Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spoiler Thread for AU 203

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For the first time ever, I've fought a genuine modern-era slugging match. When I was ready to attack China, I planted a spy to see what forces they had, and I knew right then that was one civ my MAs wouldn't just roll over with minimal losses in a handful of turns. On the other hand, with my economy the stronger of the two (and fully mobilized for war) and with a human's superior ability to concentrate forces at the point where they are needed, the outcome was never in doubt. Or wouldn't have been, at least, except for a little wild card I'll mention later.

    My forces included 52 mechanized infantry, 75 MAs, 17 artillery, 8 guerillas, 5 cavalry, 15 jet fighters, 7 destroyers, and (last but not least) four armies. Had I managed the Persian war differently, I likely could have had a couple more armies from leaders, but I hadn't thought through how important a role they would play in the Chinese campaign.

    Against my forces was a Chinese military of 105 mechanized infantry, 48 conventional infantry, 19 tanks, 19 artillery, 17 guerillas, 8 cavalry, 4 marines, a paratroop, a rifleman and a musketman, a helicopter, 17 cruise missiles, 22 battleships, 9 subs, 9 transports, 4 carriers, 4 ironclads, 3 destroyers, a nuclear sub, 21 jet fighters, 14 bombers, an old-fashioned fighter, and one army. And then there's the wild card I mentioned earlier: three tactical nukes. Fortunately, China hadn't researched Synthetic Fibers yet, but they did have the prerequisites so I couldn't be sure how long until they got it. China also had the advantage of being extremely well dug in, with numerous radar towers (often two and at least once as many as three covering a single city), and most of their core cities were over size 12.

    Against such an opponent, I used two main strategies. (1) When practical, I took out radar towers before going after cities. I couldn't afford to bog down my offensive too much because I was capturing cities instead of razing them in spite of China's having about one and a half times my culture. But if I could get to a city's radar towers without significantly delaying my attack, they were primary targets. (2) To the extent that I had healthy ones available, 4-unit MA armies went in first. In most of my games, I've tended to regard armies as a bit of a waste because they can usually just take out one unit. But with most of China's MAs veterans (thanks in no small part to their genius Sun Tsu), I needed the punch. Even armies occasionally died against the kind of defenses China could put up, but with a large reserve of elite MAs from the Persian war, I was able to build up armies faster than China could destroy them. On a couple occasions (including the conquest of Beijing), I also resorted to using artillery to heavily damage cities before attacking, but most of the time, I was in too much of a hurry.

    The war bogged down at first as I struck into China's heartland. I lost almost a third of my MAs in the first two or three turns, and most of my cities were still working on peaceful improvements started before mobilization. But as China's heartland fell and my own military production reached full speed, the German tide became unstoppable. Once China had been expelled from the German mainland (and starting a little before), the Aztecs became the center of unwanted attention, but their riflemen stood no chance at all against forces designed to take on a superpower.

    Once I finished driving the Aztecs off my continent, I made peace with both the Aztecs and the Chinese. Four turns later, when a peace treaty with Rome expired (a renewal of a previous peace treaty where I'd demanded per-turn tribute), I took them out, and my borders expanded enough for domination a couple turns or so after that (in spite of a last-second flip by an Aztec city).

    As for the doubt I mentioned earlier, there were times when I had such a large percentage of my forces concentrated in one place that a well-placed tactical nuke could have been devastating. Fortunately, Chairman Mao cared enough about his people not to unleash such devastation within his own territory. One tactical nuke was destroyed in one of my attacks, and he still has the other two, perhaps on nuclear subs roaming the world's seas somewhere.

    Year of victory: 1695 AD.

    Comment


    • From this game, I have two main observations about Communism:

      1) I seriously doubt that I could have fought a grinding, expensive war like the one with China staying under Republic or Democracy. The war lasted too long, with too many losses. Communism (the AU mod version) left me with solid production, and by the end of the game, I was actually keeping up with Babylon's Democracy in science, probably even gaining a little.

      2) On the other hand, it was only AU 203's special rules that forced me to fight such a bloody war to begin with. Under normal rules, I most likely could have secured my own oil supply from Russia or Rome before I ever got Motorizd Transportation, saving me from squandering a significant chunk of my tech lead buying oil. Worst case, my war with China would have been much like my war with Persia actualy was - MAs slicing through infantry in spite of the defensive advantages that come with Radio. Best case, panzers (perhaps upgraded to MAs as the fighting progressed) would have won the war with China before China even got Radio. (If I find the time and ambition, I may possibly play out that alternate ending and see what happens. I don't have a lot of interim saves, but one happens to be from six turns away from Refining.)

