Is this war practicable?

[JPGray]

As France, I've developed a few groups of 3-4 knights near to cavalry upgrade, and a few groups of 3-4 musketeers and 5 artillery.

I am mashed against Persia (6 cities, lacks iron) one city away from my capitol to the south, and I allowed three colonies to be built on the edge of my northern borders in the tundra which may speedily be absorbed with minimal loss.

The goals of this war would be to secure an isthmus which separates the two large bodies of land on a pangea map, and to become the unchallenged tech leader. To do this, I would also have to destroy England (8 cities, has Iron, Gunpowder) and Germany (4 cities, lacks Iron).

I have a dozen cities, one a large colony (size 12) on Germany's northern borders, sandwiched between it and Persia to its north.

This is a standard map on Monarch, versus eight opponents. The strongest AIs are all on the western landmass, whereas the three tech giants are on the eastern with me. I have a one tech lead, and imagine removing Persia and England would allow me to dominate tech and set myself for any victory I choose, except perhaps Diplomatic. A bee-line for cavalry may be speedily accomplished, and I have built Sun-Tzu's. Leonardo's and the Sistine are also on the way (9 and 12 turns, respectively).

I have held off on the FP in anticipation of this move, but with the north-south bounds of my civ expanding to about ten or eleven city-radii, would corruption be too crippling to make this worthwhile even with the FP? I am in Democracy, and am unaccustomed to war weariness in Monarch. Would the WW be too great to bother with a protracted war? Likewise, how much of a reputation hit am I liable to receive? What is the least diplomatically damaging way to begin an aggressive war? I have ROP with Persia and England, and since a few Persian units (spearman and settler groups) have entered my territory, it would be a simple matter to cordon them off and demand their removal into a war once the ROP has expired. This strategy has worked before, but my military may be too strong now.

Any suggestions?

[DaveMcW]

If you cancel the ROP (with no units in their territory) you won't get a rep hit. But war weariness gets quite bad under Democracy if you are the one who starts the war.

I would do the cavalry upgrade and blitz as many cities as possible, suing for peace once all cavalry are killed/injured. Then rebuild your army and go for the second target. 20 turns after the peace treaty you can declare war again and eliminate them.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Do you have many luxuries? I have found that wars even in republic can be attainable for 10-15 turns at a time if you have 4 or so lux, even with a huge spread out Empire over many islands.

What I do in that case is build up half a dozen Infantry of some kind with some Cavalryu and loads of artillery, move the whole shebang slowly to an enemy city, bombard it to bits, tkae it, leave some troops behind and, once healed, press on. This works wonders and the stack is practicallty iinvulnerable.

[MoonWolf]

Do you also have cathedrals in your cities? Helps against WW when you have Sistine.

But back to strategy, does Persia have Musketmen yet? If not, maybe you don't need more than 2 cavalries pr. Persian city to begin with. Produce more of them as backup and you should be able to take out Persia before they acquire iron or salpeter through trade.

You might risk military alliances against you, so you must act fast. Next in line would be Germany, then build your army up again, and attack England before they get Riflemen. Remember there are different WW for each war; so the WW from the war against Persia won't carry on after they are wiped out even if you start a new war.

[bongo]

The biggest problem here will be WW, under republic you can wage a limited war almost forever, under democracy WW will soon cripple your empire, especially if you suffer high losses or there are large number of foreign troops in your territory. Large numbers of your troops in enemy territory also cause WW but on a smaller scale than the other effects. The optimal solution will be to make one of them declare war on you(delays the impact of WW) attack him until you have reached your objectives or WW becomes too rough. Then go after the other. WW seems to work on a per-civ basis so once you make peace with an enemy you start fresh on your next war with another. If you need to, start a new war when the peace-treaty expire.

You will get a reputation hit if you a)Declare a war with your troops in enemy territory or b)Break an active deal(deals that have not lasted for 20 turns.)

Could you post a mini-map?

[JPGray]

I finished off the Germans and the Persians in about ten turns. There was really never any danger, as each had not received iron until a few turns before war was declared. I am eyeing the English now, and am gearing up for an inevitably more difficult war against them. They formed a tech combine with India that has damaged my economy, and after their destruction my empire will be effectively sealed off except through either the north or south isthmus, or by water route. WW was never a problem, as good relations persisted and allowed me to attain seven luxuries. I was disappointed to see my cannons were relatively worthless, but hopefully with railroads now connecting my cities, a few workers may help to bring them to the front by building rails in newly conquered English territory. They were too slow and had too small a range to be effective in a road-based blitz. Does setting them up on high ground give a range bonus?

[bongo]

No, artillery range is independent of terrain.

