Strategy Notes From Vel - The Early Game....

[Arrian]

Vel - I totally agree that starting position makes or breaks you. For instance, after finishing off my best game to date (in terms of score, at least) last night, I started a new one - large map/70%water/normal/normal/4billion, just to see if having more land would be cool for early expansion. It turned out that my starting spot, while not horrible, was also not great, and the Egyptians got a really, really nice one to my south. The Romans, the 3rd and final civ on the continent, got screwed. I hung in there for a while, but the Egyptians cut me off and backfilled and ended up nearly 2x my size. Then they attacked me.

I realized, as my cities began to burn, that I was beaten. The Egyptian army (hordes of swordsmen, with some horsemen, some warriors and the occasional spearman... but not one chariot) was breaking through, and although my forces were fighting rather valiantly, I knew I couldn't stop them. Wow. I got beaten - on regent! Now, before you conclude that I suck, I offer the following in my defense:

1) It was late, I was tired, and I didn't really intend to play it out anyway.
2) I'm pretty sure the Egyptians were in a golden age (they built the pyramids). Of course, I was too, once one of my hoplites won, but their empire was so much bigger... and MAN, were they pumping out swordsmen.
3) They had a nice ring of cities surrounding a nicely centralized capitol, whereas my capitol was pretty much in a corner.
4) I had JUST gone Republic. Blah, just in time for a war!

Now the reality is that I should have rushed them as soon as I understood the geography, but I didn't. Ah, hindsight. I will give the AI this: it was stronger, it knew it, and it beat me over the head with it. Normally, I don't allow the AI to be stronger than I am, but given the starting positions and a lack of aggression on my part, this time they got me. I like that.

Oddly enough, described the AI expansion as similar to "rabbits with viagra" to a friend recently. Our minds think alike - whether we're great or not is another matter.

-Arrian

p.s. In case anyone cares, my "best game yet" was: Hiawatha the Magnificent of the Iroquois, Spaceship victory in 1804, 3347 score, Regent level, Large -80% water- continents map, normal/normal/5 billion.

[blc]

Excellent thread.

One brief comment, which if it has been mentioned, I missed.

During the early exploration stage of the game, stay on the mountains and hills with warriors (if you're not playing expansionist).

This makes your initial search for resources and huts much more efficent. I usually will try to send one warrior on every mountain I see, then send one after him in order to pick up the goodies.

Unfortunately, my current game is going downhill fast. I got a good starting position as Greece but am on a large continent with Zulus, Germans and Babylonians. They are all raiding so quickly I can't build enough workers to use my industrial advantage and everytime I'm politely request, they leave my borders, boom new war. They were all thick as thieves by the time I found them so no chance to really build up a diplomatic sollution.

[Velociryx]

***Excellent*** comment, blc! And Arrian....sounds like a KILLER game! LOL @ your "____ minds" comment too!


Combined Arms or: Why the Combat System isn’t broken

Okay….there have been a TON of threads about how twisted, bent, and broken the current Civ3 combat system is. There have even been some well-presented arguments about how and why to change it.

I’ll not be discussing any of that in my post today for two reasons. First, because that particular horse has been thoroughly beaten TO DEATH in the Civ3 General section and I’d rather not rehash it here, and second, because it doesn’t matter in terms of the game we’re playing AT THIS MOMENT. Like it or not, the combat system in Civ3 right now is…well…the combat system in Civ3, and if we’re going to talk strategy, then we need to talk about it in terms of what IS, rather than what should be in one group or another’s opinion.

So….yes. There have been reliable reports of skewed combat results. I’ve seen a scant handful of them myself, and if you’re looking for ways to minimize, or even eliminate those skewed results from your game, then keep reading.

There are those who argue that late game units are not powerful enough in relation to their ancient era counterparts, and in fact, Soren Johnson, one of the programmers on staff at the company (and the one who brought you that truly WICKED AI!) said as much in a recent chat. Design decision, pure and simple.

So yes…in terms of raw firepower, modern units are not overwhelmingly powerful vs. their older counterparts, but I contend that raw firepower only tells part of the story, and to that end, let’s take a look at one oft-cited example of combat to find out more about that.

