Two Gripes - One big, one small - whaddaya think?

[Thedrin]

Torn on the roads issue.

I wouldn't object if invading forces were given some kind of bonus when using the road network of the defending army.

I've no problem with enemy forces having no bonuis when using the rail network of the defending nation, e.g. Russia deliberatly built it's pre-WWI railway network so that German trains would be unable to use the tracks.

[Azuarc]

A tech advance that let you use the ROADS - even at the pre-engineering 1/2 move speed instead of 1/3 would be nice, or barring that, making Commando more accessible. As it is, I don't think I've ever had a commando, because by the time you get a unit that high on exp, it's one of your powerhouse units and you'd like to keep it's edge as it grows old.

[Badtz Maru]

I agree that Commando should be more available to some units...if they made it one of the first promotions for motorized units and maybe later infantry, it would in a small way reflect the disadvantages of using enemy roads - you'd have to sacrifice one of your early combat promotions to use enemy roads, making units that use enemy roads weaker than those that don't.

[NobleRoman]

Roads

I certainly understand the argument about game balance and the famous old artillery stack blitz. I guess the best suggestion so far is an early commando promotion, to the exclusion of other (perhaps necessary) promotions. Another way would be to change combat in the Modern era - allow impulse-based combat, so the invadee gets to move and fight in response to enemy moves. This takes the game to a different place, though.

I agree that aerial bombing and armored maneuver is a good way to speed an invasion. By the time the tanks get to the target, it's been reduced.

One thing that I have always disliked a bit about CIV games is the "all-or-nothing" combat system. With the (usually rare) exception of units with the Flanking promotion, someone's always gotta die. I would prefer to see more retreats as player options ("stand fast and lose an extra 10% of strength or retreat to fight another day)

[NFIH]

Originally posted by Solver
The basic idea was that in modern warfare, I don't have to take the time to siege them. A massive group of air units reduces the city defenses. Tanks move towards the city. Probably on the second turn, tanks are near the city, defenses have been taken out, and units weakened by airstrikes. Tanks take the city, rinse and repeat. To achieve this speed, I did it all from two directions simultaneously, one such attack from the east and another from the west. Yes, it requires that you have a considerably larger army, particularly the air force, but it's doable.

I'm pretty sure it was on a Large map with whatever the default number of civs for that is.

OK, it's just that even with units that move 2 per turn, you have to figure an average three turns just to get to each target city (at least, the ones that are removed from the border), then attack, then repeat. How that could be done in as few turns as you say mystifies me--unless the target cities were something like two squares away from each other. Not that I'm saying you're lying. But I figure there must have been quite a constellation of favourable events/circumstances for you to pull it off that quickly.

[diemex]

1. I get by this using lots of helicopters. They are decent enough units that can move fairly fast. They cannot take cities but they can clear them out if you have a tech advantage. Then you move them up the line leaving empty cities for the armor to move over and blitz... followed by infantry who hold the ground. Only problem with this tactic is air superiority. You need to be able to bombard cities with impunity to get there defenses to 0%. It works well enough though.

2. If you select marathon game you will find machine gun lasts a bit longer. But it depends on your tech tree path. I found I had SAM units rather soon after machine gun so to me they did not last long. I can not think of many other units with this problem other than the Panzer unit for Germany. I made a good bunch of these... sent an invading force... hit the enemy continent.... and then finished Modern Armor tech... obsoleting my panzers before they even saw battle. And thats on a marathon speed game.

[Blake]

Originally posted by NFIH


OK, it's just that even with units that move 2 per turn, you have to figure an average three turns just to get to each target city (at least, the ones that are removed from the border), then attack, then repeat. How that could be done in as few turns as you say mystifies me--unless the target cities were something like two squares away from each other. Not that I'm saying you're lying. But I figure there must have been quite a constellation of favourable events/circumstances for you to pull it off that quickly.

The AI will found cities as close as 3 tiles apart, so the tanks can move out the previous city on turn 1, and attack on turn 2. 2 turns per city. With cities slightly further apart it's 3 turns to advance. The key is to:
1) Use multiple stacks attacking seperate cities - one big stack moving from city to city takes muuuuch longer. Usuaully 2-4 stacks will be ideal depending on the shape of the territory to be invaded.
2) Don't let healing slow you down. Have enough spare tanks (and constant reinforcements being airlifted in) so that healthy tanks are always advancing while the hurt tanks heal up, as cities fall the healed tanks quickly catch up on railroads.

