Stiel´s Capitol Isolating War-strategy

[WUM]

This is Stiel´s strategy for war:

* be prepared before you go to war. Defend your homeland, just in case.

* Isolate your enemy´s capitol by bombarding, bombing and/or pillaging ALL (rail)roads around the enemy´s capitol IN ONE TURN.

**This way you enemy will be deprived of strategic resources. They can´t build the most modern units anymore. If you land your infantry on a mountain while at war, the AI will commit suicide. See http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9204
After that your enemy can only build ancient troops, which will make the war FAR more easier!
**Also your enemy will be deprived of luxury-resources and will probably fall into disorder, especially when you get other civs also to declare war or make a trade-embargo against you enemy. This disorder will prevent your enemy to build new (weaker) troops, so you can almost run him over completely.

* Next turn, you conquer most of his cities, BUT NOT THE CAPITOL, keeping the smaller ones, razing the bigger ones. (where you have your settlers build new cities to fill up the open gaps. those cities will profit of the infrastructure that´s already there)

* Then, you ask for peace, demanding all his money (lump sum) and possible techs and the remaining cities, so he will only have the capitol left.

* You DO NOT conquer is capitol, unless you conquered ALL of his other cities. This way the capitol won´t move and the civ is completely crippled.

* You can also choose to let them live with a few cities. You can use them as slaves by demanding money from them every now and then (this makes up for the corruption and waste you have to live with in you newly conquered cities).


If somehow you need a couple of turns more to do this or get reinforcements to keep the conquered cities occupied, DO NOT FORGET to KEEP the capitol completely isolated. Not one road should connect to their Capitol.

any comments?

 

[DaEezT]

Thats pretty mean man

I like the thing with the resources!
I forgot that it has to be connected to the capital
I think I'll try that today

 

[DBSD13]

I disagree wif the city-capturing bit. Especially in my case. With Koyto (Japanese Capital) rit nxt to MY Toyko (we are having our 52nd turns of peace), and with the Japanese allied to the Strongest nation in the world, I would go for a quick kill on their capital before forcing them into surrendering most of their cities to me and quickly force for a peace treaty.

Other than that, I agree wif u totally.

Thx for reminding me bout the resources bit. I still needa find their iron source first... I ve already cutted the route to their only horse farm.

 

[WUM]

Maybe you choose the wrong civ to go to war with...

The point is to act 'swift' + quick. After that you can go for peace while only a few cities are tolerated by you.

Having the other civs also declare war to your enemy can be very important to prevent a new war between you and another civ.

but every strategy is of course a strategy and not a fixed thing. If you adapt this, always consider all specific circumstances for succes.

to find other resources: ctrl-shift-M helps a lot.

 

[Stiel]

My thanks to WUM who has explained you all my strategy. We have discussed this subject often.
This strategy is VERY USEFUL and VERY STRONG. Because the opponent isn’t no longer to gather ANY recourse.

Only exception is that you have to need a rather big force to do it. Destroying infrastructure of the capital with, for instance, bombers is costly: you’ll need at least 20 of them to do it in one turn…

*When the capital has a harbor you’ll have to blockade or destroy it.

With this strategy you’ll be able to reach your objectives without going into a long war because your opponent is crippled. Because the opponent isn’t able to produce any good unit the units he losses during war cannot be replaced.

This strategy deals with TWO mayor aspects:
*happiness (the opponent won’t be able to gather any luxuries) causes civil disorder
*Strategic recourses Well….. they cannot gather them either (mwhouhahahha)

But remember, as WUM has already said: DO NOT TAKE THE CAPITAL!!
Try it and you’ll love it!!!!!


STIEL

 

[Dragon2]

I've been using a milder version of the same strategy, surrounding hte enemy capital with enough size-1 cities to cut off access to resources. The population of the capital has dropped from 12 to 6 and I haven't fired a shot.

In Civ2 I often had the impression that the AI played by different rules than me. In Civ3 this seems much less the case.

 

[WUM]

didn´t your size 1-cities get swallowed my their capitol´s culture?

 

[RuCKuS]

Are you sure this works?

I tried cutting off all the roads to my capital to see the effect. Sure enough, my capitol didn't have any luxuries or strategic resources, but all my other cities did. Perhaps all other cities lose luxuries/resources that are being traded from other civilizations, but I haven't tested this (The computer never trades resources/luxuries fairly to you anyway).

 

[WUM]

absolutely sure!
it makes a war a lot easier to win.
If you destroyed all road to the capitol, and (if needed) the harbor, airport, then a city has only acces to the lux+resources in it´s own area. Other cities can not use them.
So that means only one city profits from it, instead of the entire empire.
it works the same way with traded stuff. If your capitol isn´t connected to them any more (or if your at war with them, which you will be if you destroy it´s roads) than trading won´t be possible any longer.

 

[IronicWarrior19]

I prefer sending a pillaging team to cut off the enemy resources at the source

 

[WUM]

works too,
but your enemy can still trade the resource with another civ.

