Everybody's Unique Unit: The Marine

[Ision]

The real problem with them is that they are a specialty unit, and one in which you only use when you are forced to attack in a less then ideal manner. Why would you spend dozens of turns ahead of time to build specialty units just so you can make an expensive amphibious assault?

Actually the marine is a unit that exist when you can afford the luxury of attacking IN the ideal manner. The unit is a luxury for the player that is a situation were he can afford to spend on a speciality unit in order to fine tune his attack. The less than IDEAL situation is one were you are forced to act without the ability to utilize a unit specifically designed to give you an advantage for the task ahead, for example the seige of a well defended large city without artillary, the mass invasion of a strong neighbor without highly mobile 2 and 3 movement units, the strategic bombing of enemy cities without fighter cover - ect...

Of course the marine is a specialty unit, and that specialty is amphibious attack. The point that far too many players miss when discussing any specialty unit (marine, para, helicopters, stealth units, cruise missles, ect...) is that they were never intended to be built in huge numbers nor were they ever intended to represent the core of your forces. Far too often players reduce the question of whether to use or not use a specialty unit to a direct comparision of that unit to the other typical units of its time period - this is an error.

To properly weigh the value (or lack of value) of a specialiuty unit one should look at the effect that that unit will have used in limited numbers for a specific and narrow strategy - and then ask - all things considered does this units impact in this narrow sense impart a great enough advantage to justify its creation.

The marine was never intended as a core fighting unit during massive invasions - but as a unit that gives a massive invasion strat an 'edge' in its initial stages. In this sense the unit IS a success - and on average more than justifys building a limited number of these specialty units.

As scout stated - the marine is "the tip of the spear" - this was a perfect analogy that captures the spirit of this speciality unit.

Ision

 

[Wakboth]

Sure. It's a specialty unit. I can agree with that. However, you said yourself that you then can't compare it directly to more general use units because it has a special pupose (in this case, amphibious attacks).

And if an amphibious assault in Civ3 were a more effecient method of attacking, then I'd agree with you. But it really isn't. It may be "necessary". It may be faster (maybe). But it's never more efficient.

Let's lay off the fancy words for a moment and analyze exactly what a marine unit actually gets to do in game terms. It can make an attack from a seagoing transport to a land space that is occupied by an enemy. That's it. It gains no offensive bonus doing this. It's simply allowed to.

If you have a choice between attacking a city with marines and attacking it with tanks, which would you use? The tanks, right? Everything else being equal, they have a better offensive ability, and are a fast attack unit, so you're less likely to lose them in the assault.

Unless every single coastal square is blocked with enemy units, you don't need marines to land a force *near* the city you with to attack, right?

Thus. If you avoid doing an amphibious assault, you will get to use tanks to attack that city instead of marines. This is "better". This is more efficient. You will lose fewer units attacking this way. Combat in Civ3 is always about making the other guy spend more then you, so blowing a dozen units attacking a city, when you could have taken it with few or no losses is a bad idea.

Therefore, the *only* reason to use marines is if you absolutely must attack and take that coastal city on the same turn you land. That's it. But for that, you spent X number of turns building marines. Why not just land troops near the city and attack normally? If it takes you a couple extra turns, who cares? Unless you built the marines ahead of time, but why would you do that?

I can't really think of any reason one would chose to launch an amphibous assault on a city rather then simply land next to the city and attack it a turn or two later. Certainly, building a specialty unit purely so you can do this seems silly. Even moreso, building the units first and the deciding to make an amphibous assault because you have the units is even worse circular logic.


Don't get me wrong. The tactics mentioned in the article are good tactics to use if you find yourself having to make an amphibious assault. I'm simply saying that unless there is absolutely no other way to capture a city, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Heck. Even in the situation where a small island had a unit on every square, I'd just build maybe a couple marines, take a spot next to the city, then attack the city on the following turn. There are just so few situations in which you absolutely must attack that city from sea instead of land. I can literally count on the fingers of one finger the number of times I've needed to use marines to attack an AI (small island with no landing spots). That's it.

 

[Ision]

If you have a choice between attacking a city with marines and attacking it with tanks, which would you use? The tanks, right? Everything else being equal, they have a better offensive ability, and are a fast attack unit, so you're less likely to lose them in the assault.

your comparing apples to oranges

If I have a choice between hitting a city on the 1st turn with 8 marines against 2 or 3 Infantry - or hitting the city on the second turn with 20 tanks, 10 infantry ect... vs 15 to 20 enemy units - I will take the first choice.

On the other hand, if my enemy is 'hugely inferior' to me - then I would pass up on the marines - and go pure tanks and Inf.

As you can see - it depends on the 'context', and it is that context that will determine the value or lack of - of using marines.

And if an amphibious assault in Civ3 were a more effecient method of attacking, then I'd agree with you. But it really isn't.

