Fundamentals of Mobilization Revealed

[Catt]

Fundamentals of Mobilization Revealed

What is mobilization?
After the discovery of Nationalism, you may elect to “mobilize” your economy for war. During a war-time economy, in any city building a military unit (but not a military improvement – more on this below), each tile being worked by a citizen that already produces at least one shield will produce an extra shield, substantially increasing production in that city.

Sounds great. What are the downsides?
During a war-time economy, your cities may only undertake building projects of military units or “militaristic” city improvements, with some limited exceptions (see below). Cities building non-militaristic units before the war-time mobilization may continue their non-military projects (without the shield bonus provided by mobilization), provided that, once such project is completed or is changed, the city will come under the same build restrictions as a city starting a project after the mobilization. Therefore, no new construction of temples, marketplaces, aqueducts, or a whole host of other city improvements is permitted after a mobilization. Also, during a war-time economy, each cultural improvement in each of your cities will generate only half of the cultural value it would normally produce. Finally, as noted more fully below, a war-time mobilization may not simply be abandoned by the player; a peace treaty must be signed with at least one AI civ (or an AI civ with whom you are at war must be destroyed) in order to return one’s economy back to a peace-time.

How do I mobilize my economy for war?
Click on the bar labeled “Mobilization” in the Domestic Advisor’s window (it appears just below the “Government” bar in the upper right portion of the screen, below your science and happiness tax sliders).

Do I have to be at war to mobilize my economy, and how do I get back to a peace-time economy?
You are free to mobilize your economy at any time after you discover Nationalism -- you need not be at war. But you cannot freely return your economy to a peace-time mobilization at your whim. Once mobilized for war, only a peace treaty or the elimination of your opponent will allow you to return your economy to a peace-time role. If you are at war with several civilizations, a peace treaty with any of them, or the destruction of any one of them, will cause you to revert to a peace-time economy, even if still at war with other powers.

What constitutes a military unit or “militaristic” city improvement and therefore may be both (1) built, and (2) a shield-bonus-generating project, during a mobilization?
Well, if only it were that simple. There are actually two distinct categories of build projects during a mobilization: 1) units / improvements which may be built; and 2) units which may be built and will generate a shield bonus during their production.

The first category includes: (a) every unit with an attack / defense value or bombard value (ships, planes, artillery, missiles, and foot soldiers, including all UUs), (b) settlers, (c) workers, (d) scouts / explorers, (e) armies, (f) certain city improvements (see below), and (g) certain wonders (see below).

The second category, those building projects which generate the shield bonus, is more restrictive and is limited to those units with an A/D value or a bombard value, but specifically excluding: (a) naval and air transports (galley, caravel, galleon, transport, helicopter), and (b) armies. Although an aircraft carrier might be considered by some as primarily a transport, it will generate a shield bonus. No city improvement or wonder of any kind will generate a shield bonus, even if it is a permitted building project during a mobilization. And no production of workers, settlers, or scouts / explorers will generate a shield bonus.

What city improvements can I start during a mobilization (even if they don’t generate a shield bonus)?
The following are all considered military improvements whose production may be started during a war-time mobilization: barracks, walls, SAM missile battery, coastal fortress, harbor, airport, and any of the spaceship parts.

And what wonders can I start during a mobilization (even if they don’t generate a shield bonus)?
The wonders (great and small) which may be started during a war-time mobilization are: The Great Wall, Sun Tzu’s Art of War, Leonardo’s Workshop, Universal Suffrage, The United Nations, The Manhattan Project, The Pentagon, Strategic Missile Defense, Intelligence Agency, and Battlefield Medicine. Note that it is permissible to build the spaceship parts if you have already completed the Apollo Program small wonder, but the wonder itself may not be started during a war-time economy. Note also that although you may start the Military Academy small wonder during a war-time mobilization, you may not start the Heroic Epic small wonder.