      Conclusion: If you find yourself stuck slugging it out with a large, powerful civ that has MIs, Communism is a perfectly viable form of government. But it's still a lot better if you can avoid getting in such a situation to begin with.

      Nathan

      Comment


      • What great AARs everyone! I finally finished the game (1730 A.D., Emperor, AU mod) over the weekend, and I will not post a long story because most of what I experienced has been mentioned already. That's what I get for taking my time to play the game. (Some AU PBEM games get more turns in per day than AU 203 for me! )

        However, here are some lessons from my version of the game:
        • Communism is most efficient when you have the minimum number of cities working a given number of tiles. This means minimum overlap between your large cities. Keeping this fact in mind, I went for a sparse city spacing. When Communism eventually came, and until I had conquered half the continent, I lost very little production in my core cities. Ultimately, however, the power lost from having unworked tiles in the first half of the game did not make this approach worth it. Looking at Dominae's and Nathan's impressive early finishes, tight city spacing makes the difference even in this scenario.
        • Like others, this was my first experience with modern warfare at this large scale. I was very glad to play this game, and I definitely learned some new tactics. However, I'm not sure I like the tactics that proved effective in this case. For example, to keep my number of cities low (and hence my core cities productive) I razed about half of the cities I conquered. Even the AI spacing was too tight for my taste in some cases. Furthermore, when I was conquering 3-4 size 12+ cities in one turn, I could not spare the troops to quell all the resistors and prevent flips. Razing towns in the ancient era is one thing, but razing a metropolis in the modern era doesn’t seem right. Another tactic I used that I had never employed before was the use of settlers to found temporary cities and shrink enemy borders, so that I can get within reach of the next city in the same turn. But founding a city and abandoning it one turn later was also something that didn’t seem right.
        • The Communism, Longevity and Pyramids combination is insane! Produce settlers like mad (which is also a good way to keep core cities from starving out of WLTKD). Raze cities and replace them with new size-1 cities. Because of Longevity, the Pyramids, and ready railed irrigation from the former city, a new city often grows to size 5 in 6 turns!! Because of communal corruption, you can start building improvements from scratch at lightning speed. Who needs rush-buying? Add the Internet to the mix, and you don’t even have to build cultural improvements for border expansion! Just go straight for Aqueducts, harbors, marketplaces, hospitals, barracks, and then start pumping out MA in a few turns each!
        • Even though I came to appreciate the qualities of Communism in this game (see above), my view of this government has not changed. It is still not as good as Monarchy for war. Yes, Communism is good if you don’t have a good FP placement, but when you’re at war, you can usually get a leader to create an efficient Capital/FP placement.
          With all the leaders I got in this game, I could have had an awesome empire in Monarchy, with multiple palace relocations, giving me the most efficient Capital-FP placement at each stage of the war.
        • The AI seems to be especially aggressive when it has a bad starting location. In my game, Rome eliminated Russia and stayed in the game up to the end. I think it was Catt who reported an early attack from Caesar in his game. And remember the Greeks in the previous (expansionist) AU game? They were ultra-aggressive (for Greeks) probably because of their bad starting location.
        • I went for the Great Library, which helped me a lot, but it was not really necessary. Surprisingly, the Great Lighthouse (don’t laugh; I lost the race to the Colossus!) had the same effect, as I brokered techs between Babylon and the rest of the World for quite some time.


        All in all it was a great learning experience for me. I probably doubled my playing time at war in the modern era just from this game. It took many hours, and I often had to take a break without even completing one turn, but it was worth it. Thanks for setting it up!

        Comment


        • Very interesting and insightful comments, alexman (so much so that I have nothing to add in response!).

          By the way, given that you finished in 1730AD, only 4 turns after me and a few more after Nathan, I'd say your loose spacing worked better than you give it credit for. But generally Communism is not the way to go, so I think tight spacing as a strategy is here to stay.


          Dominae
          And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...

          Comment


          • One more interesting thought from my game: The combination of offshore platforms and mobilization has considerable advantages. Normally, offshore platforms just give one shield on coast and sea tiles, so their value compared with mined, railroaded grasslands is unimpressive. But under mobilization, the value rises to two thirds that of mined, railroaded grassland - or the same as mined, railroaded grassland when not mobilized. That can make coastal cities significantly more useful in adding to one's forces.

