How the big boys use Arty?

[BRC]

I've been playing civ3 and hanging around this forum since late August. You guys have speeded up the learning curve dramatically. I really appreciate all the work you put into helping the new players too.

I have played my last few games on Monarch and haven't had too much trouble, and in light of Theseus' 7 pillars thread, i figure it's time to ask about bombardment. I really have not built many bombard units, i guess because i haven't needed them. I know that i will have to, especially at Emperor and Diety. (nods to Theseus' AU game with the Stack of Doom)

So, when do you start building bombard units? At catapults, or do you wait? Are they worth it? For offense and defense? I would hate to think that the best approach is the MA rush over to the other continent.
(Assume standard everything and continents)

anyone with anything, thanks in advance.

[DaveMcW]

There is only one time period where mass bombard units are worth it: between Replaceable Parts and Motorized Transport.

This is mainly because artillery is the only offensive bombard unit. I might stick a catapult or cannon in a city for defense, but they are too slow to use on offense. Radar artillery comes after the game has ended.

The MA rush, tank vs. infantry rush, cav vs. rifleman rush, and knight vs. pikeman rush all work better than a slow arty march. The only exception would be if you don't have the production power to replace your fast unit losses and are in a government that can afford a long, drawn-out war.

[Jaguar]

I don't know whether I qualify as a "big boy" or not, but I'm a deity pplayer. I start with catapults if I am one of the following civs:

Persia
Rome
Carthage
Greece
Babylon
Korea

All of those but Korea have early 1 move UUs that I use instead of horsemen. To support the UUs, I'll use catapults. None of them can retreat, so it is a good idea to soften enemy spearmen to keep them alive. In the case of Korea, it is fun to stash hordes of bombard units so that you can do a mass upgrade to Hwachas and kick everyone's ass. A lost HP is almost garaunteed with a Hwacha.

Otherwise, I tend to wait until cannons to build artillery, and I don't use them. They're just upgradeable to artillery, which is essential. So I stick them in a barracks city and wait to discover Replaceable Parts. (The Artillery unit is the only overpowered bombard unit, so you want to have a lot of them quickly.)

In the endgame, RA are extremely useful for defense, but not at all for offense. Stealth Bombers are able to keep up with a MA blitz, Radar Artillery are not. However, in a land war, the AI will frequently send huge stacks of mech infantry into your territory, and by hitting one of these stacks repeatedly with RA, you can make it a whole lot easier to kill.

[roadcage]

See defensive agression thread for an early use of catapults. But realistically, their best feature is upgrading to Artillery.

[BRC]

JW: Of course you count. This is exactly what I'm looking for. I want to get everyone's input on the benefits of artillery. Also, what type of game do you play (when are you peaceful, when do you fight)? Do you finish games with SS or Diplo, or the military victories? I will try this approach when I hit the other continent in my current game.

Dave: I have found the rushes to be very successful, but I always have had the production power, not to mention the wonders that I deem are key. I'm a little worried as to how much harder it is to run over the opponents at Emperor and Diety due to their bonus.

Roadcage: Thanks. I'll look at it for the early game.

Like I said, I've been hanging around here for a little bit, and I play the game VERY similar to Arrian. 21-tile spacing, early war, mass upgrades, building every improvement, need the medievil wonders..... Any input from anyone who knows how these games develop would be especially helpful. Thanks

[GusSmed]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
I start with catapults if I am one of the following civs:

Persia
Rome
Carthage
Greece
Babylon
Korea

All of those but Korea have early 1 move UUs that I use instead of horsemen. To support the UUs, I'll use catapults. None of them can retreat, so it is a good idea to soften enemy spearmen to keep them alive.

Do you really? I find that if a civ doesn't have a move-2 UU, I build just enough UU to trigger a golden age when I want it, and otherwise use horsemen.

Greece and Carthage are the exception, because the Hoplite and the Numidean Merc are defensive units I place in cities. Hoewever, you said you use catapults to support these UU in an offensive role, which doesn't make sense to me - do you use a Swordsman / Hoplite / Catapult mix when playing as Greece?

As an aside, I find the 2 point attack of the Numidean Merc to be useless. Using them that way makes them into expensive archers, dangerous unless the target is defense 1 and has just 1 or 2 HP each. They're still useful, since they're effectively early Pikemen, but inferior to the Hoplite because they cost 50% more for that useless extra point of attack.

