 |
| |
|
|
Artifex
|
|
Kentucky USA
Apr 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
At first glance I was unimpressed by Carthage, but I hadn't played them. I am playing them now and actually I think they are a very powerful new civ and I enjoy playing them.
I play on emperor and I think industrial and commercial go together very well. Also, the numedian mercenary seems to be a great deterent against being attacked. You can deter your opponents and avoid an early GA. I am almost out of the ancient age and it looks like I can time my golden age perfectly. The merc is good at taking out barbs too.
It seems the best way to play is build up your infrastructure with your excellent attributes (industrius/commercial) during the ancient age and deter your opponents with you UU, pay them off here and there..wait until sometime in the middle ages when your ready to strike and initiate a golden age, get a few wonders..and your well on your way.
Anyone else like carthage, the traits and the UU? How do you all like to play them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Artifex
Anyone else like carthage, the traits and the UU? How do you all like to play them? |
Hi Artifex, I just finished a game playing with Carthage. The Num. Merc is a prima UU, it gives you a good deal of flexibility in planning your defence ond offence, although the attack factor of 2 isnt the cutting edge statistic you need. Your neighbors show a great deal of respect to your UU as well.
In my game, just to create irony, I razed Rome when I conquered it and thus reverse the Latin saying DELENDA EST CARTHAGO (Carthage must be destroyed) into DELENDA EST ROMA 
The problem with the UU-induced Golden Age for Carthage is that you have to wait someone to attack your UU and have it get defeated, so it is difficult to calibrate the maximum benefit from your G/A. Similar problem with Hoplite actually. I think Carthage, like Greece, is good for players who like to build up a little first and then wage wars with some reliable industrial infrastructure behind you, because both Hoplite and Num Merc are designed to give you a defensive edge, roughly until around the time you can churn out knights in some meaningful numbers.
To a certain point, you can do the same with Rome as well, but it's actually a waste of potential for a unit like Legion to sit out in cities in a defensive posture, relying on its 3 defence strength like Hoplites do.
Having Rome as a neighbour is a little bit tricky for the Carthaginian player, and a lot would depend on whether you can mess with Rome's access to iron. If you cant do that, you have to rely on combos of Num Mercs and Swordsmen as opposed to the stacks of all versatile legions. Thinking on Carhage vs Rome, in some cases using horsemen stacks against legions is better, but the terrain must be open for this to work. I think the Legion is one of the most dangerous units in the game, so look out for Roman iron mines 
Carhage vs Greece is slightly different. They have the same protection problem for their swordsmen as Cartaginians do, but you are at least on more even ground as compared to Rome. But you are on better ground against Greece than you would otherwise be with any other culture, as your defensive unit also has strength 3 defence. My experience is that the most cost-effective (and in the long run efficient) way to cope with a Hoplite staring at you from behind city walls is to throw horsemen at them. Consider at least 5 horsemen to attack each hoplite, it is not a surprise for 4 to do the work in my experience as and chances are 3 of the horseguys will survive the onslaught. Whereas, 5 swordsmen take longer to reach the battlefield (even with roads), and dont be surprised only one or two survives after taking on a Hoplite in walled town. The difference might look light but in a war destined to last long, those small differences make you gain the day, and ultimately the outcome of the war.
This Horsemen vs Swordsmen dilemma is the source of discussion in many threads I remember reading not only here at Apolyton but also at Civfanatics, but I would tend to favour horseattacks against Hoplites.
Playing as Carthage, you'll have less worries about having to cope with any other culture without beefed up defensive UUs in ancient era. I practically consider Carthage as a 'France with a meaningful UU', you can enjoy commercial/industrial traits much more than you can when playing France
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Artifex
|
|
Kentucky USA
Apr 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
Hmm you use the UU in the ancient age.., but a despotic GA is a significant drawback I would think.
Whats better?
Use the Numedien Merc fully in early ancient wars..thus "wasting" your GA in despotism.
Or don't use the UU, fight with other units..horsemen etc.. and save it to trigger your GA during middle ages?
What factors into your decision to use the numedien merc in the ancient age and wasting your GA? Does it vary from game to game? Or is it cut in stone for you?
I know units like the aztec jaguar warrior are no brainers you always use them asap..and blow your GA..but it is clearely worth it, heck you can end up clearing a continent with them. No brainer.
