Strategy for the American campaign

[=OttomusCeasar=]

You know, with enough units we could declare war, fight the war, and end the war (xenocide the Americans) in one turn.

[Aggie]

So roughtly 10 turns after persians go byebye(effectively), we will say bye bye (b)abe. Then as SMC i can have alittle piece, a little piece of germany and a little piece of france and maybe a little piece of greece per chance.
Aggie

[Harovan]

What about having a little peace , instead of a little piece of this and that? (kidding, of course)

Shiber: There are lots of threads about the culture flipping probability. 2 of the best are these:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=39825
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=51715

[Shiber]

Sir Ralph: thanks! I'll read those.

Aggie: isn't this the song from the movie 'Funny Nazis'?
Anyway, I like your road idea. We can put 6 units there ready to kick American butt, instead of 4 per each city at a total of 8. Should save us some efforts.
Another possibility would be to road all the way to n ne ne of Chiquita, enabling us to attack both Boston and Washington. We could put 4 units there, 4 units n ne of Del Monte and 4 units near Chicago, minimizing the amount of units needed for the assault to 12. What do you think?

[Meshelic]

Once the campaign for Persian succession is over, turning our forces northward towards the Americans would be wise, for the resources alone would be well worth the campaign, and with a minimal of losses, we can not only control the abundancy of incense and 1 iron (the incense would make bring in additional happiness, especially if a republican government is put in place later. Roads must be built).

A lone quick campaign (without allies) using knights and the remaining swordsmen would cripple the Americans.

1.) Chicago

2.) Washington

without these two the Americans would easily be engulfed...

Hail to the Presidente!

[Arnelos]

As I argued in a seperate thread, I think our strategy should be the following regarding the Americans and our Golden Age:

1. Build libraries empire-wide as much as possible.
2. Switch to Republic
3. Annex America in one swift strike, minimizing the impact of war weariness (which, if its swift enough, would be nothing) and using our WC's to trigger our Golden Age while we have both (1) libraries and (2) a republic.

[Zero]

shiber, we can still use swinging unit tactic but only for Boston and New York. Then only when two tile worth of road is created. and one terrain is a mountain. So I guess we should ditch the idea for american campaign.

all of the city should be attacked with mobile unit, but campaign can't be cut to one turn due to chicago. I surveyed the area and couldnt determine how we can enter american border in one turn and attack the city. For this, we should use most of foot unit on chicago.

[XOR]

Why dont we trash the GA althogether? Bah, I have spent most of my GAs in despotism and it's good enough for my needs, either way I always give the AI a beating even if they are at their GA and with their UU and I'm not.

We could use our GA a bit russianly (cossak) after nationalism optionally and combine it with war mobilization to generate an abominable military force and cause a couple of leaderheads to roll on the ground without the rest of their body...

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Calc II
all of the city should be attacked with mobile unit, but campaign can't be cut to one turn due to chicago. I surveyed the area and couldnt determine how we can enter american border in one turn and attack the city. For this, we should use most of foot unit on chicago.

What are you talking about, we can have a stack of mobile units on the incensed hill right at the edge of their borders, one movement to the floodplains and use the second to attack Chicago.

We can take all their cities in one turn if we have enough units to park on the edge of the border.

[XOR]

People, if we trash the "Lets take all in one turn" plan, we can conquer the whole thing before the turn for your so perfect 1-turn demise comes up. Lets trash that, lets conquer it, and then lets move on to the east because we have too many french cities between some of our cities.

And, the people in those french cities should be taught to speak our language.

[Honor]

Starting with Chicago is, in my mind, the ideal. After all, the resources we really crave are there. Washington is valuable primarily for its proximity to Chicago, so therefore its importance is high, but secondary. Boston and New York are nice cities, but more valuable because owning them would limit the unhappiness of our "citizens of american descent". Though NY (or should I say, "The Big Banana"?) has a pretty nice localtion.

If only the Aztecs would attack those nothern persian cities, we'd be able to form trade routes there as well as to our current neighbors... is there any chance we can convince the Aztecs to attack persia? (without paying them, that is?) And the same thought applies to the russians attacking france... if they conqered those cities by the bay, we'd be able to trade with them as well. *sigh* if only the computer were as willing to fight as we are... (for our causes, of course.)

