Fundamentals of Mobilization Revealed

[Catt]

Re: Re: What does this mean for strategy / tactics?

Originally posted by Carver


Could be?


Catt, thanks for the very good info. There's alot you can employ here, if timed right.

Carver - I still don't know how I feel about it. I have mobilized before, and, when able to return to a peace-time economy, switched a lot of production back to "civilian" projects -- not so much as a conscious exploit, but simply because the need for military units is now less than the need for various civilian projects. I myself do NOT consider the "Palace Build" an unacceptable exploit, but recognize that some would. I also do not consider some variations of the Palace Build tactic an unacceptable exploit (i.e., 3 turns before Nuclear Power, selecting high cost builds in productive (and permanently happy ) cities with the intention of switching to nuclear plants upon discovery of the tech); but recognize that some would.

I am a bit more uneasy with the manipulation of mobilization during world wars -- can't explain why, just feels like it crosses a line somewhere (maybe because I'm pretty sure the AI could never use this tactic, but, OTOH will frequently change its building projects with the availability of new techs, even if not planned with foresight?).

Anyway, it's all debatable as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't think less / more of anyone (or any tournament rules) for employing these tactics or choosing not to. (Now, reloading to avoid an unfortunate result or try a different tactic . . .).

Catt

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
I literally just found another exit... if a civ you are at war with is destroyed, you go back to normalcy.

So.... if you're worried about getting OUT of it, keep a 1 city civ punching bag handy.

Originally posted by Arrian
Interesting. I knew you could get out of mobilization by making peace or wiping an enemy out, but I didn't know that getting into another war would let you out. That's pretty funny, actually.

Whoops!

Theseus, great point. Arrian -- struck me as odd too, and, in combination with Theseus' point . . . . I went back to the saved game I used to test the "how to get in and how to get out" parameters. On the same turn that I declared war on a new AI civ (and looked down to see that I was out of my mobilization -- thus confirming to me the declaration of new war gets you out of mobilization) one of my opponents had been eliminated by another AI -- which is what actually pulled me out of mobilization, just didn't notice it while running my late night tests. Bad tester, bad tester . . . go to your room!

And once again the value of interactive participation on points of interest is proven . . . .

The long and the short of it is that declaring war, or getting involved in a new war, will not pull you out of mobilization, only negotiating peace with at least one AI civ, or the elimination of an AI civ with whom you are at war, will pull you out of war-time mobilization.

I will go back and make the appropriate edits in the FAQ and my other post.

Catt

[Arrian]

Catt,

Cool, thanks for checking that out. This way, nobody gets mislead. It was an easy mistake to make, after all. World Wars sometimes spiral out of control to the point where it's hard to keep track of what's going on.

Theseus,

I'll download your Babs game when I get home and check it out. How did the early fighting go? Leaders?

I'm confused about 1 thing you said:

I assumed, correctly, that you would do a test game with China (no way you were going to give up Religous)

China is Industrious/Militaristic. And believe me, it pained me. Speaking of that game, btw, I think I've hit the approximate score limit given my playstyle and settings... 6000pts. The Chinese game came in at 5700, and my best yet Japanese one came in at 5970. If I ever get the patience to truely milk one, I may be able to boost the score higher, but it seems pretty pointless, especially when one considers Aeson's 65k game.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Theseus
Been playing with settings though, trying to create killer AI civs. The Babs game above is standard, large continents, warm, wet, 3 billion, on Emperor.

I like your settings. With how many civs do you play?

[Arrian]

Theseus,

Ok, I checked out that Bab game you posted... interesting. Nice start spot... judging by the city names, you hit the Iroquois pretty early... unfortunately the replay didn't work. I am correct that you do not yet have a forbidden palace? Granted, you don't have an optimal location for it (yet), but it's late in the game.

