Fundamentals of Mobilization Revealed

[DogCiv]

You're probably right about the Riflemen coming from upgraded Musketmen. They did seem to make a mysterious disappearance 2 turns ago!

In terms of the technology "gaps" that allow you to do a lot of damage with aggression, they make sense. I hadn't really planned it, but during the Chivalry-Musketman gap, I got rid of the Romans as well as started my Golden Age, and during the Military Tradition-Nationalism gap I took 20+ Zulu, Iroquois and Persian cities.

On an interesting note, I generated 6 Great Leaders (!) in the process (Army, Forbidden Palance, Universal Suffrage, Army, Army, Rifleman - isolated city under siege!), all during the second gap's campaigns!

Off topic some, I like the huge maps with 16 civs because it forces me to play every Age, whereas smaller and standard maps can usually be won by the mid Industrial Age or earlier.

[Theseus]

It's funny this came up.

Usually, I have a slow but steady approach to military expansion:
Find aticky way to declare war.
Defense in depth
One or more areas of concentrated, overwhelming force

In the last couple of weeks, I've started playing around with blitzkrieging, to take advantage of those two periods of powerful relative strength at the unit level.

In other words, if I know the respective AI civ is nearing Nationalism (and that might happen suddenly, through trading), I go on an all-out offensive "Big Push" just to see how far I can get. Then I negotiate peace.

There is, BTW, an excellent way to extend the relative strength of Cavs all the way up through Infantry...

Any guesses?

[alexman]

Originally posted by Theseus
There is, BTW, an excellent way to extend the relative strength of Cavs all the way up through Infantry...

Any guesses?

I'll have a go at it: How about a scout-cavalry-ironclad mixed army?

[Random Passerby]

I'm not a huge warmonger and this tactic probably isn't worth the trouble, but I like building armies with two cavalry and nothing else; since armies blitz, this gives me an extra attack and extra hitpoints.

[Theseus]

Right in one, sir!!

Seriously... if possible, I lump all vet and elite+leader Cavs into 3X Armies as quickly as I can. The Civ Calculator doesn't let you input Armies, but I figure that what I described, against a unit in a kill zone will have a 95%+ chance of taking out Riflemen, and probably 65%+ for Infantry. If you get lucky and nail'em in 1-2 hps, blitz.

[DogCiv]

You're right about Armies really extending the life of Cavalry. In my current Egyptian game that started this thread, I'm up to 1595 AD.

I've reduced the Greeks and Persians to one-city civ's, and the Babs just sneak-attacked me.

I'm up to 7 or 8 Armies now, only one of them built. I've got the Pentagon, so each one holds 4 Cavalry. With anywhere from 16 to 18 hp, these puppies can crack those Rifleman-defended cities on hills like no one's business! And I didn't realize it, but with the 1.21f patch, Armies can now blitz, so if I stay in my territory, those Armies can have 3 attacks!

At first, I got demoralized in the mid-1400's by the discovery of Nationalism by the AI. But the profusion of units from my Industrial cities in the heartland, as well as the embarrassment of Great Leader riches has more than made up for the enemy's Rifleman's defense.

I've never had this many Armies, much less in the early Industrial age, and I can tell you, those guys really tip the scales.

And back OT, I'm not even in wartime mobilization anymore. With Factories and Hoover Dam, I've at least a dozen cities capable of outputing a Cavalry every 2-3 turns.

[Arrian]

Theseus,

Speaking of relative strength, I have a game going now (or actually on hold for now) where I am faced with a dilemna.

I started on a continent with 6 other civs. I destroyed 3 of them (China, Persia, India), and beat up a fourth (Zulus). I have a comfortable tech and power lead, and SEVEN luxuries all to myself.

The AI is approaching nationalism. The Babs are my strongest neighbor. They lack saltpeter, and are not importing it. Thus, their cities are defended by pikemen. I have 20-25 Cavalry lying around. I also JUST signed a lucrative trade deal (18 turns to go) with them which includes a ROP.

Also a possibility is France. I have always coveted Paris, due to the fact that it has the Pyramids and the Colossus. France is weaker overall than Babylon, but they do have those Musketeers, instead of pikemen.

The final option is to just go ahead and finish off the Zulu. This would gain me little, except training a few Cavs to elite.

Whaddya do, hot shot?

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Arrian: I would go for France, if you ask me. Have they had their GA yet? Check the wonders they have, and try to remember if they fought wars since Gun powder. The Musketeers ought to be mostly regulars (unless the French have Sun Tzu's, which is unlikely), no problem for vet/elite Cavs and their extra attack is fairly pathetic when it comes to counterattacks. The Pyramids and the Colossus are attractive goals. Finally, if the Babs make good trades, I would try to preserve and milk them. The Zulus are out of question, they probably give nothing than completely corrupt cities.

[Arrian]

Sir Ralph,

Yeah, I was thinking France may be the way to go. The Babs are fairly wealthy, and are buying luxuries for good amounts of gold per turn. It's the Cavalry vs. Pikeman situation that makes them attractive.

