Combat Strategy ??? Tips and Advice!

[Colonel Kraken]

I think so, but I might be a bit biased given my recent migration towards building bombers/stealth over artillery. Keep in mind my entire post involves little thought, and under no circumstances any meaningful calculations.

[*snip*]

Increasing artillery's ability to be transported would help. I don't necessarily want to be able to move them into enemy territory and fire on the same turn, but give them some way to keep up with the tanks (same can be said for infantry). Here's what I propose, a troop transport capable of loading 4 units (1 artillery max, to simulate towing), that has a movement rate of 2. Unloading would function like the naval transport, using up the unloaded unit's movement point for that turn.



Edit: Heroes reminded me of artillery not having access to the flanking promotions, yet another strike to artillery's standing in my book.

Excellent look at these units, Snepp. Thank you. I agree: Artillery are very annoying to use on the offense. Too bad we didn't have a graphic for modern self-propelled artillery. Also, it would be very nice to have a graphic for air-mobile artillery: helicopter transport of these light artillery units. That would make them much more useful.

You know, it's sad to find the Firaxis team decided to do away with some of the fun items from Civ III : paradrop, helicopter airlift, etc. I thought they were supposed to keep the fun things in Civ IV.

 

[snepp]

Excellent look at these units, Snepp. Thank you. I agree: Artillery are very annoying to use on the offense. Too bad we didn't have a graphic for modern self-propelled artillery. Also, it would be very nice to have a graphic for air-mobile artillery: helicopter transport of these light artillery units. That would make them much more useful.

You know, it's sad to find the Firaxis team decided to do away with some of the fun items from Civ III : paradrop, helicopter airlift, etc. I thought they were supposed to keep the fun things in Civ IV.

One thing to keep in mind when we want all these additional toys to play with, if the AI can't make use of them, they're better off not being there. Hopefully when the SDK comes around new unit types can be introduced effectively. Anyway, a couple screenies for the road.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ch-47-dvic299.jpg
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/gallery/m113load1024.jpg

 

[Arathorn]

If you have flight and the opponents don't, then, yes, bombers are inordinately powerful. Of course, catapults before the opponents have them, too, are inordinately powerful -- maybe not to quite the same degree but semi-close. Stealth bombers and their ability to hit frequently even when air defense is up is nearly broken, too. There's just no defense at that point, except to hit the city where they're based.

The thing is, artillery, if you can get them there, ALWAYS will do their collateral damage. Air units can be intercepted (and frequently are, even stealth bombers by WW I fighters). There's a trade-off between them. It takes a LOT of stealth bombers to be able to really wound a city. And, in the meantime, your stack is sitting their vulnerable. Artillery, OTOH, can be rolled up and WILL hit, if they don't die. Definite trade-off. At times, one is better; at other times, the other is better. I *LIKE* that.

Another thing to note, artillery can do collateral damage from a boat. When your opponent isn't in range of bombers, that can be key. A transport full of suicide artillery will deal a lot of collateral damage, so with 2-4 transports working on bring up artillery full-time, naval attacks are quite feasible. Even when landing to try to set up bombers would equal instant death.

Not to mention artillery generally come a few hundred turns before stealth bombers.

Perfectly balanced? I dunno, but there are enough trade-offs to make one think...which is a good thing, in my opinion.

Arathorn

 

[leoric]

I agree, the defense should have the advantage as long as they're defending SOMETHING. Like a city. Or a fortress. Even if it's fortified. That is not the case when some axeman wanders into your territory and sticks to the forrests and hills however. That's an offense in my book. It's STUPID that the AI can walk into my territory, right past all my border units and still be considered to be the defensive party!

At strategic level of warfare, this is offensive. But dealing with one or a number of units would be operational level, because unit represents a regiment or division, depending on the game epoch (at least, for civ3 - in civ4, we have less units, so they should represent even bigger formations). And at operational level of warfare YOU are on offensive, not barbs! They are just sitting in their camp in the forest, occasionally moving it to another place (remember of lots of 'real' time per turn).

You know, it's sad to find the Firaxis team decided to do away with some of the fun items from Civ III : paradrop, helicopter airlift, etc. I thought they were supposed to keep the fun things in Civ IV.

Well, they should leave something to be added by extension packs, shouldn't they? ;-) (I mean, not for good - but for earning money)

 

[leoric]

Originally Posted by Colonel Kraken
You know, it's sad to find the Firaxis team decided to do away with some of the fun items from Civ III : paradrop, helicopter airlift, etc. I thought they were supposed to keep the fun things in Civ IV.

Well, the should leave something to be added by extension packs, shouldn't they? ;-) (I mean, not for good - but for earning money)

 

[snepp]

Stealth bombers and their ability to hit frequently even when air defense is up is nearly broken, too. There's just no defense at that point, except to hit the city where they're based.

I miss the differences between a bomber and a stealth from Civ3. Perhaps a future mod will make the units different, rather than a different skin with better stats. Remove the stealth's ability to cause collateral, and bring back precision strikes with the abiltiy to target specific buildings. As it is, there's no reason to keep both bombers and stealth around unless you're cash-poor.

