Bibor
Doomsday Machine
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;
** 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;