How to counter the horseman rush

[Jack_www]

When I ever I fight a war, I try as hard as I can to fight the war on the enemies territory. You take the war to them, and make them fight it on their ground. When defending you have to launch counter attacks. Like I said if you sit in your city or fort waiting for the enemy you will lose.

[Anaximander]

Ok Calc, you are right about one point. That is that defensive planers need to manipulate the battle field so as to make the order of battle more predicitable.

However, if that is what you are relying on you will get beat more times than not. Fixed defenses can't compeate with a highly mobile and highly aggressive offinsive force.

Leading up to WW II the French believed that the Ardenes were impassiable to a modern army. As a result they built the Maginot Line on their border with Germany. What did the Germans do??? The smashed through the Ardenes taking the French compleatly by suprise.

Now we must ask our selves, what from this history lesson can we apply to our Civ games??? If you build a static defense force with predesigned killing fields, I will just take another rout. The fact is that you can't effectivly defend your ENTIRE border. Whether it be a vast jungle, a mountain belt, or a shore line far away from the front; there will be an area where you will say "He'll never attack here in a million years" and that will be the place I attack.

Calc, you mention that defenders must try to manipulate the battle field in order to best engage the enemy. A good attacker will be looking for these traps, and then avoid them. He will be forced to be creative in his attack methods, because all the easy routs will be clogged with your units. In a way, you can make your self more vunerable if you set up this kind of defensive strategy. The solution? A mobile offensive force to counter attack with. I'll be far more warry of sending my horsemen (or knights, or cavs) through that mountain belt if I know that you have some horsies (or knights, or cavs) of your own waiting to ambush me.

[planetfall]

You guys are talking pass each other. Who said the counter to a horseman rush was static? Like football, the best defense changes with the audibles called.

The best defense is one where after each conflict the attacker is weaker and weaker. I have not found horsemen to be all that powerful. I read advice warning about raging barbarians and the time when the uprising came with more than 10 horses. The consensus was don't try to fight, you will lose cities, live with it. Well, being of a scientific bent, I had to test this assumption. Sure enough with raging barbarians suddenly 12 horseman popped up within 4 tiles of 2 cities with 1 spear and 1 warrior in each. They attacked and attacked and attacked. My units just grew in experience and surprise the cities held.

So what worked:
1) good city location,
2) first level defense held until
3) second level defense was available.

The point is good defense has at least 2 levels. The goal of 1st level is to slow down the attacker until the 2nd level can get to work. What I have found most effective is to have not only a 2 level defense but also

To use your WWII analogy. Sure the French lost with only a level 1 defensive line. But what happened in the Battle of the Bulge. Territory was lost for a time but after 2nd level starting in, Germany was in worst shape than before. A good civ3 player should have that skill set. Sure anyone can attack me, but "war is hell" and will not be cheap.

Like it or not civ3 games are like chess. If you only think defense, you will lose. The best defense is a good offense. Come on horsies and I will find a void spot in your empire created by the horsies. Horsies are only a problem if the defender does not have a good military road network. At the best they are worthless by the start of the Middle Ages. Can you say "pikeman"?

Anaximander-- you have 20 horses, come on in. I only have 4 horses, but combined with spears and swords and catapaults and good military roads you will have a expensive campaign. I don't allow border transgressions unless I gain more by pretending they didn't exist. Worry if you are allowed to enter without contest.

== PF

[Dis]

well I think I already knew the answer with my first post.

To counter horseman have horseman of your own. You don't need as many when combined with good defensive units.

Carefully plan your attacks to not let your defensive horsman be stranded on flat land with no other defending unit such as spearman. Attack any isolated enemy horseman with your horseman.

Often I'll move horseman and spearman together at least until they get to their staging points on mountains/hills. It is slower, but you can utilize your road network to be faster than the enemy. I strike with my horseman if I'm fairly sure they cannot be counter attacked. If they can I may move 2 spearman in the same square.

But you can not overestimate the road network. If you build only good 1 move defensive units you will lose. They will bypass your cities and sever your roads. Your road network advantage is suddenly gone. Do not use roads as a crutch. You must think of being mobile in the worst case scenario (ie you have no roads)

[Theseus]

We're talking specifically about Horsemen rushes, right?

Without even getting into UUs, I am perfectly comfortable welcoming enemy Horsemen into my territory... as long as I define the battlefield. Swordsmen make mincemeat out of them.

And then it's my turn.

