Incredible!

[Keeper of Hell]

I've been away from Civ3 for awhile, so although I remembered that towards the endgame some inequalities started showing up, I had no idea of the scope. The defender bias has shocked me anew. In any situation of a MA attacking a fortified MI in a metropolis, the odds of the attacker winning are significantly less than 30%. It's ridiculous! Did the programmers just decide that if a civilization managed to survive through to the modern times, it deserved to become a permanent fixture? It's practically impossible to budge a well-established empire, even with overwhelming numerical superiority on the attacker's side! Now I remember damn well why I had all the terrain and city defense bonuses tweaked.

[BigDork]

A good way to improve the odds is to bombard the city first...a lot. Depending on how many defenders are in the city and how few attackers I have I'll bombard it down till it's below 6 and all the defenders are at 1hp. Pretty much guarantees that you'll take the city. Just make sure you defend the artillery.

BigD

[Willem]

Originally posted by BigDork


BigD

I hope your handle indicates humility, and not some sort of inferiority complex!

[vmxa1]

A fortified MI in a metro will benefit from some serious defensive bonuses. Giving its high defense value, yes it will be hard to take down. The best means to do it are with combined arms (planes and arty) or MA armies. An army with 4 MA's is likely to beat the MI, not a cinch, but I like my chances. Best to bust the metro down to under size 6 and reduce those bonuses.

[bongo]

MI's fortified in metros are supposed to be a very hard target. You just have to build an army that is able to cope with them. Artillery, bombers, loads of MI's and multiple MA armies.

[Pyrodrew]

In any situation of a MA attacking a fortified MI in a metropolis, the odds of the attacker winning are significantly less than 30%. It's ridiculous!

I like to preserve the cities I conquer, unless I know the city has nothing worthwhile.
Since the most likely unit to survive will always defend 1st, I've found defeating the 1st asap important to my strategy. I go against the trend that says armies are only good for defense here. Not only are the odds are in MY favor of the army surviving over the MI(even on Hill), but I *know* what it feels like to see MAs die against a vet MI & see that MI turn elite... then see the next MA die & see that MI produce a leader. Ugg! So if I see an elite MI on a hill... I definitely send an army. The army also saves me from having those 2 MAs die individually. If the army still has a turn after the 1st attack, I wait so I can use it to help quiet the resistance.
Also if you're attacking an AI city & it seems to have an endless amount of troops in it... that may be true! Investigate City is costly, but in the Modern Age it's not as bad & definitely not as costly as sending endless units to their doom. Recently, the Aztecs had a city with what seemed like endless troops guarding it. When I finally investigated the city, it still had another 20+ units in there... while oddly enough other cities only had 3-4 units total. No Wonder was there, so the only logic I could see the AI doing this is because the city had lots of enemy borders around it & therefore considered it a high risk. After I investigated I was able to take 3 other cities that turn, rather than waste troops on that 1. My ally took on that city instead & that city was so tough my ally wasn't able to conquer any other cities. When my ally finally defeated it they razed it - perfect for me to drop my settler there the next turn.

[Coxy]

To take down a metropolis with multiple MIs fortified within, you're going to need to attack with a *lot* of MAs in the same turn.
Recovering HP, and all that.

Forgive me if this seems second-nature to you, but you said that you've been away from the game for a while.

[Hurricane]

Have you ever heard about the term "combined arms"? Why bash yourself bllody with MA's, when you can soften up the defences with artillery and bombers.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Keeper of Hell
It's practically impossible to budge a well-established empire, even with overwhelming numerical superiority on the attacker's side!

Not so! God gave you Artillery for a reason.


Here is an example of Regular Infantry taking cities defended by dozens of Mechs and counterattacking Tanks. Be patient. Let the Big Guns do their work.


http://www.zachriel.com/gotm14/RulesofWar.htm

[CerberusIV]

The basic attacker vs. defender odds don't change much over the ages.

swordsman vs spearman - 1.5 to 1
knight vs pikeman - 1.33 to 1
cavalry vs musketman - 1.5 to 1
cavalry vs rifleman - 1 to 1
tank vs infantry - 1.6 to 1
MA vs MI - 1.33 to 1

What increases are the defence bonuses in cities due to city size (as cities get bigger) and improvements (civil defence and radar towers). The answer is simply to take these away with bombardment units.

You may not capture much of a city at the end of it but cities can regrow and the AI doesn't have that city any more.

[woody]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The basic attacker vs. defender odds don't change much over the ages.

swordsman vs spearman - 1.5 to 1
knight vs pikeman - 1.33 to 1
cavalry vs musketman - 1.5 to 1
cavalry vs rifleman - 1 to 1
tank vs infantry - 1.6 to 1
MA vs MI - 1.33 to 1

Yeah, but that's just for each round of attack, and there are several rounds of attack for each battle. So, a 1.5:1 attack:defense ratio works out to a 60% chance of winning each round, but about a 71% chance of winning if both units are vetrans.

