Is this a legit tactic vs the AI or is it just lame?

Capt Dizle · November 7, 2001, 01:34

When you mount an offensive and start to take enemy cities you can raze them and get multiple "enslaved workers".

These little guys can move on your turn and are useful for constructing a screen around your attacking units (here I am thinking horse or other multiple move units).

Since units can only make one attack and "capturing workers" counts as an attack, if you spread out a screen you can reduce your opponents counterattacks by one per square that you can cover. The AI doesn't do this when it captures too well, so you normally don't have a screen in front of you when your turn comes up.

I haven't playtested into the industrial age yet so I do not know if armor has more than one attack per turn, cavalry doesn't.

Another thing, I think artillery should hit automatically. In order to use it you must protect artillery and missing as often as it does, I do not think it's worth the effort in the current implementation.

Roulette · November 7, 2001, 02:09

I think I'll go with lame. Don't get me wrong, I can see how it would work and all. I just think it's a cheap shot at something the AI can't cope with. And in order to cope with it, it wouldinvolve a LOT more coding... all of which would slow down gameplay with longer choices being made by the AI.

Monoriu · November 7, 2001, 02:13

I am not sure if I truly understand what you mean. Are you saying that you place your workers in front of your military units so that when its the AI's turn, it will capture those workers instead of attacking your units?

On bombardment, I am surprised that so many people don't like it. I play on Regent level and I rely on artillery and naval bombardment a lot. I have like 30-40 artillery pieces. At the start of every turn I use them to reduce any and all enemy units I see to 1 strength. Then I finish them off with full strength infantry and cavalry. Occasionally those 1 strength AI units still kill my infantry, but 80-90% of the time I win. I can't imagine how many infantry units I will lose if I attack them without the softening bombardment. The great thing about artillery and bombardment is that, the enemy cannot fight back. They can usually fire to 2 tiles away. This means that I never lose any artillery. Its a great way to reduce casulties.

Bombardment is also essential in sieges. A city with a population of lower than 6 gets lower defensive bonus. Taking out a city's barracks can also prevent them from healing too much.

Grunthex · November 7, 2001, 08:10

The AI will ignore military targets to capture workers. Frankly, it needs to reconsider. You can always grab the workers AFTER the units are gone, and workers don't generally kill you (I haven't figured out the Dig Pit Trap option yet)

Capt Dizle · November 7, 2001, 09:58

30-40 artillery pieces? Wow. Your army is far bigger than mine pal. I guess if you have 30 pieces banging away you aren't going to feel it's ineffective. My army was three cannon, a musketman and a dozen cavalry.

RichM · November 7, 2001, 12:27

I like to have one stack of several artillary and a defence guy to drag around with my main army. You do need several though, one offensive unit is better than one artillary, but 5 artillary is more useful that 5 offensive units as long as they have the support of more offensive units. I guess I mean that 5 catapults and ten swordsmen are better than 15 swordsmen. All the artillary pieces are also very upgradable, and if defended they can provide offensive firepower without exposing themselves to counterattack. If you use a swordsmen to attack that enemy swordsmen coming from the side of your main attack, You're kindof sacrificing him by leaving him battered and alone, and that whittles down your army.

Stryfe · November 7, 2001, 14:39

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
30-40 artillery pieces? Wow. Your army is far bigger than mine pal. I guess if you have 30 pieces banging away you aren't going to feel it's ineffective. My army was three cannon, a musketman and a dozen cavalry.

You don't need that many to make artillery work. I despise catapults, but once you get artillery, if you bring along five or six of them, you will make mince meat of your opponent with them. Just recently I was besieging Kyoto, and the AI would keep attempting to flank my main force and attack the rear of my force (which were cavalry trying to return to Satsuma to heal) and my artillery would reduce all their units to 1hp, making it very difficult for them to harrass my weaker cavalry (which were low on hp themselves, but usually fortified or on hills). When the AI didn't do this, the artillery would assault Kyoto, and after about five turns had destroyed the barracks and about half the population. Once the barracks is gone, you can begin to really assault the city...

Monoriu · November 7, 2001, 22:19

"You don't need that many to make artillery work. I despise catapults, but once you get artillery, if you bring along five or six of them, you will make mince meat of your opponent with them."

I am playing on a standard map on Regent level. Trust me, when you are fighting a world war with a grand alliance of 7 AI civs and 3 land fronts, and every turn at least 10 enemy cavalry or infantry try to get through the front lines AND you are sieging at least one city per turn, 40 artillery units are no where near enoguh.

Madine · November 7, 2001, 22:33

I don't think the worker screen is that great. I do think though that they should change it so that capturing units is not considered an attack.

Tanks are able to attack multiple times, at least according to the manual and civolopedia.

Artillery tends to be more effective in wars that are longer, and in wars where you don't have a significant tech advantage over your oppenent. The actual artillery unit has a range of 2, which is when artillery really starts to shine. Before then, you are probably better off using mounted units that can avoid death by retreating. In these times, artillery would be a second resort if you did not have access to mounted units, or if you felt that mounted units alone were inadequate.

Stryfe · November 7, 2001, 23:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Monoriu

Quote:

"You don't need that many to make artillery work. I despise catapults, but once you get artillery, if you bring along five or six of them, you will make mince meat of your opponent with them."

I am playing on a standard map on Regent level. Trust me, when you are fighting a world war with a grand alliance of 7 AI civs and 3 land fronts, and every turn at least 10 enemy cavalry or infantry try to get through the front lines AND you are sieging at least one city per turn, 40 artillery units are no where near enoguh.

I try to avoid conflicts of that scale. But if war with one civ requires five or six artillery, then it would follow that fighting seven civs would require 35-40. But in that case, all numbers must be proportionately greater as well.

treedom · November 8, 2001, 00:22

I think a tactic is lame only if it results in you having to do something unrealistic.

But I can see this one. I mean, we've seen it in dozens of movies...You've captured their people, and are now using them as bait. Being the nice soldiers they are, they have to try to valiantly rescue their fellow countrymen.

But they get cut down to shreads because their high morals are not very practical.

Evil will always triumph because good is stupid.

treedom · November 8, 2001, 00:42

This reminds me of something I like to do:

During wars I raze the cities that I might have trouble keeping because of their culture. I then build a new city in the empty space. Then I pump it with surplus workers I captured from a different civ (and eventually do the same somewhere else with all the workers I get from razing this civ's cities). I figure it's not as risky as keeping the city, because the population doesn't want to be reabsorbed by the local civ, and it's cheaper than throwing my own native workers in there. And, since the tiles around the city are already improved, it's pretty much the same size as the old city in no time.

I don't know how effective it is...but it's fun. I feel so evil.

chumly · November 8, 2001, 07:43

I remember one recent game as the Zulus sometime in the 1800s, I was busy clearing out a huge patch of Jungle with many workers. At the time, I was also doing a review of the units under my command, upgrading, disbanding, etc, and I noticed one of the jungle clearing workers was an American - a civ I had eradicated sometime in the BC

I bust out laughing when I realized I'd been using him for Forest clearing duty for several thousand years.

(captured workers don't require upkeep... handy warmongering strategy, there, I'm on topic!)