You blind or do you use your mind?

[HazieDaVampire]

I'd just like to know how meny people try to make combined arms operations, like Paras going over a coastline a turn before marines hit the beach! Or bombing the hell out of a civ before even putting troops on their turf?

In other words, do you go in blindly or do you do things the way they are done in real life?

[Aeson]

I think combined arms are fun to use if I have a tech lead. In a serious game though, pure ground based attack stacks (Knights, Cavalry, Tanks, Modern Armor) are most efficient by far. Once the AI get Mech Infantry there is some need for ground based bombardment, unless you have a lot of armies by then.

[HazieDaVampire]

i like doing them all the time,
And what is your avatar, for some reason it remind me of Ghost in a Shell!

[HazieDaVampire]

anybody know any other combined arms operations that can do on civ3?

[miccofl]

Try 1 carrier, 5 battleships and 2 transports, each transport has 4 marines and 4 tank/panzer/modern armor. Park the carrier between two cities with 1 battleship covering. Send 2 battleships and one transport to each of the two cities. Bombard for 2 turns with the bombers and battleships, then send in the marines to take the cities. Move the transports into the cities and unleash the armored units. You could always add 2 or more nuclear subs and toss a couple of nukes into the mix for some added fun.

[Aeson]

It's just orange tinted gibberish

[Jethro83]

If I'm using Cavalry against Infantry, I definitely build some artillery to take with me on the attack. Otherwise, I stay out of conflict at that point and wait for tanks and bombers.

Then I'll dismantle any artillery I have and use the bombers for bombardment.

I hardly ever bother using paratroopers.

My late game combined arms units include:

- Tanks
- Bombers
- Fighters
- Battleships (if it is at sea)
- Carriers (again, if at sea)

And it might be possible that I do use marines for amphibious assault, depending on how much I can soften the enemy forces up.

[Coracle]

What COMBINED ARMS really is:

Say it is 1700 AD. A stack of musketmen, knights/cavalry, and cannon, should be significantly stronger than an equal number of units of one type.

You cannot have real Combined Arms unless you have STACK COMBAT, not one individual unit attacking another individual unit one by one.

Having STACK COMBAT would also make battles less tedious, more realistic, and allow for Realtime tactics.

Of course I know pigs will fly before Firaxis ever bothers with such an improvement.

[candybo]

I always have at least one veteran of my best defender in the stack, even if I have have to send him out ahead (to take the hit and get promoted). And ALWAYS several on Artys...

[badman]

i like artillery.
with them, you can fight wars without many casualties, but you need many of them in order to make them useful.i protect them with some infantry and attack with cavalry.

[Vinicio]

Artillery are also great for eliminating roads at borders that you wish to secure and maintain.
This method forces the AI to attack you at whichever geographic front you choose not to eliminate the roads, this is especially useful when there are railroads all over. It allows for controlled thrust into enemy territory. Kind of brute, but it works.

[Iskandar Reza]

If only civ3 had the stacking abilites of ctp.....

[HazieDaVampire]

i think they made armys for that job, but they don't do to good a job!

[phunny_pharmer]

Never really used combined arms...

[nbarclay]

The poll is loaded. My approach of blitzing with fast-movers is NOT one of sending in whatever happens to be on top of the stack, but neither is it combined arms once my fast-movers outrun any possible support from defenders. (Well, maybe hitting infantry with modern armor and spearmen with left-over cavalry could be considered "combined arms" in a very loose sense of the term.) As long as the attackers have a clear technological advantage over the defenders, blitzes are much, much quicker than combined arms attacks. And if the attackers don't have a clear technological advantage, I prefer to defer warfare until they do.

Nathan

[Iskandar Reza]

I played a game once where I was to invade mainland Babylon. To secure a beachhead, I bombarded Ellipi, nearest to my continent and within air strike range, with battleships and air raids. Then in comes the marines. Unfortunately Ellipi was destroyed in the onslaught. Another group of transports loaded with workers were sent down the beachhead. I paradropped troopers ahead of my landing party on to some mountains to secure the beachhead and draw enemy fire. The following turn my workers constructed a fort on the former city site of Ellipi whilst another group of transports unloaded mech infantries, artilleries and tanks. 10 turns later I destroyed all traces of the Babylonian civilization.

That was the best invasion strike force I've assembled, though not the most efficient, but it sure adds realism to the gameplay.

[Blake]

If anything about Civ3 is unforgivable, it is the lack of stacking. In fact it's criminal. Imagine all the time you wasted ordering units individually when they could be stack moved (remember to include all that jungle clearing). Figure out how much money that time is worth. That's how criminal Civ3's lack of stacking is

Armies in Civ3 suck the big one. They are NOT what the players* wanted. The players wanted stacking ala CTP2 style (even if most cant stand the word CTP). But for some reason Firaxis wanted retarded Armies, probably so they could balance Great Leaders wonder-rushing (another rather retarded concept).

If firaxis really wanted to please, they would have had real stacking, and made GL's like MOO2's leaders, you merge them with an army, and the army gets bonuses to attack/defense/movement/healing whatever. That would have pleased pretty much everyone (and especially me).
Fsk. It even would have made the AI better, because AI's can cope with stacks better than co-ordinating individual units.

Anyway, sorry about the , and calling Firaxis . It's just the lack of stacking really does annoy me more than anything else

[Lord Merciless]

Some of my impressions:

- Don't go overboard with combined arms. Three types of units in a stack is more than sufficient.

- Tanks should be supported by Artilleries, and Modern Armors supported by Radio Artilleries. Otherwise, the losses wll be staggering.

- Stealth Bombers are good, but not absolutely necessary.

- Infantry and Mechanized Infantry Armies are extremely tough on defense.

- Swordsman/Legionary/Immortal Armies are dreadful in ancient age.

- I hate Musketmen and Infantries, they literally shut down offensive activities until the invention of Cavalry and Tanks, respectively.

[Iskandar Reza]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
- I hate Musketmen and Infantries, they literally shut down offensive activities until the invention of Cavalry and Tanks, respectively.

That's what cannons and artilleries are for

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Iskandar Reza


That's what cannons and artilleries are for

I never bother with cannons since Cavalry would one tech away by then. Also, until you reach the Metallurgy, it's recommended to suspend your offensive operations.

Artilleries are better: they came along with the Infantry. But since Infantries have such high defensive vs offensive ration (10:6), it would take several artilleris to grind down just one Infantry. Even with only HP left, an Infantry still has a 50-50 chance to overcome a Cavalry.

In my recent war, I had to face 60+ Iroquois Infantries and Cavalries. It took me three Infantry Armies, 40+ Infantries and Cavalries, 40 Artilleries, and many turns to grind down that invasion force. With 20 Tanks, it would only take at most 3 turns to wipe it out.

[Iskandar Reza]

Cannons are easy to build. And they upgrade to artys. That's my point. That will free up your bases to produce other things, like panzers, instead of artys. Just upgrade the goddamn machine.