A slightly different approach to strategy in CIV3

Bibor

Doomsday Machine
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
3,124
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Originally the idea for this post came from the thread about "Rome" and my PM to Ision.

** A different approach to strategy in CIV 3 **

Maybe some of these things were said in other posts on this site, I'm not sure. I wrote this article not as a strategy guide, but rather as different point of view on all things military in CIV3. Most probably many experienced players do things like I will describe, but are not viewing them as such. Also, I hope this article will help the new players to comprehend the general ideas of strategy in general, which can, and should, be used in all strategy simulations.

OF ARMY

I use the term Army to describe all the military units of one civilization (even those in production).
Army is a living and whole organism which is not the same as the civilization. Principles of your Army have nothing to do with the number and size of your cities nor with the size of your territory. I will use the term nation for everything not-army. Army and nation co-exist. But they are not the same thing. The nation supports the army, army supports the nation. They might or not have an identical goal. Army grows somewhat independently of a nation, and it must have a plan of growth on its own.

Army can be defensive, offensive, or both. Either way, it must not forget its nation. Also, armies and cities don't tend to like each other. The only three moments when an army likes a town is:
a) army needs healing
b) the city is the only road/rr connection to some location important to the army
c) the army's defence is larger in town

An Army should place itself in a manner it can defend several cities from one location. This location must be well connected to other parts of empire, especially the area it defends. Its called a strategical location. If a city is on such location, okay. But this way the player might forget that militia duty is *not* part of the Army (see below).
Player should already watch it's neighbours terrain for such strategical locations and make note of them.

War of agression

An army that is invading another country is, first of all, stripping its own nation of (some of) its defences. However, players tend to neglect the fact that army is one organism, not two. Want it or not, they always "count" on all available units for offensive actions, neglecting the defence of the nation they depend on so dearly.
If the player decides to start a war of agression, it must before the campaign SPLIT its army into two separate organisms. One will defend the country, the other will attack. The player must not, under any circumstances, forget that he divided the army. He had a reason to do so in the first place.

In War of Agression the player can choose two of possible paths:
a) attack the defender's nation
b) attack the defender's army
Under no circumstances is the player allowed to mix the two things or withdraw from the chosen path in mid-war or he is doomed to fail.
I will not discuss the strategies for the two paths, but will expain them.

- Attack on defender's nation causes starvation, crippled production, riots (unhappy citizens), culture loss and territory loss. This is most of the time created by destroying enemy trade network, pillaging of important tiles, capturing enemy workers and taking/razing enemy towns.

- Attack on defender's army causes the destruction of enemy's army. This includes severing connections to strategic resources.

Of course, the destruction of defender's army is followed by capture of enemy's nation. The point is to "take on" the strongest points of defender first. If it has medium-sized army but has cities that can produce modern armor in 2 turns, its more important to cripple the economy than to destroy its 20 modern armor units. If it has few cities but has acumulated a large army over time, the army is initially a bigger threat.
Also note that human players tend to react (panic, determination, despair) on some things more. Watch the opponent's moves and see what is more important to him. Some people are luxury resource-crazy and hate the luxury slider; some players just plain adore their beautiful cities and hate to see them razed. More than once in history, mindless retaliation attempts ended in spectacular failure.

War of Defence

War of defence has a full support of its nation, since no one knows who is the target of the attack (see above), army or nation. Still, the army must not forget that strategic resources are vital to its survival, so it has to defend them dearly. Again, the player must split its army, this time into three different parts.
1) army 1 - defending cities
2) army 2 - defending resources
3) army 3 - destroying enemy army
The player can divide (in force) as needed. Explanation on number 3: enemy's nation is immovable, hence it cannot attack. BUT destroying enemy's army in war of defence includes negating the enemy's army ability to produce more army units (i.e. by pillaging strategic resources, or making an embargo, see below). So, basically, our Army 3 should be split again into one part destroying units, other part destroying enemy's trade routes.

