Do you bother with fancy tactics in war?

[TheCrusader]

I use bliz tatics in my wars, i can take over halfe a nation in a few turns, i fist pond rouds and rail ways with my usal 25 + bombers for the fist 2 turns then i use my masive artilery to pond closer targets i use paratoopers to destrat enamy units to a cirtent point and when the paratroopers are srounded by them u use a pincer movment of 30+ tanks to suround them and them kill them i usaly have a navy of 20 battle ships, 15 - 25 carriers 10 transports, 40 -50 destoyers and 30-35 subs..

the key to a strong empyer is a strong navy.

 

[Fool Inc.]

My normal tatic is delayed 2-pronged attack. I have my first army attack then let the other one build up a little more and when I see the computer going to the first one rush them with the second, bigger one.

 

[NetGear]

I build a moderate force that moves along with lines of workers and reinforce it with units using the road/railroad I've built.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Gothmog
...
I am wondering though, from your description it sounds like you like to go to war right away and stay there. Now in my games (at Diety), I avoid early ancient war because the AI has the extra settler and tons of extra units and will clean my clock. Then it also depends on the tech pace. I have to get to Iron Working and/or Horseback Riding for the next possible wartime (when the initial bonus can be overcome). Then I have to have Iron and/or Horses. If I haven't been able to trade effectively the AI is already nearing Feudalism, etc. Then it does become a problem if I don't have any infrastructure.
...

I agree with all your comments in your post. Maybe the only difference is that I have built only 10 arty in my life, apart from the one game I tried out a large stack.

I argue so much it is strange to actually agree for once

On the issue of ancient Deity wars, I didn't think it was possible either until lots of people finished ahead of me in the tourny doing exactly this.

I tend to build 6 to 10 cities, usually quite cramped (distance 3 squares MAX). I ignore everything then except barracks and either horses or swords. I prefer horses if I can, but will build swords if no horeses. If there is also no iron you can still do it with archers, but unless you have to it is best to find a resource.

With ancient units you just use the same principles. I tend to build at least 15 or 20 offensive units before attacking, sometimes alot more if the empire I want to take is large. One thing I find even more important than ususal in the ancient era is not to stop until you take the AI out completely. There is nothing more annoying that an AI that never forgets...

 

[zagnut]

To Anarres:

I said earlier that I agree with your style of play and use it myself. However, I find that it is better in the Ancient Era to attack, weaken my neighbor and then make peace. Even though they don't forget they are so crippled that what they think doesn't make any difference. In this way I don’t have to commit a lot of resources, and a long time, to eliminate them. Rather I can take one or two cities and then make peace with them and take some tribute. In the Ancient Era one or two cities is all you need to take to really hurt them. On Monarch and Emperor, the AI probably doesn’t have more than 6 to 8 cities in the middle of the Era, so they will give you peace if you offer.

Then you can devote your attention to healing your units, building more and attacking the civ on your other border. You can always go back and take out the first civ later because they will probably never be able to catch up. In addition, they won’t be around to vote against you by the time the UN is able to be built, because by then you will have gone back and eliminated them.

Give it a try. I think you will find it helps to preserve your forces during the early game.

 

[Knightblade pDM]

If I'm preparing a massive strike against the enemy, I co-ordinate my land troops, naval and air force. I use naval and air bombardments to take out resources, roads, and weaken ground troops, then move in my MA/MI and soldiers for the kill. If I have to, I'll resort to ICBMs, Tact Nukes and Cruise Miss.

Yeah you can just attack the enemy straightforward but what fun is that? Everyone is a general. Using real life tactics and strategies makes this game a whole heap of fun, and part of war. Coordinating massive pre-emptive strikes before the actual ground war makes things a hell of a lot easier.

 

[pilferman]

I usually start with enough units to take a city or two, turn up my production and send them to the front one at a time. Usually works for me.

 

[Pembroke]

I don't use massive artillery attacks and ping-pong (even if it's a settler!) but that's because I consider these an exploit. The AI doesn't know how to use artillery and will never learn that the object he is trying to reach will always switch.

That said, I prefer my army lean and mean so I can allot my budget to other things than military. I would say that once you start planning with advantages in mind it gets sort of automatic: you stop consciously thinking about it.

I concentrate my attacks, use divisions to maximize attack and defense possibilities, use terrain defense bonuses whenever possible, prefer blitzes, use reserves to attack parts the AI just emptied to counter my first wave, routinely cut him off from strategical and luxury resources, etc.

