Surgical Wars

[gachnar]

I here a lot of people talking about their strategies for all out, dont-stop-till-the-enemy-is-on-fire war. I hardly ever play for the military victory, and the military victory gets harder and harder the longer you wait.

My playing style is based more on my ability to remain semi-self sufficient and be able to outrace the AI in science/production/economics. However, that also means that I must be willing to fight wars to get resources and put some military force down to hold back the AI opponents. It is generally accepted that if you are running for the Science win, then Democracy is the way to go. However, you arent going to be fighting many century long wars under a Democracy. Production loss caused by the need for happiness will slowly but surely grind your empire to a halt. Your wars need to be fast, decisive, and above all, efficient. Even with a large empire, the cost to build an effective fighting force is not trivial.

Thus is born the surgical war. Not to be confused with the surgical strike mission, which can be used effectively to pull off a surgical war.

There are a few possible objectives of this war:

• Take something you want
• Destroy something you want to prevent someone else from having
• Prevent the building of a wonder/spaceship

I have used several different attack plans, but there are several good things to keep in mind while waging these:

I recently fought one of my largest battles in the heart of America. It was successful even though it was a much larger scale battle than I hoped for.

The objective was simple: Keep America from using the oil it had to make tanks. America was constantly on the brink of war with me. I would rather fight on their land than mine. So I prepared for a fierce, 10 turn war.

The city with oil access was 3 turns from the nearest coastline across mountains. This means that I have some flexibility. If I need absolute speed, I can advance to 2 turns away before declaring war, but if you have the resources, there are better strategies.

With a 10 turn war, and only 3 turns of travel, we can assume 2 turns of battle to take the city, leaving 5 turns of leeway. You want the 10th turn to be peaceful so you can pull of a decent treaty, so we are down to 4 turns. This is the amount of time you can spend maneuvering.

In this case, I used a slight exploit in the AI, though it would still be somewhat effective against a human. The city was in the middle of the empire, so you want to split your forces into roughly 3 groups. I landed 3 transports on the beach. I sent a group of 4 Infantry, 3 Artillery southeast, and another identical group southwest. The other transports simply waited. Meanwhile, as soon as I was forced to declare war (1 turn later), 14 bombers from 4 carriers in the area (2 immediately nearby, 2 spread out on either side) immediately took out all roads from other cities across the mountains. I estimated, with the slower crossing across mountains, that it would take 5 turns for America to get troops on the scene. After 4 turns, the Infantry/Artillery groups fortified on mountains on either side of the objective.

The fifth turn saw the landing of the main assault force: 4 Tanks, 2 Mech Inf, 2 Infantry, and 2 Artillery. This force is designed to be broken, the Tanks will be taking the city and then pushing through to counterattack the americans while the Infantry take up the garrison of the city. The Mech Inf and Artillery are there to handle any troops that make it around the Infantry/Artillery.

However, the weaker infantry to either side of the objective will actually draw units away from the attacking tanks. When the attacks come, they will come to artillery supported Infantry fortified in mountains, not Tanks moving through the hills to the objective. As soon as the assault force is 2 turns outside the city, bombardment turns from road/defender targets to a full bombardment of the city. By now, the Artillery from the assault force is in range, along with possibly either of the guard forces (though its better if they are farther away). You want to bombard until you are sure there are no barracks, temples, libraries, cathedrals, colloseums or anything that may add to happiness or military strength. Basically, bomb them down as low as you can.

In this instance, I was able to take the city in one turn. This means that I have one extra turn in my budget. With the city taken, and few units making a run on the city, I can garrison the whole force in the city (now down to pop 3). The unrest is over in 1 turn, and the next two turns will result in a bought Temple and Library.

The counter attack took 3 Infantry units, and the rest retreated back toward the city, where the Artillery bombardment areas supplied mutual support.

The next turn I asked for and received a peace treaty as an even trade. Units returned to their side of the new boarders, and I built up fortifications (but no roads) to both of the oil squares (I already had oil). The lack of improvements in the surrounding area has taken its toll on America, who are busy rebuilding their army.