Of wartime government

Wartime government (not mening CIV3 governments) is when the nation gives away its powers to the army. Army takes over internal affairs, production, treasury and diplomacy. The ultimate wartime government is when army takes over all of these, but most of the time, it is not needed. Take note than when the army takes over the government, and makes its decisions, the deals last for 20 turns. Not less, not more. In the meantime the nation is not developing as in peace. Bribery by tech, gold, gold per turn are crippling the nation, but for only 20 turns. In these 20 turns the army's duty is not only to win the war but to make profit of it (i.e. nation and army being in better position than before war). Especially in a War of agression.

Of militia
Militia is a part of the nation that is performing police duty in cities (increasing happiness). Militia is not part of the army and should not be treated as such. Every militia unit has a reason why the player built it in the first place or it would not be where it is. Militia may or may not have strong defence value.
Many times, the unit with the strongest defence is not the best unit for militia. The priority by which militia should be created is 1) obsolete units, 2) low cost, 3) mobility, 4) defence value. Mobile militia is sometimes a good option because it can do minor scirmishes in times of need (a barbarian warrior threathening your nearby worker) and can quickly re-deploy to a nearby city if needed.
Note: In Republic and Democracy governments militia has no use. When switching from militia to non-militia governments militia either must become a part of the Army (most of the time this includes upgrade) or must be disbanded since it costs money.

Of war duration

Wars should be viewed as a 20 turn event. The reasons are obvious, since dipomacy deals last for so long and war weariness is also an issue. A wise strategist will plan its war with respect to those 20 turns. He will not plan maneuvers which take more than 20 turns to complete but will try to take full advantage of those 20 turns. The counting of 20 turns starts either when the Army enters enemy territory or the war is declared, whichever comes first.
After the initial 20 turns, the player can decide to continue the war or to finish it. Sometimes he/she is forced to continue, sometimes he's "begged for" to stop.
In any case, after 20 turns new objectives, production strategies etc. should be set. Some of these decisions could be, of course, decided much earlier. Maybe the war went well and all objectives were completed in 10 turns. Who knows? In any case, make note that war is never a 1 on 1 game (except if only 2 civs remain on map). By continuing the agression on some other parts of enemy's empire you might trigger a reaction from some other civ. Maybe your people will start to feel war weariness. Maybe another civ will declare war upon you and will attack the other part of your empire.
In war against enemy nation, the Offensive Army and the Offensive Nation have different goals. The Army's goal is to carry out the needs of the nation. Nation might need the following:
1) more territory
2) more cities
3) more luxuries
4) more technologies
5) more gold
6) more workers (slaves)
The Army will try to carry out the nation's needs, but the nation's needs must be clearly stated and confirmed before the war starts. Once the goals are set, there's no turning back, or the plan is doomed to fail.
Under no circumstances is a war to be started without first knowing WHY. Again, these goals must fit the 20 turn frame.
BUT since Army is not the same as nation, it will try to preserve itself independently. If the wills of the nations cannot be carried out, the Army will try to survive, not mindlessly pursue some goal it cannot achieve. An non-existent army is worse than a "goal not taken". Retreat, plea for peace is a shameful but normal solution.
An army must never be destroyed. The ultimate damage it is allowed to sustain is a loss of some of its units and a goal not achieved.

Of conquest/domination victory type of play

The conquest and domination victory types of play are viewing Army and Nation as one whole. It is in a constant "full war-time government". Many of the above rules do not apply, but the most important does apply:
Under no circumstances is the player allowed to change its plan. If the plan is domination, he will play in that manner from beginning to end. Same is true for conquest. In game terms, this doesn't mean the player will build only military units, but it rather means that its military will grow rapidly and this growth must never stop (see "Casaulty paradigm" below).

***

Important things to bear in mind at all times:

The Casaulty Paradigm
Most CIV players fall to the notion that a successful war campaign is when you don't loose units, cities, workers, armies etc. However, casaulties are inevitable and are part of the war (see above about profit of war). A good strategist is counting on casaulties and the sole purpose of his battlefield maneuvers is to reduce the casaulties to minimum. War is being won at the exact point when your casaulties (dead, i.e. zero-health units) are less than the opponent's. Not when you have more units/cities an he has less units/cities. Damaged units are *not* casaulties. Damaged units have only their combat effectivness reduced (and their movement ability remains the same).