Lots of people here claim that artillery are practically useless. I don't, they are very useful for defence or to soften hard targets but as you saw for yourself. They are not very useful for blitzkrieg due to their low speed.

[JPGray]

I am in the middle of a campaign against the English, where much of my core cavalry force has evaporated. It may have been too soon to invade. After having secured four cities in the first turn, jungles have delayed further attacks beyond assaults on London.

At any rate, the cannons are invaluable here in a way they were not in the previous two wars. Softening up the capitol, my cavalry was able to defeat with some regularity the riflemen England had recently upgraded for London's defense. There is considerable difficulty avoiding the culture flip. For this reason many riflemen are tied up which would otherwise be defending advance groups of cavalry.

It would be nice if artillery received a bombard effectiveness bonus for terrain if not one for range, since terrain differences impact the attributes of other units.

[bongo]

You should really study the mechanics behind CF. Once you know the details CF will change from major-pain-in-the-ass to minor annoyance. One tip is just to accept that CF will happen and plan for quick recapture. Cities where enemy cultural borders overlaps with city radius are at high risk. Cities will never flip during first turn, use that turn to stop resistance. The risk for CF gets much lower when there is no overlap(as you push the front forwards).

[Arrian]

Three basic things to do to avoid flippage (aside from wiping the enemy out, which removes all danger):

1) As bongo said, press forward, rolling back your opponents borders.

2) Starve and/or buy workers or settlers in captured cities you fear may flip, reducing them to size 1 and then allowing them to grow back. All new population will be of YOUR nationality.

3) Garrison wounded/obselete troops in the city while working on 1 and 2. If you think a city is a major flip-risk, then hold a few health attack troops just outside. If it flips, just re-take it. This is commonly referred to as the "IDGAFIYF" tactic (I don't give a **** if you flip)

-Arrian

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by JPGray

I was disappointed to see my cannons were relatively worthless, but hopefully with railroads now connecting my cities, a few workers may help to bring them to the front by building rails in newly conquered English territory. They were too slow and had too small a range to be effective in a road-based blitz. Does setting them up on high ground give a range bonus?

Until my land is fully railroaded, and I can zip large number of artillery pieces around to bombard enemy ships which are bombarding me, I have been unable to use them effectively in attack*. They are primarily defensive units for me. As is being suggested above, I garrison my wounded fast moving units in a city. I also bring up slow moving artillery escorted by a good number defensive units to garrison in those cities. Terrain dependant, I find behind the battle front, you'll get attacked by single fast movers, but rarely anything a good defense/artillery stack can't handle. I then relieve the fast movers of garrison duty with the d/a stacks, and send them back into the front.

Arrian: Now that I've seen it, I feel silly for never considering the "IDGAFIYF" tactic. Excellent tip.

*I've searched for a thread on effective use of artillery, but have not found one. It is the primary reason I won't play as Korea. If someone could point me to/start one, that would helpful.

[Arrian]

Pre-RRs, I typically use bombard units to soften up counterattacking AI units (archers/longbowmen/med infs/etc) to make damn sure my elite units don't get killed by a whim of the RNG.

It usually goes like this: Capture city, move beat up units + defenders & bombard units in. Wait 1-2 turns while attackers heal, meanwhile bombarding and killing anything the AI sends out. Lowers freak casualties - and indirectly aids leader generation.

Arty, with it's 2 tile range, is another story.

-Arrian

[bongo]

IDGAFIYF I didn't know that tactic had a name

[Arrian]

Yeah, I forget who came up with it, but it's a good one.

-Arrian

[JPGray]

I finished my assault on London by intrenching and bombarding it into submission. I found my cavalry took out conscript riflemen at an acceptable rate post-bombardment, and was willing to sacrifice three or four to get a foothold of roads (and free ivory). Generally I try to make the war go too fast to maximize leader production. It is my understanding the nature of the battle doesn't matter, just so long as the elite wins. For this reason, I always have elites mopping up the lone archers that seem to drift about aimlessly, but so far only one leader has been created, and for further wars, I chose to use it for an army. China is my next strongest foe, and I believe I will wait for tanks to invade. Thankfully I have a tiny isthmus as the only direct western border with China, although there is a larger land-bridge to the north where Mao may invade, thanks to a ROP with Japan and India. Either way, about two riflemen and a cannon per city ought to forestall any invasion. And guards on important resources, of course. Since all my cities are connected by rails, any other operation will be speedily dealth with.

