View Full Version : How to use artillery effectively...


Pages : [1] 2

Moonsinger
Jun 17, 2002, 11:10 AM
Artillery is great! However, it can move only one tile per tun inside enemy territory. Well, that's no good! If you do that, you could tie up your entire tack of artilleries at least one turn before you can use it against enemy city. If you have a tack of 100 artilleries, we are talking about loosing 100 chance of bombardment. Plus, I want my all my artilleries to be extremely mobile and stay far away from the frontline until they are needed.

1. First I move a settler three tiles away from the enemy city. Don't forget to include at least four infantries to defend your settler.

Moonsinger
Jun 17, 2002, 11:13 AM
2. By the next turn, you should be able to build a temporary outpost and use it as a base to attack the enemy city. In this case, the enemy capital city of Zimbabwe is the target. Immediately build the railroad and move your stack of artilleries into position. I also move on a cavalry unit next to the enemy city so that I can see if my artillery hit its target.:)

Moonsinger
Jun 17, 2002, 11:20 AM
3. Now, start bombard the enemy city to dirt. In this case, Zimbabwe is defended by six infantries. You need to reduce all defenders hit point to 1.

Moonsinger
Jun 17, 2002, 11:27 AM
4. After taking the city, I disband my outpost and get ready for taking the next city. Any artillery that didn't get a chance to fire, I just move them against another city.:) With this method, my stack of 100 artilleries, I can take at least three heavily defended cities in every turn. The war can start and end very quickly for the enemy. Artillery rocks! Artillery and cavalry are my #1 units. By the time I get tank, I usually already control the whole world.:)

Lawrence
Jun 17, 2002, 10:08 PM
Good strat!:D

And I found it dull to watch 100 artillery fire in one turn individually, so I always turn 'animate war' off when I use my stak of artilleries.:D

joespaniel
Jun 17, 2002, 10:21 PM
Thats really sick and twisted.

I love it! :lol:

Good one Moonsinger.

Moonsinger
Jun 18, 2002, 01:39 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention one thing: After I liberate/capture a city, I would normally use that city to rush produce more settlers or workers. The good thing about producing settlers and workers in a recently captured city is that we don't have to pay for their upkeep. If you produce a worker, that worker will be treated as slave worker (work twice as slow as normal worker). If you produce a settler, that settler will have your former enemy's nationality; therefore, you don't have to pay upkeep for them.:) I normally have a stock of at least a couple dozen settlers without having to pay for their upkeep.:) Beside, you want to reduce the number of foreign citizen in your city anyway. The less foreign citizen, the less likely they do a culture flip...and producing settlers/wokers is a best way to reduce them.:)

When war is declared, I would send an average of three of these foreign settlers into enemy territory in every turn; if the enemy manage to destroy one of my settlers, I would still have many others to play with.:) Therefore, they can expect their city to be under bombardment in every turns.:)

RufRydyr
Jun 18, 2002, 02:06 PM
:goodjob:
Great idea. Wish I'd thought of it! I've been a big believer in arty for a while, tho some don't like it. I like to get the city down to size 12 or better yet 6 to reduce the defense and hurt the defenders. For the really big cities, nukes are so much fun!

Lt. 'Killer' M.
Jul 10, 2002, 04:47 AM
Moonsinger: you're mean! :D :goodjob: And you could even consider abandoning the enemy towns if your outposts are better situated. No more Culture flips, and lots of instant slaves if you raze the newly captured :D

Moonsinger
Jul 10, 2002, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
And you could even consider abandoning the enemy towns if your outposts are better situated. No more Culture flips, and lots of instant slaves if you raze the newly captured :D
I prefer to keep the enemy cities because they usually already built market, bank, courthouse, policestation, among many other improvement. Of course, my artilleries usually mis-fire and destroy most of those improvements, but most of the time, the bank or market does survive. Within 1 turn, I could start rushing settlers from those city to reduce foreign pops to size 1, there is no chance for those cities to flip.:) Of course, I use those foreign settlers to build more outposts. Because I usually build outposts by using foreign settlers, these outpost could also get flip too; therefore, it's best if I disband them and keep the cities instead.:)

PS: If I the liberated a town of size 5, I can rush 5 slave workers or 2 slave settlers and a slave worker. If I raze a town of size 5, I would get 1 slave worker. Therefore, I get a better deal by not razing it. And if I liberate a dozen cities of size 12 or above, I would have plenty of slave workers and slave settlers.:)

Lt. 'Killer' M.
Jul 10, 2002, 10:32 AM
Moonsinger: I usually get more than 1 Worker from razing, unless the city is size 2. but aside from that: I'd also only raze if the old placement sucks (i.e. move it two tiles and you can build ironworks, or 6 cities all 1 tile away from the river

Moonsinger
Jul 10, 2002, 11:07 AM
I think the formula is 4 to 1. For example, if you raze a town of size 4 or below, you get zero worker, size 5 will give 1 worker, size 8 will give 2 workers, size 12 will give 3 workers, size 16 will give 4 workers, ... and so on. This doesn't include the workers that already in the city before the raze. And yes, location is everything; if a city is right on the grassland and there is a hill next to it, I would raze/disband it and rebuild it on the hill (because I don't like wasting grassland like that).

Solver
Jul 15, 2002, 11:12 AM
Gonna try it, good idea! Except that I will, to my invasion force, add a Transport with Settlers, and a Transport with Workers, just in case.

Zouave
Jul 25, 2002, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Lawrence
Good strat!:D

And I found it dull to watch 100 artillery fire in one turn individually, so I always turn 'animate war' off when I use my stak of artilleries.:D

That reminds me. How come we don't have stack bombardment?
That sure would kill the tedium.

BUT, stack bombardment would be optional, as we would always want some artillery ready to utilize the new friendly roads to move quickly against the enemy.

Richard III
Jul 25, 2002, 06:25 AM
Fantastic article!! I first started reading and thought, bla, bla, bla, but then, suddenly - hey! WOW!

Good work.

Will use it tomorrow.

R.III

MightyMac
Aug 06, 2002, 04:07 PM
This maybe the breakthrough that I'll need to win the current world war that i'm in.

Thanks

smallstepforman
Aug 06, 2002, 11:16 PM
I dont like the idea of using a settler to build a temporary outpost. Big deal if my campaigns last 1-2 turns more per city, my democracy (with increasing luxury rate) can take it. It gives time for my cavalry to heal and reinforcements to arrive and settle in. I only use 20-30 artillery instead of 100 - think of the support costs.

After a while, I disband some artillery/cavalry to rush manufacture temples and courthouses, in order to minimise culture flip.

ainwood
Aug 07, 2002, 12:52 AM
One thing I'd add, is not only do you want to reduce the hitpoints of the defenders to 1, it is also a great benefit to reduce the city population - turn a metropolis into a city, or a city into a town to reduce the defensive bonus of the troops stationed there.

Jon Shaw
Aug 07, 2002, 03:28 AM
I'm no expert at civ3, but it does seem a little long winded maintaining all those artillery (as someone said above) and planning ahead (founding new cities- the settler has to crawl over enemy terriotory at one square per turn- an attacking cavalry unit could cover 3 squares per turn). If it is so difficult to kill an infantry unit with cavalry, I prefer to simply wait for tanks rather than massing huge armies of cavalry and artillery and planning complex campaigns turns ahead.

Also, I thought that if you built a settler with a foreign citizen the settler formed a new city with that same foreign citizen still. I havent checked this for several patches though.

However, to each his own! :)

ainwood
Aug 07, 2002, 06:54 AM
Even with a veteran tank against veteran infantry in a metropolis, the odds of the tank winning are only around 35%. If you bombard first to reduce the HPs down to 1, then the odds improve to 90%. If you can bombard the metropolis down to a city as well, then the odds improve to around 94%.

It also works for mech infantry too.

Moonsinger
Aug 07, 2002, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Jon Shaw
I'm no expert at civ3, but it does seem a little long winded maintaining all those artillery (as someone said above) and planning ahead (founding new cities- the settler has to crawl over enemy terriotory at one square per turn- an attacking cavalry unit could cover 3 squares per turn). If it is so difficult to kill an infantry unit with cavalry, I prefer to simply wait for tanks rather than massing huge armies of cavalry and artillery and planning complex campaigns turns ahead.

If you are playing at the Deity level, by the time you get tanks, the AIs would get tanks and Mech Infantry as well. If you wait too long, you may end up fighting a nuclear war. Unless you get modern armour, tank can move only two tiles inside enemy territory; therefore, you may still need to build the outpost to give your tanks the extra move. On the other hand, the cavalry can move three tiles inside enemy territory; with the outpost, the cavalry will be able to attack and withdraw to heal inside the city in the same turn. It's fairly easy to kill an infantry unit that has only 1 HP left. If you really want to be sure, send in an army of cavalries instead. Since your artilleries have already reduce all enemy units to 1HP, chances are your units will win 9 out of 10 which means more chance for elite units and more chance to produce the Great Leader. Since I usually fight against the enemy of at least 5 times stronger than me and can reproduce units faster than me (not to mention that the AI usually get its buddies to join force against me; therefore, sometimes, I'm fighting against the force of at least 10 times stronger than me), I will be dead without my artillery units.:crazyeye: Just remember that this strategy is designed for fast conquest at the Deity level.

About the upkeep cost: This is what I usually have during the peek of my game (any of my games):

100 to 150 artillery units
75 Infantry units
100 to 150 cavalry units
Sea transport will be rush as needed
A half dozen warships to defend my transports
200-500 slave workers which requires no upkeep
5-20 foreign settlers which requires no upkeep
Maximum upkeep that for my invincible force would cost no more than 400 golds. Under Democracy government, my civ is usually made over 1500 golds toward the end of the Middle Age; therefore, 400 golds is not much to worry about. During the war, most of my core cities will continue to produce more cavalries (cavalry is cheaper than infantry and much cheaper than tank) to replace those that were lost. Therefore, I always have enough calvary to finish off the wounded enemy.:) Again, I'm talking about the Deity level, at the lower level of the game, this may not be the case.

Also, I thought that if you built a settler with a foreign citizen the settler formed a new city with that same foreign citizen still.
That would be correct. If you build an outpost with a foreign settler, the citizen of that outpost would be foreign as well. However, that doesn't matter since you are going to disband that outpost within the same turn anyway.:)

Moonsinger
Aug 07, 2002, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by ainwood
One thing I'd add, is not only do you want to reduce the hitpoints of the defenders to 1, it is also a great benefit to reduce the city population - turn a metropolis into a city, or a city into a town to reduce the defensive bonus of the troops stationed there.
Yup! It's really easy to finish off enemy units of 1HP left. Imagining your elite cavalry of 5 HP attacking an infantry of 1HP. The cavalry is having five shot at this and a chance to produce a Great Leader. Once I have at least a half dozen armies of cavalries, my force are unstopable. I would sign peace treaty only when my democratic citizens starting to complain about the war.

civ_steve
Aug 07, 2002, 09:47 AM
This looks like a lot of Fun!! (But not for the AI civ ;) ) I've always liked artillery, but this is a whole new level.

A question: Does the output city always get a full 1 tile radius as shown in your example? In some cases, cities I've formed near other civ's cities did not get a full 1 tile radius if some of the tiles were being worked by citizens of the already established city.

Moonsinger
Aug 07, 2002, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by civ_steve
This looks like a lot of Fun!! (But not for the AI civ ;) )
Yup, I always love it when my little insignificant force emerge victoriously every time (once I get Replacement Part tech, my civ is unstopable).:)

A question: Does the output city always get a full 1 tile radius as shown in your example?
Yes, the outpost usually get a full 1 tile radius. In fact, the only time I see it less than a full 1 tile radius is when I build it right in between two major enemy cities, but that was in one of the old patch. I haven't seen that happen in patch 1.29f yet.

Correction: During the first turn, you will always going to get a full 1 tile radius; however, if you keep your outpost longer than 1 turn, the enemy culture may reduce your outpost radius.

MadHatter
Aug 07, 2002, 01:30 PM
In my game last night (warlord - patch 1.21f) I jammed into a one-tile wide corridor between two different opponets' cities, each with a one-tile radius around them. I got one tile on one side but NOT on the other! Of course I rushed a temple & library and soon got my one-tile radius, but not at first, Moonsinger.

Moonsinger
Aug 07, 2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by MadHatter
In my game last night (warlord - patch 1.21f) I jammed into a one-tile wide corridor between two different opponets' cities, each with a one-tile radius around them. I got one tile on one side but NOT on the other! Of course I rushed a temple & library and soon got my one-tile radius, but not at first, Moonsinger.

Are you at war with either of those two opponents, especially the one on the side that didn't give you the one-tile radius? I am just thinking out loud; may be the city radius works a little differently during war time. The reason I am saying this because I have always gotten the one-tile radius whenever I build the temporary outpost.

Cartouche Bee
Aug 07, 2002, 02:00 PM
If your civ is culturally strong you will get the 1 tile radius. If you are culturally weak just build the outpost city one square away from your targeted city. [That works everytime for sure!]

CB

Marx
Aug 07, 2002, 04:23 PM
I am a great fanatic of carriers with lots of bombers, but this rocks also. :D

Moonsinger
Aug 08, 2002, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Marx
I am a great fanatic of carriers with lots of bombers, but this rocks also. :D
I was a fanactic of carriers and bombers too...until I get tired of moving those carriers around. With railroad, I could move my artilleries any where on the battlefield. Artillery is cheaper to build and more reliable too (don't have to worry about them being shot down by enemy air superior; once an artillery unit is built, it will last to eternity or until it is disbanded).

Moonsinger
Aug 08, 2002, 07:41 PM
I have done further study about the 1 tile radius. Basically, if we build our outpost 1 tile away from the AI city, even if we have the highest culture point, the AI city will get the full one-tile radius(this makes sense because their cities were built first) as shown in the following image. Note, either ways, their cities are within our artillery range.:)

PS: If we build our outpost 2 tiles away from their cities, we will have the full one-tile radius even if we have zero culture point.

Moonsinger
Aug 08, 2002, 08:11 PM
I have sample battle sequence of how I were able to take multiple heavily defended cities within the same turn by using only artilleries and cavalries. Note: each enemy city were defended by at least 4 infantries plus cavalries.

1. I use "Nuremberg Outpost" to attack "New Munich"

2. After taking "New Munich", I move my settlers into position, then I disband "New Munich". Now my settler is within Cologne culture boundary with full remaining movement point.

3. I build the "Cologne Outpost" and position artilleries to take Cologne.

Note: All these events are done within the same turn. After I take Cologne, I go even further to take two more cities within the current turn. I feel so sorry for the AI; even if they have a dozen infantries defending each of those cities, they still wouldn't be able to stop my artilleries.

Cartouche Bee
Aug 09, 2002, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Moonsinger


PS: If we build our outpost 2 tiles away from their cities, we will have the full one-tile radius even if we have zero culture point.

I doubt you tested that under enough situations because I know that is not always be true. :)

When up against cities with alot of culture, your newly planted city will not overpower their existing cultural footprint, from two squares away. I know this from culturally overpowering opponents. I also know this from applying artillery against strong opponents. :)

Moonsinger
Aug 09, 2002, 12:54 PM
To Cartouche Bee:

You may be right; I will keep an eye on it.:) So far, I haven't encountered that situation yet.

WillJ
Aug 10, 2002, 08:07 PM
Just wanted to say great, great simple strategy! :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob: This will also work on lower difficulty levels, won't it? I don't think I'm quite ready for Deity. And there is no need for a patch for this to work, is there?

Moonsinger
Aug 12, 2002, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by willj
Just wanted to say great, great simple strategy! :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob: This will also work on lower difficulty levels, won't it? I don't think I'm quite ready for Deity. And there is no need for a patch for this to work, is there?

Thank you for your kind words.:) I have been working on a way to counteract this strategy. If someone use this strategy against me in a muti-player game, what can I do to stop them? So far, I haven't come with any effective way to counteract this strategy yet. Once you have over 150 artilleries, 150 cavalries and 75 infantries, you are pretty much invincible until they get modern units. Since it's a long way from here to modern techs, you would have conquered the whole world by the time they get modern units.

Yes, it does work at lower difficulty levels. However, I must warn you: if you use this strategy at the lower level, it would be like taking candies from the baby. Victory would be hollow if we use this strategy at the lower levels. I have banned myself from using this strategy at any level below Emperor.

PS: No patch is required!

Neomega
Aug 16, 2002, 09:00 PM
Using this strategy, you can kiss your reputation goodbye forever.
Done many times you'll be despised by the world as much as if you had used nukes.

Neomega
Aug 16, 2002, 09:05 PM
Also I think if this were employed in MP (which I am sure people will try, if the other player is any good, HIS 100 artillery, 75 cavalry and 50 infantry men could attack the stack, take it, and then have 200 artillery, and a very, very, very angry disposition towards the settler rusher. The Ai doesn't know how to use artillery stacks, but people do.

Moonsinger
Aug 17, 2002, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by Neomega
Using this strategy, you can kiss your reputation goodbye forever.
Done many times you'll be despised by the world as much as if you had used nukes.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion? I use this strategy all the time and my reputation is perfectly good. By good, I mean they are willing to let me pay GPT (golds per turn) when I'm buying techs. In fact, the AIs actually love to pick on me because I don't have a lot of troops (just a lot of artilleries:D).

Moonsinger
Aug 17, 2002, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by Neomega
Also I think if this were employed in MP (which I am sure people will try, if the other player is any good, HIS 100 artillery, 75 cavalry and 50 infantry men could attack the stack, take it, and then have 200 artillery, and a very, very, very angry disposition towards the settler rusher. The Ai doesn't know how to use artillery stacks, but people do.

Unless you use this strategy, how do you be able to get close enough to capture my 200 artilleries. If you are really good, you will throw every thing you have trying to take out my settlers, but that is as far as you can go. Since your infantries can move only 1 space inside my border, it would be impossible for you to capture anything with infantries. Therefore, your cavalry is your only chance. Let's see how much chance we are talking about here.

In your best move, your cavalries will be able to move 3 spaces (1 move inside your border plus 2 move inside my borders). Since my artillery stack is heavily defended by at least 10 infantries and stayed three tiles deep inside my border, it would be impossible for your cavalries to reach my artillery stack. Therefore, the only way your cavalries can be able to reach their target is that you use the settler. If you use the settler, you are in fact using this strategy, aren't you?

Moreover, even if you cavalries reach my stack, do you actually think they will be able to take out my infrantries defenders and my artillery support? Impossible!

Neomega
Aug 17, 2002, 03:07 AM
ahh, think MP.... I will also have 100 artillery right? 100 artillery in my capital right? So your army takes two of my cities, before all of your artillery has fired. I lose two cities and it hurts....

But I have 100 artillery, those 100 artillery RR their way down to the corner where your 100 artillery, defended by a fledgling 10 infantry are....

BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM,BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM. Now your defenders are in tatters.

