Wondering: can we eliminate a civ without targeting its military?

[planetfall]

I was out yesterday and an idea for new military strategy came to mind. I normally focus on strongest military unit coming at me and weakening/defeating it. But now wondering if that is both necessary and the best strategy.


Question is:
Is it more effective to target military units and then cities OR to target cities and then defend conquered cities?

Again normal play would be to either target AI civ military that is in the open, or suckered into the open, so cities will fall like ripe plums. But what happens if instead you ignore all military except the military holding the cities?

Perceived advantages:
1. military will be focused on critical holdings, i.e. cities
2. as capture cities AI military production will fall
3. when civ is eliminated ALL military units disappear. This is key, you do not have to fight the military to eliminate units. Eliminate all the civ's cities and all armies and ships and planes and land units disappear.
4. Can fortify conquered cities and AI can be at disadvantage, particularly if upgrade conquered canons to artillery.


What are disadvantages?
1. Getting use to pot shots by AI
2. Workers need to further from front lines
3. Some improvements will disappear.
4. ??? any thing else.


What do you think? Does this have the potential of working? If so, how would you conduct your campaign?

[nato]

I say attack the cities all the way. The AI doesn't attack much, it more so wanders units around. Generally I just conquer the entire civ quickly enough that the AI doesn't have much time to attack anyway.

[fezick31]

You would have to go about it very quickly, otherwise you would lose all your holdings to culture flips. I think a better strategy would be to burn the cities to the ground, and then build your own on the ruins. You can use the workers you create razing cities to build fortifications and roads.

[Pythagoras]

This is how a normal war goes from my experience.

War is declared, AI masses as much units as it cans for attack. Sometimes you'll think "holy god the AI is going to kill me!" but this is ussually the majority of its offensive units. I typically defeat this horde (or quit the game mad) and then go on the offensive whereby I find the enemy civ defenseless other than standard city defense units. Then you take cities. If you are in a war of conquest, take um fast and with as many troops as possible. If you are looking just to get out of an exhausting war take one or two. Only through taking cities have I noticed a change in a warring civs attitude toward negotiation.

So in the final analysis Id put more emphasis on city taking, only this brings the enemy civ to their knees or the negotiating table. Typically however you'll have to deal with the incoming hordes first, so killing units takes a more practical priority on occasion.

[Panag]

Re: Wondering: can we eliminate a civ without targeting its military?

Originally posted by planetfall
I was out yesterday and an idea for new military strategy came to mind. I normally focus on strongest military unit coming at me and weakening/defeating it. But now wondering if that is both necessary and the best strategy.


Question is:
Is it more effective to target military units and then cities OR to target cities and then defend conquered cities?

Again normal play would be to either target AI civ military that is in the open, or suckered into the open, so cities will fall like ripe plums. But what happens if instead you ignore all military except the military holding the cities?

Perceived advantages:
1. military will be focused on critical holdings, i.e. cities
2. as capture cities AI military production will fall
3. when civ is eliminated ALL military units disappear. This is key, you do not have to fight the military to eliminate units. Eliminate all the civ's cities and all armies and ships and planes and land units disappear.
4. Can fortify conquered cities and AI can be at disadvantage, particularly if upgrade conquered canons to artillery.


What are disadvantages?
1. Getting use to pot shots by AI
2. Workers need to further from front lines
3. Some improvements will disappear.
4. ??? any thing else.


What do you think? Does this have the potential of working? If so, how would you conduct your campaign?

hi ,

a mix of all the things you have named , ....

however when you target something it should be done with an overkill , example , you want to land some troops far away to take a city , fine take some settlers , some workers , a boat full of marines , some mech infantry , some armour , and some old units to disband , ....

okay , this should move with at least one carrier that holds 8-12 airunits , a sub or two , to see the subs around (!) , a battle ship for fire support and some destroyers to guard the whole thing , ....a lot ; yes , but its good for victory and when in the right hands , this "battle group" can take over a whole civ , at an other continent , ...... , ....

have a nice day

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
This is how a normal war goes from my experience.

. . .So in the final analysis Id put more emphasis on city taking, only this brings the enemy civ to their knees or the negotiating table. Typically however you'll have to deal with the incoming hordes first, so killing units takes a more practical priority on occasion.

What the AI usually does:

1. Sends a few units after undefended workers or bombardment units which I deliberately leave undefended. I then destroy the AI units that have exposed themselves.

2. Same thing with resource tiles. AI goes for them; I counterattack the exposed AI units. I have thus whittled down their strength at no cost.

3. After I raze a city (if so) the AI sends settler/foot soldier combos wandering into my territory even when at war with me. I destroy them and get some free workers.

4. The AI always wastes more time and units sending unsupported military on galleys or the like on attacks behind your lines. This is a mere nuisance unless you've stripped your towns/cites.

5. As for the AI main force, by use of fortified positions and fortresses, I channel them into killing grounds on grassland where I attack them.

