Training Succession Game 201

[Modo44]

I think it depends on your general approach. You should be able to win the game any way you like, so you need to choose.

If it's Domination, or Conquest, then build only basic infrastructure (a couple Univesities would be good, but only in core cities), get Barracks everywhere, and make lots of units. Attack with whatever you have at the moment, you don't really want to wait very long. And remember that bombard units are very important for taking cities with few losses. Don't switch to Democracy, because War Weariness will kill you.

If you want a peaceful win, then get a defensive force, and then start building. This means most structures available, up to Universities, and sometimes Banks, in every city that has any decent production. In this case Democracy is definately the way to go.

[dmd175]

Originally posted by wertyu70
Questions:
Now we have a whole continent for us.
My standard strategy on lower level is:
1) switch to "builder mode"
2) Wait until we get Cavalry (a lot)
or Infantry+Artillery
3) Start the invasion
Is this strategy right for this kind of game?
Or should we try to manage an early attack?
I fear that attacking zulus as dmd175 suggested is risky,
because Iroquis are near to them...

That's about my standard spaceship/ no rush conquest strategy. But we are actually not that far from a domination victory (not that close either I guess ). Anyway, AU seems to be about improving our skills and pushing the limit of those skills. Here my goal is to win by the biggest margin as early as possible (I'm flexible though). I think we can put down the Zulu and would not face Iroquois repercussion. Once we get astronomy we can make Iroquois an offer they can't refuse (or at least break). Then the domination would probably involve killing either most or all of Aztec or Iroquois. However, since that attack will definitely require cavalry, when we attack Zulu is possibly a moot point, as we could send all units over there in one shot.

Originally posted by ModoI think it depends on your general approach. You should be able to win the game any way you like, so you need to choose.

I think this game is going ok, and I think given time we can win it with domination or conquest, maybe spaceship. Whatever you guys want to do is fine by me.


Back in a few days. Best wishes to all.

[wertyu70]

I'm going to play 10 turns tonight, but I'll be able to post the result and the save game only tomorrow.
I hope to keep up the good job by dmd175.

A question for veterans:
How many units and which kind of mix (defenders, attacker, bombards) is better for an attack at this stage?

[Golden Bear]

You'll get a lot of different opinions on armed forces mix.

Me, I figure war is basically about attacking. Before starting I figure out which direction (flank) I am going to attack on. I build a strong force of infantry-type defenders to hold the "hinge" cities. I put all my high production cities onto knights/cav/tanks and let them crank. I put a few of my slow production cities into defenders. Until artillery, I am not too interested in cannon type units except as prebuilds for artillery. Can't have too much artillery. About 20 is a good number there.

In any case, the pattern of the war will be:
You start the war and (hopefully) overrun a city or two.
The AI pulls the million and one units that it has managed to build and throws them blindly at one of your cities that it likes the best or thinks is weakest.
You turtle up and use your offensive units on a strategic defensive until you have massacred the rush.
Then you turn the offense loose. Thus, my answer to the "mix" for an attack is - almost all into attack units. I'll build defenders later when I am relaxing in the gardens of my enemies former imperial palace.

[Modo44]

I recently started enjoying bombard units. Even Catapults can do much damage, and starting with Trebuchets, they becoem really important. The problem with offensive units (Knights, Cavalry, Tanks) is, they attack normally, and they can die. If a defender has full HP, this gets bad. Even worse if you have to attack a strong defender. Knights against Knights is a nightmare. Same goes for hard-to-get positions, like big cities on hills. Bombing them all down can do a lot to minimize losses.

For every fast-mover, I build a defender with a bombard unit. I'm able to hide the fast-mover from counter-attacks (it's often more expensive, than the defender). I'm able to move slowly, if the terrain dictates, while staying very safe. I'm albe to weaken any counter-attackers (bombard), and then kill them off with little own casualties. I get a big improvement when attacking strong defenders and/or heavily fortified cities. I get my objectives for sure, and fairly cheap. The downside is, defenders and bombard units are slow, so the invasion takes longer. I still like it very much, because I really hate losing any units.