My 75 cavalry clean them up.... capture your 100 artillery.... AND your mighty stack of 100 artillery are now MY stack of 100 artillery, AND... they can be used this turn.... now I can recapture my cities... thanks for all the guns, btw. The territory is mine again. I lose some improvements due to the captured cities which hurts, but I now have 200 artillery, all my infantry still, most of my cavalry... and a seething hatred for the settler rusher.

I'm just saying it works against the AI, but MP is going to be a whole new game... see ya on the battlefield.

Neomega
Aug 17, 2002, 03:10 AM
Unless you use this strategy, how do you be able to get close enough to capture my 200 artilleries.

You will be in my cultural area, and only have a ring of one around the cities you just captured from me. Tanks and cavalry and artillery will be able to reach my old cities just fine.

Moonsinger
Aug 17, 2002, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Neomega
You will be in my cultural area, and only have a ring of one around the cities you just captured from me. Tanks and cavalry and artillery will be able to reach my old cities just fine.

You are dreaming.;) Do you think that I'm stupid enough to leave your roads intact? As I said before, it would be impossible for your tank and infantry to recapture your old city. Unless you use the settler, your intantries and tanks are useless. That would leave you with only cavalries, cavalries without artillery support won't be able to over come the infantry defenders.

Neomega
Aug 18, 2002, 01:05 AM
Interesting you have so much confidence, having never played an opponent that knew how to use artillery offensively. I guess letting a settler cross my border and live a turn would be my first mistake.

Moonsinger
Aug 18, 2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Neomega
Interesting you have so much confidence, having never played an opponent that knew how to use artillery offensively. I guess letting a settler cross my border and live a turn would be my first mistake.
I don't know about the confidence thing, but I think it would be best for me to kill any settler that's trying to cross into my border. Otherwise, there is a good chance that my city will be completedly destroyed during the next turn.:( I think my stack of artilleries would come in handy for destroying any settler that's trying to cross into my border. That's the only way (I have come up so far) to counteract this strategy.

PS: Why do we need artillery to destroy a settler?;) Because that settler may be protected by a stack of infantries or something.

jshelr
Sep 06, 2002, 10:49 AM
The use of a Settler in attack mode is very effective in a number of ways. Lots of times you get stuck not being able to reach another AI city during a blitz when you have lots of tanks or MA left. Use the Settler to extend your border one tile and then continue your blitz. Same principle as the bombard idea featured here. Sometimes you can pick up immediate access to a lux or strategic resource via "Settler Capture" even before you have conquered the city that now controls the resource. Let your imagination run with this a bit. I think the power of the Settler to define who owns what is underused.

Every time you abandon a captured town you should consider moving the replacement settler away from the original city tile to a spot that is more useful from the war's point of view.

Neomega
Sep 06, 2002, 01:14 PM
it's not under used.... it's shady, and not in the spirit of the game.

bbaws
Sep 06, 2002, 02:47 PM
I've already posted about this before elsewhere. There is absolutely no need to have your settlers wasting time wandering about in enemy territory. Build outpost one on the border to make a salient. moce one or two settlers into the newly acquired territory. Disband the outpost and voila your settler(s) are standing in enemy territory without having expended a movement point, found another base and repeat until you have a corridor running through enemy land. This is most effective if you have a good culture lead over the opponent as you tend to get a 3x3 square no matter what. Doing it this way lets it all happen in the turn war breaks out.

bbaws
Sep 06, 2002, 02:51 PM
Spirit of the game my ass. War is not honourable you use every low down dirty trick you can find. This is just a way of capturing enemy railroads for your use, the fact that it happens to be implemented through settlers is irrelevant. Is it in the spirrit of the game to move workers with your carapults and cannon to build forts against that enemy cities walls? Or perhaps that just hadn't occurred to you either.

Neomega
Sep 06, 2002, 09:37 PM
Please. Name one instance in history where some settlers have captured 900 square miles of territory in a year, without so much as using a tank. Don't insult my intelligence, I have heard of the Army Corps of Engineers. Using slaves or workers to hastily erect fortresses, roads, pontoon bridges has been used many many times in history, and I see it as completely fair. Settlers in reality aren't supposed to be part of the "WAR" side of the game. It is against the spirit of the game. I agree that there are no rules to war, but wake up, this is a GAME... and it would be nothing without rules. But before you address this post again.... answer the question I presented you....
NAME ONE INSTANCE IN HISTORY WHERE A GROUP OF SETTLERS HAVE COME IN AND TAKEN 900 SQUARE MILES OF SETTLED, DEVELOPED LAND IN ONE YEAR WITHOUT A FIGHT. The spirit of this game is history.

bbaws
Sep 07, 2002, 12:52 AM
Hmm you really are a dufus aren't you. Name one instance in history where a bunch of people got together to found a new city without taking along any weapons for attack or defense. Not only that these people were too thick to use the tools for founding a new city as weapons when they were jumped. The whole point of this use of settlers is that you have already got the capacity to bombard your opponent into the stone age, so what is stopping your settlers?
As you say it is a game. Use your imagination, that's how I came up with the tactic in the first place.

Neomega
Sep 07, 2002, 03:59 AM
Boy... I told you what to do and you didn't do it, maybe its the pompous brit in you, so turn your nose down to read the screen, and I know it's hard because it is written in American English, but I'll try and put it in words you understand:

In history, (that is what we call written records of events that have happened in the past, (you following me student?)), name an instance, where a country, and since this discussion is about artillery and railrads, we'll discuss industrialized nations, (you lost yet little boy?) used a group of settlers, (these may also be known as defenseless civilians (note the 0 attack and defense in the civ III rules) opened up an offensive by siezing the railroads, roads, and farms of a hostile, (the way you are reacting to a critique of an exploit you seem to think of as genius and your own creation) nation so the Armies of their motherland could march through quicker.

Now listen up child, don't answer my question with another question. Answer it with simply a name of two nations, and the date of which time this occured.

If you choose to answer me with a question or insults, I shall simply no longer let you drink from the vast wealth of my knowledge, and treat all you have to say as the rantings of a very angry little boy. And believe me, I am laughing already.

bbaws
Sep 07, 2002, 05:10 AM
The clear point being that while the prime function of sttlers may be to found productive population centres, they also have a secondary function as a base for military units from which they can control surrounding territory. Every logistical tail of every army in history has HAD to control the territory that it passes through. THe fact that the only way to implement this in civ3 is through settlers is lost on you as you don't seem to be able to get past the nomenclature.
They SETTLE the land thus giving you control of it, they act as a nexus of transport and trade. I never claimed to be the sole or original user or discoverer of this use for settlers. As for insults you seem to be doing a good job confirming your blinkered limitations.

Neomega
Sep 07, 2002, 09:41 PM
Answer it with simply a name of two nations, and the date of which time this occured.
:lol:

Cartouche Bee
Sep 07, 2002, 11:40 PM
Since when did assaulting troops not use existing roads? If the road exists and your General is too stuck up to use cause it's not in the spirit of war, well you can be sure your General missed a class or two before his patronage appointment.

Neomega
Sep 08, 2002, 01:50 AM
And what about railroads? The south had different gauges than the North during the civil war. Genrals avoid roads until the territory is already conquered. If a General were to use roads in hostile territory he would be a sitting duck. Remember Lexington and concord? There were some Generals who thought they could use enemy roads. If only they had some SETTLERS to build outposts along the way first, then British culture would have prevailed, no resistance would be met along the roads, no scouts would be hovering around to report their movement.... Why didn't they think of that? In fact, why didn't the Germans just send in a settler before they crossed the Ukraine? Could've saved a whole lot of pain and agony. In fact, Blitzkrieg, HAH, Hitler was a fool, he wasted his time building tanks, he should have built SETTLERS, and had them just build culture pockets towards Moscow, THEN attack Moscow itself!!! It would've worked all in less than a year too, No resistance along the way no nothing, in fact, Silly Stalin would probably be foolish enough to have his borders defended, and leaving very little in actual Moscow. Forget all that storming through Poland nonsense, why waste his time.

In fact, I think Ill post a thread, how to take the AI capital with 15 settlers, 10 artillery and 6 cavalry every time.



Let me put it this way, in MP, if I ever catch anybody settler border expanding during a game, I'll quit right there, and never play them again. What is the point of having borders if someone with five settlers can walk his happy donkey straight to your capital without resistance along the way? This is an exploit, it is not how the settler was intended to be used, and if Firaxis could stop it, I am sure they would except that would basically mean scrapping the entire culture border/expansion aspect of the game, which is one of the neatest new aspects of the game.

I understand the WAR is hell concept, I am an avid Total Annihilation player, and I never play with "rules", however, this game is different, and the culture expansion was not intended to be used as a way to build a tunnel to your enemies capital..... why even have roads in enemy territory be unusable?

bbaws
Sep 08, 2002, 06:13 AM
Aww diddums.
I'm sure Firaxis will change the rules just so you can win every time you grace the mp community with your august presence.

Cartouche Bee
Sep 08, 2002, 07:20 AM
Ahh, the "You built a city where I don't like, so I quit!" defense, yep, that's how war works.

What about "You attacked me before I was ready, so I quit!",
or "Wait, I thought you were going to attack where I had prepared my defenses."
yes MP will be fraught with this type of behavior and in the end will prove that the AI is superior to alot of those types of players when trying to play a "game".

Glad you brought up "Blitzkrieg", I didn't have the heart to mention it but in MP maybe just getting that far into the game without quitting will be reward enough for some. Of course that's if they aren't all ready on the "Whiners and Quitters" list.

Cartouche Bee
Sep 08, 2002, 09:30 AM
One more note about "Settlers", the unit defies it's "union classification". In Civ2 these units were called "Engineers" in the later part of the game. Instead of focusing on the name of the unit, focus on what it does. Some may even refer to these as "Specials Operations" later in the game, since there function clearly allow them to secure an area for military/domestic operations.

Neomega
Sep 09, 2002, 05:33 PM
Aww diddums.
I'm sure Firaxis will change the rules just so you can win every time you grace the mp community with your august presence.


And how would you settler rushing losers manage to play if they did? Do you have any real skills?

Neomega
Sep 09, 2002, 05:50 PM
In Civ2 these units were called "Engineers" in the later part of the game.

There were no culture boundaries in civ II, so bringing it into this discussion is irrelevant.

Neomega
Sep 09, 2002, 05:59 PM
I guess there is only one counter to this strategy, keep every border clear of roads and railroads. It'll be interesting to see how expert players manage their empires to stave off the likes of you. Awful shame the dramatic tactics that will have to be used out of fear of allies stabbing you in the back, settler rushing and running you out of the game in one turn.

Cartouche Bee said "What about "You attacked me before I was ready, so I quit!", or "Wait, I thought you were going to attack where I had prepared my defenses." "

This is guilt by association, they are not applicable to this discussion, and not what we were discussing, quit trying to bring in irrelevant vectors.

Finally, I present you guys with a challenge:

How do you propose you would ever defend against this strategy.... is there even a way to defend against it? For your info.... WAR is not turn based, this game is, and using your settler as such is taking advantage of the turn based aspects of the game.

I promise not to reply to any more of your ignorant remarks until you answer my question, so here it is again....

What is a valid defense against the settler rushing exploit?

I assure you, there is none.

Cartouche Bee
Sep 10, 2002, 07:25 AM
Ahh, the "My point of view is the only one that matters!" defense. That's a good one to!

You could always start a "defense thread", and discuss that topic there.

Getting artillery in range of the enemy is a valid offensive tactic, some won't like it but...

pterrok
Sep 11, 2002, 10:40 AM
I've concentrated 20 or so arty at a time and I can see that expanding that to 100 would be devastating. The problem is there is no counter-attack in the game--bombers can be taken down by SAMs now or regular fighters, but arty acts at a distance with no counter measure. If they were to add some code that would initiate 'artillery duels' then the mass arty strategy would not be the panacea.

What it would do is that when you use arty to attack a stack with defending arty, it gets to fire back, BUT, it picks a random target in the attacking stack and if it 'hits' an attacking arty it is destroyed since they don't have hit points.

Another way to change it might be to make arty not be self-propelled; it would have to be towed by a unit to move. When the arty was dropped off it could not fire that turn as it was being unlimbered and the towing unit could not move any further. The next turn the arty could fire and the towing unit could move normally. This would both cause you to tie up all those units towing your 100 arty and you'd have to have the arty in place one turn for the enemy to respond before you could pound him. Cavalry towing arty would be reduced to 1 movement point, but mechanized units could tow at the normal rate.

Or they could move themselves but not allow them to use the railroad movement rate--they could move along roads and get that bonus, but not just zip across the continent to pound someone so you'd have to do some prior planning to make it work. If that seems draconian, think about the movement rules in general for a bit; anything can move anywhere within a year by rail, planes can rebase to anywhere, yet naval units can go 5 squares?!? I guess they didn't want you to be able to instantly invade another continent, but if they see that mass arty can unbalance things they could amend their movement rules. (I'd rather give ships the ability to move anywhere in your sea or the open ocean once you have the appropriate tech, but they would end their turn upon entering 'enemy' seas and use their movement factor when moving in enemy seas thereafter...but I've digresed! <g>)

jshelr
Sep 12, 2002, 07:07 AM
The settler represents claiming property. If this is already claimed by another civ it's an act of war. During war, that clearly still applies.

As for reality, replacing indigenous population with your own pop during a prolonged war should bring to mind, for Americans at least, our standard method of gaining territory. What we need on this thread is an Indian who can tell the tale of how his people were displaced in North America. Ethnic cleansing has been pretty rampant over the last century for us to say that the settler is not a military unit. Anyone from Isreal care to comment? Woops, strike that last. Not politically correct.

billindenver
Sep 12, 2002, 03:14 PM
Have a 'max stack' rule,i.e., no more than 20 units can ever occupy the same tile at the same time. Realistically, it makes sense. No army ever has concentrated 200 divisions in an area of a few square miles, so why should we be able to stack 200 divisions into a city?

As to the original strategy, I think it's pretty clever. However, it could be counterattacked the same way. You start with a stack of 100 artillery and 100 infantry. It takes 25 arty to kill one town, and those arty can't move again that turn, so you have to leave 25 infantry to guard them. Assuming you take four towns using 25 arty per town, you'll be left with 4 stacks of 25 inf and 25 arty. That may be even more weakened if you leave a garrison in your 'outpost' city. These stacks might be able to catch up, if I didn't use cav to cut the roads before they restacked. But say I had 50 art/inf/cav. I use those 50 to reduce your stack of 25 arty/inf and capture an additional 25 arty of my own, then use the captured stack to attack the prior stack, etc.

Alternatively, I could plunk about 20 or 50 infantry in the main border town. Even 100 arty would have trouble beating that, what with misses, and damage to the town.

IMO, the only way to defend against this is to replicate it or do a massive infantry stockup in the first city.

Neomega
Sep 13, 2002, 01:36 AM
If you had read earlier in this post, you would see I proposed to moonsinger the counterattack would destroy his army and I'd get to capture his arties too, but he said he'd pilliage the roads, and hes right, if he pilliages the surounding roads, I cant reach him.

I personally don't feel it's clever, I've thought about it, but, if I wanted a game where i had an advantage over the AI, I would've played warlord difficulty. The AI would never do a settler rush.

Moonsinger
Sep 16, 2002, 03:11 PM
Neomega: For the record, I am really is a "she".:)

billindenver: Like Neomega just said, if you look at my previous screenshots of my battle sequence where I took 3 major German cities in the same turn, you may notice that I have to leave at least three stacks of artillery behide (each stack has around 25 to 50 artilleries) because they can't be moved after I fired them. However, these stacks are 4 tiles or more within my border; no enemy cavalry could ever be able to reach them. Of course, the enemy could build an outpost, move another settler forward, then disband the previous outpost and build another outpost 1 tile foreward from the the previous one; basically, each settler will enable them to move forward 1 tile within the same turn. Therefore, the only way to counteract this strategy is to use this strategy; however, that would work ONLY IF there road to move forward.

Since the AI would never use this strategy, I don't have to destroy any road; however, if I ever play against the human player, I would destroy all surrounding roads to prevent the enemy settlers from reaching within range. Basically, even if my stack of artilleries are defendless, there is no way you could reach them in one turn.

PS: I had 180+ artilleries in my last game (deity level on a huge map) and I tell you...the AIs which were 4 times stronger than me didn't stand a chance.:D Unless I play for the high score, I would not use this strategy because there is no fun taking candies from the babies. Even the human players would have a very tough time against this strategy, the AI would have no chance. Unless it's banned, I would use it when I play the GOM.:D

Yndy
Sep 18, 2002, 12:11 AM
Nice topic here.
I already used the tactics you described Moonsinger. Now I don't disband the cities I use for "outposts", and I place them one tile away from enemy cities.

I try to avoid taking advantage of the flaws in the game. I mean with enough settlers to disband and the AI having roads in his territory you could get anywhere in one turn (build town, advance settler one tile, disband first, build second, advance third, disband second... you get the idea).

I was also playing deity with the AI having larger armies than me. What did he do? He threw a nuke at me and destroyed 30+ arty, 2 Tank Armies, 10+ infantry, a couple of tanks.

And I was happy. I had moved some 30+ unused arty, 40+ tanks anf 10+ infantry just out of the nuke's range.

So an answer for your tactic Moonsinger would be:
hurry to Nukes and blast you stacks of doom to kingdom come;)

Neomega
Sep 18, 2002, 12:48 AM
hmm, nukes, hadn't even thought of that. (I still have yet to use one, I really should turn off space race victory)

Moonsinger
Sep 18, 2002, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Yndy
I try to avoid taking advantage of the flaws in the game. I mean with enough settlers to disband and the AI having roads in his territory you could get anywhere in one turn (build town, advance settler one tile, disband first, build second, advance third, disband second... you get the idea).

I concur! Btw, I did mention about that previously.;) This is exactly why we need to take out all the surrounding roads (when we play against another human in the multiplayer version) to prevent the enemy from counter attack using this strategy.:)

I was also playing deity with the AI having larger armies than me. What did he do? He trew a nuke at me and destroyed 30+ arty, 2 Tank Armies, 10+ infantry, a couple of tanks.

In my deity game (huge map with 12 civs), I took the AIs out of the game by using cavalry and atillery to prevent them from discovering tank and nuke. My philosophy is very simple: If I don't have nuke, no one else should have it. If you build nuke before I do, I would consider the game is over and will try to take you out of the game or die in trying.:)

So an answer for your tactic Moonsinger would be:
hurry to Nukes and blast you stacks of doom to kingdom come;)

It's a possibility if you survive long enough to build nuke. Even if you have the technology, you still have to build that GW before you can build the nuke.

Yndy
Sep 19, 2002, 09:55 AM
Moonsinger you are right, of course. In a human to human combat the rush would be to get repacable parts. The first who does that should try to balst everyone out before they get the tech.

I think I'll follow your guidance and build some 70+ arty. 40 does not seem enough (and my enemies don't have any more nukes).

Hey did you try this strat with cannons, or even catapults?

sure, there would't be no two tiles range but still ...

Edit: Guess what ... I only saw my "threw - trew" mistake in Moonsinger's quote. lol

One has to add a speller to forums...

