Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Two

[Cookie Monster]

[Arrian]

Effective use of the tax/tech slider

This has been mentioned by others elsewhere, but I wanted to bring it up here. If you are willing to do some relatively minor micromanagement of your budget, you can REALLY benifit from it.

Early in the game, tech is probably gonna cost you 32 turns no matter what you do. I get most of my early game tech from trading with other civs (and buying from them). I set science to 10% and make as much money as possible. Periodically, I check to see if changing the science rate will speed up my research considerably... if it does, fine, I do it. If not, keep raking in the cash and buying tech from others (while researching straight for literature for the G.Library). This builds a cash reserve for the switch to a non-forced labor gov't such as republic or monarchy. You're gonna need it.

Later in the game, you bump into the 4 turn cap. This, like the 32 turn cap, can be used to your advantage. Often, you can get a tech in 4 turns with a relatively low science %. More importantly, I've noticed many times that when I'm 1 turn away from a tech, I can lower science (sometimes to 10%) and I'll still get it the next turn, while I get a TON of cash. Then, switch back to 60-70% for the next tech.

I used both of these strategies in my most recent game and by the late industrial age I had built up a treasury of nearly 8000 gold, which was useful as I was upgrading 40+ riflemen to infantry to mech inf. and rushbuilding temples, libraries, cathedrals and universities in all captured cities (only 1 out of roughly 15 reverted, and it was no biggie).

You can augment all of this by usuing the "cripple the AI's research capacity" strategy posted elsewhere - sell all sorts of things to the AI for per/turn deals. This means selling resources (although I wouldn't sell oil, aluminum or uranium), lux. resources, and older tech. The last bit works better and better as you outpace the AI. Of course, I imagine this works best at regent and below, as outpacing the AI gets harder and harder once the AI is given bonuses.

Vel - that bit on ICS is a bit unnerving. Luckily, I'm not an MP kinda guy, and I just cannot, EVER, bring myself to build cities 2 (or even 3, barring special circumstances) spaces apart. It's just... wrong I want an empire, not a hive.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

A bit silly and off topic....

Okay....I'm taking a break from putting together the MASSIVE article on all the civs (I think it'll be great when it's finally done, but sheesh....'s taking FOREVER!!!), and decided to veer off-topic for a moment (just so you guys know that I DO get outside and away from my computer and Civ3 now and again.

The image below is of me standing in the doorway of my old "efficiency apartment," which is out in the middle of the Congaree National Swamp Monument. Nice little place. A bit cramped, but....

Oh! And I need some help with getting a good gag gift for an "at work" Christmas swap!

My first idea was to get Pat Boone's CD "In a Metal Mood" but I've used that gag gift before, and if I go buy a second copy, the guys at the record shop will start to reeeeeallly wonder about me! LOL

******

[eMarkM]

If you are willing to do some relatively minor micromanagement of your budget, you can REALLY benefit from it.

I totally concur with what you're saying. I've been doing this in my last few games (I'm playing Monarch). Yeah, it's tedious micromanaging, but at end of each and every turn I tune the science bars in exactly the fashion you describe. It's well worth it.

I concentrate on building cash in the early game, which allows me to buy tech that I don't have. When tech building speeds up a bit later on, I fine tune just like you said. Unless I get a big bump in science rate, I set it to the highest cash flow I can get. Normally in the early game I'm never more than 20-30% science. It's still not too far off what you'd get if you set it to 100. E.g., on 20% science you discover in, say, 32 turns, on 100% you get it in 28. I can wait the four extra turns for the extra cash I'm getting.

Later on you get a big boost when you set to higher science levels and it's sometimes worth it to bump to 100% if you're ahead of everyone, even if you run a deficit for awhile. But when you have science at 90-100% and it says 1 turn to go, you're foolish to not tune down science to the lowest level you can and still see it finish in one turn. You'll generate a huge amount of extra cash that way. Doing it each and every turn will guarantee you have the maximum cash flow. Since everything is based on cash in this game--upgrades, tech trading, rush improvements, espionage, you name it--you need to squeeze every last drop of gold you can.

e

[DaveV]

Originally posted by Velociryx
A word of warning for you peaceful Builders tho….in MP (when there is MP), expect to see ICS alive and well, and it’ll eat you for breakfast unless you do it too.

I see MP Civ3 devolving into a race for the Pyramids. Maintenance free granaries in every city during the looong despotic period will be a huge advantage.

