Civilization Revolution*

[AlphaWolf]

Yeah two is doable, but I was talking about 4 on a hard difficulty.
When you start with good trade resources, you can do the same with other civs as well, using horsemen completely skipping warrior (which I do often).
And feudalism still takes time which was the point.
If the other civs start near you I'd think both Aztec and Arabs have better chance of taking them out efficiently.
Settlers for road building is only useful if you have some decent fast defensive unit to accompany them. But getting settlers early in the game, even with republic is painful. I generally go for 100 gold and steal other's settlers.

You'll get to them 3 or 4 turns quicker with zulu was the point, I wasn't suggesting zulu was the best, just that they do have some advantages. And if you're fortunate to take out arabs or something quickly, you might get fundamentalism anyway. And what I meant is that I took out 2 civs by 1000BC, the other 2 later when I had knight armies and spies to get past the pikeman.

You don't start with the warrior in the demo at least for Warlord.
And higher difficulty has a lot of advantages like tech, great person, settler stealing. When you conquer a city, it's generally efficiently populated and there tend to be many cities to conquer. If you use democracy, it's easy to keep them fighting instead of asking for truce (which I hate since you have to accept it too, in addition to not being able to declare war, unlike AI democracy civs, they can simply ask for stuff in return. I like Indians for their anarchy immunity).

Democracy pretty much makes any quick win military win impossible, you can change to despot when you need to but that costs you unless you're indian.

I'd say as long as they are not close to you tech wise, it doesn't really matter how developed they are in terms of conquering capitals.

It matters a great deal if they've built up walls and pikeman. It pretty much eliminates any chance at a quick victory. A dug in royal pikeman army behind walls is a nightmare unless you've got bombers or something.

 

[betan]

You'll get to them 3 or 4 turns quicker with zulu was the point, I wasn't suggesting zulu was the best, just that they do have some advantages. And if you're fortunate to take out arabs or something quickly, you might get fundamentalism anyway. And what I meant is that I took out 2 civs by 1000BC, the other 2 later when I had knight armies and spies to get past the pikeman.

Fair enough. I played Emperor only with Zulu and I thought they were lame.
Even if you can reach a capital before Bronze, your attack is at best 2.25 if you're lucky (or 3 if you are really lucky and AI is stupid). Capital defense is minimum 2. I wouldn't even bother that with Zulu normally.

Democracy pretty much makes any quick win military win impossible, you can change to despot when you need to but that costs you unless you're indian.

Maybe, but I don't completely agree here. First I never switch to despotism, it's either back to democracy or Fundamentalism (if you have religion and desperate for that +1). The anarchy cost is nonexistant for trade even if you have anarchy one out of three turns, which shouldn't happen.
Second there are easy ways to trick them into declaring war once you position your army.

It matters a great deal if they've built up walls and pikeman. It pretty much eliminates any chance at a quick victory. A dug in royal pikeman army behind walls is a nightmare unless you've got bombers or something.

Yeh I can see how this can be nightmare very early in the game but I've never seen it, and find it unlikely since they need a great leader, barracks, walls and democracy at the same time.
Royal pikeman/rifleman palace defense behind walls is 144????? Normally the best I see is 72 even very late in the game. I once saw 90+ but it was probably my fault.
In short I never saw any case where you need bombers (though they are great), instead of a tank army with naval support , infiltration and a great general. And you even have the free oracle (save/load anywhere system ) for attacks against higher defense.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Fair enough. I played Emperor only with Zulu and I thought they were lame.
Even if you can reach a capital before Bronze, your attack is at best 2.25 if you're lucky (or 3 if you are really lucky and AI is stupid). Capital defense is minimum 2. I wouldn't even bother that with Zulu normally.

Give me even odds taking a capital on turn 5 any day, but you also get the scouting advantage of Zulu which can really help plan, fund and set up the rest of the game.

Also zulu get overrun with 3x unit strength (instead of 7x) which is pretty huge when you're in a hurry.

Maybe, but I don't completely agree here. First I never switch to despotism, it's either back to democracy or Fundamentalism (if you have religion and desperate for that +1). The anarchy cost is nonexistant for trade even if you have anarchy one out of three turns, which shouldn't happen.
Second there are easy ways to trick them into declaring war once you position your army.

The problem is you need to switch when enemies sue for peace, because as a democracy you're forced to accept it. It's not that you need that +1, its that you need to get through their territory to get to that other capital. Often when you take a capital, (especially when you've built a military advantage) they will sue for peace, but they might have a few cities blocking your access to someone else.

Yeh I can see how this can be nightmare very early in the game but I've never seen it, and find it unlikely since they need a great leader, barracks, walls and democracy at the same time.
Royal pikeman/rifleman palace defense behind walls is 144????? Normally the best I see is 72 even very late in the game. I once saw 90+ but it was probably my fault.
In short I never saw any case where you need bombers (though they are great), instead of a tank army with naval support , infiltration and a great general. And you even have the free oracle (save/load anywhere system ) for attacks against higher defense.

I was still talking about winning by 1000AD. Bombers or fighters are about the best I've been able to do by 1000AD via oxford university wonder.