Moonsinger
Sep 19, 2002, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Yndy
I think I'll follow your guidance and build some 70+ arty. 40 does not seem enough (and my enemies don't have any more nukes).
70 is a good number, 100 is even better.;) Shortly after I discover Replacement Parts, I usually have around 150 artilleries (about twice the number of infantries and as many cavalries as artilleries; sometimes, even more artilleries than cavalries).

Hey did you try this strat with cannons, or even catapults?
No, I have never tried this with cannons or catapults. I don't think this method going to work with cannons or catapults for a couple of reasons:

1. Cannon and catpult have the range of 1
2. No Railroad! By the time we discover railroad, Replacement Parts is just two techs away.
3. The risk of being captured by the enemy is too great.

Grey Fox
Sep 19, 2002, 07:40 PM
In multiplayer, and with "Turnless Mode" turned on (which is a mode I will play in alot anyway, I think), 2 artillary stacks of 50 each could be pondering each other at the same time (or so). And as it's 'Turnless', somone could be sneaking up your back at the same time with 30 or so cavalry, or tanks, and you are concentrating your defense on one front. You might have railroads, but he will be using them too, when city after city falls. Once you move your defense from your front, he might take you there aswell! :D

Replace the he with she if you like :)

Anyway, the turnless mode in MP will be very interesting.

Keep up the good work Moonsinger :D

EDIT: I sort of read the discussion about the use of settlers. And even if I would like to be objective, I would agree with Neomega. To use the settlers to 'exploit' the rules (the roads/RR's are supposed to be unusable before you capture/raze the cities) is out of the spirit of the game, as Neomega put it. In reality, you didn't go inside enemy territory and established a base, and then attacked. You attacked, established a base, and then continued your attack. If necessary.
To use this tactics in MP? Well, if you want to. It's not honorable, but atleast a human can adapt.

Moonsinger
Sep 20, 2002, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by Grey Fox
In multiplayer, and with "Turnless Mode" turned on (which is a mode I will play in alot anyway, I think), 2 artillary stacks of 50 each could be pondering each other at the same time (or so). And as it's 'Turnless', somone could be sneaking up your back at the same time with 30 or so cavalry, or tanks, and you are concentrating your defense on one front. You might have railroads, but he will be using them too, when city after city falls. Once you move your defense from your front, he might take you there aswell! :D

Yes, I concur! This strategy won't work in turnless mode. Oh well, it's time to produce more bombers.:D

Moonsinger
Sep 22, 2002, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Grey Fox
In reality, you didn't go inside enemy territory and established a base, and then attacked. You attacked, established a base, and then continued your attack. If necessary.
To use this tactics in MP? Well, if you want to. It's not honorable, but atleast a human can adapt.

I have thought about what you said about being honorable and all. That's the main reason why I only use this strategy at Deity level nowadays. The AI are just too strong at this level; without exploiting their weaknesses, I wouldn't stand a chance. In reality, the French established a base deep inside the enemy territory first; this battle was known as Dien Bien Phu (Vietnam 1953-1954). There are also many times during War World II, and in many other wars where it's tactical advantage to send paratroopers to establish a base or a suppy line deep inside the enemy terrritory. Therefore, the only honor in question here is that the AI doesn't know how to use this strategy. The fact that AIs are outnumbering me at least 4 to 1 at Deity level would justify my honors everytime I fire my artilleries.:) Of course, since this strategy is well known nowadays, it's fair game in MP.:)

Neomega
Sep 22, 2002, 02:43 PM
There are also many times during War World II, and in many other wars where it's tactical advantage to send paratroopers to establish a base or a suppy line deep inside the enemy terrritory.


Isn't there a unit called paratroopers in Civ III?

Neomega
Sep 22, 2002, 02:53 PM
the French established a base deep inside the enemy territory first; this battle was known as Dien Bien Phu (Vietnam 1953-1954).


Alost all of the supplies were flown in, in this battle. And alot of military firebases were set up too. And, this was not done to allow the use of roads or railroads any way, this was in dense jungled, mountainous terrain. In fact I don't think a whole lot of seizing of anything happened, seeing how the "bowl" they tried to make a base was only about 10 square miles. Thats one tenth of a civ III tile. You gotta find an instance with 900 square miles!

Oh yeah, and the French go the sh*t beat out of them.

Moonsinger
Sep 22, 2002, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Neomega
Isn't there a unit called paratroopers in Civ III?
Yes, but paratrooper unit is useless! We can't setup base or outpost with it.

Moonsinger
Sep 22, 2002, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Neomega
Alost all of the supplies were flown in, in this battle. And alot of military firebases were set up too. And, this was not done to allow the use of roads or railroads any way, this was in dense jungled, mountainous terrain. In fact I don't think a whole lot of seizing of anything happened, seeing how the "bowl" they tried to make a base was only about 10 square miles. Thats one tenth of a civ III tile. You gotta find an instance with 900 square miles!

Yes, I know they didn't use railroad in that battle.:D I was just simply point out that it's a valid strategy to establish a base deep inside the enemy territory before attacking their stronghold.

Oh yeah, and the French go the sh*t beat out of them.They could have won if they didn't under-estimate the range of the Viet Ming 's artilleries. It was a brilliant strategy; too bad they lost.

Neomega
Sep 22, 2002, 04:38 PM
Actually it was a ridiculous strategy. They underestimated the Minh's determination to fight, and worse, they let themselves be surrounded and destroyed. I wouldn't call any battle where the commander commits suicide and 23,000 men of a world power lose their lives, whilst nary a barefoot guerilla gets a scratch as "brilliant".

This really isn't the same strategy as you propose anyhow, their base had no ground links to their home. It would be impossible to move in forces like 100+ artillery and mass infantry. In fact, this was an attempt at the opposite, to make the Minh go on the offensive. It would be akin to airdropping a worker ot two on a jungle surrounded by mountains, building a fortress, and moving guns and infantry into the surrounding mountains, and then waiting for an attack.

Moonsinger
Sep 23, 2002, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by Neomega
Actually it was a ridiculous strategy. They underestimated the Minh's determination to fight, and worse, they let themselves be surrounded and destroyed. I wouldn't call any battle where the commander commits suicide and 23,000 men of a world power lose their lives, whilst nary a barefoot guerilla gets a scratch as "brilliant".

The strategy in itself is brilliant and I'm using in civ3 all the time. For example, I would land enough troops and a settler to establish a stronghold on the enemy continent. Now just wait for the AIs to throw everything it has at me. This is a brilliant way to draw a fight and to reduce the size of the AI units. This was how I originally started with. I just have a lot of artilleries in my stronghold and wait for them to come; eventually they will run out of troops and it would be my turn to go on offensive.

This really isn't the same strategy as you propose anyhow, their base had no ground links to their home. It would be impossible to move in forces like 100+ artillery and mass infantry. In fact, this was an attempt at the opposite, to make the Minh go on the offensive. It would be akin to airdropping a worker ot two on a jungle surrounded by mountains, building a fortress, and moving guns and infantry into the surrounding mountains, and then waiting for an attack.

True! It isn't the same strategy; however, it's an improved version or the next step of the Bien Bien Phu strategy. Instead of supplying my base by air (as in Bien Bien Phu) which often unreliable because supply plane can be shot down by enemy fires , I'm using the magical railroad instead. With this magical railroad, I can move every where and anywhere that has rail instantly without any delay. Since my base is always linked to my home and supply can get there without any delay, that is what really made it better than Bien Bien Phu.:)

Neomega
Sep 23, 2002, 07:16 AM
oohh man, I dont even want to get into the railroad debate.... wait, sure.

The object of a railroad is not speed it is volume and efficiency. Railroads can move armies across continents with out a hitch. Doing so across a continent with raods is a little more difficult.

Moonsinger
Sep 24, 2002, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Neomega
The object of a railroad is not speed it is volume and efficiency. Railroads can move armies across continents with out a hitch. Doing so across a continent with raods is a little more difficult.

That's exactly why I call to it "the magical railroad".;)

civ_steve
Sep 25, 2002, 11:26 PM
Wow!! What a spirited exchange!

A couple of points. This strategy depends on a full 3x3 culture radius being generated when the Settler founds the outpost. Some of the discussion indicates that the Offensive player must have higher a higher Culture rating to assure the 3x3 culture radius. This might not be possible if the Offensive player is focusing on building (or upgrading) artillery, and the Defensive player is building cultural improvements. This requires more experimentation to determine what affects the new city's culture radius. Making sure you have significantly higher culture may be a defense against this type of attack.

Second point: the blitz requires these outposts to be formed, railroads to be in place and useable, and the pillaging of railroads at the end of the blitz to protect the arty stack. If this is strategy is considered excessive, Firaxis could change 1 or 2 elements of the game to restrict an extreme use of this technique. 1.) Don't allow cities to be disbanded on the turn they are created (you have to wait til next turn, which means you can't create an outpost, move a 2nd settler one space in, disband the outpost and form the next, etc...) 2.) Disrupt or pillage all railroad improvements within the recently lost cultural boundary of the Defensive Player when the city is lost. By disrupt, I mean that railroads are not useable (by anyone) for a period of time after the conquest. It could be a set period of time, or even random (although a worker could undisrupt the railroad improvement with maybe half the effort when originally created.)

Either one of these changes would stop the blitz. Creating a city, just to disband it later that turn seems abusive. (Maybe you can create the city, but not get the cultural radius until the start of your next turn. This would also restrict this type of blitz.) And I'm in favor of the railroad disruption anyway. Why should an attacker have no benefit or roads or railroads when entering the territory, and then suddenly full benefit after taking the city? For that matter, no player should get a railroad benefit if it's not within their cultural radius. These would be railroads left in the open after a city has been razed.

Just some thoughts.

Moonsinger
Sep 26, 2002, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by civ_steve
This strategy depends on a full 3x3 culture radius being generated when the Settler founds the outpost. Some of the discussion indicates that the Offensive player must have higher a higher Culture rating to assure the 3x3 culture radius. This might not be possible if the Offensive player is focusing on building (or upgrading) artillery, and the Defensive player is building cultural improvements. This requires more experimentation to determine what affects the new city's culture radius. Making sure you have significantly higher culture may be a defense against this type of attack.

High culture is not required. In most my games, I have always been the one with the lowest culture on the planet. I don't usually build temple and library until after I get artillery.:) The rule is every simple: If you build your outpost 3 tiles from the enemy city, you will get the full 1 tile radius even if you have zero culture point. If you build it 2 tiles from the enemy city (this is the mininum distance between any two cities), you won't get the full 1 tile radius (dont' need to); you can park your stack of artilleries inside your outpost and they will be able to bombard the enemy city just fine. The bottom line, this strategy will work even if your civ has the lowest culture points than any civ (dead or alive) on the planet.


Second point: the blitz requires these outposts to be formed, railroads to be in place and useable, and the pillaging of railroads at the end of the blitz to protect the arty stack. If this is strategy is considered excessive, Firaxis could change 1 or 2 elements of the game to restrict an extreme use of this technique. 1.) Don't allow cities to be disbanded on the turn they are created (you have to wait til next turn, which means you can't create an outpost, move a 2nd settler one space in, disband the outpost and form the next, etc...) 2.) Disrupt or pillage all railroad improvements within the recently lost cultural boundary of the Defensive Player when the city is lost. By disrupt, I mean that railroads are not useable (by anyone) for a period of time after the conquest. It could be a set period of time, or even random (although a worker could undisrupt the railroad improvement with maybe half the effort when originally created.)

True! Even if Firaxis doesn't change the rule, in the good spirit of the game, we shouldn't use this strategy if people think it's illegal. So far, this strategy is legal in the GOTM, HOF, and all other tournaments.


Either one of these changes would stop the blitz. Creating a city, just to disband it later that turn seems abusive. (Maybe you can create the city, but not get the cultural radius until the start of your next turn. This would also restrict this type of blitz.) And I'm in favor of the railroad disruption anyway. Why should an attacker have no benefit or roads or railroads when entering the territory, and then suddenly full benefit after taking the city? For that matter, no player should get a railroad benefit if it's not within their cultural radius. These would be railroads left in the open after a city has been razed.

Good idea!:goodjob:

civ_steve
Sep 26, 2002, 11:04 AM
Thanks!

BTW, I'm not saying that a change needs to be implemented. You are right: there is no stipulation anywhere that this strategy is not to be used. That is a separate determination. And it may be that the game design is set up to allow, intentionally, the blitz capability (and the use of settlers is just an additional strategic element.)

One more point: one can build the Intelligence Agency fairly early in the Industrial age. This allows the builder to see the makeup of the other civ's armies, once a spy is planted. If you do this and see a huge artillery force being created, you'd know what's coming and could start to prepare (however you intend to prepare.) Perhaps a preemptive strike with the intention to pillage the enemy's rail system first.

Moonsinger
Sep 26, 2002, 01:50 PM
Yeah, your spies better not get caught or your civ will be the first to go.:D

shimsham
Oct 05, 2002, 01:10 PM
So basically everyone except Neomega agrees that it's a top notch strategy.

Neomega
Oct 05, 2002, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by shimsham
So basically everyone except Neomega agrees that it's a top notch strategy.

I'd suggest you post who you really are before I alert an administrator to this post.

RufRydyr
Oct 09, 2002, 05:14 AM
Regarding the use of settlers to expand into AI territory:

If it hasn't been outlawed, go for it. What's the difference between using settlers to advance and breaking a Right of Passage agreement to do a sneak attack? If the AI can be 'Happy' with me one turn and destroy my capital the next turn, turnabout is fair play. Actually, all is fair in war IMO.

In my current game, I have a very small amount of culture. Using sneak ROP attacks and 'settler encroachment' has been very helpful in my goal of total decimation and high score.

I was wondering though if it's permitted to plop a settler down on the border, move a settler beside him (or her), disband the original settler, build with the new settler, and repeat this process to reach anywhere I want in enemy territory?

Shady? Probably. An AI exploit? Probably. But am I allowed to do it? What do you guys think?

USMC
Oct 14, 2002, 05:22 PM
Neomega,

Alert an administrator about what? Is shimsham not allowed to disagree with you or point out that through 5 pages of posts, you ARE the only one that thinks this strategy is despicable?

A few have said that they won't use/disagree with using this strategy, but you are the only one WHINING about it.

Feel free to report me to an administrator for saying that it is my OPINION that you are acting like a baby!

Neomega
Oct 14, 2002, 05:35 PM
Hmm, obviously ShimSham is a sham.....

Of course, you'll learn USMC.

It's a double registration, which is a bannable offense. I have my suspicions, but I have not reported it to an administrator, because I know it is one of two people. And I've read some of their other posts and realized they have no clue how Civilization 3 works.

But anyways... no offense taken, you haven't been here long :)

USMC
Oct 14, 2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Neomega
Hmm, obviously ShimSham is a sham.....

Of course, you'll learn USMC.

It's a double registration, which is a bannable offense. I have my suspicions, but I have not reported it to an administrator, because I know it is one of two people. And I've read some of their other posts and realized they have no clue how Civilization 3 works.

But anyways... no offense taken, you haven't been here long :)

OK, it's not really my style to do so, but now i will nit-pick.

I will learn? I truly can't imagine what you are referring to.

If it is against rules to have multiple accounts, so be it, report shimsham. If you plan to report shimsham for "not knowing how Civ3 works", perhaps you can enlighten him/her on a one on one basis. I personally do not recall having to pass a Civ3 test to register here. I suspect, however, that you were planning to report shimsham because you do not like what that person said. If you are getting this upset at us for not "understanding the spirit of the game", then you really should calm down and let us dwell in the darkness. Perhaps you should even get a new hobby.

To answer your previous concerns regarding the settler tactic:
I consider myself somewhat educated regarding military history and history in general, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no record of a group of civilians occupying 900 square miles of enemy territory during a time of war for any purpose, anywhere, ever. Certainly no group of people did it multiple times over a short period of time. YOU ARE CORRECT.

Unless I have COMPLETELY misunderstood the point of these forums, the reason that whoever maintains (pays for) the VAST amounts of resources and information for newbie and veteran alike, here FREE OF CHARGE, is for others to share their experiences and get different perspectives on the GAME.

It would seem that Moonsinger did exactly that. She explained how she likes to use Artillery in the game - take it or leave it or adapt it to your own style of PLAY. Some took it, some rejected it, and some adapted it.

If her strategy is so vile and immoral and against the spirit of the game.....find a way to beat it, then beat the crap out of her when PTW comes out. And don't forget to post the results here, I am interested to find out who wins.

FYI Neomega, I registered 5 days before you but I only have a few posts because I choose to read what others post instead of running my proverbial mouth all the time.

Moonsinger
Oct 15, 2002, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by RufRydyr
Shady? Probably. An AI exploit? Probably. But am I allowed to do it? What do you guys think?

It's just a game. As long as you have fun and follow the rules (if you play for HoF or GoM), that's all that's really matter. As for me, I have never broken the Right of Passage agreement before (not even one). Therefore, I hope that everyone would play honorably with me in PTW.;) If you really need to break a deal with me, that's ok; I won't hold it against you. However, please don't hurt me too much or I will cry.:cry:

Moonsinger
Oct 15, 2002, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by USMC
If her strategy is so vile and immoral and against the spirit of the game.....find a way to beat it, then beat the crap out of her when PTW comes out. And don't forget to post the results here, I am interested to find out who wins.

I can't think of anyone would like to hurt me here. I do have certain secret (trick) that I'm saving for PTW. Artillery is great but "friend" is better.:)

Neomega
Oct 15, 2002, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by USMC

If it is against rules to have multiple accounts, so be it, report shimsham.

that's what the threat was for..... as for the rest, well... no. I like to think I don't suck that much.

Unless I have COMPLETELY misunderstood the point of these forums, the reason that whoever maintains (pays for) the VAST amounts of resources and information for newbie and veteran alike, here FREE OF CHARGE, is for others to share their experiences and get different perspectives on the GAME.

Oh, believe me, niether of the two likely suspects are any where newbie status. The prime suspect says alot of things about the game which simply aren't true. Like attacking terrain bonuses and such.

It would seem that Moonsinger did exactly that. She explained how she likes to use Artillery in the game - take it or leave it or adapt it to your own style of PLAY. Some took it, some rejected it, and some adapted it.

One of the reasons of these boards is also to discuss strategies. I am not really concerened about how people play a SP game... it is MP I am concerned about.

If her strategy is so vile and immoral and against the spirit of the game.....find a way to beat it, then beat the crap out of her when PTW comes out. And don't forget to post the results here, I am interested to find out who wins.

That was my intention. As you can see, I have asked people to come up with good counter strategies.

Actually, if you check my posts, you will see a good deal of them are customized graphics expansions for civ III. I don't just run off my mouth, I spend time and effort to enhance everyone gaming experience. You might even enjoy soem of these extra units.... they are more of a sci-fi leaning, however.

There really is no reason to be hostile.

As far as your points regarding the subject. Go ahead and re-read my posts, as I have addressed them.