It really is or really isn't - depends on your skill level and the difficulty level your playing on - most players either cheat or play far below their skill level - therfore, by the time marines are available they are 3 to 5 times stronger than their nearest rival. So - yes - marines are a waste in that context. The article however assumes, that that the player is NOT in that position. The more dangerous the invasion - the HIGHER the value of marines.

Therefore, the *only* reason to use marines is if you absolutely must attack and take that coastal city on the same turn you land.

Your 'only' is disproved by the expierences of many players - including myself.

I can't really think of any reason one would chose to launch an amphibous assault on a city rather then simply land next to the city and attack it a turn or two later. Certainly, building a specialty unit purely so you can do this seems silly.

To answer your first sentence - I have already given you one example above (there are many more). As to your 'seems silly' - That remark is in itself - silly.

Lastly, please excuse me if I did not 'lay off the fancy words'.

Ision

 

[Wakboth]

Just an observation.

Originally posted by Ision
Your 'only' is disproved by the expierences of many players - including myself.

Not really. I said:

Therefore, the *only* reason to use marines is if you absolutely must attack and take that coastal city on the same turn you land.

Originally posted by Ision
If I have a choice between hitting a city on the 1st turn with 8 marines against 2 or 3 Infantry - or hitting the city on the second turn with 20 tanks, 10 infantry ect... vs 15 to 20 enemy units - I will take the first choice.

I think that qualifies as a situation where you "must" attack and take that coastal city in one turn. At least you are presenting the choice that way.


I also disagree that you "must" do that often. If he'd be able to fortify that city with 15 to 20 units on turn 2, then he'd be able to counterattack you with at least that many units if you did a one turn amphibious assault (this is dependant on how his cultural border is laid out). You're going to have to take out those units one way or another. I'd much rather do it on my terms (ie: me attacking, with the benefit of artillery barrage), then with me defending. So it may take me a few turns to cut off that city and take it with the forces I landed. I will know for a fact that I have control of the city after I take it, and I know that I've minimized my losses in the process.

I also completely disagree that this will help you if you are behind the AI in terms of military power. If you don't have enough units to land next to a city, let the AI adjust defensively, but then still take the city with your forces, then you will definately not survive the counter attack from the AI after an amphibious assault. Sure. You may very well take the city, but you wont hold it. Not for long at least. To me, if I'm behind in units, the issue of kill ratio becomes incredibly important. If I can land forces on a nice defensive point on the AI's continent (maybe with an army for defense), I can establish a kill zone and whittle away his units with little to no losses on my side. That's more important in the long run then capturing a single city. Once I'm done killing his defensive units and destroying his road network nearby, I can take that city with impunity, and hold it. That's more important IMO. If I'm well behind in military, then odds are he can mount a pretty sizable counterattack in relation to the size of my assault. On defense, he will wipe out my attacking force. Of offense, I have control of the battle.


I suppose if all you want to do is take it and raze it to deprive the AI (and perhaps open a hole in his cultural border), then using marines to do that is valid. If you actually want to capture and hold that city, I'm having a hard time thinking of a single scenario in which you'd be better off using a marine assault then a traditional "land and assault" tactic. I actually see it almost exactly opposite to you. A marine assault is a luxury that players who are well ahead of the AI use when they can afford to obtain an otherwise uneeded tech, and can afford to take significant losses when attacking. I see it as a zerg approach to assault that should be avoided if possible.


My issue with this (and the reason behind my comment about "fancy words") is that there are a lot of newer players who really do envision a D-day style invasion when they think about using marines and performing amphibious assaults, and really do think it's the "best way" to mount an attack. You are aware that the Normandy landing area was not a city site, right? The reason that spot was chosen was because the Germans had the equivalent of a fortified unit on every coastal square, so the only way to attack was via an amphibious assault. They picked an area that they thought was least defended. Emphasis on "least defended".

Pop quiz: If there had been a stretch of land that was not fortified or defended, do you think the Allies in WW2 would have attacked at Normandy? Or do you think they would have landed where there were no defenders, established their beach head, and then moved inland from there? I'll bet you anything that the later would have been chosen. In Civ3 terms, an amphibious assault is by definition an attack from a transport ship to an occupied square. No one chooses to do that if they can land somewhere that is not defended instead.


Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are situation where using marines is required (like wanting to take and raze a city). And in those cases, by all means, use the tactics written in this article. I'm just saying that a player needs to very carefully calculate the total costs involved with the attack. He needs to factor in the number of units he'll lose taking the city. He needs to calculate the likely number of forces that'll be thrown aganst him in a counter attack. He'll need to factor in the fact that the AI places a great value on city spaces and will attack them more readily then a stack in a mountain square for instance. That last one is critical. If you take a city, the AI will send every available unit to take it back. If you drop a stack on a hill or mountain next to a city, he'll be far less likely to attack you, but will instead defend. Even a relatively small force, if it's got artillery and fast attack units, can eventually wipe out a very large force, if all the other guy is doing is sitting there defending.