Da Big Matchup
Cavalry vs. Longbowman

Stats (and I’m at work, so if this isn’t exact, someone lemme know and I’ll correct it)
6-3-3 vs. 4-1-1

Results:
Cavalry attacks Longbowman – Regardless of the terrain, it is almost inconceivable that the Cavalry unit will lose. You MIGHT see a loss if the Longbow unit was fortified in a town on a hill (are those bonuses cumulative?), behind a Wall, and if the Longbowman was Elite and the Cavalry a wet-behind-the-ears rookie, but even then, my money would be on the Cavalry. The fact is, the Longbowman is pretty much toasted.

Longbowman attacks Cavalry – On open terrain, the Longbowman will, more often than not, DRIVE THE CAV UNIT OFF. Note that the Longbowman will not kill the Cavalry unit, and this is the telling point. The best that the more primitive unit can hope to do is to simply weaken the Cavalry unit and drive him away. Unless the field commander OF the Cavalry unit chooses to fortify, the Cavalry unit CANNOT LOSE this fight, even if on the receiving end of this attack! Of course, in hilly/mountainous terrain, a fortified cavalry may be able to fend off the assault, but even still…why run the risk of hunkering down when one of the main strengths of a Cav. Unit is its mobility?

I submit to you a few points for consideration regarding the match-up mentioned above:

1) Under the current combat system, technological advances do not bring overwhelming firepower to the more advanced society, but they DO provide combat advantages that are less obvious to the eye, including an ever-widening array of specialized units.

2) Proper use of these units and their abilities will result in outdated armies not being able to significantly harm your forces, while simply moving your units “in the general direction of” your opponent in the same fashion as Civ2 AI will result (predictably!) in the case of a Longbowman killing a defending Cavalry. The point is that a good general will never allow the Cavalry into that position to begin with.

3) The biggest, most telling advantage that modern armies have over their older counterparts is two-fold. First, mobility. A modern army can hit harder AND pull back from an older army. Thus, the out-dated army finds itself continually “just out of reach” and unable to effectively counterattack. Second, combined arms, and by this I mean, bombardment from land, sea, AND air, fast (3 move) units, capable of slipping in and taking out the enemy stack’s best defender and then retreating back to a point of cover and safety (and without the enemy stack’s best defender, how likely is it that they’ll continue to advance??? And if they do, are there any doubts as to what the outcome will be?), and stout short range attackers to grapple with units as they close, while the mobile units guard the flanks and hit targets of opportunity.

The above three points can be applied to ANY BATTLE IN THE GAME, and doing so will result in your almost never having “silly” combat results. True, planes can’t sink ships in this game, but they CAN reduce them to a single HP. And doing so WILL make your naval battles easier, no?

Likewise, bombing the $hit out of a size 14 city (metropolis defense bonus) to reduce it to size 6 before the attack and weaken the defenders inside will make it easier on your attacking forces….probably easy enough that you’ll not take any losses.

Of course there are times when you hit the wrong button or when situations demand that you use a unit for something other than its intended purpose (Cavalry being the only defenders in a hotly contested city). But again, if you’re a good commander, you’ll have already made plans to relieve and reinforce the unit(s) in question, and they won’t spend too long in the hotseat.

On the other hand, if you have NOT made any contingencies….well….how good a commander are you? At that point, I would submit that it’s not the combat system that’s broken at all….

Anyway, all that to say that combined arms are amazingly powerful things, and available in limited form as far back as the ancient era (Catapult, Horsemen, Swordsmen). USE THEM unless you just like losing lots of men in battle!

Just like in SMAC, yes, you can construct a linear attack force (all swordsmen, for example), and you WILL win lots of battles, but….the first time your swordsmen get picked to death by a zillion Iroquois Mounted Warriors, backed up by strategically placed catapults guarded by fortified spearmen, and never even get to attack will be the LAST time you design such a one-dimensional attack force!

Tech advances DO bring combat benefits into the game. Not the “run over all opposition” type that many seem to be looking for, but the advantages ARE, in fact, there. All that remains is to….well….use them.



