a solution to blitzkrieges

[dovlvn]

I have thought of a good solution to the "undefendable border" problem where I time after time got attacked in humongous numbers by enemy forces over along border with multiple cities(where you cant put enough forces in all). there should be added an improvement in modern era ( sometime around refining) that workers can build in any terrain a landmine improvement .any enemy unit that passes on that square will lose automatically 1-3 of health.the effect can only be stopped by a worker unit demining (like the clean pollution command).like in the real world that will give a limited protection from blitzkriegs. to balance that i'd make that the landmined squares couldnt be improved until its demined

[wrylachlan]

Re: a solution to blitzkrieges

Originally posted by dovlvn
I have thought of a good solution to the "undefendable border" problem where I time after time got attacked in humongous numbers by enemy forces over along border with multiple cities(where you cant put enough forces in all). there should be added an improvement in modern era ( sometime around refining) that workers can build in any terrain a landmine improvement .any enemy unit that passes on that square will lose automatically 1-3 of health.the effect can only be stopped by a worker unit demining (like the clean pollution command).like in the real world that will give a limited protection from blitzkriegs. to balance that i'd make that the landmined squares couldnt be improved until its demined

Sounds good, but how about just 1 hp damage but it also eats all the movement points. That would give you time to bring in the defenders.

[Cyclotron]

Undefendable borders should be held by large armies. Otherwise, there is no penalty for the undefendable borders that you yourself created. The situation you described sounds like excellent AI tactics, not a area of the game needing correction.

[dexters]

agreed with cyclotron7

[dovlvn]

1.movement points as a extra possible penalty is a good idea as well

2.not just AI.in large and huge maps you can have long borders naturally without any wrong doing (or over pacifistic game play).
making any aggressors job unusualy easy no matter how large your army is: just find the single border city with less than 4 units and attack (some AIs have great spies...)
anyway not just AI can use some defence tactics so could many players not in the mood at that moment for a war (like some germans waiting for their panzers ) or someone in a mood for
culture spaceship victorys

[Inverse Icarus]

mindfields built by workers = excessive micromanagement.

[Sean]

I to agree with cyclotron7. If you sreate a long border for yourself, it is your job to defend it. This is actually something the AI does well at (without "bonuses"), we should be glad!

[VetteroX]

Ive NEVER had a city that I personally founded taken by the AI after the ancient era. The only cities ive lost due to military invasion are 1) cities in the ancient area on the boarders that only have like 2 warriors guarding it. 2) when im invading the enemy and I make the mistake of over extending my forces, and the AI takes back a city the next turn.

After ive had time to establish myself, ive never lost a city to the AI because I always have at least 2-3 squares of territory between one of my cities and the boarder. This means only cavalry and modern armor can hit one of my cities in the first turn. If a huge force of infantry or whatever invades, they are bombarded by artillary for 1 or 2 turns, then attacked by fast moving offensive units. Ill fortify strong defenders infront of cities in danger on hills, mountains, or forests to give them defensive advanatges. If im in dire danger, ill even use the worker distraction, place a worker close to the city, and the AI will ALWAYS go for the worker before a city.

I remeber one awesome game I had when I was at war with the Germans. They sent a stack of about 20 cavalry, 60 infantry, and 20 riflemen at me. I was scared, thinking id lose at least a few cities to the attack. But I bombarded the invaders to soften them, and injured units retreat. I put my own infantry (I had maybe 1/3 as many) on the hills, and put workers under them to lure them to the strong defensive positions (God the AI is obsessed with my workers) After a few turns, and using every unit I had to fight them, their army was about 1/3 the size and the rest were in retreat. My arty kept bombarding them as they ran from my territory, and then my cavalry persued them, killing the stronger, but injured infantry off. I was then able to do my own invasion and take 1/2 thier territory because of thier now under defended territory.

