Conquest of the New World Strategy
Skywise
I know i probably suck at strategy, but that's why
i choose 'very easy' as my game level, still i have
1 MAJOR problem.
Just last custom game i found a cool spot for my
colony right away, grass, forest, river, ocean,
mountains, flat land...i even had 2 cool locations
close to each other.
I got 2 colonies up and running, several forts,
war college, 14k population in one 5k pop in the
other, i put most money into the war college.
Independance was a piece of cake, but...
A french army kicked my butt completely.
They had about half as many units as i and i
didn't stand a chance (my war college values
were all on 2, and i had a level 4 leader)
It's like the computer could kill severl of my units
EASILY with a couple shots and i had trouble
scratching the enemy units even when i outflanked
them. On top of that my artillery is LUCKY to hit
the units in the next field while his artillery shoots
my units at homebase to pieces. What the heck am
i doing wrong ??? It's almost like someone attacking
a fort gets some kind of offensive and defensive
bonus. I lost my colony while having over 20 armies
and a few turns later i took it back with only 10 armies,
and the computer was just about as strong as before.
Why is it easier to take a colony than defending one???
Mark
Michael Gerard
maf...@psu.edu (Skywise) wrote:
>I got 2 colonies up and running, several forts,
>war college, 14k population in one 5k pop in the
>other, i put most money into the war college.
>Independance was a piece of cake, but...
>A french army kicked my butt completely.
>They had about half as many units as i and i
>didn't stand a chance (my war college values
>were all on 2, and i had a level 4 leader)
>It's like the computer could kill severl of my units
>EASILY with a couple shots and i had trouble
>scratching the enemy units even when i outflanked
>them. On top of that my artillery is LUCKY to hit
>the units in the next field while his artillery shoots
>my units at homebase to pieces. What the heck am
>i doing wrong ??? It's almost like someone attacking
>a fort gets some kind of offensive and defensive
>bonus. I lost my colony while having over 20 armies
>and a few turns later i took it back with only 10 armies,
>and the computer was just about as strong as before.
>Why is it easier to take a colony than defending one???
>Mark
1) The computer player spends money on his warcollege too. In fact, late in the
game, most all he does with his big colonies is trade for gold, trade to grow
smaller colonies, spend on war college, and make military units. I don't know
how far along you were, but how many colonies did the french have? 2? 4? If he
had four big colonies, he's likely going to have twice the military research as
you.
2) How are you engaging in combat? Are you making sure to optimize your attacks
by using Cavalry Charges, Combined Arms, and Flanking? (There are no bonuses or
minuses to attempting to capture a colony) In general, because the leader can
org 50% more troops, PLUS militia and friendly natives, it's easier to defend a
colony given all else being equal.
mig
QSI
Skywise
m...@quicksilver.com (Michael Gerard) wrote:
>maf...@psu.edu (Skywise) wrote:
And you think i spend my gold on donuts ??? :)
Get a small colony going, wood, metal, crop.
Upgrade ASAP (i think higher level mills etc... are more productive
than more lower level ones). Get a surplus production...easiest with
crop. Sell on a persistent basis to europe. Buy some goods to get
a couple commerce going. Buy 2 forts and a warcollege. Expand
businesses to get more surplus so you can trade more with mother
country (goods make MEGA bucks). Stick each cent into the war college.
I have a problem with raids:
Even if i kill all enemy troops they raid me..how come? who took it if
they are all dead ?????
>2) How are you engaging in combat? Are you making sure to optimize your attacks
>by using Cavalry Charges, Combined Arms, and Flanking? (There are no bonuses or
>minuses to attempting to capture a colony) In general, because the leader can
>org 50% more troops, PLUS militia and friendly natives, it's easier to defend a
>colony given all else being equal.
>mig
>QSI
My opinion after 3 nights of experience:
Attacking beats defending ANYDAY !!!!
You get the first attack, get cavalry to midfield, bases loaded
with canons and infantry.
If possible move in on computer cannons ASAP, with defense
research from the warcollege you can take a few hits, being
so far out front keeps the defender of a colony from getting his
troops out on the field. But don't get yourself outflanked too much.
A couple troops don't matter but 5 units on each side kills ya.
I use infantry as cannon fodder. It helps to invest some effort
to clear out the field with the enemy flag, even if you can't move
on it in the same move the computer will spend moves to occupy
his flag again and unless those armies are cavalry they can't
attack.
I just LOVE to raid my neighbourly colony, and then retreat after
having destroyed a bunch levels and raided a LOT goods.
Why produce em if you can steal them ??? :)
I once had the computer down to 1 cavalry unit down to strength 1
i just kept hitting done until i had 21 levels destroyed and 95%
raided :) It's SOO GREAT that you don't neat warehouses to
hold all your stuff :)
If you have the neccessary research, having 1.attack rules !!!
I always have trouble with that Viceroy Byon guy, one game he's
french and pounds me, next game he's dutch and hates me...sigh
i don't even know that guy :)
Attacked me twice within 5 turns with 2 armies each time, even
though i killed em all (last fight was only militia, but a bunch)
i lost MANY goods and buildings.
