American Style Fighting (Off your own territory)

[High Lord J]

Why do people always try to take there content? I always find it much better to take other people's. if you are fighting a war on the other side of the world you are much better off. Particularly when you are just getting coracles.Bulid 6 or 7 of them you have quick transporting and can easily dominate the seas. That means no drop off on your continent but you can dropping off at your leaser on the other continets.All you can lose is military troops. If you have enough variety and size of units you can make it through with few losses.

If you are all grouped together by land no sweat. Pick an enemy on the other side of the world drop off there and don't allow there ships to go around either side. It takes a while even on a horse to cross other civs territory. Even though the AI can cross other AI's terriorty with a right of passage agreement. If you ally with another civilizations against them they can't cross then anyway.

This strategy shows the advantages of a strong navy. In modern times if a civ can't move by water they will have trouble fighting if they are not next to you. This will be particularly true in multiplayer when they can't just walk through other civs land. This shows that a navy at least half the size of your ground troops can be very helpful.

This idea is not really hurt by civs taking to the air. They often can't get in range of you. You should be able to use the air better then them anyway.

So in summation be respectful to your neighbors but not those damn far off foreigners!

[Mr. President]

Good points. The enemy that is far off can hurt you less than the enemy who is near to you.

But I don't really see how "American Style Fighting" is a pertinent title.

[Sean]

I have played this style before. It has good benefits, in that you can crush a weeker civ (on an off-shore island) and thus add to you might; however the corruption problem means those cities are of little productive use. Also, taking far away civs on the same continent can cause you to have a great many number of fronts to fight on in the later stages of the gam. Multi-front wars are not cool.

[August Borms]

Originally posted by Mr. President
But I don't really see how "American Style Fighting" is a pertinent title.

Think of it as a compliment: only the US has the capability to fight wars in far away countries

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Good points. The enemy that is far off can hurt you less than the enemy who is near to you.

But I don't really see how "American Style Fighting" is a pertinent title.

When was the last time war took place in America. LEt's see, SEptember 11, and Pearl HArbour, and that's it for the past century. The other 30 or so wars America has been involved in in the past fifty years or so were not on US soil, which is why September 11th seemed like such a big thing.

[High Lord J]

Correct the only actual wars fought on American turf where the revolutionary War, The War of 1812, and The Civil War and then we became a world power only vulnerable to terrorist attacks If even that

[Theseus]

Ummm... Pearl Harbor. The Aleutians. Every attack on a US embassy.

[Harovan]

9/11 was no war, it was an act of terrorism and hence a crime. Wars can be between countries or alliances, not between some criminal citizens and a country. It were the US who made a war out of it.

On topic: I don't like much to fight wars far from home. That, because the benefit of capturing one shield cities is usually very low. If luxuries, resources or wonders are involved, it's another thing. If I fight such wars, I usually try to limit them.

Another thing is, if my outposts get attacked. In this case I perform huge invasions and usually wipe the attacker out completely.

[Radiation Zero]

To me, it doesn't really feel like American tactics untill you get helicopters, paratroops, marines and transports.

No matter what civ I am, when I'm conducting a long-range strike with those troops, it seems very Vietnam.

[High Lord J]

Originally posted by Theseus
Ummm... Pearl Harbor. The Aleutians. Every attack on a US embassy.

I consider Pearl Habour a terriost attack. It was a bombing at peace time between Japan and US even though the rest of the world was fighting.

[Falcon X]

Originally posted by Theseus
Ummm... Pearl Harbor. The Aleutians. Every attack on a US embassy.

Here's what he meant to say.... Ever since 1812 there has been no troops or attacks on the continental United States. You could also say the States. Hawaii and Alaska were not states.

The Heart and soul has not been threatened by another sovergn power.

[Theseus]

Fair enough.

However, bringing this back into Civ and Aplyton, I consider every incursion upon my interests, whatever the form, to be a wakening call for the sleeping giant.

[Objectivist]

An option to reduce corruption on a foreign continent is to save your foreign palace for that continent or to move your capital to it, that way you can be sure both zones of your Civ will be productive.

[Sean]

An option to reduce corruption on a foreign continent is to save your foreign palace for that continent or to move your capital to it, that way you can be sure both zones of your Civ will be productive.

