1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Be the defender

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by pillium, Nov 23, 2001.

  1. Aabraxan

    Aabraxan Mid-level Micromanager

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    5,106
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Blackfiend, I was not trying to be rude or snotty. I simply didn't know where you got the 640 and 1920 numbers. There are a great many players whose understanding of this game is far more advanced than my own. That said, I think that your numbers are correct, if you cash-rushed all 3 cavalry with 0 shields in the bin. The numbers may be correct, but they are also the maximum value that you could pay for cash-rushing those units. I don't think many players rush without putting at least 1 shield in the bin, either by disbanding, or perhaps even by short-rushing something smaller.

    I would also comment on this sentence:
    There's a solid argument that cavalry has a higher return on investment than many improvements. Also, if the cavalry is built over time, those turns do not represent gold that could have gone towards a wealth-generating improvement. If the cavalry is built over time, the citizens generating the shields are usually doing double-duty generating gold at the same time. (I would agree with you that shields spent on military units are necessarily being diverted from city improvements, though.)

    The question, though, is whether that diversion is worth it. A marketplace, for example, generates gpt and happiness. In some cities, it's an excellent investment of time and shields. But it never goes out and captures cities, kills AI units, captures new luxes, or forces the AI to give you potloads of gold in return for peace. (Granted, markets don't die in battle, either.) So it's not like cavalry (or other military units) don't bring any value into the empire. You only lose the full 1920 gold if: (1) you cash-rushed all 3 cavalry; (2) starting with 0 shields in the bin; and (3) all 3 die in battle without ever accomplishing anything. If they capture a city or even a few workers each, your empire has gained some value to be weighed against their loss when they eventually die.
     
  2. Snarkhunter

    Snarkhunter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Annapolis
    I think it is about the normal amount of "slop" in the pipeline, so to speak. Adjusting to its hypothetical loss would be a terribly minor annoyance. Adjusting to the hypothetical loss from any of our 4 major foreign sources would be considerably tougher to deal with. If you have to worry about one or the other, you certainly would focus on the main sources & forget about the trivial ones.

    Certainly, no question about the prodigious amount we consume. And clearly, the time will come when the world supply is so tight that even a 3% loss will be severely disruptive, instead of merely causing market oscillations. But that time is not now.
     
  3. anaxagoras

    anaxagoras Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    961
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    I think that's an optimistic view, but YMMV. In any case, your original statement was, "[C]urrently we don't get any oil from Iraq...." You continued: "Virtually none of our oil comes from the mideast in any form." Both of those statements are manifestly untrue. 2.8% of consumption is more than "not any" and 12% of consumption is not the same as "virtually none."

    You then tried to bolster your argument by holding out Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria as the most important suppliers of U.S. oil imports. Well, 2 out of 4 ain't bad. In fact, only Canada and Mexico, which are geographically connected to the U.S. and can transport oil via direct pipeline, are more important single suppliers than the Saudis.

    And while we're on the subject of fact correction, I'd like to correct an error I made. I said we import about a supertanker a day from Iraq. Well, that would have been true in the 1950s, but supertankers have gotten a bit bigger since then. In fact, a typical supertanker in the modern era holds 2 million barrels or more (some as much as 3.2 million barrels). So Iraq's half a million barrels per day only accounts for a ship or two per week. But the half million barrels part is correct.

    I can't argue with that. Of course, the Persian Gulf region as a whole (which I take to be roughly equivalent to the word "mideast" in your post) supplies essentially the same total quantity as Cananda. So if Canada, as our number one external supplier, is a supplier worth "worrying" about, I'd suggest we should apply equal worry to the mideast. The mideast as a whole, and even just Saudi Arabia, certainly cannot be regarded as a "trivial" supplier, whatever you feel about Iraq on its own.

    And just to bring this entire thread back on topic, none of it really matters for game purposes. In the game, one connected resource tile meets all of your needs. It isn't realistic, but since everyone already knows that, we just chalk it up to being part of the game. If this were a serious simulation, this line of debate might actually affect our level of Civ enjoyment.

    As it is, these issues are only important in real life.
     
  4. D0NIMATRIX

    D0NIMATRIX Full of drivel

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,663
    Location:
    Political incorrectness
    How strange, at the start everyone was wailing on DrMadd for bumping up a 6 year old thread, and then FOUR more pages are added:lol:! But ALWAYS attack, try never to defend. Like the military advisor tells you to.
     