-=Vel=-

[Cookie Monster]

Velociryx,


Your last post was outstanding. The point of combined arms is extremely important in this game. I think one of the problems we all might be having in accepting the combat system in this game is our old Civ2 habits. These are hard to break. They way the current combat model is requires us to rethink our methods of waging war. There is nothing wrong or broken with the combat model. When an elite warrior takes out my last remaining regular pikeman thus taking one of my important cities I don't say the model is broken. War is unpredictable. Plans and unit performance never go as expected. I just chalk it up to that. We must forget our Civ2 ways and understand what is happening here. Unit experience (regular, veteran, etc.) can play as big a role in battle as defense factor's and firepower does.

Last night I discovered just how powerful combined arms can be in this game. My previous attempts at waging war in Civ3 were futile. I would send out large numbers of units but in single or 2 man stacks. This sort of warfare may have been average in Civ2 but it doesn't work in Civ3. What I did was (as the Babylonians) combine 2 bowmen, 3 horsemen, 2 catapults, and one spearman into one stack. I moved the stack next to one of my enemys' cities and bombarded with the catapults. I followed the bombardment immediately with an assault from the 2 bowmen and then the 3 horsemen. By the time the 2nd horseman attacked the two defenders (both veteran spearmen) were killed and the city was mine. Now I realize that many of you out there may already know that combined arms stack are the way to go in this game, but last night I was stunned at it's effectiveness. I have finally made myself abandon my old Civ2 bad habits.

I realized that old gaming techniques must be abandoned as in many ways Civ3 is different from the previous versions. I think that initially I thought certain things about this game were wrong or broken but I'm realizing that my initial assesments may have not entirely been accurate. Old Civ2 gaming habits must be discarded in favor of adapting to the new way of playing Civ3.

[Velociryx]

Hey HD, and thanks for the quick reply! I agree 100% that it's mostly a matter of forcing yourself to think a bit differently, and that old habits are HARD to break sometimes, but you're dead on....Civ3 is a WAY different game, and the "bulldog" approach just doesn't work as well as it used to (sure, it CAN work...I mean, if you roll 60 tanks into a stone age Civ, you WILL win, even if the resistance takes a few tanks with them!)....but the fact is that you can have REALLY sweet, clean victories simply by designing balanced attack forces, as you discovered in your last game.

In my mind, that's not a step back from realism, but toward it.

How many Civ2 games were won simply via beelining for gunpowder, building a small, elite force of high-tech units and dominating the planet?

How many Civ3 games will be won in that manner? Not many, if any, I'd guess!

In Afghanistan (to bring a real world example into it), we're not just steamrolling over the Taliban's forces with our high tech infantry and tanks....nope....we're using bombardment, mixed with infantry (a few special forces on the ground to assist the NA forces).

Combined arms.

And by the way, congrats on your outstanding recent victories!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Other musings:

Haupt. Dietrich brings up an OUTSTANDING point, and one that bears *much* closer consideration.

The morale of the units involved in combat is given every bit as much (if not more!) weight than the level of technology.

Thus, it is possible, in fact LIKELY that an elite (5hp) unit with a defense of 2 will be able to pull out a victory against a conscript (2hp) unit with an attack value of four (say....an Immortal attacking a grizzled and wily Spearman unit).

I think that this too, was done by design to FORCE players to be mindful of their best units....preserve your units and you'll wind up with LOTS of Elites....fight with lots of Elites and you'll end up with more Great Leaders....

Very cool, that....

-=Vel=-

[vmxa1]

I think when you discuss combat you should include the hit points. A unit with an extra HP due to being Vet/Elite is quite different from a regular unit.
I think combine arms is fine if you have them, but the complaints that are being voiced are not so much that stack A beat stack B. It is mostly unit A, beat unit B and unit B is much stronger and may even have defensive bonus and extra HP from being Vet. I am not seeing people cry so much because a longbowman beats a calv unit once in a while. It is that reg warrior beat Elite Immortal on level ground, that is the complaint. Most of the defenders of the mismatch say things like a spearman could kill a tank, if it did or had XYZ. I say, maybe so, but no provision are mentioned in the game for those circimstances, so they do not exist. In other words, if you want to claim that the spearman got a hold of an RPG, or was able to do something else. To me that is not a valid senario, it is not in the game. There is no icon to show me that the searman has an RPG or whatever weapon/tool they want to invision, there fore it is not valid. This means it is just a spearman 1.2.1 (no vet/elite) and the tank or even infantry is force to use the formula for the combat, so how does it lose? I have had modern armour lost to riflemen in a city (small so no metro bonus) and the riflemen was a regular. That is 3.6.1 vs 24.16.3, this is not unbearable (not proper either), but the riflemen usually do enough damage to at least get you to yellow, if not red. That does not seem valid to me. That under those condition a riflemen wins once in a great while is fine, that they usually do great damage is silly. For you to say we must send an army with combine arms, is fatuous. It would be as if you had a civilian that had a hand gun and shot someone in an occupied town and you had a Navy Seal at hand and said, well I can't send the seal in to stop this as it could be killed by the untrained civilian, huh? As a commander you would send the seal to stop the civilian from doing any more act of terror. It is reasonally to send in a far supior unit to attack an enemy that is close at hand, you do not let them go past you into your soft softs, because you do not have combined arms at the time and location.