This is good advice. I find when I build the Forbidden Palace on another Island, it becomes very productive. However, on large maps and continents the influence wanes very quickly.

PS. Neat nick-name; Objectivist.

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Sean
An option to reduce corruption on a foreign continent is to save your foreign palace for that continent or to move your capital to it, that way you can be sure both zones of your Civ will be productive.

This is good advice. I find when I build the Forbidden Palace on another Island, it becomes very productive. However, on large maps and continents the influence wanes very quickly.

PS. Neat nick-name; Objectivist.

The better way to do this is to build your forbidden palace in your center of production/income (ie your oldest, biggest, baddest cities) and then move around your palace. Not building a forb. palace when you can initially will put you way behind, and since you cant move it place it in your 'big city zone's' center. Then you can move your palace anywhere. Its funny cause most of the time I want to build my forb. palace at my capitol, but that isnt allowed.

[ShuShu]

My history may be a little fuzzy here but wasn't that after 1812?

Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but the wars against the various indian naitions ran right on up to the twentieth century.

Panama and Granada didn't seem too far away at the time either.

[Kingof the Apes]

At the time, the Alamo was part of texas, and i don't believe Texas became a state until 1846.
Indian wars, you are right, however they were already there, it's not like they sailed over from Europe or something. And after the 1820s or some time like that they werent a threat to core American cities, just to settlers going west.

[Arrian]

I have a slightly different take on this. I like taking control of my home continent... if possible, prior to making contact with overseas civs.

Sooner or later (probably sooner), I will end up in conflict with those overseas civs over luxuries. Conquest of my continent normally yields 4 luxuries (sometimes 3, sometimes 5). This isn't good enough once I have hospitals. If I control my continent, I'm huge. If I'm huge, the AI will not make anything remotely resembling a trade I think is fair. Therefore, I'm gonna have to get luxuries some other way.

How to do this? Well, in most of my games, the overseas AI civs are usually kind enough to get into a scuffle amongst themselves. This will open up gaps in their borders which I can exploit. I have settler teams on ships offshore ready to go, and when a gap opens up next to a luxury, I plunk down a city. I built two such cities in my most recent game, "stealing" furs and spices from the Americans, who had obligingly wiped out the Aztecs. What does this have to do with "American style" fighting, as the thread starter put it? I'll tell you:

The AI doesn't like it when you steal its luxuries. It WILL come for you. Therefore, I stock my outpost cities with strong defenders, bombard units, and my entire offensive army. "Come in, said the spider to the fly." The AI will throw its offensive capability at you. If you're properly set up (barracks, walls, steady stream of reinforcements), it will fail miserably, resulting in the destruction of their attack units. This occurred in the aforementioned game, resulting in the death of approximately 20 US Knights, several longbowmen and a couple of other miscellanious units for the cost of about 5 musketmen. Shortly thereafter, America ceased to be.

The way combat works in CivIII, you have the tactical advantage in your own territory. Thus, it is best (ignoring strategic concerns) to fight there. Strategically, of course, it is best to take the fight to the enemy. This is dangerous, however, so long as they have the ability to counterattack effectively. Had I attacked America first, I would have had to do so with muskets and Cavalry, which are vulnerable to Knight counterattack. Instead, I wiped out their knights so that no counterattack occurred (plus, I discovered nationalism).

My outpost cities are useful in 3 ways. First, they bring in luxuries that I'd otherwise have to pay for. Second, they are pretty much guaranteed to provoke the AI to attack me, thus eliminating WW concerns if I'm a republic or democracy. Third, as described above, they allow me to pummel the AI's armed forces from a position of strength, instead of having to land troops in enemy territory.

-Arrian

[ShuShu]

TheAlamo was a battle fought as part of the mexican american war which yielded a great many states, not just Texas.

And yes, Arrian, my point was that America's history is a classic example of conquering/pacifying the continent before going global.

[Fitz]

True American style would result in giving the captured cities back to the original civ once a change of goverment had occured.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the strat as a whole, but maybe you should try selling the cities to other civs once you're done weakening the target civ. If they are willing to buy (and that may be a large if), then you may end up getting more out of the cities that way.

