Cheap tactic to destroy a runaway?

[shl7070]

Recently I had to face a runaway civ who had sole possession of it's continent. It was somewhat more advanced and had twice the units and more cities (75 against 60) but there was a tactic even in this case:

1) I fought with smaller opponents to generate MGLs.
2) Created and landed 9 cav armies.
3) The armies were split in two stacks which razed cities.
4) Once only the core remained the stacks were combined and artillery were landed and rushed to the front using former enemy rails.
5) Core cities razed and conquest VC achieved.

Two armies created after the initial landfall hunted down all resettlement attempts.
The war lasted about 100 turns, 400+ enemy units defeated, 1 cav army lost and thus 35 units dismantled a huge AI empire at puny cost.
Is this a good tactic?

 

[nvm]

Well, your opponent must have been totally dumb to have railroads and more units and yet lose. Whoever was your opponent, whether it is player, or AI I am not sure it is a good tactic.

 

[del62]

The AI doesnt attack armies outside of cities unless they have reduced hitpoints, so it is an effective tactic

 

[ThinkTank]

The AI doesnt attack armies outside of cities unless they have reduced hitpoints, so it is an effective tactic

Correct. You can also use this fact to land some cav armies way before your great invasion, and pillage every improvement there is, preferably starting in the core, and typically disconnecting all roads surrounding the capitol first.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

Well, your opponent must have been totally dumb to have railroads and more units and yet lose. Whoever was your opponent, whether it is player, or AI I am not sure it is a good tactic.

I guess I'm at a loss here. How can you say a victory against supperior numbers is a bad tactic. Of course he was playing against the AI, and the AI is notoriously stupid. Who doesn't take advantage of AI stupidity in every game?

I like taking a game well into the modern age and often leave an AI Civ alone for the challenge of it. Your stategy and tactics have to be well developed to succeed.

 

[Raliuven]

Correct. You can also use this fact to land some cav armies way before your great invasion, and pillage every improvement there is, preferably starting in the core, and typically disconnecting all roads surrounding the capitol first.

I agree with the sentiment behind this. I understand that at higher levels, armies are probably the only way to win. I'm okay with that to an extent; after all, the AI is receiving a huge production bonus. But I don't think this can really be called a tactic. It is more like an exploit, particularly if you are using a Funnel of Doom or other such device. That, IMO, is definitely an exploit. Does it work? Sure. Is it honorable? Does honor matter? Well, that is up to the individual player to decide, unless there are formal rules/agreements. Why is one thing okay and not another? Preference in game play.

I think it is an accepted doctrine that you establish your beachhead with an army and build from there. If you can seal your beachhead with armies and drive the enemy to approach from that unimproved desert tile, that's perfect.

We exploit the AI's stupidity just by being human. Once you understand how the AI is programmed, you will eventually win. If you know the AI will always move to the right, then always move to the left.

 

[ThinkTank]

It is more like an exploit, particularly if you are using a Funnel of Doom or other such device. That, IMO, is definitely an exploit. Does it work? Sure. Is it honorable? Does honor matter?

The AI will not attack full health armies - this is a fact of the game that you can use or not. If you do decide to use it, then the Funnel of Doom is nothing less than a brilliant application of it, which will enable you to kill hundreds of units in 1 turn - no other known game strategy besides nukes will enable you to do that on deity or sid.

In my sentiment, honor does not enter the picture - the AI will not return the favour. That you choose a certain style of play and stick to that is fine. But do not mistake a computer program for something you should take a moral stand to.

 

[shl7070]

I see, The tactic is good but not honourable and exploitive but sometimes there is no choise.
In this example the level was regent but my start was bad. No bonuses, surrounded by dangerous and agressive AI civs: Egyptians,Iroquis, Chinese. I had to fight on many fronts as they ganged up. The runaway- Persia had a large continent without any rivals. They extorted me for techs then attacked. I cound't commit huge military overseas and my navy was inferior so that "exploit" was the only choise and it worked

 

[Raliuven]

Well, the point I was really trying to make is that each player will decide if it is honorable for their game play. I don't disagree with ThinkTank I'm not attacking the Funnel of Doom either. It is a brilliant strategy. Would I use it? Sure, for a particular goal. If I was trying for a HOF game - which I might do at some point in this life - it is a valid and legal tactic. Would I use it in my personal game? Probably not, although I may change my mind if I ever face a Sid level game.

I do use armies and I exploit the "AI fear of flags". However, I do not use them to run around pillaging all the roads around a city or to cut off all of a Civ's resources. I will use them to pillage roads and resources that the bulk of my army can already reach, I consider this fair game.