You're set up to do bad things to the English... and already have done bad things to London. Everyone hates you, but I take it you don't care

Though it doesn't really speak to the issue of mobilization, I thought I'd post a sample Japanese game of mine. Clearly, I was playing on a lower level, with normal land mass, and had the opposite objective: I want to hamper the AI in any way possible, in my continuing search for ultimate power.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Arrian, I don;t know what I was thinking. But I was sure you would try China... go figure. Early GLs were very weak, as the Bowman does not have staying power, and the few that got upgraded to elite were often in the wrong place (yeah, I know, fastmovers are much better). Realizing the weakness of the slowmover military I had built, I went NUTS on Horsemen, and through Knights / Cav I popped a bunch of GLs. And captured a number of the early GWs I wanted, so not the end of the world. I then ran into my new usual problem, which is generating GLs when there are now Wonders I need to build, so I maxed out on Armies, and used several to build Factories in 1 shield cities.

Sir Ralph, I played the Babs game with the normal amount, which is 8 incl. me.

Speaking of which, does anybody know offhand the revised map sizes? What I'd like to figure out is how to balance map size, average civ proximity, and minimal special tiles as compared to total.

[Harovan]

Map sizes are now

Tiny - 60x60
Small - 80x80
Standard - 100x100
Large - 130x130 (was 140x140)
Huge - 160x160 (was 180x180)

[Theseus]

Gracias.

I just whipped up a quick spreadsheet... I need to think on this, but the ratio of special to total tiles is, I think, the key driver... add clustering and good through bad environments (i.e., warm and wet), and the net result will be wildly different AI civ performance in a given game. If I'm right, and that's self-reinforcing, this could be the key to REAL challenges.

[Theseus]

Arrian,

Decent start, nothing to write home about.

I live in mortal terror of the Iroqouis... I haven;t played as them yet, but especially since I've been messing with ultra-early war, I figure if they're anywhere nereby they need to be taken as seriosuly, if not more so, than Rome and Persia.

In other words, I mashed them like potatoes before they could get to MWs. Actually a situation where the VERY early Bowman strength has value.

You're right about the lack of an FP... it's been bugging me the whole game. I'm not very good at the palace jumping bit, which this map clearly called for... I decided that I would take out the whole lower half of the continent (i.e., England), and place the FP in Coventry. NO D-MN GLs!!!

I took out everything through the mountain range to the west of Norwich and Reading, created an abso-f-cking-ridiculous Maginot Line there, and finally got a GL on the last city taken (thank god, I realy needed the FP at that point). That also meant I had to maintain mobilization WAY longer than I would of liked, and used the "Catt Exploit" (sorry Catt) because I reall didn;t have a choice. It didn;t matter that much anyway, as corruption took it's toll on the new cities.

The good news is, as you saw, India, Zulu, and England have all been huge empires at various times. Japan also, and now America too. At different points in history, each had self-reinforcing benefits that gave them the "edge" that the AI evidently needs to really perform. At one point, using Caravels (!), Japan attacked me with a stack of maybe 30 Cav and Rifles... I was very impressed. I was focused on England at the time, and didn;t even see it coming, although I had a naval picket line out (note: "sleep" your navy, don't fortify).

Summary:

For me, the jury is still out on Industrious.

Ultra-early war rocks.

Mobilization rocks, but it can be a trap.

Gimme a big, rich, powerful AI civ anyday.
It's been a really fun game;

[Theseus]

Arrian, that Japanese game, WOW!!!

I need to spend some more time looking at it, but man, it's picture perfect.

Txurce just gave me a big comlplement on another thread today, but I got nothing on you.

What would your require for an MPP?

[Arrian]

Heh, well keep in mind I showed you one of the games that panned out It doesn't happen all the time, believe me. Anyway, this is the game where I was all confused as to the domination limit, because I am over the sq. mileage that normally wins the game (130k, in my experience until this game). So the fight I picked with the Germans was supposed to be quick & painless, but as it turns out will require some work.

I did have one game that was even better under 1.17... as a result of some geographical luck I didn't get in this one. Suffice it to say I had just as much (if not more) power, but a much bigger tech lead.