SO . . . can you try and shorten this long-winded FAQ into a down & dirty summary?
Yes. During a war-time mobilization, your cities that are producing attackers or defenders generate extra shields, so much so that they basically mimic a golden age in terms of production. If not producing attackers and defenders, your cities can only produce a limited number of units / city improvements (unless the project began before the mobilization), and they enjoy no production bonuses. You can mobilize for war at any time (even during peace), but you need to enter a peace treaty or destroy an AI civ to end a war-time mobilization.

[Catt]

My experience is that mobilization can be a godsend if the tide of war is turning against you. When you really need to pump out units, and the fate of the war is uncertain, mobilization can save your bacon. This usually occurs in a defensive posture however, even if that "defensive posture" involves trying to consolidate your massive gains.

The other situation where I have utilized mobilization as an extremely effective tactic is during a massive world war, where 6 or more civs are going at it, and where military alliances and MPPs virtually guarantee continuous warfare for some time, even if the individual combatants occasionally "take a breather" or even switch sides. Mobilization can be very effective here for one fundamental reason: the ability to de-mobilize (or go back to a peace-time economy) presents itself with a fairly steady frequency. Because you likely have the opportunity to make peace with one of the combatants, you can generally ease yourself out of the mobilization. The ability to move back into a peaceful economy is critical -- you need to be able to build temples / libraries / marketplaces etc. in the cities that you've conquered; the inability to do so during a mobilization, and therefore the inability to expand the borders of newly captured cities and/or bring some much needed happiness to help combat resistance and war weariness, can seriously jeopardize your offensive and substantially increase the chance of newly conquered cities flipping back to your foe.

With a massive world war, you can mobilize and de-mobilize again and again, for the most part providing yourself with a "golden age" for producing units, but without suffering the restrictions against building non-military units / improvements for more than several turns. Note that this also means you can use a variant of the "palace build" tactic many employ for wonder building - you have cities work on military units so as to generate the extra shields; you then de-mobilize when given the chance; you then switch to high-cost non-military builds (while preserving the extra shields already accumulated during the previous mobilization); and finally you re-mobilize in another turn or so to resume your "military golden age" and continue your war. (Could be an exploit some feel uneasy with.)

I myself have not seen a great deal of utility in mobilizing unless, as noted above, I have a large scale war going with a world full of combatants, or, I really need more units to hold a precarious position. The inability to build temples, marketplaces, wonders, or other run-of-the-mill city improvements during a mobilization is simply too costly to my style of warfare (which is to raze cities only very, very rarely, and to war for a set of narrowly defined objectives as opposed to trying to inflict as much damage on an enemy as possible).

Catt

[Lucilla]

Catt,

this article is really useful.
I just quoted it in the CivIII FAQ.

[Theseus]

Excellent excellent work.

Changes my approach, as I have been more or less constantly mobilized, with dips back out to normalcy.

Though tempting, I would consider the pre-building tactic an exploit.

Thank you.

[Theseus]

I literally just found another exit... if a civ you are at war with is destroyed, you go back to normalcy.

So.... if you're worried about getting OUT of it, keep a 1 city civ punching bag handy.

[Txurce]

Your work is greatly appreciated, Catt.

Aside from desperate times, I could see using it if at war, as long as there's a little civ to declare war against later, with whom peace shouldn't be hard to strike. (Or Theseus' punching bag.) Exiting mobilization by declaring war seems like a mistake on the designers' part, though.

And you may as well switch to it automatically if at war in a space race game, once you've built Apollo. This could be handy if a big guy's trying to stop you from launching, which is sometimes the case.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
Changes my approach, as I have been more or less constantly mobilized, with dips back out to normalcy.

Is this your epic war in the industrial age against 7 of the remaining 11 civs (and a few techs behind) where you're fending off tanks with infantry & cavalry? Such a situation really is a blend of the two opportunities. For one, you really need the production boost just to keep up with the materiel being thrown at you. Additionally, you frequently have the opportunity to "step out" of mobilization to start a build of temples, hospitals, etc. The perfect example of when mobilization can really shine.

