To stack or not to stack...

Anaximander · August 28, 2003, 14:30

Hello all, I have a general stratagy question that has been nagging me for the last few days. What is the best stratagy of laying out your troops? Is it best to put them all in one large SOD, or spread them out? Generally, I spread my troops out. Especially when its fast moving units. I might have three or four groups of horseman/knights/calvary/etc., with 6+ units each faning out accros an enemies territory. Although this may look cool, I am starting to wonder if it is a really effective strategy. Any suggestions?

realpolitic · August 28, 2003, 14:58

Since no one is jumping into discussing this, I guess the answer is it depends. If the enemy has railroads and you have cavalry, then getting around to various targets will be easy, concentrating your attacks won't slow you down much, so there isn't a big downside. Early in the game, you might not have many troops, so you won't want to take many risks, so again concentrate. Many other times I split my troops in half, so I can hit targets in half the time, without overexpending myself.

UnOrthOdOx · August 28, 2003, 15:00

STACK!

Make stacks. Only multiple stacks if you have enough for multiple targets. IE, say you think it will take 5 knights to take X city and 6 to take Y city. Send 10 to attack X and 10 to attack Y.

Other than that, stack them high. The only time to spread out is to starve a city to under size 6.

Arrian · August 28, 2003, 15:06

I go with large stacks. If I have enough troops that I feel I can put together multiple stacks which will each be able to overwhelm their objectives, then great.

If you fan out as you describe, you increase the chance that one or more of your groups will lose. A couple of bad random number rolls, and your guys could be in deep trouble. Particularly if you are not covering your horsemen/knights/cavalry with defenders (spear/pike/musket/rifle/inf). Though sending 4 groups of 6 horsies each *may* result in the swift destruction of the enemy, it also may result in heavy losses for you, thus prolonging the war.

Even if I do divide my forces, it's usually into 2 large groups, with maybe 1 smaller group sent after an outlier city (a city you know has like 1-2 AI units in it).

I'm cautious with my attack troops. My attacks move a bit slower (though I still like to use lots of mobile units like horsemen) because of that, but my losses are lower. I used to use a pure horseman attack force in the ancient age. Pure horsemen. Nothing else (this meant 25-30 horsies). Results? Swift destruction of my foes, but I always lost a fair number of horsies to counterattack, or I was forced to rushbuy or poprush regular spearmen in captured towns to prevent it.

Now I bring vet spears along, include some swordsmen, and *presto* my casualties are way down. I still poprush or rushbuy some defensive troops in captured towns, but I generally don't have to rely on them.

Anyway, long story short = big stacks are the way to go, most of the time.

-Arrian

badams52 · August 28, 2003, 15:10

What UnO said.

I generally only split stacks when I know I have an overwhelming number of troops and want to take cities twice as fast as I could otherwise. Generally my rule of thumb is for each stack to have enough troops to take 1 city.

Often that means a stack of 6-8 swordsmen with enough spearmen to leave behind in the city once it's taken. I might go as low as 4 or 5 swordsmen in a stack, but if I do so it's going at a lone city and will be used to exclusively take that one city.

For knights/cavalry, I know the defense get's better and I rarely split my SOD unless I have overwhelming forces. Depending upon the AIs forces, I sometimes move my knights/cavalry with the slower pikemen/musketmen/riflemen so that they don't get injured in transit to the target location.

Of course if I have a knight or cavalry army, then using defensive units becomes moot as the AI avoids attacking the army and I can quickly blast city after city.

Arrian · August 28, 2003, 15:14

Quote:

Of course if I have a knight or cavalry army, then using defensive units becomes moot as the AI avoids attacking the army and I can quickly blast city after city.

Yeah, that works well. So does mountain-hopping with knights and cav (6 defense up on those mnts). If the AI does attack you, you have the advantage (unless they hit with Cav, in which case it's merely even).

-Arrian

Anaximander · August 28, 2003, 15:14

Thanks guys, top notch stuff

. I really appreciate the advice. I will make sure to implement them into my current game!

Arrian · August 28, 2003, 15:27

Go get 'em!

-Arrian

Theseus · August 28, 2003, 15:43

If you have any zero defense units involved, stack EVERYTHING!

Panzer32 · August 28, 2003, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

Yeah, that works well. So does mountain-hopping with knights and cav (6 defense up on those mnts). If the AI does attack you, you have the advantage (unless they hit with Cav, in which case it's merely even).

