My approach to war in the industrial age

[Kc7mxo]

An interesting strategy, and I have used human walls to push annoying non hostile people who i don't feel like pissing off out of my empire.

[SofaKing]

Catapults have been pretty worthless for me. I tried massing 5 or 6 to bombard a city prior to an assault. It didn't yield anything. I haven't made much use of cannons, but artillery is quite effective. In fact, I've been pretty successful with slash and burn, rather than standard land grab invasions. A group of two artillery pieces, a cavalry, and 3 infantry can destroy a ton of terrain. I find a hill or forest and park all the units. The infantry protects the artillery, the artillery beats the jesus out of all of the terrain, and the cavalry hits any targets of opportunity (workers). Once you do it to enough cities, the enemy's economy totally shuts down. The only problem is that before battlefield medicine, the group has a definite shelf life. Fortunately, it is a relatively cheap investment in resources, so you can usualy deliver 3 or 4 groups to the enemy's territory.

[zebulon]

When my enemy has an extensive rail net and a strong military, I generally attack with a rolling artillery/bomber barrage, tearing up rails and roads. I discovered that sending spearheads into an enemy nation without this preparation results in a massive retaliation, since the entire empire can instantanously transport defenders by rail to my breakthroughs.

When on the receiving end I use an alternate strategy: I use my extensive rail net to quickly concentrate artillery on enemy penetration points and then whittle the attackers down for cavalry or armor to mop up.

The trick of course is to not let the enemy capture your stack of 10 - 15 artillery pieces.

I have yet to see the AI use concentrated artillery in such a manner, but I have seen huge bomber attacks. The AI is pretty crafty when it comes to picking weak spots, like when it sends bombers at my rubber and oil production sites.

[Monoriu]

Thank you for all the replies, especially those of you who shared your strategies with us.

I didn't use the "wall" tactic right from the beginning. This is my second game (first game was a disaster). I knew from the start that I would be fighting 1:7. At first I just packed my guys into one single stack and then garrisoned the rest of the borders with some infantry units here and there. As my invasion force moved forward, AI units from 4 (the other 3 were on another continent) different countries poured through all the various borders and they numbered almost 100. I have to move city garrisons, pull back invasion forces, buy units, switch all production to infantry, and for many turns I still didn't have enough units to patch everything up (although I never lost a city). I didn't have enough units to attack all the invading AI units, so I just formed a wall to stop them from going further. That's how the "wall" was born. I soon found that a wall was more effective and economical than having dozens of cavalry running rampant inside my territory, picking off lone units, attacking cities and pillaging improvements.

I had no idea how many units were needed, I didn't count for the last game. But in the current game (Monarch, large map, 16 civs), I am building up for a wall in the anticipated "final battle for world domination". I have almost finished building up for a wall plus invasion army, and the last count of my forces is about 140 infantry, 10 cavalry (no saltpeter), 20 destroyers, and 40 artillery. With all the cities at max population, all with factories, all tiles irrigated and mined with rail, hoover dam built, I have more than a dozen cities that can produce an infantry in 2 turns. Do the math and it is not as impossible as it sounds.

LaRusso: No, I don't use mobolization. I was fighting 7 civs and its impossible to make peace with all of them at once. Even if one of them begs for peace, it will backstab me in about 3-5 turns. So once I have switched to mobolization, there is no way I can turn back. I don't want to be deprived of the ability to build wonders and city improvements for the rest of the game. I don't draft citizens either.

Nato: I like your idea as well. Next time I may try it out. Actually, if I fight a war in the ancient or middle ages, the "wall" tactic is impossible because production is so slow.

Quint: I use 2 kinds of walls: the moving wall for offense, and the static wall for defense. A defensive wall sitting on forts and hills doesn't need as many units as a moving, fighting wall. I was facing 5 different land fronts facing 3 different civs at the beginning of the war. I cannot attack everywhere. I can only attack in one front.

Cort: Silly as it may sound, this tactic utterly destroyed the armed forces of 7 civs united against me at Regent level with the same techs as mine.

Narmox: How to post the screenshot though?

[Jokka das Trevas]

Well, to take out republics and democracies faster, you would do well to attack tatically on harbors and roads connecting the empire (including its connection with OTHER empires)

The loss of luxuries wil make people go mad, and no garrisons to solve this are permitted.

Cities burning all the way.

[Enigma]

I enjoy combat in the industrial age also, but used a very different approach. My preparation was much the same, but how I did it was quite different.

I garrisoned 2-4 units on my *border* cities, cities that can't be reached by calvalry in 1 turn had 1 defender, cities that cannot be reached by calvalry in 2 turns had *no* defenders unless police were needed.

My *offensive* unit ratios were as follows
Infantry 1 part
Calvalry 2 parts
Artillery 3 parts

This allowed for incredibly fast conquering. I was fighting the French, and I kept enemy cities in position so that I could keep the territory behind them.

I was cranking out settlers to use offensively, I would often found a city right next to an enemy city so that my artillery woudn't waste any turns moving. I based most of this strategy around maximizing my use of artillery so that they didn't spend turns moving.

