[Spoilers!] Dave Versus Financial

[Mardoc]

Ah, Pikes is what I was missing. I do suppose taking Cuirs from 'good, but can be countered' to '' is a significant change, yes. Like Agg Praets on a ancient start.

[Ichabod]

They should ignore Walls, as they're post-Gunpowder. The confusion is that in BTS, Conquistadors are a Cuiraisser replacement, in vanilla Civ4, they're a Knight replacement.

Yes, just tested it. They ignore walls too!

[oledavy]

I just realised something. Lighthouses are free in Medieval starts. This nerfs ORG the same way EXP gets nerfed.

Yeah, combined with this map being standard size and prince difficulty, ORG is a pretty weak trait; though I did very briefly consider it combined with Rathauses.

Expect super early beserkers and 3-move galleys.

It's going to take quite awhile to research both civil service and machinery, even with financial powering his research. Overall, I'm very surprised at his decision to take FIN, given his preference for the specialist economy. It seems this time he will be going for cottages and coasts instead of scientists. Still, with spiritual he'll manage to pull in some great people, I expect an academy and a couple bulbs to push him towards astronomy. He could definitely be competition for liberalism.

Alternatively, he could hold off finishing civil service, get optics first, and time a couple great scientists to do a straight bulb of astronomy - depending on how early he wants to get five-move galleons out. This would leave him without bureaucracy longer, but it's not a enormous loss considering how underdeveloped your capital will be at that stage of the game (~t100) compared to a normal game.

Since we're going PHI, we may as well take the super early GArtist.

Yeah, sticking to that plan.

When I said a little bit of buyer's remorse, I meant not enough to make me want Rameses instead I'm mostly mad at myself for not thinking of that synergy and having to have Mackoti explain it to me. As things stand, we can pretty much guarantee that music great artist, which is exactly what I wanted. Leveraging industrious into a faux-philosophical would take too much time to have that shot. Plus, cheap universities and a therefore faster Oxford are nothing to sneeze at.

[oledavy]

Fair warning - I play FFH almost exclusively. Odds are that whatever I say is wrong, but hopefully I can at least ask enough questions that I help you organize your thoughts.

Appreciate all the help I can get Glad to have you onboard Mardoc

In order not to be totally negative: How's Inca strike you? Fake-Creative is always handy; a useless UU does mean that it provides no hints, at least.

Long Post In Which Team #3 Discusses Picks For Pitboss #6 - Includes A Long Discussion On Whether Or Not To Take The Inca

TL;DR Version: We considered taking the Inca in Pitboss #6 for quite awhile, with me being the firmest advocate. However, eventually we decided against it. It would be a poor choice here for two reasons:

1. We start with a religion for culture. There was some concern in PB6 that it would take too long to spread the religion between the three teams, but here it will be no issue. I can almost guarantee it will fall in my second city.

2. We're spiritual, which means I can flip into CS at any point and pop borders by running artist specialists. In PB6, I've been trying to time the founding of my new cities so I can pop all their borders in short bursts of CS.

So, thanks to Spiritual, we can get the most important first border pop pretty readily, and can rely on religion for continued cultural expansion. The +2 culture terrace wouldn't be too much of an advantage in this equation. Also, the quechua is a wash for a medieval start. While the Inca initially sound really appealing, there are just better civ options out there.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

The only appeal of Quechas is that you can build them for cheap MP, and apparently they can fight Longbows hammer-for-hammer. Why someone would march single longbows into someone else's territory eludes me

So, what for our Civ? Korea for PHI synergy (not sure if that useful, I expect most of our cities won't really be commerce cities besides the capital)? Or Spain for super-cuiraissers and super-siege? I don't mind the latter, though at this point I'm probably notorious for advocating spamming S12 2-movers everywhere

[oledavy]

Alright, so at this point, I'm heavily leaning toward picking Spain. Given all the discussion, probably about time I explained myself

[SIZE="4"]Why Spain?[/SIZE]



Not to pick on you Mardoc, but responding to this comment is just a perfect lead-in to my point:

...maybe something that synergizes with Gandhi or with staying alive until Cuirs.

This idea does not dovetail well with my strategy. My whole plan is to use specialists and bulbing to build a tech advantage, and leverage it into an offensive military edge. It's go broke or go home. If I come under heavy assault during the setup stage, a defensive UU won't save me. However, the RB metagame has evolved to the point that early rushes are relatively rare, and I don't expect anyone to come at me before knights - not in the medieval era when the defender has so many advantages over the attacker. Furthermore, planning to defend is just a losing proposition; no matter what, you lose. You're better off buffing your economy or offensive military capabilities instead of planning your civ around defending against an attack that may or may not come.