[Dis]

I don't know. Swordsmen have their disadvantages.

I have trouble using them to counter horseman. Maybe that is my failing in strategy I don't know. They cannot defend against horses. They are useless in that regard. They often cannot beat horses in difficult terrain. Which leaves attacking horses in flat terrain which leaves your unit isolated for counter attack. The only way I can see that working is if you moved vet spearmen with the swordsmen.

edit: remember: We are talking human opponents here. Not dumb ai. A human will go around enemy swordsmen into the heart of the enemy land. There is no need to even get close to swordsmen.

[vmxa1]

Depends on where the battle is staged. If they are attacking and I can counter with swords they have problem. They die or rereat and the follow up finishes them. I am not going to approach in such a way as to let them hit and move out of range. They will have to move up to attack and be vulnerable.

[Dis]

again that depends on the territory. This works real well in narrow allys. Swordmen can station on good ground with spearman and kick some ass.

but if you have a city that can be attacked from all sides you are in a world of hurt. I just did that today. I completely rocked someones world today with a horseman rush. I also had spearman to back them up. But really the horseman did the trick. Of course I had 3 times the # of cities he had. But we had the same opportunity to expand. He just failed to do so. I usually hate utilizing so many horseman only, but the timer on the multiplayer game went too quickly. I barely had time to move 2/3 of my horseman. But that was enough.

[planetfall]

Theseus is right. Unless in very beginning horseman rush will work, but if standard defense is built. I will gain 100 shields for every 10 stack horseman rush. So come on baby...


Explanation for those unfamilar with defending vs horsemen.
A. Horsemen are only effective as sole unit stacks when
1. only 1..2 roads connect border city
2. only 1..2 units are defending in border city
3. there are large gaps between border cities.

B. Standard defense setup with border towns no more than 4 tiles apart. Duplicate configuration across entire border.

Code Key:
C == clear terrain
H == horse stack entry point
X == city
O == roaded tile
M == maximum horse penetration on first move


C C C H C C C
X O O M O X O
O O ? ? O O O


City X1 military
1 sword 30
1 catapault 20
2 spear 40
1 horse 30
1 warrior 10
Total: 6 units, 130 shields

City X2 military
1 sword 30
1 archer 20
2 spear 40
1 horse 30
1 warror 10
Total: 6 units, 130 shields

STRATEGY 1-- Go for interior
Stack of 10 horses reach point M.

Defensive attacks:
2 swords {from X1 & X2}
1 catapult
1 archer
2 spear move to archer & catapult positions to defend versus counter attack and fortify. 2 horse move to same position so horse can't retreat.
Gain 3 horse. Stack of 10 is now 7.
{Sword vs horse == 3 vs 1, .: invader loses 1 horse. If wounder horse retreats, our horse takes out and returns to spear/archer position.
Repeat x 1.
Catapult vs horse == 4 vs 1, invader loses .5 horse
Archer vs horse == 2 vs 1, invader loses .5 horse.}

Turn 2 counter attack, ibid, 7 stack -> 4 stack
Turn 3 counter attack, ibid, 4 stack -> 0 stack.


If attacker uses Strategy #2 and goes for towns, situation is even worst. All towns will have a combination of:
river 25% def bonus
hill 50% def bonus
fortified units 25% bonus


Summary, attacker used 300 shields to create 10 horse stack. Defender used 260 shields for defense. Cities 1 ring from border have additional units that can reinforce in 1..2 turns.

Typical losses:
Defender--
1 archer, 20 shields
1 spear, 20 shields
1 warrior, 10 shields
1 horse, 30 shields
Total 4 units, 80 shields

Attacker--
10 horse, 30 shields
Total 10 units, 300 shields.

Defender gains 220 shields for each 10 stack horse attack!!!!

Since each city has 3+ roads connecting to empire, the lost of 1..2 roads is meaningless.

Summary, keys for defense:
1. multiple military roads
2. mixed defensive units
3. use barren tiles to restrict retreat of invading horses
4. have reinforcements available 1..2 turns away
5. focus on bigger picture. In order to create a 10 horse stack, there have to be serious weaknesses in attacking civ. Find the weakness and exploit!!