Armies are replentished EASILY, loosing gold, buildings and goods
hurts.
I've had a lack of production after being raided and i wonder why.
My commerce buildings still said they produce the normal amount,
but on my colony centre info it read: Goods: 0 (+0)
how come? did they steal more than i had???
Mark
Jack Christensen
In message <4nj6r0$i...@tofu.alt.net> - maf...@psu.edu (Skywise)Sat, 18 May
1996 00:49:29 GMT writes:
:>
If they killed a lot of people you might not have had enough people to run
your commerce buildings.
--
Jack Christensen
kena...@ix.netcom.com
I throw rocks through windows!
Tim Chown
Jack Christensen wrote:
>
> If they killed a lot of people you might not have had enough people to run
> your commerce buildings.
That has happened to me too (I hate the very hard level :-).
On the question of "who steals the stuff in raids if everyone is
killed?" the logical answer is that the stuff got burnt/damaged
in the attack. Any big battle in a colony will be harmful.
The CNW villages don't have external walls/internal keeps like the
middle age European counterparts.
What CNW misses is the ability to lay seige/attack supply lines;
trades should be on caravans ships, not in the "ether".
--
Tim Chown | GD Review http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview
t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk | - the games site written by gamers for gamers
Michael Gerard
Tim Chown <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>Jack Christensen wrote:
>>
>> If they killed a lot of people you might not have had enough people to run
>> your commerce buildings.
>That has happened to me too (I hate the very hard level :-).
>On the question of "who steals the stuff in raids if everyone is
>killed?" the logical answer is that the stuff got burnt/damaged
>in the attack. Any big battle in a colony will be harmful.
Actually, the concept is that (as in any military) the logistics and support
personnell are being funnelled the stuff and they're running home with it. Kinda
'symbolic' but that's the line of our whole military system. In the spirit of
that, raiding forces get a negative bonus to symbolize them being somewhat busy
in the rape-pilliage-burn section of combat (which, for time constraints, we
weren't able to include as graphics, heheheh)
mig
QSI
Tim Chown
Michael Gerard wrote:
>
> In the spirit of
> that, raiding forces get a negative bonus to symbolize them being somewhat busy
> in the rape-pilliage-burn section of combat (which, for time constraints, we
> weren't able to include as graphics, heheheh)
But in another post you said there was no advantage to attacking
or defending? So which is it?
Michael Gerard
Tim Chown <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>Michael Gerard wrote:
>>
>> In the spirit of
>> that, raiding forces get a negative bonus to symbolize them being somewhat busy
>> in the rape-pilliage-burn section of combat (which, for time constraints, we
>> weren't able to include as graphics, heheheh)
>But in another post you said there was no advantage to attacking
>or defending? So which is it?
Ah, well, I made sure to explicity pick my words: There's no "bonus" advantage
or disadvantage to the attacker or defender when attempting to capture a colony.
This is _only_ during "raiding."
(There are implicit advantages to the attacker since any player of even nominal
skill level can set his pieces up so he gets the first shot and there's an
implicit advantage to a colony defender since he gets a 50% org bonus, plus
militia infantry and artillery)
Sorry if I caused any confusion by my statements, but I have to play a careful
verbal game, keeping as my cards to my chest as possible and not giving away TOO
much info, but still answering the questions as they come up. I suppose I might
have erred too far on the side of conservativism in that last case, so I duly
apologise for that. (This whole "Usenet Spokesperson" thing is all new to me,
I'm just a code-hack)
mig
QSI
ps: Opinions opinions opinions, with just enough fact in them to make them
plausible.
Skywise
m...@quicksilver.com (Michael Gerard) wrote:
>Tim Chown <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Michael Gerard wrote:
>>>
>>> In the spirit of
>>> that, raiding forces get a negative bonus to symbolize them being somewhat busy
>>> in the rape-pilliage-burn section of combat (which, for time constraints, we
>>> weren't able to include as graphics, heheheh)
>>But in another post you said there was no advantage to attacking
>>or defending? So which is it?
>Ah, well, I made sure to explicity pick my words: There's no "bonus" advantage
>or disadvantage to the attacker or defender when attempting to capture a colony.
>This is _only_ during "raiding."
>(There are implicit advantages to the attacker since any player of even nominal
>skill level can set his pieces up so he gets the first shot and there's an
>implicit advantage to a colony defender since he gets a 50% org bonus, plus
>militia infantry and artillery)
Well, IMHO the first attack weighs more (at least once you have enough
warcollege research to hit) than the 50% org bonus. Usually when i
raid a colony with an offensive research of 4 or higher i load my base
with 9 cannons (after putting in 9 cavalry units in line 2).
The computer always puts his cavalry in his line 2, at most he ever
leaves 1 behind. So then i get my first attack and always (100%)
rid the computer of the burden of having to think about moving
those cavalry units, even have some cannon shots left for his
1 line. Then he moves his infantry forward and i either destroy
them or make them retreat. So basically he only gets to attack
with 2 or 3 military cannons (those militia cannons never hit
good anyway so no sweat there).
There is another advantage in attacking: you know what units
you have at your disposal !
I don't like what units i get from the game to defend myself.
