Build City just to reach enemy with Battleship...

[C1v1l1z@t10n]

As some might know I'm a Battleship freak/lover and see that unit as the key to victory in many games.

How many have done the tactic to move in settlers to enemies land just to build them next to target enemy city from coast to the city so you can force in a Battleship and attach the city you normally cannot reach from the coast?

I don't always do that in my games but if I see a capital is 1 or 2 squares from the coast I sometimes do it... and also throwing in the battleship into the city gives a good first defense if I'm in war with the "enemy"

 

[Whelkman]

Closest I've done to that is to build a "Suez Canal" with several cities in a row on a narrow strip of land with ocean on both sides.

 

[GibsonS]

Do you leave the cities there once created, or dissolve them after capturing the enemy city?

I quite often put cities on single-square stretches of land to act as a canal; most often a Panama Canal when playing on Earth, but have never done a multi-city canal.
I find the 'canal' is most effective when you have a large land-locked sea - plenty of scope for building coastal cities, but need an exit route for all the battleships!

 

[Whelkman]

I abandoned the canal tactic once I discovered the sentry-move trick with Transports, but when I did use it the priority was long term sea movement rather than attacking a specific military target. Of course, continually saving 5-10 turns to circumnavigation quite assisted any given military endeavor.

 

[michaelsander]

Diddo on making the suez canal, I've never tried the sentry-move trick with transports. Will it work with versions 4, 5, and newer?

 

[Whelkman]

I've never tried the sentry-move trick with transports. Will it work with versions 4, 5, and newer?

It will.

 

[Valen]

If you want a healthy city after capturing it, it depends on whether it has walls or not. If it doesn't have walls, attacking with a battleship is better because the city does not lose population every time it loses a battle.
If it does have walls, you are better off with bomber or artillery. They ignore the triple defense of the walls (and battleships are very expensive to lose to a musketeer behind walls).

 

[jpciv]

Speaking of trying to keep captured cities healthy...

Is there a pattern as to how much damage the existing city improvements (granary, marketplace, etc) take during military bombardment and invasion?

Does it make a difference if you bombard from air/land/sea? If the city has/hasn't walls? If you invade with armor/phalanx/settler/etc?

 

[Valen]

I get the impression that it does not matter. A city loses about half of its improvements when it changes hands - not while you are bombarding it.

Does anyone have any idea whether "Incite riot" versus "Subvert" may preserve improvements?

 

[jpciv]

I don't think so - from what I can tell all it does is "not" break the peace treaty. I haven't seen any difference in which improvements you get to keep.