 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
The Merc? Really?
|
1. Relatively powerful. The AI is very afraid to attack fortified Mercs. in the Ancient age. But, unlike Hoplites, they can pull their own in an offensive (with support, of course). Human players are also often hesitant to go up against them, which makes for interesting diplomacy.
2. Cost-effectiveness. Mercs. have the best stats of any unit in the Ancient age that does not require a Resource (and the Medieval age, if you think 2/3/1 is better than the Longbowmen's 4/1/1...Berzerk's and War Elephants aside). The extra 10 Shields is hardly noticeable once you get used to it because: a) you should never lose of these guys, b) Spearmen are not really needed until you get some good production going (in other words, the shelf-life of Warriors is long than most people think, especially against the AI).
3. Personal playstyle. Many people have listed primarily offensive units as favorites. My play typically revolves around the idea that if you can defend yourself well enough (which includes not losing too many units in any confrontation), you'll eventually overcome no matter what offensive unit you can muster. And this is why I like Infantry/Artillery; there is simply nothing to be done against Bombard, and Infantry are tough nuts to crack. Mercs. just apply the same principle three Ages earlier.
4. Fun. I might grant that some UUs are better than the Merc., but the latter is still my favorite (cool animation, name, parent civ, etc.).
I hope this answers your question!
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
I figured there had to be a certain amount of #4 (fun) involved.
|
Actually, I do (currently) believe that the Numidian Merc. is a Tier 1 UU, against the AI and human alike. Fun plays a part, but I like to whoop butt too!
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
To each their own, of course. Not a tier 1 for me.
|
Warmonger!
quote:
1) Less control over GA. Or rather, you have to go through more effort to avoid an early GA via AI sneak attack. It can be done, sure. I've done it. It's just kinda a pain.
|
AI sneak attacks can be a pain, but then again you can usually avoid them diplomatically (or, even harder, strategically). You're right that this takes more work, but that's not argument against Mercs. being Tier 1. Often, the Mercs. need not be used at all until well into the Medieval age, so there is quite a bit of leeway for when GA triggering. For instance, you can embark on an offensive war without using Mercs. at all! The same cannot really be said for some other UUs, like the War Chariot or the Legionary (although this is problem with Rome's traits more than anything, since without the Legionary Rome is...sub par).
quote:
2) +1 offense on a defensive unit :shrug: I've only rarely used Mercs to attack anything.
|
It's all about attrition. How many times have you been defending with Spearmen or Pikemen, and lacked units to counter-attack? I imagine not often, given your play-style. But I'm sure you can see the advantage of keeping all your offensive units at full health, while your big-butt defensive units mop up the stragglers.
Another point I forgot to mention: along with the Hoplite, Rider and Berzerk, the Numidian Mercenary is in the class of units that the AI simply "cannot deal with". The "mistakes" the AI makes when facing Mercs. often offset an early GA (I know this from my No Improvement Challenge game).
But...to each his or her own (UU). You asked for explanation, and I've given one!
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
For instance, you can embark on an offensive war without using Mercs. at all! |
Yep, done it. Swords & Horsies with no defender backup (normally, I'd bring a couple of spearmen). It worked just fine.
I certainly admit that having a defensive UU allows less contraints on one's offensive operations if you're worried about GA timing (which I am), unlike Rome (Egypt too to some extent, but the upgrade path of the WC makes it a lot more flexible).
As for counterattacking... hmm, I very rarely encounter a situation where I don't have enough attack units to do the job. In a recently completed Carthage game, I did use Mercs to attack. Twice. Once simply to trigger my GA. The other time I legitimately needed to kill an AI unit (bastard killed my horseman) that otherwise would have forced me to move some workers.
Anyway, I'm just in the mood to debate stuff today, and the Merc is, well, debateable. 
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nakar Gabab
|
|
of Pedantic Nitpicking
May 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
I have to agree with Dominae about the Infantry being the best standard unit. Actually, I already DID, but it merits further explanation!
Short of the obvious benefits of an Infantry/Artillery stack, there are many reasons why the Infantry outstrips the pack:
1) Cost: Infantry are reasonably cheap, especially compared to prior upgrades of the Spearman line. You're sure to have plenty of them, they're likely to already be in place for upgrades (since most will be in cities), and their low price (even to build new) means you can spread 'em all over your empire.
2) Availability: I don't think I've ever NOT had rubber. Oh, I'm sure it happens, but it's easy to secure it and it never goes away. Once you have one, you have all the infantry you need. Park said infantry on said rubber, and you're golden.
3) Power: 10 defense in an era where the best attack is 8 (Sipahi)? AND it gets fortification bonuses (and it will)? AND it gets city defense bonuses? That's gonna sting those cavalry, and even artillery has a tough time wearing down a defender.
4) Lockdown: If you get Infantry and a lead, the game is over. Without extensive (and slow) counter-warfare with Artillery and your own Infantry, the game passes from the "just about over" stage to the "completely over" stage. Humans or AI, for that matter. It's just too tough a nut to crack, and by the time you have tanks, odds are whoever has the lead and Infantry have MORE tanks. Too bad.
