hi,

your identification has been verified.

welcome to my WAR ROOM

this topic if for generals both newb and veteran to discuss some amazing new possiblilities in attacking and defending against enemy units.

all must POST and EXPLAIN why you chose that vote

have fun,

:eek:

My favorite factors are not in that poll, more advanced technology and overwhelming numbers.

I agree with woody. None of those really describe an offensive war.

None of the above. Lame poll imho. There are two things that I try to take advantage of in an offensive war:

mobility and artillery

numbers of superior units at the elite7vetran level is the crucial factor. Terrian helps but is part of the tactics not the overall strategy of "do I go now or not" Really helps if you have heaps of knights when everybody else has warriors.

Terrain is one of the biggest factors with me. I almost never cross plains, grasslands, desert, if im in a war. The AI seems to have an evil nack of always staging counter attacks at the worst possible moments :mad:

Another factor with me is opening up two fronts in an offensive war. I try to do this always, and if i myself cant, i try to get another Civ in the war that is on a seperate front.

To contradict what i just said, i also try and avoid getting other Civs into the war with military alliances as when i feel the need to call a peace treaty, i soemtimes have to wait up to 20 turns till the deal is over so i wont break it and ruin my reputation :mad:

Artillery is good to have as well, i almost always bring it alogn with me in war. Catapults less so than Cannons or Artillery.

Micro-managing my cities so they wont turn into a country of civil disorder :cry: I always remain in my goverment of choice while waging war, as i dont generally use religious civs and the time of anarchy hurts, so i have to micro-manage as much as possible.

Hmm, what else. Using sea fareing units to carry land units over on a seperate front to cause chaos and disorganization.

There are a ton of things, usually depending on the situation.

I use terrain extensively as well. Especially to cover troops going in for some pillaging.

I think it goes without saying that one should always have vet troops, I typically only build 4 or 5 normal troops in an entire game. I like elite troops but I don't wait around for them. Stacks of elite troops are the advantage of a militaristic civ.

I will also almost always go to war if I have a clear tech advantage but because I play at Diety this almost never happens, or only for a brief window.

I do like to use my SU, especially if it is an early game one (I need every edge I can get). This can be much like a tech advantage (immortals go through spears like butter).

As far as "do I go now or not", I usually don't decare war at all - I don't have to. Usually someone is trying to extort from me, or using my territory as a door mat - I don't respond well to those things.

The other factor not listed in the poll is the use of combined arms. This relates to both artillery and mobile units as well as the simple archer+spearman type combo's.

Overall though the most constant factor for me is using terrain thoughtfully on offence and defence.

Use offensive units to attack and defensive units to defend. Even in enemy terriroty, you need defensive units to defend your invasion forces.

I find that terrain is your best ally, as while Vetrean/elite help, I cant help remembering countless times where rank ddint matter, and conscripts prevailed, moving on to become elite.Terrain can make the difference between long and slow advances or a ' Blitzkreig ' advance. you should avoid opponents on moutains except obviously obsolete units (MA against Knights or Spearmen).:cool:

I went for terrain out of those options, a small force can hold off a much larger one with a simple line of mountains, often the AI won't attack because of the bad odds, I've had three units hold off a stack of 10 because the AI wanted to get to the city behind and wasn't willing to lose units to attack, so it wandered up and back for several turns before finally choosing a softer target (but still much stronger than the city they were first after.

some interesting viewpoints shared here,

i want to use the terrain bonuses more in my attacks. maybe that is why i lose advanced units to primitive computer units.

can someone help me?

thanks guys,

Hello wargasm23.

No offence about my comment on your other thread, you just sounded a little spaced out.

The basics of using terrain are simple - never attack someone in the mountains or over a river, hills aren't as bad but still to be avoided. Use the converse philosophy on defence, make them attack you over a river or on a mountain. A fortified spearman in the mountains will often take out an attacking knight then you could get promoted and gain a hit point furthur strengthening you. In fact the AI will often go around a fortified unit in the mountains. This will force them out into the open where they can be delt with more easily. Move defensive units along mountain ranges into enemy territory or to deny them mountainous positions near your cities. Go sit on their iron and pillage it, then wait for the counterattack. The most easily forgoten rule is never attack over rivers - I think the bonus is 50%. Thus turning a spearman into a piker - and this is cumulative with the fortified bonus (another 50% I think).