A couple of times i ended uphaving to defend myself with 12+
cannons, 2 cavalry and like 3-4 infantry. All i could say was
geez thanx a lot...leave all my other cavalry at home..sigh
BTW i've had the computer start out with putting all cannons
and infantry on the field first and then his cavalry couldn't
get through...bug ??? Only happened a few times though...
>Sorry if I caused any confusion by my statements, but I have to play a careful
>verbal game, keeping as my cards to my chest as possible and not giving away TOO
>much info, but still answering the questions as they come up. I suppose I might
>have erred too far on the side of conservativism in that last case, so I duly
>apologise for that. (This whole "Usenet Spokesperson" thing is all new to me,
>I'm just a code-hack)
>mig
>QSI
>ps: Opinions opinions opinions, with just enough fact in them to make them
>plausible.
Mark
Michael Gerard
maf...@psu.edu (Skywise) wrote:
>Well, IMHO the first attack weighs more (at least once you have enough
>warcollege research to hit) than the 50% org bonus. Usually when i
>raid a colony with an offensive research of 4 or higher i load my base
>with 9 cannons (after putting in 9 cavalry units in line 2).
>The computer always puts his cavalry in his line 2, at most he ever
>leaves 1 behind. So then i get my first attack and always (100%)
>rid the computer of the burden of having to think about moving
>those cavalry units, even have some cannon shots left for his
>1 line. Then he moves his infantry forward and i either destroy
>them or make them retreat. So basically he only gets to attack
>with 2 or 3 military cannons (those militia cannons never hit
>good anyway so no sweat there).
>There is another advantage in attacking: you know what units
>you have at your disposal !
>I don't like what units i get from the game to defend myself.
>A couple of times i ended uphaving to defend myself with 12+
>cannons, 2 cavalry and like 3-4 infantry. All i could say was
>geez thanx a lot...leave all my other cavalry at home..sigh
>BTW i've had the computer start out with putting all cannons
>and infantry on the field first and then his cavalry couldn't
>get through...bug ??? Only happened a few times though...
Well, the first attack weighs more heavily for the human player, because I
haven't yet gotten a chance to implement this nice big "opening book" sequence
for the computer AI... although blocking in his horses sounds like a bug...I have
specific code that says "move cannons first (up to 2 per square), then horsies
(up to 2 per square), then infantry, then anyone else who can"...it's supposed to
keep him from blocking his horses (unfortunately at the expense of making
horse-pure rows in his second rank which, quite rightly, end up often getting
decimated.)
The "picking units for defense" bug has been found and fixed, although I haven't
had explained to me the exact algorythm for it, so I'm not sure on it. It will
be out with the "1.10" patch which we're still putting a few code touch-ups onto
(and then it goes into QA to hopefully find any bugs in it and sent back to us
until its ready for release)...but this'll have things like PBEM and properly
detect players being killed from the game, freely moving ships, etc...
Ken Clark
maf...@psu.edu (Skywise) wrote:
>Well, IMHO the first attack weighs more (at least once you have enough
>warcollege research to hit) than the 50% org bonus. Usually when i
>raid a colony with an offensive research of 4 or higher i load my base
>with 9 cannons (after putting in 9 cavalry units in line 2).
>The computer always puts his cavalry in his line 2, at most he ever
>leaves 1 behind. So then i get my first attack and always (100%)
>rid the computer of the burden of having to think about moving
>those cavalry units, even have some cannon shots left for his
>1 line. Then he moves his infantry forward and i either destroy
>them or make them retreat. So basically he only gets to attack
>with 2 or 3 military cannons (those militia cannons never hit
>good anyway so no sweat there).
<Stuff related to picking colony defense units snipped>
I agree completely. The bonus you get from attacking is, in my
opinion, far too large. Staggeringly large, such that I can usually
attack the AI with much weaker forces and win most of the time.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to finish off any moderately
sized enemy raiding party before losing a lot, even if I have the
colony packed with top calibre units and leaders, since the AI is
smart enough to bring a lot of cavalry to the battle.
When defending, you can bet the enemy will stack his second line
with cavalry, and you have two choices for your first counter move:
either sacrifice at least 3 cavalry units to stop the enemy cavalry
charge for one turn, or sit back and face the brunt of a combined
cavalry charge/artillery barrage. Note that, depending on the AI's
line of cavalry and supporting artillery, you may be forced to
sacrifice more than one cavalry per column to assure that your
first row will not get charged. If you forfeit any second row
square to a partial enemy attack, you can bet you will get flanked
on one of the other second row squares by the remaining cavalry.
If this happens, you will pay dearly to win this battle.
I think that the attacker should not automatically get the initiative,
since really it is the initiative (who goes first) that gives this
bonus. Instead, other things should help determine who gets the
initiative, including:
- Number, level, and possibly location of forts in defending city.
- Size of the defending city (A city with 10000 people ought to
have the resources to see a large attack coming and prepare for
it.)
- Levels of attacking/defending leader
- Whether or not the attacking army just got off a boat. I mean,
really, who can't see an attack coming when there is an enemy
warship anchored in your harbor?