Especially in wars between big empires, with both parties having multiple resources, isolating proved easier to me.
In early wars between small civ´s i usually go for the specific resources too, if i bother at all.

 

[d3dash]

RuCKuS,
are you sure it was your capitol that you destroyed the roads to?????

 

[The Jeff]

The way I understand it to work, all cities that are connected by roads to each other and to a resource can use that resource. For inter-civ trade, the capitals must be connected. So if you isolate their capital, they lose any resources they were getting from other civs (just like embargoes, but a lot cheaper), but the rest of their cities that are connected to each other still have the resource. For later in the game, when all the land tiles are roaded, does this actually work?

 

[Bruinesian]

This strategy assumes a lot. You must take into account how many turns will it take for your troops to move into the capital. The capital, more often than not, may sit in an impenetrable center that even in the modern era approaching it would be difficult and w/ adverse consequences to your military.

While your wasting turns trying to get to the capital, the enemy could've signed military alliances against you or have already taken out some of your cities. While your troops happily isolate the enemy capital, you're vulnerable for a rear counter-attack coming from her other cities.

Judging from the original description of this strategy, certain assumptions were made. You (as the attacking civ) must possess a military capable of adequate defense AND offense. Now rarely have I ever fought a successful total war with most of my military defending my cities. I estimate that, in order to fight a total conflict, you must commit at least two-thirds of your army to the offensive (maybe more during the earlier eras). With a possibly draining strategy as described, you may need more.

Another assumption is that the attacked civ does not possess adequate defensive capabilities. A civ with an average military compared to yours is enough to keep you at bay and numerous enough, so even if you isolated its capital, you would still be fighting its advanced military for a number of turns.

* Then, you ask for peace, demanding all his money (lump sum) and possible techs and the remaining cities, so he will only have the capitol left. "

I've seen a lot of these assumptions that says that if battered well, the enemy civ will give in to anything you want. Bunk. If you leave the civ with just one city and that city sits on an unremarkable land with no resources, boxed in with no prospect for growth and winning, then it will fight you to the end. I just finished a game where I took out 7 of Ms D'Arc's cities in one turn and took out the rest in the next turn. She had her capital left on a frozen tundra, and I demanded that she gives me 10 gpt. Her response? "I'd rather burn in hell." Well, I'm not the one to rewrite history.

Actually, I believe this is NOT a good strategy and in fact will lead you to defeat. As tedious as some may think it is, conquering nearby cities, and pillaging improvements remain to be the best offense there is.

 

[WUM]

Wrong,
all cities that are connected by a tradenetwork have acces to the connected resources, but only when the capitol also is connected to the network.
otherwise only one city has acces to the resource.

Originally posted by The Jeff
The way I understand it to work, all cities that are connected by roads to each other and to a resource can use that resource. For inter-civ trade, the capitals must be connected. So if you isolate their capital, they lose any resources they were getting from other civs (just like embargoes, but a lot cheaper), but the rest of their cities that are connected to each other still have the resource. For later in the game, when all the land tiles are roaded, does this actually work?

 

[WUM]

Originally posted by Bruinesian
This strategy assumes a lot. You must take into account how many turns will it take for your troops to move into the capital. The capital, more often than not, may sit in an impenetrable
center that even in the modern era approaching it would be difficult and w/ adverse consequences to your military.

It´s not so much assumptions as well as conditions. That´s a very important difference.
Besides there are many ways to destroy the roads: pilage, bombing-raids, bombarding by vessels or artillery. Sometimes the capitol is just to far away. In that case this strategy just doesn´t fit the situation, so don´t apply it then.

[/QUOTE]While your wasting turns trying to get to the capital, the enemy could've signed military alliances against you or have already taken out some of your cities. While your troops happily isolate the enemy capital, you're vulnerable for a rear counter-attack coming from her other cities. [/B][/QUOTE]

If you´re smart you´ll prepare for a war...
make you own allicances. Use the last turns of a right of passage with you potential enemy to get around their capitol. And use bombarding instead of pillage... be smart, think strategic.

[/QUOTE]Judging from the original description of this strategy, certain assumptions were made. You (as the attacking civ) must possess a military capable of adequate defense AND offense. Now rarely have I ever fought a successful total war with most of my military defending my cities. I estimate that, in order to fight a total conflict, you must commit at least two-thirds of your army to the offensive (maybe more during the earlier eras). With a possibly draining strategy as described, you may need more. [/B][/QUOTE]

You have to defend your cities in a normal war-time-way. You don´t need to isolate the capitol in one turn, especially not when bombarding, so you don´t need to much offence in most cases. The point is that you destroy you opponents possibility to build the most modern units. And believe me, this makes a war WAY easier to win, especially when you caught you opponent unprepared (they usually don´t have too much modern units then).

[/QUOTE] * Then, you ask for peace, demanding all his money (lump sum) and possible techs and the remaining cities, so he will only have the capitol left. " [/B][/QUOTE]

do not forget that their empire can´t trade any longer, can´t build certain things (think: railroads). It will make many citizens unhappy so it will fall in disorder. This will destroy it´s income. Maintenance keeps high. Their treasure will get empty soon. In short: you will severely cripple their empire in an easy way. And try it: they will pay you A LOT for peace after about 10 turns. The later the era, the longer it takes to get everything but the capitol. However, the faster that civ get crippled by this strategy.
These are NOT assumptions.