  5. Soaring Tiger

    Soaring Tiger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    New Jersey
    I propose that everyone simply build spearman armies. Oh, and no walls. Oh, no, no walls. And certainly no tanks or cavalry.


    (Just joking ;)
     
  6. JoshuaZ

    JoshuaZ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3
    Actually, in the real world, it is a truth that attacker will lose much more than the defender.

    So,if I do not have enough army, I just do not try to seige enemy city.I just use some knights to plunder the town of the enemy and because of the high move point of them, it is impossible for the enemy to kill them.

    In your case, I think it is not a good strategy to fight with the enemy's spearman in the city with your knight, because the city will add some extra defence point to the defenders .And the spearman was just used to fight with knights, when kinghts attack the spearman, some extra hurt points will be made by the spearman.

    civilization is a game which has strong relation with the real world, in the real war, spearman is good at fighting with knights.
     
  7. D0NIMATRIX

    D0NIMATRIX Full of drivel

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,663
    Location:
    Political incorrectness
    Yes, but as I said somewhere previously, Civ3 doesn't have those concepts.
     
  8. Lord_Megahertz

    Lord_Megahertz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Canton, South Dakota
    I have noticed in one game as the Iroquois, that a group of 5 MW have died against a warrior on plains, not fortified. Things like this happen all the time. On another occasion, I had about 30 cannons bomb a city, only hitting a few times. The next turn, nearly all my cannons hit.
     
  9. pol1

    pol1 kayaking physicist

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    Koszalin, Poland
    while unusual, the chance for this to happen is >0 ==> so it is possible.
     
  10. D0NIMATRIX

    D0NIMATRIX Full of drivel

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,663
    Location:
    Political incorrectness
    Typical Civ3.
    On one occasion I was attacked by an AI stack of doom of like 40 med. infantry and longbowmen (most of them regular, 3 or 4 vet) against three veteran pikemen on a hill. Every single guy in the stack died. All in all, my pikemen lost 2 hp. Lucky me.
    Next turn my two musketmen get killed by some barbarians.:lol: :confused:
     
  11. bustedsynapses

    bustedsynapses Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Auburn, WA (Near Seattle)
    Okay, I read through all the replies in this thread, and I want to comment on a couple.

    First, Russia has indeed had its tail whupped many times. The Poles conquered much of Russia. The Turks beat on them, until General Suvorov came along. They fared poorly against the French in the late 1790's, again until Suvorov came along. Nappy whipped them at Austerlitz, and drove them back out of Austria. Later, after beatin' the bejeezus out of the Prussians, they also beat the Russian/Prussian army at Eylau, thus forcing the treaty of Tilsit upon Russia. Russia was forced to forgo trade with Britain, and was technically an ally of France. Germany defeated Russia utterly in WWI. Russia submitted, then went into complete civil disorder, actually splitting into two, a la CivII.

    France lost to Russia in 1812 because of the weather. Nappy started the campaign late, because he wanted the wheat and such to be ripening in the fields, so his horses could readily forage, but there was an extra 3 week period of wet weather, which meant that forage was scarce. The supply problem for his horses (and men) wasn't alleviated until August. Russia and France fought a battle near Smolensk, in which the Poles made some serious tactical mistakes and sufferd high losses, due to the overexuberance of their commander, Ponyatovski. Then they fought at Borodino in early September. Nappy chose the wrong tactical approach. He and Davout argued about it beforehand. Davout recommended a flanking move, but Nappy chose a direct assault. Davout was right, and Nappy never used him afterwards in any crucial role. His absence at Quatre Bras and Waterloo led directly to Nappy's ultimate defeat. Nappy went into Russia with 650k men, not 800k. About 100k of these were Prussians and Austrians, who actually added nothing to the attack, as they functioned merely as show forces. The French got out with 60k men, not 10k. They didn't really take tremendous losses getting out. It was merely the terribleness of the suffering. They lost far more going in, as desertion and other attrition wore them down far more than the enemy ever did.

    In WWII, Germany came very, very close to taking the whole ball of wax. Strategic blunders, especially economically, and the effect of all their private empires defeated them.