-Arrian

[DogCiv]

Mobilization with Tech Lead

Great article. I'm thinking of trying mobilization in my current Regent-level game (Huge, 16 civs, 1.21f) as the Egyptians. I've never mobilized before, because I tend to be a Builder.

In this game, I got a huge technology lead in the middle ages due to a well-timed Golden Age that saw Universities and Banks go up in all my major cities, as well as the building of EVERY Medieval wonder.

Now that I've got Nationalism probably 4 techs before anyone else, I'm thinking of mobilizing and just running over everyone else with large numbers of relatively low-tech Riflemen, Cavalry, and Cannon. The best AI has just acquired Cavalry and Musketmen, but still are 4-5 behind me.

In terms of technology, Ive just acquired Steam Power and Industrialization.

In the past, I would have just tried to extend the technology lead over my opponents. However, I noticed in past games that once the computer gets Nationalism and Industrialization, their output of units takes off dramatically, and coincidentally, their technology trading also accelerates.

The question once again boils down to one of time. Can I run over 12 civilizations in the 20 odd turns it will take them to get Nationalism? I've already destroyed the Romans and Zulu, and I have the Iroquois on the ropes, captured 3 Persian cities, and most the Babylonian army destroyed in the field.

Anyone else have luck with mid-game mobilization and world conquest at the Rail/Industrial age juncture?

[Arrian]

You can do a helluva lot of damage with Cavalry vs. musketmen (and it sounds like you have), but you're gonna bog down once the AI civs begin to field riflemen. Still, if you have enough momentum going, and enough production, you can accept the higher casualties and just keep on going.

You may want to keep on rampaging until nationalism is known by your enemies, and then make peace. Meanwhile, you can build your factories, the Theory of Evolution, Hoover, and you can discover replaceable parts. This will give you much more production and will allow you to build infantry and artillery. You can do some mopping up at this point if you want, or you can just wait for Tanks.

Did you turn domination off or something? Because if you didn't, you don't have to wipe out all 12 civs. You just need to have 2/3 of the world within your cultural borders.

-Arrian

-Arrian

[DogCiv]

Mobilization with Tech Lead - a followup

Well, as luck would have it, the Babylonians appear to have discovered Nationalism around 1440AD, as about 40 Riflemen just appeared on my border. The funny thing is, I was pretty sure they didn't have Nationalism 2 turns ago. How can Ham raise so many Riflemen so quickly, with about 12 cities? Even with Conscription, I'd be hard-pressed to raise that many.

Still have a huge tech lead (discovered Espionage and Communism since last post), but now everyone appears to have Nationalism. At least the Iroquois are down to one tiny city on an island.

Though I've wiped out 3 civ's (Rome, Zulu, Iroquois) and put a moderate dent in the Persians, I barely made headway against the other 3 civilizations on my continent (Greeks, Persians, and Babs) even with a half-dozen cities pumping out Cavalry or Riflemen every 2 turns, with another 12 cities busily building Factories (I rush-built Factories and Coal Plants in my 6 top shield cities).

Looks like it's back to building up to Replaceable Parts until I get a tech lead before I go to battle again.

I'd be curious if anyone has been able to win a major war in the transition from Middle to Industrial Ages. It just seems that the Middle Ages are too darn short to make much of military campaigns.

BTW, I have Cultural and Domination victory turned off. I found that on Huge Maps, I was getting Cultural victory very early, and not really getting into the Modern Age.

[Arrian]

Hammurabi most likely merely upgraded a bunch of musketmen to riflemen.

The middle ages have two short periods where you can make great gains through aggression:

1) Between Chivalry and Gunpowder
2) Between Military Tradition and Nationalism

Both periods are relatively short, but you can do a ton of damage if you have prepared for it. Particularly with #2.

Huge maps... wow, that's patience. I just can't deal with something that big (and neither can my computer).

-Arrian