It's a question of efficiency. Good tactics allow you to get more with less which releases resources to other things.

Or to build a really bad-ass World Conquering Force.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by zagnut
To Anarres:

I said earlier that I agree with your style of play and use it myself. However, I find that it is better in the Ancient Era to attack, weaken my neighbor and then make peace. Even though they don't forget they are so crippled that what they think doesn't make any difference. In this way I don’t have to commit a lot of resources, and a long time, to eliminate them. Rather I can take one or two cities and then make peace with them and take some tribute. In the Ancient Era one or two cities is all you need to take to really hurt them. On Monarch and Emperor, the AI probably doesn’t have more than 6 to 8 cities in the middle of the Era, so they will give you peace if you offer.

Then you can devote your attention to healing your units, building more and attacking the civ on your other border. You can always go back and take out the first civ later because they will probably never be able to catch up. In addition, they won’t be around to vote against you by the time the UN is able to be built, because by then you will have gone back and eliminated them.

Give it a try. I think you will find it helps to preserve your forces during the early game.

I understand what you are saying, but one of the issues in the ancient age is keeping the cities you take. Why station forces in conquered cities when they can move on and finish the job? Obviously if they have a city far away it can be left, but if you leave their capital near the cities you have taken they filp back with frequency. Even 50 turns later it can still happen, as by this time I will still not have built and cultural improvments. With their palace closer than yours, and with more culture in the city than you, and with and foreign nationals, all of it leads to easier flips for the AI.

Also, the idea of preserving a force is unusual for me. A force is there to take what it can. Only once have I misjudged an AI's intentions and let them attack me whilst undefended at home. I lost the game, but it was worth the risk and I still often leave very few troops around at home.

With my initial 6 to 10 cities I can produce enough units quickly to replenish any force that gets killed. Let's face it, they are gonna die sometime, why not get the extra cities and let them die now?

One final point: The AI throws everything at you when you start taking their cities. When you have taken 2 or 3 cities, the AI probably has 1 spear per city left. Everyone must notice this, as it happens every game. You have killed 80% of the AI's forces to get those cities, why not kill the last 20% and take the other 8 cities too?

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Knightblade pDM
If I'm preparing a massive strike against the enemy, I co-ordinate my land troops, naval and air force. I use naval and air bombardments to take out resources, roads, and weaken ground troops, then move in my MA/MI and soldiers for the kill. If I have to, I'll resort to ICBMs, Tact Nukes and Cruise Miss.

Yeah you can just attack the enemy straightforward but what fun is that? Everyone is a general. Using real life tactics and strategies makes this game a whole heap of fun, and part of war. Coordinating massive pre-emptive strikes before the actual ground war makes things a hell of a lot easier.

For me, the fun in the game is being as good as I can be. By that, I mean winning as quickly as I can. IMO, warmongering against a stupid AI for it's own sake is not fun at all, and certainly not challenging.

For you, fighing is enough. Each to their own I suppose.

I was interested in what motivates people to play. Do they play to win quickly (like me), or play for fighting alone? So here is the poll:

What motivates your playing style?

 

[poprawkz]

Artillery is useful but I dont use it extensively. Artillery increases your odds of success dramatically. Defensively... it can give you an insurmountable edge against an opponent, fortified with an elite defender on a mountain or in a city... if an attacker has one less hp than you coming into battle, you are almost guaranteed a win. Offensively, its useful to soften up defensive units for your fast units to take out... but fast units retreat anyways, so honestly they only speed battles up. Remember, artillery can't be promoted.

I thoroughly enjoy signing a mutual protection pact with the strongest AI Civ in the game... and then angering a Civ nearby to trick them into declaring war on me. This is an opprotunist strategy and involves waiting for the AI Civ to violate my borders, or sending spies until they get aggravated enough with me to go to war. Then I just wait for them to enter my borders to attack and watch my MP buddy rape them. Then I fight a defensive war losing as few if no units as possible and scavenge what I can.

Next that once strong AI Civ who is now spread thin is usually next on my hit list.

World conquest is so boring. I mean honestly it takes too long and I dont like having so many cities to micromanage. Personally my favorite type of war is for extortion.

Once the initial land grab is over, prepare your war machine... build barracks and begin pumping out fast units. Find a Civ near you that boasts a technological superiority to you and begin the punishment! Bring along 2-3 defensive units for each stack of fast units.