The thing is, artillery, if you can get them there, ALWAYS will do their collateral damage. Air units can be intercepted (and frequently are, even stealth bombers by WW I fighters). There's a trade-off between them. It takes a LOT of stealth bombers to be able to really wound a city. And, in the meantime, your stack is sitting their vulnerable. Artillery, OTOH, can be rolled up and WILL hit, if they don't die. Definite trade-off.

I have to agree (even though I don't want to). Trade-offs are good, if they weren't there we would all use one unit for everything, and that wouldn't be terribly entertaining. As for the stack sitting there vulnerable, preemptive bombing is devastating. With units capable of healing only so much between turns, by the time the stack rolls up it only takes a handful of bombers to knock them down to 50% again if you so choose. Artillery's guaranteed collateral cannot be ignored, though as you said, if you can get them there. A tank with a couple barrage upgrades is also an option. Not as good as an artillery piece, but still effective.

Another thing to note, artillery can do collateral damage from a boat. When your opponent isn't in range of bombers, that can be key.

Agreed again, something that I make use of when needed. Usually accompanied by a transport of marines, and a transport of tanks/mech.

Not to mention artillery generally come a few hundred turns before stealth bombers.

And the resource requirements.

Perfectly balanced? I dunno, but there are enough trade-offs to make one think...which is a good thing, in my opinion.

Well, there's no such thing as perfectly balanced. Striving for it is good, but expecting it would be lunacy. As I mentioned before, additional options for transport/mobility of artillery would be a welcome addition, something that I believe wouldn't upset the current balance.

 

[MadBunny]

Ive found a big stack of units with Withdrawal +% promotions to be highly effective (combined with defensive units and a medic). I once plowed through a enemy civilization with a stack of horse archers with withdrawal promotions. I took over 4 cities without loosing a single unit thanks to the high withdrawal chance and luck I had I guess. Soften up the city with a catapult or two and then charge in with the horses, your of course very vulnerable if you fail to defeat the enemy since most your units will be wounded and in need of healing (thats where having the defensive units come in, preferably position your army(s) in plot with a defensive bonus.

 

[Aeon221]

Heh, I have not been able to build forts at all in about twenty games. What the heck unit does it? Nothing in the Pedia about it either... sigh...

I dunno about ground combat denial (low level graphics), but I do know that with ships the square denied is a 3x3 box around the boat (water only). One or two well placed ships can effectively create a loose blockade of any enemy harbor.

V. convenient.

Spies

You can use them to basically know an enemy into the ground. The b e s t thing to do in my book is to set up a little group of mechies, chops, and tanks on a hill next to a square adjacent to a city with a spy in the city. Bomb it to hell, kill anything that trys to get in or out, burn the roads with the chops, use your little terrorist to blow their production... its mean as heck. You can nag a city to death like that.

Burnination

No real counter to the enemy burninating your countryside... except to burninate his first! ...or to harrass the burning column.

Use retreaters and chokes to slow them down (Russian Style!) and then just pray you can beat them up enough that they turn tail and run! Immortals are a great earlier counter to burn columns. The retreat bonus is sick!

 

[Alistic]

But this is where the strategy actually comes in. If both of you are out pillaging land and avoiding battles you cant win and trying to exploit the other player's weakness, then the better strategist will prevail. The person who is able to plunder more efficiently, or choose his battles better, or build the larger/more balanced military will win.

This is not a bad thing.

No I totally disagree. Except for the very last thing. If this is what you are doing, then you will both loose.

There is no real strategy, unless your playing vs the AI, or a really dumb human opponent. No one is going to attack units on hills. No one is going to coincidentally have the counter to whatever unit your producing. This superficial notion that player x is going to be defending some hill squares with a stack of units that give a hill bonus is more lucky as hell than someones superior strategy. Or that player x is going to build a bunch of horsemen and you are going to know that and counter it with a stack of pikemen. Looks great on the drawing board, but again I would have to question why somone was building pikemen instead of elephants, swordsman, or horsmen of their own.

The strategy is to be more advanced with the bigger stack. Thats pretty much it.

If your not either of those 2 things then you can expect the war to just hurt both the attacker and the defender. Because, especially against another human, are not going to pull any strategic moves, unless your opponent is just clueless.

As for multiplayer games specifically, I see 2 types of players.

1.) People that build an army. (stacks of 20+ units, with seperate defending stacks in every city)
2.) People that build buildings.

90% of the time the people that buld the army take the cities with buildings and end up having both.

Now there is strategy in what citys you take, picking your enemys and that like. But as for the actual combat, there is no real strategy, unless having a bigger more advanced army is a strategy.

 

[WetWarev7]

Stupid double post....

 

[WetWarev7]

The strategy is to be more advanced with the bigger stack. Thats pretty much it.

If your not either of those 2 things then you can expect the war to just hurt both the attacker and the defender. Because, especially against another human, are not going to pull any strategic moves, unless your opponent is just clueless.

As for multiplayer games specifically, I see 2 types of players.