Of Circumstances and Edge
Good players talk about circumstances before the war, defeated ones talk about it after the war.
In a war, players (and his/her units) can be in only two positions.
The better strategist has the edge.
The worse strategist is under circumstance.
No matter who's turn it is (in some games there are no turns), the player with circumstance is forced to react to the opponent's edge.
To get out of circumstance, the strategist must:
a) obey the rules of circumstance and suffer from its effects
b) take the edge from the other player with his genius
A wise strategist will know that B cannot be achieved without A. There's no cheating your way out of the circumstance once it has been created.

Of Army Form

The Army is an organism consisting of multiple yet coherent parts. Your legs cannot run faster than your arms or head. Nor can the head be 10 times bigger than your torso. Each part of Army has its purpose and should be built up in proportion to other parts. Of course, there are myriad tactics about how the army should look like. Some prefer 50 artillery, some 50 cavalry, some both. But more times than not, a human vs. human game requires a healthy dose of everything because most strategy games (civ is no exception) and real wars follow the effect / counter-effect pattern. Flak was developed to counter Aircraft, pikemen were created to counter cavalry etc. Again, when planning the development of Army (by designating production) be aware of the long-term plan you have in mind for that army. If you plan to take a city and not raze it, dont bombard it with bombers since they tend to destroy improvements. Bring artillery instead since it damages mostly units. Also remember that offence is always the best defence. This goes for units as well. Mobility and attack is, if played well, more important than defence value. Defence value tends to be more dependant on terrain and/or city size and improvements.

Of War Profit and cost

Wars cost money. Initially. RoP's have to be agreed upon, Alliances to be paid for, resources secured, embargos signed. Sometimes even Techs must be bought in mid-war. All these things must be summed up and clearly noted. If the war costed you 1200 gold, two state-of-the-art techs and two resources for 20 turns, that's the price of war.
The point of war is, of course, profit. Not loss.
A good war manager (not necessarily a wise tactician) will try to pay off the loss and earn some more. Preferrably much more.
In the above case, you should not end the war before you make up for those 1200 gold, get two free techs and some more compensation for the resources that you had to trade. Even if it means you capture an enemy city you really don't intend to keep and sell all the improvements you can just to get another 200 gpt.
Again, war cost and profit has nothing to do with the initial reason of war. This is just an additional effect that has to be coped with. If the reason for war is that your nation wants 8000 gold (while the enemy has 15000), you will try to get those 8000 AND an extra 4000 as spoils of war. If you are greedy and want *everything* that is okay too, but I think that real people (human opponents) don't like that kind of players. Next time, they will do the same to you. But if you can explain your "peace treaty conditions and costs", especially in a defensive war, its more than fair.

I hope this text helped :)

Any comments, erratas, are not just most welcome but NECCESSARY. Please write me.

-Bibor

EDITED ONCE:
- 20 turn war cycles now explained;
- war vs. enemy nation or enemy army now explained;
- added war cost and profit section;
 
Bibor said:
If you plan to take a city and not raze it, dont bombard it with bombers since they tend to destroy improvements.

From my experience if you capture an enemy city with improvements, the improvements don't help your civ at all. In fact they don't even show up in the city window. You have to build new improvements. The only thing I see lasting is the great wonders.
 
A well written theoretical piece!

I do however strongly disagree with one statement:
In War of Agression the player can choose two of possible paths:
a) attack the defender's nation
b) attack the defender's army
Under no circumstances is the player allowed to mix the two things or withdraw from the chosen path in mid-war or he is doomed to fail.

I contend that the best strat is one that DOES mix these two. The destruction of the enemies military prowess followed by the direct take over of his nation. If one assumes the success of the former - then the latter should be the natural consequence. One does not have to wait until the former is completely accomplished because the enemy state will die off in stages - allowing you to absorb them in stages.

Your 20 turn advice is a nice 'general guide-line' and has some merit (especially for the ultra-peaceful player in Democracy). However, it should not be stated as an absolute. There are many instances where much longer wars (even in demo gov) are not only possible - but preferable!

Also remember that offence is always the best defence.

on the money!