In the end, I lost 3 Infantry to something around 15-20 horsed units (Cav and Knights). Most important here is the fact that few other units were able to make it to the battle before it was over.

I have used this pattern repeatedly, and moderately smart people can make modifications as needed. But this seems to work well against enemies who may even have a technological advantage. More importantly, this style is fast and relatively efficient (assuming you can come up with 4 aircraft carriers for support), and therefore is acceptable for use in a Democracy.

This is not necessarily a blueprint for a strategy. Think of it more as a style: A coordinated, combined unit attack. Rigorously planned attacks like this tend to have a higher probability of sucess than a simple mad dash from the shore, and the resulting counter attack. Either will get the city, but you will lose fewer units with a coordinated attack.

[David Weldon]

Well played! I enjoy posts like these _so_ much more than "my infantry were slaughtered by their archers!" posts. Funny how those posts never seem to include any strategy, hmm? I wonder if such planning actually should matter in a strategy game? (Ok, some would call these tactics, but I feel like the development and planned deployment of an integrated assault force is more strategy)

In any case, thanks to Firaxis for creating a combat system that, while not perfect, allows for situations like this with a very high 'cool factor'. And thanks for your interesting post.

Many people have posted about using bombardment to disrupt the AI travel network, and I have found that in particularly to be very important to keep in mind. Especially because my defensive strategy relies on rapid response from a central defensive group, rather than distributed garrisons. Time to update defensive strats...

[The Eliminator]

Awesome! Thats what I try to do too, limited military strikes with a definite puropse. My problem is that after a 7-12 turn operation, and taking the city I was after, the AI will never make peace with me! Its happened in about 5 games so far. No matter how many times I try to contact them they are either still mad as heck, or they ignore me all together.

Have you had this problem when taking an important city from them?

[Dark Hawk]

Agreed.
Nice to see a post without someone complaining about spearman destroying tanks. Bombardment is a must! And you did just that with artillery and aircraft carriers. Without bombardment, expect to lose.

Bravo to the effective tactics.

[Kissinger]

Very nice post indeed. I too try to go for limited strikes in the industrial/modern age but never have I planned such a well thought out and coordinated attack as the one you just outlined. You do some things I will have to try out but I have a question. Were you able to hold the oil reserves for the duration of the game?

[adaMada]

I personally tend to do a huge-buildup and then over-kill, but this is still very interesting. I like to hear about real ways people managed to come up with real strategies, not just pushing through and overpowering the other guy (about the best i can do ).

-- adaMada

[Monoriu]

Excellent post

I am the sort of person who build up a vast army, do a huge but step by step battle against everybody else, take everything along the line of advance, and destroy everybody in the process. I see that there are many alternatives. Next time I'll consider using this method to take out some crucial strategic resource at the beginning of the battle.

I am very glad that the civ 3 engine allows this sort of gameplay. I love this game, but that's just me.

I also have to agree with David Weldon. This is a lot more fun than arguing whether a longbowman should be able to kill a cavalry unit.

[Kc7mxo]

Surgical strikes are good. But they do not a war make. You can't sieze someone's core cities anymore like in the good old days. Now you're stuck burning them instead.

I find that a good way to spend my time mid game is marching armies around burning cities. the way the ai breeds, there's always more to burn.

[HunterAssasin]

Originally posted by The Eliminator
Awesome! Thats what I try to do too, limited military strikes with a definite puropse. My problem is that after a 7-12 turn operation, and taking the city I was after, the AI will never make peace with me! Its happened in about 5 games so far. No matter how many times I try to contact them they are either still mad as heck, or they ignore me all together.

Have you had this problem when taking an important city from them?

In one game I was playing I planned to just take one city from the chinese to take an oil reserve because I didn't have any and the same thing happened to me, they wouldn't acknoledge my convoy after I captured the city.

What I did was take the excess troops I had near there territory and take two more cities, then they were eager to discuss peace.

[squid]

I had an excellent game last time. I moved in about 8 frigates to seize a supply of coal on another continent where I had no foothold. Very very fun. I took a city on the beach and then held a rush from two large civilization's entire military. All the units died in vain as they were first attacked from sea bombartment and then failed to defeat the infantry. When things let up in for a while (a short break in the action), I sneaked a newly formed infantry/cavalry army down to a city just off the beach, took a coal resource I really wanted, and sued for peace. After having their militaries cut in half from their failed siege attempts, I easily got my treaty. The war wasn't important. The coal was. The balance of power is still mine, and should I wish to punish a civilization by taking their capitals, I can do it. But my goal is not world domination....why would I want a wasteland.

The world dominating civs can't handle my power, since I pick and chose my battles. I have an infrastructure that can crank out a war machine and advance in tech.... they have a lot of underdeveloped cities. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Salvador Hardin, in Asimov's Foundation.

[stiel]

TIP: When you are having a longer war do 'Capital Isolation'

Thsi means that if you REALLY want to hurt a civilization your first action has to be a very painful one:

DESTROY ALL THE ROADS THAT ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE CAPITAL.

This is a max number of 8 roads that have to be destroyed.

Why?

1. Civ cannot gain any strategic resources (no modern units)
2. Civ cannot gain any lux resources (civil disorder)

The civ will be crippled at the first strike and you'll see it is MUCH MUCH easier to reach your goals.

REMEMBER: DO NOT TAKE THE CAPITAL, JUST DESTROY THE ROADS AND KEEP THEM DESTROYED!!!

Try it and share your opinion about this......


STIEL

[DK36]

I for one like to hold on to territory. Sure, it might be a little hard to win the hearts of the population, but it's really worth it. Yes, all the AI cities are underdeveloped and backwards, but peace-time growth is one of my strong points. Ussually, in about 20 turns, the AI's cities will be thriving metrapolitan areas. The struggle with the population can be follicle-murder to some people, but in a little bit, the bonuses you get are SO high.

Because of this, I prefer not to deteriote the landscape any more than I have to. I try my best to leave all terrain and improvements intact. And the mega-bombing method ussually makes the 20 turn fierce building period harder than it has to be. So I use a more "flood their cities with tanks" sort of approach.

But, a great strategy that I will be using in my future games is steil's capital isolation. You would only have to destroy a maximum of 8 roads (easily rebuildable with an industrious civ) and get fierce bonuses that can help take the AI down much easier. 8 roads for an empire is a spectacular trade.

[gachnar]

DW: Thank you. And you do have a point. These are Tactics, the Strategy comes in when/where to use them.

Kissinger: Actually yes. I held the oil till then end of the game. You can protect yourself from culture takeovers by rush buying Temples and Libraries (Unless I'm using a different version, Libraries put out more culture than Temples). If possible, I try to bomb surrounding cities and get rid of their Temples/Libraries/colloseums. I'm not sure how much it helps, but I've never lost a city where I've done this.

Monoriu: Your tactics aren't inferior to mine. It seems might think that. We are talking about different situations. I usually dont want to remove a civ, just weaken them. However, when claiming a continent, I do just what you do. In this case, I need the possibility of a friendship later in the game. Perhaps later I'll post my tactics for all out war. People seem to like my posts.

Eliminator: Thats always a risk. There are two options that I see then: Destroy more so they are forced to ask for peace, or wait until they cool down, knowing that a counterattack is coming. I have done both, they are both marginally effective, but I have no idea which is a better bet.

kc7mxo: Actually these short strikes are exactly what wars are. Most wars fought in the real world were as simple as: "I want Alsace/Lorraine", "I want the Golan Heights", "I want Kuwaits Oil" and "Give back Kuwait" (please ignore any Right(tm)/Wrong(tm) debates here). Civ3, in its glory, allows for generation spanning, intercontinental war.

stiel: Capital Isolation == very nice. However, does this stop all resources? I would think this would only prevent the civ from trading with other Civs. Local cities which have access to saltpeter, horses, and rubber would still be able to produce fighting units, and the rest of the trade network would still work around the capital. Or am I wrong? Again, the manual doesn't clearly state the requirements.


