the Celts Religious/Militaristic, when that was the only combination that two other civs already had? Yet there is only one Religious/Industrious and only one Industrious/Militaristic.
|
Not as odd as PTW introducing two more militaristic/expansionist civs. I think the Vikings should have had a commercial trait as they were great traders and explorers as well as being prone to taking what they wanted by force. At least the Japanese start with a different tech to the Aztecs and Celts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
How can anybody say that ultra-early leaders are just as easy with non-Militaristic civs? |
Allow me to explain. First of all, I thought I made it clear that I was talking about the pre-PTW game, when barbarians would attack your units no matter what. It's no longer valid in PTW, because the barbs run away from your warrior on a mountain, and thus getting elite troops off of barbs is no picnic anymore.
Back when the barbs did that, you could quickly end up with a couple of elite warriors, whether your were militaristic or not (a regular unit that wins 3 times in succession always ends up elite). Militaristic allows cheap barracks/harbors/airports and quicker promotions, but it does nothing to the actual leader generation chance (1/16 on attack, 1/32 on defense for all civs, modified to 1/12, 1/24 with the HE).
Therefore, if you try for an "ultra early" leader by taking barb promoted warriors and hitting an AI settler team and the warriors/archers it will send against you, it doesn't actually matter whether or not you are militaristic. When I do this, it is with 2-3 units (warriors) and I do not intend to bring in reinforcements. It is limited to hitting a settler team, killing a couple of units, and making peace. If I get a leader, great. If not, I've hurt an AI civ badly.
I know that the chances of getting a leader or leaders from rushes with a non-militaristic civ are not great, so if I have a couple of elite warriors and am presented with an opportunity to use them, I will. As a militaristic civ, I probably would too, just 'cause, but in that case the trait wouldn't help me. It would help me later, when I unleash my hordes of horsemen.
I was in no way arguing that militaristic doesn't end up producing more leaders. The misunderstanding, I think, was semantics: I wasn't talking about getting leaders in the ancient age, I was talking about getting a leader before 1000bc (my concept of "ultra early"). As someone who has played a lot of games with militaristic civs, I know the power of militaristic w/respect to leaders. I was talking about a very specific circumstance.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dimension
|
|
Columbus OH
Feb 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
...you could quickly end up with a couple of elite warriors, whether your were militaristic or not... Therefore, if you try for an "ultra early" leader by taking barb promoted warriors and hitting an AI settler team and the warriors/archers it will send against you, it doesn't actually matter whether or not you are militaristic. |
I understand what you're saying, but that's a very big "if" you're putting in there. You are assuming that:
1) You are just building a couple warriors.
2) Before meeting the enemy, these warriors will encounter enough barbarians to become elite.
3) Your are very lucky in combat.
Given those conditions, it doesn't matter one bit whether you're Militaristic or not. If any one of those elements is missing, though, you must say that Militaristic would've given you a better chance at an earlier leader.
First, if you're really trying to get some early leaders, you will probably build more than just a couple warriors. With four or five warriors looking for a fight, there is almost no chance of them running into enough barbarians to all be elite by the time you find your neighbors. You'd be better off to build a quick barracks, which would also let you heal after your first attack.
I suppose I've just interpreted "ultra-early" a little differently than you. If you only mean building two warriors then getting a leader with them before there is even a chance for a militaristic civ to build a barracks, you're correct. I have to give an example of my AU 101 game, though. I built a barracks before I built anything else, and then produced four warriors. The first one found the English, and by the time the 4th one was produced, I was able to level York, pillage production around London, capture a settler and sue for peace. My first three warriors were elite, and the only huts I popped didn't have any barbarians. I would argue that, even though I didn't get a leader, I was in a position where I had a better chance of getting a leader because I was militaristic.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-12-2002 03:59
you said it better than I did.
|