Cracking the nut: City invasion

[Marlos]

There has been a lot of discussion on this, but there is a strategy I use when I come across the "City That Can't Be Taken"

First off, you have to have engineers, so this is a mid-game or late-game tactic only. Take your strongest defensive unit, typically veteran alpine troops, and fortify right next to their city. Select a grassland square if available (you'll see why later, trust me ). This assumes, of course that you are a democracy. If you aren't send two and fortify them in the same spot to prevent bribery.

The enemy will try to repel your men, but be vigilant. After the fortification is set, send in an engineer and build a fortress in the same square. At this point, the AI will still send its attack units against you, but will have even more difficulty because of the fortress. Fill the fortress with as many veteran defensive units as you can spare.

Now, use the powers of the engineer to transform the grassland to hills! You will have the attack advantage because of the terrain difference, and you will not have to spend any movement points to get there and can attack at full strength!

Build a rail line to the point of attack to get replacement troops there ASAP, since you will have to break a few eggs to get the nut to crack. (ooo, mixed metaphor, I'm going to pay for that! )

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Originally posted by Marlos
There has been a lot of discussion on this, but there is a strategy I use when I come across the "City That Can't Be Taken"

First off, you have to have engineers, so this is a mid-game or late-game tactic only. Take your strongest defensive unit, typically veteran alpine troops, and fortify right next to their city. Select a grassland square if available (you'll see why later, trust me ). This assumes, of course that you are a democracy. If you aren't send two and fortify them in the same spot to prevent bribery.

The enemy will try to repel your men, but be vigilant. After the fortification is set, send in an engineer and build a fortress in the same square. At this point, the AI will still send its attack units against you, but will have even more difficulty because of the fortress. Fill the fortress with as many veteran defensive units as you can spare.



Now, use the powers of the engineer to transform the grassland to hills! You will have the attack advantage because of the terrain difference, and you will not have to spend any movement points to get there and can attack at full strength!

Build a rail line to the point of attack to get replacement troops there ASAP, since you will have to break a few eggs to get the nut to crack. (ooo, mixed metaphor, I'm going to pay for that! )

Doesn't this sound a little time consuming? There's got to be an easier way. Whenever I face an unbeatable city, it's becuse the city is walled and filled with fortified vet defensive troops. The only thing that I do is attack the city with superior numbers and firepower after negating the city walls. I don't see how terrain allows for an attack advantage, I thought terrain only helps a defender.

 

[Marlos]

Originally posted by Dark Ascendant
Doesn't this sound a little time consuming? ...I thought terrain only helps a defender.

Yes, it can take several attempts and be costly, but it works. I've used it several times. Besides, I was trying to bring up a strategy that hadn't been brought up in the thread as of yet, not just reiterate "hit it with as many artillery as you've got".

 

[unknown_spirit]

Damn, that's what I was gonna say to use! Anyway, wat's wrong with "pulverise with Howies"? I might try this war-of-attrition seige tactic sometime. Sounds like a good strat if you're low on Howies on a continent, or can't get any over by Transport (for whatever reason). It would either cause the enemy to lose units as if a unit is on a square that is producing resources, it stops them reaching the city. It would either cause the men to disband, or the AI will waste al of its units attacking. Rather than attack with the Alpines, simply hold position, as the enemy will wear itself down.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Originally posted by Marlos


Yes, it can take several attempts and be costly, but it works.

That's my point. The longer you're bogged down, the more time the AI has to catch his breath. The AI is horrible at fighting when his borders are constantly shrinking. When your forces are standing still however, his "send unit to nearest enemy" tactics become more effective. The unbeatable city is to hold the advancement of an enemy and catch your breath, bolster defenses/counterattack. The AI being the...AI, isn't very good at this. He just build and send undefended artillery and cavalry charges at you. In a way, no one is making progress. The AI is building his troops, you are doing the same.

My suggestion is to end this state of non-progress immediatly and take the offensive, meaning the attempt to take the city must work the first time. If you don't have the numbers, move on to other fronts. I preper a quick seige, with good defensive units on hard terrain preperably with a fortress. Stack them with artillery and keep cavalry around to cover the atacking force and block reinforcement and as backup attack force. HIt the city and it's over with. You really don't need to build fortresses because the AI builds them already.

