People like to discuss units on Civfanatics forums, especially Unique Units. Specialized units are often discussed; Longbowmen, Guerrillas, Paratroopers, and Marines. Starting with a question like "Do you ever build unit X?", newer players join in and learn the mechanics of the game, while more advanced players join the discussion and gain (or share) insight into using units more effectively. Tactics are offered here for using one specialized unit effectively: the Marine.

What is a Marine?

The CivIII Marine appears to be a foot soldier that attacks better than Infantry, and doesn't defend as well. What separates the Marine from all other units (save the Viking Berserk) is his ability to attack from the sea. He is by nature an offensive unit, both in attack/defense statics, and his proper place on the battlefield. His full potential: a shock troop, leading an invasion from the sea.

The Marine is perhaps the most uniquely offensive unit in Civ Warfare.

Think about it; offensive units can be used defensively and vice-versa. Cavalry can skirmish against enemy units within your own borders; an offensive "tactic" within a defensive "strategy". Defensive units like infantry can be used to protect a stack you're using to invade the AI. Using Marines to their full potential involves attacking another civ on another shore. We're not just contemplating war, we're talking about invading. And not just an invasion, but invading overseas. Few military offensives are more ambitious or audacious than a "D-Day" style invasion.

"So you're going to take an AI continent with Marines?!?!?"

Not at all. Aside from taking those pesky one-tile city-islands, or island-hopping campaigns, the bulk of the invading force will not be Marines. Marines are the tip of the spear. These tactics aim to give the AI the shaft.

A note on "Tactics and Strategy"

This is a "grunt's-eye-view", written about tactics, not strategy. While "strategic" questions are more important, Marines don't get to ask the "Who, When and Why" questions, and they're not answered here. If you're considering Marines, you're contemplating war. You should have an objective in mind, whether you want to grab a resource, or a continent. Maybe you've got a potential ally in mind who (you hope) will declare war with you a turn or two before your D-day, and absorb your enemy's first counter-punch. These are questions of strategy that you should answer for yourself before building (or at least before deploying) Marines. There's a lot of great advice to help with strategic questions in the War Academy and forums, but not here.

"Break Glass in Case of War"

These tactics are designed to seize and maintain the initiative from the opening round of an invasion. If you like, war can begin with an opening attack from the sea. The basic idea is to hit the AI fast, hard, and deep with your initial invasion. These are the basic goals of these tactics:

1) Take, and hold, a coastal city in the AI territory, on that first turn of the invasion.
2) Take, and hold, a second AI city, again, on that first turn.
3) For the next few turns, move significant quantities of follow-on forces, to maintain the offensive.

Why take two (or more) cities? Simple: if you're going to go through the trouble and expense to invade another continent, you might as well take as much as you can, as soon as you can. If you take the resources to take 2 cities and choose not to, that's one thing. If you don't (or can't) muster enough of an invasion force to take (and hold) 2 cities, you need to take a step back and rethink your strategy.

These tactics use 3 basic types of ground units:

1) Marines: minimum 1 CivIII transport full, 2 boatloads in C3C. 2-3 boatloads should suffice.
2) Good defensive units: (Infantry or Mech) 2 boatloads minimum
3) Fast offensive units (Modern Armor, Tanks, even Cavalry) minimum 2 boats
of Tanks, quadruple your boatloads (or more) if resorting to Cavalry.

...and 3 basic types of naval units:

1) Transports
2) Something (anything) to protect the transports
3) More Transports

This unit mix is the foundation, not the whole house. If you have (or can build) a bunch of carriers, bombers, and battleships to provide fire support to "soften" the target, even better. If you want to bring some artillery to the party for the follow-on attacks, the more the merrier, just remember you'll need more transports. Using fire support is great fun; though not fundamental to these tactics, it is tactically sound (and wise). The most important naval unit for these tactics is the transport. You almost can't have too many of these. This is also intended to be more of a recipie than a blueprint. Think "1 part Marines, 2-3 parts Infantry/Mech, 2-3 parts Tanks/Modern Armor, add fire support to taste. You may substitue 8-15 parts Cavalry if Tanks are unavailable. Be sure to have more units on hand for second helpings".

"So now we attack, right?"

Not just yet. These tactics require a bit of forethought, planning, and prepositioning of forces. "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."

Here are some key things to be done in the planning stages:

1) Identify that first target city on the AI coast. Maybe you'll choose the one with the shortest sea-lane to your shore, or maybe you'll choose the one nearest the resource you want to grab. If the sea lane is longer, you'll need more transports.

2) Identify a second target within striking distance of this coastal city. Maybe it's another city up or down the coast, or it might be inland. Maybe it's got that strategic resource or a wonder you covet; perhaps you simply want to take out that metropolis to deny the AI a productive city. By "striking distance", imagine you already have that stack of fast attack units stationed in the coastal city; you should be able to attack your next target IN THE SAME TURN. Visualize the 9-square radius around the coastal city you're going to take. If you will have to cross 2 enemy squares to hit that city, you'll need Modern Armor or lots of Cav (or Panzers or lots of Cossacks). If there's a city that you can hit after crossing only one enemy square, it's a great target for Tanks!

3) Position 1-3 transports within range of that first coastal city - even before you can build Marines or Tanks... By "within range", imagine for a moment that you already own that coastal city, and these transports are full. You should be able to move the transports into the city and UNLOAD them IN the city (in one turn). To avoid rep hits or angering your enemy too early, this position should be outside the cultural boundaries of the target. The AI will be good and furious in due time.

4) Position "convoys" of transports from one of your ports to these forward transports. The idea is to be able to move one "boatload" of ground units to the forward position in a single turn. (The mechanics of the "one turn" trans-oceanic move should be discussed elsewhere on this site). If you can build a 2-3 deep convoy, that's fine, but the basic idea is to be able to move one transport load of follow-on forces across the ocean in a single turn, and to do it each turn until you can't fill a boat at the back end. Stop and think about this for a minute. To pull this off, you'll need 3 (likely more) full transports at the front, at least one transport at each "ship hopping" point along the way, plus a minimum of 5 transports in the city at your end of the sea lane. Did I mention that you'll need some transports? Let's see, one boatload of follow-on forces times 5 turns of following-on is about 30-40 infantry &/or mech &/or tanks &/or modern armor... (Rome wasn't built in a day...)

5) Position "escorts" on the tiles occupied by the transports. In CivIII, Destroyers; Destroyers and/or Cruisers in C3C. The escorts should be as fast as the transports so you can "patrol the lanes" that the transports will be using, and have them finish the turn on a tile used by a transport. Battleships are a bit expensive and (in C3C) slow for escort duty. Though Subs are a bit slow for escort duty, using a few for scouting or hitting AI ships can't hurt.

Okay, we've done our planning and reconnaissance, pre-positioned our forces. For whatever reason, it's time to wage war against that AI across the sea. It's time to...

SEND IN THE MARINES!

If you brought fireworks to the party (bombers, battleships, etc.) now is the time to set them off. After "softening up the shores", move the transports containing Marines to the square adjacent to the coastal city, wake 'em up, and attack from the sea. Usually the marine that kills the last defender will be down to a hit point or two...

Now pause for a minute to take in the scene while the smell of cordite rises through your nostrils. You've got two important things here: an AI city, and options. You may move the transport into the city, unload a fresh marine or two, and fortify them IN the city. If you've got several left, you can withdraw them to a rally point to be assembled with other units for future use.

Next - grab at least one transport full of defenders (Infantry or Mech), move that transport into the city, and UNLOAD it. Since they have their movement points intact, you have options. Depending on how many defenders you brought along, you can either fortify them in the city, or in the squares NEXT to the city. You'll need more troops for option #2, but you can form a perimeter AROUND the city just taken. This can provide good defense for the city, and allow a pre-positioned counterattack in case of a culture flip. They'll also prevent the enemy from reinforcing the city in the event of a culture flip. The fundamental tactic is to secure the position - how you do it is a matter of technique, and the resources available.

For the final phase of the initial attack, move the transports with the fast attack units into the coastal city, and UNLOAD them, with all their movement points intact. Attack, and take, that second city. If you've got enough fast units to take more cities, then by all means do so. Just don't press the attack to the point that you can't hold what you've taken. If at all possible, get defenders into the cities you've taken.

The AI's next turn will determine how well you've planned and executed your invasion, and whether or not you've underestimated your enemy. He/she will throw most of what they've got at you in the counterattack that will ensue. If you did as Sun Tzu advises and "made many calculations" then you should be able to keep what you took. Now you use your pre-positioned transport convoys to start moving at least one transport load of troops into your new territory each turn for the next 5 turns...

Pounding the Shore with more Waves

Remember item #4 in our preparations? Transport convoys, and some additional (not "extra") transports in the home port at the beginning of the sea lane? Now that you've taken a nice piece of the AI's territory, you maintain the intitiative with units that were still on your shores when you sent in the Marines. Using railroads and ship-hopping, you should have no trouble moving a full transport load of units to that coastal city you took and unloading them with all their movement points intact. On the second turn of the invasion, some of the units you used in the first turn will need to heal for 1-3 turns until you can use them in combat again. Resupplying your offensive with at least one transport full of fresh troops each turn for 3-5 turns will allow you to maintain the initiative. Three full transports in C3C would be 18 units; 24 in CivIII. If you can only muster or move a couple dozen units, they should be tanks. If your convoy of transports is three-deep (and you have the units) then by all means move a combined arms mix with some Infantry and Artillery.

Parting Shot...

So there you have it, a basic recipe for an amphibious invasion. Adjust (and scale) it to suit your style and needs. There certainly are a lot of things you can add to this recipie to suit your taste or the circumstances of your game - this is intended to be the "main course".

scoutsout,

Excellent article - logical and well thought out. Marines are often overlooked by players, and can be invaluable. Interestingly, I have noticed that the AIs DO use marines and effectively – unfortunately in typical AI fashion – they never use enough, nor have the back up of re-enforcements. Still, you better not take your coastal cities for granted.

Once again – great article!

