Attacking other Civs, was it meant to be this hard?

[Renata]

I know many players do this and it's not technically cheating, but I can't bring myself to doing that. It just seems so fake and artificial to me, like a big reminder that "You are playing a game" I mean, I know this is a game of course but in real life no one can give you an exact breakdown of what the percentages are. Particularly in the pre-modern era.(For a good analogy: think of being a tourist in a foreign country, most people, even though they are tourists don't want to wear a big sign on their head saying "TOURIST HERE" but would rather mix in with the locals as best they can. Same logic applies here.) I try to play the game as realistic as I can, even if that means missing out on some of the perks.

Well, do it enough times to get a feel for how different promotions and abilities work, as well as how defense bonuses are factored in. Without that, you're just asking for frustration. The odds are rarely intuitive, *especially* if you're coming from a CivII/CivIII background.

 

[Yzen Danek]

The main reason catapults are such a bargain is that you really want to keep your veteran units and keep upgrading them. In order to do this, something has to be expendable, and what better than a unit that does collateral damage?

I also always have two groups of catapults attacking; the expendable ones, and the ones that I intend to continue promoting. The ones I'm going to expend all get barrage promotions, and the ones I'm going to try to keep all get city attacker promotions to maximize their chance at surviving.

I generally try not to use veteran units until their combat odds are 85% or better. Luckily, with enough promotions, 85% gets easier and easier to hit.

Losing the expendables is actually quite beneficial. Once they're gone, you don't have to pay for them, and they pave the way for getting a smaller number of units to high levels, which in turn allows you to be effective with a smaller army.

 

[Yzen Danek]

I know many players do this and it's not technically cheating, but I can't bring myself to doing that. It just seems so fake and artificial to me, like a big reminder that "You are playing a game" I mean, I know this is a game of course but in real life no one can give you an exact breakdown of what the percentages are. Particularly in the pre-modern era.(For a good analogy: think of being a tourist in a foreign country, most people, even though they are tourists don't want to wear a big sign on their head saying "TOURIST HERE" but would rather mix in with the locals as best they can. Same logic applies here.) I try to play the game as realistic as I can, even if that means missing out on some of the perks.

The odds don't tell you anything you didn't already know, they just save the time you would have spent doing those calculations the old-fashioned way.

 

[warpstorm]

One other tip is to give your cats City Raider promotions. It increases their damage and survivablility.

 

[Nakar]

One other tip is to give your cats City Raider promotions. It increases their damage and survivablility.

City Raider is probably the most important ability you can give cats. Understand that Accuracy is MEANINGLESS. You should have sufficient cats/cannons/arty to put even an 80-100%+ city down to 0% with siege weapons left to spare in a single turn, but if not, just WAIT ONE TURN. Odds are your opponent isn't going anywhere, and if you've picked good terrain (and have guys promoted with Guerilla or the forest/jungle promotion, or just good defense in general) you don't have to worry about a counterattack; if anything, the enemy coming to attack you from the city is a victory for you, not them (sadly, the AI is aware of this and will peck at you with cats and mounted units rather than attack you with archers).

Someone said 50/50 is a good ratio of ground troops to siege. I think 40/60 or 25/75 is better. Yes, I'm serious. Don't look at siege weapons as a "wasted investment" that die too easily. They're supposed to die on the attack, but it's worth it. Collateral damage is incredibly important, as is bombardment. Before guns, I generally use City Raider 1/2 catapults to whittle down the city defense modifier and sacrifice a couple for collateral, then send in the swords and axes while axes and spears guard the cat stack. After guns, my soldiers exist solely to protect the cannons; I've been known to take cities with siege weaponry more often than not. I'm dead serious: Siege is everything when it comes to minimizing losses. I've been known to lose 2-4 infantry over the course of entire games strictly because they almost always defend rather than attack. Just make sure you have enough in terms of ground to protect your stacks and garrison your conquests while the stack rolls on.