As for me, I have never broken the Right of Passage agreement before (not even one). Therefore, I hope that everyone would play honorably with me in PTW.

Funnily, I am of the belief that breaking an RoP is a completely legal part of the game. I would not give anyone in a MP game a ROP unless we were fighting a common enemy. Any thing less to me is trusing someone too much in a world of extreme political intrigue, where the goal is not peace, but victory. :)

Moonsinger
Oct 15, 2002, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Neomega
Funnily, I am of the belief that breaking an RoP is a completely legal part of the game. I would not give anyone in a MP game a ROP unless we were fighting a common enemy. Any thing less to me is trusing someone too much in a world of extreme political intrigue, where the goal is not peace, but victory. :)

I concur! However, I believe I did mention my secret weapon "friend". Yeah, one can not be easily defeated
as long as one have friend. And I intend to have a lot of friends.;) Will thy be my friend or will thy be my enemy?

PS: When there are only two superpowers left in the world, now would be a time for the honorable fight to the death. I don't know about you, but I'm happy to settle for the second place.;)

Neomega
Oct 15, 2002, 09:41 AM
As am I, if the game is fun. If by 1300 AD it looks like you and me gonna rule the world, well, watch your back. :P

The Last Conformist
Oct 24, 2002, 11:46 AM
I do think this Settler land-claiming is an exploit. The easiest fix would seem to change the rule so that placing a city won't allow you to gain any previously owned territory that turn. Seems pretty realistic, too.

Moonsinger, if you destroy all relevent roads to prevent a counter-attack against your recently conquered cities, you also prevent yourself from repeating the strat the next turn. While you'd still deal a potentially powerful blow to your opponent for virtually no cost, it would hardly be enough to bring down an powerful neighbour.

FutbolPlaya44
Oct 28, 2002, 02:19 AM
GREAT IDEA!!!

HOTZHELL
Oct 31, 2002, 04:17 AM
newby questions:
1- what is 100 stack artillery?
2- what benefit is it to build a settlement next to the city you are attacking
3- I have my artillery attack for several turns before I lower the hp's of defensive units. this seems to take forever;and I usually have around 10 artillery! Am I doing somthing wrong?

thanks

Moonsinger
Oct 31, 2002, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by HOTZHELL
newby questions:
1- what is 100 stack artillery?

100 stack artillery = shortcut of bad English! = a stack of 100 artillery units

2- what benefit is it to build a settlement next to the city you are attacking

As I said at the beginning of this thread, the benefit is that you can attack at lightning speed. Since artillery unit can move only 1 square per turn inside enemy territory, without using the settler, you can't move your artilleries fast enough to bombard the enemy cities within the same turn.

3- I have my artillery attack for several turns before I lower the hp's of defensive units. this seems to take forever;and I usually have around 10 artillery! Am I doing somthing wrong?

That exactly why you need a stack of at least 100 artilleries. If you have a stack of 200 artilleries, you can reduce a size 45 city to a small town within the same turn. Note: any artillery units that didn't get a chance to fire, move them to attack another city within the same turn. The bottom line, once you built a stack of 200 or more artilleries, you are pretty much invincible!

civ_steve
Nov 05, 2002, 08:04 PM
Hiya Moonsinger! Just wanted to say that I used a 'watered' down Artillery stack of 50 to finish off GOTM12. The strategy was quite effective against France, particularly against the formerly Japanese cities that France had just taken. Since they had no culture it was quite easy to move the Artillery within range to reduce the defenders to 1 hp, and then run them over with Cav. Unfortunately I had traded them Steam Power too recently, and there were few railroads; I compensated by keeping a large stack of workers to upgrade the roads and move my Artillery along. In one turn I took 7 cities! :D Thanks for the Tip!

Moonsinger
Nov 06, 2002, 02:16 PM
To civ_steve:

I'm glad it worked out nice for you. Thanks for your kind words and for taking the time to let me know that it worked.:) Most of all, thanks for bringing the sunshine into my gloomy day.:)

anarres
Dec 11, 2002, 11:54 AM
I have always been reluctant to build artillery. I like to build a large enough army to take a sizeable chunk out of the enemy, and I have found artillery too slow to be useful.

After reading this thread (all of it!) I am going to try this, although in MP you'd be lucky to get the chance to build such a large army. I can imagine turn based MP to be a very bloody affair, since if you build your army first you can wipe out your 'builder' collegue next to you. A MP game that lasts to artillery may be a rare thing...

Moonsinger: Thanks for this, this is one of the rare times I have read something here that may actually improve my playing :D

Neomega: You have a lot of gall to attack people and then accuse others of being 'Hostile'. There are many ways of getting your point across and being polite is not a requirement, but being rude will make enemies.

P.S. Moonsinger - I followed a link to this from a recent thread - thanks again :goodjob:

Grey Fox
Dec 11, 2002, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by anarres
....bloody affair, since if you build your army first you can wipe out your 'builder' collegue next to you. A MP game that lasts to artillery may be a rare thing...You could always start the game in the industrial era, modern era or future era.

anarres
Dec 11, 2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Grey Fox
You could always start the game in the industrial era, modern era or future era. Whoops. I kinda remember reading that somewhere else now :rolleyes:

Neomega
Dec 11, 2002, 09:32 PM
always cover your tracks, you never know when Bush is looking for traitors

Neomega
Dec 11, 2002, 09:37 PM
always cover your tracks, you never know when Bush is looking for traitors

anarres
Dec 12, 2002, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by Neomega
Hmm, If you see how it all started,

ME: "it's not under used.... it's shady, and not in the spirit of the game."

B-Baws: Spirit of the game my ass. War is not honourable you use every low down dirty trick you can find. This is just a way of capturing enemy railroads for your use, the fact that it happens to be implemented through settlers is irrelevant. Is it in the spirrit of the game to move workers with your carapults and cannon to build forts against that enemy cities walls? Or perhaps that just hadn't occurred to you either.

As you can see, it was not I who started out rude or hostile.

BTW, I just now saw that BBaws was inferencing forts give offensive bonuses, I can't believe I missed that all these times.

It's amazing how many times people want to reprimand me on this thread. It's also amazing how the posts are so preachy about rudeness, while being quite rude and condensending themselves. OK. First, I'm not having a go. This is a calm conversation and I don't want a fight.

Although BBaws sounded sarcastic, you were very quickly condesending and rude yourself:
Originally posted by Neomega
Boy... I told you what to do and you didn't do it, maybe its the pompous brit in you, so turn your nose down to read the screen, and I know it's hard because it is written in American English, but I'll try and put it in words you understand:
[...]
Now listen up child, don't answer my question with another question. Answer it with simply a name of two nations, and the date of which time this occured.

Anyway, that is what I meant when I said when you were being hostile. I never said you started it. And only a few posts ago did you call others hostile yourself. That was my first sentance.

My second sentance was a simple truth. You don't need to be polite to post here, and you will make enemies by being rude. There is always a middle road of assertiveness without having resorting to personal insult.

Again, I don't want a fight, and I don't think I have been rude to you. I don't think I have been condesending either, although that is much more subjective as it's all about whether or not you feel that I have patronised you. I can assure you I think of you as an equal, so I don't really think I have been condesending ether.

There is of course a small amount of hypocracy in what I say as I myself have offended people here (including mods), but what is life if not sharing our experiences and learning from them?

No hard feelings (I hope).

P.S. I agree with a lot of what you say, and I haven't decided how 'fair' I consider this strat. And ROP rape is of course completely valid (and has been used in the real world many times), so at least we agree on something ;)

sumthinelse
Dec 12, 2002, 08:04 AM
Hey guys, the bickering here:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/deadhor2.jpg

sumthinelse
Dec 12, 2002, 09:11 AM
I don't think thia has been mentioned: If I am a democracy, and I leave units in enemy territory war weariness can occur almost immediately. If I can attack from my own territory after building a city that may reduce the time sitting in enemy territory, and thus reduce WW.

anarres
Dec 12, 2002, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by sumthinelse
I don't think thia has been mentioned: If I am a democracy, and I leave units in enemy territory war weariness can occur almost immediately. If I can attack from my own territory after building a city that may reduce the time sitting in enemy territory, and thus reduce WW. When you attack a city using this strategy you have to enter enemy territory to do so. The settler will give you maybe only 1 turns grace from this.

However, if WW from being in a opponents territory only happens if you are in their territory at the end of your turn, then maybe you could avoid this part of WW altogether.

Can anyone confirm/deny this? Could be another huge advantage it it is true...

Grey Fox
Dec 12, 2002, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by anarres
However, if WW from being in a opponents territory only happens if you are in their territory at the end of your turn, then maybe you could avoid this part of WW altogether. How?

The settler has to enter the territory in 1 turn, and then the next turn can he build the city.

anarres
Dec 12, 2002, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Grey Fox
How?

The settler has to enter the territory in 1 turn, and then the next turn can he build the city. If you have enough settlers settle 1 square outside his land. Next, move another settler one square further in (right next to your city). Disband the first city and found a new one with the second settler, this time the settler is inside the old cultural boundary. Carry on this process until you are near enough to bombard.

Grey Fox
Dec 12, 2002, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by anarres
Disband the first city and found a new one with the second settler, this time the settler is inside the old cultural boundary. Carry on this process until you are near enough to bombard. If you disband the first city, the Rival-cultural borders will grow back.

anarres
Dec 12, 2002, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Grey Fox
If you disband the first city, the Rival-cultural borders will grow back. It doesn't matter. Your second settler is in enemy territory after disbanding the first city, and it can move (i.e. build a city) in the same turn. Therefore it doesn't ever end it's go inside enemy territory, as it now has it's own city with it's own territory.

Do this ad-infinitum to get wherever you want in enemy territory in the same turn (as long as they have roads).

Grey Fox
Dec 12, 2002, 11:08 AM
yeah... well, if that isn't an exploit I don't know what it is...

anarres
Dec 12, 2002, 11:27 AM
Whilst I often use a single settler to nudge a bit towards a city, and even sometimes a second time in the same turn, I personally would never build a settler just to disband it and build one in the square next to it.

Any settler I use to encroach is _always_ part of my new empire - I tend to destroy most AI cities.

IMHO, If you have the resources to squander like this then you should have won the game along time ago. My games tend to live on the edge, even more so recently.

Grey Fox
Dec 12, 2002, 11:57 AM
I agree anarress. My games are like that too. Building a city close to the enemies border, (If you know you can culturally keep it) is often a good idea.

And since I started playing Deity my games are also on the edge, where if I would risk something, It might be the loss of the game. In some way, my most succeful Deity game, and my only win so far (have another game I'm about to win too), was a No war game. But now I'm going off topic.

anarres
Dec 12, 2002, 12:01 PM
Completely OT, will you play in the tourney for season 4?

We need more Leader division players :(

Grey Fox
Dec 12, 2002, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by anarres
Completely OT, will you play in the tourney for season 4?

We need more Leader division players :( Maybe... but playing games within a timeframe is something I think I won't be able to do in the near future.

Sorry for being off topic. Will not post any more off topic in this thread.

sumthinelse
Dec 12, 2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by anarres
When you attack a city using this strategy you have to enter enemy territory to do so. The settler will give you maybe only 1 turns grace from this.


About avoiding war weariness: Please look at the maps on page 1 of this thread. On the 1st map, units that move 1 tile per turn and cannot bombard from 2 squares away (e. g. infantry) would stay in enemy territory 3 turns before they could attack. After the settler builds a city they would stay in enemy territory only 1 turn (assuming the attack was successful on the 1st turn).

It depends on how far the cultural boundary extends and the terrain, and of course whether you need to attack with slow-moving units. In some cases building an outpost city might save 3 turns in enemy territory.

If you are attacking with fast-moving units exclusively the turns spent in enemy territory might be the same. :)

anarres
Dec 12, 2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by sumthinelse
About avoiding war weariness: Please look at the maps on page 1 of this thread. On the 1st map, units that move 1 tile per turn and cannot bombard from 2 squares away (e. g. infantry) would stay in enemy territory 3 turns before they could attack. After the settler builds a city they would stay in enemy territory only 1 turn (assuming the attack was successful on the 1st turn.

It depends on how far the cultural boundary extends and the terrain, and of course whether you need to attack with slow-moving units. In some cases building an outpost city might save 3 turns in enemy territory.

If you are attacking with fast-moving units exclusively the turns spent in enemy territory might be the same. :) If you do the 'settler encroachment' method you can always bombard their city and attack in the same turn. You build a city just outside their border, and by successive disbanding and founding of new cities you can gradually move inwards.

Obviously for this to work the enemy must have roads in the right places, and you need units that can cover the 1 tile between your city and the enemy city and attack in the same turn (with cavalry any terrain apart from jungle and mountain). And of course enough atrillery. By the time artillery comes around none of this should be a problem.

You start the turn outside their territory, and end the turn outside (because you have taken the cities you want). If the part of WW due to troops in foreign soil is calculated at the end of the turn, then you will never suffer from it.

sumthinelse
Dec 12, 2002, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by anarres

You start the turn outside their territory, and end the turn outside (because you have taken the cities you want). If the part of WW due to troops in foreign soil is calculated at the end of the turn, then you will never suffer from it.

I think that is true unless there are some cases where the attacker's city's territory expands in an irregular way such that it does not encroach on enemy territory. Also there may be cases where the attacker cannot build a city because all the tiles on his side are mountains and/or water.

Moonsinger
Dec 13, 2002, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by sumthinelse
I think that is true unless there are some cases where the attacker's city's territory expands in an irregular way such that it does not encroach on enemy territory.

Actually, whenever I build an outpost three squares away from the defender city, I always get a full 1 square radius (as in the first pic of this thread). Whenever I build an outpost two squares away from the defender city as in this picture (http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=418203), I will get irregular shape as you just described (still within range of artillery).

Moonsinger
Dec 13, 2002, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by anarres
If you do the 'settler encroachment' method you can always bombard their city and attack in the same turn. You build a city just outside their border, and by successive disbanding and founding of new cities you can gradually move inwards.

Yes, but that would be an exploit and it may be quite expensive too (since it costs 160 golds and 2 citizens to rush each settler). I think the WW also involves the total number of units that we leave inside the enemy territory at the end of each turn. For example, if we send just 1 settler and 1 infantry into the enemy territory, the WW wouldn't be as much as leaving a stack of doom inside the enemy territory at the end of the turn.

anarres
Dec 13, 2002, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Moonsinger
Yes, but that would be an exploit and it may be quite expensive too (since it costs 160 golds and 2 citizens to rush each settler). I think the WW also involves the total number of units that we leave inside the enemy territory at the end of each turn. For example, if we send just 1 settler and 1 infantry into the enemy territory, the WW wouldn't be as much as leaving a stack of doom inside the enemy territory at the end of the turn. Yeah, I agree. Exploit. It would be hard to resist though if the enemy was going to complete the spaceship, and you could take their capital in 1 turn...

Grey Fox
Dec 13, 2002, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by anarres
Yeah, I agree. Exploit. It would be hard to resist though if the enemy was going to complete the spaceship, and you could take their capital in 1 turn... Hard to resist... perhaps. But would it be a win, worth the name of victory... hardly.

anarres
Dec 13, 2002, 12:09 PM
Hard to resist, but not impossible.

To be honest, I can't see myself getting in to that particular mess anyway. ;)

Moonsinger
Dec 13, 2002, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by anarres
Yeah, I agree. Exploit. It would be hard to resist though if the enemy was going to complete the spaceship, and you could take their capital in 1 turn...

If you are an expert civ3 player, I'm sure you make multiple plans way ahead of time. Just like this artillery strategy, if you are going to use it, it has to be planed at least 20 turns in advance. A stack of 100 artilleries don't come cheat and it's not something you can produce within just a few turns. Therefore, you don't need to use this strategy to take their capital. In fact, I have never build and disband outposts so that my troop can advance anywhere within same turn. When I use this strategy, I always send my settler inside the enemy territory at least 1 turn in advance. That would give them a chance to destroy my settler and a chance for me to evaluate their strength too. It is a win-win situation for both sides; therefore, I won't end up with a hollow victory.:)

Grey Fox
Dec 13, 2002, 04:15 PM
Consider this strategy with the Koreans btw... their Hwai'ch's bombard value are the same as the Artillary...

although the range might differ..

anarres
Dec 13, 2002, 04:25 PM
@Moonsinger:
I wasn't saying that your strat was an exploit, just the 1 turn thing (that you don't use anyway). I'm sure your victories are won in a blaze of glory :rocket:

@GreyFox:
Having a range of 1 is going to be limiting, maybe too many nice units sitting in enemy terrotiry for a turn is a bit too risky.

Moonsinger
Dec 13, 2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Grey Fox
Consider this strategy with the Koreans btw... their Hwai'ch's bombard value are the same as the Artillary...

Since the Hwacha has the range of 1 (the artillery has the range of 2), I don't think this strategy will work. However, the Hwacha is great for defensive purpose since it has the same fire power as artillery and it comes a lot earlier in the tech tree. Since it's upgradable to artillery too, that would be another bonus.:)

Moonsinger
Dec 19, 2002, 10:56 PM
In this screenshot, a settler was escorted by an army of infantries was able to move two squares inside enemy territory. Even though the Chinese culture was incredibly high, we would still get the full 1-square radius around our "Omega" outpost. Of course, a stack of over 100 artilleries immediately bombarded both Canton and Nanking and reduced all the defenders to 1HPs. By spending as little as just 1 settler, we are able to instantly capture 2 major cities without any problem.:)

Erik Mesoy
Feb 11, 2003, 12:16 PM
I just came across this thread and...
I am totally against this strategy. How about suggesting it in Succesion Games forum, where people play Civ3 and share opinions and the same time?
Quote from LKendter, paraphrased: "No city building/abandoning exploits. A city may Not be abandoned on the first turn (that you own it, or after you build it) since this allows you to build-move settler-abandon, repeat repeat repeat, infinitely far."

The suggestions of abandoning and building new cities to blitz with 2-move units and settlers is... exploitative, and unrealistic. Where did the 2 million plus population go? Put to the sword? Razed with the city? How is capture-abandon different from raze, except that you get movement through enemy territory? *EXPLOIT*
I accept building cities in enemy territory sometimes, but this...

Building one outpost like this- Barely outside acceptable. I would not use it. Artillery have 1 move for a reason.

And the rep stain! Declaring war with loads of units inside their territory, and then abandoning the cities!

Artillery are a great unit, but... Not this way!
*feels like bringing this to the attention of RBD players and Lkendter and Sullla, who will pass ethics judgement on it*

Grey Fox
Feb 11, 2003, 12:21 PM
Yeah I agree Erik M, and that is why I don't use it.

I sometimes use many Artillaries, but never the Outpost Abandoning way...

Moonsinger
Feb 11, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Erik Mesoy
Quote from LKendter, paraphrased: "No city building/abandoning exploits. A city may Not be abandoned on the first turn (that you own it, or after you build it) since this allows you to build-move settler-abandon, repeat repeat repeat, infinitely far."