And to make sure everyone gets the main idea with these tactics:

The main things you want to do is to disrupt transportation, allowing only fast units to make it in time to do battle. This means the defenders will almost never have artillery support. And until Mech Inf, they may not even get decent defenders. This is the most important thing. Next, you have weaker forces to draw the fire away from the main assault force. Finally, the main assault must be a combined-arms force so that it can repel attacks and abort if needed.

Now, if I was fighting a technologically superior force (say, modern armor and mech inf). I would have to send Mech Inf to be the perimiter guards if I had them. Added to that, you might have to send a larger artillery force, and you would definately have to send a defense force for the carriers. It becomes a bit more expensive, but it should still be doable.

As an added protection against culture-revert, rush buy a harbor, or if unavailable the very expensive airport. This will allow the city to link with your trade network.

Its a set of open ended tactics. Adapt it to your needs. But I bet other smart people can suggest lots of other things to improve it. Capital Isolation is a good start.

[stiel]

Thank you!!

Well, I remember to have read the following somewhere:

All resources will be brought to the capital and distributed from there. So a local city with , for instance, horses will take these first to the capital and from there back to the local city.

PLEASE SOMEONE WHO COULD SAY THIS IS RIGHT (Firaxians, any one???)

If this is, and I believe this is that would mean that ALL the resources are lost. If you have removed the roads and haven't invaded the capital (=very important because AI will build new capital if is has been taken by you)....

The best way to test this is to remove your own roads by your OWN CAPITAL. I'll test this tonight.....


STIEL

[Arrian]

I'm positive that a city w/local access to a resource will still be able to use it, even if all roads to the capitol are broken. The civ will be unable to trade for things, though, which may cripple them in terms of receiving luxury resources from other civilizations.

Along the same lines, if you have a ranged bombard unit (Battleship/Artillery/Bomber/etc) and you see a lux. resource w/in range of your bombard unit, but that your land army won't reach for a while (or at all), definitely bombard it and bread the road. Civil disorder is a REAL pain when you're trying to fight a war.
Strategic resources... well, that goes w/o saying.

Ironically, the war that kept me up until 3am last night involved denying oil to the Persians (I have 8 out of 9 oil resources under my control... well, 9 of 9 now). Unless I trade it to them, no one else will be able to build tanks/aircraft/battleships/etc. I've never had such a huge advantage w/stat. resources before.

-Arrian

[gachnar]

The main point here, is that if you take out the roads to the strategic resource or luxury (though I dont know of anyone who has fought a war for a luxury), it is still nice to make sure they cant trade and get it.

For instance, if the Germans have oil, and they are friends with the Americans, if I take the Americans oil, they can just trade it from the Germans.

But not if I take out the roads around their capital.

The sad remedy to this strategy is airports. Airport in capital. Airport in a reasonable number of other cities. You have to road-deprive all cities with airports then. And that means a pretty extensive bombing campaign.

[Jason]

Cities with the resource in their radius can use it for certain.

In my recent war against the English I had no rubber and therefore no infantry. Once my army captured the English rubber-town, I could upgrade all my units inside to Infantry. The city had no harbor and no connections to my normal empire, so that until I reconnected it, that was my only way of upgrading riflemen or producing infantry.

[sachmo71]

I love using paratroopers/helicoptors to surround a city before attacking. This always seems to help me when I attack. The only problem is the limited range of the helicoptors and paratroopers, but when they are coming down it sure looks cool!

Resource wars...that's what got the Egyptians killed in my world!

[dexters]

Well, Civ 3 is about strategic wars, not mindless domination victories.

In Civ 2, you can send out armies of spies to conquer and entire enemy civilization. It's a little harder, but you could do the same thing if you sent in an army.

This was a major handicap gameplay wise. Waging war was just too easy in Civ 2. With Civ 3, war is tougher with war weariness, and culture/resistance. So it forces you to pick your targest, make quick strikes, 3 turn wars are more common and I think its closer to reality.

Kind of ironic when you consider all the people complaining how unrealistic Civ 3 is compared to Civ 2.