[Cookie Monster]

And by the way, congrats on your outstanding recent victories!

Thanks Velociryx, but it could not have been possible without your excellent strategies you have posted in this thread!

It is that reg warrior beat Elite Immortal on level ground, that is the complaint.

vmxa1, you have a valid point there. I have seen this happen to me many a time. I agree that this is a problem but I think that attacking with a fairly good sized stack is the philosphy the programmers had in mind with Civ3. Seeing something like this happen in Civ2 was indeed a rarity, but perhaps the designers of Civ3 wanted to prevent us from rolling over an opponent with single superior units. I do know based on the countless games I've played that units out in the open by themselves seem to be very vulnerable. Our way of thinking with regards to execution must change. One of the major problems I'd like fixed is the horrendous wait time between turns and fixing the air combat system.

[adaMada]

Vel: Great post on combined arms ! Very useful...

Have one question, though. How useful are the bombardment units before artiliary? Artiliary and radar artiliary seem awsome (haven't gotten to radar artiliary yet, so can't speak from experience, but if it's a step up from regular artiliary)... but what about catapults? They don't seem to do a lot against any good unit... about how many do you recommend stacking together to have an effective force? Also, if this thread covers strategy that far into the game, what about naval bombardment? When you have frigates, for instance, is it worth trying to bombard an enemies cities with them?

Really enjoying this very useful thread -- keep up the good work!

-- adaMada

[eMarkM]

No combined arms strategy is complete without thinking of how you'll take out enemy resources. Here's a late game example. Once tanks come on line your un-updatable cavalry becomes outmoded, but you often have a ton of them left around. It's pure folly throwing them against fortified infantry behind a city wall--that's what tanks are for. But, I've been using them as pillaging units and they're fantastic.

Pillaging was something I almost never did in Civ2, since you could use enemy roads. Why take them out when you can take them over? Pillaging takes a whole new meaning in Civ3 when you can't use their roads and roads must connect resources. While your combined arms of tanks, artillery and navy are pounding their city, send the masses of now "useless" cavalry to pillage their roads and improvements. Especially access to resources. Their 3 movement is perfect for this sort of behind the lines action. Use transports to get them deep in enemy territory for guerilla activity.

Sure, bombers can accomplish the same thing, but you often have a lot more cavalry sitting around garrisoned doing nothing than you have bombers online. Since cavalry is rather expendable at this point anyway, it's worth it if a bunch get killed if you can take out access to their rubber to prevent infantry, oil to prevent tanks, or luxuries to cause unrest. If you can, take out all roads surrounding their capital and they're really screwed. I found the enemy concentrating so much on defending their cities that I was able to destroy whole swaths of improvements almost completely unmolested using cavalry deep behind enemy lines.

It's all part of a real PLAN you must make to win, as opposed to just cranking out the Civ2 Howitzers endlessly and just mowing down the opposition. You have to actually sit there for a few minutes at the start of your turn and plan where to cut their roads, how to get your units there, etc. Something you rarely did in the mindless tank/howitzer rushes of civ2.