Now move into your enemies territory. Find a mountain or a hill and set up camp. From this mountain PILLAGE your enemies improvements. Deny resources, cut off roads for trade... make your enemy break agreements with other Civs. Set up a defensive screen so your enemy cannot attack inside your territory. Use your fast units to take out straggler units, never allow a weakened fast unit to be without a defensive unit protecting it. Juggle these things until your enemy has wasted many shields in throwing his forces at your harrassment forces.

Now sue for peace... if they aren't willing to give you the techs you want... pillage some more! Move closer to their capital! Let them throw more units upon your spears!

Now, you have their technology, you have their money, you have their slave labor, and you have their resources... Rush that massive army of yours over to your next neighboring Civ and declare war! Start the cycle all over again!

You need a fast army so you can quickly beat up Civs that are far from eachother... your armies speed is your strength. You can cause them harm and grief without being strong enough to defeat your enemy. Even if the AI is more powerful than you, you win because your goal is not conquest... your goal is to weaken them while gaining Great Leaders and hopefully great peace treaty deals. Once their 20 turns are up, either renegotiate or rush your army back to their borders with an offer they CAN'T refuse.

The most feared armies in the world have always used these tactics. The Huns rarely conquered, they just raided... The Germanic tribes frequently raided the mediteranean cities... The Norse were a scourge to all western european coastal cities... and the U.S. Military of modern times keeps a firm grip on its resources by keeping uppity 3rd world countries firmly under its heal.

 

[Globetrotter]

Originally posted by RX2000
Heh its funny that people complain the AI doesnt use air or naval power much, when a lot of human players admit they dont even bother with it either.

In a game i recently finished, i've seen more AI air raids than i would have ever seen in any other game, + huge navy piling up to accompany transporters and landing forces.

I was a bit amazed 'cause everybody usually complains about AI being incompetant about using these weapons.

I really enjoyed the naval warfare in that game... and the AI air raids too! The AI just raided one another... Hell, t'was WWIII

 

[Globetrotter]

Back to the topic, i used to be a peaceful builder, etc., but on Deity, you'll find yourself way back in tech, and your neighbors become threatenning...

So, just build a large army, an hurl through enemy territory, as long as you are able to face him. Going too late to war, he'll surely be more advanced than you, and your poor sparmen will have to face his knights... (talking in high levels of course)

But still, tactics are involved on whether to target his major cities, his resources or other things... You can't just build an army and roll over, unless you're much too powerful for him...

At least, i believe so...

 

[Gothmog]

Well, I'll have to try out the early-ICS ancient war quick win, just for fun!

I have done a couple of ancient war games with the Aztec and Zulu just to take full advantage of their UU. I didn't go with early-ICS though, I have never tried ICS at all as a matter of fact. I can see the challenge in trying to win as quickly as possible and I will give it a try. Maybe we should start a SG with this theme. I don't get to play as much as I would like and so haven't been able to try everything I want to .

Oh yes: not to agree with you too much but I rarely build arty either, most games none at all. Even ones I capture I often disband for their shields. I don't like to cycle through a bunch of point and click units and usually they don't really help taking out resources anyway.

 

[Hellfire]

Originally posted by anarres
So what did you call those spikes on your dining forks then?

Actually prongs are like horns or protrusions. The technical name for all those things on a fork (or even a trident) is called a tine.

Okay enough creeping geek factor.

I don't think anyone uses "Fancy" tactics on this board. Fancy to me is like exploiting a bug or a design that allows a quick or easy victory by simply executing it in the proper manner. Civ3 in general is designed well enough to avoid fancy tactics, by forcing you to be as balanced as you can be without sacrificing too much of any portion of the game (do nothing but build, and you'll be attacked. Do nothing but warmonger and don't attempt to produce science or build and you'll be left behind by anyone who outlasts your war).

To me a fancy trick is like in football when you try a double reverse or fake a punt on 4th and long. The tricks that you would normally see in civ3 and work well amount to play action. They are ment to be clever and give you an advantage, but its done a lot and its what you are supposed to do to win the game (for nonfootball nuts, play action is something that happens a lot in a game ment to "fool" the defense, so by dictionary definition it could be a trick but its common and by no means fancy).

 

[ACR]

What is "ping ponging"?

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Hellfire
Actually prongs are like horns or protrusions. The technical name for all those things on a fork (or even a trident) is called a tine.

