My strategy for fighting a 2 front war in the ancient era...

[werdhertz]

This strategy concentrates on the greeks as youre Civ of choice, Of course, you can use any other Civlization too, just substitute Hoplite for spearman, and for every 1 Hoplite, there should be 2 Spearmen.

Every war i wage is fast, to the point, and always planned out. I HATE being stuck in a prolonged war of attrition, when i could be using that valuable time building my Empire Culturally and Technologically.

If you disagree with anything, please say so, so others can see why, and so i can posibly adjust my own strategy as well.

------------------------------------------------------------

I usually wait until i have a well established border with the Civilization i want to kill, pillage, rape, murder, and all around be a bad guy too simply because it gives me plenty of time to build up the forces i`ll need, and have the roads connected for quick troop movement.

I like to have (although 2/3 of the time this wont be possible) two fronts to move on. This is most useful if i either (a)dont have the gold per turn available to build up a REALLY huge army, or (b)i`m just to plain impatient.... I`ll form around 2 stacks of various infantry, on one front. It doesnt matter which, just as long as you chose it to bear the main assault. These stacks, in a perfect world, would be fortified on mountains or hills or forests or whatever will give you the extra defensive bonus before time, and possibly have the route of attack planned out with either a traded map, or you explored the territory before they settled it, or with the worker as a recon unit, but more on that later.

A stack usually consists of around 3 Hoplites, anywheres from 5 to 10 Horseman (they are excellent, as they can attack, and if they are wounded retreat) and as many Catapults as possible for bombarding (Its funny how when Civ3 was first released, people were talking about how useless bombarding is).

Now that was my first front, where the main assault was going to come from. My second front will be noticeably weaker. This is the front that will move in once the Civ is distracted and has pulled the might of his force towards my larger armies on front 1. It will usually consist of the same units, but with either less of them per stack, or less stacks completely. Of course, naturally, this could be reversed. The weak stack could be the distraction, while the strong multiple stacks could be the ones to move in after the enemy Civ has reacted. Thats up to you.

The last phase of my troop placement will be to have either 1 horseman, one on each front, or multiple horseman stacked, (2 is perfect, so if one gets defeated, the second is still avialable) and a Hoplite to travel behind them. I use these for fast attack guerilla units to get behind the enemy lines and cut off ALL Iron resources, and any luxury resources i can find. Cutting the Iron supply is imperative, as it stops the enemy Civ from producing anymore Swordsman (If they have any available), because a wave of Swordsman getting in behind your 2 prong attack can be VERY painful strategically. The Hoplite that travels behind the Horseman is, of course, used to fortify and guard the position over the Iron resources. use as many as you feel the need for, although i usually only use as many as previously mentioned.

Now once i have these formed, I will usually send in 2 workers, on each front into the enemy Civilizations borders for recon. These will go along the front line of the Civs cities, just to make sure of what units they have as theyre main defenders and also to see if the Civ has any offensive units nearby that could be used for a shockingly quick areresponse, or in a position where they could break through and attack one of my own cities outright. This worker strategy i find is very useful also if you want to wage war at the beggining of an era and either dont have espionage researched yet (for troop placements) or just dont have a spy available. If you wanted to see if the Civ had fortified Pikeman, or had gone up in the world to Rifleman, this would work nicely.

Now, youre probably saying the enemy Civilization would just tell me to remove them. This IS the case sometimes, but i have found more often than not the Civ will tell me to move them once, i will agree to it, but i will keep them in the enemy territory to continue the search. If the Civ tells you again to remove them, than it will usually make them move automatically. To remedy this, you could give the civ something in advance to make them have a nice attitude towards you. After that, they will usually only tell you the once and let you continue on youre way.

Once all of this is determined, the final phase begins. You will have youre 2 workers out of the way behind your lines of course by now, and any other precautions you feel are neccasary in place that are unique to youre game plan. So you declare war on this turn, the same turn you can move your forces. Declareing war instead of using the logical sneak attack is best so you wont have a hit on your reputation that will haunt you through the rest of the game.

I will move the main front in first, using an individual Horseman to cut off the enemies road that connects to my own. This way, if they happen to get troops in behind me they will be stalled on the terrain for a turn, quite possibly long enough to get needed reinforcements up to meet them.

I You should have chosen the cities that are targets. I send a stack towards a city each, this early in the game it is usually enough, be prepared to possibly take a FEW casualities though. After your main invasion force, the enemy Civ naturally will get angered and attempt a counter-attack on the next turn. This is when you move your troops along the second front in. Cut the road leading back to you (if they even have any) the same as before and continue on to the chosen city.