I hope that helps.

Originally posted by Gothmog
The most easily forgoten rule is never attack over rivers - I think the bonus is 50%. Thus turning a spearman into a piker - and this is cumulative with the fortified bonus (another 50% I think).AFAIK, the bonus for defending an attack across a river is 25%. And don't you just take their defending score, do the multipliers and compare against your attacking score?

Also, I do attack lone spearmen on rivers or mountains if I have a few knights passing and I am at war. Sometimes you _have_ to attack as your units are all offensive and there is nothing but mountain between the enemy and your city you need to protect.

I don't like rules that say 'do this' or 'don't do that' because every game is unique. Generally, I agree though - you must not forget defensive bounses, and attacking on a mountain is _tough_.

I have always found that terrain is one of the biggest factors in determining results of a battle, (large tech gaps asside i.e. tank vs spearman) but numbers is the next biggest factor. When I attack I always follow a rule of three, always have three attacking units for every defending unit. This is the bare minimum because you have to figure that the first unit to attack will be lost the second will probably die if not they will be in the red and the third to break thru. Of couse that's not figuring in the defensive units that you will want once you capture a city, of course you can just raze the city which works well too. I find if I don't want to bother with culture flipping during a campain I just raze the city and set up the workes as colonies on the resource square with a defensive unit. This works in later wars where the land is fully developed and you have a city connected to the now neutral roads.

So if you out number your opponent you shouldn't have much of a problem if your units are around the same tech level, but if you add artillery (cannon, catapult) then you can get by with fewer troops.

hey wood and yzman technology isn't everything i can personally testify to that civ3 is more than just teching and attacking. I used to send my super advanced army to be slaughtered by the tens to weaker enemy computer units.

I used to be in the majority of civ3 players who thought you could win just because you got a few legionaires and horsemen. Boy have i learned. I also JUST learned that you only work the amont of squares that the population icons are on. I used to develop everything around my city even though my population was only 3 HAHAHAH!! Now if i have a population of 3 I only work 3 squares then work on a temple to get more citizens.

One thing that bothers me is when my corruption is skyrocket at the begining of the game and i am a few techs from changing governemnts and masonry. It takes forever to make roads from your capitol to the troubled cities. I feel barracks should also help quench early levels of corruption too.

It is Unannymous Terrain Rules!!

Re anarres:

The river bonus may well be 25%, I am not sure, it sure feels like 50% sometimes ;) . Is this in the rules somewhere? I am also not sure what your next comment means. "And don't you just take their defending score, do the multipliers and compare against your attacking score?". I certainly didn't mean to imply that you get an attacking bonus, only the defender gets the bonus. Thus, if the bonus were 50% then the defense value 2 spear becomes akin to a defense value 3 spear - or better if fortified or on a hill/mountain.

I too don't use any rule as an ultimate. As you say, context is everything. I will certainly not let an enemy pillage my only Iron if I have any chance to stop him. Even if it means attacking over a river onto a mountain. But I will try to make sure that I have a defender there before he does. I was just trying to cover "the basics". My guess is I didn't say anything you didn't already know.

Re wargasm23: Sounds like you are learning well. One comment - you don't necessarily need a temple to grow even if you don't have luxuries try using your happiness slider.

hey wood and yzman technology isn't everything i can personally testify to that civ3 is more than just teching and attacking. I used to send my super advanced army to be slaughtered by the tens to weaker enemy computer units

I tend to play my games as a builder/warmonger, I build my cities and infrastructure as peaceful as possible, but when I discover a tech that reveals a resource (iron/saltpeter/horses/etc), I will wage a war if needed to aquire at least two or three sources of that resource, hopeful leaving some of the AI without that resource. Also when I first get the tech that give me a new offensive unit (swordsman/knight/calvary/tanks/modern armor) I will scout out my neighbors to see if I can use that new unit to my advantage in a quick war.