France has built: Pyramids, Colossus, Great Lighthouse. I think. I do not recall them ever fighting. France is far from both my palace and forbidden palace, so the Colossus is actually useless to me. The Pyramids, however, mmmm.

The final option, which would require more time, is the Aztecs. I probably cannot get there before riflemen are available, but...
They're on a island, and have the one luxury I lack. They will not trade it to me for anything resembling a reasonable deal (I offered 4 luxuries, 1 strategic, and a tech and was rejected). They are #2 on the graph but are actually quite weak and poor, due to being isolated for so long. Thus, I think I stand a good chance of running into outdated units due to lack of upgrading cash. So maybe I should go fight overseas...

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Slap Joan around.

The other thing I do with Cavs is try to get them killed. Do a suicidal rush on France, grab as much as you can, and beeline for Tanks.

Don;t worry about Babs, as I think Catt made the point that the upgrade to Rifleman requires saltpeter.

Aztecs? For one luxury? You carry your obsession a little too far, my friend.

[Arrian]

Aztecs? For one luxury? You carry your obsession a little too far, my friend.

True, I don't need #8. 7, plus Sistine & Bach = a lot of happy people.

But then again, I don't "need" anything at this stage. I'm #1 in everything that counts, I have or will certainly get the wonders I want (except for the Pyramids... which would be the only reason to attack Joan), and I have a nice little tech lead. Basically, all that's left is to win. I have lots of SS wins under my belt and don't feel any need to do that here. So it's domination. Therefore, 1-2 civs have to die at some point... and I was thinking I might be able to run over the Babs with Cavalry so I didn't have to wait for Tanks.

Good point about the upgrade requirements. Hmm. They can still build or draft them, but all those pikemen would be non-upgradeable. Interesting.

-Arrian

[Radiation Zero]

Maybe I just get really bad rolls, but I find it's almost more dangerous to group my cavalry into Armies.

I mean, when a unit gets some bad rolls, you lose a unit.

But when an Army of 3 Elite Cossacks bleeds themselves out on a lone regular spearman, it really hurts, and when this happens way, way too often to be the exception, well, let's just say 90% of my GLs go toward Wonder building now.

If you make an Army of Marines, can they still do Amphibious Assaults? I don't think they can (though it's been ages since I've tried, I don't get Armies too often, even when Militaristic)

Which kinda sucks. I mean, what could be scarier than landing Marine or Paratrooper Armies in all your opponent's major cities at the same time?

I've never used Mobilization yuet, as I too am a builder, and usually it's bad enough I havde to wait *+ turns for a Bank so I can move on to the next building. There's always a next building, and usually, I can meet my military needs without mobilizing.

But then again, I'm a n00b who struggles with Prince(Regent?) difficulty, so please, feel free to disregard.

[Theseus]

RZ,

There's less than a 1% chance of a reg Spearman defeating a 3X Cossack Army, even if fortified in a 7+ popcity.

That said, there are circumstances when caution is called for, even with the lowly Spearman. In such cases, I soften'em up with either bombardment or suicide troops. Get the defender down to 2 hp, and let the Army have its way.

Re mobilization: If you've got certain cities on long builds, go ahead and mobilize, so that cities building units have the shield advantage... it has no effect on your Bank-building.

[DeepO]

As I just was looking for extra info on mobilization, I want to revive this thread (and get it back on topic ) with one comment added to it: There has been a little discussion on it, but a Golden Age and a Mobilization are cumulative: You will get 2 extra shields for every tile that already produces one. This can be very powerful, even if you don't really need the mobilization that late in your game.

DeepO

[Lucilla]

Depends on what you regard as late. I usually have the GA at the beginning of the middle ages, so cumulative effect is worth it. The problem at that time is only, that the cities just start growing over the 7 inhabitants mark, and happiness becomes important, which is difficult to produce during mobilization.

[Panag]

Originally posted by DeepO
As I just was looking for extra info on mobilization, I want to revive this thread (and get it back on topic ) with one comment added to it: There has been a little discussion on it, but a Golden Age and a Mobilization are cumulative: You will get 2 extra shields for every tile that already produces one. This can be very powerful, even if you don't really need the mobilization that late in your game.

DeepO

hi ,

indeed it is , sometimes its forgotten

when you then have a good form of government , whoah , you can lower science a bit , and spend the extra money to buy units , .....they cost lower , because you produce more shields , ....

have a nice day

[Theseus]

One thing to note: Your better cities will produce many, many shields... make sure to pick what you are building wisely, to avoid waste.

In MT V, for instance, I went into mobilization on setting up the first turn; I had to re-adjust all the build orders though, otherwise I would have lost dozens of shields in most cities.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Theseus
One thing to note: Your better cities will produce many, many shields... make sure to pick what you are building wisely, to avoid waste.