[Arrian]

The AI won't buy cities. That was removed a patch or two ago, to prevent abuse.

At least that's my understanding of it.

-Arrian

[Nakar Gabab]

Originally posted by ShuShu
TheAlamo was a battle fought as part of the mexican american war which yielded a great many states, not just Texas.

And yes, Arrian, my point was that America's history is a classic example of conquering/pacifying the continent before going global.

Actually, the battle of the Alamo has no connection at all to the United States. It was a battle (and a losing one at that) in the Texan war for independence from Mexico. Basically, a lot of Americans became citizens of Mexico because of land promises in Texas. Mexico was levying some taxes and was planning to outlaw slavery (most of the land was worked by slaves, also from the American south), so the Texans fought against Mexico until the Mexican government finally threw up their hands and said it wasn't worth it. Texas became an indepenent country until around 1845, when it applied for American statehood. The Mexican-American war was fought shortly thereafter; Texas was an American staging point. *That* war led to the US acquiring most of the southwest.

About a decade later, Texas seceded with the Confederate states and wasn't readmitted for roughly another 5-10 years. The rest of the territorial acquisitions of the time, to my knowledge, did not.

[royfur]

Sorry, ShuShu, your wrong ... The Alamo battle (of Davy Crockett fame) was not part of the Mexican-American War. Nakar Gabab is correct - it was part of the Texan War of Independence. As a result (of the war, not the battle- the Texans were all killed), Texas is the only State of the US that was itself an independent soverign nation, before becoming a State.

Regarding the American Way of war, a more accurate representation is that of building HUGH stacks of Arty (and later, bombers) and blasting the heck out of your enemy before attacking with land troops. US doctrine has for many many years been that overwhelming material (ie firepower) is in the long run cheaper, and more effective, then massive manpower. Compare to WW2 Soviet and Korean War Chinese manpower approaches ... human wave attacks etc.

As a sidenote, the US Marines seem to be the premier example of the ability to conduct amphibious assualts ... and they've in fact been around longer the the US has- they originated during the era of the Articles of Confederation, IIRC, and predate the Federal govt. Most Japanese Naval Infantry attacks in WW2 were NOT amphibious assualts against opposed beacheads. The US conducted something on the order of over a hundred amphibious assualts in the Pacific War.

The British get the credit for the first MODERN amphibious invasion, I think, with the Galipoli campign of WWI.

Civ On.

[Juggler_Bob]

I agree with some of the necessary elements of American style fighting previously stated, such as all real combat taking place outside of American borders, but I feel that we have left out a few critical points...


If you really want to characterize something as American-style fighting, it must meet the following criteria:
[list=1][*]You must always attack with far superior firepower, both in man-power, munitioins, and materiel...The proper ratio should start at 10:1 and only be truly considered bullying when the ratio reachs upwads of 1000:1.... [*]When at all possible, you must attack with weapon systems that will result in the least loss of life for your own troops: cruise missiles, bombing raids, arty bombarment, tanks vs. footsoldiers, etc[*]A lack of serious concern towards collaterial damage (read: civilian casualities), although lip service shall always be paid, and usually expressed in the terms of "...the price of freedom" or "...necessary sacrifices in order to rid the world of the oppression of ...."[*]A matching socio-economic policy of boycott/sanctions/deprivation that will affect civilian populations far more than any regime currently in power.[*]A true objective (not necessarily corresponding with the stated objective) that is neiither understood nor shared by those for whom the Americans are apparently "intervening" for...[*]Some sort of song (usually country-western: ie. "God Bless the U.S.A. - Lee Greenwood) in which the American populace will be stirred into a blind, unreasoning sense of patriotism which overwhelms the logical and rational facilities of your average Joe Six-pack, causing an automatic knee-jerk acceptance of any American aggression in the name of an epic "struggle between Good and Evil" (Side Note: In the next mod, it would be great if the Americans would have a special Small Wonder - Total Media Control, which would reduce general unhappiness and war-weariness by half)[*]The "Threat of the Big Stick" must always be present, if not always overt. This is usually accomplished by having the President, or some other leading military figure eschew the use of the United States' massive nuclear/chemical/biological arsenal in the current conflict; while at the same time, other, more radical (and influential) elements espouse immediate and total response (ie. "Nuke them back into the Stone Age"). [/list=1]


Is it any wonder that the United States of America is generally reviled by a majority of the rest of the world...?