[dexters]

Originally posted by gachnar
The main point here, is that if you take out the roads to the strategic resource or luxury (though I dont know of anyone who has fought a war for a luxury), it is still nice to make sure they cant trade and get it.

For instance, if the Germans have oil, and they are friends with the Americans, if I take the Americans oil, they can just trade it from the Germans.

But not if I take out the roads around their capital.

The sad remedy to this strategy is airports. Airport in capital. Airport in a reasonable number of other cities. You have to road-deprive all cities with airports then. And that means a pretty extensive bombing campaign.

Agreed. going to war for luxuries will probably fall closer to "war of opportunity" than going to war, risking the stability of your civ, just to capture some luxury.

But I find luxuries are a good secondary object when going to war. Luxuries are sometimes found in close proximity of your main objectives. Sending a detachment to secure it first can raise happiness in your Civ, and help with the civil disorder at home. Call it, a gift to your citizens for letting you use their tax dollars on your military campaigns.

[Dark Hawk]

Originally posted by gachnar
The main point here, is that if you take out the roads to the strategic resource or luxury (though I dont know of anyone who has fought a war for a luxury), it is still nice to make sure they cant trade and get it.

For instance, if the Germans have oil, and they are friends with the Americans, if I take the Americans oil, they can just trade it from the Germans.

But not if I take out the roads around their capital.

The sad remedy to this strategy is airports. Airport in capital. Airport in a reasonable number of other cities. You have to road-deprive all cities with airports then. And that means a pretty extensive bombing campaign.

Hey if you're that far tech-wise, it shouldnt be hard to take out the airport.

Can you say "S-m-a-r-t W-e-a-p-o-n-s?"

[Cavalier_13]

All very nice methods and strategies......I myself use a combination of those.....

My very favorite consists of Aircraft Carriers with Bombers/Stealth Bombers and bombing the roads leading to luxuries and strategic resources. I also bomb the crap out of the capital roads so they can't import their goods.

After a few turns, it's very common to see the whole civ in Anarchy or at the very least multiple cities in Civil Disorder. Then, it's a question of Initiating Propaganda and taking the cities I want for a modest fee......then, rush build a temple, library and harbour and voila....

Add seasoning to taste.

Cavalier

[Sytass]

Nice strategies. Being a rather scientific/diplomatic player myself, I usually go to war (except when it is declared on me which is scarce) in two instants:

- I know I can wipe out a civilization and hold the ground
- It suits my current goals

The latter falls into your categories (strategic location of a city/some cities, surgical strike on production center of space ship/wonder, destroying infrastructure).

However, I find it often very useful to enter a "harassment war". This may occur when I have sufficient troops to defend myself well, but insufficient troops to launch an invasion. I form small raiding parties, sometimes not consisting of more than 2 units and set them out to eliminate non-military units (read: workers) and infrastructure (roads, railroads) in enemy territory, disrupting their supply of ressoruces, including mines, or irrigations. Combined with surgical strikes on cities, aiming to take out airports/harbors, this can have an interesting effect on your opponents' economy.

[MarshalN]

I've gone to war for luxuries before. I was English, they were Germans. They had 5 luxuries in two cities (2 furs, three incense). It was in the ancient/early medieval era. I also wanted to stop the Germans from expanding, but the luxuries made me salivate since I only had 4. After I got their cities I have 9 luxuries and a lot of happy citizens. It was definitely worth it in terms of production saved and stress relieved...

[TrailerParkJawa]

I like the idea of quick wars. Managing lots of units at once tends to frustrate me so Id rather concentrate on improving my cities.

Anyway, I like to use Expeditionary forces to harass my enemies.
Drop off 3-4 units and let them tear up some roads, mines, etc then bug out.

Last night I finally got artillery, which made taking cities much easier, defending them too! I still have not made it to the modern age. Last night, I had the tech, but no resources.


One thing I noticed is when operating in enemy territory is to try and channel his movement down know paths. I used my frigates and iron clads to blow up my own "newly captured" roads to the port city I had won in battle.