Come to think of it, using catapults to support Babylonian Bowmen doesn't make sense either. Catapults require mathematics, and by the time you have a meaningful number of them, you've got swordsmen which are superior to Bowmen.

To address the original post, the golden age of bombardment is between the period when your enemies get Infantry and the point when you get Tanks. Taking infantry with Cavalry is prohibitively expensive unless you knock them down to 1 HP each with artillery, and artillery is the first bombard unit that has a decent attack, and of course range.

I've expermented with using artillery or bombers to make an Tank or Modern Armor attack less expensive, and my assessment is that it's nice, but not something worth doing deliberately. You're usually better off building more Tanks or MA than a bombard unit.

If the target is exactly 3 spaces into enemy territory and you're using Tanks, it does make sense to move Artillery in you built in the previous age. The Tanks won't reach the target this turn, and the artillery will be in range next turn when they do.

In theory, you could get a short period where you had Tanks and the target had Mech Infantry, which would require bombardment again, since MI require 1 tech (Computers) and Modern Armor 3 (Rockets, Ecology, Synthetic Fibers). In practice I've never seen it happen.

- Gus

[Chemical Ollie]

I agree with most here. Artillery is really the only bombard unit worth building, except for bombers later. I use it for softening cities before attack, wearing down enemy "stacks of doom", damaging bombarding enemy ships so that they turn for home. I quite often use them even after appearance of tanks, but combine with bombers. I play on emperor and monarch.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GusSmed
Greece and Carthage are the exception, because the Hoplite and the Numidean Merc are defensive units I place in cities. Hoewever, you said you use catapults to support these UU in an offensive role, which doesn't make sense to me - do you use a Swordsman / Hoplite / Catapult mix when playing as Greece?

Yes. Zero casualties from archer counterattacks.

As an aside, I find the 2 point attack of the Numidean Merc to be useless. Using them that way makes them into expensive archers, dangerous unless the target is defense 1 and has just 1 or 2 HP each. They're still useful, since they're effectively early Pikemen, but inferior to the Hoplite because they cost 50% more for that useless extra point of attack.

Have you ever done an attack where you've killed the three spearmen and there's just some puny little guy holding the city, but you don't have anyone to attack it with? And you know that next turn he's gonna pop-rush a new spearman and you will have to attack it with a wounded swordsman? That's when you use the Numidian Mercenary. Fortunately, the one unit you manage to take the city with can defend at three.

Come to think of it, using catapults to support Babylonian Bowmen doesn't make sense either. Catapults require mathematics, and by the time you have a meaningful number of them, you've got swordsmen which are superior to Bowmen.

Sword/Bowman/Catapult mix. The catapults bombard, then the swordsmen go for the non-wounded spearmen, and the bowmen take down the injured spearmen, archers, and warriors. Then the bowmen can defend.

I've expermented with using artillery or bombers to make an Tank or Modern Armor attack less expensive, and my assessment is that it's nice, but not something worth doing deliberately. You're usually better off building more Tanks or MA than a bombard unit.

It actually pays to build bombers to support MA for a different reason. It doesn't lower casualties enough that it is less expensive, but think about it this way...
A small number of well-cared for units with blitz can easily work their ways up the experience levels quickly. Because they rarely get lost, it is quite easy to get a great leader. If you had large numbers of MA that got killed more often, many would not ever get to be elite, much less produce a GL.

Thats all for now.

[Jaybe]

City Bombardment

There are two major considerations regarding bombarding a metropolis/city in the industrial/modern age:

1. Friendly casualties (dem/rep government, or attacking on a shoestring). If avoiding casualties is a major concern, then wait for bombardment support. Make sure to have the workers available to build road/rail to speed things along, as appropriate. Use your spy to Investigate City to determine the defense and keep track as you bombard them down.

2. Is the city to be taken or razed? If it is to be taken, then you may want to avoid bombardment to avoid risking destruction of the harbor or markeplace (again, Investigate City to confirm there IS a marketplace). A city in WLTKD is much less likely to culture flip on you, while if in disorder it is more likely to flip. If you have Cruise Missiles, then they can be used safely as they only target military units, not civvies or improvements.