Ok, so this is so far off-topic that it hurts, but I just felt the serious need to rant a bit...

-Bob

[Theseus]

Bob,

I just watched Black Hawk Down for the first time.

I'll tell you what... move to Mogadishu, or Boznia. I hear that housing is cheap around there.

Colorado has got to be way too comfortable.

Look, everybody's got a right to their opinion, and to air it out... but don;t do it here, please. This place is about a game. Go OT, at least.

ps: Damn right, use overwhelming force. Oh, wait, that's not American... it's Chinese, from a couple of thousand years ago.

[cumi]

Hi,

not responding to other partly off-topic comments.... I think the thread opener gave a missunderstadable name to his strategy.

So, I think the strategy is very good. Unfortunetly I am following it. I usually starting to build defending army, not even knowing whats heappening outside...Thats bad.

I agree that, you have to play a bit aggresive, to explore and suprise your opponent and don't let them suprise you!

I read this somewhere:

"If some aliens once came to visit the Earth, means that they are much more advanced than we are. Otherwise we had visited them!"

cheers

[ShuShu]

... and attraction for catchy phrases...

I acceed to those better informed than I. I was really trying to stress that the US fought locally almost exclusively until it became big enough to fight globally.

I like the post that insists the US always uses superior manpower. I think the last time we won a war through superior numbers was the civil war. We've been sending those good ole boys from the south off to fight hopelessly outnumbered ever since because they're just so darn good at it... Especially when you give them lots of guns and shoes...

[dawidge]

Originally posted by ShuShu
I like the post that insists the US always uses superior manpower. I think the last time we won a war through superior numbers was the civil war. We've been sending those good ole boys from the south off to fight hopelessly outnumbered ever since because they're just so darn good at it... Especially when you give them lots of guns and shoes...

Not superior [BOLD]man[/BOLD]power, but superior [BOLD]FIRE[/BOLD]power. It's all about force multiplication through superior equipment, strategy, and intelligence.

[royfur]

Mostly superior FIREPOWER: High Explosives and where applicable, armour piercing.

Artillery and air support. Before air power existed, artillery. Lots and LOTS of it. Shell the enemy to pieces to the point that all the infantry need to do is mopup, just walk in without having to assualt, if possible. When defending, plenty of artillery support to hit the attacker as he approaches the defense perimeter, and to harras him in his concentration areas. Always attack with bombardment wherever possible and absolutely as much as possible.

Not bad tactics for Civ3, either, although the game is absolutley skewed too far in favor of mounted units. Horsebound troops just were to big a target, to vulnerable, after about the US civil war or so, although it took 40-50 years for that fact to sink in. Infantry and modern mobile units should have a higher defense strength against horse mounted units or I think, far better, the "Zero-Range Bombardment" strength concept. Ranged weapons units just slaughter horsemen or carelessly advancing foot troops during the critical moments of vulnerability during an advance, espeically in less dense terrain, at the close ranges involved- hence the ZRB reflects that without effecting other aspects of combat.

Ah, sorry for the ramble.

Civ on!

[Venger]

Originally posted by royfur
Not bad tactics for Civ3, either, although the game is absolutley skewed too far in favor of mounted units.

Indeed, which is fine until the invention of the rifle...

Horsebound troops just were to big a target, to vulnerable, after about the US civil war or so, although it took 40-50 years for that fact to sink in. Infantry and modern mobile units should have a higher defense strength against horse mounted units or I think, far better, the "Zero-Range Bombardment" strength concept. Ranged weapons units just slaughter horsemen or carelessly advancing foot troops during the critical moments of vulnerability during an advance, espeically in less dense terrain, at the close ranges involved- hence the ZRB reflects that without effecting other aspects of combat.

ZRB - are you saying you gave units from riflemen on bombardment with ZERO range, so it can be when the unit first attacks before melee, but cannot be used to bombard offensively? Genius! Tell me if this is so, because it's an absolutely brilliant idea (one could argue that bowmen also deserve this trait - any ranged attack).

Venger