=====

On uneven battle outcomes. I'm still waiting for this to happen to me. Sure, when a superior unit gets caught unfortified on plains and is attacked by a lesser unit, it may die. Combat not being as lopsided as Civ2 is good and works both ways. But I still have yet to see a spearman defend against a tank.

e

[Hastus]

First of all this thread is always amazing and I have gotten tons of ideas and help from it.
All this talk about War gets my attention.
Good points Velociryx and Haup.Dietrich about breaking the old patterns. First when I started playing Civ 3 I also found the combat somewhat hard but as you both stated when you realise that you can bombard units charge with cavallery etc etc it makes the combat alot more easy. The game I play now is with France on Monarch level on a standard siza map. I found myself on a huge continent with me on top and england in middle and germany at bottom. I was able to cut off the english early with cities so they could not expand in my direction (Thats another thing I learned by this thread). I then filled back with settlers and established my cities. But I knew already at start that I had to get rid of the English and Germany to be able to have as a large empire as I wanted. I did alot of trades with the english at start and sold them techs etc. Later when I had filled up all land with cities I started to build barracks in all cities often rushing them sacrificing population. (Thats one more thing learned from this thread.) I have learned before that you can never win a war if you do not have a plan at start. I would say preparation and patient are the keys to victory. I had set my sights on 3 english cities to take at the first turn of the war.So I decided to build 3 groups. I built so I had 3 swordsman one catapult and one spearman in each group. I planned to leave the spearman behind to quickly be able to move on to take other cities.
First when I had all groups in place and had moved them as long into english land as I could I declared war. The turn after I was able to take all 3 cities and one of them being the english only source of iron in one turn. After that the war carried on and I lost many swordsmen but not near as many as the english did. After awhile they only had 2 towns left and I decided to sign a peacy treaty (And got quite alot for it,but had no intention of keeping it) with them since at this time I was also at war with germany and wanted to concetrate my efforts there.
The war for Germany dragged on with me gaining a town then losing it. Then we fought over a hill maybe 10 turns. At this time I was not focusing alot on the war and I lost pretty much but the Germans did as well. I was waiting to discover chivalry. I had also gained 2 leaders from all the fighting and was able to rush the FP in London to decrease corruption and later used one to rush Sistine Chapel.I had also changed goverment to Monarchy since I felt that I had to get rid of the Germans before going into a more peacful goverment. After I got chivalry the tide of the war started to turn heavily in my favor and I was able to build Knights and started to rush them to the front. This is where I am now, taken a few german cities and on the march to Berlin with my Holy Knights. However I have lost alot of units and gotten behind China for example in techs but I think that when I defeat germany it will still be worth it since then I will be strongest power by far in my world. War will always cost. But sometimes the price is worth to pay. But for those that complains about losing a modern unit to a ancient one maybe should not go to war in the first place. You will lose alot of units in a war and you better be prepared to be left behind in the tech race sometimes.
I find war alot more fun in Civ 3 than I did in Civ 2 for example.
The computer actually can be a pain now,cutting of resources and luxury etc. I for one dont care if I lose a few units a game to ancient units, it will only be a few among hundreds.

[Arrian]

eMarkM brings up an important tactic - break your enemy's infrastructure! Clearly, if you can cut off his supply of a key resource or luxuries (this is actually just as valuable... it's hard to fight when your cities are burning), then you have an advantage. Cavalry & Modern Armor (3 move) is good for it, but the best units are Bombers and Battleships (I'd say artillery, but it's not as mobile and has to be protected by other units). Target resource areas and cut the roads. Also, if you are after a particular city, cut the roads between it and the rest of your enemy's empire - this will cripple his ability to send in reinforcements. They will grind to a halt in no-man's land, and you can pick them off at your leisure. I have used this to great effect.

Also, if you've done a ton of damage to the enemy's empire, they will be all the more eager for peace - and a favorable deal for you. Unless you're fighting total war (Sire, we have destroyed the "forgotten" Zulus!), wreaking havoc on the enemy's infrastructure is a good alternative to biting off more than you can chew. It will take time & effort for them to rebuild it - meanwhile you've consolidated your gains and are ready to take them on again if you want.

Vel - I pretty much agree with you about Civ III combat. Yeah, there have been some wacky battles. I have, in fact, yelled "WHAT!?!?!" at the screen a couple of times, but it just isn't THAT big a deal. Combined Arms pretty much takes care of it - along with attacking with overwhelming force and a good understanding of the value of mobile units (they rarely actually die). Send in one lone Tank division and they'll wack it - you have to actually build up your armed forces if you want to conquer people.