- A BIG factor, I think, is how far the attacking army had to move
to get to the place they are attacking. If the attacker has to use his
entire movement allotment to get to the city he is raiding, he should
have little chance of getting the initiative. I think implementing this
simple concept would lead to interesting strategies...how close can
I move this leader this round in an attempt to gain the initiative on
the next round, and still avoid getting attacked by a counter force?
I also would like to see a few other things implemented, none of
which seem (to me, of course <g>) to be difficult to program, but
which could really enhance the military strategy of this game:
- Military units can be attached to forts, rather than the colony
center. Military units can still be attached to colony centers, but
on a much more limited basis. Colony Center upgrades should not
appreciably increase the numbers of military units that may be
attached to them. That is, as colonies increase in size, the burden
of defense should be shifted to forts attached to the colony.
- Forts may be commanded to patrol an area around them. The
radius of the patrol area and the effectivity of the patrol depend on
the fort level. The patrol would be handled exactly like the existing
non-player native villages, i.e., another unit may pass through, but
faces the increasing possibility of attack as he continues (the same
avoid/attack screen would be presented to the moving unit.) However,
a unit should be able to get through the patrol area without attack at
least some of the time, unlike the current situation with non-player
native villages.
- Forts can be built *outside* the normal range of the city limits, but
are more expensive to build and upgrade as the distance increases. Units
built at these forts should also be more expensive. This allows "outpost"
forts to be created, which can be ordered to patrol the nearby area, thus
decreasing the possibility that the colony city will be attacked by surprise.
- Forts may still be built within city limits of course. In fact, only
forces attached to the colony center and forts built within normal city
limits should be available to defend the city from attack.
- Mother country forces in the case of a War for Independence should
arrive in ships and have to move overland just like any other military
force, and the Mother Country should have the capability of creating
her own outpost forts in the New World to help wage her war.
- Ships should also be able to patrol areas. Naval patrols should be
able to limit enemy ship movement and should stop any trade route
through the patrol radius. This is how the Mother Country should
implement trade embargoes, and if the embargoed colony has a
sufficient naval force, then it should be able to break the embargo
and resume trade. This also allows *players* to stop enemy player
trades.
- It should be my choice to attempt to trade at any time, even if I
am under embargo, with the understanding that my trades face the
possibility of being destroyed or captured if they must go by sea.
- It would be nice if I could choose trade routes between any two
points, whether by land or sea or by a combination of both, thereby
avoiding known enemy embargo areas, at the expense of time needed
to complete the trade.
- Militia should not always be available to defend my colonies, depending
on the attitude of the colonists in that city and the nature of the attack.
For instance, if I have just captured an enemy colony, I should not
expect Spanish citizens to suddenly come to the aid of their new
English governor, *especially* if the attack in question is a counterattack
by Spain to recapture their colony. In fact, I should expect some of
my population to actually fight on the side of the enemy. The same
goes for the case of the War for Independence. I should expect some
defection from "Tories", especially if the war has been going badly.
Well, that should do it for now. I am patiently awaiting Conquest II <g>
kEn
Skywise
m...@quicksilver.com (Michael Gerard) wrote:
>Well, the first attack weighs more heavily for the human player, because I
>haven't yet gotten a chance to implement this nice big "opening book" sequence
>for the computer AI... although blocking in his horses sounds like a bug...I have
>specific code that says "move cannons first (up to 2 per square), then horsies
>(up to 2 per square), then infantry, then anyone else who can"...it's supposed to
>keep him from blocking his horses (unfortunately at the expense of making
>horse-pure rows in his second rank which, quite rightly, end up often getting
>decimated.)
Well, it doesn't happen very often that the AI moves cannons, infantry
and then woops..can't move cavalry...it's a rather rare occurance.
Some other things are:
- the AI often leaves military units behind and uses militia
- only on very rare occasions the AI moves several units
at the same time (do you know how annoying it is if it moves
6 infantry units on the same square one by one...
The thing where you get 12+ cannons on defense happens rather
often. Seems to happen when you have a bunch military cannons
in your colony centre, it's of small comfort that you get a lot
military units :)
Also it doesn't seem to matter if you attack or defend, the computer
uses the same setup tactics for his units:
2 cannons on the right square (from my point of view), off course when
i attack and i don't have enough cavalry to fill the front lines i
only put expendable units into the line of cannon fire.
The AI isn't much protective of its flag square either, concerning
strength of armies (and number) being left behind to protect (lets
say the computer has just 1 army at strength 1 or 2 on home base
and several others around that square but doesn't reinforce, so
often you can beat the computer by occupying his flag square
while there are quite a few of his units littered all over the place).
>The "picking units for defense" bug has been found and fixed, although I haven't
>had explained to me the exact algorythm for it, so I'm not sure on it. It will
>be out with the "1.10" patch which we're still putting a few code touch-ups onto
>(and then it goes into QA to hopefully find any bugs in it and sent back to us
>until its ready for release)...but this'll have things like PBEM and properly
>detect players being killed from the game, freely moving ships, etc...
I'd be willing to test the patch :) There is nothing as reliable as
real playtest :)
BTW IMHO any player (computer, human or others) without
colonies, military units and settlers oughta be declared dead.