[/QUOTE]I just finished a game where I took out 7 of Ms D'Arc's cities in one turn and took out the rest in the next turn. She had her capital left on a frozen tundra, and I demanded that she gives me 10 gpt. Her response? "I'd rather burn in hell." Well, I'm not the one to rewrite history.[/B][/QUOTE]

the reason: you destroyed her initial capitol and she doesn´t have an income of 10 gpt. i´d rather burn in hell too, than to be you slave...

[/QUOTE]Actually, I believe this is NOT a good strategy and in fact will lead you to defeat. As tedious as some may think it is, conquering nearby cities, and pillaging improvements remain to be the best offense there is. [/B][/QUOTE]

Three things:
1: don´t use it when you can´t reach the capitol (but think of rights of passages).
2: don´t use it when unprepared for war. (if i got attacked by the civ, i usually don´t have enough time. I have other priorities then).
3: TRY IT!!! (don´t judge about something you obviously don´t know sh*t about)

 

[Bruinesian]

Ok, with all the conditions you and I have identified (and some yet to be discovered), does anyone actually think that this is still a 'good' strategy?

Not with these contradictions. In your last post:

You don´t need to isolate the capitol in one turn, especially not when bombarding, so you don´t need to much offence in most cases

but in your original post:

* Isolate your enemy´s capitol by bombarding, bombing and/or pillaging ALL (rail)roads around the enemy´s capitol IN ONE TURN.

Furthermore, you also just muddled your strategy by saying this originally:

* Then, you ask for peace, demanding all his money (lump sum) and possible techs and the remaining cities, so he will only have the capitol left.

Then in the last post you concede that the enemy civ capitulating to your every demand is left to chance:

the reason: you destroyed her initial capitol and she doesn´t have an income of 10 gpt. i´d rather burn in hell too, than to be you slave...

And of course, your piece de resistance:

3: TRY IT!!! (don´t judge about something you obviously don´t know sh*t about)

hmm, you know, I don't need to drink cyanide to know that it will hurt me. I kinda explained to you why I'm not about to do that in Civ3.

 

[WUM]

Oké bruine rakker,

* these are not really contradictions. The first post was in short the line of action. What i just described was based on many experiences. The ideal is to destroy the roads in one turn (surprise-attack), however it's not an absolute neccessity.

* the reason why you couldn´t get 10 gpt is because YOU destroyed her capitol and/or because she doesn´t have such an income left. I do never destroy or conquer their capitol. I only keep it ISOLATED. That´s something else. That´s also why i CAN get peace in return for everything else she´s got.

* finally about my "piece de resistance" (love that term!):
i know from experience that it works. And it´s a strategy, not a dogmatic way to conquer the world or something like that. So use it as a strategy and apply it according to the specific circumstances.

about you not needing to drink cyanide to know that it will hurt you: remember Socrates who drank the poison anyway. And remember Galileo (as well as all real scientists), who tried something he thought he knew the outcome of, only to be extremely surprised when the results were different. Believe me, try it! it works...

 

[Bruinesian]

Look, we can bury this thing by you rewriting your strategy, you dig? You know just make your disclaimers, exceptions, qualifications, and possible reservations out in the rewrite so overly critical people like me won't be whipping out the lash. Hey, I'm here to help you. As a member of the civ community I feel it my duty to aide people to write clear and strong posts. The standard is specially high when a seemingly groundbreaking strategy such as yours appear.

And no, I dont think I'll pull a Galileo anytime soon. I mean, ITS CIV3! The cosmological discrepancy is .... whew! But hey, he did help us achieve Space Race Victory.

<hatchet buried>



<uzi taken out>

 

[WUM]

AAAAaaaaaaarrrrrgggghhhh!!!!!!

okay, one last try. I´m not even trying to convince you! (though it sure seems like it )

all i´m trying to do is to clearify what is meant.
i know it works and it suits me fine!
it isn´t even 'my' strategy. I just stole it from Stiel.

anyway, what i´m trying to do is to clearify that your criticism is aimed in the wrong direction.
I really like to receive critics (or should i say positive feedback ). I can sharpen my game that way.

But if you criticize, then aim at the structure, don´t aim at the color it was painted in. I mean, the basics for the strategy are clear:
- prepare for war.
- isolate capitol.
- conquer.
- sew for peace to strip him.
- leave the capitol untouched till the end.

the color is metaforic for the scanning of details , like the number of turns to needed for the different steps. I mean, for G´s sake, you can repeat this if needed. Depends on the specific game, like it does with EVERY strategy.
You might look up the meaning of the word 'strategy'.

Otherwise, i probably lost my convincing-edge...
but as a scientist once spoke:
"don´t believe in anything, experience!"
don´t believe me, just try it yourself and we´ll talk again.