Fast-movers are good for blitzing the enemy. Cavalry and Modern Armor are best, but others can do very well too. What you need is a load of those units before the war starts. Then just go on attacking, concentrating large numbers of units on single targets. After a target is taken, move to the next one, and ponder until it's yours. Build few defenders, only to have a skeletal force for the new cities. If prepared correctly, this can eradicate a civ very fast. One really bad side of this tactic is the huge cost. Fast-movers are expensive, and many will die, both in attacks, and enemy counter-attacks. This means, that once you get stalled, it's best to sign peace. Otherwise your high attrition rates will be very difficult to overcome.

[JimiD]

I am no expert but my 2 cents.

Unless their are some specific exceptions, I have a tech advantage over an opponent, or its a very early rush, I reckon to have over 50% bombard units:

- cheap to build(relative to attackers), dont need a barracks
- upgrade all the way to artillery
- using them, I dont loose attackers, and the investment
- using them attackers are facing low/1 hp units, so I need many less, they have a greater chance of surviving, promotion, and MGLs
- 'cause I am not loosing many units, production in the core can switch back to buildings earlier

I have had too many 'charge of the light brigade' situations where my prized attackers have burnt themselves out on a couple of cities, or suffered from counter attacks when unsupported, and I much prefer to capture a significant portion of my target a little slower. The defenders are needed to protect the main stack (just a couple), and hold captured cities, dont want to waste knights defending (I never bring enough, and always end up doing this...)

[Dominae]

Given your position, the best way to end the game quickly and "win big" (i.e. get a high score) would have been to beeline directly for Military Tradition once you hit the Medieval era. With most of your cities producing Horsemen in the meanwhile (and one dedicated to Leo's), you would have no problem completely overrunning the rest of the world.

I know this may sound like a boring strategy ("You mean I just forget all the other Medieval era Wonders!?", "What about Universities"!?"), it is IMO the most sound given what you managed to do with the English so early on.

[Dominae]

As for army composition debate, IMO the two units that need no real support are Cavalry and Modern Armor; build enough of those and there is no need for bombardment or defensive units.

Mind you, if you set things up right (for instance, attack multiple cities at once with Medieval Infantry after you declare war, or declare war then lure the AI's troops into the open to pick off with your Horsemen), you can very often get away with having just one type of unit (Horses and no Iron is not the end of the world!).

Although mixed-unit forces do provide some nice benefits, IMO they are a "nice to have", not an "must have".

[Golden Bear]

Yep. I agree with Dom.

[wertyu70]

Thanks for the suggestion but I need some more advice.
In my Monarch games In the middle ages I can deal with my enemies
with a stack of 5 defenders, 10 bombard units and 20 knights.
At Emperor Level I think this is not enough
(besides, I didn't fight the English, dmd175 defeated them) so I'm wondering how many units I need to fight a medieval war.

In the meantime I think it's better to build a lot of bombard units (I like them a lot)

Unfortunately, due to some unexpected events, I couldn't not play yesterday and I think my next game session will be after xmas...

[Golden Bear]

Truthfully wert, I never build fire units before artillery except as prebuilds. I build a flock of knights if that is what I have. I rarely fight wars without a technology edge or production edge. The trick is not how many knights or cav you start with but how many you finish with. You need enough to get the war started and blunt the AIs counterattack, but you really need a steady feeder of new units so that your attack continues to grow. Creeping attacks are just too slow. When you fight a war, fight the war - don't try to build and fight.

As Dom says, if you are not comfortable with knight warfare, then beeline to Cav. You certainly ought to be able to beat your enemies with that unit. Attacking is about speed and about pressuring the enemy.

In my opinion, starting a war by building 1 movement and 1 range cannon is putting yourself on the defensive already. If you are going up against a stronger enemy and want to draw them onto your guns for a while in order to whittle down their reserves, that works. Once you start moving on their cities, you want offensive units. War is about violence, not about playing chess. The fundamentals, turning flanks, overwhelming your enemy at weak points, deception, all work to some degree in CIVIII also.