I have to say I have some misgivings about how the MP game will shape up. Tech progress will be awfully slow, since I don't expect humans will be as cooperative about trading techs as the AIs are. It will be really hard to play a builder style game, since city and terrain improvements are so vulnerable to destruction by bombardment and pillaging. I expect to see some epic wars, but not a whole lot of building.

[Gamer at heart]

happiness, production and income management

That point about balancing your revenue every single turn is very good indeed, and WILL make a noticeable difference on a long period. In my opinion, it is well worth the little extra effort.

I'll even go further and add that since that F1 report is opened anyway, use the opportunity to see the happiness condition for all your cities. I play emperor now and I just can't afford those civil disorders causing loss of production, especially in wartime or when going for wonders. And when you have more than 5-10 cities, it gets kinda hard keeping track of what all of them are producing, mainly because of the nasty fact that after producing any military unit except a settler/worker the city governor will choose something else to build. ARRRRRG, those damn privateers and ironclads instead of destroyers!!!
The best way to avoid trouble is to check all that at the beginning of each turn. It doesn't take long and the effort will be well worth it!

Vel, really like your flat by the way! how much did you pay for rent ?!? great job in summing up last tread!

GaH

[Velociryx]

Base Pairing....

Note: This has not been tested as yet….it’s simply an extension of the idea I ran with last night….I fully intend to test it out though to see it’s effects, and I’d be QUITE curious to hear any one else’s experiences with it!

Problem: On the higher levels of play (Emperor/Deity), the AI has enormous advantages in both production and research.

Potential Solution: Because of the way the corruption rules work, it is impossible for the player to overcome the AI’s research edge, however, the production advantage can be nullified, or at least brought down to the point where the human player can keep pace.

This can be accomplished by base-pairing….think of it as “temporary ICS.”

First, run your expansion just as you normally would until you run out of room or get hemmed in by rival civs.

Once you reach the point in your game where the “land-grab phase” has come to its logical end for you, keep right on building settlers from your settler farms, founding cities two tiles away from your existing cities. Just pile them anywhere, most of them won’t be around for the whole game anyway….this is simply a temporary measure. For the sake of convenience, I intend to re-name these bases “Training Camp 1”, “Training Camp 2” etc.

Once those cities are established, don’t build any infrastructure in them! Connect them with roads and rely on a token garrison/luxury items to maintain order, and set them to building the best military units you can make (if you’ve had a reasonably good expansion phase, you’ll have iron, so you can crank out LOTS of swordsmen).

Now, on a standard map, it’s been my experience that I can generally get about a dozen (sometimes slightly less) cities established during the Land Grab. So….one dozen “Training Camps” later, I’ve got about 24 cities in my Empire. The “normal” ones will proceed to develop infrastructure and cultural enhancements to boost my culture score and dominate that category, and my training camps are handling troop training. No barracks here, so they’re all “regulars” but that shouldn’t matter.

By this time, I’ve no doubt found the location of a number of civs, and on the higher levels of play, most of the wonders are either built by them, or well on the way…..I never really had a shot at them anyway, so no biggie there.

The Vassal State strategy is an excellent one, and although not necessary on the lower levels of play, it’s certainly helpful, if not essential on the higher, so to that end, target a civ, and when your army reaches critical mass size (keep checking the military advisor screen, when you’ve got a “strong” military relative to your target civ, you’re ready), march your army to the border and cross. Make some ENORMOUS demand (all their tech and a couple of cities), if they refuse, take their cities by force, and after each conquest, call them up and make your demands (all tech, world map….anything else you want). When you beat the snot out of them, they’ll submit….meanwhile though, your “real” cities are doing heavy cultural development….your conquest has come by way of cities you don’t mean to keep in any event).

Be smart about your conquests too. Check to see where wonders have been built, and if possible, arrange to bring those cities under your banner (‘specially if the civ nearest you is the one that beat you to the Pyramids).

Keep your reputation golden. You’ll need it in the mid-game and beyond.

If you’re playing on a map with 8 civs, then you need 1 vassal on Emperor, 2 on Deity, so whichever level you’re playing at, let that determine the bent and direction of your further conquests (if any).