Though tempting, I would consider the pre-building tactic an exploit.

Yeah - not sure how I feel about it. Haven't done it deliberately yet (because I haven't had a clear opportunity / been pressed to do so). On one hand, unless you're able to build nukes, you really can't store away much of a pre-build, simply because the full shield cost of a conventional unit, especially in a war-time mobilization, is often reached in just a few turns. On the other hand, I can envision being in a tight spot and consciously adjusting production with the foresight that I'll be able to de-mobilize in a few turns. Oh well, I will decide whether I feel it's an exploit with hindsight, after I've been in a pressure situation that urges me to take whatever advantage I can, and after having acted, for better or worse, one way or another. That's how I always test "exploits" -- how does it feel in the pit of your stomach during the heat of battle, and, regardless of the decision made then, was that a satisfying win / success / defeat / failure .

Catt

[Theseus]

Catt, I feel a kinship, in that we are both relatively new to the 'polly forums, but both take it seriously. I am very impressed with your posts; this thread being a tremendous example.

In answer to your last post, yes, mobilization has been key in the Egyptian epic / survival wars. I have to admit though, this week has been crazy with work, and I also got a little bored with Arty fending off Infantry and MIs, so I haven't played that much.

In fact, I started a new game as Babs, testing the lack of Industrial and Militaristic... basic premise: must have Religious (otherwise known as Arrianous), and what is the best match, Ind, Mil, or Sci?

[Note: I will go back to the epic Egyptian game, although I fear it's a losing proposition]

Back OT: Thanks to your analysis, I think I'm using mobilization more appropriately now... my previous application was actually sort of backwards... I feel most positive about my recent application, in that I have built out most of my high production cities, just learned the tech for Tanks, and have now mobilized with about 1/4 of my cities on military production.

I am not using mobilization for "pre-building." I seem to have the same criteria as you do... it doesn't feel right in the pit of my stomach.

[Travathian]

each tile being worked by a citizen that already produces at least one shield will produce an extra shield

This should be in bold, quotes, and underlined. This is so key to this strategy later in the game, when players should be looking to mine every single grassland tile they can get away with. Especially if you've been using automated workers, and they just irrigated the he11 out of everything.

[Arrian]

Interesting. I knew you could get out of mobilization by making peace or wiping an enemy out, but I didn't know that getting into another war would let you out. That's pretty funny, actually.

Like Travathian pointed out, the cities that gain the most from mobilization are high-pop grassland cities, because a mined/rr'd grassland square will jump from 2 to 3 shields, +50%, (or 3 to 4, +25%). It will be less powerful for cities whose production comes from mountains and hills (I had a city in my Chinese game that was floodplains 'n mountians... not much of a boost there if I'd mobilized).

Theseus,

You're playing at Emperor, right? Large maps?

-Arrian
(who finds it distinctly wierd being such a strong proponent of religion, even in a game)

[Theseus]

Arrianous,

Until recently yes, almost always large maps.

Been playing with settings though, trying to create killer AI civs. The Babs game above is standard, large continents, warm, wet, 3 billion, on Emperor.

Don;t worry about being religious... think of it as a political trait.

[Harovan]

The only bad about mobilization is, that it comes so late. Usually, in the industrial age, I either already have a sufficient standing army, or am so productive that I can build one in a few turns. In the ancient age I am usually pretty weak (far from some slow archer/spear/swords taskforces) and would appreciate a feature like this. Did the ancient despots not mobilize?

