On the Utility and Use of Armies

[Tenchusatsu]

Great ideas put forth on this excellent thread. Just to try some of the ideas laid out by rpodos and the other "army pushers," I started a game on Emperor w/ the Aztecs. Standard size map, continents, wet, cool, 3B years old.

My capitol was founded on the tip of an inverted-L shape continent. There was a large expanse of mountains/hills between my core cities and my neighbors, the Americans and Iroquois. But no problem. As any self-respecting Aztec would, I built Jaguars like they were going out of style (because they are from the very beginning) and quickly overran the Iroquois. But this is key, I made sure not to rely on Jaguars too long, because on Emperor, the computer will start stacking Spearmen very early. So instead, I switched to Swordsmen when I started taking on the Americans, who by this time was starting to entrench themselves on the other half of the continent.

I got my first leader while I was taking on the Americans. Instead of saving it for an FP, I turned it into an Army of two Swordsmen. With the Army and a ton of backup units (both swords and horses), I finally made the Americans cry uncle. I also finish the Heroic Epic at this time.

Now I'm dominating the continent, with the Iroquois and the Americans subjugated, and with two other civs (Russians and Greeks) founding cities on the far tip from my capitol. This is where I switch from being a warmonger to being a builder. At this time, I am cursing myself because I didn't use that leader for an FP. Corruption is killing the vast majority of my cities, because my capitol is on the tip of the L-shaped peninsula. So I do what I can and concentrate everything on getting that FP up ASAP (while at the same time keeping up in tech by building up cash and buying it).

Finally, just before the Industrial Era, the FP is finally built, and I become a real builder powerhouse. Right now, I'm in the Modern Era and going for a Domination Victory (because I've already won all of my previous games w/ Space Race). Absolutely no one can stop me, especially with my armies.

However, I am not entirely sure that the early Army was worth sacrificing the early FP. I could have defeated the Americans without it, and by the time I got the Heroic Epic, the continent was essentially mine. Because of this, it did not make sense to continue waging war until the Modern Era. As a result, I have only gotten two more leaders after the HE was built. One of them came as during a minor skirmish with the Russians; that leader became Universal Suffrage. The other came during my final war, which I am now waging. It became SETI, but that wonder isn't a big deal by this point.

As for my armies, yes they are unstoppable, but so is my stack of 10-15 Tanks and 7-10 Mech.Inf. By the time I got the ability to build armies, I've already built up too much momentum for my opponents to handle. Sure, my stacks of tanks will eventually whittle away, but I've got more where they came from.

I am considering going back and seeing how the game would have turned out had I chosen the early FP instead. I bet I'd enter the Modern Age much sooner than before.

So in conclusion, I think my GL came a little too late for an early army to make a big difference. By the time I got the HE, I had already changed from warmonger to builder. My armies were indeed fun to play with, but they were not game breakers for me by a longshot. And sacrificing the early FP doesn't seem like it was worth it, at least in this particular game.

[rpodos]

Tenchusatsu:

You're almost there!!

The key is to never stop fighting (well, some war-weariness breaks are OK, I guess).

Remember, although playing with Armies of different configurations can be a lot of fun in and of itself, the whole strategy is about:

1) Building the Heroic Epic absurdly early, typically after Pyramids and / or Great Library. This has two effects: a) culture, especially as it gets to two and even three thousand years old, and b) increasing the likelhood of GL creation.

2) Well, 1b only counts if you keep fighting, and win a lot of "safe" elite battles. So you have to have a big military, with lots of vets to act as the frontline, and ongoing relative unit strength.

The natural strategy for a lot of people is to go to war relatively early, beat up nearby civs, get to the size of empire they want, and convert to a builder strategy. Sounds like what you did.

The way I've been playing, it is crucial to get that FP right when you've reached that optimal empire size... so I don't stop fighting, even though I may have gone builder in my core cities.

At this point, I'm no longer fighting for lebensraum. I'm fighting for GLs, tech extortion, and AI civ punishment, in that order (and to be a bastard).

BTW, this also means that I DON'T try to take total control of "my" continent. In addition to "vassals" and "clients," I have "punching bags." So every time I get relative strength, I immedately upgrade and go to work. Don't stop until I have the FP and the Middle Ages Wonders.

Warriors, boom, Archers, boom. Horsemen, boom. Swordsmen, boom. Longbow & Knights, boom. Cavalry, boom. Then I'll take a brreak and build for a while, and focus on updgrading defensively with Riflemen and Infantry.

In the end, you are right... no way would I sacrifice the FP for an Army. Just gotta get both!