Is nothing you can do with explorers, leaders and ships alone.
Oh this reminds me, the AI ignores moving armies completely.
I've never every had an army of mine attacked, the AI only
attacks ships and colonies, should be changed IMHO.
Under heavy siege i pull a leader or 2 with military units
out of the colony and intercept invaders, this is quite
useful since they don't get to raid (even though the gazette
says you were raided when there is a battle on your colony
squares). Even though i am not a master strategiest i think
this strategy is rather good, but useless to the AI since it
completely ignores armies.
Another problem (while i'm at it) is Barter with Player.
There is NO message about anything being rejected,
accepted, delivered, not delivered, nothing at all.
You select barter, select the player, then there is no
cost so you make up a deal all yourself, then click on
accept and that's all you ever hear...
You know it's unbelievable, but that 'Mission' button was
only designed for the Tutorial, I didn't see it anywhere
else, a shame really :(
Mark
Skywise
kdclark@ (Ken Clark) wrote:
>- Number, level, and possibly location of forts in defending city.
>- Size of the defending city (A city with 10000 people ought to
>have the resources to see a large attack coming and prepare for
>it.)
>- Levels of attacking/defending leader
>- Whether or not the attacking army just got off a boat. I mean,
>really, who can't see an attack coming when there is an enemy
>warship anchored in your harbor?
>- A BIG factor, I think, is how far the attacking army had to move
>to get to the place they are attacking. If the attacker has to use his
>entire movement allotment to get to the city he is raiding, he should
>have little chance of getting the initiative. I think implementing this
>simple concept would lead to interesting strategies...how close can
>I move this leader this round in an attempt to gain the initiative on
>the next round, and still avoid getting attacked by a counter force?
This only applies in multiplayer games though, the AI never
attacks your armies, this takes some strategy away from the
game.
Mark
Michael Gerard
maf...@psu.edu (Skywise) wrote:
>m...@quicksilver.com (Michael Gerard) wrote:
>Well, it doesn't happen very often that the AI moves cannons, infantry
>and then woops..can't move cavalry...it's a rather rare occurance.
>Some other things are:
> - the AI often leaves military units behind and uses militia
> - only on very rare occasions the AI moves several units
> at the same time (do you know how annoying it is if it moves
> 6 infantry units on the same square one by one...
Yes, the API I had to work with writing the AI brought on those two limitations.
>The thing where you get 12+ cannons on defense happens rather
>often. Seems to happen when you have a bunch military cannons
>in your colony centre, it's of small comfort that you get a lot
>military units :)
Yea. Well, It's supposed to be fixed soon. Sorry. Ick.
>Oh this reminds me, the AI ignores moving armies completely.
>I've never every had an army of mine attacked, the AI only
>attacks ships and colonies, should be changed IMHO.
>Under heavy siege i pull a leader or 2 with military units
>out of the colony and intercept invaders, this is quite
>useful since they don't get to raid (even though the gazette
>says you were raided when there is a battle on your colony
>squares). Even though i am not a master strategiest i think
>this strategy is rather good, but useless to the AI since it
>completely ignores armies.
Hmmm.... I think when it has an army out on the map and sees a nearby enemy army
it will think about attacking it, but won't generally pull units out of the
colony to attack incoming attackers. In our opinion, which could well be
mistaken, it's better to allow all attackers to come in and get the 50% org bonus
than to dilute our forces by making multiple external attacks.
>Another problem (while i'm at it) is Barter with Player.
>There is NO message about anything being rejected,
>accepted, delivered, not delivered, nothing at all.
>You select barter, select the player, then there is no
>cost so you make up a deal all yourself, then click on
>accept and that's all you ever hear...
Yea, I need to pass that on to the proper programmer, again.
>You know it's unbelievable, but that 'Mission' button was
>only designed for the Tutorial, I didn't see it anywhere
>else, a shame really :(
Tutorial is the only time you have "missions" and that's only to teach you the
game. No missions in CNW. YUCK. We made a "here's a big world, go play in it"
game, not a "first do this then do this then do this then do this" game.
Not to say that mission based games are BAD or I wouldn't ever in my life want to
WRITE one...but...well...that's not CNW.
mig
QSI
Skywise
m...@quicksilver.com (Michael Gerard) wrote:
>Hmmm.... I think when it has an army out on the map and sees a nearby enemy army
>it will think about attacking it, but won't generally pull units out of the
>colony to attack incoming attackers. In our opinion, which could well be
>mistaken, it's better to allow all attackers to come in and get the 50% org bonus
>than to dilute our forces by making multiple external attacks.
I just have to discuss this point. Every attack on your
colony bears a risk of being looted or even destroyed/
captured. Now no matter how many military units you have
in your colony centre you'll always be using a bunch of
militia and leave (usually) a big part of military out of
the defensive combat. I wouldn't recommend pulling all military
units out of your colony to intercept an attack, but it seems to
be enough to form an army with 10-12 units to destroy an attacker
or dilute his forces so much that you can easily save your colony
from destruction or a successful raid. Once i get a leader with a
good movement bonus i can get him to intercept several forces
far from my colonies (look at history, it's always good to keep the
war away from home).