 

[betan]

Give me even odds taking a capital on turn 5 any day, but you also get the scouting advantage of Zulu which can really help plan, fund and set up the rest of the game.

Also zulu get overrun with 3x unit strength (instead of 7x) which is pretty huge when you're in a hurry.

I'm glad someone enjoys Zulu, for me they are useless as shit. Even if you are lucky enough to capture a capital early, since they don't enjoy any other useful goodies you will have to develop painfully slow (compared to many other nations).

The problem is you need to switch when enemies sue for peace, because as a democracy you're forced to accept it. It's not that you need that +1, its that you need to get through their territory to get to that other capital. Often when you take a capital, (especially when you've built a military advantage) they will sue for peace, but they might have a few cities blocking your access to someone else.

True (as I said previously), but (again as I said previously) making them declare war or switching back to democracy (from democracy) is not a big deal.

I was still talking about winning by 1000AD. Bombers or fighters are about the best I've been able to do by 1000AD via oxford university wonder.

So was I. Please refresh my memory, isn't the base defense of a single pikeman 4, same as rifleman? If so the situation you describe is 144 defense (+ fortification but let's ignore that thanks to spies). Even an elite bomber wing cannot do anything against that without very strong naval support.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I'm glad someone enjoys Zulu, for me they are useless as shit. Even if you are lucky enough to capture a capital early, since they don't enjoy any other useful goodies you will have to develop painfully slow (compared to many other nations).

I find a quick start to be huge, but I don't have any bent for any particular race really, I've won with all of them, the differences are really quite small in the long run.

True (as I said previously), but (again as I said previously) making them declare war or switching back to democracy (from democracy) is not a big deal.


So was I. Please refresh my memory, isn't the base defense of a single pikeman 4, same as rifleman? If so the situation you describe is 144 defense (+ fortification but let's ignore that thanks to spies). Even an elite bomber wing cannot do anything against that without very strong naval support.

Base pikemen are 3 defense, riflemen are 5. About the highest a pikeman army usually get to is about 45 or something.

 

[betan]

I find a quick start to be huge, but I don't have any bent for any particular race really, I've won with all of them, the differences are really quite small in the long run.

Definitely not true for me.
You can always win with any race on Deity but it doesn't mean it's as easy for all races.
If you actually check the demo of Egyptians, you can see how that's the case.
A single city going +600 trade/turn by 400 AD is not easy normally.

Base pikemen are 3 defense, riflemen are 5. About the highest a pikeman army usually get to is about 45 or something.

Let's do the math, and you correct me, because I'm obviously missing something.

base defense: 9
Multipliers: 2 (palace) * 2 (wall) * 2 (royal) * 1.5 (experience) = 12
9*12= 108?

A bomber wing (18*3*1.5) is not enough for that.

45 on the other hand is manageable even by knight army (12 * 1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5 = 40).

 

[AlphaWolf]

Base defense 9 + (100% palace) 9 + (100% wall) 9 + (100% royal) 9 + (50% veteran)4.5 = 40.5

Throw in a general and you'd have 45.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And add leadership. And a naval fleet off the coast! As for an attack 2.25 Warrior versus 2 defence archers, if you know there's a city nearby, assemble an army. If you start the game creating with your city on 100% production, 3 warrior units can be created in 10 turns and decimate any local rivals. Then you get the nicety of grown cities to advance your empire, and less competitors to worry about!

 

[betan]

Base defense 9 + (100% palace) 9 + (100% wall) 9 + (100% royal) 9 + (50% veteran)4.5 = 40.5

Throw in a general and you'd have 45.

You are right, it's additive and my math sucks (the one that gave me it was multiplicative impression).
That explains why I don't see a lot of defense though.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Base defense 9 + (100% palace) 9 + (100% wall) 9 + (100% royal) 9 + (50% veteran)4.5 = 40.5

Throw in a general and you'd have 45.

doesnt walls get obsolete in civ rev?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Never

 

[Gradthrawn]

And add leadership. And a naval fleet off the coast! As for an attack 2.25 Warrior versus 2 defence archers, if you know there's a city nearby, assemble an army. If you start the game creating with your city on 100% production, 3 warrior units can be created in 10 turns and decimate any local rivals. Then you get the nicety of grown cities to advance your empire, and less competitors to worry about!

Nice tip! I was getting my ass handed to me on higher difficulties.

doesnt walls get obsolete in civ rev?

Never

I think Ostepop might be thinking of the Great Wall wonder, which does (but normal defensive walls don't like you said).

 

[betan]

Nice tip! I was getting my ass handed to me on higher difficulties.

Let us know how it works out for you.
I personally thing a warrior army is a waste of resource. For example loosing masonry to someone else is pretty expensive.
Plus a poorly placed capital doesn't develop quickly in your hands unlike AIs.
And a closeby capital is not a bad thing. They tend to send settlers as gift, or practically defenseless new found cities.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I hate their little cities! They pile them together so darned close! Give me 3 large, well-placed coastal capitals, all with a Palace bonus, over a half-dozen littering cities any day. My preferred play is to start with the capital, explore to generate a lot of gold (topping up from the capital if necessary) and get your first free Settlers. Send them off to somewhere with more production potential, and top up the rest of the empire if needed with a few weak neighbours.