            Nathan

            Comment


            • i've started the AU203 today.
              lol but i'm gonna have to quit it already.

              i just got heavily bashed by 30 immortals and a couple of archers and horsemen while at the same time getting attacked by about 10 med. inf. and 10 riders.
              all i had was 5 pikeman in the city next to the chinese border and 5 pikemen in the city next to the persian.
              the other part of my army consists of spearmen in nearly undefended cities.

              did you give the chinese and the persians free settlers, BRC?

              btw: china was a real powerhouse, they triggered thei GA by building the GW and then built the GL in 9 (!) turns

              right now im thinking of reloading the game and trying again, but i don't see how i could build up a force large enough to fight back both persia and china and i don't want to start all over again
              Last edited by badman; February 4, 2003, 13:27.
              "Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes, French Mathematician

              Comment


              • Nothing special was granted to the civs, other than the difficulty bonuses that they normally receive.

                Some people seemed to have better luck with the AI development than others. You probably got the short end of the stick. Sorry.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by alexman
                  • The AI seems to be especially aggressive when it has a bad starting location. In my game, Rome eliminated Russia and stayed in the game up to the end. I think it was Catt who reported an early attack from Caesar in his game. And remember the Greeks in the previous (expansionist) AU game? They were ultra-aggressive (for Greeks) probably because of their bad starting location.
                  Purely anecdotal from me, but I think the same thing -- it's actually quite logical - with crappy starting terrain go grab someone else's start as early as possible. Most of my early AI rushes (again anecdotal) seem to come from an AI with less than an optimal start and utilize the free starting units given at the higher levels (but of course Germany in the previous AU game caught me quite off-guard). By contrast, most of the "mid / late ancient conquest attempts" come from aggressive AI's with a decent start (and therefore great growth and power).

                  Originally posted by nbarclay
                  The combination of offshore platforms and mobilization has considerable advantages. Normally, offshore platforms just give one shield on coast and sea tiles, so their value compared with mined, railroaded grasslands is unimpressive. But under mobilization, the value rises to two thirds that of mined, railroaded grassland - or the same as mined, railroaded grassland when not mobilized. That can make coastal cities significantly more useful in adding to one's forces.
                  Good discovery! Quite true.

                  Catt

                  Comment


                  • By the time Offshore Platforms come around, the extra 10 or so Shields you get on average from them in combination with Mobilization rarely makes a difference, IMO. I'm not saying that the game "shoud be won" at that point, just that the reduction of actual number of turns to complete a unit or improvement typically involves more than 10 Shields. With units costing 90-120 Shields, there are very few opportunities for 10 extra Shields to make a difference in the sense just mentioned, assuming most cities produce at least 30 Shields (not unrealistically in the Modern age, and considering that few coastal cities are truly peninsular). Thus, although the city may seem to have a nice bonus output, the actual capabilities of the empire remain essentially unchanged.

                    I'm not saying the idea/observation is not original, just that I'm not sure the effect is that impressive.


                    Dominae
                    And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Dominae
                      By the time Offshore Platforms come around, the extra 10 or so Shields you get on average from them in combination with Mobilization rarely makes a difference, IMO. I'm not saying that the game "shoud be won" at that point, just that the reduction of actual number of turns to complete a unit or improvement typically involves more than 10 Shields. With units costing 90-120 Shields, there are very few opportunities for 10 extra Shields to make a difference in the sense just mentioned, assuming most cities produce at least 30 Shields (not unrealistically in the Modern age, and considering that few coastal cities are truly peninsular). Thus, although the city may seem to have a nice bonus output, the actual capabilities of the empire remain essentially unchanged.

                      I'm not saying the idea/observation is not original, just that I'm not sure the effect is that impressive.


                      Dominae
                      I can't remember the last time I built an offshore platform -- the cost-benefit analysis doesn't make sense in most circumstances, IMHO. But in certain cirumstances (particularly if playing the AU mod where Miniturization is required for a space race victory) the observation is valuable. Mobilization on its own is rarely useful in standard rules' games, IMHO, but a tough fight under an AU mod game in the Modern Age makes this kernal of knowledge valuable in my view -- it is so unlikely to be of much use in a standard game that I (and others?) might never really think of it as a viable option. Which would be a shame if playing an archipelago map with a strong need to military headway against a stronger opponent. An extra 10 shields per turn, in an archipelago world where shields are few and far inbetween, might be quite important.

                      In short, I praised the observation because it pulls me from a rut of conventional thinking -- thinking which is great for 99% of the time, but which allows me to slip into the pattern of not taking a step back and evaluating all options -- and reminds me that a crazy varient of situations may present themselves, and a "fresh view" is valuable.

                      Catt

                      Comment


                      • Mobilization... "rarely useful"?

                        Heathen peacemongering builder!!
                        The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

                        Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.

                        Comment


                        • Call me a heathen peacemonger, but no one has addressed my argument.

