Mobile Units: Too Good?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Boracks

Question: if you have a stack (more than one) of units in a city that includes at least one fast unit, can this tactic be used? If you have (example) pike and horse in a city, will the pike defend and the horse prevent enemy horse from withdrawing?

No - maybe if they where a part of an army though, but I have't tried that.

[Venger]

Well, if you are being bum rushed, you must have either a strongpoint or a staged defense.

In my one game (yes, STILL playing it), the Axtecs attacked my northern fortification with TWENTY FOUR cavalry in one turn. Yep, one turn. I had 5 infantry fortified in it. I lost all but 1. But he lost like 4 in the attack, and he had to pull those units back to just over the border and leave them unprotected. I savaged those units with my counterattack. Because they retreated with one hit point, normal movement units could kill them without them running off. It was a slaughter.

The key is to make them fight just inside YOUR border, otherwise they can retreat on their road system (roads should be accessible by all, that's just stupid). That way they burn a full move to get in, attack, and burn their other move to get out, leaving them just over the border.

They attacked me with 12 cavalry on another turn, same results, I slaughtered them. I broke the back of his army this way.

You must be able to survive and launch a counterattack. There is no solution to a blitzkrieg other than to either a) give ground and then counter attack or b) hold and counterattack. Depends entirely on your map and situation...

Venger

[CyberGnu]

Venger, IIRC, the mongols would send in a fraction of their cavalry towards the enemy and fake an attack. When repulsed, they would retreat in feigned panic. The defenders would then pursue the retreat, running right into the rest of the mongol army, preferably already set up to encircle the pursuers before initiating contact.

It worked remarkably well... And it all hinged on the ability for light cavalry to break out of conflict whenever they wanted, followed by more light cavalry to encircle the slower defendors.

[narmox]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Venger, IIRC, the mongols would send in a fraction of their cavalry towards the enemy and fake an attack. When repulsed, they would retreat in feigned panic. The defenders would then pursue the retreat, running right into the rest of the mongol army, preferably already set up to encircle the pursuers before initiating contact.

It worked remarkably well... And it all hinged on the ability for light cavalry to break out of conflict whenever they wanted, followed by more light cavalry to encircle the slower defendors.

oh, and anohter tactic they used.. just in front of their army they put a bunch of men and women they had captured from other cities and forced them to advance on their own countrymen (or be killed from behind), to force the defenders from killing their own people before being killed by mongols

when they finally captured some catapults, they threw bodiless heads full of diseases over the walls to scare the people and spread some diseases

and lastly, they didn't destroy a city's culture when they captured it! (this should be an _option_ in civ3, not something that just happens), hence the people were less mad after a while, and actually enjoyed life under their rule...

[Grunthex]

Originally posted by Boracks

Question: if you have a stack (more than one) of units in a city that includes at least one fast unit, can this tactic be used? If you have (example) pike and horse in a city, will the pike defend and the horse prevent enemy horse from withdrawing?

I think so. My towns are almost always defended by 2 standard defenders, and 1 mobile unit, and I very rarely see enemies disengage.

[sgrig]

Originally posted by narmox

and lastly, they didn't destroy a city's culture when they captured it! (this should be an _option_ in civ3, not something that just happens), hence the people were less mad after a while, and actually enjoyed life under their rule...

Hello? What's all this about?! Who ever enjoyed life under the Mongols?! And narmox, you probably don't know the history of Russia very well since many of the Russian cities were razed or partially destroyed by the Mongols, causing cities to be deserted- hence destroying culture! What the Mongols did they destroyed what they did not see as important such as arts and culture, but preserved engineers, craftsmen who could build better weapons - so they did not destroy technology but they did destroy culture!

[johnny faustus]

sgrig:

From what I remember of Chinese history, the Mongol rule of China (right before the Ming) was characterized by their embrace of Chinese culture. They found that their "barbarian" tactics weren't going over well with the Chinese and so they developed a governmental system similar to earlier Chinese systems and even reinstituted a sort of Confucian cult. This is actually the whole history of China (barbarians take over land, become Sinitcized) to a certain extent. Also, I thought Alexander the Great was also known for his mild domestic policies in his conquered territories. I don't quite remember, but I thought he let the people keep their religions and instituted relatively (RELATIVELY) benign governments to keep the people happy. That's why he was able to consolidate so much territory so quickly.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (anyone).

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Venger, IIRC, the mongols would send in a fraction of their cavalry towards the enemy and fake an attack. When repulsed, they would retreat in feigned panic. The defenders would then pursue the retreat, running right into the rest of the mongol army, preferably already set up to encircle the pursuers before initiating contact.

It worked remarkably well... And it all hinged on the ability for light cavalry to break out of conflict whenever they wanted, followed by more light cavalry to encircle the slower defendors.

Also, in the african theater in WWII, the Germans would feign an armor attack, flee in the face of superior British numbers and lead them unsuspecting into a nest of 88s. That will ruin your whole day! Simple but brilliant.

[halley]

To clarify my strategy, once I successfully take a city all the roads around it becomes MINE. As a result, counterattacking my stack of weakened mobile units becomes very difficult. Slow infantry almost never touch my Horsemen or Cavalry because it would take all their movement just to reach me. Most of the units I lose are due to enemy mobile units' counter-attack. This can be reduced by moving defensive units in after the city's been captured, easy since the roads are now mine. The computer never counter-attacks with more than a handful of mobile units anyway.

I do think that mobile units should be better than slow units, but in Civ 3 they are so good that it's becoming "I have more Horses than you so I win" situation. It makes sense that mobile units have an advantage vs slow units in open terrain due to flanking tactics, maneuvrability etc. However they shouldn't get such advantage in difficult terrain. I mean, how successful is Cavalry vs men in a jungle or mountain?

GePap had a good suggestion in reference to SMAC. In SMAC slow infantry units had a bonus when attacking city, which made it actually worthwhile to use infantry in an attack. Furthermore, you could build units with a special ability that gave it a defensive bonus vs mobile units. Speaking of that, shouldn't the Pikeman get a bonus vs mobile units? That's what it says in the Civilopedia, and Civ 2 Pikeman had this bonus. Yet I still see my Knights slaughter Pikemen wholesale, often without losing a single HP. Is this a bug?

My point of this discussion is that there needs to be some nerf of mobile units in Civ 3. Either make it such that the retreat ability is more limited (e.g. cannot be used in difficult terrain, need 2 movements left) or give defenders in a city bonus vs mobile units. Like GePap said, how silly is it to use Cavalry to storm a CITY, which in most probability has walls and everything? It just doesn't make sense.

[Venger]

You know I once used a wagon to hold a door open. I did not conclude that a wagon was a doorstop however.

This thread is getting tired, but I'll close my arguement that of all the advantages mobility gives, retreating is not the greatest. An advantage? Sure. The advantage? No. And no apocryphal stories of retreating success will overcome common sense examination of mobile combat.

Venger