Ision

Originally posted by Ision
<snip>I have noticed that the AIs DO use marines and effectively...you better not take your coastal cities for granted.Thanks for the compliment Ision, I appreciate it!

On the AI use of Marines - spies can come in handy here. Balancing risks and such, if you can manage to get a spy into the AI capitol, you'll know the composition of his military. You won't know where the units are unless you do the "Steal Plans" trick, but you'll know the number of each type of unit... which will let you know if the AI has Marines.

Again, thanks for your feedback.

great article scout!

i got some qeustions, since infantry and tanks are alot stronger why would i use marines. i know that they can attack right away but isnt better to land on a mountain or hill next to the city and then take with better units? i have used marines a few times but i dont like them. maybe your artcile will help. dunno
anyway maybe you can help answer.

Originally posted by yankees
...since infantry and tanks are alot stronger why would i use marines...isnt better to land on a mountain or hill next to the city and then take with better units?Let me say one thing right off the bat: If there was a single "best" way to accompish every goal in a Civ game, it would be more like some games that you can memorize the sequences to progress up the levels. There may be a best way to play a specific situation, but Civ presents so many situations.. Back to invasions.

Let's see...landing a stack on a hill versus attacking with Marines. Here we're talking about an amphibious landing versus an amphibious assault. Your inclusion of the hill or mountain as a landing site is a good point and a smart use of terrain. From what I've read, some players prefer a "bring the house" amphibious landing approach, using the best units they have available.

Coupled with sound tactics, either is a valid approach. As I see it, here are the up- and down- sides to each approach:

Amphibious Landing:
1) The units will get counterattacked, before they've had a chance to hit the enemy.
2) If everything is loaded into every available transport, and dropped off all at once, it will take a few turns for the transports to go home, pick up more units, and return with the reinforcements. That initial force better have some staying power...

Amphibious Assault
1) It's costly. Marines aren't cheap, and they will suffer some casualties. The dead-end tech adds to the cost.
2) If you don't back them up with something immediately, there's a pretty good chance they'll get pushed right back into the sea.

That second point is basically what my article is intended help with. If you use Marines in a piecemeal or uncoordinated manner (or as mere footsoldiers) you won't get the full potential of the unit. Used correctly, they can spearhead an impressive (and fun) invasion.

Thanks for the feedback and compliment yankees, I appreciate that. I hope you find this helpful, even if you still don't care for Marines...

I like the article, but you missed something out - a great unit for making things easier for the Marines:

Sun Tzu would recommend Bombers to soften the city defence for the Marines.

What could better complement a Marine Attack force than 1-2 Carriers with 6-8 Bombers?

Half a ton of marines are also useful on those occasions when you are fighting a civ which is militarily far superior to you, which you'd not be easily able to invade conventionally (counter-attacks with 200 MA along railroads, for example), and whose cities you either don't want or couldn't keep. With enough marines, preferably with naval/air support, you can simply raze all the cities on their coastline until they give in. 12-6-1 is only a bit weaker than a tank on offence. Just mind their navy.

@Longasc: Your comments are on the money, Fire Support is a Good Thing. Fire support is mentioned in there in a couple of places. If you look in the paragraph after the "planning" items you'll find If you have (or can build) a bunch of carriers, bombers, and battleships to provide fire support to "soften" the target, even better. I don't emphasize it, and maybe that's why it's a little easy to miss those comments. I didn't emphasize it because I don't think fire support is a central part of these tactics. Is fire support tactically sound? You bet! Good idea? Only about 99.99% percent of the time. With respect to these tactics, I think it's just a bit more important to follow the Marines up with some ground combat units that defend better and hit harder. Hence the emphasis on logistics, transports, and other ground units.

But your comment is right on point, and a good one.

@Halcyon: An ... interestng variation on the theme you've got there. :hammer: I guess what you do with the cities when you take them is up to you! A good point on the attack value of Marines compared to tanks, though the speed/retreat ability of tanks gives them added combat value.

"Minding their Navy" is important, and one reason ship-hopping is key to these tactics; even more so in Conquests. If the transports are empty until the turn of the invasion, you won't lose a bunch of land units to a pre-emptive naval strike. The reason C3C makes this trickier is because subs have "stealth" attack capability; they can selectively attack your transports even if they're under a stack of Battleships...

Good points in those posts - thanks for the feedback and compliments.

Good article :)

For the marine, i think its a good unit, but comes at a bad point. AFAIK the marine corps was first created during the civil war. A 8-4-1 marine coming with the ironclads would be really nice, even for none naval combat. But since they were disbanded after the war it would be maybe too early. So the 12-6-1 marine would have a really importent impact when coming with Rep.Parts (they were refounded during the early 1900, right?).
But in the current tech tree there is the question wheter to research a mandatory tech, which gives a 16-8-2 unit or an extra tech for a 12-6-1? Well, everyone takes the tanks. Tanks are even cheaper than marines!
The marines get you a city one turn earlier. But the problem is normally not the taking of a city on a foreign continent, but to hold it. Placing a large army next to a city, on nice defending terrian isn't a problem at all. I've never seen the ai to attack a big stack with infantry on a mountain. But as soon as you take the city, he trows everything he amassed during his whole history at you, even longbows and MI or other outdated stuff. And this can be a lot!

So this question:

Why take two (or more) cities? Simple: if you're going to go through the trouble and expense to invade another continent, you might as well take as much as you can, as soon as you can. If you take the resources to take 2 cities and choose not to, that's one thing. If you don't (or can't) muster enough of an invasion force to take 2 cities, you need to take a step back and rethink your strategy.

Its not the question wheter you can take 2 or three cities, but can you secure each city good enough to hold it? Since you don't know which on is attacked, and the ai normally goes for one, you need the triple number of units for the first wave, even when 2/3 of your troops are sitting and twiddling their thumbs.
So during the first turns the mission is to secure the beachhead and to defeat as much of his troops as you can. After this he only has his regular production, which shouldn't be such a big problem.

One last little critizism: Please stop underlining to many words. It should be left for really importent points. Using it in every line is only annoying and really makes the text harder to read. ;)

Keep up your good work :)

Thanks for your comments Yoshi, I appreciate that. I made a minor edit to the passage that you quoted, because I strongly agree with you that holding what you've taken is as important as taking it in the first place. I may review the whole thing and see if I can't touch that up a little.

The rest of your comments in reverse order:

Sorry you found the underlining annoying - though that was by design. Invading an AI continent requires attention to logistics, and putting transports :p all over the place was done to try to drive that point home.

Your comments on research priorities go to a larger, more strategic question. If Space Race is enabled and you're behind in technology at this point, it might be a bad idea to research Amphibious Warfare at all. In my opinion, Tanks ought to be cheaper; there is no more costly type of campaign than an amphibious assault in the real world; it should be so in Civ warfare too.

Right now I'm wondering if there's a way to raise your strategic points without weakening the article. (It's already quite long). But your comments go to an important point - if you go the Amphibious Warfare route, you'd better really mean it.

I hope this doesn't take us to a digression, but - on the history bits you mentioned:

You're correct in that the Marines' history extends well into the Age of Sail. However, the tactics were fundamentally different. Back in those days they were primarily used for ship-boarding operations. To this day, the U.S. Marine officers' hats have an emproidered design on the top that resembles a clover leaf. This has its roots in the Age of Sail - armed sailors up in the rigging could distinguish the Marines from the enemy by their hats, and know who to shoot at.

As for the place of Marines in the Civ Tech tree, it seems appropriate. Amphibious assaults (as they're implemented in Civ war) came later in WWII, after tanks. Though there were amphibious operations during WWI, they were more of the "amphibious landing" type. (See Gallipoli). Making the Marine available with Replaceable Parts would be too early, IMO. It would eliminate the historically accurate, Artillery-heavy WWI style campaigns of the early industrial era. It might also change the game fundamentally by introducing an attacker with an edge over the defender.

Never underestimate the power of weakling defenders"

i once was attacking the French in one game, they were down to one island city with pop of 2 and on grassland, and it was guarded by 1 spearman. it slaid 3 of my marines before i finally killed it.

any math person want to figure out the chances of this?

The point with the underlined words is that such highlighted ones are catching the eye, even when they are not at this position in the text. So, at least for me, the eyes flies from transport to transport, while the rest between is more or less skipped. Reading the same word several times tend to increase the reading speed so much that at the end the only thing which keeps in mind is the work transport. Its a importent part, but i doubt the word transport is the most importent thing in your text. Its just too obvisios to use transports, or is there a another way to get them across the sea ;)

I agree on the point that the point in the tech tree fits with the real world history. But at that point they are mediocore at everything except one thing: naval assault. And this unfortunatly isn't very rewarding compared to a standard drop off lots of artillery, tanks and inf close to the city.

There is still a advantage to take a city by marines, when moving enough artillery inside and use them instantly to destroy all roads close to the city. This way the counter strike will be easier to handle.

Also they could be used for raiding enemy coastel cities, razing them when taking and holding is not an option (e.g. you are in an democracy, where defending a bridgehead is nearly impossible). The most you can loose in the assault to enemy land units is the marine who takes the city and sits there till the next turn. Just keep enough anti-air and anti-ship around.

Originally posted by yoshi74
The point with the underlined words <snip>Since it bugs you that much, I'm going to play with italicizing the words in a little while... (I just love the ability to edit something you already posted... :) )Its a importent part, but i doubt the word transport is the most importent thing in your text. Its just too obvisios to use transports, or is there a another way to get them across the sea ;)The word "transport" isn't the most important thing in there, you're right. It's heavily emphasized in the article because these tactics do hinge on some logistical support to bring in those units we need to hold the city (or cities).

By "another way to get them across the sea", it sounds like you're leading to a discussion of airports and airlifting mass quanties of troops across the sea.... here's my take on that:

The "recipe" in the article is really for an invasion, not a complete campaign to conquer a continent. The emphasis on transports for 3 to 5 turns after the invasion is important because you can unload the units with their movement points intact, and use them immediately in these early stages of the war.

After the first 3 to 5 turns it should be pretty clear how the war is going... but in any case, it will take you at least 2-3 turns to quell resistance and rush-build an airport. Once you've got substantial forces on the other continent, a city with resistors quelled, you can rush an airport and shift from sea-lift to air-lift. The caveats: you need to be in a position that you can afford to wait the extra turn to use the units you just built and airlifted, and you need several airports at home... At this point you're no longer "invading the continent", you're campaigning to push the AI off that continent, and the nature of the war is changing.

Airlifting is powerful stuff, for sure. Same as with transports, you have to put the pieces in place to make it work effectively. A steady flow of reinforcements ship-hopping through sea lanes for 3-5 turns can give you the time you need to put together the airlift capability.

Scout,

Newbies never build enough transports - leave your underline! -

The article is excellent, but I must raise 1 issue with you -

you state in the article: "you should be able to attack your next target IN THE SAME TURN" - I say - why?

I believe that the focus on the inland expansion is wrong. naturally if you 'can' thats one thing, but 'should'? First and foremost in any invasion is ensuring the survival of the initial invadeing force - spread your invasion to wide - too soon - and the enemy counter-attack can devastate you. Remember that allthough you may have total superiority in total numbers accross the board (like the allies at d-day) on average the enemy will have LOCAL superioity. Your military may be 2 or 3 times lkarger than his as a whole - but logistically - his military will be stronger at the actual front. I believe that with invasions 'patience' is the better part of valor. Once that initial counter-attack is absorbed (by your ENTIRE force) then and only then should you move inland and 'breakout' . Waitng for the second wave is IMO a far better alternative. Trust me, I have run quite a few invasions of the type you describe and have found that the AI counter punch is usually far more potent than one assumes.

As I said, I realize that the 'context' may make this different - no doubt an invasion launched 1 or 2 turns AFTER an ally has engaged your enemy on the same continent - changes things extensively - however, your article did not break down the individual strategic variables.

Ision

Originally posted by Ision
Newbies never build enough transports - leave your underline! - ... apologies to Yoshi...underlines stay...
"you should be able to attack your next target IN THE SAME TURN" - I say - why? I believe that the focus on the inland expansion is wrong. naturally if you 'can' thats one thing, but 'should'? <snip> Lots of good stuff in here. Let's start with some things we clearly agree on:...First and foremost in any invasion is ensuring the survival of the initial invadeing force - spread your invasion to wide - too soon - and the enemy counter-attack can devastate you. On these points you are absolutely correct.

Let me throw something in here, setting aside the "second city issue" a moment. Using these tactics, you should take a chunk of territory, and keep it. At the end of the first round of the invasion, all of your units should finish the turn within your new cultural borders. Any cities you've taken should have solid garrisons of infantry (or better).

Bottom line: It is certainly far better to take one city and keep it than to take two cities, only to lose one (or both) to counterattack. No argument there - point conceded.

I'm hoping this will help some players in this respect: Planning the invasion, and applying that planning to putting the pieces in place to sustain it. You don't have to take a second city, no. But if you take the first one with Marines, you should have that option.

If one plans the invasion force to take 2 cities and chooses not to, that's fine. If one plans to take 2 cities and meets stiffer resistance on the second city than expected (or 30 panzers are discovered outside the second city), one can always call off the follow-on attack, dump all the units in the coastal city, and brace for the counterpunch.

...but if one plans to simply take one city and hold it while waiting for reinforcements to arrive, there is a real risk of getting a toe-hold where a foot-hold is needed, and that breakout could be delayed and made more difficult as a result.

I'll admit, the "second city" part of that little recipie is a bit bold and audacious. Done without a second thought as to enemy strengths, you could easily cross the line between "bold" and "brash". The difference is a calculated risk versus a wild gamble.

Back to the 2 cities, and some things I would and would not do:

We've taken a coastal city, and there is a second city 3 tiles away from the borders of our "new coastal city". The invasion force comprised 3 transports of Marines, 3 Infantry, and 64 Cavalry. "New Coastal City" gets a transport of Infantry, fortified. Next come the Cavalry, wave after wave against that second city, taking it. Though this is painful, and appears wasteful, the Cav are becoming obsolete. Anyway, I take that second city, grab a boatload of Infantry, move 'em into the city, and fortify them. I can take my remaining boatload of infantry and put them in the 2 cities I've taken...

That is one way to play it. There's definitely a "Know your enemy" component to this, and there is certainly a risk in dividing your defensive force. On the other hand, you've deprived the enemy of a productive city that he/she could use to build or draft units...

Now here is something I would not do. Let's take out the Cav, and substitute 2 dozen tanks. I would not take those tanks and send them against that second city, only to end the turn at the city's gates, in enemy territory, waiting on a counterattack. If I didn't have Modern Armor or a ridiculous number of Cav for this gambit, I wouldn't go for that second city, I'd put the tanks in the coastal city, to take out the units that the AI counterattacks with... Now if that second city is only 2 tiles from our new borders, I'd look at sending the tanks against it... but I would not simply move units into enemy territory on the initial turn unless the could attack a second city with a reasonable chance of success.

Is the "Second City Gambit" part of this recipie risky? You bet. Audacious? Without a doubt. Tactically unsound or flawed in the fundamentals? I don't think so... (but of course I would think that! :D ) I also think a measured amout of audacity is healthy when you're putting together something like an invasion.

Edit: Ision, I'm going to read back through the article to make sure it's clear that the "Second City Gambit" is optional. Hand-in-glove with this is the fact that invading with Marines gives you options that you wouldn't otherwise have if you just drop a stack off on the shore... a follow-on attack after taking a city with Marines is a powerful option.

Just a couple observations:

Originally posted by scoutsout
In my opinion, Tanks ought to be cheaper; there is no more costly type of campaign than an amphibious assault in the real world; it should be so in Civ warfare too.

I agree. However, it's very important (especially for newer players) to realize that an amphibious assault *is* the most expensive type of campaign. For that reason, it should be avoided unless there is no other choice.

You need to very carefully weigh your options. Honestly, I've never bothered with marines. The real problem with them is that they are a specialty unit, and one in which you only use when you are forced to attack in a less then ideal manner. Why would you spend dozens of turns ahead of time to build specialty units just so you can make an expensive amphibious assault? That to me sounds like planing for waste. If you've got that much lead time, I'm sure you can come up with a better way to attack the AI then that...

If you just build your best offensive and defensive units, you can mount a standard assault and probably do it in less time, and still have units that are optimally designed for the rest of the war. Once you've taken that first city on the enemy's continent, there's no use for your marines anymore. You'd be better off using tanks and infantry (or MA and MI) in every situation.


IMHO, unless you just really want to replicate a D-Day type assault, and really enjoy killing off hordes of your own units attacking an enemy city, there's not much reason to do this. As several people have stated, the litmus test of a successful assault is generally not taking a square (or even a city). It's surviving the initial counterattack. Assuming a limited number of transports and other naval vessels, the best way to ensure you have a maximum number of units to survive that counter attack is to not kill 50% of them making your beach head. Land your units in a big stack. Move them towards his city on turn 2. Let him smash his units against your best defensive units. Use artilery to remove rails on his likely routes and create a kill zone. Destroy the bulk of his forces *before* taking that first city. Assuming a railed enemy area, you're going to have to fight all his units pretty much right away anyway. May as well do it on your terms instead of his. Once you do that, you can take that first city and then just roll through his area.

By not taking a city first, you can split his counter attack into multiple sections. You can take a few turns whittling it down (especially if you use armies as defensive hard points). If you just land in a city, he will send every single unit connected by rail to attack you. You've given yourself the worst of both worlds. You've reduced the units you have to defend by partaking of an expensive amphibious assault, and you've ensured that he'll send the maximum amount of units to attack you on the next turn.

I strongly recommend landing a force on a non-city area first, taking control of a coastal area, whittling his stacks of units down until he can't mount a counter attack, and *then* taking that first city. If you time it right, you'll take it right about the time your transports will be arriving with a second wave of fresh units. I've just found that that's a vastly better way of assaulting an enemy held continent.


One other point about the AI and units. The AI *always* builds two types of land units: The unit with the highest offensive value, and the unit with the highest defensive value. By giving or depriving the AI of certain resources, you can effect what units he'll have to fight against you.

If he has oil and rubber, he will build MI and MA. If he has rubber, but no oil, he will build infantry and marines. If he has no rubber, but he's got saltpeter, he will build riflemen and calvary. If he has no saltpeter, he will build knights and riflemen (they don't need any resources!). This, of course, assumes he's got all the required techs.

It's actually an interesting debate as to whether to deprive an AI of rubber. I always deprive them of oil if I can, but rubber presents an interesting quandry. With rubber, they get infantry on defense (which are better then riflemen by a good amount). However, I will often prefer to fight an AI that's got marines as it's offensive unit then calvary. That may seem bizaare, but it's not. I can manage a defense much easier if the AI has no fast attack ground units. Even with a lower attack on the calvary, it's painful because he can come out of nowhere to attack inside your foothold area. A marine unit cannot. It's much easier to draw them into a kill zone and wipe them out before they get any penetration into your area.

The problem with that though is that if the AI has marines, he *will* conduct amphibious assaults. This can be a pain since you now have to defend your coastal cities with more units just in case (or make sure you patrol with naval units). Which combo of units is better depends a whole lot on the specifics of the situation you are in. It is important to note that you can control which units the AI has access to, and you should make use of that when planing your strategy.

Wakboth - you raise a lot of good issues and questions. There are some things you said that I agree with, but on some things I must respectfully disagree. Originally posted by Wakboth
...amphibious assault...should be avoided unless there is no other choice.Though I disagree, it's beside the point. The point of the article was to show some effective tactics for using Marines, not to compare those tactics with entirely different tactics. Either amphibious assaults or landings can be done effectively, or fail dismally. Neither is intrinsically "better". Specific circumstance may make one better suited for those circumstances...which is also beside the point. Let me reiterate a point that (I thought) I made earlier in this thread: I am not going to debate the merits of an amphibious landing versus an amphibious assault.

Now, on to your comments...

Why would you spend dozens of turns ahead of time to build specialty units <snip>The short answer is, I don't. Take 8-10 productive cities and put them to work making marines for 2 production cycles (3-6 turns/cycle/city) and you'll have the 12-24 Marines needed for the initial assault. As several people have stated, the litmus test of a successful assault is generally not taking a square (or even a city). It's surviving the initial counterattack. Here's one we agree on. However, passing this litmus test generally depends on the number of defensive units that you brought along. Are good defensive units fortified in a freshly taken city are at any more risk than the same number of unfortified defensive units on a hill or mountain in enemy territory? Assuming a limited number of transports and other naval vessels, the best way to ensure you have a maximum number of units to survive that counter attack is to not kill 50% of them making your beach head. <snip>Two questions: According to the article, what is the most important naval unit to have? Is the proportion of Marines even in just the initial assault force higher than one third in any variant of the recipie? And none of the follow-on forces are Marines...which makes the proportion of Marines relatively small.

...you're going to have to fight all his units pretty much right away anyway. May as well do it on your terms instead of his. Once you do that, you can take that first city and then just roll through his area. This is quoted badly out of context, but it really does play right to the strength of these tactics: fighting on your own terms. Nobody should reasonably expect to take a city with Marines and expect those same Marines to hold the city against a counterattack by tanks. Take that city with Marines, and then unload 2-3 transport loads of Infantry, and 2-3 transport loads of tanks - minimum. At that point, you've got a pretty decent sized contingent, IN that city, with all their movement points intact. You have the option to press the attack, or dig in and weather the counterattack. How is that anything less than fighting on one's own terms? I strongly recommend landing a force on a non-city area first, taking control of a coastal area, whittling his stacks of units down until he can't mount a counter attack, and *then* taking that first city. If you time it right, you'll take it right about the time your transports will be arriving with a second wave of fresh units. I've just found that that's a vastly better way of assaulting an enemy held continent.Compare this comment to the tactics outlined in the article. We're both talking about doing the same thing: landing a second wave of fresh units the turn after taking that first city. An important difference: the tactics outlined in that article call for that second wave to arrive on the very next turn. And another wave the turn after that. And then a third...

Originally posted by yoshi74
AFAIK the marine corps was first created during the civil war.

I hate to quibble with an otherwise good post, but the United States Marine Corps was founded on 10 November 1775.

Originally posted by ShiplordAtvar
I hate to quibble with an otherwise good post, but the United States Marine Corps was founded on 10 November 1775. Um.. wait a sec, I didn't think the United States was founded until 1787? (The year the Constitution was written/ratified.) :p I'm jerking your chain here ShiplordAtvar - please don't respond to that. I know darn good and well that you're talking about the heritage of the Marines, you may very well have been one from the way you posted that date, and intend no slight on the Corps.

In all seriousness, did they call it the Marine Corps back then?

I knew the history of the Marines extended well into the Age of Sail...though I didn't know it went back quite that far. I hope my other 'history' comments in the thread weren't off-point...

Just bear one thing in mind: A lot of the people posting on these boards are not Americans. Generally, only those who are students of military history have much understanding, let alone appreciation, for the US Civil War. I would imagine there are those who could pick either of us apart if we were to post something about the history of the Highlanders or Spetsnaz ... etc. I'm still a little foggy on what a "Dragoon" or "Fusileer" is... :D

Originally posted by scoutsout
Um.. wait a sec, I didn't think the United States was founded until 1787? (The year the Constitution was written/ratified.) :p I'm jerking your chain here ShiplordAtvar - please don't respond to that. I know darn good and well that you're talking about the heritage of the Marines, you may very well have been one from the way you posted that date, and intend no slight on the Corps.

In all seriousness, did they call it the Marine Corps back then?

I knew the history of the Marines extended well into the Age of Sail...though I didn't know it went back quite that far. I hope my other 'history' comments in the thread weren't off-point...

Just bear one thing in mind: A lot of the people posting on these boards are not Americans. Generally, only those who are students of military history have much understanding, let alone appreciation, for the US Civil War. I would imagine there are those who could pick either of us apart if we were to post something about the history of the Highlanders or Spetsnaz ... etc. I'm still a little foggy on what a "Dragoon" or "Fusileer" is... :D

1.) Not a problem, I could discern the intent. :)
2.) I haven't yet been a Marine, but I will be shipping to Marine Corps recruit training (ie boot camp) in two weeks (fwiw).
3.) Yes it was known as the United States Marine Corps back then. I can't make too much of a comment as to how much of the early history was spent aboard Navy ships and how much was spent launching amphibious assaults, because I don't have my notes right here next to me. Having said that, there is a reason why the Marine Corps hymn includes the lyric "From the Halls of Montezuma/to the shores of Tripoli". Marines fought against the pirates of the Barbary coast and in the Mexican-American war of the late 1840s (I believe making an assault at Veracruz, then marching to the capital).
4.) From what I've read, your other comments weren't off-point.
5.) Yes, I realize that probably a majority of the posters hereabouts are from outside the USA. However, given the context in yoshi's comment, I went out on a limb and guessed that he was talking about the Marines of the US. You are correct, only military personnel or military/military history buffs could be expected to converse intelligently about military history type stuff. I wouldn't expect a crack addict to be able to discourse on the civil wars in old China or a burger flipper to be able to talk about the Roman conquest of Gaul. Hell, even I don't know as much about those as I'd like to. And yes, you are correct that our international friends could probably wipe the floor with us in specialized areas of military history. Dragoons - my best guess is that this is a type of light infantry that rides to battle on horseback & then dismounts. Fusileers - I have no *obscenity deleted* idea.

The real problem with them is that they are a specialty unit, and one in which you only use when you are forced to attack in a less then ideal manner. Why would you spend dozens of turns ahead of time to build specialty units just so you can make an expensive amphibious assault?

Actually the marine is a unit that exist when you can afford the luxury of attacking IN the ideal manner. The unit is a luxury for the player that is a situation were he can afford to spend on a speciality unit in order to fine tune his attack. The less than IDEAL situation is one were you are forced to act without the ability to utilize a unit specifically designed to give you an advantage for the task ahead, for example the seige of a well defended large city without artillary, the mass invasion of a strong neighbor without highly mobile 2 and 3 movement units, the strategic bombing of enemy cities without fighter cover - ect...

Of course the marine is a specialty unit, and that specialty is amphibious attack. The point that far too many players miss when discussing any specialty unit (marine, para, helicopters, stealth units, cruise missles, ect...) is that they were never intended to be built in huge numbers nor were they ever intended to represent the core of your forces. Far too often players reduce the question of whether to use or not use a specialty unit to a direct comparision of that unit to the other typical units of its time period - this is an error.

To properly weigh the value (or lack of value) of a specialiuty unit one should look at the effect that that unit will have used in limited numbers for a specific and narrow strategy - and then ask - all things considered does this units impact in this narrow sense impart a great enough advantage to justify its creation.

The marine was never intended as a core fighting unit during massive invasions - but as a unit that gives a massive invasion strat an 'edge' in its initial stages. In this sense the unit IS a success - and on average more than justifys building a limited number of these specialty units.

As scout stated - the marine is "the tip of the spear" - this was a perfect analogy that captures the spirit of this speciality unit.

Ision

Sure. It's a specialty unit. I can agree with that. However, you said yourself that you then can't compare it directly to more general use units because it has a special pupose (in this case, amphibious attacks).

And if an amphibious assault in Civ3 were a more effecient method of attacking, then I'd agree with you. But it really isn't. It may be "necessary". It may be faster (maybe). But it's never more efficient.

Let's lay off the fancy words for a moment and analyze exactly what a marine unit actually gets to do in game terms. It can make an attack from a seagoing transport to a land space that is occupied by an enemy. That's it. It gains no offensive bonus doing this. It's simply allowed to.

If you have a choice between attacking a city with marines and attacking it with tanks, which would you use? The tanks, right? Everything else being equal, they have a better offensive ability, and are a fast attack unit, so you're less likely to lose them in the assault.

Unless every single coastal square is blocked with enemy units, you don't need marines to land a force *near* the city you with to attack, right?

Thus. If you avoid doing an amphibious assault, you will get to use tanks to attack that city instead of marines. This is "better". This is more efficient. You will lose fewer units attacking this way. Combat in Civ3 is always about making the other guy spend more then you, so blowing a dozen units attacking a city, when you could have taken it with few or no losses is a bad idea.

Therefore, the *only* reason to use marines is if you absolutely must attack and take that coastal city on the same turn you land. That's it. But for that, you spent X number of turns building marines. Why not just land troops near the city and attack normally? If it takes you a couple extra turns, who cares? Unless you built the marines ahead of time, but why would you do that?

I can't really think of any reason one would chose to launch an amphibous assault on a city rather then simply land next to the city and attack it a turn or two later. Certainly, building a specialty unit purely so you can do this seems silly. Even moreso, building the units first and the deciding to make an amphibous assault because you have the units is even worse circular logic.


Don't get me wrong. The tactics mentioned in the article are good tactics to use if you find yourself having to make an amphibious assault. I'm simply saying that unless there is absolutely no other way to capture a city, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Heck. Even in the situation where a small island had a unit on every square, I'd just build maybe a couple marines, take a spot next to the city, then attack the city on the following turn. There are just so few situations in which you absolutely must attack that city from sea instead of land. I can literally count on the fingers of one finger the number of times I've needed to use marines to attack an AI (small island with no landing spots). That's it.

If you have a choice between attacking a city with marines and attacking it with tanks, which would you use? The tanks, right? Everything else being equal, they have a better offensive ability, and are a fast attack unit, so you're less likely to lose them in the assault.

your comparing apples to oranges

If I have a choice between hitting a city on the 1st turn with 8 marines against 2 or 3 Infantry - or hitting the city on the second turn with 20 tanks, 10 infantry ect... vs 15 to 20 enemy units - I will take the first choice.

On the other hand, if my enemy is 'hugely inferior' to me - then I would pass up on the marines - and go pure tanks and Inf.

As you can see - it depends on the 'context', and it is that context that will determine the value or lack of - of using marines.

And if an amphibious assault in Civ3 were a more effecient method of attacking, then I'd agree with you. But it really isn't.

It really is or really isn't - depends on your skill level and the difficulty level your playing on - most players either cheat or play far below their skill level - therfore, by the time marines are available they are 3 to 5 times stronger than their nearest rival. So - yes - marines are a waste in that context. The article however assumes, that that the player is NOT in that position. The more dangerous the invasion - the HIGHER the value of marines.

Therefore, the *only* reason to use marines is if you absolutely must attack and take that coastal city on the same turn you land.

Your 'only' is disproved by the expierences of many players - including myself.

I can't really think of any reason one would chose to launch an amphibous assault on a city rather then simply land next to the city and attack it a turn or two later. Certainly, building a specialty unit purely so you can do this seems silly.

To answer your first sentence - I have already given you one example above (there are many more). As to your 'seems silly' - That remark is in itself - silly.

Lastly, please excuse me if I did not 'lay off the fancy words'.

Ision

Just an observation.

Originally posted by Ision
Your 'only' is disproved by the expierences of many players - including myself.

Not really. I said:

Therefore, the *only* reason to use marines is if you absolutely must attack and take that coastal city on the same turn you land.


Originally posted by Ision
If I have a choice between hitting a city on the 1st turn with 8 marines against 2 or 3 Infantry - or hitting the city on the second turn with 20 tanks, 10 infantry ect... vs 15 to 20 enemy units - I will take the first choice.

I think that qualifies as a situation where you "must" attack and take that coastal city in one turn. At least you are presenting the choice that way.


I also disagree that you "must" do that often. If he'd be able to fortify that city with 15 to 20 units on turn 2, then he'd be able to counterattack you with at least that many units if you did a one turn amphibious assault (this is dependant on how his cultural border is laid out). You're going to have to take out those units one way or another. I'd much rather do it on my terms (ie: me attacking, with the benefit of artillery barrage), then with me defending. So it may take me a few turns to cut off that city and take it with the forces I landed. I will know for a fact that I have control of the city after I take it, and I know that I've minimized my losses in the process.

I also completely disagree that this will help you if you are behind the AI in terms of military power. If you don't have enough units to land next to a city, let the AI adjust defensively, but then still take the city with your forces, then you will definately not survive the counter attack from the AI after an amphibious assault. Sure. You may very well take the city, but you wont hold it. Not for long at least. To me, if I'm behind in units, the issue of kill ratio becomes incredibly important. If I can land forces on a nice defensive point on the AI's continent (maybe with an army for defense), I can establish a kill zone and whittle away his units with little to no losses on my side. That's more important in the long run then capturing a single city. Once I'm done killing his defensive units and destroying his road network nearby, I can take that city with impunity, and hold it. That's more important IMO. If I'm well behind in military, then odds are he can mount a pretty sizable counterattack in relation to the size of my assault. On defense, he will wipe out my attacking force. Of offense, I have control of the battle.


I suppose if all you want to do is take it and raze it to deprive the AI (and perhaps open a hole in his cultural border), then using marines to do that is valid. If you actually want to capture and hold that city, I'm having a hard time thinking of a single scenario in which you'd be better off using a marine assault then a traditional "land and assault" tactic. I actually see it almost exactly opposite to you. A marine assault is a luxury that players who are well ahead of the AI use when they can afford to obtain an otherwise uneeded tech, and can afford to take significant losses when attacking. I see it as a zerg approach to assault that should be avoided if possible.


My issue with this (and the reason behind my comment about "fancy words") is that there are a lot of newer players who really do envision a D-day style invasion when they think about using marines and performing amphibious assaults, and really do think it's the "best way" to mount an attack. You are aware that the Normandy landing area was not a city site, right? The reason that spot was chosen was because the Germans had the equivalent of a fortified unit on every coastal square, so the only way to attack was via an amphibious assault. They picked an area that they thought was least defended. Emphasis on "least defended".

Pop quiz: If there had been a stretch of land that was not fortified or defended, do you think the Allies in WW2 would have attacked at Normandy? Or do you think they would have landed where there were no defenders, established their beach head, and then moved inland from there? I'll bet you anything that the later would have been chosen. In Civ3 terms, an amphibious assault is by definition an attack from a transport ship to an occupied square. No one chooses to do that if they can land somewhere that is not defended instead.


Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are situation where using marines is required (like wanting to take and raze a city). And in those cases, by all means, use the tactics written in this article. I'm just saying that a player needs to very carefully calculate the total costs involved with the attack. He needs to factor in the number of units he'll lose taking the city. He needs to calculate the likely number of forces that'll be thrown aganst him in a counter attack. He'll need to factor in the fact that the AI places a great value on city spaces and will attack them more readily then a stack in a mountain square for instance. That last one is critical. If you take a city, the AI will send every available unit to take it back. If you drop a stack on a hill or mountain next to a city, he'll be far less likely to attack you, but will instead defend. Even a relatively small force, if it's got artillery and fast attack units, can eventually wipe out a very large force, if all the other guy is doing is sitting there defending.

And that's not considering the danger of a flip. Putting your entire landing force in a city you just took this turn, which presumably is pressed in on all sides by the AIs culture, is a recipie for disaster. I just see negatives all the way around with that approach to assault.


Getting that foothold is more important IMHO then taking a city. After all, if you're even considering marines, then you've got battlefield medicine, so that's not really a factor. If your focus is on destroying his units and improvements, then mobility isn't a factor. Once I've got troops landed in the AI's territory, I can continually destroy his improvements and roads, cut off his cities, and gradually destroy his military. If I'm way behind the AI, this is the best way to win a war against him (everything else being equal of course). I've landed forces where I had less then 20 units, and the AI sent stacks of 40+ towards me, and I was able to win in the long run because I didn't waste units capturing cities, but instead focused on cutting off a section of his terrirtory, destroying his units in that territory, *then* taking a city. Sure. It takes a few more turns, but I find it works better.


Now an interesting use of marines is as coastal supression. Since a marine unit can land on another enemy occupied space, it means that it can capture workers in one turn from sea. One use for them is to just put one transport with one marine on it and have it accompany any ships you are using for naval bombardment along the AI coastline. Doing that will ensure that the AI wont repair the improvements you destroy since it wont put workers in a spot where they can be captured. Your marine unit is calculated by the AI as though it can attack into the coastal squares, so the AI wont move workers there.

Not that I've ever tried that (but it should work). I actually don't put a whole lot of value into bombarding AI coastlines. I generally find that if I spent enough to control the seas from his ships and have the extra naval units to sit around bombarding a coastline, then I probably would have been better off building something else instead. But if I've just destroyed his ships and have my ships sitting around doing nothing, why not bombard?

See? I'll even knock my own ideas... ;)

This is my last post on this subject....

If he'd be able to fortify that city with 15 to 20 units on turn 2, then he'd be able to counterattack you with at least that many units if you did a one turn amphibious assault

If the city is taken immediately by a small group of marines then the counter-attack will be absorbed by 'full strength' Tanks and Infantry in an already conquered city - as opposed to a force that has just finished absorbing casualties from a counter-attack and then weakened further by storming a city the next turn. AI counter-attacks occur in waves – taking the city immediately you eliminate a step in the process and thus ensure a higher survivability factor. Also, by taking the city immediately and rush building a barracks – you further raise the invasions chances of long-term success against the AI waves. On average the faster an objective is taken – the better. There are of course an endless number of variables - mainly dependant on the number of enemy units. On the other hand, the number, types and specific situation may make a marine assault the wrong approach. In other words – the marine may be a great unit, an average unit or useless unit – as all specialized units are.

You are aware that the Normandy landing area was not a city site, right?

Your example is horrendous. You are aware that a single square on a standard size CIV map is probably larger than the entire province of Normandy! - and that in that province there were cities - also, that a single turn in CIV by the time of marines is measured in years - also, that D-Day landings were conducted on beaches and not mountains/hills- also, that the Allies did not land 20 tank divisions on the beaches. A better invasion analogy for CIV would be to compare an invasion that occured on an episode of Star Trek than one that occured historically. As to picking an area that is least defended - the city will never be as little defended as it is in the first turn. Basic strategic principles CAN be applied to CIV 3, but CIV 3 is a HUGE abstraction of reality, to such a degree that historical analogies are near worthless.

Pop quiz:

I graduated from high school over 20 years ago - so i'll pass on the quiz.


My last comment is to Scoutsout,

The time, effort and work that you put into an article about 'how to use marines' is appreciated. If my exchange with another poster has detracted from the direction in which you intended for the thread - I apologize.

Sincerely,

Ision

Originally posted by Ision
This is my last post on this subject....Well, I'm a little disappointed to read that... The time, effort and work that you put into an article about 'how to use marines' is appreciated. If my exchange with another poster <snip>Thanks for the kind words, and it's no biggie on the digression. It's the 'nature of the beast' with these threads sometimes... and I've been guilty of digressing too. One thing I wanted to touch on...Originally posted by Wakboth
Getting that foothold is more important IMHO then taking a city.On that I wholeheartedly agree - but (for anyone still following this thread) if you conduct the type of amphibious assault using the tactics outlined in the article, the city taken is that foothold. A cornerstone of the whole set of tactics is to take that foothold with Marines and follow it with immediate reinforcement of a good number of strong defensive and offensive units.

I welcome futher discussion based on thoughtful analysis of the tactics presented in the article. The article is intended to show a tactically sound manner to use Marines, nothing more, nothing less.

I do not wish to debate amphibious landings versus amphibious assaults because (like I've said before) either can be executed in a tactically sound manner, and I honestly don't think either method is inherently "better" than another, until one starts examining specific situations. For a given situation, one method may well be more appropriate than the other (and I'll gladly concede that point) - but that discussion goes to situational analysis and comparing tactics; both of which are beyond the scope of the article, and beside the point of this discussion.

Hey. If folks can debate over the use of undelines in the article, I think it's fair to debate *when* to use the information in the article as well. That's all I'm trying to do. I just get concerned sometimes because newer players will read an article like this one and think they should be adjusting their play to make use of it, rather then just knowing the tactics to use if the situation should come up when they'll need it.