                          1. The bonus Shields rarely reduce the time-to-completion of military units. So basically all the bonus Shields are doing is going to waste.

                          2. The AU mod rules do force the player to research the Offshore Platform tech for a Spaceship victory if that is the goal, but then why would you be in Mobilization?

                          3. Offshore Platforms must have their uses (though I would not know). But Offshore Platforms and Mobilization really shining? Like I said, the two effects together are more of a "hm, never thought of that" than a "good to know"-type of thing, if you catch my drift (getting late here, pardon my lingo...).

                          4. Mobilization is sometimes useful, but rarely after an Industrialized core is available. Since 90% of military units are coming from those cities, and they do not benefit from Mobilization significantly, why bother?


                          Edit: I'm not sure why I'm arguing this point: Catt's right, 99% of the time this does not come into play. I guess I just want to be sure what to do in the other 1%...


                          Dominae
                          Last edited by Dominae; February 5, 2003, 00:40.
                          And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...

                          Comment


                          • In a standard SP game I may have a few cities out on a penninsula having lots of coast/sea squares that is there for the long-term growth and gold. In those cases (as in the archipelago situation), the oil rigs give meaningful production, or more gold when producing wealth.

                            On second read of your post Dominae, I must mention I have never used mobilization yet.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Dominae
                              By the time Offshore Platforms come around, the extra 10 or so Shields you get on average from them in combination with Mobilization rarely makes a difference, IMO. I'm not saying that the game "shoud be won" at that point, just that the reduction of actual number of turns to complete a unit or improvement typically involves more than 10 Shields. With units costing 90-120 Shields, there are very few opportunities for 10 extra Shields to make a difference in the sense just mentioned, assuming most cities produce at least 30 Shields (not unrealistically in the Modern age, and considering that few coastal cities are truly peninsular). Thus, although the city may seem to have a nice bonus output, the actual capabilities of the empire remain essentially unchanged.

                              I'm not saying the idea/observation is not original, just that I'm not sure the effect is that impressive.
                              Again, you're ignoring the law of averages as it pertains to mobilization. Sometimes there is no difference at all, but sometimes a single shield can make the difference between (for example) three and four turns to build a MA. It tends to average out. (Edit: Of course if all your core cities are about the same size and production capacity, that may make the law of averages largely irrelevant, but many games involve a mixture of city sizes and production capacities.)

                              By the end of the game, I was working well over 100 tiles benefitting from offshore platforms, and the vast majority of those benefitted from factories and (thanks to Hoover) hydro plants. Even after corruption, the mobilization bonus on those tiles alone probably netted me an average in the neighborhood of one and a half extra MAs per turn, adding up to probably over 20 extra MAs during the course of the war with China compared with if I weren't mobilized. And that's not counting the benefit of mobilization on land tiles, or the extra left-over MAs from mobilization during the Persian war that I went into the Chinese war with.

                              I suppose it could be argued that even with the mobilization bonus, the offshore platforms didn't do much more than replace the MAs I could have built (either directly or through panzer upgrades) instead. But they did also help in building other improvements during times when cities weren't entirely focused on military matters, which helped tip the balance in my ending the game on par with Babylon both in technology and in research speed in spite of my communist government. And given two choices comparable in terms of securing victory, the builder in me always chooses the one that leaves me with a stronger, more prosperous civ after the game is over.

                              I agree with Catt that this approach isn't necessarily useful in most games. But when long, hard modern-era struggles lie ahead, and especially when offshore platforms are desired to help produce city improvements before shifting their focus to things military, it can provide a useful edge.

                              Nathan
                              Last edited by nbarclay; February 5, 2003, 04:26.

                              Comment


                              • By the way, one of the reasons mobilization and heavy investment in offshore platforms worked for me in this game was the nature of my core empire. Only seven of the about 27 cities I built myself grew past size 12 (a few more could have but never quite got around to it), and only six were not coastal. Obvously, the situation with fewer, larger, mostly inland cities would be rather different, but this isn't the first time I've gotten good use out of mobilization. (The real fun was in a certain CivFanatics GOTM where several of my core cities under mobilization in a GA were cranking out panzers in a single turn! Of course that involved a significantly sparser city build pattern.)

                                Edit: I might add that in the vast majority of my games, I never use mobilization at all. I'm normally not in a position where I have to face particularly tough fights, and I'm usually fairly focused on building up my economy in outlying areas while my core uses "excess" production to build units for war. But when I view myself as being in for a tough fight, I do tend to mobilize for the extra edge it provides.

                                Nathan
                                Last edited by nbarclay; February 5, 2003, 04:24.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X