1.) People that build an army. (stacks of 20+ units, with seperate defending stacks in every city)
2.) People that build buildings.

90% of the time the people that buld the army take the cities with buildings and end up having both.

Now there is strategy in what citys you take, picking your enemys and that like. But as for the actual combat, there is no real strategy, unless having a bigger more advanced army is a strategy.

I disagree . Mobility is a strong factor in wars. If you only attack with stacks, you are going to be moving at 1 tile per turn, unless you have a stack soley comprised of mounted(I'm taliking early eras, here), which is easy enough to counter.

While you are moving one or two or three stacks around, trying to gain and hold a city or two, the other player can move in with non-stacked single units and pillage and burn your entire infrastructure down, and guess what? Those 2 or 3 stacks you started with are all that's left of your technological advantage. You may have gained a city or two, but if the other player is strategy minded and cold enough, he/she will have pillaged those cities and surrounding areas when it became evident that he/she was going to lose them, and done properly, would now also have your entire army pinned down, successfully stagnating your whole civilization. They can then proceed to cut bits and pieces off of your civ at will.

Does it allways work out that way? No. I think the strategy all boils down to being open minded enough to notice and take advantage of all situations. Don't get so caught up with one idea that you get stuck in a rut and open yourself up to a sound thrashing by a creative player.

 

[Alistic]

I disagree . Mobility is a strong factor in wars. If you only attack with stacks, you are going to be moving at 1 tile per turn, unless you have a stack soley comprised of mounted(I'm taliking early eras, here), which is easy enough to counter.

While you are moving one or two or three stacks around, trying to gain and hold a city or two, the other player can move in with non-stacked single units and pillage and burn your entire infrastructure down, and guess what? Those 2 or 3 stacks you started with are all that's left of your technological advantage. You may have gained a city or two, but if the other player is strategy minded and cold enough, he/she will have pillaged those cities and surrounding areas when it became evident that he/she was going to lose them, and done properly, would now also have your entire army pinned down, successfully stagnating your whole civilization. They can then proceed to cut bits and pieces off of your civ at will.

Does it allways work out that way? No. I think the strategy all boils down to being open minded enough to notice and take advantage of all situations. Don't get so caught up with one idea that you get stuck in a rut and open yourself up to a sound thrashing by a creative player.

Again a superficial situation. What stops player A from seperating his stacks and doing the same thing? Then both players will loose. You are assuming that your stack building opponent is smart enough to build a big army, but seemingly enough a moron. Which doesent fit into "combat strategy" at all.

You are just furthering my point. Where are you going to find an opponent that will let you take seperate units and pillage all your improvements? (ok ok.. you can find one at any given moment online ) How did you get these units into his territory while he was attacking your cities? Sounds great. It would infact work. Is it ever going to happen? Maybe... But it sounds more like civ3 standard combat procedure than anything creative or of a stretigic mastermind.

Planning on your opponent to make stuipid decisions is not strategy.

 

[WetWarev7]

Again a superficial situation. What stops player A from seperating his stacks and doing the same thing? Then both players will loose. You are assuming that your opponent is a moron. Which doesent fit into "combat strategy" at all.

You are just furthering my point. Where are you going to find an opponent that will let you take seperate units and pillage all your improvements? How did you get these units into his territory while he was attacking your cities? Sounds great. It would infact work. Is it ever going to happen? Only on the drawing board.

If he splits his stack, then he is no longer using the 'bigger stack, better tech' strategy, whether it is thought out beforehand, or just a gut reaction he would still be using a strategy. This is also where hilltop and forest defenses do make a difference.

Even if he does split his stacks(for the sake of argument, he's got three), he has to come after my units from those three positions, whereas if I were going on a pillaging spree, my units would be spread over the entire border(or even better, hidden away on his flank before hand). I would have a good chance of getting enough units thru to cover every military resource(that I know about), and the end result is, those stacks of doom are dispersed, the war is on foreign territory, and the threat to my cities is at least temporarily averted.

In the meantime, I would be preparing a second wave of either stacked or nonstacked units, depending on how disorganized the opponent is, and depending on the situation.

These are not all "what if" scenarios. Alot of them are "tried and true" methods. It's easy to say how you would counter them on a message board, it's a totally different thing trying to discover an opponents strategy while in the heat of battle before it's too late....

It would be interesting to have a military GTOM scenario series to try all these different strategies in a contolled setup, because not all players are equal, some ARE morons.

 

[WetWarev7]

These are not all "what if" scenarios. Alot of them are "tried and true" methods. It's easy to say how you would counter them on a message board, it's a totally different thing trying to discover an opponents strategy while in the heat of battle before it's too late....

I know I'm quoteing myself, but I wanted to add this:

What if when you come at me with three stacks of doom of 20+ mounted untis, and instead of attacking cities, you split up in my territory and pilage the crap out of everything in sight? Even if I had better tech, I would be hard pressed to do anything but scream "OH CRAP!!!"

Half the fun of going to war is scaring the socks off your opponent and making sure they remember you....