Civ III is a lot more than "teching and attacking" but war in Civ III is only about using the right units in the right numbers at the right time.

Originally posted by wargasm23
hey wood and yzman technology isn't everything i can personally testify to that civ3 is more than just teching and attacking. I used to send my super advanced army to be slaughtered by the tens to weaker enemy computer units.

I used to be in the majority of civ3 players who thought you could win just because you got a few legionaires and horsemen. Boy have i learned. I also JUST learned that you only work the amont of squares that the population icons are on. I used to develop everything around my city even though my population was only 3 HAHAHAH!! Now if i have a population of 3 I only work 3 squares then work on a temple to get more citizens.

One thing that bothers me is when my corruption is skyrocket at the begining of the game and i am a few techs from changing governemnts and masonry. It takes forever to make roads from your capitol to the troubled cities. I feel barracks should also help quench early levels of corruption too.

It is Unannymous Terrain Rules!!


Believe me, playing on emporer, I know that those are not the only things that come into effect. But the effects are large. I was merely saying that the options in your poll are more for a denfensive war, not really an offensive one. Knowing how to combine troops is probably the most important thing, such as infantry, calvary with some artillery for a defensive war. But you will see that having superior tech, production, and troop numbers is the real key to winning wars in this game. You could use the best strategies ever, but if you have 10 horsemen against their infantry, even with artillery, you will still not win.

Specialty Unit... Legionnaires in mine hands are invincible...

My wars begin from the very beginning of the game - at 4000 BC - when I decide how to build my core of 5-6 cities - militaristic traits - and production values -- then during the strategic resource gathering phase when iron and horse resources need to be scouted and taken. If a majority of the above fits then I'll build those 5-6 cities first then shift all production to military units -- spearmen + swordsmen + horsemen + UUs(if able) -- and in that order with a little variance every now and then.

My civilization expansion will then come from conquest.

EDIT: I still need to see how to use Archers. I know they're good (maybe) but I really can't fit them into my strategies. Maybe when I start using them then I can take off 900 years off my early conquest victories.

Originally posted by MSGT John Drew

EDIT: I still need to see how to use Archers. I know they're good (maybe) but I really can't fit them into my strategies. Maybe when I start using them then I can take off 900 years off my early conquest victories.

The archer rush does not work well unless your target is very close to you. It also helps to be militaristic and/or industrious.

Find the target civ. Stop building at 4 cities. Make sure you have a road to their captial by the time your first archer is made. Pump veteran archers till they are down to 1 city, take all their techs, and start building horsemen or swordmen.

Quote by "DaveMcW"

Find the target civ. Stop building at 4 cities. Make sure you have a road to their captial by the time your first archer is made. Pump veteran archers till they are down to 1 city, take all their techs, and start building horsemen or swordmen.

hi dave, i never thought you could make archers whom are already at "veteran" status. Please explain to me in more detial how that is done.

Also i learned in my last game that building roads all the way to enemy capitol takes well over 500 years off of your attacks, due to increased mobility speed.

please re-explain the part about where you say all the way down to 1 city. Also how can you take their techs without spies?

looking forward to your response.

How are cumulative combat factors calculated by the way.
Example. A musketeer defending a mountain being attacked by a unit crossing a river.

Like this,
4 +25% = 5 + 50% = 7.5
Or,
4 + (25% +50%) = 7

I suppose fractions are calculated , otherwise a warrior defending a hill would get no bonus (1+25% =1.25 which rounds off to 1) or does the combat system only operate with whole numbers?

Probably of minimal consequence, still curious though.

Quote by Dr.Dr.Doktor

"The problem with Germans is that they are not evil enough." Dr. Joseph Goebbels, 1945

had they been anymore evil they would have turned the planet upside down hehe

:)

Originally posted by Gothmog
Re anarres:

The river bonus may well be 25%, I am not sure, it sure feels like 50% sometimes ;) . Is this in the rules somewhere? I am also not sure what your next comment means. "And don't you just take their defending score, do the multipliers and compare against your attacking score?". I certainly didn't mean to imply that you get an attacking bonus, only the defender gets the bonus. Thus, if the bonus were 50% then the defense value 2 spear becomes akin to a defense value 3 spear - or better if fortified or on a hill/mountain.All I was trying to get across is that I work out the modified defensive score and compare to the attacking score to work out the odds, instead of having a rule about attacking on certain terrain being good or bad. I think we agree, and we both do the same thing.