Once the goals are set, there's no turning back, or the plan is doomed to fail.
Wartime government (not mening CIV3 governments) is when the nation gives away its powers to the army. Army takes over internal affairs, production, treasury and diplomacy. The ultimate wartime government is when army takes over all of these,

reminds me of von Clauswitz theory of 'total war' ....... the nation and military as ONE.....

good job Bibor........

sincerely, Ision
 
I must explain myself (and will edit my post) about the "In War of Agression the player can choose two of possible paths".
What I wanted to say is that, at first you have to concentrate your attacks. It is imperative that you don't pick too many targets at once.

As for the 20 turn wars... they are not *actually* 20 turn wars. I just state that 20 turns is a good measure for a war "cycle". Planning ahead 20 turns is more than enough for a good strategical plan. I didn't want to say that you have to sue for peace after 20 turns.
It's more like a... think, prepare, act; re-think, prepare, act; re-think again, prepare, act -guideline.
 
Thanks. I have noticed that I have been getting screwed out of some of my due spoils by not taking on the enemy army, to focus on his cities. I also notice that if I get carried away against the cities, other nations will swoop in and claim the openned up land...
 
Bibor, a very interesting Article. Good job.

-"Of War duration":
Why do you plan the wars for 20 turns? Imagine being a Democracy, you want the War over ASAP (say in 6 turns) in order to avoid WW. You take the Wonder City, luxury or resource you are interested in and then by razing two AI cities I believe the AI will be willing to sit down and talk peace. The War is now over in less than 5 or 6 turns (Blitzkrieg) and you have what you wanted, perhaps preparing for a new "unprovoked" War

-"Of conquest/domination victory type of play":"Under no circumstances is the player allowed to change its plan".
I'm sorry I have to disagree on this. If you have all default options selected the AI can win through many ways. You have to prevent that at all costs at higher levels of gameplay, and this requires a player to be very flexible in his schemes and goals. One has to adapt a dynamic approach to War. Naturally you may have a clear goal on the long run, but your strategies will completely differ from one turn to the next should the gameplay require it. The key is to adapt and excel to any given game/war condition.

-"Of War profit and cost": "The point of war is, of course, profit. Not loss"
Perhaps I am looking for no profit whatsoever. I started a War yesterday on Deity with huge casualties on my behalf only because I wanted/needed a MGL. Is that the profit you refer to? It is not always clear when you start a War (specially the higher you go up the echelon of difficulty) that you will have the upper hand when provoking it. In my game yesterday I was completely outnumbered by the AI and was actually overrun by it, albeit the outcome of it was a MGL which is essential to start off a War Academy and Heroic Epic and eventually winning the game.

P.S. Judging by the way you write and the date you joined us (6th of june), are you a Military in RL?
 
Drakan said:
-"Of War duration":
Why do you plan the wars for 20 turns? Imagine being a Democracy, you want the War over ASAP (say in 6 turns) in order to avoid WW. You take the Wonder City, luxury or resource you are interested in and then by razing two AI cities I believe the AI will be willing to sit down and talk peace. The War is now over in less than 5 or 6 turns (Blitzkrieg) and you have what you wanted, perhaps preparing for a new "unprovoked" War

Maybe the war will not last for 20 turns, that's very possible. You can grab the resource you need and two cities - then negotitate for peace. First of all, you started a war. That's like pulling a gun. Now, don't pull the gun if you do not intend to shoot. Maybe this (human) player is only waging a war on the other part of his empire with his army. Seeing you take a small peace of his empire and you threathening him for "peace" is like wounding an animal but not killing it. Not to mention that he has now the edge in diplomatical negotiations since people (even AI) don't like "war starters". If the resource you mention is some extremely important like rubber, oil or aluminium, then yes, your plan was good. You actually grabbed an edge that will bring you a long term benefit by being able to produce units this particular player cannot (anymore).

