Military Advisor Campaign Thread

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I have a few questions to the candidates:

Which state of the game do you consider more crucial to crush enemies with military means, the early, mid or late game? Do you favor flexible fastmovers, sturdy slowmovers or combinations of both, and how do you think about the value of bombardements?

early / mid war. we must defend what territories we plan to colonize, and defend imperial expansions to other islands.

i'm in favor of flexible fastmovers for the most part, especially in the early age. horsemen are superior to swordsmen, in my opinion.

bombardments in the early ages (catapults) is worthless. once we get to cannons/artillery and ships, bombardment becomes useful.

[Captain]

Considering the first term probably won't go past the ancient age, I think we should stick to that for military strategy/policy.

So we're talking about despotism and monarchy. protracted wars are possible, but are they preferable?

In the ancient age, we're also unlikely to have any culture flips (mainly because I expect to have swordsmen before temples) so is there a point to razing cities in the ancient age while settler costs remain proportionally high?

Capture or destroy? (ancient age).

Maintain infrastructure or pillage? (ancient age).

Ratio offensive to defensive? (ancient age)

Preferred "local odds" (ancient age so towns<7) - that is to say, if there's a town with 2 spears, what is your ideal attack force? 3 spears? 4 spears? 2 spears, 2 archers? 3 spears, 2 horse? 2 spears, 3 swords? etc...

Capture workers a priority?

[Alex]

Hmm... Very general questions here, and it could not be different, considering we don't know what kind of world we'll have to deal with. But one thing worries me: what is your opinion about human rights?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Alexnm
Hmm... Very general questions here, and it could not be different, considering we don't know what kind of world we'll have to deal with. But one thing worries me: what is your opinion about human rights?

i suppose you mean pop rush, not my personal view. if you mean my personal view, that'll be a longer (off-topic) thread of its own

personally, i am in favor of pop rushing to an extent, but in the democratic game i have no say in that. i just work with what you give me.

[Turambar]

I've a question:

If one of our aircraft is shot down and crashes on the border between two foreign civs (civ B and civ C) and the pilot who was born in Civ D is the only survivor, on which side of the border should he be buried?

[Kuciwalker]

EVERYONE knows that joke.

You don't bury survivors.

Anyway, I favor early war to secure territory, Middle/Early Industrial peace to build infrastructure (both military and civilian), and then a big Late Industrial/Modern war to conquer all.

[Alex]

Uber, I meant in the game (yes, pop-rushing). I was also thinking about conscription, since it is a major font of unhappiness.

[Spiffor]

How do you consider yourself ?
- The defender of our culture and industry
- The expander of our riches
- The guide to our consuest victory

[Kuciwalker]

All three at once.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Alexnm
Uber, I meant in the game (yes, pop-rushing). I was also thinking about conscription, since it is a major font of unhappiness.

i dont usualy conscript, as i usualy have a large standing army.

around the age of nationalism, we should have railroads fairly soon after. a few calvary (or tanks) stationed on our borders will provide an "offensive defense" as i call it, a defense with a first srtike capability.

but then again, i wont last until the modern age, and theres no conscripting until nationalism.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Spiffor
How do you consider yourself ?
- The defender of our culture and industry
- The expander of our riches
- The guide to our consuest victory

if i had to choose one, i would say the expander of our riches.

my views on the miliraty aspect of civ are mostly offensive for the purpose of "manifest destiny" and resource aquisation. if we need horses, i dont mind smacking around the chinese to get them.

[Kuciwalker]

We use the Middle/Early Industrial to bulk up our military infrastructure (read: army) to the point where drafting would be counter-productive. If we secure our continent, we won't even need much in the way of defenders, as a strong navy (which wouldn't be difficult, as the AI has no grasp of naval strategy) and lots of transports loaded with offensive troops will keep us safe and allow us to project power.

[Inverse Icarus]

I am also in favor in signing Military Alliances with AI civs, so long as they aren't in my plans for domination .

if an AI civ isnt on our main continent, and is close enough to an enemy to annoy them, i'd be HAPPY to sign an military alliance, which not only helps the war front a little, it makes our two nations bond closer

i do NOT condone mutual protection pacts. again, it's not my final call, but i should have a decent say in this area. i dont want to commit troops to defend our neighbors unless the neighbor has provided us with a service (techs, resources) for a long time (trustworthy), bows before our might, and the diplo people wont let me crush them.

[Trevman]

Would you support a war in the early game?