So I think it is basically over. As soon as I deprive China of its massive production, India will cease to be a tech powerhouse, since its efforts will go unrewarded, or very nearly so. Whether Russia will have to be damaged or not remains to be seen, as it is next in size and power after China. During the China campaign, I will experiment with giving up cities to a foreign power, since I don't want them myself. Is it worth doing this, or is it better to raze? I read that a diplomatic penalty occurs for razing; is it severe? I imagine giving up large Chinese cities to an empire whose capitol is far, far away makes it as though the city nearly doesn't exist, as far as corruption is concerned. Then there is a likelihood of a flip and possible aggression by the remnant of China, which would be enjoyable. Unfortunately, except for a few early wars, I have been the only game in town. If I get too great a lead will the AIs avoid attacking each other?

Thanks for the advice on CF, I like the acronym strategy.

[PrinceBimz]

I use cannons and artillery for offense alot too. I like putting cannons and artillery pieces on mountain or hill terrain near an enemy city. It gives good defense. Also I make sure I am in range of some enemy improvements. Then I stack some defensive units with them. Next turn I open fire with the big guns and bust up all improvements. Then I move in, and start bombarding the city until the garrisons are weakened enough to move my troops in and capture the city.

Problem with this is sometimes you will destroy valuable city improvements such as harbors are libraries. You just have to take a chance though and hope you don't damage the city too much. Most of the time I don't care though and want to damage the city to make sure I can capture it.

On defense, cannons and artillery can come handy with that free shot. It hurts and will make a difference. Especially if you have a few of them in the city or a terrain.

[Master Zen]

You can also take advantage of the fact that most cities do not flip in the first turn or two. Take the city, heal units for one turn, then move em out to finish their healing. If the city flips you take it back easily. Happened to me in the AU SG, city flipped an I had like 8 legions outside! This was about 4 turns after I had taken it so I pretty much expected it sooner or later.

[JPGray]

I've defeated England, and am now moving on to attack China. India lost its tech advantage over the other civs as predicted when England's support was destroyed. Now China has the most territory, goods and science output barring myself. I have about 35% of the map, and a four tech lead. I'm pulling down about 500+ a turn. Completed my FP and now only a few fringe cities experience debilitating corruption. The nearly doubled income easily compensates for this concerning improvements.

I've established a few spies, and noticed that China has 74 Infantry units, to my about 34 Tanks. I plan to build four or five tank armies (four units each), and about sixty other tanks besides before invading. Since the tanks are so slow, I will hopefully have an opportunity to use Artillery in large numbers. Thanks to the peculiarities of the map, the only direct land route from China is a one-square isthmus. With a Japan ROP, another three city border to the north is open to China. Incidentally, I may just wait for Synthetic Fibers, since it is only two-three advances away.

In the war however, I don't want to keep the territory myself. The corruption would be too high to make it worthwhile. I plan to give these captured cities to other nations. Does this damage reputation? What is the result of giving away captured cities to other civilizations? If I return to China a half-dozen cities, will Mao's attitude improve from the inevitable Furious? I don't want to eliminate China, I just want to balance it out.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Artillery are my best friends...

You have to use them in numbers. Two or three artilerry of any sort are of severely limited use, yet 10+ and you can bombard anything to bits. I currently am playing with 24 Cannons, 5 Cavalry and 6 Musketeers/Med Inf in my main army. This is a very slow stack moving through enemy territory, but the Cavalry are there to scout ahead. I just trundle up to a city, weathering any attacks, and bombard the hell out of it. I usually manage to wipe the 3-5 Musketeer defenders all down to 1 or 2hp, then it's almost child's play for the Cavalry (and even the Med Inf.) to take them apart.

I can't wait for the mass upgrade to Artillery. That's the other great thinga bout Catapults/Cannons/Artillery. Cats and Cans are super cheap (20 shields for Catapults!), and require few if any resources, so any city not linked to Iron can build Catapults. Once they are obsolete they require merely a trifling to upgrade them to the next, deadly, weapon. Twenty-four Catapults are nasty, but 24 Artillery are phenomenal. And if you have done well to protect your stack with Musketeers, you have a big upgrade at once, with the defenders going to Infantry (def 4 to def 10), and the attackers a similarly massive upgrade in power. These upgrades appear in the middle of the expensive Industrial era, where you have to wait until the end to get any more land units to catch up in effectiveness.

[TheArsenal]

In my mind there is no question balanced stacks with artillery are better. But I almost never use them. My greatest concern with bringing slow moving bombard and defensive units along with fast attackers in offense is it gives the AI the chance to build more units, reinforce cities, and cause me more causalities. That is why I divide my stacks into fast movers for attack and defensive/bombard for later garrison when they get there.

But reading this started me thinking:

Since fast movers (as relative to comparable era's units) are generally lacking in defense and do take a beating when attacked/countered - I am now wondering if softening targets, and protection against counter attacks, may balance out potential losses due to the factors I described above.

