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

[MajorGeneral2]

Flatlander Fox mentioned just buying MGE, but in the US, at least, like ToT, it can't be found, at least not where I live. Oddly, Civ2 Classic is relatively easy to find
Back to strategy, paratroopers are my preferred way of conquering civs, especially island cities. Air support I find invaluable.

 

[Darius]

Well, there’s a lot to respond to here, but I don’t know how useful it is as this is becoming indefensible.

I’ll start with Simon’s last response which I missed earlier - I must say that I agree as you do that both our methods work. However, I don’t think you can base its value on personal preference. Some people can jump higher than others, or run faster, and yes, one method of CivII conquest is more advantageous than another, and that is what ought to be at issue: not what method does one prefer, but why is one’s method better? The discussion is more valuable that way. As per the actual strategy, you’re right, the planes will work against the sample city, but it’s overkill. I know you don’t actually use 35 planes per city, but that’s not the point. One Stealth bomber can kill only one garrison unit per two turns. Stealth fighters, although they can strike multiple times in a turn, are too weak to repeat such attacks, even if they’re veterans. Howitzers, on the other hand, can deliver two kills each per turn, plus the aforementioned advantage that they have an infinite range. These facts give them higher value in combat, while at the same time they cost only 70 shields each compared to the 160 and 80 of the two planes. More bang for your buck, end of story.

Now, for Andu – I agree wholeheartedly that it is artless. However, there is plenty of room to be artful in the arenas of science, exploration, and diplomacy. War is different, at least in the Civilization world*. I want to get it done quick, with minimal loss, and with the least investment necessary. Next, there’s this:

(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.)

I suggest you read more carefully, I not once said I do that. The only thing close is that I said that’s what you find when you conquer a modern AI city:

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

What I said I do is very different:

Continue until your civilization is massive, with every occupied square covered with railroad & mining, or road & farmland.

And for your strategy, as far as I can see it would takes very long in deity, if indeed it does work. Simon would agree that it’s better to take them out quickly, no matter how you do it.

a waste of production and resources

You’re correct that your way takes less shields and in that my way seems like a waste. However, it is arguable that conquering the world quickly (either to a finish or to a pet city) is far more important than using less shields. You then have to contend with supporting your units and having some unhappiness for 5-15 years instead of a century. Atop that, my wasting shields can be offset by disbanding my task force into the conquered cities to give them a leg-up. Finally, if you take over the world quickly and establish a pet city, you can plug many of your cities into capitalization and set up entertainers so you can have a 100% allocation to science. Again, both our ways work, but what is more advantageous?

* Also, there are more intricate ways to undergo this strategy that are artful. For instance, I often accompany my force with spies to investigate each city and to see what sort of forces they have in the field. Then I have Mech. Inf.'s and armor to destroy weaker units (cruise/nuclear missiles, ships in port, planes, and troops outside of cities but in the way, etc.) that are not worthy of the howitzers' power. Another unnecessary treat is to have a bunch of riflemen and to place one next to each emptied city before taking any, so that you won't have to clear a path through partisans to get them to cities. Otherwise you can have ZoC-ignoring partisans to duck in and out of partisan crowds. Looking at these possibilities as well as the enthralling naval battles that may be necessary to get your task force there, you bet your ass it can be "artful".

Flatlander – you’re probably right about MP, as was DoM. However, that’s why my outline has a crucial focus on a strong defense and offensive defense in the early game, and I’m sure I could hold out against a human there, you know, just five phalanxes instead of one. But it is a damn shame no one wants to start from 4000 BC.

And last but not least, Machiavelli – I’ll get into the bang for your buck issue again. Look at an imaginary deity civilization: 25 cities, with 4 defensive units each. By my calculations, it would require 50 veteran howitzers to conquer it (25 cities x 4 units per city / 2 howitzer kills per turn = 50), which are worth 3500 shields. Your nuke method would require 25 nuclear missiles, which are worth 4000 shields. The next step is open-ended. If you wish to do it one city at a time, then you only need one paratrooper, so tack on 60 shields to get 4060 shields. If you wish to annihilate them in one turn, it will take 25 paratroopers, so tack on 1500 to get a grand total of 5500 shields. Either way, it will be more than the paltry 3500 invested in using the cheap howitzers. Aside from that, there’s the issue of building and deploying such a force before the deity enemy has discovered the laser. Anyway, this mathematical analysis can be used to compare howitzers to the addictive use of air power, as well. Looking at this hypothetical civilization, the shield ratio between my way and something similar to Simon’s air war would be 3500:11250 (25 cities x (320 shields per 2 stealth bombers + 80 shields per stealth fighter + 50 shields per Mech. Inf.))

