February 8th, 2013, 12:49
Posts: 4,671
Threads: 36
Joined: Feb 2013
(February 8th, 2013, 12:36)novice Wrote: Generally speaking, remember that military buildup is a balancing act. Overbuilding defenses against attacks that have low chances of happening can be a mistake as well.
I agree and actually their power graph looks reasonable. I certainly don't think that their problem is that they didn't build enough troops. I would even they that they started to build military in just about right time. The problem (part of it) is what kind of troops they built and how they utilized them. I question the composition of their army, not its size. They have axes policing backline cities; spears in the north would certainly be more useful.
February 8th, 2013, 12:56
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
Their empire management could have been better but I don't fault their current defenses. I don't understand why people think that spears would be better than axes for defending across the sea. It's not like only chariots can be carried on galleys. Obviously archers would be best, if they could afford to get archery.
February 8th, 2013, 13:03
(This post was last modified: February 8th, 2013, 13:04 by Bacchus.)
Posts: 3,537
Threads: 29
Joined: Feb 2013
I wouldn't say that spears are better than axes, but I would prefer a mix of spears and axes over pure axes in the general case. And as Gavagai pointed out, it's not the military size, it's the utilization — there is no threat, and no threat can appear, which would merit garrison metal units in the south. Such a threat can certainly appear from the north, though.
February 8th, 2013, 13:17
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
Well they have one unit per city, right? Mixes aren't possible in this case.
February 8th, 2013, 13:18
Posts: 23,428
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
Though it would question why they didn't build more warriors, and archers would have cost them less hammers...and archery isn't exactly the most expensive tech in the game.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
February 8th, 2013, 13:23
(This post was last modified: February 8th, 2013, 13:23 by Bacchus.)
Posts: 3,537
Threads: 29
Joined: Feb 2013
Exactly, I would rather have warriors in the backline, which would have saved enough hammers to have an axe-spear pair in both of the endangered northern cities. The island cities, however, really do need archery, they get blockaded and that's it.
February 8th, 2013, 13:35
(This post was last modified: February 8th, 2013, 13:41 by Gavagai.)
Posts: 4,671
Threads: 36
Joined: Feb 2013
I would actually left their only (?) island city undefended for some time, screened by a galley or trireme in the north if needed (I can't find a good picture to make an accurate assessment of situation there, so I may be wrong in this regard). But given an overall size of their military keeping an axe on this island seems like a wrong decision.
P. S. Actually, the best approach to defense for them would be to put galleys or trirems at the chokepoints. After that they wouldn't need to build any land units for quite some time except for MP. I'm not sure they had enough hammers to do it by this moment though.
February 8th, 2013, 15:24
Posts: 3,916
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2011
(February 8th, 2013, 12:36)novice Wrote: Generally speaking, remember that military buildup is a balancing act. Overbuilding defenses against attacks that have low chances of happening can be a mistake as well.
I think Sullla's earlier question about why India's farmer's gambit empire isn't larger is more pertinent than the question of where their army is. Build a strong empire so you can react to attacks efficiently and quickly if they happen.
Anyway I haven't studied India's land nor micro in detail, maybe their land didn't support faster expansion.
Pretty much this. Though having a strong sentry net does alot to both defend and discourage attacks.
Dunno why they didn't build more warriors, considering they had but a single source of metal. I always feel bad whenever I lose an early warrior because it's yet another axe or archer I'll need to build later.
February 8th, 2013, 15:35
(This post was last modified: February 8th, 2013, 15:41 by Ceiliazul.)
Posts: 4,831
Threads: 12
Joined: Jul 2010
Bacchus and Gavagai,
You guys have good ideas, you definitely should join a game. :-)
We're conditioned around here to run economies on the razor edge of crashing... if you aren't running that way then you are likely losing. In PB 4, I think, the winner NEVER built an archery unit. That mentality has surely contributed to India's upcoming difficulties.
Yes they should have a better road network, and better naval sentries, regardless of neighbors. Yes, their focus on axes (even now) is missing the point. Be aware though that this kind of attack has never happened around here before. If anything, it is India's other neighbor (Xenu) who should have caused India to increase defense priority.
That all looks different from in-game though. Very very different.
February 8th, 2013, 16:18
Posts: 1,718
Threads: 4
Joined: Apr 2012
(February 8th, 2013, 15:35)Ceiliazul Wrote: ... Be aware though that this kind of attack has never happened around here before...
It happened
|