-Arrian

This strategy works amazingly well with Riders

Kaos XIII · August 28, 2003, 23:54

There is one positive note on not stacking in one group.
And that is that the AI avoids coming at you with a SOD.

In my experience, the AI will counter your small groups, with small groups of their own. This can be good at Emperor/ Diety.

But, once Artilleries appear, an enemy SOD no longer poses any challenge. This is when I go Island Hopping and so should you.

bongo · August 29, 2003, 04:49

Stacks are good

I use them all the time. But it is important to know when to split them and how. One single SOD right into your enemys core is devastating but very often I employ small groups to secure my rear and flanks. Those small 'guard-stacks' can be most effective when the AI has gone into 'panic'-mode and lacks the units to effectively counterattack. You still need the large stacks to take his cities though, the small ones are just for scouting, guarding and disrupting trade.

Arrian · August 29, 2003, 09:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Panzer32

This strategy works amazingly well with Riders

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and rub that in, why don't you. So we shoulda blocked Toledo 2. So be it. It ain't over yet!

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · August 29, 2003, 10:46

I've found that on wimpy Regent mode, 1 huge stack per front is very effective. Of course, it depends on the nature of the front. Obviously, a narrow front makes life easy, but what about a front that quickly widens out? This makes life aggravating in general. Here, continuing with the 1 stack to the capital city can greatly cripple the enemy - if that's your goal - but it leaves your newly captured cities up for recapture by enemy units sent from the cities to the "side" that you've bypassed.

In this case, there's no alternative (it seems) to simply having a truly giant stack that can split into several (still huge) stacks afterwards. I'd rather have 3 groups of 10 riders taking 3 cities with an acceptable level of casualties, than 30 riders taking one city, but having numerous flank attacks. Then again, I send few defensive units with me, generally, just cause they don't keep up as well, and I want to end most wars quickly (yes, wars of attrition are good for elites, but generally, wide-front wars are waged against a well developed, cultured enemy that can afford to fight back).

Once your huge stack splits up, it can always rejoin for the offensive on the captial, or other well-defended and important cities. ONCE AGAIN, this tactic is intended for wars where the goal is to conquer the enemy empire whole. Wars of pure disruption - typically wars against a distant enemy you want to cripple, but whose land could be largely "worthless" otherwise - can be waged with 1 solid stack the whole way through. After all, in these wars, you might as well destroy cities as you go...

Arrian · August 29, 2003, 10:58

As usual, it's important to note that level of play matters.

On Regent or lower, splitting your troops tends to be more effective than it is on the upper levels.

On Monarch, the AI will have 2 defensive + 1 offensive units in most border towns, and more in the interior.

On Emperor, they will have more. Dividing your forces, unless you have a big advantage, is not usually a smart idea.

I don't even wanna think about what you would find on Deity.

Anyway, the point is that a lot of this comes with experience. You will get used to what force levels you will need to take cities from the AI on the various levels of play.

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · August 29, 2003, 11:06

I must note that it's a major pill as it is even on regent to wage a wide-front war. I couldn't see waging them very often a higher difficulty level, or if I did, limiting my objectives (i.e., not forcing myself to absorb an entire large empire)

Paddy · August 30, 2003, 06:05

stack away... a large army can be fun when wandering around behind enemy lines.... bloody fantastic.... especially if you are leaving there cities in ruins.. ie not having to leave troops behind for garrison duties etc

Last Conformist · August 31, 2003, 04:51

Panzer32: Forget Riders. Try mountain-hopping with Samurai, and see the light!

Yahweh Sebaoth: Fighting wars of annexation on lengthy fronts is perfectly doable, at least on Monarch and Emperor. You'll want to destroy the AI's "mobile reserve" before you start attacking in earnest, so it usually pays to fight defensively for the first few turns - the AI is likely to send its troops into your territory, where you destroy them with artillery and counterattacks. Then you only need to keep up the pressure so the AI can't assemble large counteroffensives, and plenty of defenders to secure won ground.

I often find it helpful to take one "layer" of cities a time. This way the front doesn't lengthen the way it does if you advance towards the AI capital along a single vector (à la Napoleon 1812). This works best if you've got enough troops to field a few SODs advancing in parallel, but having one stack zigzagging works too.

Vince278 · September 4, 2003, 01:08

By all means stack! (Concentration of forces is so very Clausewitz

). There is one exception you will need to keep in mind: By all means do not stack if any opponent has nukes.

badams52 · September 5, 2003, 15:18

Ah, but what you mean is do not stack units next to or inside a city if the AI has nukes. The AI only nukes cities from what I've seen, and I was unfortunate enough to leave a huge stack of MA next to one of my cities idling by waiting for orders once.

So when I do my idle stacks, my troops are usually away from the cities so that they won't be affected by the blast radius of a nuke.

Of course if you're playing multiplayer...

bongo · September 8, 2003, 02:45

Keep your stacks small and separate in the nuclear age, at least in multiplayer. Maybe the AI learns to use nukes on large stacks one day...

Master Zen · September 8, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Panzer32: Forget Riders. Try mountain-hopping with Samurai, and see the light!

He refers to the PTWDG war going on in which something similar was done with Riders

dexters · September 8, 2003, 23:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Panzer32: Forget Riders. Try mountain-hopping with Samurai, and see the light!

Yahweh Sebaoth: Fighting wars of annexation on lengthy fronts is perfectly doable, at least on Monarch and Emperor. You'll want to destroy the AI's "mobile reserve" before you start attacking in earnest, so it usually pays to fight defensively for the first few turns - the AI is likely to send its troops into your territory, where you destroy them with artillery and counterattacks. Then you only need to keep up the pressure so the AI can't assemble large counteroffensives, and plenty of defenders to secure won ground.

Something may have been changed in 1.27f, but the AI I've fought against (in a whimpy regent game) kept on the pressure with groups of two cavalry on two fronts for a sustained 20 turns, followed by a steady stream of medieval infantry on foot.

The MedInf's steady arrival may be due to the long distances they have to travel and their relative lack of mobility, but it seems to be at least that the AI is now not big into blowing its wad in the first 5 turns, and would instead send smaller groups and keep pressure on the front and prevent the human player from making any outrageous cocky moves, or rather, catch them in a weak configuration, like leaving weakly defended offensive units without an escort.

Yahweh Sabaoth · September 9, 2003, 10:05

I think what LastConformist may have been referring to - correct me if I'm wrong - is the tendency of the AI to send a slow stream of units to a target, take the target, and then mass all the units there, without disbanding them, if there's no other target to get to.

For example: say I play as the Iroquois, with the Aztecs to my West and the Americans to my East. I declare war on America and invite the Aztecs along, but don't give them a ROP. The Aztecs take Detroit, and I take everything else. Now I want to take out the Aztecs. But first, I have to take down numerous horsemen, Jag warriors, Medival Infantry, etc., that are massed in and around Detroit. Perhaps more than I will encounter in the Aztec core proper.

This is a common experience for me, at least.

vmxa1 · September 9, 2003, 11:34

I have been using 1.27 for the last 4 or 6 games and do not see any real change. The AI will send a few waves (if you are on the same land mass) and then send what ever it generates each turn after that. It will hold its massive number of troops in its cities. At least two and some with 4. If it has a large empire it could be sitting on over 100 units and you have no fear it will put together 80 or so and hit you with them. You can just take down one city at a time, if that suits you.

Yahweh Sabaoth · September 9, 2003, 11:37

I find that the Civs with no units in their build preferences tend to have insanely well defended cities. Babylon in the prime example. Spain and Korea also tend to have very well defended cities.

dexters · September 9, 2003, 18:37

No change is likely the case. I'm just reading too much into AI perhaps. Although I recently played a debug game on the same tiny map I watched the AI play on 1.21f. It seems like there may have been minor tweaks as far as networks go. Based on that one game, it seems like the AI are much more eager in establishing a trade network. In this particular game, the civs connected much earlier than in my 1.21f, but it may just be the luck of the draw.

Also, the AI worker inefficiency of disbanding workers in one turn and building a new one in a size 12 city within a few turns seems to have been mitigated. Although I have to look into that some more.

Lastly, AI now likes to send its naval support into captured cities to pound any incoming units silly. I'm not 100% sure that this is a new addition, but I don't recall seeing much of it in 1.21f. It still have problems with reinforcing cities captured on islands/different continent. That really needs to be fixed or the AI will never be able to mount much of an invasion against another AI civ. Because of this, games on "Continents" maps are essentially broken. I'd be happy if the AI can invade each other better. This would certainly add some tension to some of the map types out there .

I hope Soren or whoever is working on the AI makes some good changes in C3C core.