Major General2 – same issue: howitzers are cheaper. However, you are right that paratroopers are better for island outposts. About getting the task force trapped and destroyed, I can't figure what situation would keep it in one city. I think you should reply.

Man, I’ve been putting this response off; I’m glad it’s over. I’m going to bed.

Look on the bright side, you all have sold me on power democracy, now I’m doing it Simon’s way by building troops everywhere and supporting them from the Shakespeare city. Fundy sucks.

 

[N.Machiavelli]

Darius

Though I don't question your mathematical analysis of a strategy game*, I would simply say that my Bush-esque "Nuke-em" strategy is based entirely on four things:

1) The nuclear holocaust option of conquering a civilisation (assuming they haven't developed the laser - I will address this in a moment) is by far and away more reliable. If you nuke their cities, then drop in paras, you're guaranteed that you've wiped out that city's garrison without having to indulge in deploying howitzers, bombers etc, which are subsequently at risk of being destroyed in a counter-attack. Many are the times I have deployed a large seige force, whilst learning the game, captured the city, then lost them all from a conventional counter-attack (units stacked on an unfortified square being taken out in one go; stacking required in order to deliver sufficient firepower), or lost them all since the b****** nuked my newly-captured city and dropped in a para! This, of course, would wipe out my seige forces still deployed around the city. Therefore, the nuke-em option is more reliable, since the risk of losing your task force in a counter-attack is removed.

2) I entirely agree that of course you need to develop your civilisation so that your land development and scientific advances are way ahead of your opposing civilisations. This is the basic key to the game (grandmother, sucking, egs - I know but bear with me). The point here of course is that if you're ahead of other civilisations in a) land development and b) scientific advances, then you've got more productive cities to build the nukes, and you've got the technology to do so before they have the technology to develop the laser.

3) It's more fun. :flamedevi Though of course the mathematical application of strategy has its place, I think that somewhat misses the point of the game. The real point is to lead civilisations and wipe out others to conquer the world (fun) or to go to space (boring). All I would say of the mathematical application is to quote Iago, from Othello:

"And what was he?
Forsooth, a great arithmetician...
That never set a squadron in the field,
Nor the division of a battle knows
More than a spinster...
Mere prattle without practice
Is all his soldiership."
Act I, Scene I, Othello. W. Shakespeare.

4) I can't remember the other one.


* Though it does miss out the requirement to construct 10-20 engineers - an essential part of the howitzer strategy, since fortification next to the coastal city is required for cover, and rapid rail development is required for advance. You also fail to add transport ships and a naval task force to your arithmetic.

PS I don't think Fundy is cheating - it's in the game so it can't be. However, you shouldn't be able to opt for it after a certain point in your socio-scientific development. Point out to me (with the controversial example of the US) a developed fundamentalist state - there aren't any, they're all crackpot banana republics. What I DO think is cheating is the silly bloody NMD thing with the laser. If it exists at all, you should have to work much harder to get it. The game would be much more fun if you had to rely on nuclear deterrents/alliances to defend against nuclear attack. This would be a) more realistic, b) more challenging, c) more fun. I am contemplating designing it out of my game...

Anyway, signing out now.

Old Mach xx

 

[Smash]

The plan is fine.Sit back,then conquer with howies.Not much fun though.Poor AI doesn't have a chance.I would say why wait that long when you can use ancient howies like crusaders or knights instead but no matter.The only thing I would question is your estimate for forces needed.25 ai cities can be taken with much,much less than 50 howies regardless of the number of defenders.You're giving the ai way too much credit

Those would be much better numbers for MP,although it is very unlikely you would ever get that far.Not losing or anything,but just getting a mp game continued to "modern" times is a minor miracle

 

[Darius]

Mach,

I’ll respond in the order of your post:

1) The entire concept of the counter-attack is useless in this discussion, because practically the entire premise of the 1-turn howitzer conquest is that there is no counterattack, since the civilization is completely destroyed (there are no “sieges”). And, as I said in response to your first post here, there is no situation I have experienced or can imagine that would stretch my advance into two turns and make a counterattack possible. The only problem that might arise is if I build less howitzers than I need, but I still end up cutting the heart out of the beast so much that their field army has disappeared due to missing cities, and all they can counterattack with is partisans. Regardless, that never happens because I have learned my lesson and do two things: 1) I always build more howitzers than I need in case of problems, and 2) I always have excellent spy reconnaissance to make sure that I know just what I’m dealing with inside and inbetween enemy cities. If you’ve prepared correctly, it is impossible to fail.