Yes, I would consider that as an exploit and victory would be so hollow that losing would be much happier. However, in this case (http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=666247): the rule of such exploitation that you just mentioned doesn't apply. If you send the settler into the AI territory at least 1 turn in advance and don't abandon it so that you can build a new one just 1 tile next to it, then it's a valid strategy.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter if it's an exploit or not because this thread is not about the ethic of the game. You should always follow the rule of the tournament that you are playing. For example, if it's an OCC tournament, then building a second city would simply disqualify you from the tournament. If the tournament does not allow the use of artillery, then don't use it. It's as simple as that.;)

Erik Mesoy
Feb 11, 2003, 10:29 PM
One city as an outpost, ok, I use that sometimes too. But planting it deep in enemy territory (w/rep stain for ROP abuse!) is not something I feel like doing. Sure, do it, go ahead, but I don't really like it.
This thread is not about the ethic of the game. You should always follow the rule of the tournament that you are playing. I have stopped playing the GOTM. Milking, nuke terraforming, mapstat and apollo. I play the RBCiv epics instead. Ethics there are clearly defined, and those who don't like it... haven't heard of it.If the tournament does not allow the use of artillery, then don't use it. It's as simple as that.Not quite. I have some of my own ethics beyond the tourney rules.


I respect you as a good player, but your artillery strategy seems ont he brink of exploitative. The example in post #31, page 1 or 2 according to your prefs, is an exploit. I'm very glad you admitted to that.

DaveMcW
Feb 11, 2003, 10:36 PM
In PTW multiplayer towns can't be abandoned the same turn they are built. This keeps the 1-tile encroachment without allowing infinite moves.

Moonsinger
Feb 12, 2003, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Erik Mesoy
One city as an outpost, ok, I use that sometimes too. But planting it deep in enemy territory (w/rep stain for ROP abuse!) is not something I feel like doing. Sure, do it, go ahead, but I don't really like it.

"w/rep stain for ROP abuse"? Where did you get that idea?:confused: If we are going to war, we would formally declare war in advance, and most importantly we declare war while our units (not even one) are not inside our adversary territory. If we have workers or whatever inside the AI territory, we would wait until they all withdraw before we declare war. That has always been my style.:)

I have stopped playing the GOTM. Milking, nuke terraforming, mapstat and apollo. I play the RBCiv epics instead. Ethics there are clearly defined, and those who don't like it... haven't heard of it.Not quite. I have some of my own ethics beyond the tourney rules.

That's good for you. I orginally wrote this article as part of the strategy for the HOF games where every game is milked to its full potential. And this is one way to move yourself up if you are the weakest civ against other 15 AIs civs at the Deity level.

I respect you as a good player, but your artillery strategy seems ont he brink of exploitative. The example in post #31, page 1 or 2 according to your prefs, is an exploit. I'm very glad you admitted to that.

Yes, it may be an exploit or it may be not. It's all depend on your point of view. In any case, it isn't as worst as you put it. There is no city abandonment so that I can build another one next to it (yes, I did mention about abandoning my outpost that the beginning of this thread, but that were after I liberate the target city; I didn't do it so that I can move forward infinitely). And there is absolutely no ROP abuse of any kind. Btw, I also said from the beginning that this Strategy would make us invincible and victory would seem hollow (however if you have never win a Deity level before, any kind of victory would be most glorify); therefore, I don't use it anymore.

Nevertheless, I wrote this article when I was just learning how to play Civ3 and when I was exploring possible new strategies. To use it or not is really up to the players. The bottom line, I have beeing playing the GOTM a lot more honorable than you think. I don't abuse ROP. I don't pop rush or deny resource. I don't use sucide galley because it's unrealistic. No one would know that Collumbus discovered America unless he actually made it back...I think you get the idea. There are so many other things that I don't do or do, but I don't impose my ethic upon others. I have always tried to remember where I came from and tried to behave accordingly. Sure, winning a Civ3 game may be an easy things for me nowadays, but there was a time that winning seems like the impossible. We are all have to start somewhere and I am no different. There are countless players out there that are longing to beat the AIs just once, longing to win a Deity game just once. Therefore, it would be unethical for me to impose my ethic upon them, especially when they are just trying to have fun.

Grey Fox
Feb 12, 2003, 08:39 AM
Nicely put Moonsinger.

Jurimax
Feb 12, 2003, 10:26 AM
Wow, I really enjoyed reading this thread. At first I thought "What a great strategy!", but indeed it's a litlle bit an exploit.
I don't want to chooses sides here, because in a sense all of you are correct. The only real importance lies in the fact that you enjoy the game. So if you're enjoying the game when you use this tactic, that's fine by me. If you hate this tactic and don't use it, that's fine by me...
What I'm trying to say here is that it's only game. When I buy a game, it's only to have fun. If I have fun using this or that strategy, then that's great. If somebody else is having fun using a different strategy, well that's great for them.
IMHO that's the only thing we should remember: games are bought for fun, and there will allways be differences in the ways people define fun.
And to everybody "Happy civing"

Greetings Jurimax

Cartouche Bee
Feb 13, 2003, 11:12 AM
Probably hidden in all the text on the subject but it's worth repeating.

Once you get to tanks you can really increase you GL's by forcing tanks to elites. By making double runs at units that have had their HP knocked down to 1 you get an elite for every tank you don't lose. Running stacks of elite tanks at enemy SOD's that have been worn down can really rack up a heavy flow of GL's.

Moonsinger
Feb 13, 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Cartouche Bee
Once you get to tanks you can really increase you GL's by forcing tanks to elites. By making double runs at units that have had their HP knocked down to 1 you get an elite for every tank you don't lose. Running stacks of elite tanks at enemy SOD's that have been worn down can really rack up a heavy flow of GL's.

I concur! Using a lot of artillery is one of the most effective way to farm for Great Leader. Of course, one may also consider this method as an exploit too. Basically, any effective use of the human brain is an exploit since the AIs (even with the best and fastest computer in the world) can't possibly keep up with the human brain processing power. In a way, the people of the RBCiv epics are exploiting the game more than anyone that I know of.;)

Cartouche Bee
Feb 13, 2003, 11:44 AM
All the greatest historic heroic battles were won by the underdogs and they used some exploit of the situation to win. I guess finding the exploits are at least half the fun of the game. ;)

I rarely have to resort to tanks so I'm a slow learner.

barron of ideas
Feb 13, 2003, 11:45 AM
I am not sure I follow the idea that winning demonstrates you have used exploits to win. Or did I not understand what you mean when you say "The people of the RBC epics are exploiting the game more than anyone that I know of."

Using "Exploits" is bad. (most people who read this would agree)

You seem to say the people of the RBC epics are using exploits.

It seems to logically follow the RBCer's are bad. Did you mean to imply they are? If not, please expand on what you meant.

Moonsinger
Feb 13, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Cartouche Bee
All the greatest historic heroic battles were won by the underdogs and they used some exploit of the situation to win. I guess finding the exploits are at least half the fun of the game. ;)

I rarely have to resort to tanks so I'm a slow learner.
Yes, me too.:) Like you, I'm a very slow learner. By the time, we get tanks, there aren't any war left to fight.:sad:


Originally posted by barron of ideas
I am not sure I follow the idea that winning demonstrates you have used exploits to win. Or did I not understand what you mean when you say "The people of the RBC epics are exploiting the game more than anyone that I know of."

Using "Exploits" is bad. (most people who read this would agree)

You seem to say the people of the RBC epics are using exploits.

It seems to logically follow the RBCer's are bad. Did you mean to imply they are? If not, please expand on what you meant.
I stand by exactly what I said.;) Here is a re-cap of it:

Originally posted by Moonsinger
Basically, any effective use of the human brain is an exploit since the AIs (even with the best and fastest computer in the world) can't possibly keep up with the human brain processing power. In a way, the people of the RBCiv epics are exploiting the game more than anyone that I know of.;)

Meaning exactly what CB just explained "All the greatest historic heroic battles were won by the underdogs and they used some exploit of the situation to win". If you want to get to the botoom of this issue, let's start another thread "The Ethic and Definition of Exploitation".;)

Cartouche Bee
Feb 13, 2003, 12:06 PM
barron, I can't really answer for Moonsinger, but I think she really implies they are the most highly concentrated group of skilled successful players. I think you may have dwelled on the exploit part a bit too much or the wrong way. ;)

[Edit:] I was a bit late. :lol:

barron of ideas
Feb 13, 2003, 03:36 PM
OK, I agree the RBC ers are of awsome capability. I thought they were being criticised.

Erik Mesoy
Feb 14, 2003, 09:57 PM
I would stand on "exploit" as doing something the computer would never consider.
The AI does attack people with which it has RoP, but does not position units next to all cities and then break RoP.
The AI does use artillery (even catapults) but does not abandon cities infinitely do use them.
Then I consider certain things to be "making up" for the AI having foreknowledge of the map, e.g. if the AI found in a spot where they miss 3 game, a fish and a whale then I can know that there will be a resource under that city.

I'm sure nobody else uses this exact definition, and I will not force it on you. This is just my reasoning behind what I consider to be exploitative.
Merry Civmas, and have a nice time playing Civ!

ltcoljt
Mar 14, 2003, 10:13 PM
I am going to chime in here and say that insofar as SP games go I see no problem with what anyone does, even if they are using a trainer program.

If it is a SP game in a comparative platform like the GOTM then as long as no rules are violated then there is no problem.

If it is a MP game that has defined rules, and you act within those rules there is no problem.

If it is a MP without defined rules then of course there is no problem.

If SP or MP competition with rules, if you discover a new tactic that is subsequently defined as exploitative, you should get a pat on the back for increasing the body of knowledge of the game. But it would be better to let folks know about it asap to avoid hard feelings. Using a tactic that you know might be considered an exploit without revealing it is sure not the way to win friends.

But, this is a game and this talk of ethics is a little bit of a stretch.

Now one thing that I would consider clearly unethical is playing a multiplayer game in which the rules state that there can be only one winner, and happily agreeing to cooperate with another player in order to secure a second place finish. That stinks to high heaven in my book. But thats just my opinion. :D

Now, what are RBC epics?

alamo
Apr 10, 2003, 01:02 PM
The exploit aspect of this should be considered in parallel with the old ROP exploit trick - positioning SOD's next to target cities using ROP then attacking. This is not completely realistic or in the spirit of the game, either. I don't think you could justify one while allowing the other.

Having said that, why not combine the two for an even bigger bang for the buck? If you do not mind the rep hit, then you can use ROP to strategically position settlers in the target territory to split it open like a watermellon on a hot summer day. If you have enough arty and cav you could take it all in one big bite.

Moreover, marching settlers through foreign territory is much less threatening than a SOD, not that the AI can tell the difference. Even a human player is likely to fall for it, if there aren't too many escorts. Also, if you suddenly have many cities spring up in enemy territory they are likely to waste troops trying to take them out.

I personally like to have a ton of cav so the retreaters have time to heal. Back before the random retreat it was a virtual slaughter to simply wear down inf with cav.

zebomba2
Apr 16, 2003, 09:50 PM
Personally, I don t think we need to go harsh towards each other, do we?
Anyway, it s a good idea AND an exploit. But whatever, deity games are NBC(nuclear, biological and chemical) allowed area. The AI's bonus is just outrageous, so everything is ok.
Including ROP rape, ICS, arty exploit, resource denial, lux strategy, pope state, and the removed despotism whipping.
Besides, whether you, me or Moonsinger uses it or not, it s our own business.
Just don t use it against lower AIs than deity, or in MP.

Numdydar
Jul 16, 2003, 04:49 PM
The problem with your strategy with a human is two fold. If a settler of yours ever crossed my border, I would consider it an act of war and kill it.

The other method to slow or stop your advance is to build over-lapping cities near your border that would never grow past size 6. I would then build all the culture building (plus a wall and barracks). This would have the benefit of pushing my borders out as far and as fast as possible and may be able to flip any of your cities that were built too close in the process.

There are several other ways to halt your strategy that I want to keep to my self for the time being :)

Just keep in mind that for every great strategy that one develops, there is another one that can blunt or offset it.

DaveMcW
Jul 16, 2003, 08:24 PM
The easiest way to block this strategy is as a human is pillage all roads connecting your borders. ;)

Wellington
Jul 31, 2003, 10:59 AM
I've just come across this thread, as I recently got a computer fast enough to play the big maps.

I just want to say, I'm totally in favor this strategy! As somebody who holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Modern European History, I don't see any reason why people are complaining about ethics. THe thing about history and war is, it's so deep and so long that any statements made generalizing about whether or not settlers have ever been used in combat, or whether something's remotely possible, are probably wrong.

In the length of human history there is so much variety and so many notions of ethics, that the game Civ 3 can't even hope to come close to "historical accuracy". Anybody who's worried about historical accuracy may as well give up now. It's an historically-themed game, but it's woefully inaccurate - it really focuses entirely on Western (i.e., European) military history as taught at the high school level in America, using broad historical generalizations. If you think you're recreating accurately the feel of history in a given place at a given time, you're wrong.

The game is supposed to be *fun*! It follows its own rules, and just as in the real world, those rules were made to be broken. Real wars use every possible strategy, regardless of whether they're "fair" or "ethical". Despite the chemical weapons ban of 1919, chemical weapons continue to be used. Despite the land mine treaties, land mines continue to be used. So should moonsinger's strategy be used? Damn right it should! It *is* in the spirit of historical war to use whatever loopholes you can to win. I guarantee you that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston S. Churchill and Joseph Stalin did not care whether or not they were being fair in utilizing strategies to win the second World War. In the real world, would you rather win a war at all cost and guarantee your continued survival, especially against an "evil" aggressive enemy, or would you rather be fair, dead, and wiped off the Earth? Humanity has continually chosen the former.


Anyway, I love the strategy, I love the pages, and I'm glad these kinds of debates are taking place! I've played Civ games since I was in high school (the original Civ for DOS) but I love learning new strategies. Thanks Moonsinger!

Moonsinger
Aug 04, 2003, 06:15 AM
Thank you for your kind words, Wellington.:) I do really think that this strategy is honorable and won't be considered as an exploit if we don't build and disband city in the same turn or capture and disband city in the same turn.


Originally posted by Numdydar
The other method to slow or stop your advance is to build over-lapping cities near your border that would never grow past size 6. I would then build all the culture building (plus a wall and barracks). This would have the benefit of pushing my borders out as far and as fast as possible and may be able to flip any of your cities that were built too close in the process.

Numdydar: I don't think your method/methods will work.;) Basically, unless all your border towns have the culture ring of 3 or 4 (which is very unlikely), I'm just going to launch my cavalries to take one of those towns and the rest of your cities will fall like the dominos. Since you already build you cities close to each others, you would help my artilleries to advance quickly without me having to build additional outpost.

Starving Poet
Sep 25, 2003, 01:59 AM
Moonsinger, I would just like to commend you for actually sticking with something, even through all the onslaughts for almost a year now. :)

I'm from Illinois and I just thought Iowa was a wasteland ;) You bring light to my world.

wvfoos
Sep 28, 2003, 07:36 PM
This article is amazing.

So simple, yet, idiot me never figured it out, to just build a city to park my arty in, then disband it.

With an army of settlers and workers (and in my current game, i've got both - ive got about 10 settlers just hanging out in my capital), and a stack of arty, and a couple of offensive and defensive units, you can run right through the enemy's land like crap through a goose..

binyo66
Oct 29, 2003, 05:53 PM
Nice technique :goodjob:.

I remember I used to do the same in Dune II. But somehow, I forgot to apply it to Civ III. I will try it this weekend.

XOVER
Nov 02, 2003, 11:51 AM
I agree that artillery has its uses. And I can see how the settler gambit deal would work. But why do all this? All this "feight city-building for artillery movement" seems to be most inefficient to me when it comes to conquering the enemy.

Let me get this straight, the premise of this thread is to build some cities (and use up settlers) in enemy territory to get around the fact that artillery can move only 1 square at a time in enemy territory so you can hopefully get stacks of great quantities of artillery close enough to an enemy city to blow it to smithereens? Huh? Come again? Really?

First of all, I almost never build artillery. I like to capture artillery in conquest, and that's fine and all. But it's a big waste of turns and resources to actually build artillery. If you want to be successful in warfare, you ought to be building Cavalry or tanks if you're not building city improvements. But not artillery. Give me an army of 20 Cavalry over a stack of 50 artillery any day, which is about the tradeoff you're going to have if you build artillery instead of, say, Cavalry. That would be a really huge blunder.

And when I do have artillery, I always use artillery defensively; that is, to weaken opponent's units in the field before attacking and destoying those units. I eschew using artillery offensively because my conquered cities tend to be so far from my capital, they're one shield cities. And so I need those marketplaces, barracks, etc, that are already there in place, and I darn sure don't want to destroy them by pounding the cities with artillery. Which is exactly why you should build Cavalry or tanks instead of artillery. The object of constructive warfare is to capture the opponent's city along with its prizes. Artillery units can't capture anything. Cavalry and tanks can.

I mean, how long do you intend for your war to last? Dozens of turns or 10 to 20 turns? Artillery based warfare, coupled with building cities in enemy territory for purposes of artillery delivery, is going to keep you busy long past war weariness limits, even with Universal Suffrage, if the attacked Civ has any kind of size at all.

When I use artillery, I use them for warfare support. In fact, about the only use for artillery is to weaken an enemy unit before the unit is attacked and destroyed. That's it. Note that by firing the artillery from within a city, the artillery is better protected since artillery cannot move after they shoot. So do think before you shoot your artillery.

As a final matter, artillery is useless in quelling resistance. So why in the world would you build great quantities of them? They cost money and they sit around doing little to nothing, even in times of war! Plus, you can't even airdrop the units via airports to support warfare on other continents. You've got to transport them via sea units.

Artillery ought to be an afterthought in Civ, and not some huge strategy for conquering rival Civs by building (apparently) dozens of artillery, bringing up settlers and establishing soon-to-be-worthless cities, etc, etc. I just don't see the point. And settlers only get one move in enemy territory also, and must be protected also. So the efficacy of the whole strategy is in question in my mind.

The strategy for successful conquering in Civ3 is simple: build mobile attack units. Lots of them. Tons of them. Want to win the war the quickest possible way? Build Cavalry and then tanks and then MA. Every single time. Not artillery. Never artillery. Hugely inefficient waste.

Now if you want to do the artillery gambit discussed in this thread for "fun," then fine. That's a legitimate reason. I guess some people could drive from Providence to NYC by way of Buffalo because taking in all the sights would be "fun." No problem. Civ3 is made to be "fun."

But if your purpose is to rack up the most points in the game, to win a war as quickly as possible, to conduct efficient warfare, and to conquer productive cities, then the premise of this thread quickly breaks down. Having said this, the thread is nonetheless interesting and worthwhile because it gets people to thinking. And that's a good thing.

JMO.

Moonsinger
Nov 03, 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by XOVER
Let me get this straight, the premise of this thread is to build some cities (and use up settlers) in enemy territory to get around the fact that artillery can move only 1 square at a time in enemy territory so you can hopefully get stacks of great quantities of artillery close enough to an enemy city to blow it to smithereens? Huh? Come again? Really?