Played a small test game yesterday. Tiny/Archipelago/France/Monarch, goal space race victory. As usual on "archipelago" maps, I was on an island chain with land bridges, together with all 2 of the 3 other civs. Of course, with culturally linked start positions, I had to face Bismarck and Cathy. Bismarck was a PITA in the ancient age. I lost/retook Tours 2 times, while bringing all my armies from the whole empire, leaving my cities undefended for ransacking barbarians. My thoughts were ... IF I HAD MOBILIZATION NOW! ... Finally, I made peace at the cost of 300 gold. Later, I wiped Mister B from my island with Knights. Since the goal was scientific, I didn't go for conquest. I concentrated on research. I had already infantry, when I got sneak attacked by Cathy. She wanted to try out her new Cossacks, and probably was out for a GA. Now I had mobilization ... AND NOW I DIDN'T NEED IT! My infantry/artillery stacks were already invincible.

[Arrian]

Mobilization is only worthwhile if, by going to wartime economy, a significant number of cities which are producing military units drop from 3 turns per unit to 2, or 2 to 1. Tanks are what, 100 shields? Well, if you have a city which produces 50 shields normally, that's a tank every 2 turns. If you mobilize, and that city shoots up to 75 shields... well, it's still 2 turns for a tank.

Theseus,

Ok, so a standard/large land map, Babs, Emperor. The Babs are solid on the smaller maps, but your choice of large land mass increases the value of industriousness, as has your choice of a wet, 3billion yr. world (more jungles to clear and mountains to road & mine).

-Arrian

[Carver]

Originally posted by Catt
Note that this also means you can use a variant of the "palace build" tactic many employ for wonder building - you have cities work on military units so as to generate the extra shields; you then de-mobilize when given the chance; you then switch to high-cost non-military builds (while preserving the extra shields already accumulated during the previous mobilization); and finally you re-mobilize in another turn or so to resume your "military golden age" and continue your war. (Could be an exploit some feel uneasy with.)


Catt

Could be?


Catt, thanks for the very good info. There's alot you can employ here, if timed right.

[Theseus]

All true, but not the objective.

[BTW, discussion of mobilization at the bottom]

Threefold objectives, actually:

1. I started the game to take a break from the Egyptian epic.

2. I started it when Vel's Industrious discussion was going fast and furious. I assumed, correctly, that you would do a test game with China (no way you were going to give up Religous), so I figured I would go the opposite route, and test WITHOUT Industrious. I also wanted to avoid Militaristic, to make sure I'm not full of it when I claim to fight so much that getting elites is nada problemo. Lastly, I'd never given Bowman a shot at ultra-early war, so there you have it... Babs.

3. At the same time, I wanted to start testing world settings, primarily to produce "killer AI civs." My theory on this one:

Standard map: I need civs to be in contact with each other in order for dominance and growth based on aggression to play out. I think Large will work even better, but I wanted to try this out fast.

Large continents: Same theory, and also I want the winning AI civs to get BIG. I also wanted to make sure that a) I was on a continent big enough that I couldn;t effectively conquer or control all the civs on it, or b) if I was on the smaller continent, even if I did control it I'd be facing behemoths on the super-continent.

Warm and wet: Purposely unbalance the various civs starting conditions.

3 billion: Clumping of resources. Incredibly important.

Emperor: I wanted to give the AI civs extra wherewithal, as it helps their money problems. My theory is that the more advantage civs in terms of geography and resources would get richer, and the poor would get poorer. I'm tempted to try this on Deity, where it will probably work even better, but I'm not yet ready to disadvantage MY civ to that extent.

OK, results: see attachment.

It worked pretty well, although I know I can tweak some more (suggestions welcome).

Back OT, notice that I am in War-Time. It's tremendous... I just punched out 50 Tanks in 5 turns. BTW, that's a great time to do it, as a) you need to build them from scratch, b) it satisifies the requirement of speeding up many cities' build-time, and c) by doing so, you can quickly create significant relative strenth at the unit or total forces level, or both (evil grin looking at England). Also, notice that I have now put ALL remaining Cavs into Armies, 3 at a time, and then added a Tank. I've got as many Armies as I can for the moment... the Military Academy ROCKS on mobilization.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Carver


Could be?