Once you have secured your vassal(s) in this manner, and whatever early game projects you want/need, think in terms of establishing a presence on “the other continent.” Load up a bunch of troops on galleys and drop them off on yonder continent, and pick on the weakest civ over there. Take as few cities as you can in order to get a surrender, and you’re set for the rest of the game. You’ve got a presence on the other continent for the late game, and if you can play the diplomatic fiddle till the modern age, it’s a simple matter to build several airports in your main continent, and one in your new world holdings, and you’ll be able to airdrop in whatever military you eventually need there (in this way, it does not matter if these bases are highly productive or no….it merely serves as a staging point for future invasions and/or to assist a weak ally in the “new world.”). Obviously, if you play maps with “uber continents,” you can skip this, since you’ll pretty much be guaranteed that everyone is on the same continent anyway.

When you make peace, scrap your entire fleet of galleys to rush in whatever basic infrastructure you want/need, possibly burn a Great Leader to relocate your palace in your new holdings and build your FP someplace centrally located to the rest of your holdings, and you’re all set!

Of course, you still may find yourself wanting to keep some of your “Training Camps” around, possibly in areas that won’t be terribly productive for a few more centuries anyway (jungle cities spring to mind here)….the rest, freeze their growth at size two, make a settler and disband the city, adding those two population points back into one of your core group (preferably on the fringes of your Empire, since a comparison of city size plays a role in whether or not a city of a bordering civ will defect to you.

End result: In the early game, you were able to crank out a military comparable to what the AI can do with its production bonuses, USE that military to bring yourself up to speed tech-wise with the AI before leaving the ancient era, and you were able to do it while continuing your cultural development in your core cities.

Notes:
* The pop points used to found your training camps are not wasted, as they are ultimately recycled back into your empire, in whatever city you desire them to be.

* If you build and later disband a “Training Camp” that was founded in the jungle, then you also got free terraforming of that tile when you disband later (the jungle is cleared).

* If you find that military units are not needed for further conquest, then your training camp bases can still pop-rush your most expensive units and cart them over to your core cities for disbanding (again, you’re not “losing” anything here, since these “training camps” are transitory in their nature anyway….it doesn’t ultimately matter what the ratio is between shield cost and shields gained when disbanded, since these aren’t “real” or “permanent” cities in any case. They’re merely additional production centers (production centers that are immune to the effects of corruption thanks to Despotism, I might add!) that enable you to both focus on your cultural game AND threaten the AI.

Thoughts?

-=Vel=-

PS to Gamer at Heart:


Liked that, didja? LOL...yeah, the rent was cheap, but it was a bit drafty for my tastes, and....you know....no place to plug in the computer and no room for it in any case....

-V.

[vmxa1]

Vel I have to respond to the combat remark "people win the lottery all of the time" and equate it to the game algorithym. The fact is that many millions lose at the lottery and if 131 pikemen beats my modern armour (elite), which happened last night, 24 16 3, happend at the ratio of winning to losing the lottery I would never say a word. All the bonuses in the world should not allow the pikemen to defeat the elite modern tank, using the game rules. I do not really even buy it putting it in the red, maybe one hit point, maybe. I like to be in constant war so I have hundreds of battles and see too many strange battles where units are with far stronger numbers lose to raw units with out any bonus (fort/city/walls/mountains). I am not concern with units that are close in value say warrior beat hoplite, but the anomoly of a unit with 2 or 3 more hit points and better stats losing. I guess I am a cry baby, sorry. it is just very frustrating for a moment or two.

[Velociryx]

Random afternoon thoughts:

I’ve read this in other threads, used it myself, and it NEEDS a mention here, cos it’s an important bit of strategy to incorporate into your Civ-Toolkit:

Any time….ANY time a base gets “stuck” at a certain size limit (for any reason what-so-ever), that base should build a worker/settler, even if you have no immediate need for more of either (unless of course, you’re building shields for a pop-sacrifice and the city won’t grow again before you’re ready to do it)!

Workers are ALWAYS handy to have around, and another “Troop Training” city (even if it IS kinna transitory) is always a good thing….under Despotism, that gives you four more freebie slots AND it has the effect of keeping your total population growing (ie – it’s true that when you build a settler, it requires 2 pop points and you only get one for it, but if you build a temporary city, then eventually when you meld that settler back in, you re-gain both pop points (If I remember reading it correctly, joining a worker with a city gives you growth of 1, joining a settler with an existing city gives you growth of 2).

The point is that it’s always a good thing to keep your population growing! Besides….if you use that stalled city to build another worker, you’ll definitely be getting something for your investment, since that worker can help with roads, mines, irrigation and such. ::shrug:: An excellent idea that should be implemented by anyone looking to get a little more Oomph out of their game.