[Shiber]

Calc II: don't trash the swinging units idea yet. We can put a swinging stack s s of Boston if we road there, like you said, and we can also put a stack s se of Washington if we road there as well, thus covering 3 cities with 2 stacks (a 3rd stack should be positioned near Chicago).

Arnelos: isn't it much more important to build marketplaces first? We have more commerce directed to our economy than commerce directed to science and the total benefits would be greater.

[Shiber]

Honor: the problem with getting say, the Aztecs to fight Persia is that this is a 20 turns deal. If we sign peace with Persia in less than 20 turns our reputation would take a serious blow.
Therefore, any alliances against Persia are dangerous commitments.
Furthermore, I don't know how we can possibly convince the Russians to attack France without declaring war on France as well (within a military alliance). In any case, we already have a trade route to Russia (naval route from Apolytonia to Rome, land route from Rome to Russia).

[Honor]

Shiber: good call on the practicality of the Aztecs and Persians. IF only the AIs were better at smelling blood in the water... but thst's a lot to ask for. Also, good call on the trade route through rome to russia. I hadn't really looked at that.

Hypothetical Q for all: why don't the AIs like to fight each other?

[Shiber]

Well, I haven't seen you around before so I'm guessing you're new. If you are new then you've missed the grand war we had which included Greece, Germany, Aztecs, England and America.
We haven't witnessed any wars in Abananaba Minor yet (the southern part of the continent, home of the Romans, Russians, Babylonians and Iroquois).

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by XOR
the people in those french cities should be taught to speak our language.

D*** straight!

[Honor]

I should have been little more clear about what I meant: the AI govs rarely fight meaningful wars that don't include the human player... once in a while, they'll declare war on each other without your inolvement, but usually those wars end with a maximum of one or two small cities changing hands. If you want to have a decisive war, it seems like you need to be in the middle of it. (For example I did set up a 3v2 war once, where I was one of the 2 and watched as my Zulu ally lose 3 of 6 cities to the Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks.)

[Aggie]

Definitely speed is the key. If we win quickly in 1turn there is no chance of an alliance and no war wearniness.
Perhaps 3 knights can go to chicago and 2knights and wc goto washington and the other attacks go as planned.
Aggie

[Donegeal]

Speed is not the key, it is the only way. Any war with America MUST be done in one turn. Germany is itching for a fight and would go to war with us for next to nothing. If this happens, Our forces would be out of place to defend our cities as they would be tied up in Pina Colada when the would be needed in El Nino.

One turn American War!

[Arnelos]

Wow, the thread de-cloaked now... eery

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Honor
I should have been little more clear about what I meant: the AI govs rarely fight meaningful wars that don't include the human player... once in a while, they'll declare war on each other without your inolvement, but usually those wars end with a maximum of one or two small cities changing hands. If you want to have a decisive war, it seems like you need to be in the middle of it. (For example I did set up a 3v2 war once, where I was one of the 2 and watched as my Zulu ally lose 3 of 6 cities to the Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks.)

Actually, I've seen (rare) cases where this has not been true. One example is that I played a game on a huge map where I (China) was the dominant power on one continent and Persia and Greece were the dominant powers on the other continent. Persia completely annexed Egypt and Russia while Greece mostly annexed Babylon and was fighting Rome - this throughout much of the late middle age and early industrial age. Later in the same game, the Aztecs (on a third continent with America, Germany, and England) invaded America and took much of it over before I (China) intervened and took over the aztecs. On that third continent, the Germans and Americans had been at war with the English and Aztecs (both sides allied against their opponents).

I could go on, but that one game had an absolute TON of AI-vs-AI wars where they seriously devoted to the conflicts.

This said, however, I will agree that this game I played a few months ago is notable because it is such an amazing exception. I have also noticed that MOST games go by where the AI players NEVER fight one another throughout the entire game unless YOU are the cause of the conflict. My most recent 2 games are good examples of this.