Catt, thanks for the very good info. There's alot you can employ here, if timed right.

Carver - I still don't know how I feel about it. I have mobilized before, and, when able to return to a peace-time economy, switched a lot of production back to "civilian" projects -- not so much as a conscious exploit, but simply because the need for military units is now less than the need for various civilian projects. I myself do NOT consider the "Palace Build" an unacceptable exploit, but recognize that some would. I also do not consider some variations of the Palace Build tactic an unacceptable exploit (i.e., 3 turns before Nuclear Power, selecting high cost builds in productive (and permanently happy ) cities with the intention of switching to nuclear plants upon discovery of the tech); but recognize that some would.

I am a bit more uneasy with the manipulation of mobilization during world wars -- can't explain why, just feels like it crosses a line somewhere (maybe because I'm pretty sure the AI could never use this tactic, but, OTOH will frequently change its building projects with the availability of new techs, even if not planned with foresight?).

Anyway, it's all debatable as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't think less / more of anyone (or any tournament rules) for employing these tactics or choosing not to. (Now, reloading to avoid an unfortunate result or try a different tactic . . .).

Catt

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
I literally just found another exit... if a civ you are at war with is destroyed, you go back to normalcy.

So.... if you're worried about getting OUT of it, keep a 1 city civ punching bag handy.

Originally posted by Arrian
Interesting. I knew you could get out of mobilization by making peace or wiping an enemy out, but I didn't know that getting into another war would let you out. That's pretty funny, actually.

Whoops!

Theseus, great point. Arrian -- struck me as odd too, and, in combination with Theseus' point . . . . I went back to the saved game I used to test the "how to get in and how to get out" parameters. On the same turn that I declared war on a new AI civ (and looked down to see that I was out of my mobilization -- thus confirming to me the declaration of new war gets you out of mobilization) one of my opponents had been eliminated by another AI -- which is what actually pulled me out of mobilization, just didn't notice it while running my late night tests. Bad tester, bad tester . . . go to your room!

And once again the value of interactive participation on points of interest is proven . . . .

The long and the short of it is that declaring war, or getting involved in a new war, will not pull you out of mobilization, only negotiating peace with at least one AI civ, or the elimination of an AI civ with whom you are at war, will pull you out of war-time mobilization.

I will go back and make the appropriate edits in the FAQ and my other post.

Catt

[Arrian]

Catt,

Cool, thanks for checking that out. This way, nobody gets mislead. It was an easy mistake to make, after all. World Wars sometimes spiral out of control to the point where it's hard to keep track of what's going on.

Theseus,

I'll download your Babs game when I get home and check it out. How did the early fighting go? Leaders?

I'm confused about 1 thing you said:

I assumed, correctly, that you would do a test game with China (no way you were going to give up Religous)

China is Industrious/Militaristic. And believe me, it pained me. Speaking of that game, btw, I think I've hit the approximate score limit given my playstyle and settings... 6000pts. The Chinese game came in at 5700, and my best yet Japanese one came in at 5970. If I ever get the patience to truely milk one, I may be able to boost the score higher, but it seems pretty pointless, especially when one considers Aeson's 65k game.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Theseus
Been playing with settings though, trying to create killer AI civs. The Babs game above is standard, large continents, warm, wet, 3 billion, on Emperor.

I like your settings. With how many civs do you play?

[Arrian]

Theseus,

Ok, I checked out that Bab game you posted... interesting. Nice start spot... judging by the city names, you hit the Iroquois pretty early... unfortunately the replay didn't work. I am correct that you do not yet have a forbidden palace? Granted, you don't have an optimal location for it (yet), but it's late in the game.