R

[Txurce]

Arrian:
I am indeed playing Emperor now, and just finished a game as the Egyptians that you'll get a kick out of. I had a very good starting position on a very large continent with six other civs. (The Chinese were off-shore, and stayed there the entire game, eventually becoming the second-largest civ.) I pumped out settlers and WCs, and was attacked by the English just as I was about to start my first rush at my usual time - toward the end of the BC era. This turned into a free-for-all, and by around 500 AD, Egypt was the dominant, biggest civ. Victory just about caught me up in tech. and at this point I switched to builder mode. I skipped knights altogether - the techs were falling too fast - and started upgrading my WCs to cavalry just before 1000 AD.

At this point, I decided to save the game and... taking advntage of the Pangaea-like continent... go for a domination victory. While the French and Romans continued their game-long stalemate above me, I wiped out the Greeks below, then wheeled north. By 1385, I had conquered the continent, and couldn't imagine why I hadn't won a domination victory - it sure looked to me like I had 66% of the total land mass. I started building a fleet to invade the big Chinese island with infantry and settlers, then spotted a little Chinese one-city island nearby. My second invasion try worked, and I achieved a domination victory in 1415, with 5558 points... basically identical to your results, and my best game ever as well. (I had no armies, because I didn't get one GL. The only GW I built was Bach. I also built the FP.) I now intend to go back and play the game out from 1000 AD for a space race victory, as I had originally intended.

With regard to your debating Emperor (Rpodos as well) because of strategy limitations, you should know that I haven't had to change my strategy that much, and have decisively won two of my last three games at that level. I do what I always do: warmongering expansion followed by building, all the way to space. (Tenchusatsu seems to play very similarly.) Interestingly, I have used swordsmen only once in all my games, and that was also a JW upgrade. I prefer either mobility or the cheapness of Bowmen. In my two Emperor wins, the opening rushes were all JWs and WCs, and in retrospect they settled the game, because the AI production advantage was history by that point.

That production edge is tough only at the start, which is why Dominae and DaveV advised me to hope for a good starting location, and focus on rapid expansion by fighting and pumping out settlers. In both my wins, my capital had cattle, and I kept it making settlers throughout the ancient era. In fact, I built settlers early at the expense of warriors, and willingly paid the price with barbarians. The poorer the starting location, of course, the more you'll need a quick rush. And that is why I favor the earliest rushers: JWs, WCs, even Bowmen. They gain me the upper hand sooner rather than later, and how often do you lose the upper hand once you have it?

You've heard that opinion from me before, but it applies even more to Emperor than to Monarch. I don't see much difference except for the increased importance of starting location, fewer GWs (as Ethelred pointed out), and techs being researched more quickly. I guess it would be tough to win as a pure builder on Emperor, unless you have a great start, but how often did you do that on Monarch?

[Txurce]

Rpodos, do you know what happens to extremists? You are getting perilously close to going around the bend with that "no build, just kill" zone of yours!

Zachriel (and BigVic), the longbowman/musket/pikeman stack is a great idea. I also really enjoy your illustrated battle accounts. Are you gathering them for something?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Txurce
Rpodos, do you know what happens to extremists? You are getting perilously close to going around the bend with that "no build, just kill" zone of yours!

Zachriel (and BigVic), the longbowman/musket/pikeman stack is a great idea. I also really enjoy your illustrated battle accounts. Are you gathering them for something?

In the story, in the chapter Threat from the West

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/gotm5/1220ad.htm

I wrote, "After a long and bloody cavalry and cannon war, we have finally reached a peace agreement with the Russians. During the last days of the war, we were rewarded with one last Great Leader, which we used to rush the Forbidden Palace in Moscow."

Actually, I prolonged the war until I had that Leader. It wasn't just a lucky Leader.

[Dominae]

Txurce, the description of your game as the Egyptians makes me think we play very similar styles. War is so necessary at the higher levels, and early game is so important. Thus early wars are a great idea.

However, I have to disagree with you on one point. You said there wasn't much of a difference between Monarch and Emperor. I think there is a huge difference: doing your own research is a viable option on Monarch, while on Emperor I've never ever researched anything before Chemistry, at the very earliest (this isn't completely true; I usually research a couple of techs right away, just to get to a good unit...i.e. Horsemen, Immortals).

I point this out because the general statement "Emperor and Deity restrict your gameplay choices" is, I think, very true. If you're going to prepare to make the jump from Monarch to Emperor, you have to get used to a very specific style of play. For examples, warfare is essential, and competitive research is impossible until the late Medieval age. I'm sure there are other things I'm not thinking about.

Anyway, congratulations on your game. I have never achieved a Domination victory so fast on Emperor, but I recently managed to win the Space Race in 1760 AD with Japanese (yes, Space Race with the Japanese...reformed warmonger). 5659 points. Great game; it was a nail-biter until well into the Industrial age.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Back the topic of this thread. rpodos, would you say that your "punching bag" strategy is very successful? I can imagine that, in the long run, you're bound to generate an extra couple of GLs, but isn't it simpler to destroy that civ and move on? I've conquered civs even in completely corrupt regions (from my empire's perspective) because the new cities do add to your score, and generate a minimal but significant amount of gold.