I feel that having elite soldiers is really a gr8 help, I have an army at the moment of 127 para all vet or elite I pretty much control Central Southern and Western Europe however terrain such as mountains is a major factor I allways attack from mountain because enemy counters can be flicked a side and u are ready for the ofensive again. If nescesary artilary and bombers r used to disperse enemy in mountains.Adavnced tech isnt all that good. Many a time I have seen tanks get lanced by pikemen only when there is a sufficient gap between like say mech vs spearman do i consider it a forgone conclusion and even then it can be worrying.

"i never thought you could make archers whom are already at "veteran" status. Please explain to me in more detial how that is done."

Any city with barracks makes veteran units.

"please re-explain the part about where you say all the way down to 1 city. Also how can you take their techs without spies?"

Take all their cities. Except one. Then talk to them and ask for a peace treaty and all their techs. If they don't have anything good you can just wipe them out.

Siege!

That is how I win wars. Massed artillery to break the defender down. A few good defensive units to protect the artillery. And some good attacking units to break into the battered cities and take out would-be attackers and remaining enemy units who dared to counter attack. More defensive units to follow up the attack and quell resistance.

I worry less about mobility. Protecting my artillery is key. The tables turn on you pretty quickly if the enemy captures your stack of arty.

Originally posted by Fanny Brice
Siege!

That is how I win wars. Massed artillery to break the defender down. A few good defensive units to protect the artillery. And some good attacking units to break into the battered cities and take out would-be attackers and remaining enemy units who dared to counter attack. More defensive units to follow up the attack and quell resistance.

I worry less about mobility. Protecting my artillery is key. The tables turn on you pretty quickly if the enemy captures your stack of arty. IMHO artillery is a real waste of time. If you have 10 Cavalry instead of 10 Artillery can't you just take the city in 1 turn?

What level do you play on? I ask as I play on Deity, and I find that the overhead in building a unit that can't kill a unit in 1 attack or defend by itself or take a city really too much to bear. You can't hang around when the playing is quick and tight, and the offensive punch of 6.3.3 is too much to ignore. I can't see the benefit of using a 1 square-per-turn army, it just gives them time to counter.

If you are playing Deity, have you tried to build just offensive units and always be on the offensive? I'm not saying that artillery has not got it's place, just that I would only use it in a city I _know_ will be attacked, or on a well defended choke point.

I don't know about playing deity, but in my experience once the computer gets Infantry in Cities (as in settlements pop > 6) it's nearly impossible to take a city with Cavalry. Lets take 10 cavs vs 4 Infantry-- infantry have 10 defense each whereas cavs have 6 attack, so from the get go cavs have a disadvantage, but in a city infantry get a 50% bonus meaning its 15 vs 6, cavs only have a 25% chance to win. That in mind, assuming all units are veteran and have 4 hp, its going to take 4 cavs to kill 1 infantry in each city, so 10 cavs vs 4 infantry you will lose all your cavs and probably kill only 1, if any infantry (taking into consideration the rotation of wounded units). Now I understand this is all 'theorycraft' as they call it in the starcraft world, but I've found this generally to be true in practice, it takes tons of cavs to take out a city defended by infantry. Not to mention the heavy losses... I've found artillery defended by infantry as a 1 square per turn army to be very effective for 3 reasons.

1. Artillery will reduce all defenders to 1hp

2. Artillery will reduce population of a city to <5

3. Anything that attacks you infantry will lose, assuming your infantry is on a hill, which i try to do whenever possible...

All this and while taking almost no losses... So if you have 16 cavs (which id say would be nessesary to capture a city defended by 3 infantry) you will lose maybe 9-11+ of them, while if you have an army made up of 9 artillery, 2 infantry, and maybe 3 cavs (which i believe is enough to capture the same city) in all likelyhood, you will only lose 1inf and 1 cav, if you take any losses at all... (i use cavs because that way i can station my units further back from the city and still make a capture, requiring the computer to pull units into the open to attack me)

if you station your troops on a hill, this will work, on plains or grassland it might not work so well because infantry will die faster in these situations.

