Civ IV Intermediate Tactics and Gambits

All true. I used to never use slavery or raze cities, but I've learned to distinguish between doing things in a game that are immoral in real life and doing things that, in my view, subvert the rules of the game for unfair advantage. Again, I only play single player so someone else having a different position on what constitutes an exploit doesn't harm me any.

Here's a tactic some might consider an exploit. When beseiging a city with many archers, put a warrior *alone* on some square without a road, hopefully not a hill. If there are three or more archers, one will probably attack the warrior. The archer will probably win, but will be wounded and outside the city, making it easy for your axemen or swordsmen or horsebowmen to kill it, which will make the city much easier to capture. Sacrificing an obsolete unit and taking damage to one modern unit is a very good ratio for taking out an entrenched defender. I call this a possible exploit because a human would not be stupid enough to fall for it, but on the other hand it has huge historical backing (the Normans conquered England largely because Harold's Saxons broke ranks to charge retreating Normans, the Mongols also used this tactic.)

a4phantom said:

Sure, but why on earth would you do that?

Click to expand...

I don't understand you. First you complain that it's too powerful to switch back and forth between "war civics" and "peace civics". Now you say there's no reason at all to do it. Huh??

The reason to switch back and forth is so that you can build units and get the benefits of Vassalage and Theocracy for those units, and still get the benefits of other legal and religious civics most of the time.

DaviddesJ said:

I don't understand you. First you complain that it's too powerful to switch back and forth between "war civics" and "peace civics". Now you say there's no reason at all to do it. Huh??

Click to expand...

Not true at all. There's no reason to be constantly switching back and forth between the War Civics and the Peace Civics. No one has proposed doing such a thing. It makes perfect sense to switch to the War Civics to build your army and then switch back. It makes even more sense to prebuild your army under the peace civics, then switch, finish those units with +4 experience in one turn each, and then switch back to the Peace Civics, and that's what's being discussed.

a4phantom said:

Not true at all. There's no reason to be constantly switching back and forth between the War Civics and the Peace Civics. No one has proposed doing such a thing. It makes perfect sense to switch to the War Civics to build your army and then switch back. It makes even more sense to prebuild your army under the peace civics, then switch, finish those units with +4 experience in one turn each, and then switch back to the Peace Civics, and that's what's being discussed.

Click to expand...

You can't build a whole army all at once, in a single switch. You would either have to stay in "war civics" for a long time, so that each of your production cities can build several units during that time, or you would have to switch in and out several times.

The Sisiutil article discusses the tactic of building several different types of units, so that you can have more of them queued up and switch civics less often. But this carries the cost of forcing you to build different units than you probably want, and it still would require multiple switches for building an army of any significant size.

DaviddesJ said:

You can't build a whole army all at once, in a single switch. You would either have to stay in "war civics" for a long time, so that each of your production cities can build several units during that time, or you would have to switch in and out several times.

The Sisiutil article discusses the tactic of building several different types of units, so that you can have more of them queued up and switch civics less often. But this carries the cost of forcing you to build different units than you probably want, and it still would require multiple switches for building an army of any significant size.

Click to expand...

It really depends how many cities you have, what techs you have available, and how big an army you need.

There are three definite periods in the game when you can do this, and obtain an army of mixed units with high promotion levels.

First off is the medieval era, which is usually the earliest these civics are available. You can build a mixed force of Macemen, Longbowmen, Catapults, Trebuchets, Pikemen, Crossbowmen, and Knights. All of them have their uses in medieval warfare. I especially like having several Combat I/Medic I Pikemen whom I leave behind in cities near the front. They defend against pillaging incursions by enemy Knights (which are all too common) and can heal injured units while the stack moves on to the next target.

Second is the renaissance era, when you can build a mixed force of Cavalry, Riflemen, Grenadiers, and Cannons. Not to mention Frigates and Galleons, if required.

Third is the modern era, when you can build Infantry, Marines, Tanks, Artillery, and several nifty warships (Battleships, Destroyers, Submarines, Transports, Carriers).

I don't usually use the Queue Loading tactic in all three eras in every game--it's usually only necessary once or twice, I find. My favourite era to do it is the medieval, just because of the wide variety of units available. And I find I usually don't need a massive force, which is too expensive anyway; I need just enough units to get the job done, and if they have more promotions, they get the job done much more efficiently and often survive--thus lessening my need for more units.

Sisiutil said:

First off is the medieval era, which is usually the earliest these civics are available. You can build a mixed force of Macemen, Longbowmen, Catapults, Trebuchets, Pikemen, Crossbowmen, and Knights.

Click to expand...

I find that I usually want to build a large army of one particular unit type, as soon as I get the technology. Before my opponents become more advanced. But I can see this as a reasonable alternative.

having a queue of 7 units is a bit overkill isn't it?
hammers start decaying after 10 turns, so there is no point using more turns than 11? 12? 13? (10 + the time to prebuild the first unit) turns to "prebuild".

cabert said:

having a queue of 7 units is a bit overkill isn't it?
hammers start decaying after 10 turns, so there is no point using more turns than 11? 12? 13? (10 + the time to prebuild the first unit) turns to "prebuild".

Click to expand...

Yes, and I hope I made that point in the article. I don't usually build a queue of 7 units, no--well, except in the Heroic Epic city, maybe. Usually it's 2-4 units in each build queue depending on the city's production capacity.

DaviddesJ said:

You can't build a whole army all at once, in a single switch. You would either have to stay in "war civics" for a long time, so that each of your production cities can build several units during that time, or you would have to switch in and out several times.

The Sisiutil article discusses the tactic of building several different types of units, so that you can have more of them queued up and switch civics less often. But this carries the cost of forcing you to build different units than you probably want, and it still would require multiple switches for building an army of any significant size.

Click to expand...

Sure, I'm not going to argue with you or try to convince you to read what I wrote.

a4phantom said:

Sure, I'm not going to argue with you or try to convince you to read what I wrote.

Click to expand...

I read what you wrote. It just doesn't make much sense. You can't "prebuild your army under the peace civics, then switch, finish those units with +4 experience in one turn each, and then switch back to the Peace Civics". Because you can't queue up an entire army all at once.

If your production city with Heroic Epic could queue up a bunch of cavalry without completing any of them, sure, this would be a viable strategy. But you can't do that.

At least it's refreshing not to have you argue with me.

DaviddesJ said:

I read what you wrote. It just doesn't make much sense. You can't "prebuild your army under the peace civics, then switch, finish those units with +4 experience in one turn each, and then switch back to the Peace Civics". Because you can't queue up an entire army all at once.

Click to expand...

Sisiutil will have to tell us whether that's what he meant or not. How many units per productive city do you consider an army?

a4phantom said:

How many units per productive city do you consider an army?

Click to expand...

Usually, I find that most of my units are built in only a few cities. So, if you only queue up a few units, in only a few cities, that's clearly a pretty small force.

Sisiutil has some interesting ideas, and I can see the point of building a unit or two in every city, just so that you can pump them out at the same time. If it takes a while (because those cities have low production rates), you could go ahead and build several units (without the civic benefits) in the high-production cities, switching only when every city has a unit ready.

I'm not convinced there's very much benefit, though.

I certainly will sometimes switch to Vassalage and Theocracy when also switching to Slavery, and have many of my cities poprush units, with the civic benefits. But for that, you don't really need queue manipulation.

DaviddesJ said:

Usually, I find that most of my units are built in only a few cities. So, if you only queue up a few units, in only a few cities, that's clearly a pretty small force.

Sisiutil has some interesting ideas, and I can see the point of building a unit or two in every city, just so that you can pump them out at the same time. If it takes a while (because those cities have low production rates), you could go ahead and build several units (without the civic benefits) in the high-production cities, switching only when every city has a unit ready.

I'm not convinced there's very much benefit, though.

I certainly will sometimes switch to Vassalage and Theocracy when also switching to Slavery, and have many of my cities poprush units, with the civic benefits. But for that, you don't really need queue manipulation.

Click to expand...

I usually have only a few cities building units, and with Instructors that tendency is enhanced. And I don't usually bother with the War Civics. However, when I build a large force, either because I'm planning an invasion or I need to modernize my army and all my cities are defended by low XP axemen and warriors, it's worth two turns of Anarchy and several turns on War Civics to produce a large force of high experience units. Switching back and forth from War to Peace Civcs would mean many more turns of anarchy, which I didn't advocate and I think neither did Sisiutil. The strategy of prebuilding several units per city to within one turn of completion, and then switching to the War Civics to finish building all of them 1/turn doesn't require switching Civcs multiple times, it merely cuts down the time you need to stay in War Civics to produce the same number of experienced troops. That's what I called an exploit, not switching multiple times, which would be fair although I would think more costly than it's worth.

a4phantom said:

The strategy of prebuilding several units per city to within one turn of completion, and then switching to the War Civics to finish building all of them 1/turn doesn't require switching Civcs multiple times

Click to expand...

But it would require building units of a variety of types, rather than building your best available unit. And it also presents the likelihood of losing hammers to decay. So that benefit comes with costs that are, at least, substantial.

I know I would never build "several" different types of units in a single city at a single time, unless I were pursuing this plan.

Usually you want to get other civs to attack your enemies in a war, for obvious reasons. However, if you are close to achieving your military objectives you might not want to enlist more allies. Yes, they will kill at least a few units, and you will get a diplomatic bonus with your ally (our mutual military struggle...). But the AI loves to pillage, and they will likely destroy all the improvements in reach, possibly crippling a city or two you want to conquer and make productive quickly. This happened to me when I was marching on London and enlisted Stalin's aid, I thought he would draw off English soldiers but mostly he just destroyed the countryside that would soon be mine. Much more importantly, if your victim is at war with two civs, he could capitulate to the other forcing you to give up the fight.

DaviddesJ said:

But it would require building units of a variety of types, rather than building your best available unit. And it also presents the likelihood of losing hammers to decay. So that benefit comes with costs that are, at least, substantial.

I know I would never build "several" different types of units in a single city at a single time, unless I were pursuing this plan.

Click to expand...

Interesting discussion. Two points:

First, I don't use this tactic to build my entire army. I likely have some veterans hanging about who will form its core, who will be upgraded if they have enough promotions to justify it (usually Level 3 or higher). I have also likely been building some units at lower XP levels. Siege weapons are good candidates for this, as are City Garrison, naval, and air units. So this tactic is designed to supplement my military, not build it from scratch. In other words, Daviddes' point about not being able to build an entire army this way is well taken, and that's not the intent of the tactic.

Second, with the changes to many of the units in Warlords, I find there is a greater need for a balanced force. You now need a greater variety of units to counter those you will be fighting. So building several different types of units makes sense.

What, exactly, is your "best unit" anyway? For taking cities, it will be a melee unit with City Raider promotions. But you can't build an army solely comprised of Axemen or Macemen. Mounted units, which the AI loves, will wreak havoc with them (especially Chariots versus Axes), so you'll also need a few Spearmen or Pikemen, and not just with the stack; I find I need to include a mounted counter in my border cities to handle the mounted pillagers the AI throws my way. Of course, you'll also need siege units--some with Accuracy promotions (Level 3 required!) and some with City Raider and/or Barrage to do the necessary collateral damage. (Yes, I know I said I build these without the extra XPs, but I also build a few with them; the more XPs they have, the more effective they are, and are more likely to survive. You can never have too many siege units, I find.) You'll also need some good defensive units such as Longbows and Crossbows to protect the stack and to hang on to the cities you take. Finally, you'll need some mounted units yourself, for recon, pillaging, stack support, and counter-attacks, among other things.

In other words, there is never one "best unit" in this game, so there are definite advantages to quickly producing a mixed force of units with high promotion levels. Trust me, I've used it to great effect in several games.

DaviddesJ said:

But it would require building units of a variety of types, rather than building your best available unit. And it also presents the likelihood of losing hammers to decay. So that benefit comes with costs that are, at least, substantial.

I know I would never build "several" different types of units in a single city at a single time, unless I were pursuing this plan.

Click to expand...

I was hoping someone else would ask/answer this to cover my ignorance, but why would you only build one type of unit in each city? I can see specializing occasionally, for example building cavalry in the cities farthest from the front line. But aside from the Stable, which every military city can easily have, unless you're playing the Alexander scenario I don't see any typical reason to have each city specialize in one kind of unit.

a4phantom said:

I was hoping someone else would ask/answer this to cover my ignorance, but why would you only build one type of unit in each city? I can see specializing occasionally, for example building cavalry in the cities farthest from the front line. But aside from the Stable, which every military city can easily have, unless you're playing the Alexander scenario I don't see any typical reason to have each city specialize in one kind of unit.

Click to expand...

It's not that each city specializes in one kind of unit. It's that usually all of my cities are all building just one kind of unit.

I'm not so sold on the value of a mixed force as Sisiutil is. (But I haven't played so much Warlords and so maybe it really is more important now.) But, even if I did want a mixed force, I wouldn't typically be building different unit types at the same time. E.g., if I want some crossbowmen and some knights, I'm going to get the ability to build those different units at different times. So I'm going to build the crossbowmen during the turns before I get Guilds, so that when I get Guilds I can immediately put all of my cities to work building knights, and launch the attack relatively soon thereafter.

Since it's rare to simultaneously acquire the abilities to build several different kinds of units, it's rare for me to want to build many different kinds of units at once (except perhaps for building catapults in non-barracks cities while I build direct combat units in barracks cities).

I do think it's an interesting idea to use the queueing strategy to build a lot of units all at once. Especially if I'm running Pacifism and so there's an advantage to having them in the queues rather than pre-built before I'm ready to use them. So I may try it sometime. But it's a signficant deviation from what I would otherwise do.

Well, i personnally do this often in my games, especially if playing spiritual leaders. I've been doing so for over a year and i still think it's a good tactic to use.

A corollary tactic is this:
Before getting a tech or resource that allows for a new unit, start making the unit that is obsoleted by this one. Bring it to one turn of completion, then make something else. As soon as the tech or resource becomes available, switch back to this unit. It will switch to the new type, and the hammers used will be put into this new unit. This allows you to get the new unit on the very next turn that you get the tech or resource, in every city if you want. In cases where two units go obsolete by the same tech, you can even queue up two different ones and get two units of the new kind in just two turns.

An example of this is when playing Alexander, i usually try to build warriors up to 14/15 before grabing copper, then when i grab it, all my Phalanxes are already at 14/35 and can be finished quickly.

With slavery, it gets even better. I can build the warrior to 14/15, then whip it to bring it to 44/15, and leave it there while building something else. Then when i get copper, my first Phalanx is already at 44/35, which means that i've got the first one already done and 9 hammers already done for the second one (or alternately for an axeman to go along with it).

Zombie69 said:

With slavery, it gets even better. I can build the warrior to 14/15, then whip it to bring it to 44/15, and leave it there while building something else. Then when i get copper, my first Phalanx is already at 44/35, which means that i've got the first one already done and 9 hammers already done for the second one (or alternately for an axeman to go along with it).

Click to expand...

I'm going to add that trick to the Vocum when I get a chance. Very nice.