Fight the enemy with the weapons he lacks.
- a russian general

Drakan said:
-"Of conquest/domination victory type of play":"Under no circumstances is the player allowed to change its plan".
I'm sorry I have to disagree on this. If you have all default options selected the AI can win through many ways. You have to prevent that at all costs at higher levels of gameplay, and this requires a player to be very flexible in his schemes and goals. One has to adapt a dynamic approach to War. Naturally you may have a clear goal on the long run, but your strategies will completely differ from one turn to the next should the gameplay require it. The key is to adapt and excel to any given game/war condition.
I am not refering to the whole game. We all know when we won... you know what i mean... at a certain point of game something just "snaps" and suddenly you are aware that you are winning this game (yay!) no matter what happens next. Its like cleaning up the last civ on your continent and you already have a cultural and tech lead. The actual, initial, planned conquest/domination victory state of mind ends at the point when you start winning.
Take for example the COTM Games, lets sey the hittite one (COTM1). You had no horses, the Arabs had it. You destroyed the arabs and grabbed horses. Now you have knights. One of the two remaining civs on your continent is lacking iron (pretty hampering at medieval warfare). Quickly after you squash one and then the other civ. Now you rule the whole continent. But many turns before you actually conquered the continent, you already knew that you won. Even if the other continent has 4 decent-sized civs.
But, if you would took the arab horses town, sue for peace and suddenly start building up libraries and temples and catherdrals and proclaim "I'm peaceful now" - you lost. Not because it is not a good thing to do, but because many other civs already have the culture lead you cannot *ever* beat (not to mention the 1000-year doubling of culture value).

Drakan said:
-"Of War profit and cost": "The point of war is, of course, profit. Not loss"
Perhaps I am looking for no profit whatsoever. I started a War yesterday on Deity with huge casualties on my behalf only because I wanted/needed a MGL. Is that the profit you refer to? It is not always clear when you start a War (specially the higher you go up the echelon of difficulty) that you will have the upper hand when provoking it. In my game yesterday I was completely outnumbered by the AI and was actually overrun by it, albeit the outcome of it was a MGL which is essential to start off a War Academy and Heroic Epic and eventually winning the game.
Yes, getting a MGL counts as profit (it can be a reason for war) that fill's the Army's needs (even in a small way it affects the Nation since it gets some CPT from military academy and heroic epic). Actually, I count the CIV3 Army as a strategic resource available only to human players.
If it is not clear why the war was started, hm, be sure that the opponent need something you have (tech, resource, territory). Again it is the imperative that you suffer the circumstances and grab the edge. Grabbing the edge includes finding a goal when there is none (from both sides). By designating a goal, you force your opponent to suffer from consequences.

Drakan said:
P.S. Judging by the way you write and the date you joined us (6th of june), are you a Military in RL?

Oh, and I'm not RL military, alhough i am learned in all things military, but that was a part of my general education and personal interest.
And about my join date... well... I played CIV like mad (it took ages to load on Amiga 500), CIV2 like mad... civ3... then a long period of nothing... then CIV3:Conquests for the last 3 months.

TY for the compliment, though :)
-bibor
 
Bibor, I guess I didn't explain myself properly. I almost never start wars because of the rep hit. I always find some sneaky way of making the AI mad at me and making it the aggressor and being the one that first declares war on me without undertaking any rep hit whatsoever (rep hit= adiós trading deals in exchange of gpt). As a matter of fact I then sign alliances against the "Evil Empire".I will have planned ahead for this moment and then crush it.
Regarding the date I meant if you had chosen the 6th of june to join us as a D-Day landing memorial of some kind, I guess not.
"I count the CIV3 Army as a strategic resource available only to human players" that is just so true now with C3C. It's a shame , I hope they fix that in civ4 and allow the AI to both attack healed Armies in the open aswell as making them.
I look forward to seeing more Articles of yours Bibor posted in the strat Forum. Keep it up!
 
Drakan said:
Regarding the date I meant if you had chosen the 6th of june to join us as a D-Day landing memorial of some kind, I guess not.

No, no, its horrible. I have huge problems with remembering dates. Actually the only three dates i can remember if you wake me up in 4 AM is my birthday, my younger brother's birthday and the fall of western roman empire 476 :lol:
j/k of course, but actually its not far from truth. I get :hammer: from my GF everytime becuase i forget about an anniversary/birthday. :eek:

-bibor
 
A very interesting article Bibor. Your point of an army for defence raises a questions with me and I was hoping you could clarify.