It may take a few turns but you'll suffer less losses and you'll be able to use the same units on the next city.

Based on the numbers, and based on my intuition from playing this game quite a bit, i trust this conclusion to be accurate... I only play regent but i imagine the numbers stay the same for diety... cavalry just take too many losses and after taking 20 cities, these losses will be magnified an incredible amount (id say 10 fold for each city based on numbers)

Unless I have a grossly inaccurate perception of how combat in this game works, I believe this to be true =)

I think you're both right. If you can pull off a mass cavalry upgrade before the AI gets infantry you should do it. But if you are so far behind that you don't get enough cavalry before the AI gets infantry, you need artillery support.

I know that probably isn't too hard in regent but how plausible is it in deity I'm wondering? :)

I mostly play at Monarch... some Emp. Diety is a whole new ballgame so different strategies apply I'm sure.

One of the advantages of the seige is a great reduction in the number of troops needed due to fewer casualties. Also, a longer effective life span of what might be obsolete units.

It is not that slow of a process either... attack and occupy on 1 turn, reposition next, attack and occupy again on 3rd turn. (Varies for distance of course). The enemy will generally get worn down after a few turns and there will be no more counteratttacks in the field.

(not like this is a ground breaking strategy. I'm curious to see who it will play in MP though.)

well hte real asnwer is that the general who only uses one of those choises suck, true generals knowtaht the a combo of all those things is what brings victory.

I don't normally face an army of infantry without tanks, and I agree that trying to beat infantry with cavalry is very difficult. However, I would still mobalize for war and build a huge cavalry army instead of using lots of artillery. Your producion should be very strong by now, and you can build them faster than the AI.

If you blitz an enemy in enough numbers quickly enough you can keep their cities without them flipping back. This can be a considerable advantage, and I'm not convinced that a slow war with artillery would be better in the long run, despite the fewwer losses.

Originally posted by stalin006
well hte real asnwer is that the general who only uses one of those choises suck, true generals knowtaht the a combo of all those things is what brings victory. Did you have a point or was this just a rude comment? The idea is to discuss a concept and so learn from it.

There is nothing to say that _every_ stratagy will be valid at some point. And even if every strategy does have it's appropriate moment to use it, having this kind of discussion helps to find out when that is.

I dunno, I've never had much (any :)) luck with cavs vs infantry, seems to me like firing a water gun into a bonfire.... between nationalism and flight I believe is one of the trickiest phases (for a progressive offensive war) of the game. I think a strong point of the infantry approach is the fact the computer will always attack your infantry. If those infantry are properly placed, the computer will be on the losing side of a disguisting ratio of units lost. I think once you get flight things start to speed up, as you have a 16 bombard range with bombers and then you can run in with cavs, but just before this phase I find it useful to destroy the computer's ability to fight back... I often find my cavs out in the open will get decimated by other cavs, so it really is an advantage to get rid of that form of opposition. I really hate losing units and it is my personal feeling that you shouldn't lose units that you don't need to lose.

Originally posted by anarres

If you blitz an enemy in enough numbers quickly enough you can keep their cities without them flipping back. This can be a considerable advantage, and I'm not convinced that a slow war with artillery would be better in the long run, despite the fewwer losses.

One side effect of using artillery is the cities you capture are very small. ;) It's not quite as good as wiping them out, but culture flip is not a big problem.

Cav vs. infantry in a metropolis is suicide. :D

I dont have a wide range of experience with playing games where I'm conquering enemies in the modern age, and I'm wondering, how often have you guys had cities of pop 1 culture flip in a war that late in the game?