2) No argument here, except that efficiency in shield use is important no matter how productive you are.

3) As I’ve reluctantly admitted before, I do indulge in other methods because they are fun. Veteran stealth fighters v. phalanxes and armor and regular bombers v. riflemen and regular fighters are the two strategies that I most enjoy. I am not debating that this is more fun (although the espionage, naval struggle, and other variations of my strategy which I listed in response to Andu are intricate enough to at times be very fascinating and fun), but the direction of this thread as I had intended was toward how to win, not what is most fun, not to sound too pragmatic. Also, although I do enjoy a bit of nice debate, my target audience was more to the tune of the people I’ve seen on this forum who are inexperienced or for other reasons struggling in this game. Hence the attention-grabbing title. I wanted to tell them a foolproof way to defeat even enemies that are ahead of them so they can feel the satisfaction of looking at a deity map in which every city is their civ’s color, a satisfaction they would likely never reach with some bombers and tanks, or at least not for a long time.

I suppose you’re right about fundamentalism’s being legit since it’s in the game, namely because the creators did give it disadvantages that make it questionable. Still, it seems cowardly to cut into it for a few militaristic turns to escape your responsibilities and then jump back. It is especially cheating in certain historical military scenarios where science isn’t really needed so there is no disadvantage. SDI, on the other hand, is not so much cheating. Although it is a shame to see the fun age of deterrent go by so quickly as someone discovers the laser, the creators realized that SDI is inevitable in the real world (another thing Bush-esque), so it should be in a real world-simulating game. If they’ll have fusion power and interstellar travel in the game, they ought to have SDI in it.

In response to your asterisk: You’re right about the 3500V figure for howitzers; I apologize. I need to tack on 150V for five spies needed before the attack to investigate each city and determine how many howitzers are needed. The amount of battleships, engineers and transports depends. I try to find the most meagerly defended port, which can sometimes have as little as one defensive unit and a few cruise missiles, and sometimes not, so the amount of battleships could range from 1 to 3. 10-20 engineers is even a liberal figure; sometimes you need none. And, of course, the amount of transports depends on the amount of engineers. Also note that I always invade during peacetime so there is no need to defend the fleet with any other ships (except for MP, which I’m assuming isn’t important at this point). Looking at these facts, a more accurate shield count could go from 4160V to 5430V, either of which is still less than the original nuke count, not to mention that a more accurate nuke count would be closer to 6000V if you were to include engineers to build an airbase, submarine(s) to hold the missiles, and transports for the paratroopers. I omitted a battle fleet from the figure for the same reason I omitted it from mine. Regardless, as your seasoned (and stinging) use of Shakespeare notes, these are just passionless numbers, but indeed Iago condemns all those who speak in this forum, as daily we sit vegetatively in air-conditioned rooms and point-and-click millions to their doom…

(except our armed cultural consultant ; keep saving the world, FF)

 

[Smash]

Its far more efficient to land 2 or 3 X packs 10 turns or so before your invasion.You'll need next to nothing as there will be no defenders left in any cities.

 

[Darius]

x - packs?

 

[Smash]

hehehe..yes X packs.

The X Pack Stack was designed by Xin Yu.Originally for multiplay,but it works even better against the hapless AI.Handy for scenarios.
It can include as many units as you want(ground,air,spy) but the core of it is this:
4 engineers
1 bomber
2 high defense units(alpine.mech inf)

Fighters and what ever can be added as needed.The X pack is movable and can be set up directly adjacent to cities for bombing if desired.Great base of operations for spys and their ability to greatly soften up civs.

from Xin:

Each turn, one Mech. Inf. will pillage the fortress on this square (left off from the previous turn), two engineers will build an airbase, then some air missions will fly by the stealth fighters. After all air missions are done and planes returned to the airbase,the 2nd defender will pillage the airbase and two other engineers will construct a fortress before the end of the turn.


The only ways to defeat an x pack are a bunch of fighters and cross your fingers or get an allied unit next to it and nuke it.Neither of these will be done by the AI.
If you add,oh Ida know,10 spys and 10 howies a few bombers,blah blah..you can empty all cities and keep them empty as long as you want.

 

[Darius]

Damn clever, but it still seems like it would take too long. Another matter is that I think you give the AI too little credit. The usual deity civ would have some howitzers, tanks, and stealth bombers lying around in their own country (yes, because they're too stupid to coordinate them and invade anybody), and they would wipe it out unless you have an unpractically high amount of Mech. Inf.'s, and even so you'd have high casualties. It does get rid of the partisan and counterattack issues, though, I like that. I could be wrong, so I'll try it out tonight. I used to do something similar, where in midgame you build a fortress adjacent to an enemy city full of ten cannons and five musketeers, so you can constantly attack them from an almost invincible base, one by one. It's especially good for just taking their city temporarily to get Leo's workshop and update all your units, and then just give it back. It's cheaper than building it.

 

[Darius]

Tried it, you were right. Man, is the AI stupid.

 

[Andu Indorin]

Originally posted by Darius
Now, for Andu – I agree wholeheartedly that it is artless. However, there is plenty of room to be artful in the arenas of science, exploration, and diplomacy. War is different, at least in the Civilization world*. I want to get it done quick, with minimal loss, and with the least investment necessary. ... And for your strategy, as far as I can see it would takes very long in deity, if indeed it does work. You’re correct that your way takes less shields and in that my way seems like a waste. However, it is arguable that conquering the world quickly (either to a finish or to a pet city) is far more important than using less shields. You then have to contend with supporting your units and having some unhappiness for 5-15 years instead of a century. Atop that, my wasting shields can be offset by disbanding my task force into the conquered cities to give them a leg-up. Finally, if you take over the world quickly and establish a pet city, you can plug many of your cities into capitalization and set up entertainers so you can have a 100% allocation to science. Again, both our ways work, but what is more advantageous? ...

Look on the bright side, you all have sold me on power democracy, now I’m doing it Simon’s way by building troops everywhere and supporting them from the Shakespeare city. Fundy sucks.

First, an apology. I've haven't been able to respond to your arguments earlier because, for some reason, I haven't been able to log on to the Forum. And yes, I either read your statements on roads/railroads to quickly, or my dyslexia struck again.

On strategy: I think the principal difference between your approach and my approach comes down to when one commences global conquest. My approach to world conquest is conditioned by what I've termed as the process of Modernization, which I initially outlined in my Annales of Rome timeline. (Here I must add that I really should update this discussion; I have since concluded that Refrigeration rather than the Railroad should be considered the third part of the "Modern Triad." I now include the Railroad as the departure point for Modernization owing to (a) the substantial decrease in revenues from caravans with the aquisition of the Railroad and (b) the expiration of the Hanging Gardens and consequent loss of that extra happy citizen to promote WLKD. And I use Darwin's Voyage to aquire the Corporation as quickly as possible so as to upgrade my numerous Caravans to the more profitable Freight courtesy of Leonardo's Workshop.) A critical aspect of this approach to the Civ2 is the rapid development in technological superiority over the AI civs by achieving either one or two techs per turn from Industrialization to Stealth at a time when the AI civs have not yet developed Industrialization; and getting that superior technology out of factories and into the field as quickly as possible. In part, this strategy exploits the observed tendency of AI civs to send out diplomats to steal Industrialization the moment one achieves Industrialization.

My one Deity HOF entry is a fair example of the strengths of this approach. Having established the "Modern Triad" by 1640, I did not Industrialize until 1830. But once the process of Modernization commenced, I was achieving two techs per turn. In 1836, with the advent of Machine Tools and the conversion of Cannon into Artillery, I recommenced offensive operations against the Persian/French/Sioux/Zulu conglomerate of civilizations. In 1842, courtesy of a sneak attack by the Celts, I found myself in the comparatively unusual situation of fighting on two fronts. By 1850, 10 turns after Industrialization, the first Armor and Howitzers were coming off the production lines and reaching the front. In 1852, the "final offensive" commenced. By 1858, 18 turns after Industrialization, I had reduced the AI civs to one token city and had achieved Future Tech 1. LOVE THAT POWER DEMOCRACY!

The balance sheet for this "world war" is indicative of the potential of this approach to the game. In all I used 36 Cavalry and 13 Artillery (mostly NON's bribed over the course of the game); plus 20 Armor and 11 Howitzers. My losses were 3 Cavalry and 1 Artillery (plus 1 Frigate and 1 Submarine at sea). Opposing losses were 21 Settlers, 4 Horseman, 2 Knights, 6 Catapults, 94 Musketeers, 34 Cannon (plus 2 Galleons, 3 Frigates, and 4 Ironclads at sea) for a healthy kill ratio of 34:1. As one can see, the technological superiority resulted in little resistance from A.I. In all, 59 cities from 5 civilizations were captured in 15 turns; and the pace of the campaign was dictated by the use freight to guarantee the acquisition of that second tech per turn with the taxes set at 0%income/10% luxury/90% science (under Democracy at all times). In all, 62 freight were used for a healthy "war-time" profit of 79,659 gold. I might add that with Shakespeare's Theater and the liberal use of freight, unhappiness was not even a problem, even with luxuries set at only 10%. In my opinion, this war meets the criteria of being extremely "cost-effective" and reasonably quick; and, despite a slow start in the early game due to moderately difficult starting terrain, the comparatively late establishment of the SSC, and some early set-backs courtesy of raging hordes, I managed to reach Future Tech 255 by 1960.