I usually only start wars because i either want land, a resource, a luxury resource, or a number of other things, i never do it for domination because my style never gives me enough troops for an all out invasion. Hopefully, after capturing these 3 or so cities, the AI will want to bargain for peace (demand some tech, whatever). If not, keep the assault going same as before and move Hoplites being produced back in youre borders forwards to occupy the cities you captures (if you didnt raze them). Or, garrison the cities and be prepared for a defensive stand, if you only wanted the land, resources, etc, and dont want a full out conflict.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Thats my strategy! I dont use Swoardsman myself because they dont upgrade, and are a waste to me. I find the Horseman much more logical, as it can attack, and withdraw and heal, and then attack again. Not to mention its better movement rate.

Once again, This is designed for a FAST, CAPTURE THE CITIES AND DECLARE PEACE, war. You will not have the defences if the enemy breaches your lines and enters a good few tiles into youre borders, thats why you pillage theyre roadways at the beggining. Do not try this with a seige in mind, unless you have another large mass such as this ready to advance after the first wave captures those first cities.

Comments, and everything else are all welcome!

[DaveMcW]

Very well thought-out plan. You will probably find it effective to walk in a huge circle around your territory, beating up one neighbor then moving on to the next. (Also know as "oscillating war".)

But I have a complaint - why don't you like swordmen?!

If you already have hoplites and catapults, another 1-move unit won't slow you down at all. Swordmen can't retreat, but they simply win more often because they have 50% higher attack than horsemen. And if you are going against a unit with 1 hitpoint (after bombardment) horsemen can't retreat either.

You say swordmen don't upgrade, but they are already the ultimate upgrade - from warriors! If you time it right you can discover iron working, hook up your iron, and instantly upgrade 10-20 warriors into swordmen. That early in the game 10 swordmen will run over anything and you don't even need catapult support.

As the swordmen die off you can replace them with horsemen/knights, but don't avoid such a powerful unit for its time just because it will be obsolete in 1000 years.

[werdhertz]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
Very well thought-out plan. You will probably find it effective to walk in a huge circle around your territory, beating up one neighbor then moving on to the next. (Also know as "oscillating war".)

But I have a complaint - why don't you like swordmen?!

If you already have hoplites and catapults, another 1-move unit won't slow you down at all. Swordmen can't retreat, but they simply win more often because they have 50% higher attack than horsemen. And if you are going against a unit with 1 hitpoint (after bombardment) horsemen can't retreat either.

You say swordmen don't upgrade, but they are already the ultimate upgrade - from warriors! If you time it right you can discover iron working, hook up your iron, and instantly upgrade 10-20 warriors into swordmen. That early in the game 10 swordmen will run over anything and you don't even need catapult support.

As the swordmen die off you can replace them with horsemen/knights, but don't avoid such a powerful unit for its time just because it will be obsolete in 1000 years.

Thats true, but in my games, i never have that many warriors to begin with. Usually about 5 or so before i start my cycle of spitting out Settlers every certain amount of turns. I used to use Swordsman a lot, but recently adopted the Horseman approach. I DO use Swordsman though if im not the Greeks because im scared senseless of being caught without my Hoplites with an army of Swordsman bearing down on me lol

I might try what you suggested though, and keep the horseman for pillaging needs.

[Meshelic]

I myself have used the feint with a smaller (or larger) army and attack in the rear or side when their main battle forces are chasing your original army down. I particularly enjoy archipelago fighting, that is, where you can attack on land, send units to sea and place them behind enemy lines, then generally just rip them a new one.

I always prefer to have 2-4 battle groups ready at all times, especially in modern times, when that number could rise anywhere from 7-15. When I say battle group I mean either an Army (begun from a leader) or an army that is a stack of units, with enough units for defense and enough units for offense, or bombardment. I also like splitting my forces up depending on mobility. The faster blitzkrieg style forces raise hell and escape, all the while giving enough time for the main body of troops to join in the fray.

[werdhertz]

Originally posted by Meshelic
I myself have used the feint with a smaller (or larger) army and attack in the rear or side when their main battle forces are chasing your original army down. I particularly enjoy archipelago fighting, that is, where you can attack on land, send units to sea and place them behind enemy lines, then generally just rip them a new one.

I always prefer to have 2-4 battle groups ready at all times, especially in modern times, when that number could rise anywhere from 7-15. When I say battle group I mean either an Army (begun from a leader) or an army that is a stack of units, with enough units for defense and enough units for offense, or bombardment. I also like splitting my forces up depending on mobility. The faster blitzkrieg style forces raise hell and escape, all the while giving enough time for the main body of troops to join in the fray.

thats almost the exact same style of play as me.