How Do You Guys Ever Win?

[BigWilly1974]

If you auto-attack with a stack, the computer should put attack in the order that makes most sense from an odds of winning. It's not always so straightforward if you have catapults/trebs in your stack, so I typically handle the siege units myself, and then let the computer handle the stack attack in most - not all - cases.

In your example, if the knights are attacking first, it's likely because the odds of you winning if the maceman attacked first is even worse.

But the most important thing, if you're attacking a stack, use the catapults first to weaken the whole stack then attack with the macemen and knights in whatever order makes sense based on the types and strength of the AI units defending. Catapults, like it or not, are throw away units, but even though you lose them, it saves you many regular military units in the long run.

[wodan11]

I never do a stack attack. I look at the defenders and choose the unit I want to attack, and the order in which I want them to go.

Sometimes the best choice is to first send in a unit you know will almost certainly die, to weaken one strong defender, after which your other units can mop up.

You will never learn these kind of tactics if you do stack attacks.

Simply watching the dumb order that the AI sometimes does attacks should convince you that some things are better under your control.

Wodan

[MrWhereItsAt]

I concur with wodan11 - often I have a stack of veteran units I want to promote mixed with new units with lower experience points. I often attack with the lower exp units first - they die, or if they survive against improbable odds they got a metric ****ton of exp points. They will usually at least damage the defenders to the point that the vets can clean them up relatively safely, gaining more exps in the process. You gotta replace the cannon fodder troops after this though.

Another tactic, which I have been using recently, is to put a Spy in the enemy city before you attack. If you have devoted some espionage points to that civ, you hopefully have enough for the Spy to support a revolt in the city. That causes a one turn revolt, meaning that the defense bonus of the city from culture and walls is ZERO. Like bombarding with Catapults etc for a while, except without the waiting, and only for one turn. It works wonders. Note that the longer the Spy sits in the city, the cheaper (i.e. less exp points) it is to support this revolt, but the more likely it is the Spy will be discovered and lost. This tactic works on enemy capitals too!

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

Another tactic, which I have been using recently, is to put a Spy in the enemy city before you attack. If you have devoted some espionage points to that civ, you hopefully have enough for the Spy to support a revolt in the city. That causes a one turn revolt, meaning that the defense bonus of the city from culture and walls is ZERO. Like bombarding with Catapults etc for a while, except without the waiting, and only for one turn. It works wonders. Note that the longer the Spy sits in the city, the cheaper (i.e. less exp points) it is to support this revolt, but the more likely it is the Spy will be discovered and lost. This tactic works on enemy capitals too!

[Lancer]

[Proteus_MST]

Yes, it is especially worth its spy points, when you still have "only" Trebuchets and Catapults and therefore would have to spend several turns bombarding till the +50 or even +100 defense from walls (+castle) are reduced to adequate low levels.
I normally have around 2 spies in my armies during the early wars (as it is probable that at least one of them gets detected).

In later wars it´s of course no problem as artillery, destroyers or planes are the bane of any cultural defense

[Jaybe]

Yeah, that revolting thing to let your troops in through the main gate of the city works well. It also leaves a bitter taste in my mouth if I just do it repetitively. So now I save it for those special occasions and use traditional bombardment usually.

[BigWilly1974]

I actually feel as though the support city revolt with spies is way too cheap. I've used it quite a bit, but I think it's quite overpowered at the cost.

[Blaupanzer]

The cost of spy missions is based on your distribution of available spy points over many, many turns. Thus, the mission is cheap only if you spent a lot over the years to make it cheap now. If in RL, you built a network of agents and secret allies over many years, you would certainly use that network when your army showed up at the gate. In the game, the AI is pretty good at spending points to thwat you, so don't feel bad taking them out. That said, it is not a tactic I ever use as I don't build a lot of spies and use them to explore and sabotage construction rather than foment revolts.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Yeah, that revolting thing to let your troops in through the main gate of the city works well. It also leaves a bitter taste in my mouth if I just do it repetitively. ...

Acquire more resources and wash it away.

[Willem]

Originally posted by BigWilly1974
But the most important thing, if you're attacking a stack, use the catapults first to weaken the whole stack then attack with the macemen and knights in whatever order makes sense based on the types and strength of the AI units defending.

No, use the Catapults first to reduce the city's defences. Then use them to attack. Afterwards, manage all your remaining units individually because different defenders will take more or less of the collateral damage Siege units cause. Line up the proper attacker for what's left of the defenders and your odds will improve considerably.

[BigWilly1974]

Sorry, what I meant to say is in the open field, use the cats to weaken the enemy stack. City attacks are different obviously, where the emphasis is on reducing the defensive bonus to 0%.

[Kataphraktoi]

I find stack attack to be infinitly superior to attacking one-by-one. I have tried the one-by-one approach and tested it by reloading(yes, random seed) against stack attack and stack attack always does better. Every single time i have ever used single attack i regret it-the causalties mount up like crazy even with good odds-whereas stack attack gives a win even with low odds. Inexplicable?

Regarding the original posts problem, i ussualy use as many troops as i can make in a reasonable time frame-sometimes i use stack of dooms of 20-40 guys(swords\maces\cavalry\tanks, depending on which era i choose to war in) if i have plenty of production. I did an immortal ''rush'' in my current game with 40+ of them in one stack, and just sent them in with no catapults or anything :stalin: