The Secretary of War is a member of the Triumvirate. The Secretary of War shall have control of all military land units with the exception of garrisons under the control of Governors and units assigned to settlers, all air units, and in charge of military planning.

Please submit nominations for the Secretary of War in this thread and Accept or Decline any nominations you may receive. Self nominations are allowed. Citizens may only run for one elected position.

If nominated, please accept or decline
You may nominate yourself
Nominations shall close at 4:00 PM GMT on Jan. 27th

I nominate Chieftess for Secretary of War.

I'll accept.

I nominate Whomp.

I nominate Whomp..seconded.

Chieftess, I thought that you couldn't run for multiple offices. If I'm mistaken then that's fine... Take me out back and slap me around.

Designated Player pool doesn't count.

Since I'm running for governor, and it's a 2nd position, I'm declining this one. I haven't been a governor of a fresh, new province for a LONG time.

Declining

XCL

I accept the nomination of Secretary of War from our esteemed DaveShack and Tubby Rower.

I'm re-accepting. :p

Declining my nomination.

(I'm $10 richer.)

Whomp and Chieftess:

1 - What is your proposal for dealing out promotions? Is it a case-by-case basis? Certain promotions for unit types? What promotions do you think will be most useful?

2 - How do you forsee us taking enemy cities (realistically)? Lots of catapults? Varied unit types? A sizeable amount of swordsmen?

3 - How do you plan on using our UU?

That's all for now. I think we have 2 very talented candidates here.

Seeing that we're up against the Mongols (who are closer to the horses than we are), the choices of upgrades should be as follows:

Defenders and some attackers - Combat I, II, Formation (+25% vs. mounted units). If we had a state religion in our city (and all of our cities for that matter), plus vassalage/therocracy, and barracks, we could be well on our way to this goal for most units, especially spearmen. Combat II allows us to select either Formation, or Charge (bonus vs. catapults - but that's a bit later).

Swords/Axes - Definately city attack bonus. Our axes should have Shock as needed for bonus against other melee units.

Archers - City defense bonuses. If we get to crossbows, then Drill.

2 - I see us using atleast 5-10 catapults along with an axe/sword/spear stack. That means we will have to prioritize Construction as well. If the enemy has a walled city on a hill, then that's rather tricky to take down.

3 - Well, that all depends on if we get horses. Seeing that "our" horses (from what I've seen of the save so far) are near Mongolia, I don't see us using our UU being of major use. Yes, we could build 2 War Chariots for every Keshik -- provided that we have horses. I can see them blitzing an outlying Mongolian city, though, or pillaging patrol (giving them Combat II and Formation to defend against Keshiks, if any.).

1 - What is your proposal for dealing out promotions?
My preference is not to exercise promotions until the battlefield requires the need. The fog of war is thick and different situations will require different needs.
In combined arms, it's imperitative to have units offer depth to the stack. One area where I'd exercise immediate promotions is with a warrior in the field. For that purpose I like Woodsman I for the defensive bonus (more scouting) and Woodsman II for the extra movement. A faster foot soldier is useful through mid game.

Is it a case-by-case basis?

If there's an opportunity to heal units I really like lower level units within a stack. This feature will help them pay their wages.

What promotions do you think will be most useful?

Catapults getting the collateral damage bonus are by far the most useful. Most any melee unit can handle an attack with enough damage. Medic allows us to continue the pressure. Of course our civic will help determine how and when to use a promotion.

2 - How do you forsee us taking enemy cities (realistically)?
Lots of catapults?
Varied unit types?
Certain promotions for unit types?
A sizeable amount of swordsmen?

Catapults, catapults and more catapults must be the core of any seize. My preference is 12-15 minimum.

Catapults are the first to release their fury crushing city's defenses.
Second, cats are most useful for the amount of collateral damage they can exact and their retreat capability under the stack.
Third, 3-4 Axemen with a shock focus (if needed) and 6-8 Swordsmen with city attack focus (if needed) shall be used when the odds are high. Swords, specifically, will act as our matadors. Let them finish after the cats have done their collateral damage and "promo" farm. 3-4 Spears will be used to protect the stack. I see the spears as the unsung heroes of our attack force. They are very useful for their defense capability against the ruthless keshiks which I'd anticipate seeing plenty of.
3 - How do you plan on using our UU? The best use for chariots will be for homeland defense. Archers in the cities on the front and chariots behind for their mobility and superior coverage.

Stay focused on the objective. If a stray unit comes out of the city leave it alone. That AWOL stray will eventually pay the price.