I was also using the fast movers tactic to reduce WW, since I will fight short but overwhelming wars ... get in, gobble as much territory as possible before WW sets in, garrison and sue for peace (when the AI finally calms down and will come to the table, in 5-10 turns or so). But since units KIA also seems to factor into WW, I am also now wondering if defensive/bombard protection of my units buys me some extra turns to use them in offensive battle by reducing casualties.

That said, I am wary of trying this out on the Huge/Large maps I play on, which slow movement penalties are compounded. But it is worth experimenting with.

[Cookie Monster]

TheArsenal:

You raise some interesting points regarding slow/fast stacks. I'm not sure how to answer your question since your style of battle is different from mine. Let me share with you what I do.

Before the advent of tanks I stick to slow moving infantry stacks with adequate artillery support. My government type of choice is usually republic so that gives you little more time to fight before WW sets in. The idea is that the highest attack power unit is either a cavalry (Attack of 6) or infantry (aslo attack of 6) and the typical defender is defense of 10 (infantry). Keep in mind this is all taking place in the industrial age before tanks are invented. The artillery softens up the defending infantry and then my attacking infantry can then have a chance to win against a defending infantry. I've noticed that the AI loves going after cavalry stacks and I only use cavalry to perform lightning fast improvement plundering. Artillery bombarding improvements takes too long IMO. Once the tank is invented then I send out stacks of tanks to quickly capture as many cities as possible before war weariness sets in.

[JPGray]

I imagined losing cities contributed to WW, but I didn't know that losing any battle did the same. Is there a corresponding bonus for winning battles, or do they have only a neutral/negative effect?

Artillery may be so effective as to be unbalanced. A stack of twenty, as above mentioned, will reduce a city to tatters. Perhaps a reputation hit should occur for destroying citizens or cultural buildings?

[stonewall]

Originally posted by JPGray

Artillery may be so effective as to be unbalanced. A stack of twenty, as above mentioned, will reduce a city to tatters. Perhaps a reputation hit should occur for destroying citizens or cultural buildings?

A couple of thoughts:
1) from an historic perpesctive, a reputation hit certainly depends on the era and what is considered "normal". For example, look at the city desctruction that occurred in WWII. I don't think that it caused an international outcry during that time. Of course, today that kind of warfare would not be tolerated because we have the technology to avoid it.

2) Adding a rep hit from destroying citizens or cultural buildings should only be implemented if you can control the target of your artillery, otherwise you would really be gambling your reputation if you used artillery against a city.

[JPGray]

As it stands, a large group of artillery combined with a few offensive units and one or two solid defensive units is a match for any city in the game. Even a Chinese city with seven Mech Inf was easily ruined down to three defenders with one hit point each by a stack of artillery and a series of cruise missiles. Up to seven Modern Armors could die taking the city normally (that Militaristic trait can be nasty), whereas if handled patiently, none will.

I agree that in earlier ages, bombardment was just routine, but perhaps after the United Nations, it would be frowned upon? I also think the bombardment system could stay the same--a penalty for wrecking a cultural building or killing civilians might give precision strikes a better function than they currently have. We don't just shoot an MLRS into a big city these days. But I think the penalty would have to be fairly light--similar to razing a city?

[bongo]

The AI has some problems coping with large powerful stacks. If the stacks are strong enough they just leave them alone, not very good strategy.

Can you target units and buildings with stealth bombers?(I have never used them) If yes, maybe additional WW could be added each time a pop were killed? Giving an incentive to attack with precision weapons, saving some lives. Cultural buildings are destroyed when conquered anyway so a penalty for bombarding them to pieces wouldn't be very logical.

[stonewall]

Originally posted by JPGray

I agree that in earlier ages, bombardment was just routine, but perhaps after the United Nations, it would be frowned upon? I also think the bombardment system could stay the same--a penalty for wrecking a cultural building or killing civilians might give precision strikes a better function than they currently have. We don't just shoot an MLRS into a big city these days. But I think the penalty would have to be fairly light--similar to razing a city?

The penalty would be ok if, like you said, it took effect after UN. However, I think you should also get a new unit, say Modern Artillery, that has the same specs as Artillery but adds a Precision ability that lets you choose between targeting units or improvements.

In the current rules, I don't use artillery too much because I like to try and save as many city improvements as possible when I take over the city. However, I do use artillery if the city doesn't have any improvements, I need that city NOW, or I am low on units. This all changes when I get cruise missiles, then I just blast units in heavily fortified cities with them.

bongo:

the Precision Strike ability for air units lets them choose to target a specific city improvement. I rarely use this because I like to save the city improvements, not destroy them. I would really like this ability if it gave me the choice to target only units. I wish there was an option for this in the editor.