Does anyone use this?

[johncmcleod]

I don't have any games in the modern ages right now, so I haven't had the opportunity to try this strategy. It's really simple and I'm sure many people have thought of it before me. If you share a continent with another civ and you're fighting a war along the borders, would launching a large amphibious invasion on the coast at the back of their territory work? It's hard to explain without a picture, but I'll put it into a scenario that could happen in real life. Pretend North and South Korea are at war with each other and they're fighting along the 38th parallel or whatever the border is at, and they've been fighting for a while. So all the ground forces are pretty much at the front. Would it work (in the game of course) if S.Korea launched a huge amphibious invasion along the coast of northern N.Korea? I'd think it work because the AI wouldn't dfend cities that were far from the front.

[nbarclay]

One of the AI's major strategic weaknesses is that it doesn't move up defenders to focus its strength on the front lines. That lets the human player hit with locally overwhelming power on the front lines and eat away at the AI empire. But it does provide a relatively good defense against flank attacks, including flank attacks by sea.

I can see potential for a rear-area invasion to do some good if the AI still has a lot of offensive units on the front lines, but if the AI is doing that well, I'm not sure the human player could afford to spare the forces for a rear-area invasion. On the other hand, if the AI is essentially out of offensive units, my guess is that the main result of a rear-area attack would be to get more cities drafting and/or pop rushing (if the AI is in Communism) earlier. Either way, I'm skeptical about the value of such a strategy, although I've never tried it so I can't speak definitively.

Nathan

[Theseus]

In the modern age, wouldn't railroads negate the strategy?

I have done this earlier... works like a charm.