No, that wasn't the premise of this thread. The premise of this thread is how to destroy an enemy of at least 5 times stronger than us and more advance in tech than us. Imagining that we need to take an enemy city of size 24 or above and they are heavily defended with infantries (or MI) and their city culture boundary is of ring 3 or more at deity level.

I mean, how long do you intend for your war to last? Dozens of turns or 10 to 20 turns? Artillery based warfare, coupled with building cities in enemy territory for purposes of artillery delivery, is going to keep you busy long past war weariness limits, even with Universal Suffrage, if the attacked Civ has any kind of size at all.

Not true! If your enemy is much stronger and can out produce you anytime, you won't be able to win the war with less than 10 turns without using artillery offensively. With artillery, you can fight your war at least twice as fast (just raze a few of their cores and they will be willing to talk within about 6 turns later; if that isn't fast enough than I don't know what else?). Hint: since artillery do not need time to heal, we can use them in every turn. With other units, chances are they won't survive the battle and those that do survive the battle would need time to heal. Now, with artillery to reduce the enemy unit to 1 HP, we would cut our lost at least 1/2. Just remember that we are going against an enemy much stronger than us.


When I use artillery, I use them for warfare support. In fact, about the only use for artillery is to weaken an enemy unit before the unit is attacked and destroyed. That's it. Note that by firing the artillery from within a city, the artillery is better protected since artillery cannot move after they shoot. So do think before you shoot your artillery.[quote]

Becuase artillery can not move after they shoot and they can move only 1 point in enemy terriory each turn, exactly the reason why we need to use the settler (or engineering team) to support them and to enable them to attack at lightning speed at each turn.;) No offend, but it seem to me that you miss the point of this article.

[quote]As a final matter, artillery is useless in quelling resistance. So why in the world would you build great quantities of them?
Since the enemy culture is at least 10 times stronger than us, we won't be able to prevent them from flipping back to our enemy. Therefore, we may well blow them to pieces and raze the remainder for free worker. Of course, we don't really need to rebuild them because we can just simply keep the outpost that we just build as the replacement for the one we just raze.;)

They cost money and they sit around doing little to nothing, even in times of war!

They do not sit around doing little or nothing! I don't know about you, but I fire every single one of my 200 artilleries in every turn and I don't rest until the enemy is completely eliminated. That's the only way to make sure that they don't come back and their cities won't flip back.;) Once one enemy is gone, immediately move on to the next one and so on.

Plus, you can't even airdrop the units via airports to support warfare on other continents. You've got to transport them via sea units.

What's wrong with transporting them by sea?

Artillery ought to be an afterthought in Civ, and not some huge strategy for conquering rival Civs by building (apparently) dozens of artillery, bringing up settlers and establishing soon-to-be-worthless cities, etc, etc. I just don't see the point. And settlers only get one move in enemy territory also, and must be protected also. So the efficacy of the whole strategy is in question in my mind.

We are not talking about a couple dozens of artillery here. This strategy will fail if you have less than 100 artillery units. Sure the settler need to be protected, but that is only 1 unit that you need protect. If you lost it, that's really no big deal. The secret is to keep your main attack force (SOD) far away and safe as possible until they are needed. Without the settler, you main attack force must spend at least 1 turn idle in enemy territory (not to mention the cost of WW because the more troops you have in enemy territory at the end of your turn, the higher rate of WW). I don't like to leave my main army sitting duck like that; I like to keep them safe and far away from the battle front until they are needed. And because they are not tied up, I can instantly launch them anywhere - make good use of my little force (just remember that I'm going against an enemy much stronger than mine).

The strategy for successful conquering in Civ3 is simple: build mobile attack units. Lots of them. Tons of them. Want to win the war the quickest possible way? Build Cavalry and then tanks and then MA. Every single time. Not artillery. Never artillery. Hugely inefficient waste.

Just one quick question: what level are we talking about here? At deity level, we are out gunned, out produced, and possibly far behide in tech too.;)


But if your purpose is to rack up the most points in the game, to win a war as quickly as possible, to conduct efficient warfare, and to conquer productive cities, then the premise of this thread quickly breaks down. Having said this, the thread is nonetheless interesting and worthwhile because it gets people to thinking. And that's a good thing.

Well, you just have to try and find out for yourself because I'm not going to tell you what kind of high score I usually got in these games.;)

Yndy
Nov 04, 2003, 02:31 AM
Xover, you don’t read these boards often, do you?

At any time I would play at any level even with all fast moving units disabled (for me) if I could still build artillery. In your case, I would play you without any fast moving units and even give you a 20% shield discount for all fast moving units and still be sure to win.

Before reading Moonsinger’s strategy I used stacks of 20+ arty. Afterwards, I increased that to at least 100 arty and never lost a game after reaching Replaceable parts.

alexman
Nov 04, 2003, 02:14 PM
Can you imagine a stack of 100 lethal bombard Hwach'a?
Aparently C3C has given lethal bombard to the Korean UU!
:eek:

anarres
Nov 04, 2003, 03:33 PM
H'watcha are lame even with lethal bombard. With a bombard strength as in PTW of 12 and with lethal bombard they are still ineffectual against cities. If the city has just 2 Muskets it will take at least 20 to take them down, and I have tried with 35 and still failed in one turn. In this sense the lethal bomard is not a huge 'extra' because of the inability to actually get that far in a city invasion.

In Conquests they are reducing the bombard strength back to the normal 8, presumably to counter balance the lethal bombard. I think this is a big mistake, since even now they are not an amazingly useful unit. With a bombard of 8 you will do nothing to reduce the size of a city or to take out buildings, unless you really do have 100 H'watcha.

One of the main reasons arty works is because they can bombard 2 tiles away, Cannon and H'watcha can't. This combined with the lack of railraids means you are much slower in getting to the enemy. If you can build 100 H'watcha I would recommend you build 60 Cavalry instead, to get the AI before they get Infantry.

Moonsinger
Nov 04, 2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by alexman
Can you imagine a stack of 100 lethal bombard Hwach'a?
Aparently C3C has given lethal bombard to the Korean UU!
:eek:

Yes, but the Hwacha's range is too short; therefore, we can't really use it offensively.;) In any case, the Hwacha is very good for defensive purpose.:)

//Edit: anarres beats me to the post.:(

Numdydar
Nov 04, 2003, 06:04 PM
The point with the smaller cities was not so much to prevent you from taking them, but to slow your takeover by giving you too many targets near your border to get all of them. This would allow me to counter attack with my artillery and offensive units.

SInce I have read this article, I have found using artillery much more effective. However, I find it easier to skip the settler part and just take everything and stack it togeather one square inside emeny territory and attack on the following turn.

Depending on how the AI has set up it's cities, taking the 1st one can easily lead to taking 2 to 3 more in the same turn without using settlers. Also if the offensive units get damaged, they can all park inside a captured city and quickly quell any resistance. Then while the units heal, quickly build either a temple and Library or a cathederal. Either way, the culture will expand in four turns. This gives every one a chance to heal, regroup and plan for the next push.

Using this method, saves having to make settlers, still allows for a fairly rapid expansion, and needs far less units to accomplish. I have used this strategy with great results. Typically I have between 50-60 artillery and around 40 Cav/Tanks/Modern Armor and can take 2-3 cities (sometimes more if they are <6).

My biggest problem is the city being reduced to 2 pop before all the defenders are redlined. All I know is this method works really well for me. Usually I can't wait to build the size of force Moonsinger as I want to reduce the AI's abilities as soon as I can.

CIVPhilzilla
Nov 17, 2003, 04:34 PM
Awesome Strat dude, I always hated waiting turn after turn for my artillery to move into position

zerksees
Dec 01, 2003, 10:25 AM
I want to add a possible improvement to this strategy.

Last night I was attacking an AI American city (Kansas City) that had a much larger cultural border than that depicted in the sample. I captured their second last city (which I will call city A) that was five tiles from the capital. I wanted to eliminate the last city this turn but did not know how. I had plenty of tanks and artillery but could not reach the city in this turn. Here is what I did:

1. I put a settler on the tile directly next to the city A which I had just taken. This settler is four tiles away from Kansas City, but he can’t build this turn because city A is there.
2. Raze city A.
3. Build city B with the settler you just placed.
4. Place another settler directly next to city B and three tiles from Kansas City.
5. Raze city B.
6. Build city C.

The borders of City C will open the tile that is two tiles from Kansas City. Now tanks, artillery and MI can reach Kansas City!

The only other requirement is that the tiles have roads or railroads.

This technique obviously costs a few settlers, but can greatly expedite an invasion of well-spaced AI cities. If you are doing it properly each city attack will leave a row of ruins from start to finish. Too bad I discovered it at the end of the war!

(Please ignore if this was already mentioned above. I tried to read it all but may have missed some)

Moonsinger
Dec 01, 2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by zerksees
1. I put a settler on the tile directly next to the city A which I had just taken. This settler is four tiles away from Kansas City, but he can’t build this turn because city A is there.
2. Raze city A.
3. Build city B with the settler you just placed.
4. Place another settler directly next to city B and three tiles from Kansas City.
5. Raze city B.
6. Build city C.

Nice thought!:goodjob: Unfortunately, it has already been discussed in this thread before (no apology is needed because this is a long thread and I don't expect anyone to read it from the beginning to the end;)). Anyway, many people would treat this as an exploit because with enough settlers, you could crawl right up to their capital (if you need to destroy their spaceship or capture their king/queen or whatever) within 1 turn. Btw, the correct term for this method is as follows:

2. Disband city A.
3. Build city B with the settler you just placed.
4. Place another settler directly next to city B ...
5. Disband city B.
6. Build city C.
7. Repeat as needed.;)

I replace the word "raze" with the word "disband" because you can't raze your own city.

civ_steve
Dec 01, 2003, 04:30 PM
Well, to be technical, the actual command is 'Abandon City', reached by right-clicking on the city. (Unless they changed it in Conquests, which I don't have yet! :) )

Moonsinger
Dec 01, 2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by civ_steve
Well, to be technical, the actual command is 'Abandon City', reached by right-clicking on the city. (Unless they changed it in Conquests, which I don't have yet! :) )

:lol:You are absolutely correct!:goodjob:

zerksees
Dec 02, 2003, 10:23 AM
Thanks for the corrections.

Moonsinger, would it be a good idea to add this variation to the original article?

I think it would be handy for war academy readers to know about it, so anyone can make their own decision about whether it is an “exploit”.

You can describe it as an “exploit” if you like, but I will use it. It is in the rules of the game. It’s not like reloading if the AI sneak attacks you, or to avoid paying for info you get from embassy or spying. To me those are “exploits”.

anarres
Dec 02, 2003, 10:29 AM
If you read up you will find the 'settler creep' method of gaining territory has already been discussed in length. :scan:

a4phantom
Feb 18, 2004, 11:03 PM
I agree that the settler strategy outlined by Moonsinger is an an unfair exploit, and entirely unrealistic. This does not mean that if I ever dare play at Diety level I won't use it, but it should not be used in MP in my view. What I do do is settle new settlers on available spaces along the border (during peacetime) to cramp the rival civ's territory, establish barrackses and airbases very close to their cities, and grab territory that, along with providing pop, prod and commerce might be the site of late appearing resources. Most importantly of course is that it gives me control of the roads on those squares and effectively brings my cavalry or tanks within easy reach of their front line cities. This is hardly friendly, but it is not game blowing like the use of settlers to penetrate deep within enemy territory, and it could be counterd by the enemy civ building their own advanced cities or having a strong culture.

jshelr
Feb 19, 2004, 09:46 AM
I have not read the details of the "exploit" line of thought, but let me propose that Europeans have for centuries begun wars of vast territorial conquest by first sending settlers and later actual armies. As an American, and thinking about the indians in North America, it is clear that settlers first claimed territory that the troops later were able to use more effectively due to the friendly population in the area. So, what's unrealistic about ethnic cleansing and replacement of indigenous population with your own citizens as part of a strategy of conquest from a European point of view????

a4phantom
Feb 20, 2004, 03:20 PM
Look at Texas and the Mexican-American War. But it didn't happen in a turn, before the opposition could do anything.

Moonsinger
Feb 24, 2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by a4phantom
Look at Texas and the Mexican-American War. But it didn't happen in a turn, before the opposition could do anything.

Well, one turn in Civ3 could mean up to 50 years in real life.;)

a4phantom
Feb 24, 2004, 09:38 AM
Yes my friend/Goddess but did the other team have to sit still?

zerksees
Feb 24, 2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by a4phantom
Yes my friend/Goddess but did the other team have to sit still?

Everyone has an opinion so here is mine:

This is a game. Civ III is a game. Games have rules that are different than real life. Any correlation between the game and real life is not really relevant to winning the game.


I think this is a great strategy. And even if I have cannons I can use this to shorten the time to get them close to the enemy cities.

a4phantom
Feb 24, 2004, 10:09 AM
And if I ever play Diety I will probably have to resort to it too. But on multiplayer at least it seems like cheating.

Has someone made a mechanized artillery unit? Something with the same stats, but more expensive and two moves? They were being used by 1939 if not earlier, and would be able to keep up with thanks and stay close enough to cavalry and modern armor.

jshelr
Feb 24, 2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by a4phantom
And if I ever play Diety I will probably have to resort to it too. But on multiplayer at least it seems like cheating.

Has someone made a mechanized artillery unit? Something with the same stats, but more expensive and two moves? They were being used by 1939 if not earlier, and would be able to keep up with thanks and stay close enough to cavalry and modern armor.

Mechanized arty = tank. If we want realism, let tanks bombard along the lines of ships' behavior. I'm not recommending that, of course, because it would not work well within the game context.

a4phantom
Feb 24, 2004, 10:52 AM
Mechanized arty = an artillery gun on a tank chassis.

anarres
Feb 24, 2004, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by a4phantom
And if I ever play Diety I will probably have to resort to it too. But on multiplayer at least it seems like cheating.Why on earth would this be unfair against a human? :eek:

If anything the other human is much more able than the AI to counter this (because the AI can't do it), so if anything it is unfair in SP and fair in MP games...

a4phantom
Feb 24, 2004, 04:54 PM
Really? What would you do to counter it?

jshelr
Feb 24, 2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by a4phantom
Really? What would you do to counter it?

This is an interesting question. I think the answer starts with a new concept of defense in depth for human games. But there is no doubt that the "gunslinger" issue raised here -- it's smart to shoot first -- is very applicable to late-game strategy. :eek:

zerksees
Feb 24, 2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by a4phantom
Really? What would you do to counter it?

This has probably already been said in this thread somewhere but here goes:

Build my own big stack of arty and offensive units. Any attempt to move a settler near border is met with just enough units to take out the settler. Use cultural expansion to move borders so enemy can't build a city outside your territory and move the borders close enough to hit.

If this fails and you lose a city, use your arty stack and units to take it back the next turn. After retaking city, use remaining arty and units to capture enemies arty stack. Use enemy arty stack and your arty stack to reverse the offensive against enemy. Make sure you have enough units to defend your stack.

You could also consider having lots of friends who will declare war on the human instigator, forcing him to redirect units or take losses in other areas.

Or just nuke their arty stack....

Or ... the possibilities!

Multiplayer brings a whole new dimension of fun doesn't it?

a4phantom
Feb 25, 2004, 06:04 PM
==Build my own big stack of arty and offensive units. Any attempt to move a settler near border is met with just enough units to take out the settler. Use cultural expansion to move borders so enemy can't build a city outside your territory and move the borders close enough to hit. ==

The problem of course being that the point of the strategy is to defeat you before you have any opportunity to use artillery or offensive units. With railroads, your opponent's "attempt to move a settler near border" will occur during a single turn of his, as will the founding of a city, the bringing up of another settler, the abandonment of the city, the founding of another . . . all without you being able to respond. By the time you're allowed to respond, your core cities could all be razed and your offensive units destroyed playing defense. He'll have your artillery of course. If your SOD is hidden and does not get destroyed, you may be able to counter attack but your main cities will have been destroyed. Cultural expansion will only increase by one the number of settlers he needs to execute the strategy.

Aggie
Feb 26, 2004, 04:42 AM
@a4panthom: you are now talking about "settler creep', which is often banned in multiplayer. MP games I played always started with a discussion on what were legal tactics. Settler creep was almost always seen as invalled.

Using artillery in large quantities is another story. The way to counter it is: have a large stack yourself and have A LOT of defense units in bordercities. AI tens to have a max of 4 units in cities. Humans often have 20+ at crucial spots.

zerksees
Feb 26, 2004, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by a4phantom
With railroads, your opponent's "attempt to move a settler near border" will occur during a single turn of his, as will the founding of a city, the bringing up of another settler, the abandonment of the city, the founding of another . . . all without you being able to respond.

Leave one row of tiles with no roads or railroads whatsoever at the border. That would stop "settler creep". If you need to keep a road open, make it through a mountain or heavily fortified. You will give up some of your efficiency on those tiles, but if you have a large empire those cities are probably higher on the corruption scale anyway.

Enemy would have to stop there at the unroaded border and wait one turn.

Good?

a4phantom
Feb 26, 2004, 01:51 PM
Yes, I suppose that would do it, although at an extremely high price (it would, for instance, be a real pain to clear pollution out of those intentionally roadless squares, aside from the drop in commerce). The whole premise still seems like an exploit of the turn system to me, but since we're rather unlikely to ever duel it doesn't really matter. Thanks for your advice.

ShotgunDave
Mar 01, 2004, 03:00 PM
Why even bother with the arty stack now? with my airbases and a metric buttload of stealth bombers I can take any city's defenders out without difficulty, create a new base if need be with the razed city's workers and rebase, perhaps not as fast as the arty stack but a whole lot more manageable(and realistic)

alexman
Mar 01, 2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by ShotgunDave
Why even bother with the arty stack now?
Because artillery is cheaper?
Because artillery cannot be shot down by AA?
Because artillery targets units before city improvements?
Because you get artillery much before stealth?

ShotgunDave
Mar 01, 2004, 06:43 PM
See now I prefer when the enemy fights back a bit, if artillery fire could be met with counter-battery fire then I'd agree and use it, but otherwise it just isn't much fun

Moonsinger
Mar 03, 2004, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by ShotgunDave
See now I prefer when the enemy fights back a bit, if artillery fire could be met with counter-battery fire then I'd agree and use it, but otherwise it just isn't much fun

If your enemy doesn't fight back much, you should move up to the next level.;) It will be a lot of fun if you try it at the Deity level or above on a huge map. Your enemy may be stupid but they usually are 10 times stronger than you. Even with a stack of around 150 artilleries, you may be running out of ammo longer before they are running out of troops. Not to mention that they can rebuild their force much faster than you. Also, you probably are about 1/2 of the tech tree in behide too.;) By the time you get stealth bombers, they probably already launch their spaceship century ago.