[BRC]

Jaybe: I forgot about casualties and war weariness. I see the use there. In all of my games, I don't think that I have ever had less culture than an opponent, and also no captured cities have flipped back to them.

Olaf: Thanks. Is this the general concensus among everyone?

Also, how do others compare to the AI culturally. Less, even, 2x.... What is optimal? (If you are not intending to win that way?)

Thanks

[DaveMcW]

All you really need is equal culture. That makes flips in captured cities rare, especially if you starve them down to 1 pop immediately.

Up to Monarch you should be able to get equal culture by building normally. On Emperor a very early temple helps. On Diety you try to hit a couple civs before they start building temples, because after that you have to raze everything until you catch up.

[Chemical Ollie]

I forgot a few things:

Cruise missiles are cheap, powerful and only hit the enemy military units. Perfect for bombarding enemy cities before you capture them. There is a bug that stops you from loading them onto transports in cities, but you can pass that bug by loading them from the shore.

My use of bombardment is not completely the general consencus, but I think quite a few play like me. Some people actually build catapults and find them useful as you can read here. But I think you need lots of them to get any effect, which could be too expensive in the ancient age.

Others don't build modern bombardment units at all, but focus totally on getting as many tanks as possible. There are many ways to win.

[jshelr]

Arty threads typically break down because there is a strong "I don't need arty" bias among the big boys. Don't get too cocky. Arty are very valuable for us mere mortals.

In games where you have had problems and are not overrunning the world with cavs, then arty are the best defensive units after RR. You can wheel up a stack of 40 arty to any spot in your civ and fire in just one turn. This power makes you virtually invulnerable to any AI attack.

BTW -- see Moonsinger's arty thread over on fanatics forum for state of the art usage of arty on offense in the modern era. In a recent game, I had the opportunity to use settlers to extend a blitz by putting arty in position to bombard as she illustrates on that thread. They are a great can opener when used correctly.

I'm beginning to think there is a female bias in favor of arty. They will probably teach us a lesson on PTW.

[GusSmed]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
It actually pays to build bombers to support MA for a different reason. It doesn't lower casualties enough that it is less expensive, but think about it this way...
A small number of well-cared for units with blitz can easily work their ways up the experience levels quickly. Because they rarely get lost, it is quite easy to get a great leader. If you had large numbers of MA that got killed more often, many would not ever get to be elite, much less produce a GL.

I'm aware of this effect, and I've mentioned the increase of experience for individual units leading to more Great Leaders in other threads.

However, it's my experience that both tanks and MA, both being Blitz units, are ridiculously easy to get to up to Elite levels even without bombardment. Any unit that participates in a combat twice or more in one turn gets an automatic promotion for the second and later combats, provided it wins. Until Blitz units, you only see this on defense. Tanks and MA get it on attack.

For example, if the tank / MA doesn't take more than 1 HP or so damage in the first attack, hold the second attack until there's a weak target (and there often is) like a Cavalry or Longbow, or a severely damaged infantry, and and poof, it's Elite.

Yes, I know, this happens more often with bombers than without, but it's not that important an effect because Elite is so easy to get. Also, by the time you have Modern Armor, you don't need any more Great Leaders - you've built the UN, no other wonders matter, and few free Armies aren't that great a reward.

I've run MA assaults both with and without bomber support, and my feeling is that I've done better when I've just concentrated on cranking out the MA. It's hard to say, though, since by the time MA rolls around, I have an overwhelming production and tech edge. It's just a matter of which method finishes the game faster.

Typically, the game is still in doubt when it's Knights vs. Musketmen. Sometimes it drags out to the Infantry / Cavalry / Artillery period, when you as a player can torch heavily defended cities with this combination, and the AI is throwing away dozens of Cavalry against a couple of fortified Infantry when it tries to take a city.

- Gus

[alva]

On emperor, I don't use artilery of any kind, if I capture one , I will disband it, in the nearest city.
Not that there not usefull, just feels like an exploit.

On deity I will use it alot. But then again, on deity, I need as much help as I can get

In games where you have had problems and are not overrunning the world with cavs, then arty are the best defensive units after RR. You can wheel up a stack of 40 arty to any spot in your civ and fire in just one turn. This power makes you virtually invulnerable to any AI attack.

So very true