OK, rant off. Maybe I need to find a save game and try to demonstate...

[wertyu70]

I managed to play 5 turns:

760 AD:
Ashur builds courthouse, start marketplace
Korshadad is without barracks and is building a pikeman -> switch production to trebuchet.

770 AD:
Sumeria declare war on zulus (Suicide attitude...)
Niniveh build horseman an start another one
I plan to upgrade horseman to knight and use them to attack our next target.

780 AD:
During his turn, Iroquis leader come to us and tell offer us a ROP.
We accept it for 2 gpt more.
We discover Music Theory. Let's try to trade.
Uhm, Noone want to give us astronomy.
Ok, let's try to get something valueable.
Iroquis: Get PP,Gunpowder, 7gpt and 8 gold.
Aztecs: Chivarly, 1gpt, 8gold
Zulu: 5 gpt, 18 gold

London convert to Bach
Babylon build Mediaeval Infantry and sstart another one.
Carchemish courthouse is ready, start marketplace.

What research next?
During trade I discover that Aztecs and Iroquis have already Chemistry (impossible to get it with trade),
so I start Banking ( 7 turns, -37 gpt)

790 AD
Sumerian destroyed by zulus.
Akkad Marketplace, has only 5 shield but a good trade -> start library
Eridu libray, start marketplace
Tell Wilaga build worker, it is poor city, so strat another worker.

800 AD
Banking in 5 turn and -39 gpt.
Zama Marketpklace, start university.

And now it's over for the time being.
Let's see you after xmas.

Question to dmd175 and other player:
Why our army has only a warrior inside?
Why don't to fill it with a couple of Medieaval Infantry?

[dmd175]

I won't be able to play at least for a week. I'm out of internet access land (in a public library right now, limited to 1 hour of access ).

Anyway, our army has only one warrior because I wanted to get a victorious army as soon as I got the leader. So I loaded someone in and started to kick a$$.

As far as combined arms, I wonder if the money and production is not better spent at just making all of our best, fast units. I rarely if ever attack with combined arms. I hate having movement "penalties". Some people on the board have hinted at this. For example, why not just attack with all cavs instead of trying a mix of cavs and cannons. I know this is not true to real life war strategy, but in civ, my mantra is speed kills. And it works...blitzkreig anyone?

I do sometimes have combined defenders/bombard for defense, but I find it too slow for offense the way I like to run it.

I know combined arms is touted a lot on 'poly. Can't say I've really ever used it to a great extent (except some of the C3C scenarios). Do other people -- shudder the thought -- not use combined arms religiously on offense.

[Dominae]

I almost never use combined arms, except in the early Industrial era, where Artillery, Cavalry and Infantry each play critical roles. I wish the situation were similar in the other eras.

Edit: What I mean to say is that I never plan to use combined arms, but I usually do because of upgrade paths and such. For instance, I often find myself with a bunch Medieval Infantry left over from the Ancient era alongside the Horsemen that I am building to upgrade to Cavalry, and of course I use both units if war breaks out. But I do not actively go with certain proportions, like 20% Pikemen, 20% Trebuchet, 15% Medieval Infantry and 45% Knights; I prefer to just have 90+% Knights!

[vmxa1]

I do not tout combine arms either. I use it when I have to either because of the make up of my troops or lack resources or I must attack stacks that otherwise would hurt my stack a great deal.

In the main I prefer to use fast movers and that includes armies, which could be mixed, but seldom are.

I tend to have fewer bombarment units (cat/cannon/arts) as I look at it that I would rather build an attack unit than a cat.

If I have a choice of 2 swords and 2 cats or 3 swords, I take the swords. So I am loathed to build cat in most case. My feeling is that 2 attackers could get past the 2 defenders and 2 cats, where they cannot get past 3 defenders with no cats.

If they were spears instead of swords, I could not even go on the offense against attackers.