Actually, my primary gripe with CIV III combat has nothing to do with the land units. I can deal with the occasional UBER PIKEMAN! who valiantly mauls my Modern Armor (not that this matchup happens in my regent games, anyway). The one that bothered me the most was a naval battle I "won." My veteran battleship attacked a regular caravel. My mighty dreadnaught sank the pitiful little sailboat, but was down to 1 hit point. The logical side of my brain rejects that result utterly (along with the submarine I lost to a frigate - the only sub I ever built). It has nothing to do with the A/D/M stats... it's all about a wooden sailing ship doing ANY harm to the Missouri (or a U-boat, for that matter). Ever since then, I've been copying the AI - I bombard naval units (say, an ironclad) with one of my ships, then hit with another (usually bombard w/destoyer, hit w/battleship). This essentially guarantees that the worst they can do is knock off 1 or 2 hp. That's still a bit annoying, but you deal with it.

-Arrian

p.s. About my "killer game" - Having ALL the oil helps *just a little bit* in modern warfare.

[Arrian]

Ok, after all this combined arms discussion, I have to confess that I really don't use bombard units until artillery. If I fight an ancient war, it's swordsmen and horsemen (or a special unit, if available). Use the mobile units to soften, and then hit w/your swordsmen. If the horseman unit loses (which it often will), it retreats back to your stack. I does not die. A defeated swordsman is dead and gone.

I fought a nasty, brutal little war vs. the Zulus last night (I was the Babs). I used Bowmen/Swordsmen/Horsemen. The war went well (I knocked them down to 1 city), but OUCH, did Zimbabwe hurt. I only figured it out once I had razed the city - it was built on a hill. See, Impis have 2 moves, so my horsemen DID die if they lost... and lose they did, along with several swordsmen. Luckily, that golden age I had going kept the troops coming. In this particular case (if I'd been smart enough to CHECK the terrain under the city) I could see the case for few catapults. Otherwise, I think they miss far, far too often to be really useful. I'd rather have more horsemen or swordsmen.

As for canons... well, I almost never fight wars during the time period when canons are available. I'm too busy consolidating my gains from ancient warfare and wonder building - looking forward to Cavalry/Riflemen/Artillery.

-Arrian

[Illyrien]

To Vel

Somewhere you wrote about what the value of citizens when using the Forced Labor option to building. I think you said it was 15, well I just found it. It is 40. You can find it in the civ3-folder, look for Civ3Edit <- it is a 4.2Mb Helpfile

Anyway, glad to see you playing Civ3, I have read your SMAX guide lots of time. I look forward to seeing you do the same here too.

Illyrien

[Velociryx]

Hey guys! On my way for a pre-Thanksgiving Dinner (We’re practicing stuffing our faces before the “actual” event you see….LOL).

But, before I scoot outta here for the night, I just had to duck back in and reply! First, once again, thank you to everyone who’s reading and posting here! You guys are the ones making the thread worth coming back to! There have been TONS of terrific ideas posted here, and I think the list will only get longer and more refined with time (and in between the really GOOD ideas, I get the opportunity to rant and ramble…lol).

Thanks Haupt.

AdaMata: You’re right…Catapults pretty well REEK as bombard units, but they’re all you’ve got in the middle ages.

As far as attacking goes, I recommend an either/or: Either hit really hard really early (ie – Babylonian Archer Rush before your first tech is even researched (use 5) or, late-ancient era attack en mass with at least 4 catapults in your main group (specifically for cities on hills and such).

EMarkM: TOTAL agreement re: resource denial! One of the most devastating blows you can deliver to an opponent is to cause most of his cities to riot and burn. The one turn’s loss of production (empire wide) can be more crippling than killing DOZENS of his units—especially, for example, if you’re in a closely contested race for a Wonder….not that I’d EVER do anything so evil as that of course….

Hastus: Thank you! And congrats on your game as well….sounds like you’ve turned the corner on it and will have victory in your grasp soon! And, I’m glad that many of the things you’ve read here were important elements of your game! WhoooHoooo! That’s good news indeed! Says we’re thinking along the right lines….

Arrian: Once again, our minds are thinking pretty much alike. Aside from building a smallish cadre of catapults “in between” other stuff, I don’t make extensive use of bombardment till the modern era—and, like you, I generally don’t attack in the middle ages/industrial era….too much to do!

