Is this war practicable?

[JPGray]

As France, I've developed a few groups of 3-4 knights near to cavalry upgrade, and a few groups of 3-4 musketeers and 5 artillery.

I am mashed against Persia (6 cities, lacks iron) one city away from my capitol to the south, and I allowed three colonies to be built on the edge of my northern borders in the tundra which may speedily be absorbed with minimal loss.

The goals of this war would be to secure an isthmus which separates the two large bodies of land on a pangea map, and to become the unchallenged tech leader. To do this, I would also have to destroy England (8 cities, has Iron, Gunpowder) and Germany (4 cities, lacks Iron).

I have a dozen cities, one a large colony (size 12) on Germany's northern borders, sandwiched between it and Persia to its north.

This is a standard map on Monarch, versus eight opponents. The strongest AIs are all on the western landmass, whereas the three tech giants are on the eastern with me. I have a one tech lead, and imagine removing Persia and England would allow me to dominate tech and set myself for any victory I choose, except perhaps Diplomatic. A bee-line for cavalry may be speedily accomplished, and I have built Sun-Tzu's. Leonardo's and the Sistine are also on the way (9 and 12 turns, respectively).

I have held off on the FP in anticipation of this move, but with the north-south bounds of my civ expanding to about ten or eleven city-radii, would corruption be too crippling to make this worthwhile even with the FP? I am in Democracy, and am unaccustomed to war weariness in Monarch. Would the WW be too great to bother with a protracted war? Likewise, how much of a reputation hit am I liable to receive? What is the least diplomatically damaging way to begin an aggressive war? I have ROP with Persia and England, and since a few Persian units (spearman and settler groups) have entered my territory, it would be a simple matter to cordon them off and demand their removal into a war once the ROP has expired. This strategy has worked before, but my military may be too strong now.

Any suggestions?

[DaveMcW]

If you cancel the ROP (with no units in their territory) you won't get a rep hit. But war weariness gets quite bad under Democracy if you are the one who starts the war.

I would do the cavalry upgrade and blitz as many cities as possible, suing for peace once all cavalry are killed/injured. Then rebuild your army and go for the second target. 20 turns after the peace treaty you can declare war again and eliminate them.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Do you have many luxuries? I have found that wars even in republic can be attainable for 10-15 turns at a time if you have 4 or so lux, even with a huge spread out Empire over many islands.

What I do in that case is build up half a dozen Infantry of some kind with some Cavalryu and loads of artillery, move the whole shebang slowly to an enemy city, bombard it to bits, tkae it, leave some troops behind and, once healed, press on. This works wonders and the stack is practicallty iinvulnerable.

[MoonWolf]

Do you also have cathedrals in your cities? Helps against WW when you have Sistine.

But back to strategy, does Persia have Musketmen yet? If not, maybe you don't need more than 2 cavalries pr. Persian city to begin with. Produce more of them as backup and you should be able to take out Persia before they acquire iron or salpeter through trade.

You might risk military alliances against you, so you must act fast. Next in line would be Germany, then build your army up again, and attack England before they get Riflemen. Remember there are different WW for each war; so the WW from the war against Persia won't carry on after they are wiped out even if you start a new war.

[bongo]

The biggest problem here will be WW, under republic you can wage a limited war almost forever, under democracy WW will soon cripple your empire, especially if you suffer high losses or there are large number of foreign troops in your territory. Large numbers of your troops in enemy territory also cause WW but on a smaller scale than the other effects. The optimal solution will be to make one of them declare war on you(delays the impact of WW) attack him until you have reached your objectives or WW becomes too rough. Then go after the other. WW seems to work on a per-civ basis so once you make peace with an enemy you start fresh on your next war with another. If you need to, start a new war when the peace-treaty expire.

You will get a reputation hit if you a)Declare a war with your troops in enemy territory or b)Break an active deal(deals that have not lasted for 20 turns.)

Could you post a mini-map?

[JPGray]

Thanks for the advice

I finished off the Germans and the Persians in about ten turns. There was really never any danger, as each had not received iron until a few turns before war was declared. I am eyeing the English now, and am gearing up for an inevitably more difficult war against them. They formed a tech combine with India that has damaged my economy, and after their destruction my empire will be effectively sealed off except through either the north or south isthmus, or by water route. WW was never a problem, as good relations persisted and allowed me to attain seven luxuries. I was disappointed to see my cannons were relatively worthless, but hopefully with railroads now connecting my cities, a few workers may help to bring them to the front by building rails in newly conquered English territory. They were too slow and had too small a range to be effective in a road-based blitz. Does setting them up on high ground give a range bonus?

[bongo]

No, artillery range is independent of terrain.

Lots of people here claim that artillery are practically useless. I don't, they are very useful for defence or to soften hard targets but as you saw for yourself. They are not very useful for blitzkrieg due to their low speed.

[JPGray]

I am in the middle of a campaign against the English, where much of my core cavalry force has evaporated. It may have been too soon to invade. After having secured four cities in the first turn, jungles have delayed further attacks beyond assaults on London.