The warrior army is also only used if your neighbour is of a screen's worth of marching away, where you can hit them before they have a strong archer defence. A Zulu army rampaging around the countryside with it's accelerated speed and overrun can be a nice way to get fast growth from Barbarian conquering too.

 

[betan]

I hate their little cities! They pile them together so darned close! Give me 3 large, well-placed coastal capitals, all with a Palace bonus, over a half-dozen littering cities any day. My preferred play is to start with the capital, explore to generate a lot of gold (topping up from the capital if necessary) and get your first free Settlers. Send them off to somewhere with more production potential, and top up the rest of the empire if needed with a few weak neighbours.

I go for 100 gold settlers by exploration (+ "useless" tech selling which is very profitable business) too.
For the rest, I used to hate blocking cities. But two population-2 cities are better than a single population-3 or even pop4 city.
Obviously ideally you'd want to capture the settlers. But sometimes that's not possible and captured cities have other advantages like easy logistic to the capital in case of an invasion, or better yet cheap (don't reveal tech) way of tricking them declaring war when you have democracy. And you can recapture the city back next turn.

The warrior army is also only used if your neighbour is of a screen's worth of marching away, where you can hit them before they have a strong archer defence. A Zulu army rampaging around the countryside with it's accelerated speed and overrun can be a nice way to get fast growth from Barbarian conquering too.

Yes, but they don't get any trade, culture or food advantage while most others do. And the quicker population increase in the middle of the game is not really better than being able to build a harbor early on, or extra food resoruces given to many.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Let us know how it works out for you.
I personally thing a warrior army is a waste of resource. For example loosing masonry to someone else is pretty expensive.
Plus a poorly placed capital doesn't develop quickly in your hands unlike AIs.
And a closeby capital is not a bad thing. They tend to send settlers as gift, or practically defenseless new found cities.

How is losing masonry to someone else expensive? Because of the free wall on one of your cities? I rarely if ever bother building walls, only when I need them.

A warrior army is nice early, you can get him nicely upgraded maybe a general, and later on you just build leonardo's and you have yourself a knight or tank army all upgraded.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I tend to rush discover Masonry for the free wall and to stop anyone else getting it. It doesn't help you that much - if the enemy are attacking your capital that early on, you have other issues! But a wall in an enemy city stops those catapults being effective.

 

[betan]

How is losing masonry to someone else expensive? Because of the free wall on one of your cities? I rarely if ever bother building walls, only when I need them.

It's not the wall you are not getting, it's the one they are getting. Suppose Americans/Germans/Egyptions/Greeks are in a different continent and they likely will develop masonry early on.

A warrior army is nice early, you can get him nicely upgraded maybe a general, and later on you just build leonardo's and you have yourself a knight or tank army all upgraded.

I never build Leonardo's workshop, how having a useless (after Bronze) warrior army is related to knights or tanks?
And getting a general from warrior army is not a bet I'd like to take, it's much easier (and obviously better) with knights or tanks.

Anyway, if you are playing on deity, there is someone who is producing the tech (possibly under democracy), then that early wasted 10 turn becomes even more expensive.

For me, the surest way to win a game (on deity) is developing fast and relying on free settlers or cities.

 

[Tap In]

wow although much if this is still over my head the discussion is very helpful, thanks!

 

[AlphaWolf]

It's not the wall you are not getting, it's the one they are getting. Suppose Americans/Germans/Egyptions/Greeks are in a different continent and they likely will develop masonry early on.

I'd rather get to offense quicker to prevent that than trying to tech around someone else's potential upgrade path. You're may have to deal with walls whether you get masonry first or not, all you've removed is 1.

I never build Leonardo's workshop, how having a useless (after Bronze) warrior army is related to knights or tanks?
And getting a general from warrior army is not a bet I'd like to take, it's much easier (and obviously better) with knights or tanks.

Leonardo's workshop upgrades all of your units to the most current type you have. Warriors become tanks, archers become rifleman or modern infantry, catapults become cannons or artillery. Getting a general is a crap shoot basically you have to win an even fight with a veteran unit, I'd rather take that shot with a warrior army that cost you 30p, than a tank army that cost hundreds.

Also keep in mind that if you managed to get 2 units upgraded to elite (blitz, march, infiltration etc and then join them in the same army their special abilities all remain for the whole army. There's no doubt a warrior army isn't going to crack through archers defending a capital or anything, but an upgraded warrior army standing on a hill is great for picking off passing singles or even legion armies.

Anyway, if you are playing on deity, there is someone who is producing the tech (possibly under democracy), then that early wasted 10 turn becomes even more expensive.

I don't find masonry particularly more valuable as a tech, but it really depends on how you're aiming to win. The warriors aren't wasted if they capture cities and wipe out enemy units. And if you plan for leonardo's they are really just a tank army in waiting.

For me, the surest way to win a game (on deity) is developing fast and relying on free settlers or cities.

There's a number of strategies which work just fine winning on any difficulty. You can actually be entirely passive/defensive, and just build up culture and take your enemy cities that way.