I've never really been able to employ the "vassal" strategy successfully either, and they seem to be related (in a twisted way). If I've built the HE already (and you know from my other posts that I have if I'm playing Militaristic), I might as well learn to milk it for all it's worth! A few pointers perhaps on creating the "ideal punching bag"?


Dominae

[rpodos]

Right, I think Zachriel has been playing exactly the way that I am espousing (and a lot longer, too).

It's not "all soldiers, all the time" BTW.

For instance, right now in my Roman game, I am not building a single military unit, other than drafting down 12-pop cities.

In fact, I am on a massive building binge, filling out every city with everything from markets to universities. Also catching up on all the SWs.

The other major continent seemingly just built harbors, so I have finally just sold off all of my excess luxuries, as well as GIVING AWAY strategic resources to some of the lesser-developed-nations.

BUT, that doesn't stop the wars. I'm pillaging all of Persia's strategic resources, and setting up the permanent warzone in between them and Egypt. Interlocking fields of fire, from a couple of forward military cities on hills and a couple of forward fortresses on mountains.

I'm going to take this all the way to space... GWs and Armies, from GLs, throughout.

TX, I don't think of this as extreme... War is not a job, it's an adventure.

R

[rpodos]

Dominae,

Excellent point re the distinction between Monarch and Emperor. On Monarch, I do the same early on, slowly research some critical military techs. On Emperor, no research until the early Industrial Age, which, while the right way to play, sort of feels wrong.

I'm going to start a new thread on neighboring civs. I'm still figuring out how to play each AI civ off the other, and to what stage of development I will allow them at any given time. For instance, "punching bags" need to be strong enough to put up a fight... but that's all. As I'm still experimenting, I tend to beat them down more than to let them up... but my instincts tell me it is better to leave them alive, at least until I am fully in space ship construction mode. Don't forget, I have yet to finish a game, so I am not focused on score yet.

I wish Vel were around... I'm trying to learn the "metagame," while still having evil fun, while learning how to win.

R

ps: This thread was originally about Armies. I only played two rounds tonight, but I did create a 3 elite Legion plus 1 vet Infantry Army tonight. Not as aesthetically cool as Zachriel's mixed-unit Army, but rock solid nonetheless. Fought off 5 vet and regular Persian Cavs in one turn. Knowing that I have pillaged all of his damn horses, that feels damn good.

[rpodos]

Dominae,

Also, to quote:

"...you're bound to generate an extra couple of GLs, but isn't it simpler to destroy that civ and move on?"

Whoa, boy!! Are we playing the same game?

Give me a couple of GLs, and I'll give you: World Map, 1000 gold, 5 techs, 4 luxuries, saltpeter (!), and Veii (I'll get it back by culture or conquest anyway!!).

And anyway, if you destroy a civ, you can't beat them up anymore. More on that tomorrow.

'Night all.

R

[Dominae]

rpodos, I do believe we are playing the same game. It seems I made it sound like GLs were no big deal, which is far far from the truth!

What I meant to say is, you need to "take care" of 'punching-bag civs', just like you need to do with 'vassal states' (even more so in the first case). On my Emperor games, I find I don't have enough time or resources to keep other civs alive. The ones that I do attack I cripple to the point that they're useless as punching bags (in my last game, the English were reduced to a single city in the middle of a huge continent for about two millennia...hardly a good punching bag). Civs that are stronger than this have a funny knack of trading for the best techs and ganging up on me with their neighbours. So, I find it's more worth my while to grab their land and found some cities, cities that will eventually be productive once I reach Democracy.

I guess this goes back your question "How big is your military?". As I've posted, mine appears to be rather small. This is probably why I'm not big on the idea of having 'punching-bag civs' around: my "punches" will have to come from somewhere (i.e. my military units), which takes units away from my real battles (such as, say, the second best civ...me being the best, of course!). I do believe your military is large enough to fight wars on multiple fronts, and have units left over for 'punching-bag civs'. Mine is not.

So, I think we'll both agree that GLs are worth it, in general (who wouldn't agree to that?!?!). You seem to think that GLs are worthwhile goals in and of themselves. I, on the other hand, think they're nice (very nice!) byproducts of all too necessary warfare. However, you do appear to be having a lot of fun with your playing style, so maybe I'll give it a go!


Dominae

[bigvic]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Had good luck in GOTM5 over at civfanatics during the War of the Longbowmen. In any case, I think bow would work better if they did not automatically move into the vacated square after the attack, but the player could manually complete their move after the attack.

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/gotm5/0700ad.htm

Cool. I seem to have bad luck with them. I call 'em "poor man's knights".