== PF

[Anaximander]

I have to say Planetfall, that has to be one of the best posts I have seen. That sort of defensive network would make even the greatest offensive stratigests shudder... With your plan you have all the elements we have been talking about. A good road network, killing zones, good defensive units, and just enough fast moving units to negate the movement advantage of the enemy. This is the kind of defense that can shrug off horseman rushes. A question though. Needless to say we have gotten used to the AI and it's stacks o' death. These one pronged attacks could easily be isolated and beaten off. However, human opponents would use this approach in attacking the enemy, favouring instead multi-prong attacks. Do you think you will have to change your defensive plan any to counter this?

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Anaximander
I have to say Planetfall, that has to be one of the best posts I have seen.

Wow, now where is my picture frame? Frame that baby!

Thank you.

That sort of defensive network would make even the greatest offensive stratigests shudder... With your plan you have all the elements we have been talking about. A good road network, killing zones, good defensive units, and just enough fast moving units to negate the movement advantage of the enemy. This is the kind of defense that can shrug off horseman rushes. A question though. Needless to say we have gotten used to the AI and it's stacks o' death. These one pronged attacks could easily be isolated and beaten off. However, human opponents would use this approach in attacking the enemy, favouring instead multi-prong attacks. Do you think you will have to change your defensive plan any to counter this?

Aw good question.
I don't think I will have to change basic defensive posture.

Actually this is my basic defensive posture. As time progresses not only do I upgrade units but also increase bombardment units. If I have a known aggressive neighbor, I may have 5-7 bombardment units/border city facing aggressive neighbor. My prefences also movement of artillery to 2 and radar artillery to 3. Usually I have 3..4 good defenders in border towns [spear/pike/musket/rifle/inf] with 3..4 reinforcements within a few turns.

Typical layout after unchallenged expansion ends:

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 

X O O O O X O O O O X O O O O X O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O R O O O O O O O O O O R O O O O O O

R= reinforcements, 1..4 offensive units, i.e.,
chariot/horse/arch/sword/new add - Med Inf/knight/cav/inf/tank/MA

Only put in reinforcement line when suspect attack likely. Otherwise I focus on increasing military production capability for empire. I don't think this will change with humans, but don't know. It will be interesting to discover in a few years. This is still my first year of civ. I have yet to get to higher difficulty levels. Currently I play at monarch. After I learn enough to win at deity and have played GOTM well, then I will consider human vs human games.

But since this is not chess with 1 vs 1, but 1 vs many. I am reminded of the story of the 2 guys in the woods. One is throwing away his hicking boots and putting on tennies. His friend asks "why are you tossing your new boots away?". Well you see that bear coming up the trail. I know I can't outrun him. All I have to do is be the less vulnerable target.

Other civs won't have this defensive posture and should be easier targets for militarialistic civs. Once I am set, the Aztecs, Chinese, Japanese, Romans, Zulu are still easily annoyed, but they usually find someone else as a more vulnerable release value for their aggressive tendencies.

== PF

[Anaximander]

At somepoint we have to say that a pure horsman rush would probably fail. I think that PlanetFalls defensive net would be more than adquate to counter a horseman rush. However, a more combined arms approach might be able to punch a hole in the net. And let us not for get an Inchon style landing deep behind the front lines. True, the AI might not be able to do this terriably well, but human opponents could make life quite miserable.

[planetfall]

At some point players have to admit the one that trusts in any defensive tactic/strategy has not yet played today's Rommel or Patton.

The bottom line for defense: the only great defense is an exceptional offense.

Civ3 is not a Super Bowl game where defense can win. Defense can buy time, but only offense can win. Interestingly enough, in civ the offense might be:

1- fastest culture build up
2- control of UN
3- faster space ship build
...etc. as well as military offense.

Pick your method. One of the simpliest counters to horseman rush is military alliances with other civs. If 30 horses are coming for you, there must be a termendous hole another civ would love to exploit.

Again if having trouble with horsemen it is because someone thinks you are too weak in comparison with the other potential targets. It is only with MP PTW that spite comes into play and weak gang up on strong players. {something like Weakest Link}.

How many times have you bribed 2..3 other civs to join with you in a military alliance against the strongest civ? They love me when I do that, but I don't do it until it is better for me than for them.

Wouldn't it be interesting to have a time machine and be able to bring back Rommel, Patton, Ike, Montgomery, Hitler, and Stalin and make them play a civ3 game vs each other. Now that would be an great game watch! How defensive would that game be?

== PF

[Zero]

Originally posted by Anaximander
Ok Calc, you are right about one point. That is that defensive planers need to manipulate the battle field so as to make the order of battle more predicitable.