Good to know I've been wrong all these years

I don't think anyone uses "Fancy" tactics on this board. Fancy to me is like exploiting a bug or a design that allows a quick or easy victory by simply executing it in the proper manner. Civ3 in general is designed well enough to avoid fancy tactics, by forcing you to be as balanced as you can be without sacrificing too much of any portion of the game (do nothing but build, and you'll be attacked. Do nothing but warmonger and don't attempt to produce science or build and you'll be left behind by anyone who outlasts your war).

I was refering to my definition of 'fancy' tactics, not yours. I suggest you just accept mine for the purposes of the discussion, as this is not a semantics argument

Again, my question was about whether people are using elaborate (is that word ok?) tactics, where none were needed.

It is not suffice to say that the game stops these things by design, because by the time you are in a position to win all of these tactics are still usable within the game. They can all be used, and you can win using all of them.

I would also like to point out that Deity games can be won as a pure builder and as a pure warmongerer.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Gothmog
Well, I'll have to try out the early-ICS ancient war quick win, just for fun!

I have done a couple of ancient war games with the Aztec and Zulu just to take full advantage of their UU. I didn't go with early-ICS though, I have never tried ICS at all as a matter of fact. I can see the challenge in trying to win as quickly as possible and I will give it a try. Maybe we should start a SG with this theme. I don't get to play as much as I would like and so haven't been able to try everything I want to .

Oh yes: not to agree with you too much but I rarely build arty either, most games none at all. Even ones I capture I often disband for their shields. I don't like to cycle through a bunch of point and click units and usually they don't really help taking out resources anyway.

I wouldn't call the early-war thing ICS, as ICS specifically refers to non-stop city expansion.

I was refering only to a 'tight' city formation. The closeness helps with corruption and also with linking cities together, and troop movement, etc.

I have tred ICS on the tourny games where I had to win by spaceship, but it is very tedious, especially for a micromanager like myself.

I like the idea of an SG Deity game - always at war. It is a very good way to win Deity, and is maybe one of the easiest ways. The requirement to declare war on everyone should make it nice and scary

I have PM'd you my msm adress, come online or PM me and we can see about setting up an SG game (although my PBEM and tourny commitments may force it to wait a little while).

 

[Pembroke]

ACR: What is "ping ponging"?

Ping-pong is an exploit of the fact that the AI only sees the present game board and makes all its evaluations against that, i.e. it neither remembers nor learns anything.

For example, if an AI unit is going to somewhere (and there's no war) you can block its movement by 3-4 units depending on the terrain. The idea is that you leave the AI a clear path around your units but so that the AI needs at least 2 moves to get there. The AI moves towards the opening. You close it and open another path on the other side. Now the AI evaluates the situation again and moves back towards the new opening. You close it and open the original. You can keep this up ad infinitum. Hence the name ping-pong. With it you can effectively block AI settlers wandering through your territory to the city spots you have reserved for later.

A very cruel form of ping-ponging is to block and isthmus with a maginot line except for one open square. If there are good spots in "your territory" the AI will send settlers towards that opening. At the last moment you close the line and all the AI settlers start wandering back. Once they have goon all the way back home you open the path again and watch the settlers turn around and start their long walk again.

Ping-ponging is an exploit in all its forms because the AI doesn't learn anything. A human would quickly notice that he isn't going to get through and would then try something else. The AI will go on forever which effectively means that he has wasted a unit that could have been useful somewhere else.

The ping-pong principle can be used in wars, too. The AI is programmed to prefer lone weak targets. So, just keep switching a defending stack between two weak units and the AI will aimlessly wander between them. Well, until it has gathered enough strength to attack your stack but then it's usually too late...

Now, diversion is fine. It's a good acceptable tactic. But it ought to be used for the original ping only and not the pong , or you are just turning the rigid AI programming logic against itself. IOW it's not fun because you know what the outcome will be.

A good defining question between tactics and exploits is whether a human could fall for it.

 

[Zachriel]

Ironically, during eras of the game history when defense is preeminent, attack is often the most intricate. Most players avoid this situation and wait for the suitable unit. I suspend my disbelief, I play as if I don't know that 4000 years from now, I'll have Tanks. So if your honor or nation are threatened, you must learn to fight no matter the technological level.

If you enjoy the intricacies of battle, try attacking when the best available units are defensive units like Pikemen or Infantry. If you can carry an attack forward during these eras of the game, then you gain a great advantage. You are ready to fight anytime, anywhere. In Pike Roads, Egyptian Pikemen provide cover for Swordsmen, Catapults and Workers. In Invasion of Italy, Infantry attack Infantry (with Artillery and Bomber support).