So with that in mind, in this game I'm betting everything on being able to go hog wild with Cuirassiers. I'm want the biggest sledgehammer possible when I go on the offensive. If I don't turn my military advantage into an economic advantage by crippling my opponents and securing more territory, it's game over. When I began looking at civs that fit well with my military tradition beeline, two stood head on shoulders above the rest: Spain and Mongolia. For now, let's look at the Spanish UU and UB.

[SIZE="4"]The Conquistador[/SIZE]



In most quick speed games, Cuirassiers have a very short shelf life and rarely come into play. However, for a medieval start, the initial tech pace is significantly slower; such that they are strong attackers for longer Additionally, cuirassiers are basically beeline-able from the beginning of the game.

[SIZE="3"]There are no hard counters for cuirassiers until rifles come online[/SIZE]

Like Agg Praets on a ancient start.

Exactly

Just compare the strengths of unpromoted contemporary units against cuirassiers:

Cuirassier: - Strength 12
Pikeman - Strength 12 (+100% vs. mounted, base strength 6)
Knight - Strength 10 (No Defensive Bonuses)
Musketman - Strength 9
Macemen - Strength 8
Longbow - Strength 6
Crossbow - Strength 6

So, basically, the cuirassier trumps, or is on par with any other contemporary units. Additionally:

But in another if I'm not mistaken comment, I think conquistadores don't ignore walls and castles when attacking cities like curassiers do.

They should ignore Walls, as they're post-Gunpowder. The confusion is that in BTS, Conquistadors are a Cuiraisser replacement, in vanilla Civ4, they're a Knight replacement.

Yes, just tested it. They ignore walls too!

As gunpowder units, they ignore walls and castles, meaning they can get half-decent odds against units in cities. For a medieval start, you have even less time to build up the cultural defenses in a city. So cuirassiers will probably be facing units with 20%-40% cultural defenses combined with their 25% fortify bonus, nothing more. Combine this with a 15% chance to withdraw, an immunity to first strikes from longbows, and a flank attack vs. siege, and you've got a really strong unit. Now, let's look at the conquistador:

Strength: 12
Movement : 2
Requires Horse & Iron
Can flank attack cannons
Can withdraw from combat (15% chance)
Immune to first strikes
+50% vs. Melee Units

I bolded the chief difference, however, the other Ichabod picked up on:

Conquistadores also receive defensive bonuses, if I'm not mistaken, which is unique for mounted units, isn't it? It's a bonus..

The conquistador beats it's best counter, the pikeman, 12 vs. 9. Additionally, it is the only mounted unit that gets defensive bonuses. So, basically, you've got a mounted unit with no strong counter. If you have a stack of these running around your territory sticking to the defensive terrain, the only way to beat them is with lots of collateral. The Conquistador takes an already strong unit and makes it dramatically stronger. This is exactly what I'd like to go for to constitute the backbone of my hammer.

Quick Note: In regards to promotions, mounted units tend to be stronger and harder to counter because it takes 10xp to get to formation for a bonus against them, compared to 5xp to reach shock or pinch.

It also means you can take pinch and be much happier against mixed stacks of pikes/muskets.

Had this in mind, between the +50% against melee and taking pinch, I could have good odds on anything I run across. I'll probably end up promoting some to Flanking II as well to knock down top defenders.

[SIZE="4"]The Citadel[/SIZE]



wrong game....



After I got all excited about the conquistador, the citadel was honestly a bit of an afterthought. Nevertheless, it also has a good synergy with my current tech path. After liberalism/military tradition, I want to prioritize steel/communism. Triple-promoted siege is nothing to scoff at. It just means I don't go through economics and corporation for awhile, which I won't require until assembly line. The only thing that might hurt is delaying Wall Street.

Mardoc pointed out:

The citadel, at least, makes sense to me; siege units are vital, and so XP on them is quite handy. But it doesn't seem vital, either. I have the impression that castles are a building you'd rather never build if you can help it...so why pick a unique that's just barely into the 'maybe build it' range, rather than something you'd build everywhere anyway?

Yeah, definitely do not want to be building castles all over the place. However, to get the effects from the citadel, I just need to place them it one or two high-hammer cities and have those towns do nothing but pump out siege for awhile.

I was envisioning falling up my initial fast-movers with slow moving stacks of three-promo cannon and drafted muskets, it will take awhile to reach rifling, but cannons will do a decent job in the meantime.

TL;DR Version: I'm heavily favoring Spain at this point, because it dramatically buffs both of the units I would like to go on the offensive with.


My second choice if I wanted to directly boost my curassier attack is Mongolia.