However, if that is what you are relying on you will get beat more times than not. Fixed defenses can't compeate with a highly mobile and highly aggressive offinsive force.

Leading up to WW II the French believed that the Ardenes were impassiable to a modern army. As a result they built the Maginot Line on their border with Germany. What did the Germans do??? The smashed through the Ardenes taking the French compleatly by suprise.

Now we must ask our selves, what from this history lesson can we apply to our Civ games??? If you build a static defense force with predesigned killing fields, I will just take another rout. The fact is that you can't effectivly defend your ENTIRE border. Whether it be a vast jungle, a mountain belt, or a shore line far away from the front; there will be an area where you will say "He'll never attack here in a million years" and that will be the place I attack.

Calc, you mention that defenders must try to manipulate the battle field in order to best engage the enemy. A good attacker will be looking for these traps, and then avoid them. He will be forced to be creative in his attack methods, because all the easy routs will be clogged with your units. In a way, you can make your self more vunerable if you set up this kind of defensive strategy. The solution? A mobile offensive force to counter attack with. I'll be far more warry of sending my horsemen (or knights, or cavs) through that mountain belt if I know that you have some horsies (or knights, or cavs) of your own waiting to ambush me.

argh... I will not be crushed simply because I rely on fixed defensive position, I have never said to rely on fixed defensive position to win wars.

All I said is whenever chances permit, it is better to be defending than offending since defense is where all the advantage is. However, since offense has the two key element, the when and where, if you can somehow have some control over that, you will be left off in better position.

french simply believed that the germans will come toward their defensive line, germans being a smart invader avoided attacking their defenders. They acknowledged and exercised their rights to "when" and where". of course, defense simply falls to such kind of situation.

Of course smart attacker will be considerate of traps and tricks and your attempt to influence "when and where"... then even smarter defender will be aware that enemy knows and will act accordingly, and loop will continue, until SOMEONE outsmarts somebody. This arguement is basically who outsmart who then, and is of no use.

anyway, defense doesnt win wars... you gotta attack them to finish off the enemy, (I don't think no attacker will attack until he kills himself) but not using the defensive advantage whenever you can is foolish.

[Zero]

Another post. Planetfall and anaximander, I hope we are not argueing simply "what is better? defense or offense?" you can't have a 100% defensive war OR 100% offensive war. Those generals you so named were brilliant in that they were able to maintain some kind of organization and defensive structure while rapidly moving into enemy territory. BTW Rommel actually achieved god like satus for his incredible success at retreating while the german forces were being crushed under allied attack, not because he was an amazing attack planner. Not saying that he wasn't, he was a great general who planned well for any scenario. It's a lil off topic but just wanted to clear that up.

For anything there should exist a balance and for different people different level of spectrum works. Some lean more to left or some lean more to right. I actually prefer to take on the offensive, but still my arguement stays the same, given the situation that when and where is written in stone, defense is better option. You can't argue with that, but of course there is the diffuculty in actually creating those situations... that you can argue with.

Chess and war games like civ is a funny little game. I noticed large population of players though have problems attacking everything in their sights (less so in chess though since reason not to attack is a little more visible than war games). Anyway, you know what kind of people I am talking about. THOSE kinds of people are suceptible of revealing the when and where

planetfall u mention chess, but unfourtunately, chess isnt such great example, since alot of actions take up in interdependence of piece with another piece to defend each other. Chess is actually great example of defense, since no units can defend against an attack! What defends that unit is a series of other units that are in relationship with one another and the risk of losing an attacker in part by the opponent. Without any elaborate system of defense, Chess would just be a game of you take that piece this turn, I take this piece next turn. There are dynamic action sometimes taken place by mostly pieces like bishops knights and rooks making interesting moves that abuses their ability to do some odd manuvers, but chess is more so about understanding the idea of how defense works and use of diverse units to create a system.

P.S Its funny how i entered into this forum condeming the idea of overemphasizing defense, but as forum evolved there seems to be more offense emphasizers. I may sound pro-defense, but Im really not. Trust me, you'll know when you get to see me play. I'm actually "overextend my troop a little too much attacking" side of spectrum. Anyway, just felt that forum was overemphasizing offense and felt the need to bring the gauge back to the balance.

BTW, Defense can't win superbowl either. Technically put when defense is going for the scoring it's on the offensive, so its like saying I attacked with pikemen and won the war thus defense won the war defensive line won the war, but they scored by attacking.