Ancient Era Declarations of war vs. the AI:
Minor point, but when possible, attempt to time your declaration with a Warrior/Settler from that Civ trolling through your territory. Ambush the Warrior, capture the settler, and march the bulk of your army across the border. If you’re gonna fight, you might as well maximize your gains, and that’s an excellent opening shot.

The Slider thing mentioned here and elsewhere is also an excellent tool that should be used by everybody who’s looking to run a higher-octane Civ. Definitely worth checking at least every other new base you found and certainly near the end of your research time. Basically, my rule of thumb is that I’ll check it any time there’s a “significant change” in my empire (founding a couple of new bases, acquiring a new trade or monies that may let me ratchet my research up another notch….pretty much anything that MIGHT give me an edge either way, I’ll check the slider. I spend a lot of time on that page anyway, checking happiness, build times, changing build orders from there, and so forth….plus, it’s only a short hop from there to the military screen, and I LOVE keeping close track of the total size of my army/navy (sorting by unit type, rather than city).

OH! And that’s another thing! That screen (Military advisor screen) becomes sooooo much more useful when you can start putting spies in place! Plant spies everywhere….friendly civs and belligerent ones! You never know when the army size information might come in handy….plus, it’s a terrific way to see how your force stacks up vs. the opposition….even if that opposition if far from you.

-=Vel=-

PS to Vmxa1 - I can relate bud....I get frustrated and cuss like a sailor when I lose units I don't feel I should have lost, but again....it's all a part of the game we know and love. Much as it frustrates me when I get swarmed by cheapies and lose a unit, I just roll with it and keep on trucking.

's always good to vent a little tho....

BTW - I know it's an extra step or two to take, but in order to alleviate the problem you described, why didn't you bomb the crap out of yonder pikeman before running over him with the tank?
-V.

[Arrian]

Vel - I kinda disagree with you about building settlers/workers in cities that have hit a population wall - unless you are using your Despot Rush Using Training Bases (aka temporary ICS) you described for winning on the higher levels. In that case, it sounds like it would work nicely... although I don't really relish the idea of "Despotic Rush." What a way to build an empire... tisk, tisk.

I tend to mine most of my grassland (and often plains as well). I look at the city and set it up so that, when it hits the pop wall, there is no extra food, and production is maximized. By the time I have the terrain set up the way I want it, I'm ready to switch to Republic (I get out of Despotism ASAP, unless there is a compelling reason to stay for a bit, like a war).

-Arrian

[Sevorak]

DaveV,

To be honest, I expect the entire MP Civ3 game to be based around early-game swordsman wars. No Iron - prepare to make a hasty and early exit.

The problem in this comes because the Swordsman (and particularly the Immortal and Legion - I expect fights over, or even bans of, those two civs in MP Civ3, along with the Iroquois) is the most efficient and useful unit until Cavalry at the least.

30 shields for 3.2.1, the vanilla swordsman, is great for the early game, as many people have already discovered. Some people despot rush with the Iroquois CSU, some with just swordsmen, some with the sword CSU's - the thing here is that everyone can agree that an attack of 3 is more than sufficient for the Ancient age (people even rush with archers at 2.1.1 for 20). In fact, it suffices for more than that. In the Middle Ages, a lot of people have noticed a major drop-off in unit efficiency.

The problem lies in the fact that you don't get better defenders than 1.2.1 Spearmen until the Middle Ages and Feudalism. And even then, it only upgrades to 1.3.1 Pikemen. Instead of researching 12-13 technologies just to get the ability to have 1.3.1 Pikemen, non-Greek civilizations will simply pump Swordsmen of their own. Chivalry gives you a 4.3.2 Knight - for 70 shields. For three knights, you can get seven swordsmen, exchanging six attacks at four for seven attacks at three, and 9-12 hit points for 21-28. Additionally, if attacking a stack, the knights will only get one attack anyway, since returning to its originating square appears to cost a point of movement. Knights just aren't good buys compared to swordsmen, especially Immortals or Legionaries.

The next level defender is a Musketman at 60 shields for 2.4.1. Now, two swordsmen won't take out a Musketman, but then again, you can't do straight shield-for-shield comparisons at this point. You'll generally have smaller sized cities generating three to four shields per turn. At that rate, setting six or so cities to swordsman production, you get six swordsmen in ten turns. The other side, operating with the same three to four shield production in their own cities, has to wait for twenty turns before they can pull out a musketman. By going swordsmen you will have more units in service earlier, even if shield-efficiency-wise, your opponent is doing the right thing by building muskets (and that's not a given, since gunpowder is quite a bit of research and iron working isn't). Besides, an early game war was never trumpeted as the pinnacle of efficiency, anyway.