[Tenchusatsu]

Update on the Aztec game:

I am now fighting for domination, and I am currently fighting the Geeks, er, Greeks. They reside on the smallest of continents, but they are currently the best of what's left. And they have some huge cities, like 20-something population in each. Needless to say, their culture is also very strong.

So after "failed peace renegotiations," I immediately land on their island with a two-pronged approach. One force consists of eight Modern Armors and eight Mech.Inf. attacking their capital (Athens) on the west side, and the other force consists of some Modern Armors (I forget how many) and three armies on the east side. Carriers are lending support on the east side, but they're mainly there for air superiority, not for heavy bombing. Naval support ships are also on the east side, while the west side has none (i.e. a mad dash with transports).

In short order, the two cities I am targeting are mine, including Athens. However, more units are alive on the east side than on the west, thanks to the Armies. I shuffle some Mech.Inf. away from the capital toward the east side in order to fortify the city. Then I let my Armies and Modern Armor rest as I prepare my first wave of reinforcements. Unfortunately, on the next turn, Athens culture-flips, taking all of my units with it!

So after getting over the frustration, I regroup in the city I still have, hoping that I'll have enough units to prevent the other city from culture-flipping. Then with my armies still holding that city, I send my remaining Modern Armors toward a 12-size city to the north. I took over that city, and the game now stands with two cities taken and reinforcements almost ashore.

Anyway, I have gained a renewed respect for the Army. I guess in all my previous battles, by the time I got my first Army the enemies were no longer able to put up a real fight. But now that I'm trying to crack the strong shell of Greece, I find that my attack WITH Armies was much more successful and much less costly than my attack WITHOUT Armies.

Part of it has to do with the poor, er, I meant unique naval model in this game. Reinforcements take quite a while to arrive by boat. Transit time is three turns, meaning that my first attack force has to sit tight for quite a while defending the precious beachhead. That's where the survivability of the Army comes into play. Let's see the Greeks just TRY and bring down my Armies of three Modern Armors and one Mech.Inf. each!

Not only that, but the survivability of the Army also meant that more units were available to prevent culture-flipping. Now I don't know how many I need, but I'm sure the more I have, the less likely the city will flip.

So Armies do indeed have their place in the game. As rpodos said, it might not be worth sacrificing an early FP or wonder, but at least in this Modern war, they are getting a lot of use. Not that the Army is a deciding factor in this game, but I'm sure one of these days I'll play a game where the difference between winning and losing really is the Army!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Tenchusatsu
Anyway, I have gained a renewed respect for the Army. . . .
So Armies do indeed have their place in the game. As rpodos said, it might not be worth sacrificing an early FP or wonder, but at least in this Modern war, they are getting a lot of use. Not that the Army is a deciding factor in this game, but I'm sure one of these days I'll play a game where the difference between winning and losing really is the Army!

Funny. I find armies much more decisive in the earlier ages. But they're fun anytime!

[Txurce]

Dominae, I had thought that my own basic strategy wasn't affected by the switch from Monarch to Emperor, but I agree that research is useless in Emperor until you are the #1 civ, which usually takes you to the cusp of the Middle and Industrial Ages. All I have been researching, besides Warrior Code or the Wheel for the Babs or Egyptians, is monarchy. Ethelred makes a good point that you sometimes stay out of Republic longer in Emperor, but even if you don't, you can research monarchy pretty quickly even with the science level at 10%.

Zachriel, that is a very entertaining website you created. I particularly enjoyed the ancient-era propaganda, and was impressed by how you salvaged your hopeless start by moving your palace and the necessary do-or-die attack on Paris.

Rpodos, what you're doing in your Roman game sounds more extreme to me by the post. It also seems like a lot more fun per turn than the average game I play. In effect, you seem to run a permanent series of tests, and shift the focus when things get stale for whatever reason.

Tenchusatsu, if there is a need for armies, it is probably to ensure the success of a seaborne invasion against a solid enemy. Ming's notion of a defensive army - all mech infantry - to defend your vulnerable landing position against a blizzard of tanks clearly could make or break your foray.

I define a vassal state as one who will generally pay serious gpt for techs or luxuries. It is indeed difficult on Emperor to keep vassal states from shrinking to gnat status, or growing into scorpions. In my current game - the same Egyptian one, but now going for space - I let the French survive a little too well, and suddenly found myself with two large French cavalry groups cruising through my territory en route to Greece. Joan was furious with me, and I feared a declaration of war if I told her to leave my nominally defended country. Instead I held my breath, and waited until one French group entered the mountains at the Greek border, while the other paused on flat ground. I then told Joan to leave, and she predictably declared war. I had enough cavalry to then attack the second cavalry force and wipe it out, and use my recently finished railroad to be there waiting when the second French force emerged from the mountains. It all worked out, but if the French had just a little less respect for me, I would have been very embarrassed.