Ever since the first time I lost an army to a culture flip I've become very paranoid and I'm afraid to station units inside the city, often I only put in 2 or 3 infantry and this leads me to having to reconquer the city sometimes (i guess this can be as bad as a culture flip if not worse, but i guess my mentality is if they recapture the city at least they've lost a few units trying hehe :))... I'm wondering how you guys deal with situations where you're are conquering cities very close to the opposite capital (within 10 squares) when the enemy still has 35-40+ cities and equal culture to yourself

coup d'etat,

think strategically and only take bogus little cities when the help to open the door to disemboweling larger cities in the same turn. In the modern age, you can throw down railroads if they do not exits and slide reinforcements up through a captured town and right on into the next victim just like dominoes. Plan modern era warfare to disembowel your opponent and rob them of their economic and production power as close as possible to just one or two turns. Then you can just pick off the surviving towns and all the lost and disoriented military units as you see fit. I slice into them and drive their capital off to some worthlessly remote location and then just leave them there to rot if the plan does not call for administering the coup d'grace right away.

Well the reason I ask is because I often bombard cities down to 1 or 2 pop before i take them, right now in one of my games I have 2 1 pop cities with wonders in them, both are within 8 squares of the capital... I almost NEVER take a city with more than 6 pop once infantry/artillery enters the game... so you see, these 'bogus little cities' im defending were large cities 2 or 3 turns before ;P
From what I've read about culture flips if you have 12 foreign nationals in a city you've taken its much more likely they will flip as opposed to if you have just 1 (it seems that it isnt based on a percentage, but just the actually number of foreign nationals in the city?)

Coup d'etat,

The fact that you bombed the cities down to 1 pop only effects the concept a little. I used to do this as well, but I think there may be some more aggressive approaches that will do you well.

I blast 'em if they are pop 13 or pop 7 because there is a reasonable chance to knock them down a defense factor.

When I am killing a civ or trying to extort techs and I plan on keeping the towns I capture, my number one priority is to drive the enemy palace location into the most bogus and untenable position possible and to try an make sure it is far enough away from the captured cities to increase the distance factor ratio.

I have not had a lot of culture flips, but I tend to make all the citizens that remain in the captured cities just blissfully ecstatic even it kills them. This usually buys me enough time to drive the capital city away with a stronger military thrust.

If you are past replaceable parts, you need a crew of 4 to 6 workers for each square of terrain that you need to throw down rails over so you can strike deeper into enemy territory with more of a rolling attack. The priority cities to take are those cities that put you within directstriking distance of the next objective. Sometimes this will require that you throw down an extra settler to get just 1 square of territory extension, but continuing the penetration is the priority. Sometime you have to follow a path that is slightly indirect to sustain the offensive, but it will pay off if you can wipe away the heart of the culture threat.

Another effective trick is to have a ROP with a lesser civ and to give that lesser civ some of the risky culture flip towns as you pass. You still get the movement benefits if the road network is continuous around the town but you no longer have to hold the town. Never trust your allies in this game just use them.

Palace position doesn't seem to make a huge difference sometimes, in the current game I'm playing I was having culture flips from indian cities in the center of my continent when the indian palace was on another continent... these cities had about 8 indian nationals in them...

My biggest concern with these culture flips is that it is very hard to state your presence on the opposite continent when you cannot keep any of the cities you capture, I find that rails are usually already built in these situations so building rails is not a problem (niether has workers been a problem in the past, I usually maintain a worker force of 1.5-2/city, usually I have claimed my continent prior to steam engine or just after) I also often find that in capturing these cities this late in the game, opponent borders are 4 squares out from each city, so it takes me at least 2-3 turns to get within striking distance (either cavs or artillery)

My biggest problem with warfare in games is indeed crossing continents prior to flight (at which point there are better bombard options available than stationing artillery in enemy territory)... I've just recently started playing games where I am constantly at war, and I find that (during my games anyway :)) its time to cross continents about the end of the midevil or beginning of the industrial era.

cracekr is right

if you pillage all capitol roads mines, and resources in additon capture all weaker cities around capitol, the capitol's defense will lower signifcantly and sometimes even riots happen. But ritots under this particular circumstance has not happpened for me.

looking forward to your response.

I had to vote for terrain from the choices available. My real ace in the hole is mobility, the reason I love the new Ansar. It is major to be able to take a city and clear all the archers away from the perimeter in the same turn.