You mention that the militia is not part of the army of defence. The article mentions that under republic/demo one should do away with the militia as they soak up much needed maintainence money. So do you mean that the majority if not all of your cities should have no militia type units in them? Instead deploy a defensive army/armies in strategic locations throughout your empire? I guess I'm having a hard time accepting having no defense units in a city if that is what you're implying. Would you elaborate more on this theory? I would be very interested in hearing more.


Thanks
 
Very thought provoking. I like the discipline that thinking of the seperations you've made will bring (nation/army for attack & defending cities/resources and destroy enemy army for defence).

It makes me wonder about an invasion I have going on in a PbEM game - probably too rash and thoughtless, but then I am with my back against a wall with very few options.

On your point for defensive layout there are some good tactical reasons to do with the game rules for not basing your units in cities. One is that the AI doesn't seem to think about your mobility when deciding which target to attack next and second it means that human opponents have a much harder time finding points of ingress to your empire if they can't see what they're up agains - no use in doing a cheap city view.
 
While I disagree with some of the fine points (20 turn wars, war profit required, domination/conquest focus), I think the general points about splitting nation and army are very well thought out and a problem many people have difficulties with. I especially like the discussion on militia.

To answer Major Jerjerrod's question, in my own way (e.g. may or may not be what Bibor had in mind).... Defensive units in cities that can't be attacked are a waste. They serve no real purpose, unless they're part of a response force to reach a number of different locations quickly and it just happens to be in a city. Defensive units in a border city are an element of ARMY. Yes, they really only protect the square they're in, but it's an important enough square to dedicate an entire unit or two or three or more to protect.

My typical Republic army consists of 1-3 defensive units in most border cities, with more in very key cities (chokes, opens to the core, has a wonder, strategic resource, etc.). A border city, in my definition, is a city that can be reached from enemy territory in one turn. [Note: Coastal cities are border cities iff the vikings have 'zerks and/or marines have been discovered.] Nearly all other cities are completely empty. The majority of my force is fast units placed at locations to cover as much ground as possible. Artillery units are usually back behind border cities, where they can reach as many locations as possible at once.

Offensive posture is, of course, different, but that's my general defensive/standard position. I can often run with less than one defensive unit/city on average across my empire. I think/hope that's similar to what Bibor is proposing. All units in representative govts. are army -- none are militia to just stand around for millenia.

Arathorn
 
First of all, Thank you Bibor for the great article!!!! :thumbsup:
it is well written and fun to read


...and second
Drakan said:
I almost never start wars because of the rep hit. I always find some sneaky way of making the AI mad at me and making it the aggressor and being the one that first declares war on me without undertaking any rep hit whatsoever (rep hit= adiós trading deals in exchange of gpt). As a matter of fact I then sign alliances against the "Evil Empire".I will have planned ahead for this moment and then crush it.

I strongly disagree, You don't have to get a rep hit when you start a way.. It all depends on how you start it... if you enter enemy's territory and start war by attacking him then yes it will involve rep hit as you just sneak attacked him.
The proper way to start war and not have a rep hit is by simply have an audience with AI leader and switch to the active agreement links and then re-negotiate peace. Actually instead if re-negotiating it for next 20 turns simply cancel it and you will be officially at war and no rep hit. Just make sure you don't have your units on his territory at this point.
I always do that and never had problems with my reputation.
 
Very good written article Bibor, it realy offers some food for thought.

I fully agree with you one the aspect of setting clear aims, and maintaining the focus for those during the war. The strongest arguments for your thesis are in my opinion the US involvement in the Vietnam war where the aims were obscured and Operation Desert Storm, where clear aims were set.

On your notion of "militia" units and the "field army" I'dd like to comment that I use a similar system. I normaly only defend my cities with a minimum number of troops, barely enough to hold out until my field army arrives on the scene. Then using manouvre and concentrated firepower you can take on the invading forces from a situation of your choosing.

With your theories of splitting your army to achieve different goals and taking on the strongest threat first I must respectfully disagree. I find the classic paradigm of "concentration of force" and the "indirect approach" the most succesfull way to wage a war. This applies both in the cost to my forces, and to swiftly establish a strategic domination over the foe.

However it maybe, I realy like your analytical approach to the aspects of waging war!

Regards,
 
Top Bottom