Question: Protecting Conquered Lands

dexters · November 7, 2001, 04:47

I'm currently engaged in a war with the Aztecs because they have resources I need. I have a two armies racing each other on either end of their empire trying to capture two sets of the same resources (yes, that's how much of it the Aztec have)

My dilema is that I don't want the Aztecs moving back into open areas I've cleaned up (i razed their border cities) when I make peace with them after I achieve my objective.

I have an image to show you guys (attached) The blue arrows on the map indicate the generate direction of my offensive. this is only for one of the pincers, but applies to both sides of my offensive. I have a few forts in those unclaimed areas to keep the peace and make sure the AI doesn't sneak behind my lines and destroy roads to cut off my supply line. But my question to all you fellow rulers out there is the best solution to this dilema.

1st, i want to keep my city count low, so building new cities in that area is something of a last resort.

also this is a culmunation of a long war. The resources were initially 2 layers away from the border. I had to take out all their border cities to get to where I am now, and this is what is creating the large open unclaimed space right now. So because it is a culmunation of a long war, I have a lot of cities at home and a few cities i chose to keep that needs my attention. Building new cities may be out of my reach right now.

2nd. i want to keep the Aztecs out

all i have right now are forts manned by riflemen, and probably by artillery when i make a few new ones in the next few turns.

Any suggestions, as well as general comments on how well/poorly i conducted my campaign will be appreciated. I'm not a good Civ player, and i know it. I don;t mind to learning

notyoueither · November 7, 2001, 05:09

1. I don't know, but I don't think forts will keep Aztec settlers away from open spaces. It may make them go in stupid places, but then you will have to leave your forts (giving them to the Aztec) or go back to war.

2. Why not add 3 cities? Plop a settler down in the open space N-NW of you size 4 city, take their size 8 city, then take your objective (a size 6 city). Make peace. The Aztec will rush in to build new cities, but you will probably end up with a line to the resourse city.

2b. If you do not want to take cities, do not go to war. Find another solution. Either you take em, replace em with your own, or the AI civs will fill in the space. To summarize an Italian writer... A Prince should only do something in order to increase his power. Creating voids in an enemy civ does not increase your power. It only creates an enemy where one did not need to be to begin with.

Mnus · November 7, 2001, 07:12

Well, I can't make a complete judgement call for sure without seeing the entire position, but here's what I think I would have done:

1.) Instead of splitting up your army and trying to take two points on different sides of the map, I think You might as well just settle for ONE. Once you get to that resource, it won't make too much difference if you have one, two or three squares with it (unless you planned on trading some surplus, but I think that's generally less important.) The enemy puts out ALOT of troops. It's just going to be easier to concentrate your attack on one side. You have more versatility in blocking terrain, and more flexibility in attacking. Once you get that resource, settle for peace, start pounding out the troops you are using that resource for, and then take the other one.

2.) I would generally suggest that it's better to not raze the cities. I know you are trying to keep the number of cities minimal, but it's just difficult to hold back the conquered ground with out freshly controlled terrain to give support. as the enemy enters your borders, he not only loses the speed of roads, but attacks cities that can give your units defense bonuses. notyoueither, above, seems to have a pretty valid strategy thier in point #2.

And, well, if that doesn't work, opt for peace. Trade for that resource (you may have to build some roads after all the carnage that has taken place). It may not be an even trade, but if it's so important it will give you a hardcore advantage, pump out some units quick and then give war another whirl.

vincentz · November 7, 2001, 07:19

I won't interfere with my inferior ideas of strategy, but of experience I must stress the importance to have more than one square of a strategic resource. I had 4 salpeter resources and 3 got delpeted! I had 1 iron ore, it got depleted!

Garrett · November 7, 2001, 08:03

My suggestion would be to take the city and force bulid two settlers (reducing the population from 6 to 2) after you end resistance. It's expensive, but the advantage is that the new cities will become your nationals, which will reduce the corruption significantly. Place the two new cities as effectively as possible. Don't expect any of the cities to be productive for...oh...like the rest of the game. Consider the whole thing a glorified colony.

kmj · November 7, 2001, 13:27

with respect to the resource, you can just establish a colony, if you want to keep your city size down; as far as the vast spaces, think about how unrealistic it would be to peaceful prevent another nation from settling in a territory you have no control over. make some well placed cities and work doubly hard on culture to expand your borders; otherwise you'll have to result to warfare, I'd guess.

vincentz - I think losing 3 saltpeter was an extreme case, and not too common... course, I still haven't played the game much.

Lohrax · November 7, 2001, 14:17

Hmmm... Not much experience with CivIII, but here goes:

1. I agree with notyoueither's point #2 - plop a city down between your size 4 and the Aztec 8 and rush a barracks (if possible). This is going to be your R&R base - a place where damaged units can go to be healed. Healing units is MUCH cheaper than building new ones, and if you continue to pump out units, the healed ones make for nice additions to your force groupings.
2. I agree with Mnus's point #1 - concentrate your forces. Splitting up your forces weakens both efforts. I would go defensive (temporarily) on the extreme eastern part, and send some units into the gaps between the city chains to wreak havoc with workers and transportation (pillage roads if at all possible - that cuts down on reinforcements heading to the size 8). The mountains on your eastern axis of advance make for one heck of a defensive perimeter and would make a great rendezvous point for units re-tasking to the eastern assault after the success of the western drive.
3. I would turn west at the target and make a run for the sea. Take out the shrouded city and you will have the 7 surrounded. That forces the Aztecs to expand way out the northwest and the coastal cities will provide drop-off points for reinforcements if the Aztecs make a thrust west from their 11 city.

LandBuilder · November 7, 2001, 15:18

Sooner or later during the game, AI will plop down a settler on any open space- even 1x1- so put a city and let it expand!!

BlackOut · November 7, 2001, 21:37

kmj ,

The only problem with building a colony (Or at least this has happened to me) is 1. It doesnt expand your zone of cultural influence 2. If the AI wants that resource, they just come on
over and build a city, and your colony is gone. This happened
to me in a game when i built a colony to get access to a luxury,
then the British came over and built a city right next to my colony
and it was gone

Anyone Else experience this?
Also i was at peace with them, it was not during wartime.

BlackOut

Madine · November 7, 2001, 21:53

The AI will build cities anywhere that is not in someone else's cultural borders. This means that ultimately in order to control a resource you will need to have it inside your cultural border.

Colonies are only a temporary solution.

The AI builds cities wherever it can, even in places that provide minimal benefit.