Terrain from those choices is one that I think about alot, especially in early wars where the units are slooooowww, I look for the mountain approach or out of the woods on offense, try and stay across the river on defense. These factors don't seem to make as much difference in late game.

So I'd vote for mobility if it was there, meanwhile terrain. Of course veterans elites are huge too, I always build barracks these days...

what about rivers?
sometimes I attack with my fast units and if they survive move them to the other side of the river (if there's one nearby)
that way, my knight in red HP can defeat even 2 pikeman.
Also, when a settle a city near to anyother civ border I choose the "inner" side of the river, so they have to cross it if they want to attack.

I chose veteran/elite units

The veteran/elite can make a difference in winning a battle. I've had lots of close encounters with Modern Armor against Mechanized Infantry where because I had a 4-hp MA I've won. Barely, with 1-hp left. Or maybe because it's plain dumb luck.

Terrain doesn't help when waging an offensive war, that choice IMO isn't the best.

I generally find attacking with vetern/elite units preferable. After all, upgrading units is more expensive and using up vetern units in an attack seems an appropriate use of that resource.

V/E units offer at least three tactical advantages:

V/E units survive attacks more often due to increased hit points
They offer (elite) the possibility of generating a leader
They seem to withstand counterattacks more effectively.

A useful early game tactic
Three or four archer protected by a elite spearmen will generally take out any city (except those with city walls) and withstand a concerted counterattack, especially if you attack the city from hill, mountain or forest terrain. Once you've taken the city, fortify all units in the city while they repair their damage. The AI will counterattack, weakeing an already weak civilization. If you have strategic reserve of two more archers and another spearman, you will be able to counter his counter attack as soon as he peters out trying to retake your city. Just don't try this tactic after the opponent has reached five or more cities, they'll be able to counterattack too heavily for your units to survive. But in the early, early game this is a good way to maximize your V/E units and get ahead.

Putting the elite spearmen into the field with supporting terrain has generated a number of early game leaders for me, which I find essential on the higher difficulty levels.

UNITS COMBOS

Early Rapid Agressive Incursion: 1 Archer 1 Chariot en masse
(Chariot takes hits and has chance of retreat and allows for seroius pillaging damage)

Early Aggressive Defense: 2 warriors 1 Spearman 1 Catapult per city
(strangely good at generating leaders)

"Early Aggressive Defense"

I can think of 2 problems with this. Waiting for mathematics/catapults is NOT early. And waiting for the enemy to invade your land is NOT aggressive. Ditch the warriors and cataput and you'll have 1 Spearman = good Defense.

Originally posted by DaveMcW
"Early Aggressive Defense"

I can think of 2 problems with this. Waiting for mathematics/catapults is NOT early. And waiting for the enemy to invade your land is NOT aggressive. Ditch the warriors and cataput and you'll have 1 Spearman = good Defense.

Well for most civs it is relatively early, particularily the French who start with alphabet and masonry, and can go for catapults as their first new tech. Bronzeworking can be traded for. Trading mathematics for yet another tech is then a good idea since the AI rarely builds catapults early in the game.

The reason for the two warriors is that it allows 1) flexibility in garrisoning cities, 2) sooner upgrading than archers.

Now it gets a bit complicated. The attack order against, say an enemy archer or chariot, is then A) bombardment, B) if succesful then attack with warrior. C) this either results in a win or a loss in which case there are three outcomes, one where the opposing unit is promoted and looses no hitpoints, one where the unit is not promoted and do not loose hitpoints, one where the unit loose hitpoints and is not promoted. In all cases but the first then use the spearman to attack.

Why not simply use archers? Simple, the archer, paradoxically, has too great a chance of winning luring possible promotions away from the spearman.

But why is it so important to let the spearman get the promotion? Simple, with catapults an elite spearman is capable of generating leaders on the offense. More importantly it also ensures a reasonable (and better than archers) chance of generating leaders on defence. This is even though defense only has a 1 in 32 (1 in 24 in some cases) of generating leaders.

It is also important to note that the "(relatively) Early Agressive Defense" takes place within your own borders, so make sure the road net is well developed. The higher the concentration of roads the higer the level of flexibility in shifting forces around and concentrate catapult bombardment on the enemy. Here the much lamented French show their usefulness once more, since they are industrial. The Greeks have the hoplite so this strategy is also viable for them too.