Sure, other units are more IMPORTANT in the grand scheme of things. Horsemen and Swordsmen are more IMPORTANT than other regular units because of what they can do. But for my money, no matter my playstyle for the day, the one unit I love to see in every game and hate to see against me is the good old Infantry. Show love to the doughboys.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Yeah, I hear a lot of people around here talking about modern wars... me, I hope I never see one. By the time infantry shows up, it's to keep my empire virtually unassailible, while I swallow up those that do NOT have infantrymen.
|
Time for you to move up a notch in the difficulty scale...
Arrian, since a debate is what you want (!!), might I venture a guess? The main reason why you and others do not think the Numidian Mercenary is that impressive is that it rarely enters battle. And units that do not get a chance to strut their stuff are not that great, right? Wrong. The AI is not only afraid to declare war on you because of your military rating, it's also afraid to simply attack a given Merc. in the field. This means the AI will march around your beautiful stacks, while you pick off their units and pillage their improvements at will. The "untouchable" Army effect is present in each and every Merc. (it's not this drastic, but you get my point). Of course, this is also an argument for the Hoplite, which is why I think the +1 Attack on the Merc. is actually pretty cool: untouchable on defense, and sting on offense! And so what if your Mercs. never enter battle? They're not going to obsolete anytime soon, as they're useful well into the Medieval age.
If you think the Merc. is just a dirty trick against the AI (which it is, IMO), just check out what Mercs. can do when they're put to action in MP games! Here the early GA is a small price to pay for what is generally considered the best MP unit (as far as I've heard).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Arrian, since a debate is what you want (!!), might I venture a guess? The main reason why you and others do not think the Numidian Mercenary is that impressive is that it rarely enters battle. And units that do not get a chance to strut their stuff are not that great, right? |
Nope, that's not my reasoning. First of all, I've seen the Merc in action (or rather, the AI running around it). Second, even if I hadn't, I've seen pikemen and archers (pikeman + archer -> one unit = Merc).
You are quite right that the AI is scared of the Merc (just like it is scared of the Legionary) and that's an advantage. However, if you put it in the field, they will eventually attack one and trigger your GA. Same thing with Legionaries. The AI will typically dance around them, but if they pull together several archers at once, they will try to overwhelm one.
Hell, I remember a Regent game my girlfriend was playing as Carthage... the Romans were stuck in a crappy part of the continent and there was a chokepoint. I had her build a city over there and stick a Merc up on a hill, fortified, blocking the Romans. They declared war and hit the Merc with a warrior (which WON  ). So yeah, generally they avoid it, but the AI will hit that unit.
It's not that the Merc is a bad unit. It's that there are several others I'd rather have.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
 |
The Heavens
Dec 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Time for you to move up a notch in the difficulty scale...
|
Hey, buster! I've still got to attain victories as the Arabs, Germans, Indians, Aztecs, English, Egyptians, Zulu, Koreans, Americans, Celts and Carthaginians... but THEN I'll move up! And then I'll... I'll.. be BETTER THAN YOU ALL!!! YEAH!!! THAT'S IT!!! 
Of course, by the time that happens, I might have another eight civs to win as...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Yahweh, you could just play those remaining civs at a higher difficulty level. It might be more fun. Just a suggestion.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mountain Sage
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Hey, buster! I've still got to attain victories as the Arabs, Germans, Indians, Aztecs, English, Egyptians, Zulu, Koreans, Americans, Celts and Carthaginians... but THEN I'll move up! And then I'll... I'll.. be BETTER THAN YOU ALL!!! YEAH!!! THAT'S IT!!!
Of course, by the time that happens, I might have another eight civs to win as... |
YS,
Dominae has a good point. You should go up a level. If you finish all the remaining civs at Regent, then start again at Monarch, then at Emperor, by the time you'll be through we will all be playing Civ5 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Play at whichever level you find fun, and whichever style you find fun.
|
I would like to get one thing straight: I'm not criticizing anyone for playing at their chosen level of difficulty (ok, I would probably criticize if someone enjoyed played at Chieftain and posted here regularly!).
My purpose in pushing people to go up a difficulty-notch is twofold: 1) I want people to get better (AU, yeah!), 2) as much possible, I do not want strategy talk to be tainted by the differences in difficulty level.
I know this second hope is somewhat unrealisitc; early warmongering is just really hard on Deity. But in the Regent to Emperor range, I believe certain strategies are constant. But sometimes people's "arguments" for their personal strategy come out of a expectation how games are supposed to play out. And so comments like: "the Industrial age is not important because I always seal up the game with Cavalry", or "I never build the Pyramids because I can just capture it", or even "I always go for a Science city (requiring, The Colossus, Copernicus', Newton's, etc.), are no so much strategic advice as reports as to how your games play out at the difficulty level you play on. I have no problem if anyone derives enjoyment from these types of games (I certainly like to seal things up before the Industrial!), but it's misleading to label them as "strategy".
Regent strategy is different from Deity strategy. And some things are good strategy at all difficulties (for instance, good FP placement). I think it's important to make the difference between strategy that is only applicable at a certain level of difficulty, and strategy that is applicable across levels. The clearest example is tech: on Emperor you can (still) do quite well just buying techs from the leaders, while on Regent you're better off doing your own research.
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 16-05-2003 at 20:47
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-05-2003 08:31
|