You're set up to do bad things to the English... and already have done bad things to London. Everyone hates you, but I take it you don't care

Though it doesn't really speak to the issue of mobilization, I thought I'd post a sample Japanese game of mine. Clearly, I was playing on a lower level, with normal land mass, and had the opposite objective: I want to hamper the AI in any way possible, in my continuing search for ultimate power.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Arrian, I don;t know what I was thinking. But I was sure you would try China... go figure. Early GLs were very weak, as the Bowman does not have staying power, and the few that got upgraded to elite were often in the wrong place (yeah, I know, fastmovers are much better). Realizing the weakness of the slowmover military I had built, I went NUTS on Horsemen, and through Knights / Cav I popped a bunch of GLs. And captured a number of the early GWs I wanted, so not the end of the world. I then ran into my new usual problem, which is generating GLs when there are now Wonders I need to build, so I maxed out on Armies, and used several to build Factories in 1 shield cities.

Sir Ralph, I played the Babs game with the normal amount, which is 8 incl. me.

Speaking of which, does anybody know offhand the revised map sizes? What I'd like to figure out is how to balance map size, average civ proximity, and minimal special tiles as compared to total.

[Harovan]

Map sizes are now

Tiny - 60x60
Small - 80x80
Standard - 100x100
Large - 130x130 (was 140x140)
Huge - 160x160 (was 180x180)

[Theseus]

Gracias.

I just whipped up a quick spreadsheet... I need to think on this, but the ratio of special to total tiles is, I think, the key driver... add clustering and good through bad environments (i.e., warm and wet), and the net result will be wildly different AI civ performance in a given game. If I'm right, and that's self-reinforcing, this could be the key to REAL challenges.

[Theseus]

Arrian,

Decent start, nothing to write home about.

I live in mortal terror of the Iroqouis... I haven;t played as them yet, but especially since I've been messing with ultra-early war, I figure if they're anywhere nereby they need to be taken as seriosuly, if not more so, than Rome and Persia.

In other words, I mashed them like potatoes before they could get to MWs. Actually a situation where the VERY early Bowman strength has value.

You're right about the lack of an FP... it's been bugging me the whole game. I'm not very good at the palace jumping bit, which this map clearly called for... I decided that I would take out the whole lower half of the continent (i.e., England), and place the FP in Coventry. NO D-MN GLs!!!

I took out everything through the mountain range to the west of Norwich and Reading, created an abso-f-cking-ridiculous Maginot Line there, and finally got a GL on the last city taken (thank god, I realy needed the FP at that point). That also meant I had to maintain mobilization WAY longer than I would of liked, and used the "Catt Exploit" (sorry Catt) because I reall didn;t have a choice. It didn;t matter that much anyway, as corruption took it's toll on the new cities.

The good news is, as you saw, India, Zulu, and England have all been huge empires at various times. Japan also, and now America too. At different points in history, each had self-reinforcing benefits that gave them the "edge" that the AI evidently needs to really perform. At one point, using Caravels (!), Japan attacked me with a stack of maybe 30 Cav and Rifles... I was very impressed. I was focused on England at the time, and didn;t even see it coming, although I had a naval picket line out (note: "sleep" your navy, don't fortify).

Summary:

For me, the jury is still out on Industrious.

Ultra-early war rocks.

Mobilization rocks, but it can be a trap.

Gimme a big, rich, powerful AI civ anyday.
It's been a really fun game;

[Theseus]

Arrian, that Japanese game, WOW!!!

I need to spend some more time looking at it, but man, it's picture perfect.

Txurce just gave me a big comlplement on another thread today, but I got nothing on you.

What would your require for an MPP?

[Arrian]

Heh, well keep in mind I showed you one of the games that panned out It doesn't happen all the time, believe me. Anyway, this is the game where I was all confused as to the domination limit, because I am over the sq. mileage that normally wins the game (130k, in my experience until this game). So the fight I picked with the Germans was supposed to be quick & painless, but as it turns out will require some work.