The Ger is well-regarded as one of the best UBs in the game. However, without charismatic, it will take running theocracy and vassalage to get to the third promo for newly promoted units. In the meantime, I can still run bureaucracy and pacifism/OR if I wanted, and get 5xp Conquistadors. The Ger would give me more flexibility, meaning I could also target and buff knights and cavalry if I wanted. However, knights are not remotely on my tech path. Losing possibility of triple promoted cavalry once I get rifling is the only real downside to passing on Mongolia. The +50% vs. melee units and ability to get defensive bonus on conquistadors is better than any third promotion.

Keshiks would be cool for the intimidation factor, but are a wash overall unless I wanted to rush someone, which I don't plan on doing.

Also, a completely non-logical reason for prefering Spain to Mongolia: I'd prefer the soft pink hue of the Spanish borders to the gross brown of Mongolia, if I have to stare at a color in game for hundreds of hours, I'd rather it be one I like :neenernee

So, at the moment, I'm favoring Spain over Mongolia. However, @Nicolae and Mardoc, I would still be open to other civ choices if either of you remain unconvinced after reading my logic. England is now off the table, but there are still several strong choices out there.

[oledavy]

Looking forward to the game and the thread, Dave.

Thanks Ichabod!

Mardoc, to respond to a couple of your concerns:

I suppose being able to get defensive bonuses is nice, except that you're putting them on a fast unit post-collateral - if you get your stack attacked, you'll die with or without the tile defense

Yeah, this will definitely be the case. We just have to hope:

A) My rivals do not have tons of collateral.
B) My rivals do not have enough units to back up tons of collateral.
C) I can outmaneuver their collateral.
D) I can overwhelm them with numbers such that collateral is irrelevant.

I'm think we can manage D, we'll have to see how it plays out.

I'm afraid my perspective is that Spain is minor boosts to your gameplan, that are just strong enough to make it obvious what you're doing, without being strong enough to really matter.

Absolutely right. If everyone doesn't see exactly what I'm doing immediately after I bulb music.....um.....

I think though, that my forces will be strong enough such that this sledgehammer will be impossible to stop without a dedicated attack by knights/berserkers before I can even get my offensive off the ground.

The only appeal of Quechas is that you can build them for cheap MP, and apparently they can fight Longbows hammer-for-hammer. Why someone would march single longbows into someone else's territory eludes me

I obsolete quechuas with maces unfortunately, otherwise they might be more attractive. However, since we're ignoring feudalism, I'll be able to build 16h archers for cheap MPs for quite some time.

So, what for our Civ? Korea for PHI synergy (not sure if that useful, I expect most of our cities won't really be commerce cities besides the capital)? Or Spain for super-cuiraissers and super-siege? I don't mind the latter, though at this point I'm probably notorious for advocating spamming S12 2-movers everywhere

Korea would be a decent choice. I would still rather a civ that directly buffs my planned offensive though. Hwachas will be a bit of a wash, but seowans are half-decent. They've be better for a financial civ though.

[Commodore]

One small game mechanic misapprehension I need to correct there. The way bonuses work in civ, they are actually summed together before modifying the unit's strength. So in your above example, it's not actually 6 +6 vs. 12 +6, but 6 +50%=9 vs. strength 12. So still the crusaders are getting good odds on the pikes, but 4:3, not 3:2.

This is, incidentally, why landsknechts are worthwhile. Against maces, rather than being 6+ 100%=12 vs. 8 +50%=12, it's actually 6 +50%=9 vs 8. Seven explained this one to me a while back, it's a bit hard to calculate on the fly sometimes but Sareln's odds calculator does take it into account.

[oledavy]

One small game mechanic misapprehension I need to correct there. The way bonuses work in civ, they are actually summed together before modifying the unit's strength. So in your above example, it's not actually 6 +6 vs. 12 +6, but 6 +50%=9 vs. strength 12. So still the crusaders are getting good odds on the pikes, but 4:3, not 3:2.

This is, incidentally, why landsknechts are worthwhile. Against maces, rather than being 6+ 100%=12 vs. 8 +50%=12, it's actually 6 +50%=9 vs 8. Seven explained this one to me a while back, it's a bit hard to calculate on the fly sometimes but Sareln's odds calculator does take it into account.

Thanks Commodore

Wall of text now edited to reflect the true numbers.

[Mardoc]

So, at the moment, I'm favoring Spain over Mongolia. However, @Nicolae and Mardoc, I would still be open to other civ choices if you remain unconvinced after reading my reasons. England is now off the table, but there are still several strong choices out there.

All things considered...I'm now ok with this plan. The key element was realizing that Pikes are a counter to Cuirs but not to Conquistadores.

It assumes you're right that a well-played specialist economy can outtech the Financial opponents, and that you won't be rushed early. But frankly, I think a solid plan beats vague goals any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Picking Spain ought to help you keep your focus firmly on the beeline, with no temptation to divert.

All in all - I give you Montrose's toast:

He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all