I usually budget 10-15 turns to completely annex the mainland of a typical modern era AI, map size doesn't really matter, the bigger the map, the stronger the industry I have cranking out tanks and bombers so the more seperate stacks I can have attacking. I could probably take the islands too in that time span but I'm too lazy.

Possibly the most important thing is simply having a hell of a lot of tanks and bombers, effective use of State Property + Factories and/or Suffrage rushbuy is key, going to 0% science and just rushbuying tanks every other turn is pretty effective, it's not like you need science when the enemy is too busy dying to compete in a space race.

Also fastmover escorts are needed, Gunships and Mechinf are good. If anything I tend to favor Gunships a bit more for tank escorts because they can cover vast distances very quickly (the gunships are to protect the tanks from hostile gunships). The mechinf are used for city defense and to kill off pillagers, March is a most excellent ability for defending friendly territory since you don't lose time to healing.

[Solver]

OK, it's just that even with units that move 2 per turn, you have to figure an average three turns just to get to each target city (at least, the ones that are removed from the border), then attack, then repeat. How that could be done in as few turns as you say mystifies me--unless the target cities were something like two squares away from each other. Not that I'm saying you're lying. But I figure there must have been quite a constellation of favourable events/circumstances for you to pull it off that quickly.

Basically, it's as Blake says above my post. The AI likes putting cities three tiles apart, so you can move in and attack on the second turn. And when doing this from two directions with an overwhelming force, it really becomes quite easy.

I agree that conquest of a civ in nine turns also takes some lucky circumstances (for me then, it was the geography allowing me for a very convenient attack from two sides at once), but even without that luck factor, it shouldn't be problematic to conquer a civ in 15 turns or less. That's the immense power of blitzkrieg. The downside is that you can't really do that to an enemy which is equal to you in army size and industrial capacity, but against weaker civs, it works like a charm.s

[Bushface]

My strategy is exactly like Solver's; air blitz and attack from as many directions as possible, to cut down the time traipsing through enemy territory. I have notes of some old games, in one of which I destroyed Mansa, who had only 9 cities, in 3 turns by this method using Stealth Bombers and Modern Armour. This was at Noble level, standard size, pangaea, normal speed. More usually, I see from notes that I kill 'em off at about two cities per turn, attacking from two directions.
I wish that enemy boundaries would retreat as bombardment whittles down their defences. After all, boundary limits are set by culture, as is defence, so isn't it reasonable to expect such a link ?

[NFIH]

Basically, it's as Blake says above my post. The AI likes putting cities three tiles apart, so you can move in and attack on the second turn. And when doing this from two directions with an overwhelming force, it really becomes quite easy.

I agree that conquest of a civ in nine turns also takes some lucky circumstances (for me then, it was the geography allowing me for a very convenient attack from two sides at once), but even without that luck factor, it shouldn't be problematic to conquer a civ in 15 turns or less. That's the immense power of blitzkrieg. The downside is that you can't really do that to an enemy which is equal to you in army size and industrial capacity, but against weaker civs, it works like a charm.s

Yeah, I see how that works. However, I'm newly wary of the sneak attack on my opposite border from another AI whil I'm busy pounding on another. This means I keep my "peaceful" borders heavily armed to deter any other attackers--but then I don't have a large enough force to truly blitz on the other side and so my campaigns take a lot longer. Oh well.

[Urban Ranger]

It actually makes sense. Beating up somebody your own size and tech is very difficult, while beating up a much smaller country is a piece of cake.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Roads

Originally posted by NobleRoman
One thing that I have always disliked a bit about CIV games is the "all-or-nothing" combat system. With the (usually rare) exception of units with the Flanking promotion, someone's always gotta die. I would prefer to see more retreats as player options ("stand fast and lose an extra 10% of strength or retreat to fight another day)

Yes, the Civ combat resolution is very bloody. Having a much less bloody system (more retreats) makes attacking, esp. the blitz, more difficult.

[Will9]

The only thing I need to win a war quickly is to have a large enough army and to plan what direction armies go in.






One more thing PRAETORIANS!

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by NFIH


Yeah, I see how that works. However, I'm newly wary of the sneak attack on my opposite border from another AI whil I'm busy pounding on another. This means I keep my "peaceful" borders heavily armed to deter any other attackers--but then I don't have a large enough force to truly blitz on the other side and so my campaigns take a lot longer. Oh well.

Kaiser Wilhelm II would have some serious sympathy for you

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by rah
We only have ourselves to blame for this rule.

EVERYONE said something must be done about the old artillary blitz in CIV II. Where you could destroy an entire civ using their railroad in a single turn.

SO they did something. NEXT.

quilty

I like the change

Just have more units and wipe them out just as fast