Do you bother with fancy tactics in war?

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by anarres
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

And short too!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by anarres
Metropolis' don't really get to be a problem, the AI should be dead by then. At least your production should be high enough for it not to matter about the odd metro or two. Arty is IMO useful only when facing a very strong defence, and it's been a very long while since the AI managed to do that.

Obviously if you have a huge advantage over the AI, then optimization is not required. You are assuming that you are always in a winning position. That is not practical for many players, and would be deadly boring for most.

Nevertheless, it is best to minimize the bloodshed whenever possible. Better for morale.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Obviously if you have a huge advantage over the AI, then optimization is not required. You are assuming that you are always in a winning position. That is not practical for many players, and would be deadly boring for most.

Nevertheless, it is best to minimize the bloodshed whenever possible. Better for morale.

Maybe Zachriel, but I suspect that there is a large group of players that are happy waiting for Modern Warfare just to have one huge scrap.

I was not assuming any large advantage over the AI. When I go to war I am always the smallest army at first. I will go for an AI regardless of strength, unless they are massively stronger than me.

Optimisation is not really required by many people, and the whole point of this thread is that I believe players not to play in an optimal manner, but rather they play either trying to model real-life warfare, or just play the 'comfortable' way that seems to have worked before.

I do understand your earlier post about fighting with whatever units you have, and whilst this is maybe a more realistic way to play, it is not an optimised solution for winning as quickly as you can. Can you explain how my way is not optimal but yours is?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by anarres
Maybe Zachriel, but I suspect that there is a large group of players that are happy waiting for Modern Warfare just to have one huge scrap.

One huge scrap can be fun once in a while, as in Panzer Blitz Golden Age. But if that was all Civ had to offer, I would have quit from boredom a long time ago. How many times can you take advantage of the inherent weaknesses of the AI and consider it fun? But I suppose you're right. Napoleon should have waited for the invention of Tanks before starting his campaign.

I was not assuming any large advantage over the AI. When I go to war I am always the smallest army at first. I will go for an AI regardless of strength, unless they are massively stronger than me.

You have already indicated that the AI is dead before metropolises, and that "it's been a very long while" since the AI managed to put up a strong defense. From my point of view, it would be time to move on to higher level, or a new game, or find a more sophisticated way to play. Try, for instance, Infantry v. Mechs.

Can you explain how my way is not optimal but yours is?

Being able to do more with less if always preferred. That allows you to actually build a Civilization rather than merely destroying others. Ordering your troops to attack across rivers when other options are available just seems to be a waste of good soldiers to me. Sometimes a human-wave attack may be the only option. But if it is the only option available in the game, then the game would be BORING.

Thank Goodness for fancy maneuvers.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by col
I think when MP is more widespread, tactics will play a greater part. We need to distinguish between tactics and tricks that the AI is blind to such as pingpong.

You're right. Ping-pong is not a tactic, but an exploit.

But I'm sure you instinctively use tactics like using a mountain square to get the defensive bonuses. Setting up defensive kill zones. Not attacking across a river. Bombarding a city to reduce its population below metropolis. Taking a city on a continent and rush an airport then fly in hundreds of reinforcements.

I do all of these.

Great examples of tactics that nearly all good players use.

 

[pterrok]

Originally posted by 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.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I have been SO guilty of getting lazy and waiting to attack since I know tanks are upcoming two or three or five steps down the techroad...

This just gave me the kick-in-the-pants I needed to play the game as it should be...I mean, I HATE knowing at the start of a GOTM the map size, land configuration, # of opponents, etc., etc.--all stuff that Og the Caveman would NOT know when he was leading his tribe--I want to discover it and adjust my research and tactics accordingly and I try NOT to look at the in-game screens that reveal too much, too soon...

But it never struck me that I was playing KNOWING what was upcoming too far ahead in the tech tree...

We'll see how this affects my game (and how long I can keep this resolution! <g>)

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Zachriel
One huge scrap can be fun once in a while, as in Panzer Blitz Golden Age. But if that was all Civ had to offer, I would have quit from boredom a long time ago. How many times can you take advantage of the inherent weaknesses of the AI and consider it fun? But I suppose you're right. Napoleon should have waited for the invention of Tanks before starting his campaign.

Point taken. You like to see reality modelled in the game, I just like to play it as a game. Different strokes...

You have already indicated that the AI is dead before metropolises, and that "it's been a very long while" since the AI managed to put up a strong defense. From my point of view, it would be time to move on to higher level, or a new game, or find a more sophisticated way to play. Try, for instance, Infantry v. Mechs.

OK, when they invent another difficulty level I will play it. I did read a 'beyond deity' RB game for CivIII where the deity AI discount was 50%, and when I used to play CTP2 it was too easy so I made a 'beyond deity' setting for that, but it seemed a bit silly so I only played it once. What we need is a better AI, and in CTP2 you could script AI behaviour. There was an AI agression mod that I loved, and a good Diplo mod that improved Diplomacy a massive amount. If only they had used that idea for CivIII

I like the game in your link, maybe I will try something like that. At the moment I am playing the TET mod as Aztecs on Deity - and that is going to be a real challenge.

Being able to do more with less if always preferred. That allows you to actually build a Civilization rather than merely destroying others. Ordering your troops to attack across rivers when other options are available just seems to be a waste of good soldiers to me. Sometimes a human-wave attack may be the only option. But if it is the only option available in the game, then the game would be BORING.

Thank Goodness for fancy maneuvers.

Again, it all comes down to why we play the game. I see the game, but no matter how I try to think of it there is only victory or death, and how quickly you get there. I do not however use anything I consider an exploit, as that is just taking advantage of the programmed limitations of the AI.

I fully understand and respect your playing style, and if you find my style of play 'boring' than that's fair enough. If you understand my motivations then that's a bonus

 

[sumbas]

Would anyone care to explain what ping-pong is?

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by sumbas
Would anyone care to explain what ping-pong is?

This was answered earlier in the thread here by Pembroke.

And welcome to cfc

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by anarres
. . . I micromanage everything, every turn. Another pre-requisite for me is to ignore city improvements until I have taken out a civ or two. On the higher levels if you don't start fighting early it can take millenia to catch up....

By the way, good thread topic. As I have perused the forum, I have found that most players use some form of "fancy tactics." For instance, there is a discussion about bombardment going on over at 'Poly (some do, some don't).

Interesting that you micromanage all economic activity, but not your military. That's part of my fascination with the game, how many different ways there are to play.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Interesting that you micromanage all economic activity, but not your military. That's part of my fascination with the game, how many different ways there are to play.

Erm, I wouldn't call a decision about what unit to build micromanaging, unless you are building say 2 types of units (sprears and horses, 20 and 30 shields respectively) and decide to build spears in the 5-shield city and horses in the 6-shield city. This you would do of course after deciding that both units were needed.

The decision on what to build is part of your strategy. I consider micro-managing the art of counting and not much more. It is not difficult, and requires little intelligence, just patience.

In a PBEM recently I decided to change governments from Monarchy to Republic only after counting all the used and roaded squares, and doing quick corruption and marketplace calculations for each city. I estimated that I would be about 90gpt better off, and compared this to the gold loss during the transition time to estimate how long it would be to catch up in gold. Production was also considered, as an offset against the better gold rate.

I think of this as a strategy decision, although based on micro-management techniques.

So, I have to assume you mean by me 'not micro-managing' my military that I could do better by using some of these fancy tactics? If I felt that I could win quicker by using some of the more 'fancy' tactics I would do so. Please elaborate more if this is the case, as I am always willing to try something new...

Maybe you already understand this and maybe I misunderstood your post, but then again, maybe not...

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by anarres
The decision on what to build is part of your strategy. I consider micro-managing the art of counting and not much more. It is not difficult, and requires little intelligence, just patience.

. . . If I felt that I could win quicker by using some of the more 'fancy' tactics I would do so.

Is the object of the game to win by domination faster? I didn't know that. I thought it was to build a better Civilization.

As far as tactics, col mentioned several common sense tactics that are both effective and in keeping with the spirit of the game. Nor are they tedious for most players. Indeed, they are one of the most fun parts of the game. Of course, it is only fun if the game is still competitive. When the game degenerates into a simplistic Armor attack against weak and dying Civs, I usually retire. I would suppose you don't bother with culture victories and the like either.

Why would you attack across a river when you don't have to? Why wouldn't you defend from a hilltop instead of on flat ground? Why would you subject your soldiers to the ordeal of a difficult battle when another option is available?

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Is the object of the game to win by domination faster? I didn't know that. I thought it was to build a better Civilization.

We are allowed to have a difference of opinion on this you know. This is the millionth time I've explicity said in this thread that it's not about which style of play is best. And this is not the first time you have misunderstood this. I am willing to let it go, maybe it's all my fault for not explaining myself properly, or maybe I've misunderstood you. Whatever has caused this misunderstandng, please let me make it clear, I have only ever said how I play and why. I am not saying that my way is best or right.

As far as tactics, col mentioned several common sense tactics that are both effective and in keeping with the spirit of the game. Nor are they tedious for most players. Indeed, they are one of the most fun parts of the game. Of course, it is only fun if the game is still competitive. When the game degenerates into a simplistic Armor attack against weak and dying Civs, I usually retire. I would suppose you don't bother with culture victories and the like either.

Since I play in the tournament I play for all victory conditions (apart from histograph - and I've never been a milker anyway). I also do not finish games when it is clear I will win and I am not competing against other human players.

Why would you attack across a river when you don't have to?

I attack across a river to reach a city in 1 turn with cavs or knights.

Why wouldn't you defend from a hilltop instead of on flat ground?

I would, find me a quote where I say I don't.

Why would you subject your soldiers to the ordeal of a difficult battle when another option is available?

In my last post I explained that I try to win in the quickest time possible. I also asked you to elaborate on what tactics you used to win quicker, as that is the whole reason for this thread: to try and discover if people found that 'fancy' tactics helped them win the game quicker.

Please re-read our posts, I haven't tried to offend you. I am unsure why you are flaming me. I have disagreed with you on some points, and this is healthy behaviour, but you seem wholly intent on putting me down.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by anarres
I attack across a river to reach a city in 1 turn with cavs or knights.

Making a decision to attack across a river to save a turn, or taking the high ground is indeed "fancy tactics," or are you defining "fancy tactics" in another way?

In my last post I explained that I try to win in the quickest time possible. I also asked you to elaborate on what tactics you used to win quicker, as that is the whole reason for this thread: to try and discover if people found that 'fancy' tactics helped them win the game quicker.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but the quickness qualifier was not in your original post. "Fancy Tactics," generally provide more power (per unit), and not more speed.

Please re-read our posts, I haven't tried to offend you. I am unsure why you are flaming me.

Now I'm confused. I flamed you? I apologize. Your opinion is worth every nickel of mine, I'm sure.

 

[Bismarck]

Originally posted by Zachriel
How many times can you take advantage of the inherent weaknesses of the AI and consider it fun? But I suppose you're right. Napoleon should have waited for the invention of Tanks before starting his campaign.

Nonsense! He was well aware that German unification would occur in 1871, and therefore exploited France's narrow window of opportunity, while it was still the dominant military power on the Continent.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Bismarck
Nonsense! He was well aware that German unification would occur in 1871, and therefore exploited France's narrow window of opportunity, while it was still the dominant military power on the Continent.

Touché!

 

[anarres]

Zachriel, I find your posts really out of order.

I have tried to respond to your points and ask my own, but you really do seem intent to argue at all costs.

If you want to argue that civ should be just like reality there are enough threads already about the subject. You can even start your own.

Please do not post in this thread unless you want to be a constructive part of it. Trashing someone else's thread is an unreasonable and silly thing to do.

 

[ERIKK]

Hey Zachriel!

Quit ruining this thread. This wasn't a flaming yes-no discussion thread before you stepped in!

 

[Hellfire]

Anarres, whoa... time out.

When you first came after me several posts back I ignored it. You were right I wasn't completely answering your question but you were a bit offensive about the whole thing.

Zachriel has made constructive and thoughtful posts. He feels he does use "Fancy tactics" and thats what he's getting at. He does it because he wants to treat the game a certain way.

In short he's on topic. He's not trashing your thread and you need to stop being so defensive. You don't own this board and you don't own this thread. We'll try to stay on topic but you need to get some perspective here.

 

[Hellfire]

To reply to Zachy....

It would be nice if there was a random tech function in Civ3 but it must have been a low priority for the programmers because it only ever appeared in SMAC (I think). But it was a nice feature. This would make it much nicer for you Zach because it would allow you to not know which tech was coming and you would simply change your tactics as new tech is available.

For example, in order to take advantage of the middle ages most basic warmongers will get the techs they need to go straight to military tradition and get ahead of the AI with quality units and then start dominating the world. Wouldn't be great if you couldn't guess when you got that tech, and if you did finally get the killer tech it wouldn't be as great of an advantage? In most games I find that if I push my research hard no AI ever gets Cavalry before I do.

On a related note.....

In truth, the fanciest tactics I've ever used were how to wage an offensive defense. First, I destroy roads with artillery. This slows enemy advances, especially when railroads are abundant. Second, leave a city open with no defenses well behind the lines as "bait". The AI seems to like going for the undefended cities first. Then they cross into my territory and I let my offensive units attack and pick them off.

I used this once when I had 60 MA to the AIs 150 MIs. He brought 100 of is MIs offensive but I set up a "firewall" by bombing all the railroads and roads between myself and it so he was forced to cross and waste movement points. He couldn't reach any city in one turn. I then turned all my CMs and artillery on him and then finished off the stack with my MAs. It was a hard fought victory but a victory nontheless.