 

[Pongui]

Letting the AI bring relief to the sieged city is the worst. As Dark Ascendant points out, in this situation, no one is making progress. The worst wars I ever fought were attrition, right down to the AI's level. So, unless I'm way ahead anyway, I try to be clever.

One way to prevent relief is to guard the back door.

A better way is to take the city before help can arrive.

The best way is to take that city in one turn. One turn is important because of the way units in cities defend. Say the city contains 4 musketeers and a barracks. My first 4 attacks will only weaken each musketeer in turn, the next attack destroying one (whichever one was initially damaged the least, and so stood up to take the attack). Any further attacks will be against weakened units, and will likely destroy them. But if I only made 4 attacks each turn, then each turn I'd weaken 4 musketeers. Because they're defending in a city, and with a barracks, they heal (completely, I think), ready to defend next turn, and next turn.

I guess the tough part about taking cities this way is in having to build up to a certain mass before launching the assault. Just sending a mighty stream of units isn't going to break through. One must progress in sudden jumps.

That said, I rarely get through a game without some bogging down in spots.

 

[duke o' york]

It is also important to try and take the cities you want in a single turn if you are waging war in a democracy without the UN and want to avoid senate interference in your plans. There is little in Civ more annoying than taking a few cities and then coming across an AI unit that forces you to sign a cease-fire so you have to plan ahead and work your way around that.

 

[Pongui]

Everyone knows that city walls make a hard nut. Then the barracks make cities resiliant as golfballs. Sabotage barracks to lessen unit healing.

 

[Marlos]

When I was discussing my strategy above, I think that I needed to go into a little more detail as to why I sometimes work the way that I do.

First, my overall strategy includes building both STWA and LW. This way, I always have the most up-to-date units, although when they are upgraded they lose their veteran status. To regain the veteran status, I will stack many recently-upgraded units in a fortress at the various choke points/hotspots and "veteranize" them when the AI sends their individual units to fight. I can pick them off with the unit that needs "veteranizing". Soon, I have a whole army of veterans ready to pummel cities simultaneously without building barracks in too many cities and bogging down my economy.

To echo Duke's comment, in order to take several cities at once, I eliminate all units in two or three objective cities before actually invading, thereby avoiding Senate interference. This is not possible, though, after guerrila warfare unless you can fill all 20 squares around the city with units.

Some of you may think that fighting war in this way is extreme micro-management, and I acknowledge that it is. However, I learned a long time ago from playing countless games that in order to win on the higher levels, you must cut corners somewhere and be willing to live on a shoestring to beat the AI and all of the gifts that it gets.

 

[funxus]

This is not possible, though, after guerrila warfare unless you can fill all 20 squares around the city with units.

It's still possible, it only makes it a little more difficult. I usually war in Democracy. I empty the cities I want and move in def units next to them. Then I capture them all, the senate is usuallly pissed off with the enemy so I can decline their invitations. I talk to them and sign a peacetreaty, ceasefires are worthless, and either they break it by attacking one city with one partisan, or I ask them to leave next turn.
Partisans are annoying, but since they allways refuses to leave your territory, you've got a new turn of war where you can repeat the procedure . Of course you need UN, so that you can sign peacetreaties.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Originally posted by funxus


I talk to them and sign a peacetreaty, ceasefires are worthless... Of course you need UN, so that you can sign peacetreaties.

In a way, all treaties, cease-fires and alliances are worthless. To win the game, you either conquer the world, or build a spaceship. Conquering the world obviously can't be done with "peace". (I don't consider the subversion of enemy cities "peace.") To build the spaceship requires huge industrial power and/or money. To get that powerful, you need to weaken, destroy or absorb some oppenents.

Conquering the world, easy concept to understand. Massive building power and money, plus lots of big cities to build from, capturing AI cities easier than developing. War is inevitable, peace can not last if you want to win. I play the game with bloodlust mentality spacecraft or no spacecraft. The unbeatable city does not exist. World domination is so easy.