At any rate, the cannons are invaluable here in a way they were not in the previous two wars. Softening up the capitol, my cavalry was able to defeat with some regularity the riflemen England had recently upgraded for London's defense. There is considerable difficulty avoiding the culture flip. For this reason many riflemen are tied up which would otherwise be defending advance groups of cavalry.

It would be nice if artillery received a bombard effectiveness bonus for terrain if not one for range, since terrain differences impact the attributes of other units.

[bongo]

You should really study the mechanics behind CF. Once you know the details CF will change from major-pain-in-the-ass to minor annoyance. One tip is just to accept that CF will happen and plan for quick recapture. Cities where enemy cultural borders overlaps with city radius are at high risk. Cities will never flip during first turn, use that turn to stop resistance. The risk for CF gets much lower when there is no overlap(as you push the front forwards).

[Arrian]

Three basic things to do to avoid flippage (aside from wiping the enemy out, which removes all danger):

1) As bongo said, press forward, rolling back your opponents borders.

2) Starve and/or buy workers or settlers in captured cities you fear may flip, reducing them to size 1 and then allowing them to grow back. All new population will be of YOUR nationality.

3) Garrison wounded/obselete troops in the city while working on 1 and 2. If you think a city is a major flip-risk, then hold a few health attack troops just outside. If it flips, just re-take it. This is commonly referred to as the "IDGAFIYF" tactic (I don't give a **** if you flip)

-Arrian

[TheArsenal]

Re: Thanks for the advice

Originally posted by JPGray

I was disappointed to see my cannons were relatively worthless, but hopefully with railroads now connecting my cities, a few workers may help to bring them to the front by building rails in newly conquered English territory. They were too slow and had too small a range to be effective in a road-based blitz. Does setting them up on high ground give a range bonus?

Until my land is fully railroaded, and I can zip large number of artillery pieces around to bombard enemy ships which are bombarding me, I have been unable to use them effectively in attack*. They are primarily defensive units for me. As is being suggested above, I garrison my wounded fast moving units in a city. I also bring up slow moving artillery escorted by a good number defensive units to garrison in those cities. Terrain dependant, I find behind the battle front, you'll get attacked by single fast movers, but rarely anything a good defense/artillery stack can't handle. I then relieve the fast movers of garrison duty with the d/a stacks, and send them back into the front.

Arrian: Now that I've seen it, I feel silly for never considering the "IDGAFIYF" tactic. Excellent tip.

*I've searched for a thread on effective use of artillery, but have not found one. It is the primary reason I won't play as Korea. If someone could point me to/start one, that would helpful.

[Arrian]

Pre-RRs, I typically use bombard units to soften up counterattacking AI units (archers/longbowmen/med infs/etc) to make damn sure my elite units don't get killed by a whim of the RNG.

It usually goes like this: Capture city, move beat up units + defenders & bombard units in. Wait 1-2 turns while attackers heal, meanwhile bombarding and killing anything the AI sends out. Lowers freak casualties - and indirectly aids leader generation.

Arty, with it's 2 tile range, is another story.

-Arrian

[bongo]

IDGAFIYF I didn't know that tactic had a name

[Arrian]

Yeah, I forget who came up with it, but it's a good one.

-Arrian

[JPGray]

Cannons are working well now

I finished my assault on London by intrenching and bombarding it into submission. I found my cavalry took out conscript riflemen at an acceptable rate post-bombardment, and was willing to sacrifice three or four to get a foothold of roads (and free ivory). Generally I try to make the war go too fast to maximize leader production. It is my understanding the nature of the battle doesn't matter, just so long as the elite wins. For this reason, I always have elites mopping up the lone archers that seem to drift about aimlessly, but so far only one leader has been created, and for further wars, I chose to use it for an army. China is my next strongest foe, and I believe I will wait for tanks to invade. Thankfully I have a tiny isthmus as the only direct western border with China, although there is a larger land-bridge to the north where Mao may invade, thanks to a ROP with Japan and India. Either way, about two riflemen and a cannon per city ought to forestall any invasion. And guards on important resources, of course. Since all my cities are connected by rails, any other operation will be speedily dealth with.

So I think it is basically over. As soon as I deprive China of its massive production, India will cease to be a tech powerhouse, since its efforts will go unrewarded, or very nearly so. Whether Russia will have to be damaged or not remains to be seen, as it is next in size and power after China. During the China campaign, I will experiment with giving up cities to a foreign power, since I don't want them myself. Is it worth doing this, or is it better to raze? I read that a diplomatic penalty occurs for razing; is it severe? I imagine giving up large Chinese cities to an empire whose capitol is far, far away makes it as though the city nearly doesn't exist, as far as corruption is concerned. Then there is a likelihood of a flip and possible aggression by the remnant of China, which would be enjoyable. Unfortunately, except for a few early wars, I have been the only game in town. If I get too great a lead will the AIs avoid attacking each other?

Thanks for the advice on CF, I like the acronym strategy.