There are downsides to this strategy compared to your "late-game" strategy. In my version, by hitting the AI civs before they even develop the Railroad, it is necessary to commit a fair number of engineers to building railways to keep the Artillery and Howitzers rolling. And because the AI has not developed Engineers, their civilizations tend to have limited number of cities with a fairly undeveloped infrastructure; this means that after you conquer the AI civs, you have a lot more work to do in improving the conquered cities and finding new cities. Let's face it: the AI takes far less time in taking a turn than you do. (I've always been tempted to adjust my rules.txt file so that I can "gift" the AI civs Explosives as soon as I get Explosives so as to reduce the work I have to do after conquest). And another disadvantage -- as Smash pointed out above -- after a while, brutalizing the AI with vast technological superiority can get boring; it is more challenging to fight a war with a large, fully-equipped AI civilization.

Finally, glad to see you've joined the Power Democracy adherents!

 

[Mr Adeoye]

this is all very good but on deity level you'll never be allowed to sit back and get big enuff to pull it off

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally posted by Mr Adeoye
this is all very good but on deity level you'll never be allowed to sit back and get big enuff to pull it off

Originally posted by Andu Indorin
My one Deity HOF entry is a fair example...

Ummm...that WAS on deity.

 

[Darius]

this is all very good but on deity level you'll never be allowed to sit back and get big enuff to pull it off

Everyone talking here is on deity and does get that big.

 

[unknown_spirit]

This strategy is exactly how I play all my games. I don't just use Howies, that's too dull. I just LOVE to use and utilize stuff like Alpine Troops, Marines, Mechinf, Armor, etc. I do use howies, just not to that extent. The theory is sound, though. I always leave the world domination until I research everything. I then give ALL my techs to ALL enemies (I do this just for jollies, and also because tanks and mechinf vs Phlanx/Riflemen/Knights is not my idea of a good war. I like a challenge.). I launch my ship then, and declare war after it has landed. This not only gives me time to change to a Fundy, but also to amass s***loads of units. I then throw everything I have at them. Mwahahahaha!

 

[Darius]

Like I said earlier, I really like using a variety of units, but the howitzers are the best way to attack garrisons within cities. Armor is too weak when against city walls, Stealth Bombers can only hit once per two turns, and Stealth Fighters are weak. Anything else, like attacking field armies or navies, I use virtually every unit available to me.

For Andu, it sounds unreal, but I guess I have to believe you. Regardless, I admit under your shadow that I have very little to offer in advice about modernization and science; I can never get that far ahead in deity level . The farthest I've gotten is Future Tech 40 by 2019. However, I don't know how relevant this strategy is here, since I'm looking for something foolproof that can get someone who's only had the game for a week already win in deity. I looked at the site for your strategy and I could hardly read it, let alone implement it. I just don't have the skill to get that far ahead, no matter what, and I doubt more than 1 in 100 people could pull it off. Phew. No offense at all, I'm saying it is to your credit, but while I have to believe your strategy worked and will work, I can't believe it'll work for most people, and late-game tactics will work for a six-year old.

P.S. How do you get two techs per turn? Just to see if it's possible I made a test game and changed my one city to having 359 trade symbols and it was still one per two turns. Are you sure you don't mean one per two turns?

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally posted by Darius
P.S. How do you get two techs per turn? Just to see if it's possible I made a test game and changed my one city to having 359 trade symbols and it was still one per two turns. Are you sure you don't mean one per two turns?

A single city can only contribute to one tech, but if you have many cities with high beaker rates you can get two or even more per turn. Even if your cities can't generate enough for two techs every turn, you can fill up the beaker count with camel deliveries, let a small city push it over the top for the first advance, then let the rest of your cities generate the second tech.

 

[unknown_spirit]

The highest I've ever got is a tech researched in 1 turn, but that's it. God, two per turn? That's pretty good going...

 

[Andu Indorin]

Actually, there have been one or two instances where I've achieved three techs in one turn; the first via freight, the next two via "normal research." But this has been so rare, it may simply have been a bug in the program.

(Of course, with the Tech Rollover, it is not uncommon to receive about Future Techs 168-208 in a single turn ...)

 

[unknown_spirit]

.......oh...my.....God.(dies):suicide: