The Best Damn CivII Stategy, Period. Never lose!!

:tank: Down With Attrition :tank:

When I first joined here, I was shocked to not see things similar to my unfailing strategy anywhere. I don’t want to sound pompous, but I think I have to put it out in the open. Some people mention the value of howitzers, but I stand firm that they should be the very center of your invasion strategy. I even wish to state the following blasphemy: you do not need a single plane in offensive action. First things first: take no military action until you have at least robotics, except for strong defense and defensive offense (i.e. fortified riflemen to defend and dragoons to counterattack against invaders). Meanwhile, devote all of your energy to peaceful things such as trade and science under democracy, and improvement of your land and cities. Be sure to eventually get the Great Library and Statue of Liberty; to all the others you can apply your own levels of importance.

Continue until your civilization is massive, with every occupied square covered with railroad & mining, or road & farmland. This may be as late as 1900, but don’t fret. globe For those of your cities which have all the city improvements they need and nothing to do (hopefully all of them), start pumping out howitzers. If you improved your land and cities in anticipation of this period, you ought to have more than 70 shields per city, so you can make one per city per turn. As I said, don’t worry about whatever time it is. Using this plan I once started producing troops in 1962, declaring war in 1991, and I had conquered the globe by 2017.

Meanwhile, look at the largest, most powerful civilization on the earth (do what you can to get their map, either by diplomacy or Apollo Program). Count out how many cities they have, and multiply that number by how many defensive units they probably have in them, probably around five in deity level. Then, take that number and divide it by two, the number of moves a howitzer has. Take that number and build that many howitzers, maybe with a few more to be safe. When this force is finished, build the following: 10-20 armor units to destroy anything in the way, such as cruise missiles or engineers, 10 or more engineers, and (optional) enough defensive units to defend each of the enemy’s cities after you conquer them, but you don’t need this.

Then build sufficient transports, and a small veteran fleet to accompany them. Switch to fundamentalism using the Statue of Liberty. Bring the task force to next to a flat (grassland, etc.) square that is adjacent to a city which is not landlocked. Declare or provoke war. Empty the city with battleships, planes, and/or howitzers that you’ve landed onto the flat square (do this all in one turn, of course), and then occupy it. Send all of your transports into the city, so that you have them all active with two turns each. Then, send them out one by one, emptying (but not occupying!!!) each and every single enemy city accessible by railroad. If some cities are not connected, use your engineers to connect them, and empty them also. Once every city on the continent is empty, move one unit (preferably defensive) next to each one. Then, once these units are in place, occupy them. If you moved your occupiers into them each time, partisans would get in your way.

If the enemy was concentrated on one continent, railroads connected each city, and you did this right, then you should have annihilated their entire civilization in one turn. If they are on two or more continents, either destroy their partisans the second turn and move on or start with two task forces. Piece of cake. Now, I’m sure you have lots of problems with this strategy, let me list all of it’s pros before you reply with your cons:


1. Speed: As you can see, it can wipe out an entire civilization (or even two) in one turn.
a. This eliminates the costs of preparing for and enduring a counterattack
b. This makes partisans obsolete
c. Their entire standing army that is in the field, and not cities, is made completely obsolete, as you bypass them and occupy the cities that support them. Suddenly their dozens of veteran tanks, ships, and stealth bombers seem pretty weak when they begin to disappear off the map.
d. The lack of a counterattack also can make your casualties be most likely zero.
e. Since you can leave with the entire task force intact, you can then move against the second largest civilization, with even more forces than you need, and then the third, and so on. Even if the last few civilizations are so weak they are spread out and with no railroads, you still can use your force effectively as there is no longer a threat from other superpowers.

2. Better Use of Shields: This is simply more efficient. It is quicker, and its greatest advantage is that you will never, ever, have to endure years of attrition with indecisive horse units, tanks, or planes. Imagine trying to take out a deity-level enemy in which all of their thirty cities have over 20 population units, six defensive units, all of the defensive city improvements, and a standing army inbetween with such indecision.

3. Get Ahead in Science: Another important note is that it allows you to invest the energies of your first 5900 years solely to science and self-improvement, while the rest of the world is pathetically wasting shields and gold on tons of ineffective units throughout history.

4. Win Even If You're Behind: If, for one reason or another, your enemy has gotten ahead of you in science, it doesn't matter. Even if they have future technology 15, howitzers are still invincible when attacking their cities.

5. Win Deity: While in chieftain you probably can win just by trotting some wussy horsemen around the globe, deity is different. It is almost impossible to attrit against most deity civilizations for centuries with premodern units and expect to win. This plan makes victory against the whole world absolutely inevitable, unless you screwed up and got conquered before you could discover robotics. Once you have mastered this method, any other difficulty level becomes a complete waste of time, I promise you. I’ve even erased all my old chieftain and prince games, as I now realize how useless they were.

6. No Third World: The final advantage (that I can think of) is the matter of land improvement. What’s the point of taking over an enemy civilization’s cities with dragoons, etc. around 1600 AD, only to find them devoid of improvements other than colosseums, and then also have to build a bunch of engineers to irrigate and mine around them. When you conquer enemies in the 20th century, their cities (assuming you are in deity, the only difficulty worthwhile) are packed with improvements, cash, and production, and their land is as modernized as yours is. This way, you almost never have a third world in your domination that you have to drag along.

For those of you who are new to Civilization II and can’t even get past Prince, I recommend this to you; I’m sure you’ll have beaten the deity game in less than a week. And for those of you who are experienced, attrition purists, I welcome your comments; perhaps a heated debate will give us all new ideas. The first issue I would hope is addressed is whether or not this is necessarily cheating, but dishonorable, because it merely takes unfair advantage of a flaw in the game. Plus it is the ultimate backstab, because the victim cannot turn around to retaliate. Also, it is in a way like cheating, because rendering of major game concepts obsolete and its ease sometimes makes the game boring. What do you think?

P.S. Speaking of obsoletion, I’m buying Civilization III this very afternoon, and I fear that there is no such quick fixes there…

And this strategy is new how?

It may be your choice, but other people have their selections, which work just as well.

Personally, I also wait, in democracy, until I am fully grown and developed. I, however, use airpower as the instrument of destruction, rather than howitzers. Reason? It is far more efficient, does not cause unhappiness in the case of fighters, and provides many more multiple attacks.

Where you lose me is in your insistence of switching to fundamentalism.
This loses the advantages in trade, science and happiness that democracy delivers. It is far better and more fulfilling to fight and win a global blitzkrieg in democracy, than employing the half cheat of fundy.
It is an unnecessary complication to change government, even for a single round. With the UN, and a proper approach, the need for revolution before warmaking is made invalid.

This is just as speedy, efficient, and guarranteed never to fail.
The point of the game is to enjoy it, but if you play to win, then win the best you can. A democratic airpower blitzkrieg is far more preferable to a ground-centric approach any day. If a democracy is played properly, you should not be waiting around until circa 1900-1950 for Robotics.
Techs can pour in a heck of a lot faster through proper trade and research, and continue to do so throughout the war periods.
Through use of Shakespeares Theatre and the lack of unhappiness caused by Stealth Fighters, plus bribery of enemy units for a NONE army, a force can be assembled for a one turn war.

There is the even more bloodless strategy of complete spy warfare, but this takes too long for my tastes, and I do like to kill something every time.

Bring it !!!

ICQ #118216086

Any level you like, any production you like...

Killing AI cities is fun, but get MGE and see how you stack up there...

I for one cannot take up that offer, not having multiplayer Civ (the patch does not work on my thing, going into paroxysms of errors and illegal operations, when it has any affect), nor ICQ, (nor any messenger service for that matter), and also dwell on the opposite side of the world, which would make time coordination rather nasty.

Yes, my strategy is designed to wipe out the AI.
For they are all I have

There are a TON of aussie players, and many times you can play in the morning while we sacrifice our evenings. Or you can play with the Aussie groups that are out there...

Skim a little money off the evil budget and pick up a copy of MGE.

Simon -

If this is already known, I apologize; the forums are so huge I couldn't find one identical.

As per the fundamentalism issue, this method is impossible with democracy because it requires 100+ howitzers as well as an escort fleet and possibly a carrier for the first port city. Even if you you have a Shakespeare city with 22 hills squares to support 100+ units, the effort involved in engineering such a city pales in comparison to the measly losses in using fundamentalism for 1-10 little turns. More importantly, with the one city it would still take 100+ turns, while a commitment of all cities could take as few as 10 turns.

*As per air power, I don't know what world you're living in, but it is quite a feat to conquer a massive, 25-city, five-unit-per-city, deity advantages civilization using mere fighters and defensive units . For one, fighters, stealth or no, are still far too weak to empty SAM cities chock-full of Mech. Inf.'s and identical fighters, while howitzers can destroy any ground unit and still, most of the time, suffer little damage. Atop that, fighters have a range of 5 at the worst, whereas howitzers on railroads have infinite range to enemy cities. Finally, Stealth Bombers are far, far to costly to build in comparison to 70-shield howitzers, and they too have a limited range (plus any competent civ will shoot them down). By the way, bribery is too costly on a massive scale. Or at least more costly.

An advantage I neglected to list on the beginning post is also the concept of uniformity. You do not have to be confused by juggling dozens of bombers, fighters, helicopters, ships, transports, spies, defensive units, and offensive units all in one combined effort. You merely have howitzers, their transports, and a few battleships to deal, and you also get a simpler result: total annihilation.

Even if you were master enough to manage a competent invasion based almost solely on air power, the reasons I have listed, among others, would of course make impossible the annihilation of a major civ in one turn. Therefore, it allows the risk of a counterattack, which could otherwise be made obsolete. You have to somehow push back their entire field army and dozens and dozens of partisans, not to mention deal with the partisans' destruction of the area's transportation infrastructure. No sir, it is just unworkable.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. I challenge you to post a .sav file in which you have this force of planes poised for a blitzkrieg that will work correctly. Unfortunately, after thinking about my paragraph noted with an asterisk, I can't help but believe that you play in King or lower, and/or such a blitzkrieg would be against one of the weaker civs in your world. When I can get it going, I'll post a .sav file showing just what kind of enemy I'm talking about, and how easy howitzer destruction can be.

P.S. I do agree that fundy is cheating. :suicide:

I don't know if flatlander was talking to me or simon, but I must admit that my plan has proven itself only against the AI. For multiplayer, I don't see how it wouldn't work, since the opponent wouldn't notice until my fleet arrives and he's destroyed or at least disemboweled in one turn.

If he were to know of it and expect it, as Flatlander or Simon would in a game, that still doesn't help much. He wouldn't know at which port(s) I would strike, and even if he could find my ghost fleet I could plan ahead by packing it and/or surrounding it with missle-impervious AEGIS cruisers, unsinkable veteran battleships, decoy destroyers, and full carriers. Or even better, I could have a land border. The only way to stop me would be to attempt destroying me early in the game or having cities on dozens of continents/islands.

Originally posted by Darius
Simon -

If this is already known, I apologize; the forums are so huge I couldn't find one identical.

As per the fundamentalism issue, this method is impossible with democracy because it requires 100+ howitzers as well as an escort fleet and possibly a carrier for the first port city. Even if you you have a Shakespeare city with 22 hills squares to support 100+ units, the effort involved in engineering such a city pales in comparison to the measly losses in using fundamentalism for 1-10 little turns. More importantly, with the one city it would still take 100+ turns, while a commitment of all cities could take as few as 10 turns.

*As per air power, I don't know what world you're living in, but it is quite a feat to conquer a massive, 25-city, five-unit-per-city, deity advantages civilization using mere fighters and defensive units . For one, fighters, stealth or no, are still far too weak to empty SAM cities chock-full of Mech. Inf.'s and identical fighters, while howitzers can destroy any ground unit and still, most of the time, suffer little damage. Atop that, fighters have a range of 5 at the worst, whereas howitzers on railroads have infinite range to enemy cities. Finally, Stealth Bombers are far, far to costly to build in comparison to 70-shield howitzers, and they too have a limited range (plus any competent civ will shoot them down). By the way, bribery is too costly on a massive scale. Or at least more costly.

An advantage I neglected to list on the beginning post is also the concept of uniformity. You do not have to be confused by juggling dozens of bombers, fighters, helicopters, ships, transports, spies, defensive units, and offensive units all in one combined effort. You merely have howitzers, their transports, and a few battleships to deal, and you also get a simpler result: total annihilation.

Even if you were master enough to manage a competent invasion based almost solely on air power, the reasons I have listed, among others, would of course make impossible the annihilation of a major civ in one turn. Therefore, it allows the risk of a counterattack, which could otherwise be made obsolete. You have to somehow push back their entire field army and dozens and dozens of partisans, not to mention deal with the partisans' destruction of the area's transportation infrastructure. No sir, it is just unworkable.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. I challenge you to post a .sav file in which you have this force of planes poised for a blitzkrieg that will work correctly. Unfortunately, after thinking about my paragraph noted with an asterisk, I can't help but believe that you play in King or lower, and/or such a blitzkrieg would be against one of the weaker civs in your world. When I can get it going, I'll post a .sav file showing just what kind of enemy I'm talking about, and how easy howitzer destruction can be.

P.S. I do agree that fundy is cheating. :suicide:

Click to expand...

First things first. 100+ of any unit in democracy is not impossible; on the contrary, it is quite easy. With many cities each contributing 2 or 3, and the ST city, contributing 50 or 60, you can get double that number.
Also, the bribing of enemy units gives you a force to use for free.
ST city does not need to be surrounded by hills, but some coal, iron or oil is always a useful starting point.

"As per air power, I don't know what world you're living in, but it is quite a feat to conquer a massive, 25-city, five-unit-per-city, deity advantages civilization using mere fighters and defensive units . "

Firstly, your tone is questionable, and unnecessarily so. I did not say only employ fighters and defensive units, so do not try and put words into my mouth. A combination of fighters and bombers, plus some naval fire support will destroy the enemy. The key is that you do not have to wait for the foe to be on a similar tech level. With the right basis, trade network, and scientific research, not to mention a mighty industrial capability, you can get well ahead of the foe in the all important tech race.
They do not have mech inf, because you do not let them get as far as Labor Union. If you do, it is your own doing that you have let the game get that far.
Airpower can and will defeat enemy forces. Veteran Stealth Bombers from ST can crack the hard nuts, and the enemy in the field is taken down by fighters, who also assault the cities. Field armies are bypassed, or destroyed in order to position troops around cleared cities.
They then all march in at once, and the partisans disappear, as the enemy is destroyed. One turn war.

It may come as a surprise to you, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to fight a one turn war in Civ2.
This does not make one approach more or less valid; it simply means different things work for different people, according to their overall approach.
Cost is not an issue with a properly functioning trade economy.

There is no coordination problem with an airpower strategy. It is as simple and effective as the alternatives.

"Even if you were master enough to manage a competent invasion based almost solely on air power, the reasons I have listed, among others, would of course make impossible the annihilation of a major civ in one turn. Therefore, it allows the risk of a counterattack, which could otherwise be made obsolete. You have to somehow push back their entire field army and dozens and dozens of partisans, not to mention deal with the partisans' destruction of the area's transportation infrastructure. No sir, it is just unworkable"

It is false to assume that airpower cannot destroy the enemy in a turn. It shows a lack of imagination. The field armies and partisans are no problem, as the war is over the turn it is begun. Yes sir, it is f***ing workable.

"Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. I challenge you to post a .sav file in which you have this force of planes poised for a blitzkrieg that will work correctly. Unfortunately, after thinking about my paragraph noted with an asterisk, I can't help but believe that you play in King or lower, and/or such a blitzkrieg would be against one of the weaker civs in your world. When I can get it going, I'll post a .sav file showing just what kind of enemy I'm talking about, and how easy howitzer destruction can be."

Now, please show me where I doubted that you had executed your strategy on Deity, or raised all manner of other objections with the end effect of calling you a liar and a cheat. I'll let you in on a little secret: I did not. So, kindly extend me the same courtesy, boy.
I do not have to prove anything to you, nor anyone else in regards to how I play a bloody computer game, and nor do I feel I need to.
I do not doubt that your method works for you, but it is the height of all conceited teenage arrogance to claim that no one elses would have the same result
Do not call me a liar, nor a cheat, and keep a civil f***ing tongue about you. That way, such conversations can remain in the context that they belong in: mutual exchanges of methods that have worked that may be of use, rather than crude accusations and insulting insinuations.
It may not have been your intention for those remarks to come across the way they did, and I certainly hope so, but all the same, keep it plain, boy.

The facts remain that you can run a blitzkrieg war in democracy, and that there is not one single ironclad way which invalidates all else.
As I have said several times previously, it depends what your personal style and preference is.
Have a nice day.

And Flatlander, I do not have the time, money, internet connection nor interest to engage in multiplayer games of any description. It just does not interest me, and I only have a small amount of time for Civ and recreation as it is. To me, computer games are a contest for yourself, and are a private recreation. Multiplayer just does not hold that much appeal for me in any game.

Now who's sounding cocky? I'll be just as plain as you wish: I don't believe it, so f***ing prove it.

I do not have to prove anything to you, nor anyone else in regards to how I play a bloody computer game, and nor do I feel I need to.

Click to expand...

Well, if you don't want to, then don't get so damn heated about something you care so little about.

P.S. Teenage arrogance? Boy? I guess you're one year in the safe zone, Mr. 20...

ok I'll re-open...BUT..if it continues to deteriorate into name calling it'll get the lock again.

FWIW, you can conquer a large Civ using either method. Switching to Fundy does make it much easier, but then you don't have the large cash and science amounts you may be use to. I never use Fundy during the game and have had many wars where I wiped out the map in two or three turns. Given enough cities and ST, you can support a huge army in a democracy.

I don't think trying it in Multiplayer, however, would turn out too well. In MP games the other player does everything they can to kill you early on. Some MP games do not even get far enough to actually build any city imporvements (maybe a barracks or two) before they are over. Belive me, what you can do against the AI in Civ is nothing compared to what will happen in a MP game.

Thanks, smash, I'll tone it down

You're probably right; I must admit I'm not experienced enough in multiplayer. I've only been doing MP scenarios, and I haven't found anyone willing to take the time to do a game started from 4000 BC. If you're right about the early end, it's kind of a shame in terms of how fun the game can be. I'll remember that if I ever do find someone...

I am quite prepared to be civil as long as everyone is. It does not make the best impression to run in and downgrade everyone who does not use the same methods that you do. But that is all forgotten as far as I'm concerned.
Your method works. I do not doubt it, and have no reason to. I used to use it myself. I changed to airpower because I found it just a bit more fun to me.
In the end, it is just a game, and the reason we play it is for enjoyment.
Refining the whole game down to a single theorem or the like does take a lot of the process of personalizing the game away.
Sometimes I might go for a bliztkrieg if I'm in that mood, other times I might want a tough balanced war of attrition that makes use of most types of units.

If you doubt that airpower can work, then just run a few tests by setting up a sample city, filling it with whatever you wish, and then setting loose 20 Veteran Stealth Fighters and 15 Veteran Stealth Bombers upon it. That should prove the theory of it.
If it is not the theory that causes trouble, then it is the practice: Is it impossible to assemble such a force? Not with 80-120 big cities pumping out production. The little trick to build up Stealth Bombers is to build them in say 40-50 cities, and then send them all to the big production ST, and then home city them there. Plus each big city can support about three units out before you even see a red face.
This method does not mean you never engage in ground combat, but it does mean that it happens less often

We have very similar approaches, just that we differ in that we employ different unit types for different reasons and PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
We both believe in shunning combat with field armies, instead going for the cities. We both believe in emptying out the enemy garrisons, then manouevering units to the outskirt of each city in that turn, then systematically moving in.
You use Fundy for a few turns; I often just overthrow the government that turn, and then go back to Democracy the next turn with the enemy conquered and no damage done.

The cause for disagreement, and the vehmence of that disagreement, does seem rather petty in consideration. I just don't particularly enjoy having some things implied, or seeming to be implied. I have no reason to perpetuate untruths about myself on an anonymous Internet forum; I am not that lacking in self esteem that I need to impress cyber strangers. There is no reason why I should spout malversations or falsifications.

I haven't played anything but scenarios since September, after I finally installed the FW patch, having wiped my previous Civ2 files in desperation, after having screwed them up in the process of trying to install the MGE patch. Thus, I have no saved games from before that point, and I don't have the time either to spend on playing a deity game simply to prove a point - I have several essays to research, a thesis to work on, and kids to teach. (the last explaining my general exasperation towards teenagers )

So, are we settled and at peace?

This strategy is more aptly named "one of the best modern era warfare strategies", IMHO.

Wait until howitzers and battleships and flight? The AI has railroad?! Try researching directly to steam engine. Use a fleet of ironclads to kill off the AI phalanx and pikemen, capture every coastal city without a single lost unit. Sail in the cavalry to wipe out the rest. If a continent is large, you'll likely have flight before long anyway. Fighters are a gas against ancient AI units.

The last AIs may get gunpowder, but that's it. Rapid early science, pump out the superior bad guys, game over. The AI never even sees the modern era.

I like that idea, and I used to use it all the time, but as I listed originally, I like waiting until late-game because you conquer civ's that are very improved and rich, so you get more out of them. For example, taking a six-citizen Viking city armed with phalanxes, improved only by a couple of roads and one irrigation, and assisted only by a colloseum and library seems like a nuisance to me. It seems easier to wait a few hundred years to take the same city as a twenty-citizen Viking city armed with Mech. Inf.'s, improved with a railroad and mining/farmland on each square, and assisted by nearly every worthwhile city improvement. It saves you a lot of engineer/improvement building work, and meanwhile you get to wage war from better cities of your own in the first place, instead of industrial ones. You're right about the couple of weaker enemies left over, however, sometimes I do just give 'em some fighters and battleships. But usually I don't because at the time I have some 100+ howitzers just lying around after taking out the superepowers, and I don't want to disband them...

Originally posted by Darius
...sometimes I do just give 'em some fighters and battleships.

Click to expand...

"Here's some new equipment. Read the instruction manual carefully. In 2 turns we will blow you up."

What happens if you gift a battleship to a civ with no coastal city?

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I for one cannot take up that offer, not having multiplayer Civ (the patch does not work on my thing, going into paroxysms of errors and illegal operations, when it has any affect).

Click to expand...

I, too, have never been able to get the patch to work with my system ... "errors and illegal operations."


As for Darius' strategy, it is about as artful as a club, and a waste of production and resources. (And it never ceases to amaze me that players will imitate the a.i. and build railroads in every square of a city's radius; clearly a waste of an engineer's time.)

Strategy in a nut shell: Republican Empire Modernizing to Power Democracy; using trade to accelerate science such that one reaches Robotics before the computer civs reach Industrialization & Communism (rendering those annoying partisans nul). Build U.N., about a dozen howitzers and a dozen armor; support them with at least a dozen "combat engineers" and a few spies, and you have sufficient force to take over the world.

I might add that these days, when waging war, my armies are always accompanied by freight based out of the Colossus city, (usually still active as I will reseach everything except Fundy before Flight); nothing quite like making a financial killing by running freight into enemy city before you're howitzers reduce its garrison and capture it. Ah, the Power Democracy at War! There's nothing more fun!

MP sometimes doesn't work for some people.

I haven't started a fresh game in 4000 b.c. (SP) in about 6 months.

The strategies detailed here are quite good, in their own way. Not all MP games come out so bloodthirsty, but a player will do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent something as devastating as what you have outlined from happening.

Which often is hitting hard early and watching the other players scurry for cover. Amusing stuff (if you aren't the one being hit).

As for my comments Simon, they were tongue in cheek, as I know not everybody has the testicular fortitude to play smart thinking players instead of computers.

Democracy is by far the best government to operate out of, as the celebrating and trade bonuses far outweigh the unhappiness factors...

It sucks that you guys can't get the patch to work, alot of people seem to have that problem. But MGE only runs about $7.00 U.S. (which is probably 1.7 million Aussie dollars or something), so it can't be that hard to find. And if not for the MP the scenarios are MUCH better. And you can even make half baked attempts to make your own. (See my Age of Imperialism)

Try the simple solution and nuke their capital city, capture it using paratroopers, and then continue the process according to the size of their cities...

The problem with the howitzer task force strategy is that if something does go wrong, and the major part of your task force is stuck in the initial coastal city at the end of your turn, then the civilization you're invading only has to nuke the city you've just captured. Then, I'm afraid, you're buggered. All the expense of producing a masive invasion force, wiped out in one go, and the prospect of a war with a massive neighbour...