Only at Cavalry do you finally get a unit you can reasonably exchange for swordsmen at a three-to-one ratio and get cost advantage (80 shields to 90). But that comes with Military Tradition, which is very, very far away from Iron Working. The cost of tech advancing points to swordsman massing as a defensive as well as offensive tactic.

There are exceptions. I can see some Chinese building Riders and having some reasonable success with them, since with 3 moves they can actually have two attacks along with the ability to withdraw on the defensive. However, in general, I expect that swordsman mass will be the next step of the multiplayer ICS trend. Vel's base-pairing post just points to an even better way of doing it. Swordsmen are just too good a deal.

-Sev

[Velociryx]

Heh...yeah...I'll be the first to admit that I consider the whole "temporary ICS" thing to be a dirty, grubby way to even things up, but....there's NO WAY you can keep pace in the cultural race and hope to defend your holdings using traditional "builderesque" means on Deity level....I tried every trick I could think up, and made a few up on the spot....but when I applied SMAC-style ICS concepts to the game and saw how devastating it was....I knew I'd found the big balancer for my Deity games (cos truly, I'd LOVE to play Deity, win culturally, and do it without ransacking every civ in the game and limiting them to 2-3 bases each).

So....yep...it's kinna gritty, but based on my limited experimentation with it last evening, I'm almost certain that the concept is sound. True, it won't make for a very pretty landscape during the ancient era, with cities piled up on top of each other, but the hope is that as I begin to dominate the area I start in, I can start to "peacefully disarm" and do away with those cheese bases....

As to the pop growth thing: Mostly, I'm thinking in terms of keeping a base growing = continually spiking your population = increasing your score (on the thinking that sooner or later you'll add them back into the general population, and in the meantime, your city will "regrow" to it's size limit), though you're quite right, doing the temp ICS thing will certainly give you no shortage of things to do with any settlers you make.

-=Vel=-

(about to head home to test the stuff I wrote about above....will report back with the results!)

[Dog of Justice]

Two points.

1. I'm not sure about MP degenerating into a Swordsman fest. Mounted units do NOT use up an extra movement point when withdrawing from battle with 1 hit point. So a bunch of Jaguar Warriors/Horsemen/Mounted Warriors should frequently be able to beat down an advancing army of Swordsmen. Pick off a few Swordsmen, run away, heal, rinse and repeat. You need some space and at least rough numerical parity to pull this off, but when you can, it's VERY effective, as you should take next to no losses.

Though maybe this is terrain-dependent? I'm guessing that attacking into a 2-movement-cost square costs 2 movement, so if the advancing Swordsmen can stay in such squares, they can at least try to strike back at the attacking mobile units on the next turn.

2. To my knowledge, you can't peacefully "unfound" a city via building workers or settlers or starving it out. (Yes, it's actually not possible to starve out a city, since the city square always produces at least two food.) Instead, you need to gift it and then raze it, which can be inconvenient for your reputation.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Sevorak
DaveV,

To be honest, I expect the entire MP Civ3 game to be based around early-game swordsman wars. No Iron - prepare to make a hasty and early exit.

I personally see horsemen (War Chariots, Riders, Mounted Warriors) as the most dominate units in MP Civ3 games. The ability to retreat in combat means that against 1 movement units, you will lose less than 10% of the time, attacking or defending. Having the mobility advantage will mean that you get to choose where and when battle occurs as well. Certainly the Greeks and Iroquois will still be two of the more sought after Civs to play with. The real powerhouse will be the Egyptians though, as they get War Chariots before anyone else could get their horsemen. Also the Zulu's will have a defensive 2 movement unit very early to stack with their horsemen, and the Chinese Riders having the same advantage, only without the need for defensive troops, making a very potent combination. Immortals are great against the AI, and in their own territory they will be practically invincible (on roads they will be 4.2.3 without the withdraw capabilities), but as invaders they would get eaten alive by a well played army of higher movement troops. The only number that matters for slow troops will be their defense value, as they will very rarely have the initiative.

Because of the movement restrictions in another's territory, MP could very well become a defensive/build type game. If horsemen are for all intents and purposes 2.1.6, that is enough to repel most any invasion given an even number of units. Also, because catapults are almost necessary to take a well defended city (5 veteren defensive troops with city defense bonus's), staying on the defense would negate the offensive capabilities of the oponents high movement troops.