Ruchelli
Apr 05, 2004, 10:05 AM
I use the same strategy however, I do not use the settlers. I find that once you take one of thier cities you can use it as your outpost. YOU DONT EVEN HAVE TO BUILD ARTILLARY!!! I was playing a game last night where the AI must have had a fetish with catapaults. I would take a city and capture the catapualts. Some cities had 5 other cities had 15+. I would then use their own weapons against them. They only had about 2-3 defenders. Once they were dead, HELLO catapaults it was like X-Mass. I would then upgrade them to artillary. I started with 0 and ended my campaign against the Zulus with 150 Artillary I never built a single one. Just upgraded them.


on the countering of such strategy: to counter such a strategy one should use air power. when the artillary are on their way bomb the units protecting them from the air. Then move in and capture their artillary and use as your own. I dont think that anything is unfair in MP because each human player has the "right" and capabilities of doing the same thing. I guess it comes down to whoever managed their cities better to build more units and so on.

Moonsinger
Apr 12, 2004, 11:05 AM
It seems to me that Firaxis had made artillery far much better in Civ III Conquests. I played a little bit on Sid last night and noticed that my artilleries were rarely missed and they often caused multiple damage points too! Basically, the citywall and the city defenders will be automatically treated as the primary target. So far, I haven't seen any collateral damage or any civilian casualty yet!!! Wow, each artillery cell in C3C is now carrying a smart onboard computer directing itself to only military target.:lol: Have any one seen artillery miss-fired and hit civilian target in C3C yet (assuming that not all city defenders were at 1HP)?

I'm not sure if I should be happy or sad, but it feels like an exploit using artillery in C3C.:o

PS: So far in my bloodiest game on Sid, I was just starting to take out the weakest AI and his cities were heavily defended by Rifflemans (no Rubber=no Infantryman). I'm going to move against Persia or Rusia soon they those guys have a lot of Infantryman defenders (and planes too). May be my artilleries will miss more often??? Not sure, but I will find out next week.

anarres
Apr 12, 2004, 03:59 PM
Yes Moonsinger, someone just reported to me that bombard units target units in a city before city improvements and pop points! :eek:

Not sure how wise this is, it makes all bombard units very powerful, and Arty are now even more devastating than before in even modest numbers...

Aggie
Apr 12, 2004, 04:03 PM
Bombers do hit other targets AND citiziens as well, but artillery indeed take out defense before everything else. First planes and ships, then land units. That's why I still like artillery more than bombers (despite their lethal bombardment). I'm surprised that both of you noticed this only recently.

alexman
Apr 12, 2004, 04:09 PM
I am too. It's been that way since 1.00 and received the same amount of debate and controversy as bombers' lethal bombard at the time.

The sad part is that the AI not only doesn't take advantage of the new power of artillery, but it uses artillery even less than in PTW. The AI now never bombards using artillery, even if you park your units adjacent to an AI city full of artillery.

Aggie
Apr 12, 2004, 04:15 PM
alexman, I have seen them using artillery just two days ago. But that was only one shot, while they were using far more bombers, missiles and ships.

zerksees
Apr 12, 2004, 04:18 PM
Moonsinger

I am experiencing the same thing with arty on C3C 1.15. I am hoping that once the units are redlined you can then hit citizens to reduce population to take away defensive bonus for city size.

I think they are more powerful now and allow you to take over a city intact. Seems like I need more arty than ever. Artillery is :king:

Moonsinger
Apr 12, 2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Aggie
Bombers do hit other targets AND citiziens as well, but artillery indeed take out defense before everything else. First planes and ships, then land units. That's why I still like artillery more than bombers (despite their lethal bombardment). I'm surprised that both of you noticed this only recently.

I just noticed this...because yesterday was actually the first time I used artillery since C3C was released. Generally, unless I'm playing Deity or Sid or against you, I do not use artillery at all (if I capture them, I would immediately disband them for shield). Since the AIs don't know how to use artillery at all, they won't stand much a chance against us using them. Now come the improve version of artillery in C3C (and no upkeep cost if we capture them), I think it may be a bad idea to make them that deadly.

@zerksees: Good luck with your game!:) Actually, you don't really need any luck once you get a handful of artillery.;)

Moonsinger
Apr 12, 2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by anarres
Not sure how wise this is, it makes all bombard units very powerful, and Arty are now even more devastating than before in even modest numbers...

They probably did it because too many people were complaining that artillery was no good. It may be not wise to make them that powerful, but I'm sure we can limit ourselves from using them excessively.

PS: Since I'm currently playing for the highest possible HOF score on Sid, all artillery usage restriction are off and I'm trying to slaugher the AIs as fast as I can.:D Btw, since the army can also be rushed (as SirPleb just recently discovered) and military leader does seem to show up more often too (I had 5 of them in one turn and I wasn't even trying to farm them), Sid level doesn't seem so tough no more.

Jurimax
Apr 13, 2004, 03:11 PM
Moonsinger, where's the post about Army-rushing? I searched around and I couldn't find it.

Greetz Jurimax.

a4phantom
Apr 13, 2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Moonsinger
Now come the improve version of artillery in C3C (and no upkeep cost if we capture them), I think it may be a bad idea to make them that deadly.


Really? I noticed that captured Sumerian trenchbutts (spelling?) remained Sumerian when captured, and if I recall they were upgraded to Sumerian cannons, but I had no idea they were upkeep free! That makes zero sense.

Moonsinger
Apr 14, 2004, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Jurimax
Moonsinger, where's the post about Army-rushing? I searched around and I couldn't find it.

Yes, the army can be rushed. He reported here (and I have been rushing it like crazy ever since):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25078

Look for that long post at the bottom of the third page.

Moonsinger
Apr 14, 2004, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by a4phantom
Really? I noticed that captured Sumerian trenchbutts (spelling?) remained Sumerian when captured, and if I recall they were upgraded to Sumerian cannons, but I had no idea they were upkeep free! That makes zero sense.

Yes, they are totally upkeep free.:) They are like workers now, when you capture them, they reserve their nationality.:)

zerksees
Apr 14, 2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Moonsinger
Actually, you don't really need any luck once you get a handful of artillery.;)

This is a big understatement if I ever heard one

I ran some experiments in C3C 1.15 on AI China cities last night and confirmed that once units are redlined the city will start taking damage – losing improvements and citizens. I was relieved to see this, as I don’t like attacking metropolis cities with cavalry.

I tested on two cities – size 11 and size 9. In both cases once the units were redlined the first 3-4 arty missed, but that was followed by a long string of hits. In the first case, after the string of misses, I think I took out 6 improvements or population with consecutive shots – no misses! :eek: The hit percentage appears significantly higher (Like artillery really needed help!?)

I need more testing to see if these two attacks were isolated incidents. I am a big proponent of artillery and can't recall that kind of success ever in PTW.

I can see switching to a no-war weariness government once I get my first arty, then pillaging anything in reach until my territory is surrounded by cratered wasteland! When I have enough units to take a city, then the artillery can help with that. Any unhappy AI’s will have to pass that crater zone and surely be targeted by arty before they get past it.

a4phantom
Apr 14, 2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Moonsinger
Yes, the army can be rushed. He reported here (and I have been rushing it like crazy ever since):

Good to know!

a4phantom
Apr 14, 2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Moonsinger
Yes, they are totally upkeep free.:) They are like workers now, when you capture them, they reserve their nationality.:)

Wow. So how does cratering work?

Aggie
Apr 14, 2004, 11:22 PM
Cratering is a new feature of artillery. Craters will form when the last improvement of a tile is pillaged by artillery. I believe a cratered tile will have one food and one shield less than normal. I like the feature but it makes artillery even more powerful.

a4phantom
Apr 15, 2004, 12:42 AM
==Cratering is a new feature of artillery. Craters will form when the last improvement of a tile is pillaged by artillery. I believe a cratered tile will have one food and one shield less than normal. I like the feature but it makes artillery even more powerful.==

Salting the fields. Do bombers and naval guns cause craters? Also, I assume you can fire on an unimproved square to create craters?

PS - On rushing armis - I bet that's wierd with slave labor govts. As a warmonger playing Communist for much of the game, I'll now try to use a MGL to build Military Academy on a floodplainy city with huge food production but no shields, instead of an industrial city (which will now be free for building cav to populate those armies). How many citizens die rushing an army?

crackking
Apr 15, 2004, 04:31 AM
I WANT TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE BUT MUDDER IS ILLEGAL:nuke: :sniper: :ar15: [plasma] :satan: :rocket2: :ripper: :rocket: :worship: :worship:

wvfoos
Jul 09, 2004, 11:31 AM
subbed.............

Sneakysnaga
Jul 25, 2004, 05:56 AM
Even leaving aside the settler part to this, its a good strategy.

I like to use huge amounts of arty too. If you don't knock down infantry to 1HP they are very costly to displace. Even with the arty bombardment, I find I'm losing 2 cavalry to remove each infantry. Tanks fare slightly better but don't move quite as fast so it slows the advance. Overall I have to go a lot slower than you are suggesting just to allow my cities to build the units to keep up with the arty, because I still lose so many.

Moonsinger
Aug 04, 2004, 11:04 AM
Even leaving aside the settler part to this, its a good strategy.

I like to use huge amounts of arty too. If you don't knock down infantry to 1HP they are very costly to displace. Even with the arty bombardment, I find I'm losing 2 cavalry to remove each infantry. Tanks fare slightly better but don't move quite as fast so it slows the advance. Overall I have to go a lot slower than you are suggesting just to allow my cities to build the units to keep up with the arty, because I still lose so many.

In the beginning, a lot of cavalry will die, but they are dirt cheap to replace (a lot cheaper than tank). If you have Cleo's, just disconnect some resources and build horseman for mass upgrade. Since there is no mass upgrade for tank, you have to pay a full price for them; exactly why cavalry is much cheaper for the job. Plus cavalry can usually be able to retrieve into a safe zone after the kill. We can't say the same thing for tank; after the kill, tank would usually be sitting duck and very vunerable for enemy retaliation; therefore, we have to protect those tanks too which require additional defensive units and would slow down the entire campaign. Of course, since some people may consider mass upgrade as an exploit, so it's really up to you.;) Anyway, things will get much better as we go; very soon, we would generate enough leaders to make enough cavalry armies and a cavalry army can surely take out any 1HP defender without any problem.:) Of all the year I play Civ, I lost only 1 cavalry army to a 1HP Infantry defender (well, I was over confident and did not take out their radar tower first; so, the error was on my part) .

a4phantom
Aug 29, 2004, 01:37 PM
In the beginning, a lot of cavalry will die, but they are dirt cheap to replace (a lot cheaper than tank). If you have Cleo's, just disconnect some resources and build horseman for mass upgrade. Since there is no mass upgrade for tank, you have to pay a full price for them; exactly why cavalry is much cheaper for the job. Plus cavalry can usually be able to retrieve into a safe zone after the kill. We can't say the same thing for tank; after the kill, tank would usually be sitting duck and very vunerable for enemy retaliation; therefore, we have to protect those tanks too which require additional defensive units and would slow down the entire campaign. Of course, since some people may consider mass upgrade as an exploit, so it's really up to you.;) Anyway, things will get much better as we go; very soon, we would generate enough leaders to make enough cavalry armies and a cavalry army can surely take out any 1HP defender without any problem.:) Of all the year I play Civ, I lost only 1 cavalry army to a 1HP Infantry defender (well, I was over confident and did not take out their radar tower first; so, the error was on my part) .

These are all good points, but sometimes tanks are better at producing Leaders because of their blitz ability. Obviously this is limited on the offense by their mere two moves.

rysingsun
Sep 21, 2004, 10:19 PM
i apologize for only reading 8 pages of this before writing this up but i do have to comment on the "exploit" label given to this strategy. first up if you have 150 artillery you are almost always destined to win the game anyway. now these war turns late in the game especially at the higher levels where everything is micromanaged can take over an hour per turn easily. now i can use the settler exploit to cut the offensive against say three rivals to "only" 25 turns or do it all in 40 turns without the exploit. either way ive conquered the world, the main difference is that i saved 15-30 hours of my time. so i played dishonorably. honor in a game at deity level is not worth that much time.

honor honor.

conquest.

which one .... :mischief: ... conquest!

you dont even want to know what ive done in civ II to exploit ai weakness. but ill tell you anyway. giving the ai a very large starting advantage i was two turns away from the ai landing his spaceship when i launched my attack of ... :mischief: ... 100 spies escorting a handful of landtroops. the ai had a huge sprawling empire. i nuked the city with the UN and then the capital, captured both, split the empire (civil war) nuked the new capital, another civil war, nuked a few more cities ended with 3 civil wars and the original civ conquered. i nuked one city of each of the other two civs remaining and took one city each. with the UN everyone asked for peace. my official reputation was "spotless" still. the enemy was shattered in one turn. that was with a 200 turn headstart on deity. i only even had espionage because i was allied with this power and he gave it to me - or maybe it was my freight ... something like that. i was an economic weakling when i declared war and the 100 spies were all i could afford.

now THAT is an exploit. but you know what? i dont care. i was very proud of that game.

if you want to talk about "honorable play" then let me suggest these "rules of honor":

1) never use railroads that are not explicitly inside your own culture boundary. its never done in the real world.

2) never use artillery at a range of two EVER. a nine hundred mile throw on an artillery shell is not a real life possibilty.

3) planes shall never run missions at a range greater than two squares. they simply did not have that range.

4) never settle on a continent other than your starting continent in the ancient age. it wasnt done.

5) never declare war on a power with a good reputation. it is "dishonorable".

6) never play a militaristic civilization. its "dishonorable".

7) never raze a city. never abandon a city. both are abominations in the real world.

8) never rush an improvement with population in communism or despotism. it's cruel.

9) do not play civ. war as entertainment is deranged.

10) never allow a city to starve to stave off a pre-build from completion. put yourself in the shoes of your population here and you will see my point. besides its an exploit.

11) do not play on the easy levels. you have an unfair advantage over the ai. this is a huge exploit and your victories are hollow.

12) do not use a communist form of government. its "not nice". do not use a fascist form of government. could you look your mother in the eye after doing this?

in short i dont buy the "the strategy is dishonorable" argument for giving guilt trips to all of us who use it.

rysingsun
Sep 21, 2004, 10:42 PM
there is more to artillery than taking city after city in one turn. the defensive use of it can be just as intense :)

situation: player has 100 offensive ground units ready for a stomping not counting artillery plus 150 artillery. ai has 350 ground units approximately 100 of which would likely stay in the cities during a war. the other 250 would be expected to counterattack any invasion.

preparation stage: establish a line of "dummy cities" against the rival's boarder. these will be sacrificed for the war. place all the troops and artillery in the set of cities behind these. bomb out all the roads surrounding the dummy cities.

declaration stage: declare war. disband the dummy cities leaving a no-man's land of at least 3 tiles wide between you and the rival. wait for the enemy to send his troops in.

war stage: when troops arrives within 2 squares of your culture zone move the artillery to your culture boarder and bombard everything they can reach. fast troops like cavalry are the highest priority and they can be elimininated with a tank or cavalry counterattack. such troops of course move back after battle onto their rail network. next turn do the same. on the third turn infantry will be in range. attack them with artillery the same way.

if after the first turn of infantry bombardment there are still too many non-redlined infantry in the oncoming deathstack for a unit-elimination counterattack to be wise then back up a square and allow them to advance another turn. any redlined units that choose to heal instead of advancing will be left behind leaving a smaller stack for the next turn. if you need to abandon your second line of cities to avoid them being overrun do so, and bombard the rails into oblivion like you did for the frontline cities. the larger the invading force the more territory will have to be abandoned since they WILL rebuild the road network as they advance. but the ai being what it is will continue its advance with whatever troops it has and within a few turns the stack will be small enough for a bombard to counterattack turn to take out this front line. result is 50+ troops destroyed with 5 troops lost. repeat this a few times and the enemy will be decimated. the counterattack may now begin.

this strategy can be pulled off even if you have a serious numbers disadvantage. i plan on pulling up one of my saved games where i used this strategy to the turn right before the war started and disband about 2/3 of my (non-artillery) troops because im curious to know just how badly i can be outnumbered before i simply get overwhelmed. unfortunately in the game i played i had about 170 ground troops and i was only attacked with about 100. i destroyed them all and lost about 3 tanks or something doing it. im thinking about trying it with zero ground troops and 150 artillery on the turn i declare war and relying only on reinforcements to handle the ground battles. if there were a cheat menu as in civ II id just give them an extra 200 troops.

i wouldnt mind hearing from others what sort of odds theyve gone against using this technique and come across victorious.

a4phantom
Jan 28, 2005, 06:50 PM
"if you want to talk about "honorable play" then let me suggest these "rules of honor":

1) never use railroads that are not explicitly inside your own culture boundary. its never done in the real world."

I could almost swear that British and American troops have used French railroads. I could be wrong though. I do think you're confusing two things however. Noone cares how "honorable" or not you personally are, or what you do in games with the AI. Using an exploit in the game to crush another player in an unrealistic and (much more importantly) undefensible way is slightly different.

Own
Feb 11, 2005, 05:59 PM
maybe it's just me but isn't 100 artillery over-doing it? i usually use 40.

Moonsinger
Feb 12, 2005, 10:19 PM
maybe it's just me but isn't 100 artillery over-doing it? i usually use 40.

It's really all depending on the game level and the size of the maps that you are playing. Also, artilleries usually miss in vanilla Civ3 and PTW; therefore, you need a hundred to be effective. In C3C, I would say about 7 out of 10 shots on the average hit the target; therefore, a stack of 100 may be a little bits overkill in C3C. Btw, this article was written long before C3C.

AA-battery
Feb 13, 2005, 01:02 AM
Hmm, this sounds more like chess, not Civ3. But then again there is no such thing as bombardment in chess. :lol: Nevertheless, You probably have less success with this strategy if you were fighting an AI who knew how to play chess! :P

But yeah, that is a lot of artillery, I barely use any. :(

Roxlimn
Feb 14, 2005, 08:13 AM
Artillery are a lot more effective in C3C than in vanilla civ. You typically won't need Settler creep to effect this, even, since most AI cities will be defended by 4 defensive units at the most. Just send your 75 Cavalry into those Infantry and you'll eventually take the city. once it's yours, you can start the Artillery city conquer chain. With Modern Armor (actually even with Panzers or just normal Tanks) you can take over the enemy civ in one turn.

With no Settler creep.

There are other ways to start the chain, especially if you know the layout and defense of enemy troops. One version proposes using Marines instead. Using 2 transports worth to a coastal city, you can usually overwhelm Infantry with Marines and take the city. With enough coastal cities in your control, you can use Artillery and Tanks/Cavalry to take out the rest of the civ. This assumes a relative or small tech disadvantage. If you're way behind, starting the Artillery chain may be the only way to get the AI, and it actually works even with no Settler creep. Since the Ai never uses Artillery, a stack of 50+ Artillery with 20 Infantry and 20 Guerilla often proves too much for it to remove, especially on good terrain. You'll probably lose much of this defensive stack, but the reward is that you can initiate the Artillery chain normally without using Settler creep.