The article was presented as "what you can do with the marine unit", but restricted itself almost completely to attacking a city during a continent invasion. It was basically an article about amphibous assault, not the marine unit, and I felt (and still feel) that the first thing to know about a tactic is when to use it (hence the nature of my response).

How about showing other uses for marines? It can do more then just capture a city from the sea. It can capture *any* sqare from the sea. It can attack any stack of units from the sea. I mentioned being able to attack workers and such. That's important. In a PvP type game, this can be critical. Ever played against someone who'll spread unit out along coastal areas to make it harder for you to land? Marines can break that easily.

Just the threat of marines off a coastline can affect the unit movements of the other player or AI. Sometimes, that can be a more effective use of a unit then just tossing it into combat.

Are marines "useless"? Of course not. I just happen to think that the city assault use for marines is not just not the only use, but not necessarily even the most potent use of this particular unit.

thanks you to scout and very much to Ision. Ision your way of analysing is amazing you look very deep into the strategys. i have used some of the ideas in the article and isions comments in my game and it has worked well

Wakboth some of what you say is true but you seem not to want to hear anybody ideas. you talk very rude and you talk down to people.

Originally posted by yankees
thanks you to scout and very much to Ision. Ision your way of analysing is amazing you look very deep into the strategys. i have used some of the ideas in the article and isions comments in my game and it has worked well @ Yankees - for some reason I didn't catch your post until now. The notification thing must have gotten messed up when they were updating the forums. Messy couple of days...but thanks for the kind words.

If what I wrote helps one player in one game, then I'm happy. If that one player is you, so much the better. Did you apply the full set of tactics, or borrow some ideas? I'd be interested to know what you took from the article and how you used it. I'd also like to know what ideas you took from Ision's posts, or if you took a little from both, etc.

@ Wakboth: In your latest post you state that your intent was to debate "when to use the information in the article". Your earlier posts are not consistent with this stated intent. You take a very clear position that amphibious assaults are the wrong way to go, and you argue that point at some length. I don't know why, but your latest post seems inconsistent with your earlier ones.

I think all has been said. Now I want to read about the use of Helicopters! :)

Originally posted by scoutsout
@ Wakboth: In your latest post you state that your intent was to debate "when to use the information in the article". Your earlier posts are not consistent with this stated intent. You take a very clear position that amphibious assaults are the wrong way to go, and you argue that point at some length. I don't know why, but your latest post seems inconsistent with your earlier ones.

Not really inconsistent at all. I did come on a bit strong in my first post, so I was just trying to soften the position a bit. I still firmly believe that 99% of the time, you'll do better using a traditional invasion rather then trying to take a city directly from sea using marines. I've never stated any disagreement with the tactics you posted. I just disagree with the frequency at which those tactics will be needed.

As a real world example. I'm sure there are whole libraries full of tactical plans for fighting a nuclear war out there somewhere. I'm sure they are full of brilliant and incredibly detailed ideas compiled by some really smart people who really now the topic. That does not mean that it would be knocking the quality of their tactical advice to say that we should avoid using nuclear weapons in the first place, and that we could probably find a better way of "winning", and that maybe those plans should be used only if nothing else will work.

That's all I'm saying. If you can achieve a foothold on an AI continent without making a marine assault on a city from sea, then you probably should. Obviously, the decisions not going to be as extreme as deciding to use nukes in the real world, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not knocking the validity of the tactics in the article. Just trying to make it clear to the reader that there are usually better ways to land troops on an AI continent. "Break Glass in case of emergency" is a very valid analogy... ;)

This is a great article. I like it because it really highlights the uses for Marines, a unit that doesn't get too much attention. Frankly, I get bored with the same old stack of death recipe for success. You do a good job of dealing with the tactics of naval assault.

It was mentioned in the thread that landing troops onto mountains or hills was a preferable way to conduct an invasion. One thing that I was thinking is that is is very unrealistic to land troops from the ocean into mountains. I know that Civ isn't all about realism, and I will still land troops into mountains when I feel like it too :) , but the marine assault sounds like a much more accurate way of conducting an invasion. I hope that they remove the ability to land onto mountains and hills in Civ4. Maybe there is a way to mod the current game?

dowski

Id just like to say, that I really enjoyed this article and ALL of the following posts for the most part. Thanks to those who participated intelligently in it.

Ive been on a lot of forums, and threads usually end up going way off topic, turn into flamewars, or just do anything but make sense. I've come to really appreciate this forum because of the seeming higher level of maturity compared to others. I also love the bits of history mixed in (obviously because its game related).

Keep it up guys.

Back On Topic:

Could marines be effectively used to stage a sort of blitzkreig/lightning strikes on all an enemies coastal cities on a given continent? Load up several transports with marines and just go city to city, razing each as you went along, until they had nothing left on the coast? Would this even be a useful tactic?

Oh, another quick question: Is there a more modern version of the Privateer? Im a little newbish still, and was curious.

Thanks again guys!
Keaka

Thanks for the compliment Keaka

Oh, another quick question: Is there a more modern version of the Privateer? Im a little newbish still, and was curious. No, the Privateer is the only naval unit that can attack without starting a war... dig down the threads and you should find one on Privateers. Here's a thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68283) with some decent stuff on Civ Naval Warfare. Could marines be effectively used to stage a sort of blitzkreig/lightning strikes on all an enemies coastal cities on a given continent? Load up several transports with marines and just go city to city, razing each as you went along, until they had nothing left on the coast? Would this even be a useful tactic? This has the potential to get into the sort of situation-specific analysis I had hoped to avoid. While it is a technique that might be appropriate in a specific circumstance, there are a couple of potential problems. Once you've razed all the enemy coastal cities, you'll have a fair sized force of Marines that are now somewhat limited in their usefulness. This is part of the reason the tactics in the article stress the "tip of the spear" concept, immediately followed by units that are more suitable for general land warfare. (The key to blitzing is not only hitting hard, but continuing to hit hard.) While the Marines can hit hard from the sea, the CivIII Marine would have a much harder time pushing inland. "Blitzing" with Marines might be suitable in an "Island Hopping" campaign, or in situations where coastal cities are are all you want to hit. That's not to say I think your idea is "bad", but I believe it might only be suitable for a specific situation.

I understand what you're saying about specific times when specific tactics are useful....The worst part, as your pointed out, is the future limited uses of those marines after the naval campaign is over...Maybe just take them on blind attacks en masse inland. Single out the large cities, and raze them. Continue until you have no more marines to pay upkeep on.

Since Im fairly certain my current game will be won, I'd like to have a bit of fun with it. I plan to have a monopoly on the ocean.

Build marines and transports, go to war, raze all coastal cities of one country. Work my way into peace, proceed to repeat on the next country, until I dominate the oceans...

Hey Scout,

Good article.

I have a couple of questions or points.

As to your concern for cultural flip in the recently taken city, if on your transport you include a settler could you move the transport into the captured city unload all your units (with movement points intact) than disband the city and immediately use your settler to reestablish a new city on that spot and in the same turn? This would lessen the cultural flip chance, I think.

This question may be better directed to Ision.
It was stated that the AI reacts to the marines in the transports even before landing. If your transport is say 5 tiles at sea does the AI react to it? That should be out of their view but as we know the AI sees all. Would the AI infact move units into the target city or area if the transport is that far out?

Thanks for the compliment Gator. As to how the AI reacts, I honestly don't know, and it's been a little while since I've read through this thread, so I don't remember right off who asserted that.

Your suggestion regarding the settler and culture flipping is interesting, I honestly never thought of that... it sounds a little like a potential exploit... My first instinct would be to form a perimeter of infantry/tanks around the city, so that if it flipped it couldn't be reinforced (and easily re-taken the next turn).

As to your concern for cultural flip in the recently taken city, if on your transport you include a settler could you move the transport into the captured city unload all your units (with movement points intact) than disband the city and immediately use your settler to reestablish a new city on that spot and in the same turn? This would lessen the cultural flip chance, I think.


My $.02

Yes, you can and it's a very common tactic I use when "landing" invasions because of how beat up the city gets anyways.

However, when taking the AI city with Marines there's (normally) far less artillary bombardment so the cities normally remain mostly intact. A city that comes with a harbor to heal your beat up ships that traveled so far, a barracks to in your foothold to heal injured units, and possibly even an airport to speed up deployment of troops is easily worth the flip risk anyday. A foothold like that can cut your war time/losses in half easily.

As to your second question........... I have no idea. I'd assume that the AI recongnises the ships & sends a navy, but doesn't recognise the threat to their cities. Just a guess though.

I have in an occasion used marines against a (much)stronger opponent for surprise attack. If my rival is much stronger than me, so that an invasion cannot be done by me, but weak enough that he most likely cannot invade me, but I NEED to hurt her, I'll raze three of her big coastal cities. Surely that is bad politics and bad for the reputation, but the rival might just lose the vital SS-part she needed.

And if I'm clearly the strongest and 100% sure I'll win, then I'll build marines occasionally to be used as foot-soldiers because, as funky it may sound, I kinda like their combat animation.

I think this is a good article to get people thinking about how marines might work in their games.

I would like to put in my 2 cents:

1) One advantage to Marines is that you can use the element of surprise to attack an enemy city that may not be well defended. Did you say this and I missed it? If you land a stack of units on a mountain it is likely the AI will demand that you leave their territory, and therefore will have a chance to attack before you can fortify. Once they see you there you can be sure the nearby cities won't be low on units.

I have not tried this type of assault yet but this article made me think it as an option.

2) One disadvantage is the low attack value. Try attacking MI in a size 14 city on a hill with a radar tower. You will need a lot of marines to take that one. Check the odds in the combat calculator.

This can be offset with bombers or battleships bombarding to soften up the units. This is a must IMO. The battleships can double as transport escorts.

3) So far (playing panacea and continents mostly) I have had only 1 case where I "needed" marines to take a city. In other cases I take the one tile island cities in peace negotiations, or let my AI allies take the city. So I see them as a specialty unit that is not in my game plan 95% of the time.

I appreciate all of the comments and compliments...

@jst: If you like the cool animations of Marines, have you played with paratroopers yet? :mischief:

1) One advantage to Marines is that you can use the element of surprise to attack an enemy city that may not be well defended. Did you say this and I missed it?This is an excellent point - and no, I did not say this. For general purposes, I find it best to assume the cities will be defended with the best unit available, but taking advantage of an opportunity like that is good thinking.
2) One disadvantage is the low attack value. Try attacking MI in a size 14 city on a hill with a radar tower. You will need a lot of marines to take that one. Check the odds in the combat calculator.This is a really good point, a quick check the attack stats of marines shows that in Civ III and PTW, the Marine is an 8/6/1 unit. In C3C, the attack value was changed to 12/6/1. Based on this, it would appear that radar towers would have a greater impact on these tactics in PTW (since vanilla doesn't have radar towers...). This can be offset with bombers or battleships bombarding to soften up the units. This is a must IMO. The battleships can double as transport escorts.The need to apply combined arms will increase with the quality of the defense you expect. A little bombardment could also be used to soften up any units defending a radar tower that happens to be on the shoreline...

Great comments Zerksees - you've added a bit to this, thanks!

At 12/6/1 the marine would be much better. In the C3C games I have played so far the AI is no longer a factor by the time I get to build marines. All of my marine experience is with PTW.

Another thought on attack value: if you think it is too low to achieve your objective then put some of the marines into an army.

@jst: If you like the cool animations of Marines, have you played with paratroopers yet?

Oh yes, much cuter than marines.



Based on this, it would appear that radar towers would have a greater impact on these tactics in PTW (since vanilla doesn't have radar towers...). The need to apply combined arms will increase with the quality of the defense you expect. A little bombardment could also be used to soften up any units defending a radar tower that happens to be on the shoreline...

I've deployed a couple of times following tactic:
since AI usually does not defend well enough it's radar towers(even a lonely rifleman), and with lethal air bombardment, I've bombed the defender to eternity and dropped some paratroopers there to destroy the tower.

But, you'd need to be in para-range...

Well written and well thought out article Scout. :goodjob:

I have used marines in the past but more so for curiosity sake. If I get time between SGOTM, GOTM, the TDG, and all of my lurking I plan to set up a battle with your tactics in mind from the start.

I agree with you Scout, on the fact that one of the greatest things about Civ is it's "replayability". If you want to play a game where one strategy or one tactic always works...go play pac man...

:rockon:

Later but, first of all: Well done Scout!!

Sorry if I’m wrong but: no people have written about the possibility in C3C to load an army with MARINES???? I think it’s a very important change from CivIII or PTW

Prove and got a terrific 2 times amphibius atack with a 4 marines Army (having an implement defensive unit and reduce the loses you would have).

With 2 or 3 marines Divs well scorted with carriers & Bs you can take easily few costal cities in few turns.

To recalculate: A transport can load 1 army & 1 unit more

In such tipe of naval invasion I search a coastal city with an airport (or use a captured worker to make a airbase) and send the bulk of my assault MBTs & MECHs by air

Enjoy

@Olixas: I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Your airlifting technique would be a lot easier to do in C3C than Vanilla CivIII, but it's sound tactic. When I wrote that I tried to keep it general so it would be useful for alll versions of the game... and I can see how a "Marine Army" would be a real terror...

An excellent article. Marines make a great spearpoint.

I think it should be remembered, however, that the Marine Corp is most closely tied to the Navy,not the Army. Marines really shine in naval warfare.

I just played an archipelago game where various enemies attacked my ships, then fled back into safe harbors. One of these was a one-square island in an extremely strategic location. Sure, the city was useless... and I didn't even need the harbor for myself. But I needed to deny it to the Indians, and until I built a marine force my superior numbers of ships, Magellan's Expedition, nothing made my naval superiority secure.

Later, I needed to invade. I chose to liberate China from the Indians (the two of them started out together on the only real continent on the map), judging the odds of culture flipping low, the odds of casualties relatively low (due to the cities being small from having been fought over so recently) and due to the presence of large quantities of two luxury goods in the area, both nonexistent elsewhere. My first attempt was a disastrous failure; I didn't have marines, my entire fleet was wiped out at sea - including two fully loaded transports. (Small, yes. I'd been racing to get there before the Chinese were wiped out.)

I acquired Marines, took over that one-square island I mentioned which secured the sea route, built a larger fleet including a full transport of marines. Supported by naval gunfire, they managed to secure a beachhead and destroyed the Indian ships before they could attack my fleet (not that they could have defeated this one, but I didn't want to lose any ships if I could avoid it).

Later, that one-square island became an extremely important air base when I was surprise-attacked by another civilizaton.

>>I can't really think of any reason one would chose to launch an amphibous assault on a city rather then simply land next to the city and attack it a turn or two later.<<

Another reply to this might be that if one lets a turn pass after war is declared, most enemy cities rush buy units. Thus, by waiting the extra turn, you're actually fighting a larger force. This has a more significant effect if the units you unload into the captured coastal city are actually capable of conquering half a dozen or more nearby cities. Especially at regent or below, a one-turn blitz has much more potential to cripple an unprepared enemy than a landing which gives them time to create reinforcements.

What do you expect from a Marine army?It can even wear down MI.And still amphious,in C3C only.

The point in attacking a city with Marines in a coast is to invade quickly and decisively. With the right kinds of troops, you can take as many are three, four, five, or even all the enemy civs cities in one turn using Marines to break the coastal towns as an entry point. This is only possible because you can field in Marines.

It is only superficially true that you can't match an AI's unit production based on proximity. Based on inherent level based advantages, yes, but by the time you research Advanced Flight, Proximity should be a thing of the past. Using Transports to ferry defensive Infantry is usually inefficient and inflexible. You will never be able to match home production using this tactic. Much better is to load 3 Transports with Marines supported by Bombers for the initial softening of the land target and followed by generous helpings of Artillery. 6 to 8 Transports worth of Artillery using 36 to 48 Artillery is modest, but then again, you are heading back for more, so more Transports may be redundant.

You use Airports to transfer mechanized troops to the scene of the action. For Infantry, Helicopters are much, much more efficient and flexible in terms of unit transport. If you're expecting heavy air cover, investing in Fighters on Carriers to defend the airspace immediately around the landing city may be appropriate and entirely worth the investment. Even if you don't, the tactic will work anyway.

You can use as many as 10 to 15 Helicopters to ferry troops, but in general, I find that 9 will suffice at the Monarch level, provided you take a maximum of three cities on landing, and plan ahead. You can take two only, or even just one, if you feel the counterattack is going to be especially vicious. Nine Helis will allow you to transfer 27 Infantry to your newly acquired city as a Rebase action, which I believe does not provoke air superiority attacks. If you wake them, they will be ready to move within the turn. Next turn, Rebase the Helis back to their home cities. On the third turn, you can ferry another 27 Infantry to whichever city or cities you may be holding at the time. Your Airport will typically complete at this stage, allowing you to also simultaneously transport as many Tanks as you have Airports in your home civ.

If you prepare 81 Infantry for use in defending your newfound territory, your 9 Helis can Rebase and distribute them in any city you capture within 5 turns, regardless of territory control and state of Rail and Pillage. Provided that you're within 2 transport hops away from your mainland, 4 Transports can transfer 12 of any unit every 2 turns to your landing city. Six can actually deliver 24 in the first 2 turns and 8 can deliver 12 every turn. This cost, however, quickly escalates with distance, and you may end up with ending up to 20 transports or more apart from the Transports you will need to land your Marines. Of course, your selection of landing cities will tend to be limited because of this, and the Transports are always subject to Bombers, Submarines, Battleships, and what not. And pillaging can hurt transport, and you may not need most of these once you get an Airport online. A collection of 9 Helis can transfer an average of 16.2 units per turn anywhere, in the first 5 turns.

Sixteen Helis can deliver 48 Infantry at a bunch and an average of 24 per turn on any particular landing spot you may so choose, and in any particular city you choose to invade after that. In addition, they can land the same number of Infantry anywhere within Paradrop range of their base city, allowing you instant threats to all key resources so long as you have air superiority.

In general, I find that 2 Helis per "core" city is easy to queue (more cities can build Helis vs. Transports) and more than outstrips that city's production within 10 turns of initiating transfers. You are quite apt to find yourself lacking troops at home unless all your core cities are capable of building 1 Infantry every single turn. Even so, you will then instantly transfer that new Infantry into your enemy's territory with no loss of movement and matching his production turn for turn. Together with Airlifts, Helis can completely drain your core civ production by means of transferring power.

In such a situation, even with tech advantage to the opposing civ, once the Airport on the landing city is built, just having the appropriate Gov and the first turn in a war can build a decisive edge for you.

In such a situation, capturing the first (few?) landing city(ies) quickly and efficiently reduces War Weariness significantly. If these are core and key cities, your AI opponent may not recover from the blow. After all, having to kill 48 Infantry + 50+ Artillery + 12+ Surviving Marines only two turns before having to kill another 48 Infantry and an imminent Airport is no mean feat. You should be able to quickly assess whether the enemy is capable of this, based on spy reports. Even with a technically stronger enemy army, capturing and holding onto the AI civ's 5 core cities is often decisive.

Just to illustrate the point, I find that 200 or so Infantry (plus various other units) on Communist on a moderately sized civ on a standard map tends to already strain the unit support. 16 Helis can transport 144 of these units in 5 turns. On the 3rd or fourth turn, you should be able to finish an Airport and manage at least one series of Airlifts of Tanks by the 5th turn. If you have a modest 16 Airport cities, that's 160 units, plus the 48 Artillery and the 12+ surviving Marines from the assault. Of course, the Transports shouldn't be resting their bums, either. So in 5 turns you should be able to land 220 land units on enemy territory using 11 Transports and 16 Helicopters and Airports.

On every succeeding turn, you can ferry an average of 24 Infantry and 16 Mechanized Units. Assuming the Transports need 4 turns to make the crossing, your 11 Transports will arrive with 66 more Artillery within 7-8 turns of your initial assault.