I usually wage wars by getting the entire world to declare war on the enemy, which is quite easy to get with lots of gold.

In the modern ages war can only be waged by attrition on a huge scale. Therefore: Huge concentrations of artillery and large numbers of bombers to cut off resources. You MUST desroy the enemy's rubber supplies! It is essential because of the Inf's /Mech Inf's huge defensive advantages in metropolises.

Originally posted by corgiman

A useful early game tactic
Three or four archer protected by a elite spearmen will generally take out any city (except those with city walls) and withstand a concerted counterattack, especially if you attack the city from hill, mountain or forest terrain. Once you've taken the city, fortify all units in the city while they repair their damage. The AI will counterattack, weakeing an already weak civilization. If you have strategic reserve of two more archers and another spearman, you will be able to counter his counter attack as soon as he peters out trying to retake your city. Just don't try this tactic after the opponent has reached five or more cities, they'll be able to counterattack too heavily for your units to survive. But in the early, early game this is a good way to maximize your V/E units and get ahead.


I agree that it is a useful tactic to put out archers on the field against spearman. But attacking the city fro the hill, mountain, or forest seems to me fail more often than attacking from grassland. Several incidents have occured where I have lost units attacking from different terrain.

I would have to be very careful about this tactic especially because usually all units incur damage before I take over the city. And the AI does counterattack heavily, it's good to have some healthy units left.

I have seen anyone mention the key factors for my games:

1. military production capability
2. diplomacy during warfare
3. defensive core


Military production capability-- the ability to either end a war quickly or continue on and on and on. To do this you need to be able to replace lost defending units and be able to produce more effective military units than the other civ. Advantage may be in tech level of military or gross numbers.

Diplomacy-- Unless you are playing settler level, you can't take on the whole world at one time. The most effective general is one who lets someone take the losses and then just comes over and cleans up the messes.

Defensive core-- Your main production cities must be protected. This is usually the first 10-15 cities. Radar towers are nice but they add a cost of more defending units.

== PF

Terrain is always crucial to me in my attacks, if possible I always try to attack using mountains and hills. I also mostly rely on sheer weight of numbers, and two front war, for example once when fighting France as Russia, I was badly behind tech, them having mechs and Tanks, I having Cossacks and Infantry and Artillery. They had bombers. France was i.e one ofter superpowers. I got MPP with Germany, and they started to roll in from the south with their Modern Armor, and Mechs. I managed to whip theri asses with my valiant force of 145 infantry, 67 Cossacks, 35 artillery and 15 destroyers. I took 6 cities, Germany took 10. I lost 87 inf, 44 cossacks, and 2 arty and 1 destoyer. By the time the Paris was I had replenished the losses so I had 203 inf, 34 Tanks, 55 arty and 20 dest plus 4 battleships.

Though I was behind in tech, I got victory through overwhelming odds. French had abt 4-5 mechs, couple of riflemen and spearman leftovers in each of their cities, so my losses were high, but bearable.

So as to poll, I always appreciate the strength in numbers used with combined arms (naval and arty, my airforce didn't achieve a thing with over 20 flown missions, I had 35 fighters).

I play huge worlds against all the Civs; no SpaceShip.

The Factors I use are in decreasing order of importance:

Allies = most important - get AI allies to distract weaken enemy
Defensive City Bonus = let opponent use up offensive units first
Veterans/Elites = essential for attacking cities
Mobile Attackers = wear enemy units down
Terrain Bonuses = tactically useful
Bombardment = Artillery most useful against (mech) infantry
Spies = determine strength enemy and of city defences
Bombers = particularly against ships
Pillaging = occasionally of AI resources e.g. horsemen, iron,
Fortresses = only to defend own resources
Unique Units = little used - I play English

Because Elites usually kill regulars and vets.

AI allies, if they're not aggressive, they don't help much. It took almost 20 turns for AI civs, after signing alliances, for them to snap up and help me beat the Egyptians. When they are very into helping you...ah, they help greatly.