This made the AI run his units down the remaining roads which I could then focus on with artillery. In essense I created my own chokeoint. However, this did not work vs. his mounted troops. But it still helped.

[greggbert]

This is a great Post.

I often get into these quick wars with about 2 cities in mind for capture/destruction when my government is democracy or republic, becuase I usually don't have my troops in their territory for too long. I think that war weariness is not so much a factor of whether your diplomatic state is war, but instead how many friendly troops you have had inside enemey cultural borders for how long. If you have democracy or republic and you have captured/destroyed what you want, then get out of their borders!!!!! Quick!!!

Also, before you send your main troops into their borders, try this. Some ways away from where you want to attack, have about three artillery and three defensive units cross their border as far as you can get onto a mountain in their territory. These are suicide troops and are designed to lure their mobile defenders away from whre you want to strike. Bombard all improvements ignoring units until your group is destroyed. This will mess up their roads and tick them off so bad they will send the bulk of their mobile troops toward your suicide units. Then start your attack (on the other end of their border), you will find many less knights and cavalry and horesman that you have to deal with as you attack, speeding your assault. Let your artillery suicide units get captured, as they AI doesn't ever use them, and maybe youll get them back later (maybe an exploit).

To get a quicker peace, try to (a) declare war before you violate their territory, especially using a military alliance, this is often the best way to declare war since it helps your relations with other civs AND really waters down the enemy forces as they scramble to both fronts. They seem to hate you if you start the war by territory violation, and (b) get someone else to declare war on them before you sue for peace. Not by mutual protection, by alliance. The AI HATES two front battles, and will be much more willing to make peace with you if they are fighting two or more opponents. I don't know if this is exploiting the AI, but it works.

Finally, after you capture a city, make sure you have a large force just outside to retake it if it rebels, also GET ALL ARTILLERY AND WORKERS out of there unless the city rebels.

Just wanted to add to a great post.

-Gregg

[MaSsConFUsi0n]

if you destroy all roads and rails around the enemy cities, then NO resources or luxury goods are available to that city, unless the city itself is on one (ie, it was built on one). also, make sure you desroy the harbor and airports, as those also allow trade to happen. take out the roads and harbor/airport and the city can only make spear dudes and other ancient stuff.

MaSsConFUsi0n

[Elucidus]

They can make Riflemen, as well.

[Antonin]

Wonderful post, Gachnar! I wonder how many people whining in the 'general threads' about corruption and such are spending any time here in the 'strategy' area, reading things by people who are actually playing the game.

My own style of warfare tends to be of the 'scorched earth' variety. I invade my opponent's territory and destroy ALL of his roads, rather than attempt to just steamroller through his cities.

In my current game its around 1850 and my Persian monarchy has been involved in a long and bitter war with Russia. I've taken Moscow and kept it as a trophy, but razed the two or three other Russian cities I've taken.

Now, using masses of workers, I'm working on a system of fortresses to seal off the Russian territory I've liberated. I wont build cities there myself because of the distance from my capital, but the Greeks have been sending probes into the "scorched" areas and I want to prevent them from following up with settlers. My goal is to preserve any strategic resources in those territories for myself.

Boy I love this game!

[MadWombat]

Originally posted by stiel
TIP: When you are having a longer war do 'Capital Isolation'

Thsi means that if you REALLY want to hurt a civilization your first action has to be a very painful one:

DESTROY ALL THE ROADS THAT ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE CAPITAL.

This is a max number of 8 roads that have to be destroyed.

Why?

1. Civ cannot gain any strategic resources (no modern units)
2. Civ cannot gain any lux resources (civil disorder)

The civ will be crippled at the first strike and you'll see it is MUCH MUCH easier to reach your goals.

REMEMBER: DO NOT TAKE THE CAPITAL, JUST DESTROY THE ROADS AND KEEP THEM DESTROYED!!!

Try it and share your opinion about this......


STIEL

Uhm, I tried this. Unfortunately, ou also have to take out the city with Forbidden Palace, otherwise it doesn't work. Just something to remember.