I don't find Settler creep anymore a form of "cheating" than killzones are, but then again, I don't use either unless I'm pressed, and even then, I reconsider many times.

superslug
Feb 14, 2005, 10:48 PM
Artillery are a lot more effective in C3C than in vanilla civ. You typically won't need Settler creep to effect this, even, since most AI cities will be defended by 4 defensive units at the most.
4 defensive units? Not at Deity and especially on Sid. Settler creep is priceless there, given the AI production bonus city culture radii are pretty far out and it takes a Settler to get the Artillery in range.

Properly used, Settler creep can allow the execution of an AI in a single turn with minimal to no loss of units. That's far preferable to sending a stack of Cavalry into a fortified stack of Infantry.

Roxlimn
Feb 16, 2005, 08:47 PM
Well, of course. I never said that Settler creep was ineffective. I said I didn't like doing it, and attacking striaght on with Cavalry is doable if the defenses on a particular city are weak. The way I see it, it doesn't seem possible to win on Deity and Sid without massively working the game rules to their absolute limit, and there are limits to what I can accept. Part of the joy of playing for me is imagining real alternative histories and powerful struggles. This image is completely destroyed with things like Settler creep and GL elevators. It's just too "gamey" for me.

To that end, I do propose that it is possible to win lesser level games (up to Emperor at least) without resorting to these techniques.

rysingsun
Feb 17, 2005, 12:56 AM
i here you on what you are saying about not abusing the rules even if it makes the game harder. in a recent game i was determined not to do anything "dishonorable" but got frustrated on where to draw the line. most people will agree that rop-violated declarations of war are "an exploit" or at the least quite dishonorable, but once i decided that i couldnt do that i came up with some other forms of dishonor:

1) taunting my enemy to declare war on me while in his territory.

but if that is bad then ...

2) taunting the enemy to declare war on me at all.

3) for that matter breaking any agreement at all.

4) buying off alliances when i know full well its very purpose is to destroy the infrastructure/science making potential of all the civs involved.

5) settler creep. come on now we all know its unrealistic to build cities in foreign territory.

6) mass bombardment. but where do you draw the line? how many artillery against a city constitutes an exploit?

7) culture invasion (or whatever you want to call it) where you place a city next to an opponent's culture boundary and then rush culture improvements to grab a resource.

8) deadbeat alliances. yes, any alliance where you dont actually do any fighting.

9) filling in culture deprived areas with your own cities while your enemies ravage each other in a war.

10) kill zones (see "bombardment exploits") .. i mean .. (see number 6)

11) defensive armies that you know the enemy will never attack.

12) sending ships to make "contact" without units loaded on them and across the open seas. sacrificing ships in this way without the intent of actually settling could be considered an exploit by some who point out that the ai never does it.

13) archipelago on Sid.

14) taking all your cities off of settler production before popping a hut to try to get a settler .. then putting them back on settler.

and i came up with those in 5 minutes. how many more could i come up with if i gave it time? now if we agreed not to allow any of these at all INCLUDING a prohibition on ALL bombard units what would the game be like? ill tell you one thing it would be a lot harder. but in some ways some might consider it more fun playing for example a monarch game with all these limitations instead of a demigod game using every ace in the hole (some will say "exploit") possible. we are only playing ourselves and the fun in the win is knowing we beat the odds using the rules we choose to use. think of it as a "mod" if you like.

Dreadnought
Feb 17, 2005, 03:51 AM
Even with a veteran tank against veteran infantry in a metropolis, the odds of the tank winning are only around 35%. If you bombard first to reduce the HPs down to 1, then the odds improve to 90%. If you can bombard the metropolis down to a city as well, then the odds improve to around 94%.

It also works for mech infantry too.

You can see the diference artillery makes, and I'm asking myself, "Why don't more people use it?"

Roxlimn
Feb 17, 2005, 08:53 AM
Well, Settler creep, for sure, but some of the "dishonorable" ways to "cheat" are actually OK for me. For example, breaking RoP and Trade agreements is built into the game, and you do sustain significant and expensive reputation damage after you pull these tricks. I usually don't like playing "bad civ," but there are times wherein I just want to be a nasty punk.

Quite apart from RoP breaks, I find that taunting the AI to declare war while it is in a hopelessly bad tactical position is one of the things I don't like to do. There are other things, like kill zones and worker baiting, that I generally don't stoop to doing, but a whole lot of other things are acceptable for me as well. Things I don't consider "cheating."

Declaring war, for example, when your troops are in enemy territory is generally a bad idea to begin with, in representative governments anyway, and the net value of it is questionable anyway, unless it's an RoP agreement you're breaking. Most civs won't tolerate multiple military units more than one turn on their turf and it's to prevent stuff like this. Pull off a sneaky attack and even normally friendly civs are quick to boot out your men thereafter. Moreover, it's not something a human player can't do anything about, unlike stuff like Settler creep.

Moonsinger
Feb 17, 2005, 09:52 AM
i5) settler creep. come on now we all know its unrealistic to build cities in foreign territory.

The word "city" can be misleading sometimes. In other games like Age of Wonder or Master of Magic, the settler build an outpost or a small colony and eventually that outpost may grow into a village/town, then that town may grow into a city, then that city may grow into a metropolis. Civ3 is kinda working like that. For example, an outpost is of size 1, a town is between size 2 and size 6, a city is between size 7 and 12, any thing bigger than 12 is a metropolis. Therefore, realistically, it's ok to build an outpost in foreign territory during wartime.

Btw, settler creep is also a misleading word too. Basically, settler creep is a technique where you build an outpost for the purpose of moving another settler forward, then immediately disband the outpost so that your other settler can creep forward one tile. With enough settlers (and assuming that there was good road everywhere), you can creep to someone capital in just one turn.

On the other hand, moving a settler into an enemy territory so that you can setup an outpost of operation on the next turn or shorten your supply route, that is a valid tactic in the real world and I don't consider that as "creepping", exploit, or dishonorable tactic. Though, it sounds a little bit creepy, but it isn't the same thing as creepping up one tile and disband so that you can creep up another tile.

Roxlimn
Feb 17, 2005, 10:07 AM
I'm unsure about that, Moonsinger. The bare fact is that Settler creep, at its most basic, is using small city game characteristics to render national boundaries and road/rail rules mostly pointless. The entire point of cultural bounadaries is that you control the roads and rail, and healing. Using small city rules to circumvent boundary issues seems a bit underhanded and against the spirit of boundary concepts, whether it's all the way to the enemy capital, or just enough to set artillery in range.

Moonsinger
Feb 17, 2005, 01:10 PM
I'm unsure about that, Moonsinger. The bare fact is that Settler creep, at its most basic, is using small city game characteristics to render national boundaries and road/rail rules mostly pointless. The entire point of cultural bounadaries is that you control the roads and rail, and healing. Using small city rules to circumvent boundary issues seems a bit underhanded and against the spirit of boundary concepts, whether it's all the way to the enemy capital, or just enough to set artillery in range.

I'm not sure about that either.:) IMO, there are other far worst exploits than this. For example, signing Right of Passage then sending workers over to help build roads all over the place. Since the AIs aren't in any hurry connecting their trade routes with you, to speed up that process, you help them build roads. Is this really an exploit? Some may say yes, other may say no. Nevertheless, it is 100% legal for the GOTM. It's really up to the players to decide when and when not to use them.

PS: Of course, with roads every where, it would become much easier and faster to conquer their civs too.

Roxlimn
Feb 18, 2005, 08:02 PM
There are worst exploits than Settler Creep, Moonsinger, but making roads for an AI you plan on conquering sometime in the far future isn't one of them. Neither is it an exploit, IMO, to make roads for them to expedite trade networks. Countries "help" other countries for their own interests all the time. Why not in Civ?

The real exploit in using workers to "improve" enemy territory is in irrigating squares you know is much better mined or planting forests in every tile your enemy's territory. Now that's cheating, and I don't know of anyone who can say it isn't.

Moonsinger
Feb 22, 2005, 08:01 AM
There are worst exploits than Settler Creep, Moonsinger, but making roads for an AI you plan on conquering sometime in the far future isn't one of them. Neither is it an exploit, IMO, to make roads for them to expedite trade networks. Countries "help" other countries for their own interests all the time. Why not in Civ?

The road network is very important. For example, if the only way Mexico can trade with Canada is through the US land route, do you think the US would just simply stand by and let them sending workers over to build an express way from Mexico to Canada anyway they want? I pick that example to illustrate a point: each of us may view the same tactic differently - just like I view worker building road on foreign nation as an exploit while other may disagree.;)

The real exploit in using workers to "improve" enemy territory is in irrigating squares you know is much better mined or planting forests in every tile your enemy's territory. Now that's cheating, and I don't know of anyone who can say it isn't.

And building road or railroad isn't?;) Well, cheating is a strong word - "exploit" may be a better word for it. For example, let's go back to the Mexico and Canada example again: If Canada want to attack Mexico and if the US doesn't have a good road network, do you think it is ok for Canada to sign RoP with the US, then send their workers over to build road and railroad to enable faster troop movement for them? Without a good road network, it would take Canada forever to get to Mexico, you know.;) By building railroad from across the US, the Canadian troops would be able to move from Canada to Mexico in just one turn. If that isn't an exploit, then I don't know what will.:) Like I said before, sending workers over to build road/railroad on somebody else land is an exploit. Unless the GOTM or the HOF doesn't allow it, I don't mind using it and I don't mind if anyone else using it.:)

Roxlimn
Feb 22, 2005, 08:15 AM
No, Moonsinger, I would expect Mexico to have trade talks with the US Government (RoP agreement) precursor to multiple multinationally sponsored highway development projects. The road networks benefit the US, so it's not like it isn't beneficial, and Mexico benefits as well by having trade routes to Canada. It's a win-win situation that's replicated in Ancient, Medieval, and Modern deals.

It's all very kosher.

Now cheating is a strong word, but I will not refrain from using it when you're building forests on grassland cattle tiles the AI owns, or when irrigating the heck out of a city in the middle of grassland plains prior to the development of Theology. The AI can't handle the strategic impact of such passive aggressive behavior and it's much too powerful not to have a palpable effect.

Likewise, when countries go to war, Corps of Engineers are completely normal and expected. These guys build roads, bridges, railraods, what have you, and they will often build these things on friendly territory on the say-so of the governing power (RoP). I do not understand what is so unusual about this. It's not like it isn't common practice in real life.

Moonsinger
Feb 22, 2005, 09:39 AM
No, Moonsinger, I would expect Mexico to have trade talks with the US Government (RoP agreement) precursor to multiple multinationally sponsored highway development projects. The road networks benefit the US, so it's not like it isn't beneficial, and Mexico benefits as well by having trade routes to Canada. It's a win-win situation that's replicated in Ancient, Medieval, and Modern deals.

True, it would benefit the US, but it would benefit Mexico and Canada much more. Don't forget that it will improve troop movement when they decide to attack. If they promise that they would be my friend forever, then sure.

It's all very kosher.

Now cheating is a strong word, but I will not refrain from using it when you're building forests on grassland cattle tiles the AI owns, or when irrigating the heck out of a city in the middle of grassland plains prior to the development of Theology. The AI can't handle the strategic impact of such passive aggressive behavior and it's much too powerful not to have a palpable effect.

I do not disagree with you here - exactly why the recent patch of C3C won't allow that. However, building road and railroad is still possible; so let's focus on building road and rails instead. "Cheating" would be really a strong word for building roads and rails on someone else land. That was what I originally focusing on...the road and and rail network. I don't have any disagreement with you on the forest building issue.:)

Likewise, when countries go to war, Corps of Engineers are completely normal and expected. These guys build roads, bridges, railraods, what have you, and they will often build these things on friendly territory on the say-so of the governing power (RoP). I do not understand what is so unusual about this. It's not like it isn't common practice in real life.

Likewise, when countries go to war, it's perfectly normal to setup supply outpost at the front line. Supply outpost would help extend the range of your operation - your range of control - your influent in the surrounding area. Therefore, I don't see anything so "creepy" or so unusual about this. Using a settler to extend the range of your operation seems very reasonable to me.;) In away, it isn't any worst than using worker to build road and rails so that your units can travel faster on somebody else land. Please note that I'm not talking about creepping and disbanding so you can creep so more in the same turn. If you move your settler forward from the previous turn, I don't see anything wrong with using that settler to bring your troops into enemy range. After all, it's normal to send scouts and engineers ahead to prepare the land for your main troops.

Roxlimn
Feb 22, 2005, 10:17 AM
Likewise, when countries go to war, it's perfectly normal to setup supply outpost at the front line. Supply outpost would help extend the range of your operation - your range of control - your influent in the surrounding area. Therefore, I don't see anything so "creepy" or so unusual about this. Using a settler to extend the range of your operation seems very reasonable to me.


That's a bit of a stretch. There are outpost type improvements in Civ3 and any of them can mimic the effect of a forward outpost, supply or not. Supply outposts do not allow you to use the rail networks of an enemy nation and probably won't help much against depredations by the local populace - cultural control. Settler extension into cultural borders are unrealistic at the most basic level, especially in war. More damaging, they undermine the point of having borders in the first place, and that's why Settler creeping in any form is, IMO, contrary to the basic concepts of the game from day one. It would probably be best to remove the "1 tile minimum" cultural control effect of placing Settlers, especially when they are used to subvert tiles within the cultural control of a culturally stronger city. Until that can be worked into the game, however, we must simply acknowledge the defect and not use it to win.

Moonsinger
Feb 22, 2005, 11:33 AM
It would probably be best to remove the "1 tile minimum" cultural control effect of placing Settlers, especially when they are used to subvert tiles within the cultural control of a culturally stronger city. Until that can be worked into the game, however, we must simply acknowledge the defect and not use it to win.

It seems to me that your interpretation of the boundary rule is way too strict. Even those players at the Realms Beyond don't do that. In any case, you should follow your own heart and play with the rule that you are most comfortable with.:)

WorldSaversInc
Apr 09, 2005, 02:53 AM
Umm to go way back in the thread to real world examples. you could say that the Japanese did it to the Chinese in Manchuria in the twenties prior to conquering Manchurai after the Mukden Incident and creating Manchukuo with Puyi the last Qing emperor. You could even say that did this as a prelude to invading china. To also point out the Treaty Ports within China by all major western powers (Britain, France, Germany, America, Russia, and even some minor powers) allowed not only cultural bounderies to be exploited but also the Treaty ports and the area controlled kept enlarged time after time.

World Savers Inc.
We Care

animalmother
May 06, 2005, 12:01 AM
thanks 4 this. i didn't really use artillery untill now. im going to bomb those ather civs so much now. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol

Infested-Jerk
Jun 05, 2005, 04:53 PM
and how many cities do you have when you do this?

Saygame
Jun 12, 2005, 05:46 PM
Ahhhhh......my first post ever on this board. Playing Civ for eons, average but improving player and drinking in all the posts. Such a delight, The interchange between Moongsinger and Rox was partifularly sweet. Two obviously intellectual players, Moonsingerer with a major tournament victory under her belt on Sid level I see. And Rox, obviously well versed in Civ, with strong ideas about what constitutes honorable play, cheating, fair play and reality. Let me throw my two cents in, Late but thought out.
There are countless examples in military history of lightning excusions beyond enemy boundaries. Deep charging blitzkrieg ones in our era especially. How long did it take for Viet Nam to fall despite boundaries which obviously were ineffectitve in deterring "settler creep" infrastructure Poland 1939 fell in 19 days. France, I believe in not much more. My own father was responsible for having RR stations in German terriory up and running in hours/a few days with captured rolling RR stock. He had Luxembourg City operational in two days from its smoking, bloody capture. Germany, in WWII, refit Russian RRs and had it not been for the different size gauge, would have been operational in days.
National boundaries have never been much of an impediment to swift, facilitated use of enemy territory and capitals, at least since Phillip developed anvil tactics with Macedonian cavalry. I would vote that settler creep is a unique, fairly accurate way to simulate lightning incursions into enemy terriorty when offensive forces (the limiting factor) are sufficient. That takes time and planning for the attacker.
Besides, if Firaxis wanted to, the AI could certanily be programmed to build and heavily garrison fortresses and barricades along the major transport routes at chokepoints. Tell me, does the fact that the AI rarely uses city garrisons more than 5 untis strong make concentrating offensive force on that ville cheating? I guess each will have to form his own opinion. I would say no.
All games have exploit points. The fact that Civ III has so few and they are buried so expertly, I regard as truly revolutionary in gaming and distinguishes it as one of the truly great games of our times. Honest. Where each of us draws the line at what constiutes an exploit or more radically, cheating is the real question. One man's cheat is another man's imaginative opportunity. And while we can argue the authenticity of it all, it still comes down to personal choice. What's yours?

And now, back to this interesting discussion of artillery?????? Neat concepts.......

Moonsinger
Jun 12, 2005, 10:17 PM
Wow, that was your first post too, Saygame! I'm very flattered.:) Thank you for your kind words!:) And welcome to the forum!

noni
Jul 18, 2005, 05:55 AM
hi moonsinger

thanks for sharing a way of nice attack. i am a bit newbie in many things though i play civ since the first version though never that deeply.

anyway, what u did with the city u built near zimbawe?

and dont laugh but what does a outpost do? what exactly is it good for and how to use it properly?

and why is exactly the use of sending settler into enemy grounds? how can they help me?

very thnaks if u could help me with these questions

noni

noni
Jul 18, 2005, 01:50 PM
hello moonsinger u got some little time to help me? :p

Himalia
Jul 19, 2005, 12:04 PM
I can help you with those the point of an outpost is to get a resource that you dont have in any of your city radius. The outpost must still be conected by a road tho. As for settlers in enemy terrain, the most obvioues reason for that is to claim any land that a city could still be squeezed into. Prehaps then rush build a couple of culture producing building if your worrid about a culture flip. Combined with an airport or prehaps a harbour if circumstances permit this you can end up attacking your enemy from within.

Moonsinger
Aug 04, 2005, 10:13 AM
thanks for sharing a way of nice attack. i am a bit newbie in many things though i play civ since the first version though never that deeply.

You're welcome! Sorry, I have been gone in awhile.

anyway, what u did with the city u built near zimbawe?
Since I played this game a long time ago, I don't really remember what I did with Zimbawe. However, you have three clear the options: You can either keep it, raze it, or give it to someone else. If you raze it, you get free workers; if you keep it, you get free city (extra income and may be free unit support too); if you give it away, ...well...you just have to figure this out for yourself.

and dont laugh but what does a outpost do? what exactly is it good for and how to use it properly?
In this article, the term outpost = a temporary military command post. Use your settler to build it (just like building a city, except that this is a temporary city, not a long term one) and disband it after you no longer need it.

and why is exactly the use of sending settler into enemy grounds? how can they help me?
So that you can use your settler to build an outpost/city inside the enemy culture boundary.

Own
Aug 04, 2005, 06:22 PM
Artillery is great! However, it can move only one tile per tun inside enemy territory.

This is why you need the outpost. With an outpost the artillery can move unlimited amounts in that 9 tile, "square."