Siege is cheap (relatively speaking), it can get fantastic promotions (City Raider II and the first bombardment promotion or CR III), and it always does collateral damage, even when it loses a grossly one-sided battle. A couple catapults may lose with seemingly no effect, but when the entire enemy garrison stack is down to 2.0 or worse and your swordsmen are wiping the floor with them, it's well worth the investment. I can accept a couple siege units dying 100% to ensure 99% odds when the rest of the troops engage.

Incidentally, tanks should definitely get at least one rank of the bombard promotion when built late-game. The ability to dish collateral damage cannot be understated, and tanks withdraw well too.

 

[Wodan]

The main reason catapults are such a bargain is that you really want to keep your veteran units and keep upgrading them. In order to do this, something has to be expendable, and what better than a unit that does collateral damage?

Excellent point. Your cats make all the defending units weaker, which means your combat-proven army will win almost all of the skirmishes, increasing their experience.

Without this mechanism, you would lose half your units or more each time you took a city, regardless of experience. Hardly any units at all would survive to have any sort of XP at all.

Wodan

 

[The Q-Meister]

Well, do it enough times to get a feel for how different promotions and abilities work, as well as how defense bonuses are factored in. Without that, you're just asking for frustration. The odds are rarely intuitive, *especially* if you're coming from a CivII/CivIII background.

I come from a Civ II/Civ III background and you're right; the odds are rarely intuitive and there have been many a battle I lost that I fully expected to win. I learn by trial and error - which is exactly what many generals and commanders had to do to figure out what works and what tactic is effective. I would much rather prefer to find things out "the hard way" than just learning by what the numbers on a screen tell me. But hey, to each his own.

 

[TheNiceOne]

So the question becomes: does the cat, on average, do more damage to the defending units than one attacking unit would (presuming both are going to die in the process)? Not obvious to me that they do, at least in some situations. I've had plenty of cases where the cat yields only a small amount of damage to 1 or 2 units.

It seems from your post that you have overlooked the cats' main use in the game. Their main use is not to attack the enemy, but to bombard the city defense. A city with some culture may give the defenders 60-80% additional city defense bonus. By bombarding the city (and not attacking it), each cat reduces this defense a bit. Bombard until the city defense reaches 0, and then your other units can attack the city with a much higher success rate.

 

[Scoojitsu]

If I want my cats to cause collateral damage, do I just send them in, in a normal attack?

 

[TheNiceOne]

If I want my cats to cause collateral damage, do I just send them in, in a normal attack?

Yes, and the result is some collateral damage, and most likely an eliminated cat.

It is still often worth it to use such suicide cats, because the damagae made to the defenders may save a few of your other units when they attack.

 

[Nakar]

Yes, and the result is some collateral damage, and most likely an eliminated cat.

It is still often worth it to use such suicide cats, because the damagae made to the defenders may save a few of your other units when they attack.

Such as your other cats. And now you understand why I love siege weapons. After one or two suicide cats, you'd be hard-pressed to LOSE with any other units.

 

[Bobolini]

Very impotant tip that nobody has brought out, BUILD BARRACKS in as much cities as you can afford to.! I build a barracks as soon as it's feasible in all my cities. I love to have veterans right off the bat.

 

[warpstorm]

Very impotant tip that nobody has brought out, BUILD BARRACKS in as much cities as you can afford to.! I build a barracks as soon as it's feasible in all my cities. I love to have veterans right off the bat.

And use that first promotion on your cats to be a City Raider.

 

[SlipperyJim]

Yes, attacking other civs was meant to be hard. Don't lose hope, though ... because it's just as hard for the badguys to take your cities! Still, if you follow the advice about bombardment to reduce defenses, you should do alright.

Another note: Don't think that your lovely Keshiks need to spend all of their time waiting for the artillery to arrive! Pillage, pillage, pillage! If you're looting all of his terrain improvements, he'll fall further and further behind you in production and research. In the long-term, your victory will be assured. As an added benefit, pillaging can bring some nice gold into your treasury, especially pillaging cottages.

 

[SewerStarFish]

I am also not enjoying the early combat. I've played a lot of and civII, and while expect(and hope for) a learning curve -- it is much harder to take a city. Fair enough; unlearning is frustrating.