    So, what does this mean in Civ terms? First, yes, Russia is huge, but it is incredibly underdeveloped. It is why these littler civs have been able to wail on them, especially when the Russians ventured outside their own borders. When invaded, the lack of roads and infrastructure made the captured cities worthless. You couldn't just take the cities and roll on down to the new border. Further, the lack of city improvements means resistance, unrest, and flipping are greater threats, slowing the attacker. The new cities don't integrate well into the conquering culture. By the time the attacker gets deep into Russia, he's a long way from his reinforcements, and much of his invading force is tied up in partisan warfare (city garrisons to keep 'em content). The lack of decent road means it is easy to interfere with the arrival of said reinforcements. Further, the Cossacks, with their speed, become deadly in this environment. This was true in Napoleonic times, as well as WWII. Read any German's account of the Eastern Front, and you will see his deep concern when talking about the way the Russians used this anachronistic force. However, once out of Russia, and into road-rich environments, the Cossacks become far less effective, as it lost its speed advantage in enemy territory.

    Now, factor in the government types the Russians. In Napoleonic times, the Russians used a Feudal government, with all that entails. In WWI, they were a Monarchy, but Monarchies don't work well in huge civs. Russia was actually defeated by war-weariness. They were literally rioting throughout the kingdom, so they sued for peace, changed governments, went into anarchy, became communist, and fought a civil war. The lost territory eventually became a renascent Poland after the defeat of Germany. In WWII, they were, of course, Communist, with all that that entails: huge garrisons, not much infrastructure that is useful to an attacker. Same result in WWII as in Napoleonic times. So, size is important, but so is efficiency. Communism allowed the Russians to be somewhat efficient, without having the infrastucture of a modern state. The fascists were more inefficient, but Germany was enjoying a Golden Age. Italy was merely pathetic, as it was inefficient and long past its GA. The minor allies were all small Monarchies, and tech-backwards. The Western Allies were wealthy democracies which enjoyed War Happiness. With their unlimited resources, they bombed Japan into submission, turning Japan into "a nation without cities". They built massive navies, and slews of bombers. The ground forces were relatively limited. The US took a "90-division gamble", deciding to concentrate on other branches, and tech research. The UK had about another 20 divisions, choosing the same emphasis. Compare those numbers to Germany, which mobilized some 250 divisions, 50 of them armored. Now try Russia, with 400+ divisions, with a little lower ratio of armored forces. The democracies chose to buy all the really expensive things, like Bombers, Battleships, Carriers, Atomic Bombs, and rushing city improvements.

    In the end, Russia came out the big winner, because of Roosevelt's foreign affairs incompetence. He just couldn't understand that Russians don't understand noblesse oblige, and he sold Eastern Europe down the river at yalta in Feb '45. However, the Russian communist empire eventually collapsed, due to lack of infrastructue. They did a completely AI thing, and built military until it couldn't afford anymore, and lost their gains due to culture flip.

    So, bigger is better, but strategy plays a big part, too. Now, Russia is much reduced, and suffers all kinds of unhappiness. The U.S. is the dominant player in the game, right now. China and India are merely distant seconds, only in the running because of their huge populaces. The Euros are reduced to just a few cities each.
     
  12. D0NIMATRIX

    D0NIMATRIX Full of drivel

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,663
    Location:
    Political incorrectness
    I could argue that bigger is not necessarily better, and use the age-old tactics of judo (use a big guy's size against him) to defeat the big guy. The little guy could use rapid hammering techniques to force the big guy to lug an army around everywhere, and creating a logistical nightmare for him. The dense little guy could mobilize a force to respond to any given threat very fast, and counter it. The big guy would deal with long supply lines and slow and inefficient communications, while the densely packed little guy would know exactly what was going on and where. Even in Civ3 this concept is noticeable, if not a major part. While unit support makes big better, you also have to use that very same support very effectively to strike back at threats thousands of miles away, except after Rails, when it doesn't matter much. But even then, the attacker could pillage the rails and cut off trade, making the unconnected cities angry for lack of luxuries, and if you invade with sufficiently powerful defenders, you can hold chokepoints very well, and force the big guy to move all his troops all the time to dispatch annoying pillagers. Then, when his forces are all near one area, you can sneak in guys somewhere else and annoy the big guy to no end, and eventually his troops will be spread-out enough to be able to take on.
     
  13. civverguy

    civverguy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    quiet suburb
    Interesting how there are more posts after the bump than before the bump.
     
  14. D0NIMATRIX

    D0NIMATRIX Full of drivel

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,663
    Location:
    Political incorrectness
    Yeah, it's funny how people just have the urge to post stuff, it's like a requirement, and I just did it again here:lol: .
     

Share This Page