When facing a strong enemy, it is a really good strategy to let them attack first. It was a roman strategy later in the empire to actually let the invaders in, THEN attack them, that way they had home turf advantage. In Civ3, this is great because you have free movement, while they do not, and you can constantly bring in reenforcemnts, while they cannot. If you play well you can reduce a much larger force to nothing in a few turns, then send your forces in after their army is dead.

[Whoha]

build forests at the boarder, this effectively nullifies any invasion force, provided that a) you have a force ready to deal with the invaders and b) they do not bring in marines, grab a city and go from there, but then again using marines should be rewarded.

[Theseus]

VetteroX,

Yes. Good tactics.

I get the same emotional thrill you do (I think).

Terror.

Resolution.

Determinedness.

Vindication (the living hell that the retreating enemy go through, trying just to get out, and being bombarded / attacked every step of the way... "You had the f-cking temerity to come into my house??!!").

Then, when on the counter-attack, the sheer terror in the cities that I bombard, as in 1-2 turns, I destroy their Barracks, Library, Marketplace, University, etc., and at the same time reduce pop from 17 to 2-3.

Must be something wrong with me...

[dovlvn]

Originally posted by UberKruX
mindfields built by workers = excessive micromanagement.

not too much any way any defensive imp (like fort) requires some human internvention

[dovlvn]

Originally posted by VetteroX


When facing a strong enemy, it is a really good strategy to let them attack first. It was a roman strategy later in the empire to actually let the invaders in, THEN attack them, that way they had home turf advantage. In Civ3, this is great because you have free movement, while they do not, and you can constantly bring in reenforcemnts, while they cannot. If you play well you can reduce a much larger force to nothing in a few turns, then send your forces in after their army is dead.

by mod era I have so much terrain improvement in place that such a tactic (esp with an important resourse) can cause more damage than good.the aI pillages so much that my attaced cities drop to pop 2-3 and dont come back for a long time.and if we're into historic analogies yeah the french won wwI with the enemy deep in their borders but half of france was back in the stone age (pyhrric victory...) taking generation to recover

[dovlvn]

Originally posted by Whoha
build forests at the boarder, this effectively nullifies any invasion force, provided that a) you have a force ready to deal with the invaders and b) they do not bring in marines, grab a city and go from there, but then again using marines should be rewarded.

1 cant build everywhere forests (mountains etc) and anyway that gives the attacker a defensive bonus as well (when his troops are on that forest you have the counter attack problem )
artilary also succeeds less on forest located units.actually a forest can be more a bonus to the attacker in some cases
a landmine imp will make them stop (or damaged) without getting any benefits
2 there should be some reward for hard work in fortification of borders as well . it should be harder to attack a enemy that worked hard on his defences than the mere 'lucky' one (sorrounded by jungles.. )

[Solver]

A bit too much, with those landmines.

I have one neighbour on my continent, with only one border. Three sides of our empires are near the ocean, fourth sides form the border. I build Landmines in each square along the border, and each square behind it - two rows, thusly. In the third row, I put artillery. It's all. They can do nothing then but to lose hell number of units before they actually invade. Too powerful.

[planetfall]

Agree with most, landmines are unnecessary. There are enough tools available without landmines, consider
1- relocating empire to more defensible geography
2- building fortresses
3- cities on hills
4- catapault/artillery
5- pikemen/infantry
6- horse/cav to pick off red sitting ducks
7- keeping city under 7 so can use walls
8- sacrificing workers to redirect force
9- trying to build at least 15-20 cities
10- increase your GNP

In last game I had 60 foreign units within 1 tile of city, and it held. They walked past but did not attack city. By time reached second row of cities, they were stopped.
How, using strategies above {except for fortress and walls. I decide on geo-politics whether to use fortresses, only use if very weak other wise go for military or growth.}

Solver-- how can you build 2 rows of landmines when there aren't landmines in the game? Two rows of forest without roads really slows invasion to a crawl.

Incidently I have discovered the value of forests. In a couple cities, not mining all, but switching some mines to forest allows me to get 3-4 extra shields per turn. That can really add up.