I am not looking for love from the computer. But I think most players will says "I will do this, but I won't do that because it is TOO exploitive". I don't play conquest, only PTW. If I follow the 'anything goes' rule, why not always move my palace to a remote island? That will ensure victory. I choose not to do it because I don't feel it is in the spirit of the game. Yet I will move my palace to a better place to develop a second core, and some players would say that is an exploit and dishonorable.

To sum it all up - there is a lot of gray area here. Unless it is expressly forbidden in a competition game, then the only thing holding you back is your preference. There is no right or wrong. It is a game. Play it for fun.

 

[CommandoBob]

The war lasted about 100 turns

Wow. A 100 turn war is not a cheap matter at all. Well done!

 

[zerksees]

Nothing wrong with this tactic. Sounds like you need to move up a level

The AI will not attack full health armies - this is a fact of the game

This is not exactly correct. The AI will not attack a unit if it has less than a 5% chance of winning. (maybe it's 10% but there is a set percentage)

Furthermore if you put the armies in the city this rule is bypassed and it will attack anyway.

 

[ThinkTank]

The AI will not attack full health armies - this is a fact of the game that you can use or not.

This is not exactly correct. The AI will not attack a unit if it has less than a 5% chance of winning. (maybe it's 10% but there is a set percentage)

Furthermore if you put the armies in the city this rule is bypassed and it will attack anyway.

You're right, I was being too sketchy.

 

[shl7070]

Nothing wrong with this tactic. Sounds like you need to move up a level



This is not exactly correct. The AI will not attack a unit if it has less than a 5% chance of winning. (maybe it's 10% but there is a set percentage)

Furthermore if you put the armies in the city this rule is bypassed and it will attack anyway.

The correct percent is 20%, I'd tested this and yhe combat calculator says it's 20%.

 

[EvilConqueror]

The tactic works well until the AI gets bombers. Then, they'll reduce and attack your armies.

 

[Bartleby]

...


This is not exactly correct. The AI will not attack a unit if it has less than a 5% chance of winning. (maybe it's 10% but there is a set percentage)

Furthermore if you put the armies in the city this rule is bypassed and it will attack anyway.

In addition, if you let the AI patrol (set NoAIPatrol=0 for C3C or don't set NoAIPatrol=1 for PTW/Civ3) then the AI might "accidentally" bump into an Army in their territory; if this happens a few times the army may become weakened enough to be a valid target.
They will also bombard and/or bomb armies.

 

[CommandoBob]

They will also bombard and/or bomb armies.

And even though the AI navy is lousy, their Frigates will fixate on a location and pound away at it. One or two Frigates is not bad, but 15 or 20 can redline an Army if it is on the coast. Depending on the AI order in the IBT, that Army could be attacked by another AI and killed.

And I haven't figured out how the AI determines where it bombards things.

 

[rysingsun]

regarding the armies-being-attacked thing my experience is as follows: if the defender has twice the defense compared to the attacker's attack then the attacker leaves him alone.

Example: A 4-defense veteran unit unfortified on a mountain will not be attacked by any 4-attack veteran, but he will be attacked by a 4-attack elite.

Example: An army of 3 cavalry elites on a hill unfortified has (usually) the equivalent of a 13.5-defense (3x3x1.5) single elite and will not be attacked by anything with 6 or less attack points. This makes him safe until tanks or bombers in most games.

So I and others have invaded islands before with stacks hidden under a single rather nervous elite musketeer (on a mountain), where the poor defender had no saltpeter to make cavalry.

Once you get Pentagon and MA the army defense goes through the roof and most any army will hold the line against anything, giving the false impression that armies will never get attacked. But try it with an army of longbows and you may not like what you see

These are my experiences. I may have misinterpreted what I saw. Comments and rebuttals are welcome

 

[Raliuven]

Recently (in PTW) I had a 10/13 army of 3 cavalry on a grassland tile next to the coast. He was in the green so I thought it was okay. Along came 10 frigates and 2 ironclads and they put him in the yellow (~7/13). The AI followed up with 1 veteran cavalry and killed the army.

Grrrrr. Never seen that before. I put the army there to protect & block the terrain. I've had armies that weathered occasional attacks by navy before and they rarely seemed to be affected. But the combination of a weakened army and naval bombardment resulted in a reenactment of the Battle of Little Bighorn. Luckily I had a rearguard echelon in the area/cities behind the line of advancing armies and it held up the rest of the incoming AI attack.

I buried the bodies of the dead next to 3 razed enemy cities and several turns later sacked the city where the navy was at rest. Very satisfying.