Incredible!

[ruby_maser]

The hardest part of conducting offensive wars for me is the logistics of having to diversify, to come at a city with airpower and seapower (if possible) on top of a good cross-section of conventional ground units instead of just going it with as many MA's as possible.

One trick I learned that helped me get over the inertia to diversify was to try to lose as few military units as possible. I'm not keeping count or anything, just simply trying to come up with a plan conceived well-enough to cut my losses to a minimum. Its a point of pride; otherwise, the game is not about strategic war... only numbers.

[Willem]

Originally posted by ruby_maser
Its a point of pride; otherwise, the game is not about strategic war... only numbers.

It's not just about pride, it's also common sense. The more units you have that survive one war, the more you'll have if another war breaks out. Having to rebuild your military because of heavy losses can only leave you at a disadvantage in the long run.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by Willem


It's not just about pride, it's also common sense. The more units you have that survive one war, the more you'll have if another war breaks out. Having to rebuild your military because of heavy losses can only leave you at a disadvantage in the long run.

Heavy losses can mean the next war starts very soon. Neighbours look over the fence and notice your little military and your juicy real estate and then get stuck into you.

[Pyrodrew]

There is never an absolute of always use numbers or always use bombardment on cities. It depends on the situation. Sometimes Propaganda is the best choice, but not often.

[Tattila the Hun]

Don't casualties also increase war wearines?

Question, has anyone ever succeeded in propaganda?

[Pyrodrew]

Don't casualties also increase war wearines?

If they do it's minor, unlike enemy troops in your territory or your troops in enemy territory (which bombarding boats count as).

Question, has anyone ever succeeded in propaganda?

I have. I believe it works best on disordered cities who have a low population of the controlling civ & are far from their capital, especially if they are not connected to the capital via road, harbor, or airport. Even then the odds seem low.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
There is never an absolute of always use numbers or always use bombardment on cities. It depends on the situation. Sometimes Propaganda is the best choice, but not often.

Absolutely right. In the situation I mentioned above, I was fighting Infantry v. Mechs, so a little "equalization" was required. But every game is different. Sometimes even core enemy cities will join your Empire voluntarily -- without a shot being fired (flip).


http://www.zachriel.com/gotm13/bc0470-Culture.htm

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Absolutely right. In the situation I mentioned above, I was fighting Infantry v. Mechs, so a little "equalization" was required. But every game is different. Sometimes even core enemy cities will join your Empire voluntarily -- without a shot being fired (flip).


http://www.zachriel.com/gotm13/bc0470-Culture.htm

I just had a look at your website Zach, looks good.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Willem
I just had a look at your website Zach, looks good.

Thanks. Actually, I was hoping it was relevant to Keeper of Hell's original thread. The idea is that there are many ways to expand your empire.

Of course, historically, military conquest has always been very popular. Bombardment and overwhelming odds in the immediate zone of combat are the most important tactics in this regard, which should answer Keeper of Hell's concern.

However, don't forget there are other means to expand your empire, as well; such as extortion after an extended war, and cultural conversion. The latter doesn't even require a military.

[BigDork]

Originally posted by Willem
I hope your handle indicates humility, and not some sort of inferiority complex!

I'll leave that up to you to decide.

BigD