Question for the candidates:

What have you learned from any MP games that you can apply to this game?

What have you learned from any MP games that you can apply to this game?With my experience in MP Pitboss All war games I've learned a lot.
Use terrain to our fullest advantage. A melee unit on a forested hill is near impossible to take out even with axes. However, a sword on grass,desert or plains will be attacked. Without seeing a good map my tendency is to move the stack along hills, rivers, forests and forest hills.

Raze foreign border cities Other than a religious capital (very valuable) or a great leader following a stack (for border expansion) my inclination is to raze foreign cities. The reason for this is additional gold for research, border expansions for foreign cities are remote, logistics are difficult and maintainence costs are high. In the case of the Mongols, my expected target, this strategy should work well since they are isolated and our other neighbors will have a difficult time settling this region before we do.

Promotions on the run Again, my strategy is to use promotions according to need. The fog of war requires flexibility in the field of armed conflict. I'd like to focus units along a specialty where possible. A unit that can get a 2nd and 3rd upgrade along the same lines will be extremely useful through the end game. Non-promoted units are likely disband candidates.

If we're in a situation where we're on the offensive to get resources, would you recommend raze & resettle, or capturing the city?
What role, if any, does pillaging play in your military strategy?
Are there any must have unit types? Any kinds of units we shouldn't build at all?

If we're in a situation where we're on the offensive to get resources, would you recommend raze & resettle, or capturing the city?
What role, if any, does pillaging play in your military strategy?
Are there any must have unit types? Any kinds of units we shouldn't build at all?
My preference is to raze and resettle since I've found border expansion is near impossible. The only two instances I can think of to capture a city is where there's open space already surrounding that city and second keeping religious capitals. Size, distance and culture pressure is a major determining factor in this equation.

Since I anticipate dictating the battlefield I prefer not to pillage health resources or cottages. These will be useful to us for our new or captured cities. Pillaging military resources and luxuries will be a consideration since horses and metals can be used against us and cutting off luxuries will make for some angry citizens in the heathen cities. Angry citizens are much worse for our enemy than unhealthy citizens.

Must have units are catapults. In my previous comments I suggested a number. In hindsight, a specific number may be difficult to sort out. I would like our invasion force (75-80% of total) to consist of 45-50% catapults, 26-28% swords, 12-15% axes and 12% spears. On a more limited basis (20-25%), the homefront can protect with 60% archers and 40% chariots. I don't anticipate using any warriors.

My preference is to raze and resettle since I've found border expansion is near impossible. The only two instances I can think of to capture a city is where there's open space already surrounding that city and second keeping religious capitals.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean by "border expansion is near impossible"? What do you mean by "there's open space already surrounding that city"?

I think what Whomp is saying is that when you sieze an enemy city it can be difficult to expand your cultural borders into the territory they have already claimed. Surely you have seen this phenomenon when you play. You take a city, it is right against the opposing civ cultural border and no matter how long you hold it you don't make much headway into the opposing Civ cultural territory.

The second thing I think he is saying is that the enemy founded a city far enough away from their other cities that the opposing cultural border doesn't pose any problems.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean by "border expansion is near impossible"? What do you mean by "there's open space already surrounding that city"?
When a foreign city is taken and there are other cities surrounding the captured city the borders on the captured city collapse (sometimes down to 1 tile) and expand for the other cities.

What I mean by open space is space that is not within foreign borders. Does that make sense?

xpost with Bengeance. Thanks. :D

I think what Whomp is saying is that when you sieze an enemy city it can be difficult to expand your cultural borders into the territory they have already claimed. Surely you have seen this phenomenon when you play. You take a city, it is right against the opposing civ cultural border and no matter how long you hold it you don't make much headway into the opposing Civ cultural territory.

In that case, I have to say No, I surely haven't seen this "phenomenon" you're describing. The cities I've captured grow pretty normally and are no less competitive in culture border claming than any city I build myself.

I have, generally happens when taking the key cities of an opposing civ, is very difficult to go more than a couple of tiles out with culture.

In that case, I have to say No, I surely haven't seen this "phenomenon" you're describing. The cities I've captured grow pretty normally and are no less competitive in culture border claming than any city I build myself.
I have. An example...
My city has 3 tiles of border pushing east. The Japanese city has zero tiles pushing west. I take the city and it lost all of its tiles for a long period of starvation and civil unrest.

