Aggressive use of settlers in the Middle game

[Roytheboy]

Due to the games bias towards the defender in combat Settlers are the mainstay of my invasion forces.

The tactic is simple send a stack of musketmen/riflmen/cannons/ and a settler to choke points , i.e. next to enemy resources/road networks etc.
Build a city there and wait

You can do this many times effectively isolating all the enemy production cities. (so make sure you have several such stacks posied at the right places or ready on boats before you attack) Rip up the roads/mine as you go along as well and the enemy economy is in tatters very quickly. The enemy is forced to attack your units which just sit there and heal themselves as they are in cities. The enemy is also distracted away from your production cities leaving your production safe.

With the enemy production hamstrung send in the glamour boys on horses to pick off enemy cities (note that the horses have somewhere to retreat to heal another bonus of this strategy). When you take a city raze it, I can see no motivation not to, especially as with this strategy you already have several small cities surrounding the one you just captured. Send the workers from the razed city somewhere safe to build infrastructure.

When the bad guy is down to a few cities or you have the resource you wanted sue for peace as normal. Note that you then need to disband your military to get shields to build temples in all your little cities, force build as well and have workers ready to send in to build roads ( you should have ones from razed cities for this). Don't end the war too some as you want your 'invasion' cities to absord his not the other way round. Ends up a bit like the game GO

What also seems to happened with this strategy is that the other AIs notice the guy you are fighting becomes very weak and they jump in to get some of the spoils. This is just great because they don't have settlers in their invasion forces In this case ignore all the fighting and use your riflemen/settler stacks to grab all the land/resources. sue for peace with the guy you originally attacked ( the others will finish him off) and with all the fighting going on around you build your roads/temples etc and laugh at them all fighting each other whilst you get the goodies no matter who wins.

[Dienstag]

Due to the games bias towards the defender in combat Settlers are the mainstay of my invasion forces.

Good post! The first sentence gave me a good laugh (I was imagining those mighty settlers storming the beaches). Then I read the rest.

That's a truly unique strategy, as far as I know. I haven't tried it yet...and may not ever, as a matter of style (a little bit too unrealistic/parasitic)...but it still deserves some consideration. I wasn't even aware you could build cities on enemy territory. Good job of thinking outside the proverbial box!

[Johnny_Vegas]

Good idea, but I think Firaxis should make it impossible to found cities in enemy territory. It seems to me like you should have to conquer an enemy city before being able to found any of your own nearby. I doubt I'll use this strategy, seems like another loophole.

[Gaius Marius]

Just think of it as a military encampment, like the Roman Legions would build. They brught baggage, women, makeshift temples, etc. with them. Many of these encampments became towns... (Vienna, for example, was once Vindobona)

[Roytheboy]

I don't think this is a loophole. Like Gaius said they are military encampments, I rush to strategic locations and build the best defence i can. That happens to be a city (so i can heal) rush build a walls there and have good defensive units. Why attack in a game that is biased heavily to defense ?SIt on the choke points and strangle !

[Kolyana]

Originally posted by Gaius Marius
Just think of it as a military encampment, like the Roman Legions would build. They brught baggage, women, makeshift temples, etc. with them. Many of these encampments became towns... (Vienna, for example, was once Vindobona)

Yes, but they didn't found it next to a sprawling metropolis, did they?

I seem to remember my history lessons being somewhat more biased towards sacking exisiting cities, rather than setting up camp next to the walls of an existing one.