In MT V, for instance, I went into mobilization on setting up the first turn; I had to re-adjust all the build orders though, otherwise I would have lost dozens of shields in most cities.

hi ,

one thing you can also do is to let a couple cities build whatever military unit they can finish in one turn , and then use these units to build buildings in far away places that can only build at a slow rate , ....

also intresting is to start with some improvements a couple turns before you pull the draft and GA , this way those buildings are there faster , .....

if you play "Abe" , and you have fission , you can get loads of nukes real fast , or loads of F-15's real fast , .....

its always intresting to "calculate" your Mob , with or without the GA

have a nice day

[Lord Merciless]

I used mobilization only once, during a game I played as the builder. After 0AD, my situation became quite hopeless: last in population, territory, and technology. I spent a very long time trying to catch up and after I discovered Motorized transportation, I started the mobilization. My 17 cities pumped out a total of 96 Tanks, 25 Artilleries, 8 Fighters, and 1 Bombers within 12 turns. And it took only 5 more turns to thrash the leading AI civ and make the game winnable.

However, the biggest problem with Mobilization is that you can't build any cultural improvements in newly captured cities, making them quite vulnerable to flips.

[Theseus]

Getting stuck in mobilization sucks... it's very powerful, but very dangerous.

I find that the trick is to be in multiple wars, including several that are SOLELY for the purpose of leaving mobilization when you want to... so, for instance, if there are any punching bags left (and there usually are), when you mobilize just outright declare war on one, and position some forces to take a city at your leisure; when you want to de-mobilize, take one city and negotiate peace.

Mobilization is especially powerful for militaristic civs on the warpath... barracks and harbors are allowed builds, making intercontinental invasion a snap.

[Lord Merciless]

Mobilization should ONLY be used if you are in a disadvantageous position.

[Travathian]

I totally disagree.

Mobilization can help you build units just fast enough to overwhelm the enemy. This can be especially true if you get Nationization right after Military Tradition and can crank out the Cavalry. Same thing once you've gotten tanks. Those are two points at which I always mobilize, to try and get strength and numbers against my closest opponents to wipe them out once and for all.

If you're the one being overwhelmed then mobilization is required, likewise so may conscription.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Mobilization should ONLY be used if you are in a disadvantageous position.

hi ,

but how does one define that , .....

example , you now that your powerfull neighbor is going to kill you in a short while , well , then you can use the Mob to bring the war in his territory , .....

and there are a great deal of other reasons why one should use it , before an actual war

have a nice day

[player1]

If mobilization would include possibility of building Temples, I would say that mobilization if FAR SUPERIOR.

Temples are essential in preventing "culure flips" (they raise borer radius).


Since you can't build Temples in mobilization, I would say that it's just usefull.

If you can plan quick war, then use it.

If it would be just a long war, then expect lot of culure flips.
(or expect one nice RAZING campaign)

[Panag]

Originally posted by player1
If mobilization would include possibility of building Temples, I would say that mobilization if FAR SUPERIOR.

Temples are essential in preventing "culure flips" (they raise borer radius).


Since you can't build Temples in mobilization, I would say that it's just usefull.

If you can plan quick war, then use it.

If it would be just a long war, then expect lot of culure flips.
(or expect one nice RAZING campaign)

hi ,



, they should put an option in the editor , what can be build during a Mob and what not , ...

have a nice day

[player1]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

Hi!

Originally posted by panag


, they should put an option in the editor , what can be build during a Mob and what not , ...

Yes, that could be handy.
Although, actualy alowing Temples, would switch balnce too far in favor of Mobilization.

Originally posted by panag
have a nice day

u2

[DeepO]

Hmm... if temples under mobilization were possible, it would be too powerful. I like it the way it is now.

As long as you can end the war in a few turns, you can have prebuilds for temples... which get the bonus as well. Okay, you can't rush them, but if you put all newly conquered cities to e.g. nukes, you can switch these all when the war ends, and see what a city can produce: a temple, a marketplace, a library. This way, it is sometimes possible to rush all of this in one turn, so the risk of culture flips diminshes fast. After all, you only need immediate cultural borders in the cities that border the original owner of a city, in the rest you can take it easy with the cultural buildings.

So far, I haven't used mobilization much, but I'm getting to like it a lot. In MT V, mobilization can save the day, as it is a despreate situation (by any standard). Now, I just want to get the same benefits in 'normal' games as well.

Lucilla, IIRC mobilization is only possible after nationalism, I think a middle age GA is hard to combine with mobilization

DeepO

[Theseus]

You guys make a good point... due to the lack of allowed cultural buildings under mobilization, I make an extra point (CF paranoia at a PEAK!!) of either razing, or capturing cities in adjacent pairs.

[Panag]

hi ,

well guys , that is why there should be the option , to include , or exclude this or that , it would be great for MODS and SCENS , and it could please all the players , ....

have a nice day

[Lord Merciless]

I mean 'disadvantageous' in a strategic sense. For example: you are low on research capabilities, miss important strategic resources, lack populations, or/and fall behind in cultures.

Anyway, if your chance of winning the game is greatly imperiled, mobilization can help you get out of the hole.