I build just about every 3rd colony to be a warcamp (only enough
houses to have people enough for building forts, and only enough
farms to sustain them, everything else is forts, and a dock for the
needed wood/metal/goods/gold trade), this boosts the number of
armies you can have defend your colonies.
Talking of strong defensive forces, i noticed there might be a problem
with letting the game sit idle too long.
I once let it sit for a few hours and when i returned the computer
player wrecked all my colonies :(
Everything was fine before, i was attacked by a bunch of armies
every few turns, no sweat, cause the more the computer fails
the better my leader get (having a leader with 25-35 unit control
and 18+ attacks beats the heck out of those 15 units and 6 attacks
computer leader). So having home defense on autoplay (for some
reason the computer is more effective at defending me...boy do i
suck :)) the attacker didn't even get to raid anything on their
attacks. But after having let the game sit idle for several hours
in the first attack (15 units) on my war colony (80+ military units)
the computer destroyed it (*RATS*) :)
I loose colonies frequently, newer colonies in their development
stage, nothing unusual, but loosing a colony with that much defense
and a leader 3 times as good as the computer leader...boggles
my mind (not much to boggle there either ;)).
The computer player themselves aren't big on defense.
In one of my earlier games i lost all of my colonies and only
had 1 army left, it took me only 4-5 turns to capture 3 HUGE
computer colonies. The AI is definetly in favor of offensive
play.
I've never seen a computer army bigger than 15 units or a leader
with more than 7 attacks.
Doesn't the computer develop its leaders ????
I haven't had ANY problems on any level between very easy and hard
with capturing or raiding computer colonies (what good is having 30
units for defense if only 7 or less can attack ??? not much when the
human controlled player has a leader with twice that many attacks)
Mark
>mig
>QSI
Michael Gerard
maf...@psu.edu (Skywise) wrote:
>m...@quicksilver.com (Michael Gerard) wrote:
>>Hmmm.... I think when it has an army out on the map and sees a nearby enemy army
>>it will think about attacking it, but won't generally pull units out of the
>>colony to attack incoming attackers. In our opinion, which could well be
>>mistaken, it's better to allow all attackers to come in and get the 50% org bonus
>>than to dilute our forces by making multiple external attacks.
>I just have to discuss this point. Every attack on your
>colony bears a risk of being looted or even destroyed/
>captured. Now no matter how many military units you have
>in your colony centre you'll always be using a bunch of
>militia and leave (usually) a big part of military out of
>the defensive combat. I wouldn't recommend pulling all military
>units out of your colony to intercept an attack, but it seems to
>be enough to form an army with 10-12 units to destroy an attacker
>or dilute his forces so much that you can easily save your colony
>from destruction or a successful raid. Once i get a leader with a
>good movement bonus i can get him to intercept several forces
>far from my colonies (look at history, it's always good to keep the
>war away from home).
Oh, quite possibly, in hindsight, you are correct. Realize, however, that
militia units are over and above the military org of the leader... your standard
wet-behind-the-ears 15/7 leader would be 22/7 in colony defense, PLUS 4 cannon
and 6 infantry. Instead of a 15 leader, he's now a 32 leader. That was our
conclusion for leaving him in the colony.
>I build just about every 3rd colony to be a warcamp (only enough
>houses to have people enough for building forts, and only enough
>farms to sustain them, everything else is forts, and a dock for the
>needed wood/metal/goods/gold trade), this boosts the number of
>armies you can have defend your colonies.
>Talking of strong defensive forces, i noticed there might be a problem
>with letting the game sit idle too long.
>I once let it sit for a few hours and when i returned the computer
>player wrecked all my colonies :(
That might be a bug.... like 1 in every 1000 games, the AI does something REALLY
stupid and lets the opponent take his home square. Never got a chance to fix it
(yet another thing I hate about my Combat AI). You were letting the computer
play for you, right?
>I've never seen a computer army bigger than 15 units or a leader
>with more than 7 attacks.
>Doesn't the computer develop its leaders ????
Well, it doesn't go make attacks for the express purpose of gaining points for
leaders (tho if there's hostile natives about, he'll often go attack them for
strategic defense, that builds up the leaders), but it's supposed to be spending
the points it gets when it earns them. I'll have to check and make sure there's
no bugs preventing them from spending their hard earned points.
mig
QSI
ps: Tried playing as the native, yet?
Skywise
m...@quicksilver.com (Michael Gerard) wrote:
>maf...@psu.edu (Skywise) wrote:
>>m...@quicksilver.com (Michael Gerard) wrote:
>>I build just about every 3rd colony to be a warcamp (only enough
>>houses to have people enough for building forts, and only enough
>>farms to sustain them, everything else is forts, and a dock for the
>>needed wood/metal/goods/gold trade), this boosts the number of
>>armies you can have defend your colonies.
>>Talking of strong defensive forces, i noticed there might be a problem
>>with letting the game sit idle too long.
>>I once let it sit for a few hours and when i returned the computer
>>player wrecked all my colonies :(
>That might be a bug.... like 1 in every 1000 games, the AI does something REALLY
>stupid and lets the opponent take his home square. Never got a chance to fix it
>(yet another thing I hate about my Combat AI). You were letting the computer
>play for you, right?
In the beginning i defended my colonies myself, then when i got
continuously pounded (and raided) i started using computer
control.
The benefit of being the attacker is HUGE !!!!!!!!!!!
Try defeating the attacker in 4 turns to prevent looting when several
of your cavalry units fold like origami in the first attack :)
Somehow i had major trouble keeping the computer from raiding me,
until i started letting the computer defend me (autoplay), somehow
defense was MUCH more successful that way (now i might suck
big time, but i have no problem at all taking the computer out when
i attack a 16 unit army with a 10 unit army, i barely get scratched).
I wouldn't worry about the bug where the AI fails to defend the flag
once in a while...makes the AI more human hehehehe
>>I've never seen a computer army bigger than 15 units or a leader
>>with more than 7 attacks.
>>Doesn't the computer develop its leaders ????
>Well, it doesn't go make attacks for the express purpose of gaining points for
>leaders (tho if there's hostile natives about, he'll often go attack them for
>strategic defense, that builds up the leaders), but it's supposed to be spending
>the points it gets when it earns them. I'll have to check and make sure there's
>no bugs preventing them from spending their hard earned points.
It's just at hard level you see 16 unit armies with 7 attacks, all the
time, i'm pretty sure that's all basic leader with level 9 research.
Even the computer wins battles (once in a blue moon hehehe J/K)
but either he puts his points into charisma or not at all.
You must admit once the human player gets something like:
20 units, 12 attacks or better he beats the CRAP out of the
computer opponent.
I know you want the computer to play fair, simulating a human
player, but there is a HUGE difference between a good AI and
a dumb player. The AI only has an advantage early in the game,
somehow the computer can do everything faster than a human
player. But at some point you catch up, cause the computer
doesn't seem to be able to develop beyond a certain point.
(25 units, 18 attacks vs any computer force = 2 rounds +
only minor injuries). Off course this only applies for unlimited
games.
For a more even game later on it would be nice if the AI gets
some advantages (maybe more xp for battles, or an attacks/
units bonus).
>mig
>QSI
>ps: Tried playing as the native, yet?
yep...boy do i suck :)
Mark
Stephen McInerney
Skywise wrote:
> >>I build just about every 3rd colony to be a warcamp (only enough
Like this - tried it - yeah works well - But I also grow
crops/good/metals there as well - usually put these in the middle of
plains.
> In the beginning i defended my colonies myself, then when i got
> continuously pounded (and raided) i started using computer
> control.
In my latest game the cps have just started raiding (~turn 130) but its
just the struggles of a dying man. I have several good leaders loaded
ONLY with cav/arty who are making a big mess (well actually capturing)
of the cps colonies. (on hard at the moment gonna try VH when I finish
this game - wish me luck... when I really feel like being humbled I'll
try natives - gotta bad feeling 'bout them)
I 'spose I got lucky in that the Spanish started building not far from
me - you'll note I said "started" <evil snicker>.
But I've found that by expanding pretty quickly the MC's attacks are too
apread out and very inneffectual. Get a few more turns after indep. to
get the trade happening, and then its just clean up time - I prefer
hitting the native player early - their forces are not as strong (or
even close) by this stage (lots yes, powerful no) so they are rapidly
squished. (I choose them 1st as they tend to do a resonable job of
raiding by virtue of the fact that there are so many of the buggers.)
> The benefit of being the attacker is HUGE !!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah sure is, great isn't it? <grin>
My fav tactic is using only cav/arty set up like :
-----------------------
a | |
-----------------------
b | |
-----------------------
C1 | C | C
-----------------------
AAC2 |AAC |AAC
-----------------------
(BTW if anyone wants a pbem game please forget this ok? :-) )
(this is the basic config - does change occording to # of troops and how
badly damaged.)
I rotate the cavs back and forth - to maximise charge. as in C2 charges
b (with/out arty support as required) and then C1 might charge a or drop
back a square to charge next turn.
Any cav in b's row tend to get left as bloody puddles (this is where the
evil laughter that worries my wife escapes) or be 1**** - which tend to
not hurt anybody.
Where appropriate I won't concentrate on complete extermination of the
enemy - as (I've found) capturing the flag square tends to annihilate
the enemy with all my troops firing at once. NOTE: do all your shots b4
taking the flag square as ALL cav/arty get to shoot again.
The only trick I've found with capturing the flag square is that Mig did
a great job on the flanking part of the AI (Bastard bastard bastard!
;-)) and if you get flanked you can kiss those horseies bye-bye.
> Try defeating the attacker in 4 turns to prevent looting when several
5 yes, four - hmm working on it...