Take for instance, a 20 catapult, 20 swordsman invasion, against 5 spearmen defended in a city, and 20 horsemen. On most occasions the defenders will see an attack coming 4 spaces away from their city (posting scouts will be a GOOD idea in MP). The first turn, the horsemen army can move to the best defensive terrain with a 1 space gap between themselves and the approaching army because of roads. Now on the attackers first move, they either have to put themselves right against the horsemen army, withdraw, or stay put.

If they do continue the invasion, that gives all 20 Horsemen a free shot against the Invaders, and then they can withdraw after the battle, still keeping a 1 space buffer between themselves and the other army. Granted 1 or 2 Horsemen might be killed in the attack, as they won't withdraw if the defender is also down to 1hp. Say the Invading army wins 14 of the 20 battles (2 attack vs 2 defense, with a defensive bonus), 2 Horsemen killed, 3 full health, 3 half health, the rest with 1hp for the Defending army. 6 swordsmen killed, another 7 at half hp's, 7 still full, catapults still intact. The Invaders have no one to attack, so they advance one more space towards the city, now 2 spaces away. Next turn, the Horsemen that are severely wounded retreat to the city (has a barracks so they heal up in 1 turn), the other 6 attack, killing 2 more Swordsmen, injuring 3 more, losing one Horsemen, the remaining 5 retreat into the city. The Invaders advance to next to the city with 4 Swordsmen still full health, 8 banged up, and 20 Catapults. The next turn 12 full health horsemen attack, killing 6 Swordsmen (better percentage now that the Invaders are mostly not at full health), losing another Horseman, and all still in the city. Now the Invaders FINALLY get to attack, after losing 14 Swordsmen just getting to the city, and have no full health units most likely. The 20 Catapults do MAJOR damage, but kill nothing but pop and improvements. The 6 Swordsmen can attack, but are low hp's themselves so after the battle they would only have perhaps 3 or 4 left if they were lucky, killing 2 or 3 of the spearmen (giving the Invaders a huge IF here.. that all the spearmen were taken down to 1hp). Most of the defenders are at low health, but still with 17 horsemen left, some will have enough hp's to attack (especially if the barracks wasn't destroyed by the catapults). All the remaining swordsmen are very low on health, and probably wiped out, taking a few horsemen with them. So after all is said and done, the Invaders lose 20 swordsmen and 20 catapults, and the Defenders lose 7-10 horsemen, 2 spearmen, and GAIN 20 catapults. This was giving the Invaders a larger force to begin with, and not accounting for any re-inforcements or terrain other than plains/desert/grassland defensive bonus's (and a slight defensive bonus for the Invaders catapults). The reinforcements will certainly favor the Defenders, as they can use their road network to get troops to battle quickest. If an even number of troops were given to the Defenders (35 horsemen) then the Invaders would almost have surely been wiped out before they even reached the city.

This was just one of many many many circumstances that could arise in MP, but I chose it to show how MP will not necessarily be an all offensive type of game, and to show the defensive power of extra mobility. If the Invaders had been Roman, they probably could have pulled it off in the same situation, where as if the Defenders were Iroquois, it would have been a complete slaughter of the Invaders. Also, with pop rushing making Spearmen and Swordsmen cost the same, usually a city will be defended by Swordsmen. If this had been the case, the Invaders may not have held out to even get an attack off on the city as the 5 full strength Swordsmen defending the city would have had a chance to wipe out the remaining Invaders low health Swordsmen.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dog of Justice
Two points.

1. I'm not sure about MP degenerating into a Swordsman fest. Mounted units do NOT use up an extra movement point when withdrawing from battle with 1 hit point. So a bunch of Jaguar Warriors/Horsemen/Mounted Warriors should frequently be able to beat down an advancing army of Swordsmen. Pick off a few Swordsmen, run away, heal, rinse and repeat. You need some space and at least rough numerical parity to pull this off, but when you can, it's VERY effective, as you should take next to no losses.

I agree completely.

Originally posted by Dog of Justice
2. To my knowledge, you can't peacefully "unfound" a city via building workers or settlers or starving it out. (Yes, it's actually not possible to starve out a city, since the city square always produces at least two food.) Instead, you need to gift it and then raze it, which can be inconvenient for your reputation.

If a city has no excess food coming in on the turn the settler or worker is built, and the city is size 2 or 1 respectively, there will be an option to disband the city.