But with the Carthaginians..it is more fuzzy..it seems like the best strategy is to never use the numedien merc in the ancient age. Does the benifit of using the merc in ancient/despotic age worth blowing your GA? I mean it's an ok unit..but I thought its main use was as a deterent in ancient era..not to be used..except to maybe hunt barbs some.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:25
|
|
I agree with your caveat on ancient era GAs. Actually I was also experimenting with the Carthaginians in my game (Large, archipelagos, regent, raging barbs). I and Rome were on a continent that was laid north-south ( me in southern end of it, they in the northern) and what happened was I blocked Rome's access to iron in the south by placing a couple of cities on the way, and apparently they didnt discover an alternative source their side of the border, so they attacked me before I made up my mind about what to do next. By then, I had 6-7 cities with an average 6-7 shields of production per turn, so when a Roman regiment of horsemen threw themselves at my Num Merc and got slaughtered in the process, there I had my GA, and actually the windfall from it (production jumped to over 10 per turn for my cities) was enough for me to produce swordsmen faster than they can produce anything.
Although I said horsemen have better survavibility in general, when your opponent doesnt have the means to produce swordsmen, making swordsmen gives you the edge. Once you decide to build swordsmen, I also added one or two Num Mercs in each stack of swordsmen I sent to battle, plus my increased productivity, overwhelmed Rome. So, my early GA didnt produce as much shields and trade as it would have in later eras, but it was enough at least to prevail in a war which gave me the mastery of the entire continent. So here the Num Merc wasnt the decisive factor in my victory.
Num Merc is good for defence, that's for sure, and yes they are great at barb hunting as well. Early wars force a choice upon the player: Either build armies made up heavily of swordsmen, or of horsemen instead (Mixed forces have their proponents, but I find them to be not as effective as it sounds). If you choose to build a swordsmen stack, then adding a Num Merc or two is definitely worth it: they provide the stack with a higher factor of defence, they dont slow the stack down and can garrison any conquered city better then the swordsmen as well. Such a stack is preferable in hilly/mountainous and jungle/forrest terrain. So here's a role for the Num Merc in tactical operations (the same goes for Hoplite as well).
But if you are relying on horsemen, producing Num Mercs are for garrisoning future conquests only, trailing behind the horseblitz. Horsemen stacks are much more effective in flat terrain. I usually wait until I have at least a 10 unit stack of horsemen before venturing into enemy territory, which is usually enough for a) taking the nearest city and b) clearing the area around the city until the Num Merc arrives for better security.
Another role for Num Merc that can be emulated by Hoplites is to put a couple of them in a trireme, land them behind enemy lines on resource squares, like iron or horse, and pillage & fortify over it. This draws a lot of attention from the border areas where actual fighting is going on and disrupts enemy's flow of production. This sure can be done with ordinary spearmen as well, but Num Merc and Hoplites are double the trouble for the enemy.
Of course, using the UU in such a forward manner risks an early GA, but it's part of the deal with playing with all of the ancient-era-UU-civs. Ultimately, of course, it's up to you to determine which course of action is approppriate or best
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
 |
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
edited: double post
Last edited by Mad Bomber on 19-02-2003 at 07:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Artifex
a despotic GA is a significant drawback I would think. |
Having the GA early allows an ind/comm civ (Carthage) to do some major INITIAL work on its infrastructure. Also allows/forces player to keep close concentration on production in the rest of the game.
I like the GA early. When its over I'm in good shape to face the future. Roads--mines--irrigation--plenty of geld in the treasury, and no reason to hold back in any other way because I'm not waiting for the optimal point to enter the GA.
In my games early GA forces micromanagement--which I enjoy. PTW is relaxation for me. Micromangement is a gas. Long Live the Numidian Mercenaries! Long Live Carthage! Long Live Micromanagement.
BTW--anyone else notice AI really s**ks at playing Rome?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
I tried playing Egypt once, and had a fairly good start location w/ luxury resource nearby and horses and iron not far away (essential to me), but I was dissapointed in my inability to produce a rather effective army very early. I worry about neighbors and want both offensive and defensive capabilities in the Ancient Era.
Rome is good for that, but the payoff is that workers are so slowww. I must group them in gangs of three to get anything done without trying my patience.
China has possibilities, but only plyed it once in a short (as it turned out) small regicide game at diety level (I'm proud I lasted as long as I did).
America is good, too, but the Scout is useless--it has a short lifespan (i.e. barbarians too close to escape).
Carthage remains my favorite, but I intend to try them all, some day.
I love huge games @ warlord or regent (doesn't appear to be much of a difference between the two), with raging barbarians, large archipeligoes (sp?) and Acc. Prod. Carthage seems perfect for this. France has the same attributes, but a later UU. I try to move quick from musketmen to riflemen so the French UU doesn't appeal to me. Carthage UU is great in the ancient world, and I LIKE the early GA. It's challenging, yet rewarding.
We all have our own styles.
Long Live Us Debating Them!
Goodnight--RMDS
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-02-2003 12:45
|