War Strategies

I've been playing this game for ages, and you know what, I've never really realized that I am not using my units properly!

I have NEVER used anything before Tanks or used Anti-Mounted unit weaponry at all, all my armies, before God and Kings actually, consisted of nothing more than Warrior/Swordsmen/Musketmen etc, and only with God and Kings have I begun including Siege weapons, but even then, that's all, I only use Archery units for city defense, but Spearmen or Mounted units I never use, I ionly use Spearmen if none of my cities have an access to Iron.

So, when what I'm asking, is how should i use my units, and for what.

TheKingOfBigOz said:

I've been playing this game for ages, and you know what, I've never really realized that I am not using my units properly!

I have NEVER used anything before Tanks or used Anti-Mounted unit weaponry at all, all my armies, before God and Kings actually, consisted of nothing more than Warrior/Swordsmen/Musketmen etc, and only with God and Kings have I begun including Siege weapons, but even then, that's all, I only use Archery units for city defense, but Spearmen or Mounted units I never use, I ionly use Spearmen if none of my cities have an access to Iron.

So, when what I'm asking, is how should i use my units, and for what.

Click to expand...

Archers are more valuable than warriors or spearmen, early on. I usually build at least as many archers as melee units, in the first part of the game. They make a huge difference in any battle against enemy forces, anywhere. Whether you're on offense or defense, keep a line of archers right behind your melee units, and use them to weaken and finish off the enemy units that your melee units damage. You will see a huge improvement in your army's combat effectiveness.

Archers are not so effective against cities, so always build a few siege engines for attacking enemy cities with (I never leave home without two or three). Remember to put your melee units in front of them, don't just roll them up within 1 tile of a city and start lobbing away- they are easy to destroy if you don't protect them.

Spearmen and Lancers are good defense against mounted units- horsemen, elephants, etc. They will do a lot more damage to them than a warrior class unit will. So if you are up against a civ who likes to build a lot of mounted, spearmen/lancers will help you a lot.

That's the basics- keep a balanced army with some of each of the necessary units for your situation, and you'll be well prepared!

Mounted units are great. They give you flexibility on the battlefield to hit flanks and reinforce positions. They are merciless with hit and run attacks. I love mounted units.

TheKingOfBigOz said:

So, when what I'm asking, is how should i use my units, and for what.

Click to expand...

The four main classes of land combat units are melee (Warriors, Spearmen, Rifleman, etc.), ranged (Archers, Composite Bowmen, Gatling Guns, etc.), siege (Catapults, Artillery, etc.), and mounted (Horseman, Knights, Tanks, etc.)

Generally speaking, my military's land composition is roughly 1 melee unit to every 2+ ranged/siege units and 1 mounted unit to every 7+ non mounted units.


Use melee units to prevent enemy units from attacking your other units. When ranged and siege units are attacking cities, you should always have a melee unit in between the city and the ranged/siege unit.

Use ranged units to kill enemy units. If there are no enemy units for a ranged unit to kill, use the ranged unit to soften up the defenses of an enemy city.

Use siege units to soften the defenses of any enemy city. If there are nearby enemy units outside the enemy city, have the siege units attack the enemy units before attacking the enemy city.

Use mounted units to conquer a city once ranged and siege units have battered the defenses down to zero. If there are no cities weak enough to capture, use mounted units to scout the fog of war, pillage enemy tile improvements or attack undefended enemy ranged/siege units.


Cooperative/Supportive Movement
Melee, ranged, and siege units generally move in formation with each other because they support each other so intimately. Generally, melee units form a defensive battle line for the ranged and siege units to attack the enemy with impunity.

Mounted unit movement, on the other hand, is largely dependent on the role it is being used for.

If a mounted unit is being used to conquer a city after defenses are weakened, it is probably going to rely on the safety of the melee defensive battle line.

If a mounted unit is being used to pillage tile improvements or to pick off unsupported enemy ranged or siege units, the mounted unit probably isn't going to need the safety of the melee defensive battle line.

There are exceptions to these rules, but we'll address those later.

Note that nearly every strategy game's core mechanic is rock paper scissors. In CiV's case, these are Melee, Ranged, and Mounted/Tanks.

This is at the simplest level. There are rock paper scissors mechanics within each group as well.

Ranged units counter melee because they can kill the melee before they get into range. Mounted units counter ranged because they can get into range before the archers can shoot. Melee units counter mounted because they are tanky enough to survive attack and can counterattack afterward.

But there is more to the system than that. In the right cases, you can reverse the rock paper scissors mechanic. Mounted units counter melee on open plains, because they can either avoid combat entirely or still withdraw from combat after an assault. And they can more easily pick and choose the right combats to fight. Melee units counter ranged in forested areas, because the ranged units cannot fire through the trees. Ranged units counter mounted when in a city, because they cannot be attacked and the city holds well against mounted units.

Siege counters cities, and anything counters siege.

Ok so how exactly can we use all of these to our advantage? Zone of control is very important. This allows melee units to "tank" for ranged units, and makes mounted units important because they can flank your opponent's zone of control and take out his ranged units.

Let's say you are fighting in open plains. No river, nothing. In this case, using the rules above, Mounted > Melee (ignore zone of control), Ranged > Melee (can fire in plains), Mounted > Ranged (as usual). What units should you use? You need to eliminate the opposing army to get your siege safely to the city. Well Mounted looks good here right? They are guaranteed to win against both melee and ranged. But wait, WHY do they win against melee? They can avoid fighting them. But that doesn't help get the siege to the city! So your mounted can defeat the ranged, but not the melee. So you need ranged units to defeat the melee, as per rules above. But THEIR mounted units will kill your ranged! In fact, their melee will simply counterattack your ranged! So you need to use zone of control to prevent their mounted and melee from getting to your ranged. Such units need to be tanky enough to survive the full turn and ensure that the zone of control remains for the full turn. Such units need to be melee.

So in the end, you need all 3 types. What if you're fighting in the forest?

Melee > Mounted (mounted cannot retreat and defensive bonuses), Melee > Ranged (ranged cannot fire), Mounted > Ranged (as per normal rules)

Ok so now it looks like you should use all melee right? They will defeat everything! Well, no. That is assuming they actually fight IN the forest. Your enemy should be able to retreat out of the forest, and then you're back to fighting in plains. So the only way you would fight in the forest is if the city is in the forest, and your enemy cannot afford to retreat. In that case...

Melee > Mounted (same reasoning), THEIR ranged > Melee/Mounted (city), THEIR Melee > Ranged (cannot fire), Siege > "Ranged" (city)

So in this case, you should bring melee and siege. There is no point in bringing ranged or mounted units. And how do you position these units? In a true forest, your siege needs to be adjacent to the city. This means they can be attacked by the city/ranged (in the city), but this is also one hex that an enemy melee isn't coming from. Now you can surround your siege with melee to protect it. But what if they have an army, and you can't get up to the city? Well, you're screwed here. You can't kill that army when it has both a city and a forest.

Will you ever encounter these 2 extreme situations of full forest or open plains? Sure, but more often you will get a little bit of each. In this case, use the right units in the appropriate spots. Ranged units to deal damage, melee units to protect them, and mounted units to assassinate the enemy ranged. If your army is all melee, you can only fight in non-city forested areas. If your army is all mounted, you can only fight in open plains, and if your army is all ranged you can only defend in hills. Always make a mixed army, and use the right parts in the right places.

EDIT: And if you're concerned that I say you cannot kill an enemy army at a forested city, don't be. That is why you go elsewhere and force them to defend that. If they don't abandon the forested city, you take other things. And if they do come to meet you on the favorable terrain, you can kill them there and take the now-armyless forested city with your siege.

ok, but vs a human player, they will focus down your siege weapons from within the "safety" of the sieged city..

dasnowflake said:

ok, but vs a human player, they will focus down your siege weapons from within the "safety" of the sieged city..

Click to expand...

If you have truly eliminated their army, you can take the city with normal units anyways, as long as your siege units "tank" for them.

These explanations are great, detailed, and very correct. But you have to remember that there exist exceptions.

For example, in my current game, about 5 turns ago, I took Athens. I was at war with Greece on-off for some time. I kept wanting to take his capital, but I always fell short. The situation is this. Just finished a somewhat successful conflict. I'm left with 2 composite bowmen, one with a flatland promo., one with 3 flatland promos, logistics, and healing every turn no matter what. One pike, sitting calmly inside my borders, waiting. Greece has one archer in his city, and barely and enough production to build more. When he does, It gets killed almost instantly. The land is flat, and the enemy city can reach all my units.

Here I am, no siege, only these two CB and a pike. I calmly whittle down the city with three ranged attacks from good CB, and take it with the pike. The bowmen did colossal damage, for some reason. I think that the city might have been a bit weak. Mostly, my pike was targeted, by both the archer and the city. I would retreat, heal, and put him back to put less attention on the bowmen. When he was healing, usually my logistics CB got targeted, but he healed quickly, because he had the heal every turn promo. My other CB rarely got injured (except for the end) and when he did, I would heal him for one turn.

I now have an excellent city, and have permanently crippled Alex.

The point of this post though, is to say that there are always exceptions, and you have to think things through every time, although yes, basing yourself on the basic things.

StrategyMaster4 said:

These explanations are great, detailed, and very correct. But you have to remember that there exist exceptions.

For example, in my current game, about 5 turns ago, I took Athens. I was at war with Greece on-off for some time. I kept wanting to take his capital, but I always fell short. The situation is this. Just finished a somewhat successful conflict. I'm left with 2 composite bowmen, one with a flatland promo., one with 3 flatland promos, logistics, and healing every turn no matter what. One pike, sitting calmly inside my borders, waiting. Greece has one archer in his city, and barely and enough production to build more. When he does, It gets killed almost instantly. The land is flat, and the enemy city can reach all my units.

Here I am, no siege, only these two CB and a pike. I calmly whittle down the city with three ranged attacks from good CB, and take it with the pike. The bowmen did colossal damage, for some reason. I think that the city might have been a bit weak. Mostly, my pike was targeted, by both the archer and the city. I would retreat, heal, and put him back to put less attention on the bowmen. When he was healing, usually my logistics CB got targeted, but he healed quickly, because he had the heal every turn promo. My other CB rarely got injured (except for the end) and when he did, I would heal him for one turn.

I now have an excellent city, and have permanently crippled Alex.

The point of this post though, is to say that there are always exceptions, and you have to think things through every time, although yes, basing yourself on the basic things.

Click to expand...

2 "exceptions" occurred here.

1.) The enemy targeted your "tank" with their ranged.

2.) You are way ahead in tech.

As for your CB doing massive damage, you don't NEED siege to take the city. Assuming they have truly no army, any units will eventually be able to take the city. You attack with the strong units, and heal up their city's attacks.

The rock paper scissors explanations are correct ^

BUT

I focus on building a strong army by using the most powerful unit available. For example, if I am going to war in the Classical era, my army is almost entirely Comp. Bowmen. They are simply the best in that era. Yes, I bring a pike or two, and usually a horse, but CBs do the heavy lifting.

I find crossbows only as effective if you have a tech lead once you get them. I don't often go on crossbow offensives. Cities are usually strong enough to resist them, in my experience.

Gatling guns present the next great opportunity to attack with the most powerful unit. I usually conquer what I'm planning on conquering with these guys. Very little can turn them away.

Artillery is the next great unit. Massed artillery can steamroll anything. If you have a tech lead at this point, you've basically won the game. Take your time and knock out anything that attempts to stop you.

The next unit to go on the offensive with en masse is the great war bomber. Again, if you get these first, you will win the war, if not the game. Stop building everything else and build as many of these as you possibly can.

Modern wars, in my experience are won by nukes, machine guns, and bombers, with cavalry or lancers mopping up cities.

EDIT: Same goes for UUs. If you have a great UU, spam them. Keshiks, Camels, Horse Archers, Chu-ko-nus, longbows... these guys should always make up the vast majority of your force in their era.

Seabastian Civ said:

The rock paper scissors explanations are correct ^

BUT

I focus on building a strong army by using the most powerful unit available. For example, if I am going to war in the Classical era, my army is almost entirely Comp. Bowmen. They are simply the best in that era. Yes, I bring a pike or two, and usually a horse, but CBs do the heavy lifting.

I find crossbows only as effective if you have a tech lead once you get them. I don't often go on crossbow offensives. Cities are usually strong enough to resist them, in my experience.

Gatling guns present the next great opportunity to attack with the most powerful unit. I usually conquer what I'm planning on conquering with these guys. Very little can turn them away.

Artillery is the next great unit. Massed artillery can steamroll anything. If you have a tech lead at this point, you've basically won the game. Take your time and knock out anything that attempts to stop you.

The next unit to go on the offensive with en masse is the great war bomber. Again, if you get these first, you will win the war, if not the game. Stop building everything else and build as many of these as you possibly can.

Modern wars, in my experience are won by nukes, machine guns, and bombers, with cavalry or lancers mopping up cities.

EDIT: Same goes for UUs. If you have a great UU, spam them. Keshiks, Camels, Horse Archers, Chu-ko-nus, longbows... these guys should always make up the vast majority of your force in their era.

Click to expand...

Yes, building more of the strongest unit (and UUs for sure, though you should strategize your whole game around these) is a good idea. But make sure you don't build solely that! If you have 6 Composite Bowmen and the enemy has 8 Horsemen (I think that's how the production works out) then you are forced to defend. And the horsemen should still be able to pillage your stuff.

And you are also correct that not everything is balanced, and thus there are exceptions to the rules within the categories. For example Artillery is fantastic, and is only countered by mounted/tanks/air, not by "everything" as I said previously.

That also reminds me to mention air units, which are like Ranged units with a larger range and the ability to always be protected by the city. This means they destroy everything, and that is why they have their own counter: anti-air units.

My strategy:
1)Turtle till airplanes.
2)Pwn the world.

One thing I know, laziness is a sure war defeater. I`m playing King now in the ancient era and after the Aztecs declared war on me I decided to teach them a lesson. But did I bother to wait to build a ship fleet of troops and catapults followed by a strong escort? Hell no!

I sent my transport ships with one Galleas against him. My Galleas sank a few of his weaker triremes, but eventually the Aztecs sank it. with no ship protection, half my transports were sunk. The rest landed on shore to be destroyed by waiting aztec men and archers. I`ll bet the Aztec leader was wide-eyed with laughter.

I had to face-palm myself for my lack of preperation!

Socratatus said:

One thing I know, laziness is a sure war defeater.

....

I had to face-palm myself for my lack of preperation!

Click to expand...

It swings both ways. Personally, I find myself overpreparing than underpreparing.

Remember, every turn spent in preparation is a turn that the enemy has to prepare their own forces, and every turn spent preparing is one turn NOT enjoying the fruits of conquest.

Am I advocating the use of 2-3 Rifleman units as a surprise amphibious invasion force on Deity? Certainly not.

Am I supporting the strategy of building a military force to occupy every single square that borders an adversary civ? Nope, because that's just a waste of hammers and gold maintenance.

Am I advocating that cities emphasize military building and unit production in times of war? Certainly. Never assume that the military you have at the beginning of an invasion is enough to finish the invasion without any reinforcements.

Furthermore, recognize when it isn't a good idea to pursue an invasion. Pursuing an amphibious invasion when the naval escorts have been wiped out? What could POSSIBLY go wrong there?

Agree with most of the rock-paper-scissors analogies, but I think there's some underestimating the value of mounted units.
The best friends of the mounted unit are 1.)the flanking and discipline bonuses and 2.) the extra movement points. During one single turn, you can use 1, 2 or 3 of a mounted units MPs, switch to another unit, and switch back. By doing so, you can move three or four mounted units to outflank a melee unit before the first one attacks; even the mounted unit's counter (spear-based melee) advantage is negated by flanking and discipline modifiers, and you can pretty easily defeat units designed to counter. Even if you don't finish them off, they can outrun the counter attack. I'll often have 4 mounted units converge on a target, attack and then retreat in 4 opposing directions. As the AI tends to maintain the integrity of it's CoD, they'll chase one, allowing the other three to heal up without disruption. The one unit that is running can outrun it's assailant.
True, melee units can also use one of their MPs, switch to another melee unit, and switch back, but they lack the ability to retreat after attacking, and with fewer movement points it's much more difficult to utilize.
Also since they have more movement points, they'll often reach an enemies territories well before the melee/ranged/siege units get there. Rather than waiting for the rest of the group to arrive, use the above strategy to pick apart the opposing units. When doing so, you can also retreat, outrunning your opponents, and leaving them over-committed in chasing down the mounted units... leaving the city vacant when the melee/archers/siege arrive.
Finally, melee vs. melee tends to be a common stalemate, with defensive terrain being the deciding factor. But if you move a mounted unit to either side of your melee unit, you can shift the combat odds to your favor through flanking modifiers.

I pretty well agree with everything above. In broad strokes this is a Rock/Paper/Scissors game but there are so many exceptions and situational circumstances that invalidate and mitigate expected unit roles that its better to think of this game in terms of situational awareness.

What does the enemy have?

What do I have to attack/counter-attack him?

Where should I fight?

What should I build?

What are my goals?

Many of this questions are largely strategic but if you can't really answer those last two questions, maybe your playing the wrong game.

I also describe commonly to my friends that don't play that this game is a combination of Chinese checkers and chess on crack. Just keep your flanks covered, focus units down, and push!

Also.

Don't follow the AI's example.

Don't tank with Siege units.

GamerKG said:

2 "exceptions" occurred here.

1.) The enemy targeted your "tank" with their ranged.

2.) You are way ahead in tech.

As for your CB doing massive damage, you don't NEED siege to take the city. Assuming they have truly no army, any units will eventually be able to take the city. You attack with the strong units, and heal up their city's attacks.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I was trying to get at.

...and there is something strange about a Crossbow being able to inflict damage on an Ironclad.... I had an enemy Ironclad hanging around one of my coastal cities...

I pummeled it with Artillery ...and then took a shot at it with a Crossbow that I hadn't bothered to upgrade....gold is a bit tight in this game...the Crossbow didn't do much damage, but it did do some damage... I finished off the Ironclad on the next turn with the Artillery....

Used to be worse before the G&K expansion. Under the old 10-hit-point scale, even the lowliest warrior or archer inflicted a minimum of one point of damage, or 10%. Surround a GDR unit with 10 archers and watch it die in one turn. Silly, really....

my war strategy is usually static defense for a long portion of the game. that said i always build archers and swordsman with maybe one or two horse units. this way i have a small army that will continue to be upgraded up until the modern era. if the situation allows for it ill build some siege units but that usually doesn't happen until the renanissance. Also i hardly ever do a early rush it either fails or sets me back for centuries in the game so i just avoid that strategy completly. mainly im a builder so anything that allows me to build 4 to 5 cities, wonders, and good production in my cities is what i focous on.