Its worse when the bastard launches 2 raids in the one turn - I think
the AI that sends out troops tends to underestimate the power of
Military research - perhaps this is an option to add to the spying
screen?See what levels your opponent has. Also if you capture a colony
with a research building maybe get some bonus towards your own
research?? (By this stage it's probably not really needed but just my
$A375.00 = $US0.02 roughly anyway - just love that exchange rate :-))
> of your cavalry units fold like origami in the first attack :)
> Somehow i had major trouble keeping the computer from raiding me,
> until i started letting the computer defend me (autoplay), somehow
> defense was MUCH more successful that way (now i might suck
> big time, but i have no problem at all taking the computer out when
> i attack a 16 unit army with a 10 unit army, i barely get scratched).
> I wouldn't worry about the bug where the AI fails to defend the flag
> once in a while...makes the AI more human hehehehe
Yeah I agree with your last sentiment Mark, It is good when the AI
stuffs up ... rarely. It does make it seem more human, gives a bit more
variety too - as well as a small chance of victory agasnt overwhelming
odds (too confident perhaps?).
> I know you want the computer to play fair, simulating a human
> player, but there is a HUGE difference between a good AI and
> a dumb player. The AI only has an advantage early in the game,
> somehow the computer can do everything faster than a human
> player. But at some point you catch up, cause the computer
> doesn't seem to be able to develop beyond a certain point.
> (25 units, 18 attacks vs any computer force = 2 rounds +
> only minor injuries). Off course this only applies for unlimited
> games.
I've noticed that the big limitation the AI suffers from is that it
really doesn't like trading (or appears not too). eg Last night captured
a colony with 25000 units of wood - thanks very much! bUt I would expect
the AI to be getting rid of these for gold to pump into mil research.
The colony builder AI seems to do really silly things with placement of
mines too. I always! put my gold mines in the bonus squares ('spose you
have to really) and then around the -80% gold level I'll build my metal
mines. and then on the 0% metal I'll build commerce/houses etc. But I've
seen the AI put a mil res over a +10%,+5%,-5,20% gold - no guesses for
what was demolished very pronto after capturing. Now to my way of
thinking the main thrust of strategy in the game is:
Build lots of colonies producing gold (to support an indep bid).
Then colonies to build wood
Then metal
then crops/forts/goods.
And use trade to shove it all around.
When I create a new colony I send it as much wood/metal/goods as I can
to get it upto lvl4 ASAP so it has a much bigger area to pick and choose
from.
Once indep is over (and i'm successful) I'll start trading the build up
of excess at a huge rate to drop the profits into mil res.
At this stage I'm still expanding my colonies.
Not much further on is when I go on the offensive and take out the
native villages and weak countries near me and then start sending out
specialist leaders to take out explorers.
(I leave the natives alone as the raids are pitiful and just help
increase my leaders exp.)
My colony base will have just taken a major leap and now I send my now
(very) experienced leaders to squish everyone else.
I'm looking forward to trying this strategy with the natives...
With my mil res. I concentrate on only one study at a time. Preferring
cav attack, arty attack, cav def, inf attack, inf def, art def in that
order (more or less)
I won't touch the leader res. till I've got my units res (att/def) up to
3->4. Having lots of piss-poor troops doesn't work too well for me.
> For a more even game later on it would be nice if the AI gets
> some advantages (maybe more xp for battles, or an attacks/
> units bonus).Poss less cost for mil research - to take account of its trade
limitations?
> >ps: Tried playing as the native, yet?
>
> yep...boy do i suck :)
Nope - afraid I will probably suck too... :-)
Bar my first game - tried to fed too soon... squish! And this was on
veasy too <sigh>
Steve
Skywise
Stephen McInerney <stev...@pop.mil.adfa.oz.au> wrote:
>Skywise wrote:
>I've noticed that the big limitation the AI suffers from is that it
>really doesn't like trading (or appears not too). eg Last night captured
>a colony with 25000 units of wood - thanks very much! bUt I would expect
All captured colonies seem to have this much of their goods/metal/wood
around, but when you raid it it doesn't matter if you raid 90% or 5%
you always seem to get a similar amount of loot.
You raid less than 3000 gold and 500 wood/metal/goods/crops,
and then when you capture a colony you just raided a turn before
you see they are RICH and wonder why a 90% raid resulted in such
poor loot...you never loot 10000 gold of 5000 goods, even if the raid
percentage was like 90% and they had 10000 goods.
>Steve
Mark
Christian Seitz
In article <31C0DB...@pop.mil.adfa.oz.au>, Stephen McInerney
<stev...@pop.mil.adfa.oz.au> wrote:
Yeah it sucks beeing defender or native in CNW.Native colonies can have
only level 2 and they are unable to capture european colonies. Native
cav. can't hit anything(bug?) and even if my tech is 2 level higher, my 15
attack 21 units leader(native) still gets his ass spanked by a attack 8
leader(english) with 15 units (9 cav. 6 art.).It is also impossible to
defend a friendly colony if the enemy has 10 or mare attacks and 15 or
more level 4-5 units. They game should allow the defender to place
infantry in the first rank. When I played as portugal my 12/12 leader
defeated a dutch colony with a 15/18 leader(human played) without loosing
a single unit. My First attack Killed 7 of his 9 defending cav. units(My
cav. has level(Att/Def) 6/5 his cav. 4/4 , art 6/3 , his art 7 / 1, and
his inf. has 3/8).
Christian Seitz