I honestly don't know what leads the AI's to go to war... it would be interesting to figure out (or simply hear from Firaxis or whatever...) what the algorythm is behind whether the AI goes to war... would be VERY interesting to learn that. I suspect, from my own experience, that at least part of the algorithm must have to do with whether a hegemonic power exists (typically the human player). For instance:

IF human player is hegemonic power THEN AI players will refrain from fighting one another (in order to aggressively trade techs with each other and hopefully catch up to the hegemon or at least keep them in check)

IF no hegemonic power exists or especially if the human player is not hegemonic THEN AI players may feel free to invade one another as they see fit.

Anecdotally, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what Firaxis had in mind...

[Shiber]

Arnelos, I think you're right.
I've experienced similar behavior and it's very possible that this is indeed what Firaxis had in mind.

[XOR]

Bah, do whatever you want then, I just say to get the americans as soon as possible instead of as fast as possible. We still have the Persians to deal with.

[History Guy]

In my opinion, we can take out the Americans in about three turns at most, but I think we should get Chicago first.

My question, however, is this:

How close are German ties to America? Would Bismarck attack us to avenge Mr. Lincoln even if he goes out before he can contact the Germans for assistance? What I mean to say is, when the Americans are gone, will the Germans instinctively attack? I know that Bismarck is a warmonger, and a powerful enemy, and I know that catching us while attacking Lincoln and Xerxes and declaring war would be very dangerous indeed. This is why it is so imperative that we take out Lincoln in a single turn altogether, so that he doesn't get the chance to establish a military alliance with Germany. But, would Germany attack us even after Lincoln was gone, considering Emperor Otto's intense hatred of our people?

[Shiber]

I think that if you renegotiate peace when its diplomatically possible and instead of continuing the treaty you cancel it (thus declaring war), you don't have to wait 5 turns to be able to diplomatically contact the AI. Rather than that, you can sign a peace treaty the next turn or even during the same turn that you declared war.
If anyone can confirm this, then if the government decides to make this a 1 turn war in order not to allow the AIs any time to ally against us, we'll be able to sign peace with the Americans in the unlikely event that we are not able to take all their cities in one turn.

[Donegeal]

If we do a 1 turn war against America, there should still be an order to what cities we attack, not much of one, but at least an order. The only rule to this order would be to attack the capitol last. If we attack the capitol any other time, another city would instantly become the new capitol and would then become the next size city (ie village becomes a town, town becomes metroplis). The larger the city, the better the defensive bonuses of the units in that city.

[GhengisFarb™]

Not necessarily on topic, bu what's the plan for Rheims and Chartres?

[Inverse Icarus]

i love 1 turn wars

but i'd use 4 knights (or knight/wc mix) on their "main" cities, no matter how small they are. just to be safe

and then france... bwaaaahahaha

i salute aggie, and all other apolytonians who participate in the war academy. you have not only filled my shoes, you have humbled me with your excellence.

[GePap]

The Americans are alone- they are extremely weak and poor also. They are far behind in techs and have nothing to trade: no one will stick thei necks out for Abe.

If we want to minimize the diplomatic impact, as I said, we could ally with the Aztecs against the Americans. Make aslightly better friend for a while with Tenochtitlan and make other civs less likely to intervene.

Going along with what Arnelos said: We ave become number one civ, but only slightly in front of Greece, so we are not really hegemonic- thouh AI behavior towards us may change now that we are #1, not #2. I think a war with france will be more dilomatically challenging than one against America. France has more money and territory, more terrain, and ebsides, French territory is in a valuable strategic position.

I see three posible scenerios about a war with france: Either all goes well, is us vs. them and its done in 8-10 turns, or other civs, mainly Rome, decide to pick off French cities as we advance: the vulture scenerio, or the French, as they didi last time, get a ouple of other civs, most like germany and someone else to go to war with us.

May I add a last point. It seems o me the AI is somewhat slow in upograding their armies in peacetime. Many civs can make knights, but only us and the aztecs have- the only civs at war that can make them. If other civs o to war, even among themselves, we would soon face much bigger and dealier enemy forces. We have to make sure to plan for quick and decisive attacks. This is more ture of a war wth France, since the Americans are so weak a one turn war, which is very desirable, is very possible.

[Robber Baron]

I think fears that wiping out America would provoke a German attack are well grounded.
Not that we shouldn't take out the Yanks regardless. We just need to be ready, that's all -- with beefed up defences in our cities bordering Germany, and a mobile counterattack force ready. These elements represent vital components of an American war plan, IMO.