All this is possible only because you can capture the initial city on a coastal assault (and defend using that city's defense bonuses).

Just a couple observations:

You need to very carefully weigh your options. Honestly, I've never bothered with marines. The real problem with them is that they are a specialty unit, and one in which you only use when you are forced to attack in a less then ideal manner. Why would you spend dozens of turns ahead of time to build specialty units just so you can make an expensive amphibious assault?


Because no one expects a massive Marine invasion from the sea, that's why. If there is going to be an amphibious attack, most players would expect for it to be a landing and not a direct city-attack, simply because Marines are a dead end, a specialty unit, and are costly. Players tend to depend on their rails to get units into their coastal cities and to attack while the landing party spends it's turn sitting on a hill or mountain or such. With such a strategy, one can defend an extremely large area of ground with a much smaller force than to fortify every single coastal city with 15+troops. To defend against an amphibious attack, one must have adequate sentry ships deployed, but those can easily be destroyed a few turns before an attack, and if the aggressor maintains naval superiority, the only other option a player has to defend against an amphibious assault is to heavily fortify every single coastal city with hundreds of units. So while it may be expensive to launch an amphibious assault, if a player wishes to be protected from an amphibious assault, s/he must spend a lot more shields on a ton more units in order to be protected. Granted, a player can have fighters to scout, but that is also very expensive to implement since you need so many fighters to scout along all of your border.

This is why I like the Marine unit. Your enemies are either surprise attacked and completely overwhelmed on coastal cities, or b) it forces them to commit a vast number of resources to preventing such an attack, which restrains them from taking the offensive.

With that being said, whenever I perform amphibious assaults, I always always bomb and bombard the crap out of the target city so that I do not lose my Marines. I usually unload at least 12 Infantry and 40+ artillery pieces for defense and whatever else I want for the offensive campaign. That, in conjunction with 12-20 bombers off the coast will stave off any SOD the AI sends my way. I would only destroy the rails if the enemy has an absolutely enormous military, though. Doing so will hurt your further incursion into the continent, since you will not have the benefit of the rails either, and must rebuild them. But if you do take out the rails for several spaces, your air and artillery support can chew up any advancing SOD, so you do not need as many defensive units.

Lastly, I have been in a few games where I was without either oil and aluminum (sometimes both, heh) and the ONE thing that saved my ass were Marines, with their 12 attack power. Marines in armies are faaantastic, too.

Excelent article

Everything well described and explended, I am realy going to try this out in my most resent game (conquest victory only and a whole continet owned by the might Germans and there swift Panzers to take) I hope it will help me bring the conflict to an end in mine advantage.
once again great work I hope to read more from your hands(perhapse once for Civ4)??:confused:

What I've learned is.. A good Defense unit is more necessary. Some units take ground.. It takes defenders to keep it. I use Bombers to Soften up my enemy, maybe 1 tank to hammer them, and 3 artillery and 3 infantry/spearmen, etc to hold the ground
All you really need is Bombers, fighters, Artillery and Infantry.

Just want to remind you that there are alternatives. Raising a city or 2 that you couldn't early in a war while allies attack your enemies borders. If the enemy isn't nearby, but on the same continent, you can attack on turn 1 with 6 Marines, even if you don't take the city, your enemy will now be protecting that area, your allies might or might not get a few cities, by turn 10 or so, your tank SoD will be attacking cities that your enemy has left less protected.

Personally, i agree with everything this article said. Whenever i invade a place (I usaully play on a map that ismostly islands) I always use Marines to secure a coastel city, link up with airborne forces in the area, and to patch up my lines at DMZs (i intend to post a thing on the military academy about that.) When given good navel/air/armor support, marines can easily be the best units for any time of invasion. -502nd PIR

Personally, i agree with everything this article said. Whenever i invade a place (I usaully play on a map that ismostly islands) I always use Marines to secure a coastel city, link up with airborne forces in the area, and to patch up my lines at DMZs (i intend to post a thing on the military academy about that.) When given good navel/air/armor support, marines can easily be the best units for any time of invasion. -502nd PIR

Actually, Dragoons were a light cavalry unit. I'm not sure who used them, apart from the british, but they were used against us (The U.S.) in the revolutionary war, and i believe they were still around in the Napoleonic wars. A Fusileer, as far as I know, Is a more heavy cavalry unit. I don't know to much about them, apart from the fact they were usedby either Germany, France, or someother Europeon country like that.

You use Airports to transfer mechanized troops to the scene of the action.A tip I picked up recently from Scoutsout... Make room in your first transports for a worker to build an airfield (much faster than waiting for an airport to complete). Build many airfields on your home continent (also faster and no maintenance costs) for airlifting units to the front.

The airfield will need to be defended, but enemy bombers will ignore it while going after an airport in a city. This worked beautifully for me.

It's nice to see some recent discussion in this thread. (This was my first "tactical piece"...)

@Harriet: When I wrote this article, I put it together with an eye towards keeping it "generic"; applicable to "vanilla" civ III as well as C3C. The piece I wrote on Airborne operations goes into using workers to build airfields... something you can't do in Vanilla....

@502nd PIR: "All the Way, and then some!" Post your DMZ thoughts in Strategy and Tips. (I'll look in a minute to see if you've already posted it somewhere...) I'm interested in your thoughts...

The piece I wrote on Airborne operations goes into using workers to build airfields... something you can't do in Vanilla....
Yes, but it's hiding back on page 3. I think it's at least worth a link here. :)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=90323

I haven't posted my DMZ strategy yet. I'm new to this, and i don't know how. This is acopy of it. tell mewhat you think.
The Demilitarized Zone strategy: Why you may need it, and proper places to build one.

Maybe the best known DMZ in the world is the Korean DMZ. A DMZ is simply a long line of fortifications separating two borders. I’ve used them if I believe an enemy might invade some of my colonies. #1 thing you ALWAYS must do when building a DMZ is keep it in a defensible area, and make sure you can get reinforcements, and support units to the DMZ as quickly as possible.
The quickest way to build a DMZ is to create a large group of workers. Simply have all the workers make one fortress at a time. You should have the fortress finished pretty quickly. Its also pretty smart to make the forts barricades, just in case. Also, build radar towers, and airfields nearby.
Then fortify your defenses with any kind of units you want. I use 3 Mech. Infantry units, 1 TOW infantry unit, and 2 radar artillery units (per fort). Also keep a good powerful counter attack force available nearby. For this, I wold use an army of Modern Armor, and some TOW infantry as an air assault (Helicopter soldiers/ Air cavalry) force. Your goal is to either stop the enemy’s attack completely, or delay them until you can hit them with a counter attack.
Once all this is finished, you should have a good, powerful, defense for colonies, or your home ground. Some of my friends have not really used this strategy (they think wars are won by sheer numbers), but if you use this right this can actually be a great way to shatter an enemy’s forces before you begin your offensive. If you can, ride the momentum of the offensive all the way to the enemy’s capitol if you can. After having expended their forces in a futile attack, the enemy won’t be able to counter attack your forces. Hope you like the strategy, tell me if it makes sense.- 502nd PIR Death From Above!

well thats it. Thanks for reading that, and please tell me if you have any improvments. (P.S. Death from above was the motto of the 502nd Paratrooper Infantry Regiment. At least i think it is.)

Here is an example for the use of marines to those who still doubt:

Modern age AI have just got modern armor but are in love with the self-made modern infantry (20/18/1) (I love infantry but regular infantry in modern age just pointless used modern paratrooper and accidentally left airdrop command:):):):):)) and mech inf. At war with Russia she has her first four cities in a peninsula with one on a one square neck connecting to the Main continent bombarded Moscow into dust with AEGIS cruisers and took it with marines. Took the 45ish Modern armor that I had (already beaten game in mid industrial by cultural victory future tech 3ish) used the modern armor unloaded in the port and used the RR/neutral RR to capture a airport city then repeated with the other 2 then bombarded the one hex connecting the last city to the rest of :nuke:ICBMed:nuke: Russia till it couldn't be reinforced the airlifted heavy MA/MI and Modern Infantry and other bad a**ed military hardware and then my Carrier task forced dropped it plane load at the bottleneck city and kicked Russian A**

:lol: :nuke: :lol:

I dont use Marines much, usually only if the AI has 1 tile island cities and I'm mopping up. I dont find the AI using them much either, except for one game where I had the Inca on the ropes and had removed their Oil, Rubber and Horses. The AI's fave build seems to be Infantry, or Rilfleman, or Guerilla. The only AI that does employ this kind of tactic is Scandinavia with the Berserk and its annoying.
My normal tactic is to dump a huge pile of defensives on a hill or something with attack troops under them, let the AI pound away at the defenders then take the city. It can be a hard slog if the AI has railroad because they tend to shunt a pile of defenders into place. I know the AI is aware of the military strength of every tile on the map. So moving troops around without being seen is effectively impossible. I'm just wondering if this could stop AI moving defenders into cities. Stop the convoy just outside his cultural border, preferably within striking distance of two or more cities, then on the next turn DOW and hit the city of choice. Its also very useful for flat terrain.

Since we've revived an old thread, I still don't see the point of Marines. If you want to invade cities with marines, it's almost surely a conquest or domination game. I don't see much need for a conquest or domination game to even get to Marines. Buy armies and use artillery well (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/artillery_effective.php). In space games, Amphibious War comes as an optional tech... so why research it? I don't see making up that time in more cities. If you traded for Amphibious War, you almost surely don't want to go to war with a tribe that has Amphibious War or will soon, so only the weaker tribes will have it. I don't see a need for marines when invading weaker tribes.

And when they put warriors along their entire coast in an MP game?

marines are shock troops not campaign troops. they are meant to attack, hit hard, be reinforced and then redeployed to the homeland, or used as garrison troops for the newly captured cities.

I find using Marine Armies to take a city more attractive than landing next to the city on a hill/mountain(if there is one.) A Marine Army can take down a veteran MI with 3/4 hit points. which means I can take a city without any losses, and if I can clear roads/plant forests I can stay on the offensive because they can't reach me. Better yet if I can draw their initial mass attack to a distant unit landed out of reach the turn before.