I did have one game that was even better under 1.17... as a result of some geographical luck I didn't get in this one. Suffice it to say I had just as much (if not more) power, but a much bigger tech lead.

-Arrian

[DogCiv]

Great article. I'm thinking of trying mobilization in my current Regent-level game (Huge, 16 civs, 1.21f) as the Egyptians. I've never mobilized before, because I tend to be a Builder.

In this game, I got a huge technology lead in the middle ages due to a well-timed Golden Age that saw Universities and Banks go up in all my major cities, as well as the building of EVERY Medieval wonder.

Now that I've got Nationalism probably 4 techs before anyone else, I'm thinking of mobilizing and just running over everyone else with large numbers of relatively low-tech Riflemen, Cavalry, and Cannon. The best AI has just acquired Cavalry and Musketmen, but still are 4-5 behind me.

In terms of technology, Ive just acquired Steam Power and Industrialization.

In the past, I would have just tried to extend the technology lead over my opponents. However, I noticed in past games that once the computer gets Nationalism and Industrialization, their output of units takes off dramatically, and coincidentally, their technology trading also accelerates.

The question once again boils down to one of time. Can I run over 12 civilizations in the 20 odd turns it will take them to get Nationalism? I've already destroyed the Romans and Zulu, and I have the Iroquois on the ropes, captured 3 Persian cities, and most the Babylonian army destroyed in the field.

Anyone else have luck with mid-game mobilization and world conquest at the Rail/Industrial age juncture?

[Arrian]

You can do a helluva lot of damage with Cavalry vs. musketmen (and it sounds like you have), but you're gonna bog down once the AI civs begin to field riflemen. Still, if you have enough momentum going, and enough production, you can accept the higher casualties and just keep on going.

You may want to keep on rampaging until nationalism is known by your enemies, and then make peace. Meanwhile, you can build your factories, the Theory of Evolution, Hoover, and you can discover replaceable parts. This will give you much more production and will allow you to build infantry and artillery. You can do some mopping up at this point if you want, or you can just wait for Tanks.

Did you turn domination off or something? Because if you didn't, you don't have to wipe out all 12 civs. You just need to have 2/3 of the world within your cultural borders.

-Arrian

-Arrian

[DogCiv]

Well, as luck would have it, the Babylonians appear to have discovered Nationalism around 1440AD, as about 40 Riflemen just appeared on my border. The funny thing is, I was pretty sure they didn't have Nationalism 2 turns ago. How can Ham raise so many Riflemen so quickly, with about 12 cities? Even with Conscription, I'd be hard-pressed to raise that many.

Still have a huge tech lead (discovered Espionage and Communism since last post), but now everyone appears to have Nationalism. At least the Iroquois are down to one tiny city on an island.

Though I've wiped out 3 civ's (Rome, Zulu, Iroquois) and put a moderate dent in the Persians, I barely made headway against the other 3 civilizations on my continent (Greeks, Persians, and Babs) even with a half-dozen cities pumping out Cavalry or Riflemen every 2 turns, with another 12 cities busily building Factories (I rush-built Factories and Coal Plants in my 6 top shield cities).

Looks like it's back to building up to Replaceable Parts until I get a tech lead before I go to battle again.

I'd be curious if anyone has been able to win a major war in the transition from Middle to Industrial Ages. It just seems that the Middle Ages are too darn short to make much of military campaigns.

BTW, I have Cultural and Domination victory turned off. I found that on Huge Maps, I was getting Cultural victory very early, and not really getting into the Modern Age.

[Arrian]

Hammurabi most likely merely upgraded a bunch of musketmen to riflemen.

The middle ages have two short periods where you can make great gains through aggression:

1) Between Chivalry and Gunpowder
2) Between Military Tradition and Nationalism

Both periods are relatively short, but you can do a ton of damage if you have prepared for it. Particularly with #2.

Huge maps... wow, that's patience. I just can't deal with something that big (and neither can my computer).

-Arrian