I never used infantry on the offensive, only calvalry. Calvalry will withdraw if it loses a battle, and even when the enemies have 1 HP I frequently lose with infantry.

Communism is a must, I did use the draft to reinforce cities when needed, conscripts are great cannon fodder.

I usually had all of my units stacked in 3 squares, tops. At the MOST. Everything else was in cities where it is less vulnerable to rampaging French calvalry. I rely on rails to reinforce beleagered cities.

I minimize the number of troops in enemy territory, I *always* try to initiate bombardments from friendly territory. This means that my troops almost never leave my empire wide rail web.

I bombard cities until every unit is red and the city is below size 6. Kills a lot of civilians.

This was quite effective against the French, their empire was about 2 times as large as mine, and they had a 3 tech advantage in the late industrial age (I was Americans, on Monarch difficulty). But using Communism and a lot of artillery I perservered.

I lost VERY few units doing this, the French almost never attacked my units. I conquered their core cities in about 8-12 turns, then I treated with them for 20 turns so they would give me tech/money. At this point I had tanks and rolled over them in 2-3 turns.

I always try to get wars over ASAP, I do not like the resource drain or the lack of tech coming in

Disdvantages of my strat as compared to yours-
A concentrated attack could capture a lot of artillery
An assault using mixed calvalry/infantry while finding some way of preventing my artillery from reaching the beleagured city could prove troublesome
Weak against multidirectional attacks
I ended up wanting to raze the cities I killed... but you can't do that in this game =[

Advantages-
MOBILITY!
Speed of conquest
Very few units killed due to calvalry retreating and reusability of artillery
Heavy calvalry is good at countering enemy counterattacks at any corner of your rail empire.

Anyways I am amazed to hear you approached this so differently... cool!

My cities weren't terribly productive, I had very few productive squares in my empire, and bad corruption.

I would probably drastically increase the infantry if I was playing against a human player. However the important thing is that 2/3's of my force is ALWAYS on my main empire rail system (this conquesting was on the same continent) I never really felt it necessary to spread out my defenses.

[jbird]

edit: double post

Jbird

[jbird]

Hmm, most of your tactics are sound, but I too oppose the "human wall" defensive technique. It costs too much, and similar results can be had for cheaper outlays of expense.

Now, here's what I do instead. I make my border hedgehogged with fortresses, on every other square, right along my border. Each of these fortresses has 2 infantry and 2 artillery in them (or 3 depending on the enemy's overall strength), and I try to set them up on the best terrain I can find (or i'll plant trees for the extra defensive bonus in that square). This works best where your culture has pushed your borders out 3 squares from the city itself. The enemy has NO units that can move more than 3 squares. I use this to my advantage. So, the enemy starts on the outside of my border, moves next to the fortress on his first move, one step closer to my interior with the second move, and one further move to the interior on his third move.

This leaves the enemy force within range of at least one fortress' artillery, and also at least one city's worth of artillery. All of this artillery is able to pound the enemy force, which is mopped up by Cavalry garrisoned in the cities (or tanks if you got 'em).

Also, this tactic allows my artillery to soften up any other enemy units even approaching my borders. This causes these stragglers to be out of the fight for effectively 3 turns minimum, as they must take one turn to get to a city, another to heal, and a third to get back to where they were. Also, if you use the artillery to *destroy* the road network outside your borders, this costs them even more movement points to get to anything worthwhile.

This isn't nearly as useful for long fronts as it is narrow chokepoints. I like it better than the solid wall as it is able to use the artillery to do some offensive action to delay the enemy, and my mobile cavalry/tank force can respond to threats and breakthroughs a bit better than a wall can react.

Also, a point for clarity's sake: I don't pursue this tactic most of the time, but only when i've been at peace and allowed to build a massive military. My offensive strategy is *quite* different as well, as I pursue a "battlefield isolation" policy to forcibly deny the enemy the ability to reinforce the city under attack as well as to deny strategic resources to the city or cities in question.

HOWEVER

The main point of the author's original point is exactly correct, imo. Unlike in other civ games, one must *plan* an offensive, and *build* an army. You can't just waltz in with 4 tanks and 3 riflemen and take over the French (although this might be historically accurate, but that's beside the point lol)

Plan, build, execute. (Oh, and have a plan for if it all goes to #$(*#&)

Jbird

[Monoriu]

Wonderful, more people sharing their strategies.

I just want to make one thing clear: I am a newbie at this game. I am not saying that the "wall" tactic is the best. This was just one way of doing it.

I want to share more of my experience.

In my last game I was facing the Japanese in the south, and the Egyptians to the NE. They were allied against me and had right of passages.

Originally I was fighting both of them on two separate fronts. I didn't use the wall then and fought a mobile defence. I stationed units at the Japanese front at intervals and strong points. The Japanese would ignore the forts and mountains, and march through the holes in the defence line.