Illyrien: D’oh! The truth of it is FAR better than I’d originally guessed at! Good catch on finding the specific number, too! I was curious, but never so curious that I took the time to check my production box before and after and count! Excellent! Now we have an exact number to play with, and it’s MUCH higher than I originally thought! I’m all the more convinced!

As to the SMAX Guide....Thank you! I have to admit, with it's black cover, the old gal looks pretty impressive sitting on the shelf next to the guides put out by "those other guys"

-=Vel=-
(heading out to dinner!)
And Happy Thanksgiving all!

[Jason]

RE: One dimensional attack force: You kind of conceeded this already, but if you only have 1 move foot units (no horses) you can still do alright.

Basically, take a stack of riflemen/infantry with an even bigger stack of cannon/artillery, and grind whatever you have to attack into dust first. It's too tough for the AI to eliminate, and on the attack the artillery do 2/3rds or 3/4ths the fighting cheaply.

Obviously it isn't exactly able to finish off a lot of cavalry, but I find the time I worry about cavalry is when I'm on the defensive, and in that event, I have the road/RR network to let me get shots in on the (comparatively idiotic) AI.

Once multiplayer is released, cavalry will be much more crushing. But in the hands of the AI, it's quite beatable even with no horses at all.

[Skanky Burns]

About rush whipping temples:
Anyone notice that rushing a temple with no prior production costs 2 pop, but even with only 1 shield in the production box, the cost goes down to 1. Illyrien's post reminded me of this.

Question about artillery:
Can artillery ever completely destroy a city?? Ive found myself not completely bombarding Inf guarding 1 pop cities, as i didnt want to destroy the city.

[Jason]

The thought never occurred to me. I've always bombed all defenders to one HP, and never had problems, even when the pop hit 1. I suppose it could be possible.

[ChrisShaffer]

Vel, how can you have too much to do in the industrial era? Once you've built factories and power plants, there aren't any other buildings available until the modern era. It seems like the industrial era is *made* for conflict. In fact, I don't see how builders have much to do at all during the industrial era. I've played a few perfectionist/builder games, and the industrial era sees me running Wealth in all my cities for extended periods. What are you doing different?

[ChrisShaffer]

The numbers of shields for population using the whip are:

40 shields for first population point;
20 shields for second and subsequent population points.

[Dis]

I've just been a lurker in this thread.

any tips to boost science rate before Democracy? I was playing the french last game and actually did pretty good going republic. But my science rates in monarchy and despotsim sucks.

Any tips for boosting ancient age and early middle age research?

[Thoth]

Originally posted by ChrisShaffer
Vel, how can you have too much to do in the industrial era? Once you've built factories and power plants, there aren't any other buildings available until the modern era. It seems like the industrial era is *made* for conflict. In fact, I don't see how builders have much to do at all during the industrial era. I've played a few perfectionist/builder games, and the industrial era sees me running Wealth in all my cities for extended periods. What are you doing different?

I usually wind up churning out battleships/destroyers, artillery and riflemen/infantry. They come in handy sooner or later.

[HenryMad]

Wonderful, Vel is back !
It's quite three years that I have been playing SMAC/X and have to admit that I've learnt to play only thanks to VEL. I've got just Yesterday CIV3 from Amazon and am looking forward to something like that masterpiece that's VEL's guide

These are my humble appreciation and thanks to a superior brain .
Thanks again Vel !

[ChrisShaffer]

Originally posted by Thoth
I usually wind up churning out battleships/destroyers, artillery and riflemen/infantry. They come in handy sooner or later.

Um, Thoth, doesn't that kind of miss the point of my original post? I was asking how you deal with the industrial age if you don't plan to go to war. After your first handful of defenders, your "churning out" of units becomes counter-productive for a peaceful builder game.

[HatchetMan]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Question about artillery:
Can artillery ever completely destroy a city?? Ive found myself not completely bombarding Inf guarding 1 pop cities, as i didnt want to destroy the city.