Even when the city did expand it was one tile south, one east, coastal tiles and the tiles that were already in my borders to the west. The city stayed at 1 pop (from 8) for a very long time. Hence, why I'd prefer to raze the city then fill in after the cities around it have been captured or razed.

xpost with BCLG100 too. :D

Hence, why I'd prefer to raze the city then fill in after the cities around it have been captured or razed.

That's rather illogical. How is it better than *keeping* the city and wait until "after the cities around it have been captured or razed" so that city can grow then?

Besides, I find the concept of attacking a foreign city surrounded by enemy cities hard to understand in the first place, especially if your plan is to raze the city and leave its tiles back to the control of the surrounding cities.

That's rather illogical. How is it better than *keeping* the city and wait until "after the cities around it have been captured or razed" so that city can grow then? It's economics. Our country's coffers are increased by razing. This allows for maintaining a high science level and/or unit upgrades for reinforcement. If we keep the city our coffers are reduced by maintainence cost of keeping that city which we are by no means guaranteed will grow and pay for its maintainence. Second, an area that is razed allows for our units to heal in neutral territory.

Besides, I find the concept of attacking a foreign city surrounded by enemy cities hard to understand in the first place, especially if your plan is to raze the city and leave its tiles back to the control of the surrounding cities.You must take the path of least resistance. Heading straight for the core is sure suicide and it's better to limit where your enemy can come from. One city at a time and continue to press forward. If you attack down the middle you are surely asking for counteroffensives.

Hot debate. but where is the other candidate? :hmm:

That's rather illogical. How is it better than *keeping* the city and wait until "after the cities around it have been captured or razed" so that city can grow then?

Besides, I find the concept of attacking a foreign city surrounded by enemy cities hard to understand in the first place, especially if your plan is to raze the city and leave its tiles back to the control of the surrounding cities.
Im not even running for minister but the reason why you would take a city surrounded by culture is just because that may be in a strategic location e.g resources, another reason is that a city nearby could just have an immense amount of culture, better to raze a city which is in danger of beeing captured or flipped back than keeping it for a few turns only for it to flip back later gifting them a huge slice of territory.

Im not even running for minister but the reason why you would take a city surrounded by culture is just because that may be in a strategic location e.g resources, another reason is that a city nearby could just have an immense amount of culture, better to raze a city which is in danger of beeing captured or flipped back than keeping it for a few turns only for it to flip back later gifting them a huge slice of territory.

Yes, this argument sounds OK, but it's a totally different scenario than the one originally described. You are now talking about a front city of the enemy near our border. Originally we were talking about an enemy city surrounded but more enemy cities. In that case I still can't imagine any *realistic* situation where it makes sense to attack the city in the first place, not to mention razing it afterwards.

What have you learned from any MP games that you can apply to this game?

The sentry, the choke (War Chariot choke, even -- provided we're lucky), and nearly 2 years of MP experience. Those can be brutal to the opponent in early wars. But, this is SP, not MP. In ladder place, city razing is always on, so that's essentially a given. Plus, it's mostly 2 city elimination, which this is not. The main strategy is to bring a large stack with you, enough so that you can compensate for reinforcements by the opponents. Large means 15-20 units. Also, always chop forests nearby your city, as they give the attacker a defensive position to attack from.


If we're in a situation where we're on the offensive to get resources, would you recommend raze & resettle, or capturing the city?
What role, if any, does pillaging play in your military strategy?
Are there any must have unit types? Any kinds of units we shouldn't build at all?

1 - Depends on where the resource is, really. If we're just going to grab a resource nearby, then keeping the city is fine. If it's deep inside enemy territory, then razing might be better, unless the city has a wonder or something.

2 - Using our war chariots, or some quick unit, we can pillage the AI's cottages (I find the AI builds too many of them, but I would focus on pillaging mines, camps, irragation and other such improvements first), and resources. Cottages are good to pillage if we don't intend to take the city (i.e., one that's far away), but we want to hurt the AI's economy.

3 - Obviously, spears are a must as we could be going up against Keshiks. War Chariots are also good for quick, pillaging raids. Catapults are a definate must, too.


(My other answers are towards the top of this thread).

Yes, this argument sounds OK, but it's a totally different scenario than the one originally described. You are now talking about a front city of the enemy near our border. Originally we were talking about an enemy city surrounded but more enemy cities. In that case I still can't imagine any *realistic* situation where it makes sense to attack the city in the first place, not to mention razing it afterwards.


That civ hasnt yet researched iron, but there is an iron patch next to it that you can see, it is close to researching it you declare war before they do, go straight for that city so they cant use the iron and raze the city as you cant hold it and try and knock out the cities surrounding it. especially key if iron is related to the civs UU