Then I produced more troops and sealed the Japanese front with a wall so that no one can get through without a fight. What happened next was the Japanese moved their troops into the unsealed Egyptian front and attacked from there, together with the Egyptians. When I deliberately opened a hole in the wall facing the Japanese, some Japanese troops began to move through the hole instead of marching into Egyptian territory.

I think the AI has an objective in mind, probably one of my cities near the Japanese front. However, it doesn't want to fight along the way, so it will move its troops along the shortest undefended route to its objective.

What I am saying here, is that it maybe possible to control and predict where the AI strikes. Say, if I want to relieve pressure on the Egyptian front, I leave a hole on the Japanese front. If I want to concentrate fighting on the Egyptian front, I seal the Japanese front. Kinda like a switch.

[cort]

Originally posted by nato
Seriously cort that is a lousy attitude, especially after he went to so much trouble to type such a detailed description.

In any event, it is true that the human wall would take an enormouse investment in troops and resources. I'm much too mindful of economy of force to go for something like that. However, if he actually gets such a thing set up, it sounds like a pretty much guaranteed, nothing-left-to-chance way to wipe out an AI.

In any event, the reason why MP can be so unpleasent isn't different strategies ... its people with attitudes like yours.

ok guys you are right, i have gone too far. my apologies for the attitude Monoriu.

then again, what i wanted to say is that it will be fun (if fraxis enables us sometime) to play against people employing their counter-AI tactics against humans.

[notyoueither]

I find offensive stacks of 2 to 4 infantry with 2 to 4 artillery and 3 to 6 fast attackers (Cav, Tanks) to be very useful. However, my circumstances have allowed me to be somewhat more flippant in their use than it seems you would approve of.

BTW. I have to wonder whether I have the same game as you guys.

I'm playing Monarch. I have put a lot of effort into diplomacy (every 5 turns I make the rounds, doing deals, singing songs, AHEM, I mean, oh whatever... ) I have never been at war with more than 2 other AI powers. Most of the time they are coming to me asking me to intervene in their trade squabbles or land wars. I find them quite receptive to requests for Military Alliances against so-and-so, thus my enemy is at war with 2 or 3 or 7 other AIs (I think I had everyone in the game at war with the Egyptians, that would be me and about 12 other civs at the time).

This has allowed me to dominate North and South America. I occupy all of North America in my current game (first that I have continued through Industrial Era) and I dominate South America from my nice warm Egyptian cities in the Northern Brazilian plains. The most interesting part of this situation is my Zulu lap dog who cuurently continues to inhabit Central America by my sufferance (I never would have thought it possible )

At any rate, I have found that trade and diplomacy have reduced the need for a military (aside from the intentional excercizes that all young Romans need, like destroying the German civilization). I went most of the game with an effective army (for campaigning, aside from 1 or 2 infantry per city garrisons) of 8 Infantry, 12 Cav-Tanks and 8 Artillery.

I took Paris with 6 Archers right off the bat (they disappeared, only to later make a reappearance in South America). I gutted the Germans with 20 Legions in the Ancient-Midieval period. I gutted the Egyptians with 8 Infantry, 12 Cav, 8 Art in the Industrial period (discovered tanks the turn that I took Thebes). Since then I haven't had to fight a major war. Against the Germans and Egyptians I had to build replacements.

The strengths I mentioned would be establishment (ie. what I normally had). I think I have 5 BBs, 2 DDs and a nuclear sub right now. I also built 4 bombers and 2 fighters out of curiosity.

BTW, it's 1750. I'm building Apollo Program, Seti Program and United Nations at the moment. All the while the AI civs are boiling about spoiling for a fight with anyone but their best friend, Caesar. I must admit that the 20 Babylonian Iron Clads that showed up off the South American colonies caused some concern within certian circles in the Capital. We have embarked on an earnest Naval construction program since that date . At any rate, they sailed on.

[cort]

Originally posted by Monoriu

I had no idea how many units were needed, I didn't count for the last game. But in the current game (Monarch, large map, 16 civs), I am building up for a wall in the anticipated "final battle for world domination". I have almost finished building up for a wall plus invasion army, and the last count of my forces is about 140 infantry, 10 cavalry (no saltpeter), 20 destroyers, and 40 artillery. With all the cities at max population, all with factories, all tiles irrigated and mined with rail, hoover dam built, I have more than a dozen cities that can produce an infantry in 2 turns. Do the math and it is not as impossible as it sounds.

well, once i had a similar situation, i was at war with two of my pathetic neighbors, English and Egyptians, doing a quite well threesome.
all of a sudden russia intervened and my borders were full of hordes of cossaks approaching. i didnot spend the time
to count them but it was probably more than 50.
needless to say, my total unit count was not even close.
so what i did? tracked down the strongest neighbor of russia, bribed him with a couple of techs and the next turn cossaks were on their way back to defend their home country.

if you do not like the diplomacy at all and insist on fighting the war by yourself, i suggest you to build more artillery. since they do not lose any hit points, they are extremely useful both on offense and defense.

and enemy entering your territory is not bad. i mean they cant move, they cant heal. i always prefer fighting important battles within two-three tiles of my terriory rather than on borders unless i am out to city capturing