You can't destroy ANYthing with just bombarding it.
edit: except for city improvements of course!
Cities can only be reduced to 1pop, (and of course units can be
reduced to 1hp which I'm sure everyone knows by now).
So don't you let them bombers/artillery be lying around unused

Can anyone say "the coast is clear"?
I guess it would have been unbalancing if one civ got
the battleship early,huh, with the devastating, crushing
18 attack strenght

[Grim Legacy]

Odd. I do find artillery very useful. It's a shame those catapults have only range 1, but they are very effective.
Sure, they might miss a few rounds, but I never use them alone: 4 is the minimum. 4 rounds of attack vs a town with spearmen / pikemen usually results in 2-3 damages done: 2 hitpoints off defenders (typical relative loss of strength: 25% to 33% each) and maybe a laborer or barracks destroyed. Nice!

Without picking off those hitpoints, my swordsmen would not be able to defeat the defenders so easily. I've noticed that every time I allow my normal combat units to take heavy damage in uphill battles, the AI always manages to swoop in a few archers to finish them off. A good way to get rid of those Elite forces. The bombardment prevents this scenario from occuring too often.

[Thoth]

Originally posted by ChrisShaffer


Um, Thoth, doesn't that kind of miss the point of my original post? I was asking how you deal with the industrial age if you don't plan to go to war. After your first handful of defenders, your "churning out" of units becomes counter-productive for a peaceful builder game.

"If you would have peace, then be prepared for war"

It is much easier to play a peacefull game if you've got a large military. The AI is much less likely to pick a fight with you if you are a strong power.

That being said, I have yet to play a game of Civ (I, II, or III) that didn't involve a late game war. Perhaps I shouldn't be quite so eager to sign those mutual protection pacts.

[Jguy]

Hey everyone, this thread has been a huge help, especially vel (you're on another plane, man),

I've got a question about city placement. After placing cities at strategic points or making groups of cities to block the enemy civs, how do you guys go about backfilling? Sometimes I'll try to choose the 'best' spots, but that'll leave out nastly little holes that sometimes have good plots of land in them that go unused. Or I might try to minimize unused land, but then I'll get mountains and deserts that are pains in the arse. I usually try to minimize overlap, but once again, it usually sticks some cities with nasty borders. I'm just wondering how everyone else does it. RIn the current game I'm trying putting the cities exactly 4 squares away from each other, so theres no overlap (ie, 4 to the ne, nw, se, sw), but sometimes a lake or mountain gets in the way and screws it up. And cities just get stuck with some bad spots anyway.

Sorry if I rambled, and thanks a lot guys!

(edit: p.s.) I forgot to mention combined arms. Its definitely a different way to wage war. Instead of having 1 or 2 cities pump out a stream of some unit type, I have to organize a nationwide effort, making sure they'res backups and everythings mixed properly. Oy, now I have to think about HOW I'm going to wage war. (Bravo Sid)

[blc]

I had an idea last night but haven't had the time to try it yet (job/house/wife/living in Germany so no Thanksgiving...sigh)and thought I'd present it. .

We'll call it Culture Capture

I started my last game with my capital directly on the tip of a north/south penisula. The next civ was aproximately 20-25 squares directly north. My idea is to build 3-4 cities 12-15 squares north of my present position. Leaving a lot of room for the AI to come in and backfill. Push the culture on 3 of the cities and move my palace to the 4th most centrally located city.

My reasoning behind this is that the culture effects of the capital drop off with distance. If the AI has 2 or 3 cities with my capital between them and his, I should manage a cultural takeover of the cities. I need to move my Palace anyway and this might give me some free cities.

I would like to try to keep my Forbidden Palace in reserve if I find an unsettled island. Then I use lumberjacking and build a viable colony.

Hope the strategy was understandable. Anyone have any comments or has anyone tried doing this?

[Gamer at heart]

hey everyone! this is my first post on the forum but i've been following this tread for a few weeks now. this is great!! Vel, you rule! many other people have brought interesting comments as well.

i want to talk about workers. i think it's a better idea to have them move in stacks and do one improvement at a time. for example, 2 workers building together a mine and then a road will complete both tasks at the same time as one building building a mine while another is building a road. however in the first case you will be able to use the mine a couple of turns earlier than in the later case. that can make a noticable difference in a really tight situation. i go the same way when clearing jungles or forest, cause then you can see your work actually having an effect much sooner!

keep on adding ideas and strategies, this is the most interesting and usefull tread i've found here!!


GaH