6. I make sure when I'm nearing a war I am able to upgrade quickly due to having the right tech under development and the right amount of cash available.

7. Even when I am overruning his civ the AI will start a Happiness Wonder, and waste time bombarding improvements on my coastline - hardly important when my troops are bearing down on his biggest city.

The AI really isn't smart at all. The only chance it has is to overwhelm me with alliances with other civs. Or cheat.

[Zachriel]

Re: Wondering: can we eliminate a civ without targeting its military?

Originally posted by planetfall
Question is:
Is it more effective to target military units and then cities OR to target cities and then defend conquered cities?

It is always better to defend from a city during a battle. So the best general strategy is to entice the enemy to hit you while forted in a city, then counterattack from the city. A city provides defensive, healing, bases, and usually road advantages.

This can be combined with an attacking strategy. Take the city, parry the counterattack, then advance to the next city. The military also quells resistance in newly captured cities.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Coracle


What the AI usually does:

1. Sends a few units after undefended workers or bombardment units which I deliberately leave undefended. I then destroy the AI units that have exposed themselves.

2. Same thing with resource tiles. AI goes for them; I counterattack the exposed AI units. I have thus whittled down their strength at no cost.

3. After I raze a city (if so) the AI sends settler/foot soldier combos wandering into my territory even when at war with me. I destroy them and get some free workers.

4. The AI always wastes more time and units sending unsupported military on galleys or the like on attacks behind your lines. This is a mere nuisance unless you've stripped your towns/cites.

5. As for the AI main force, by use of fortified positions and fortresses, I channel them into killing grounds on grassland where I attack them.

6. I make sure when I'm nearing a war I am able to upgrade quickly due to having the right tech under development and the right amount of cash available.

7. Even when I am overruning his civ the AI will start a Happiness Wonder, and waste time bombarding improvements on my coastline - hardly important when my troops are bearing down on his biggest city.

The AI really isn't smart at all. The only chance it has is to overwhelm me with alliances with other civs. Or cheat.

hi ,

okay , try to put the AI default level at "deity" , it helps a bit , ....

have a nice day

[Arrian]

Take the cities. That will destroy his production, cut up his road network, and leave units stranded out in the field, where you can pick them off.

I like to take apart an AI opponent quickly, which is one of the several reasons I like fast attack units (horsemen/knights/cav/tanks/modern armor). Hit the AI hard 'n fast, and they'll never recover.

-Arrian

[Panag]

Originally posted by Arrian
Take the cities. That will destroy his production, cut up his road network, and leave units stranded out in the field, where you can pick them off.

I like to take apart an AI opponent quickly, which is one of the several reasons I like fast attack units (horsemen/knights/cav/tanks/modern armor). Hit the AI hard 'n fast, and they'll never recover.

-Arrian

hi ,

to get them roads , when playing as the US , with the F-15 this is fun , .....

but hang on , sometimes players go deep inside enemy country , ...only to find themself's cut off , and , well cut in pieces and bits , .....

have a nice day

[planetfall]

Well it seems like the idea is useful, but found a couple of problems:
1. if ignoring military, need some other 1 city civ so can eliminate strong civ with gobs of military
2. Sometimes the temptation is just too much. Last game, started final campaign and took 10 Russian cities on first turn, but could not ignore the Russian troops. Since I went in so far and so fast, Russia sent
Stack A -- 10 units, 5 infantry
Stack B -- 15 units, 8 infantry
within 1 tile of newly conquered city. And as backup had an army 2 tiles away.
I couldn't stay with the plan. If I had I would have lost the city and then had about 20 units, and probably 10 infantry reholding the city. This did not hum! The only alternative would have been to sucker some/most of military away by offering cities with no military or workers unescorted as bait. Did not have the patience last night. 3 turns later Russia went from 18 cities to 1 island city I missed. Ugh, darn slow transports. Took longer to get to last island city than to eliminate 17 cities.

Still think strategy is a useful mindset for focusing on what is important, but use it as a guideline and remember it only works if a) want to end game or b) have another very weak civ left when you eliminate the last city.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Pythagoras Only through taking cities have I noticed a change in a warring civs attitude toward negotiation.

I disagree here. I have negotiated peace with the AI after a war it started without cities changing hands. Also, I was able to extract tribute from him as well. If you hit the AI hard enough or the AI really flops on an offensive, he'll deal with you as though you're winning the war.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by dunk999


I disagree here. I have negotiated peace with the AI after a war it started without cities changing hands. Also, I was able to extract tribute from him as well. If you hit the AI hard enough or the AI really flops on an offensive, he'll deal with you as though you're winning the war.

I agree here. I did not use to prepare for war at all and just focused on defense and building, building. At my level it was not extremely hard to defeat invasion. I regularly had AIs asking for peace without me even entering his territory. The trigger events seemed to be 1) stop aggression, AND 2) be one turn away from going on offense with strong force approaching his border(s).