best strat

quicksilver417 · January 13, 2002, 20:52

whats the best strat in taking over another civ during the middle ages?industrial ages? modern ages? future?

im using the americans

Dienstag · January 14, 2002, 06:03

Quote:

whats the best strat in taking over another civ during the middle ages?industrial ages? modern ages? future?

The strat that I've found that works best is this: "capture all their cities."

But seriously, it always depends on the situation, so I'm sure there is no "best" strategy. Some suggestions, though:

1. According to Sun Tzu, "...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities."
1. B. On the other hand, because ownership of city effects movement around it greatly, it may be better to take that fortified city first and then attack the army next to it with your reinforcements.

2. Have lots of units. Quantity seems to be as good or better than quality.
2. B. Have GOOD units. Merely upgrading your spearmen gives you an advantage over the AI. And be aware of which of your cities have a barracks/harbor/airport. One hitpoint makes a big difference in CivIII.

3. Know the enemy's strengths and weaknesses. The AI is good at expanding, asking for ridiculous trade deals, and ganging up on the wounded Civ. It's been known to launch massive concerted assualts, even across vast oceans. It seems to enjoy nothing more than bombing an enemy back to the stone age. It has trouble upgrading units, and has a skewed sense of objectives in battle. You probably don't want to attack the civ that's currently building its special unit, unless its the French.

In terms of the different ages you asked about, there's really not much difference other than the weapons and the resources involved. (defensive city improvements may contribute, but for all the fighting I've done I have yet to see the coastal fortress or SAM batteries in action, somehow.) Mutual Protection Pacts come about in the early Industrial Age, and must not be ignored. The only other thing that can drastically affect war strategy may be nuclear weapons. Aside from the ethical questions, they don't seem cost effective to me, and I'm not sure how effective they are as a deterent. Worth figuring out, though.

I know this is all really vague, but that's part of the beauty of Civ. The value of a strategy depends on the situation, and there are a wide variety of those, depending on terrain, Wonders, alliances, culture, Golden Ages, resources, science, government, difficulty level, and so on...

As the Americans, you want to exploit your civ-specific stuff. Industrious/Expansionist means better exploring and production, so don't forget to scout and build factories! The F-15 means you have a slight edge in modern warfare, but also that everyone else will get have an advantage over you before that.

If you already knew all this stuff, sorry for repeating it. Given a specific situation, I'm much better at making strategies. Good luck!

Dimension · January 14, 2002, 09:51

The best strategy for taking over a civ? It doesn't take a genius to realize that there is no answer to that question. You might as well go to a tech forum and ask, "What's the best processor, AMD or Intel?"

The simple fact that you asked such a ridiculous question proves that you didn't take 30 seconds to look over the topics that have already been discussed at length. You started this thread because you're lazy. Come on, "3 steps to win on Diety," "Vel's strategy thread," and "About Industrial/Modern combat" are all on the first page of topics! So spend a few minutes reading. We all know you've got plenty extra time if you're considering playing Civ3.

I feel bad for Dienstag, because he actually put thought into his response. Hopefully there will be others who find his statements useful, because quicksilver417 probably didn't get past the third sentence.

Sharkyy · January 14, 2002, 16:25

Dude, chill out... you don't like the post topic, then don't read it. There's no need to flame people for asking a question.

vmxa1 · January 14, 2002, 19:38

Should'nt the moderators kill threads that are redudant? The value of that is to keep the repetitive statements to a minimum,so we can keep up.

pchang · January 14, 2002, 20:12

The best strat is to kill them with a swordsman/horseman rush in the ancient age.

Whoha · January 15, 2002, 20:35

amd is the best, intel chips will fall back to p3 status, meaning the 1.7 ghz chip will fall back to a 1 ghz chip, when it overheats itself(this happens fairly early or so tests have revealed), however amd's chips will all run to failure, and have better heat disipation so they wont melt while running at higher speeds.

as to the best strat, pop rush horsies, raze all your neighbor's cities with the vast hoard of units you have, then rebuild in those locations, unless you think you can take all his cities on the same turn.

Dimension · January 15, 2002, 22:42

WOW! I hope you're not serious. Don't get me wrong -- I've got an Athlon XP 1600 myself, but P4's run cooler. An Athlon XP 2000 makes 65.5W of heat, and a P4 2200 makes 55.1W. P4's can run without a heatsink. P4's can run in a case that's 156F. In case you haven't heard, Athlon's can catch fire if you do that.

Regardless, a CPU should never be overheating in the first place, so it's a non-issue. Your claims that P4's are frequently in a state of overheating is asinine. P4 stock heatsinks are huge, but I've seen some horrible CoolerMaster heatsinks that still say "AMD approved."

You are actually arguing that Athlons are better because when they overheat they keep running until they lock. That's so ridiculous there's no point in beginning to explain.

Anyway, there aren't any CPU threads here. If you want to make yourself look stupid, go to a tech forum.

Dimension · January 15, 2002, 22:45

Then again, I suppose you were just joking, since you said AMD's were better and then pointed out one of the only areas where P4's are clearly superior.

Whoha · January 16, 2002, 01:25

p4's run that way because they scale back to being p3's...

Dimension · January 16, 2002, 01:54

Thanks for providing some comic relief for my evening.

Go look at some benchmarks. Even hardcore AMD sites admit that Intel's best P4 has a slight lead over AMD's best Athlon in most cases. That's impressive if P4's run at 1000 MHz! Congrats to Intel on making a 1000 MHz P3 that is faster than a 1666 MHz Athlon XP 2000+!!!

Man, looks like I shouldn't have bought that Athlon after all!

OK, OK, I'll stop making fun of you. But seriously, where the hell did you get the idea that P4's all overheat and run at 1000 MHz? When you hear something that stupid, do a little checking to see if it's true before you go repeating it and making yourelf look like a fool. I think they have forums for this kind of lunacy on Delphi / AnandTech / TomsHardware / SharkyExtreme / FiringSquad / HardOCP. Please, don't spout your lies here. Your presence is making everybody dumber.

lawren8 · January 17, 2002, 19:54

Some suggestions

Attack in large force
Use mobile units
Try to find someone already involved in a war for easy pickins