But with all the defense bonuses, the odds are usually in the defender's favor, which means the defender gets the advantage of those multiple "dice rolls".

[PrinceBimz]

The art of combined warfare (which civ3 does very well) is a must for taking large heavily defended areas. I use airpower, artillery and ships to soften up those areas. These areas can be either cities or just fortified positions. Like in the real world, use aircraft in large numbers and strike, strike, strike until those defending garrisons are down to 1 strength point each. In addition you can use ships offshore provided it is a coastal area, and bombard over and over turn after turn. Then nearby artillery can open fire. Then that enemy position should be beaten down so all you will need is infantry to march in and take it.

Don't worry about damaging a city, this is war and a city will get damaged no matter how you look at it with all of the necessary bombardment. If you worry too much it can cost you and you won't even be able to take it over. Another thing if a city is very hard to take and you can't get enough forces to do so, bombard improvements from a long distance using aircraft. If they have many defending fighters, forget bombers and use fighters instead. Remember fighters are more versatile then bombers and can recon and bomb in addition to air superiority. Although fighters are not as strong as bombers in bombardment they can still bombard to an acceptable level.

[Keeper of Hell]

You're absolutely right. I've never been a guy to diversify my forces. I suppose it's about time I got an air force together, as I currently have nothing but MAs, MIs, and Workers. One question, though: how effective are SAM Batteries? Should I be worrying about them?

[Carver]

dupity dupe

[Carver]

With the latest couple patches SAMs work better than before, but not nearly as good as fighters. My advice is make sure you have (at least) about the same number of fighters as your enemy has bombers, and position them properly! When you're attacking, I wouldn't worry about SAMs, just keep a'bombin'.

[ruby_maser]

The hardest part of conducting offensive wars for me is the logistics of having to diversify, to come at a city with airpower and seapower (if possible) on top of a good cross-section of conventional ground units instead of just going it with as many MA's as possible.

One trick I learned that helped me get over the inertia to diversify was to try to lose as few military units as possible. I'm not keeping count or anything, just simply trying to come up with a plan conceived well-enough to cut my losses to a minimum. Its a point of pride; otherwise, the game is not about strategic war... only numbers.

[Willem]

Originally posted by ruby_maser
Its a point of pride; otherwise, the game is not about strategic war... only numbers.

It's not just about pride, it's also common sense. The more units you have that survive one war, the more you'll have if another war breaks out. Having to rebuild your military because of heavy losses can only leave you at a disadvantage in the long run.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by Willem


It's not just about pride, it's also common sense. The more units you have that survive one war, the more you'll have if another war breaks out. Having to rebuild your military because of heavy losses can only leave you at a disadvantage in the long run.

Heavy losses can mean the next war starts very soon. Neighbours look over the fence and notice your little military and your juicy real estate and then get stuck into you.

[Pyrodrew]

There is never an absolute of always use numbers or always use bombardment on cities. It depends on the situation. Sometimes Propaganda is the best choice, but not often.

[Tattila the Hun]

Don't casualties also increase war wearines?

Question, has anyone ever succeeded in propaganda?

[Pyrodrew]

Don't casualties also increase war wearines?

If they do it's minor, unlike enemy troops in your territory or your troops in enemy territory (which bombarding boats count as).

Question, has anyone ever succeeded in propaganda?

I have. I believe it works best on disordered cities who have a low population of the controlling civ & are far from their capital, especially if they are not connected to the capital via road, harbor, or airport. Even then the odds seem low.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
There is never an absolute of always use numbers or always use bombardment on cities. It depends on the situation. Sometimes Propaganda is the best choice, but not often.

Absolutely right. In the situation I mentioned above, I was fighting Infantry v. Mechs, so a little "equalization" was required. But every game is different. Sometimes even core enemy cities will join your Empire voluntarily -- without a shot being fired (flip).


http://www.zachriel.com/gotm13/bc0470-Culture.htm

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Absolutely right. In the situation I mentioned above, I was fighting Infantry v. Mechs, so a little "equalization" was required. But every game is different. Sometimes even core enemy cities will join your Empire voluntarily -- without a shot being fired (flip).


http://www.zachriel.com/gotm13/bc0470-Culture.htm

I just had a look at your website Zach, looks good.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Willem
I just had a look at your website Zach, looks good.

Thanks. Actually, I was hoping it was relevant to Keeper of Hell's original thread. The idea is that there are many ways to expand your empire.

Of course, historically, military conquest has always been very popular. Bombardment and overwhelming odds in the immediate zone of combat are the most important tactics in this regard, which should answer Keeper of Hell's concern.

However, don't forget there are other means to expand your empire, as well; such as extortion after an extended war, and cultural conversion. The latter doesn't even require a military.

[BigDork]

Originally posted by Willem
I hope your handle indicates humility, and not some sort of inferiority complex!

I'll leave that up to you to decide.

BigD