If anyone actually comes up with a full proof defense of a city without conpromising the rest of his/her empire, then I'll be impressed. Beating cities is time consuming, but never impossible. The only good defense that I see is a strong preemptive strike. Anyone like to prove me wrong on that?

 

[funxus]

In a way, all treaties, cease-fires and alliances are worthless.

Peace treaties are not worthless, they can save you several units, especially howitzers, and makes sure that there is only war in your turn.
I don't think either that there are any cities that can't be taken. If you wait til' modern era and use howitzers, no problem, but taking over a walled rivercity fortified with some vet musketeers with elephants or catapults is a little more difficult. It's not impregnable though...

 

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Dark Ascendant
In a way, all treaties, cease-fires and alliances are worthless.

Don't forget that the cease-fire has a time limit on it so it can get you some much-needed breathing space to consolidate your gains (or secure any losses). I think that the limit is 20 turns but I can't remember the last time that I actually saw one through. You accept the AI cease-fire when you are not in a position to totally eliminate their threat or when the senate force you to and then build up some troops with which to press home your advantage. It is ridiculously easy to get the AI to declare war on you should you so desire, although you may not get it first time with the representative governments. Basically in a monarchy or other government then demand tribute from the civ. If they are badly damaged then they will most likely cough up but otherwise they will declare war. And both are good, right! With a republic or democracy then demand they remove their troops from your territory. They may even do this the first time, in which case you ask them again. And again. And again, for as many times as it makes them mad and they declare war on you, receiving all they deserve for their stupidity!
It is also wise, although this is so well-known I'm not sure why I'm bothering to tell you all this, to take an AI city with your most badly-damaged unit as the capturing unit will have its HP all restored in so doing. It is worthwhile, therefore, to decide which of your units will benefit most from a top-up and then use that to take the city. After all, there are no more defenders so why worry about the attack strength?

 

[sethos]

Take a couple of spies, poison the water again and again until the city is size 2 or 1. The destroy city walls. Now it will be easy for 2 or three units to take the city, because a small city cannot support many defenders.

 

[funxus]

With a republic or democracy then demand they remove their troops from your territory

You need a peace treaty to this. In democracy, you don't have any rights at all in cease-fires. I had a cease-fire in my last game, and they put troops in all squares. I couldn't do anything, not even declare war. And they could even move in and destroy improvements in my city without me being able to do anything. Cease-fires are like treaties with them having all the rights, and you none

 

[duke o' york]

D'oh. That's right. I forgot that you need peace first. I always get the UN so I always get peace when I want it.

 

[Marlos]

Originally posted by sethos
Take a couple of spies, poison the water again and again until the city is size 2 or 1. The destroy city walls. Now it will be easy for 2 or three units to take the city, because a small city cannot support many defenders.

True, but you may destroy the city if the population drops during your attack. No use in throwing out the baby with the bath water, unless, that is, the city is poorly placed to begin with.

 

[Ren]

Originally posted by funxus
I had a cease-fire in my last game, and they put troops in all squares. I couldn't do anything, not even declare war. And they could even move in and destroy improvements in my city without me being able to do anything. Cease-fires are like treaties with them having all the rights, and you none

This is why you try to get Statue Of Liberty. You can start a revolution and declare war then straight back into Democracy the next turn (though if you were smart it'd be straight into Communism )

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Originally posted by funxus

Peace treaties are not worthless, they can save you several units, especially howitzers, and makes sure that there is only war in your turn.
I don't think either that there are any cities that can't be taken. If you wait til' modern era and use howitzers, no problem, but taking over a walled rivercity fortified with some vet musketeers with elephants or catapults is a little more difficult. It's not impregnable though...

I take the treaties and cease fires when I need them, but I do not honor them. That's what I meant when I said that they're all worthless. There are no friends on the civ map, only competeters. Therefore, "peace" does not exist. The AI thinks that it does sometimes, then I gut his civ.

 

[funxus]

Well, I don't honor them much either, I use them as a part of my strategy. The reason I don't honor them is because the AI doesn't , but if they would I would probably play a more peaceful game.