And that's not considering the danger of a flip. Putting your entire landing force in a city you just took this turn, which presumably is pressed in on all sides by the AIs culture, is a recipie for disaster. I just see negatives all the way around with that approach to assault.


Getting that foothold is more important IMHO then taking a city. After all, if you're even considering marines, then you've got battlefield medicine, so that's not really a factor. If your focus is on destroying his units and improvements, then mobility isn't a factor. Once I've got troops landed in the AI's territory, I can continually destroy his improvements and roads, cut off his cities, and gradually destroy his military. If I'm way behind the AI, this is the best way to win a war against him (everything else being equal of course). I've landed forces where I had less then 20 units, and the AI sent stacks of 40+ towards me, and I was able to win in the long run because I didn't waste units capturing cities, but instead focused on cutting off a section of his terrirtory, destroying his units in that territory, *then* taking a city. Sure. It takes a few more turns, but I find it works better.


Now an interesting use of marines is as coastal supression. Since a marine unit can land on another enemy occupied space, it means that it can capture workers in one turn from sea. One use for them is to just put one transport with one marine on it and have it accompany any ships you are using for naval bombardment along the AI coastline. Doing that will ensure that the AI wont repair the improvements you destroy since it wont put workers in a spot where they can be captured. Your marine unit is calculated by the AI as though it can attack into the coastal squares, so the AI wont move workers there.

Not that I've ever tried that (but it should work). I actually don't put a whole lot of value into bombarding AI coastlines. I generally find that if I spent enough to control the seas from his ships and have the extra naval units to sit around bombarding a coastline, then I probably would have been better off building something else instead. But if I've just destroyed his ships and have my ships sitting around doing nothing, why not bombard?

See? I'll even knock my own ideas...

 

[Ision]

This is my last post on this subject....

If he'd be able to fortify that city with 15 to 20 units on turn 2, then he'd be able to counterattack you with at least that many units if you did a one turn amphibious assault

If the city is taken immediately by a small group of marines then the counter-attack will be absorbed by 'full strength' Tanks and Infantry in an already conquered city - as opposed to a force that has just finished absorbing casualties from a counter-attack and then weakened further by storming a city the next turn. AI counter-attacks occur in waves – taking the city immediately you eliminate a step in the process and thus ensure a higher survivability factor. Also, by taking the city immediately and rush building a barracks – you further raise the invasions chances of long-term success against the AI waves. On average the faster an objective is taken – the better. There are of course an endless number of variables - mainly dependant on the number of enemy units. On the other hand, the number, types and specific situation may make a marine assault the wrong approach. In other words – the marine may be a great unit, an average unit or useless unit – as all specialized units are.

You are aware that the Normandy landing area was not a city site, right?

Your example is horrendous. You are aware that a single square on a standard size CIV map is probably larger than the entire province of Normandy! - and that in that province there were cities - also, that a single turn in CIV by the time of marines is measured in years - also, that D-Day landings were conducted on beaches and not mountains/hills- also, that the Allies did not land 20 tank divisions on the beaches. A better invasion analogy for CIV would be to compare an invasion that occured on an episode of Star Trek than one that occured historically. As to picking an area that is least defended - the city will never be as little defended as it is in the first turn. Basic strategic principles CAN be applied to CIV 3, but CIV 3 is a HUGE abstraction of reality, to such a degree that historical analogies are near worthless.

Pop quiz:

I graduated from high school over 20 years ago - so i'll pass on the quiz.


My last comment is to Scoutsout,

The time, effort and work that you put into an article about 'how to use marines' is appreciated. If my exchange with another poster has detracted from the direction in which you intended for the thread - I apologize.

Sincerely,

Ision

 

[scoutsout]

Originally posted by Ision
This is my last post on this subject....

Well, I'm a little disappointed to read that...

The time, effort and work that you put into an article about 'how to use marines' is appreciated. If my exchange with another poster <snip>

Thanks for the kind words, and it's no biggie on the digression. It's the 'nature of the beast' with these threads sometimes... and I've been guilty of digressing too. One thing I wanted to touch on...

Originally posted by Wakboth
Getting that foothold is more important IMHO then taking a city.

On that I wholeheartedly agree - but (for anyone still following this thread) if you conduct the type of amphibious assault using the tactics outlined in the article, the city taken is that foothold. A cornerstone of the whole set of tactics is to take that foothold with Marines and follow it with immediate reinforcement of a good number of strong defensive and offensive units.

I welcome futher discussion based on thoughtful analysis of the tactics presented in the article. The article is intended to show a tactically sound manner to use Marines, nothing more, nothing less.

I do not wish to debate amphibious landings versus amphibious assaults because (like I've said before) either can be executed in a tactically sound manner, and I honestly don't think either method is inherently "better" than another, until one starts examining specific situations. For a given situation, one method may well be more appropriate than the other (and I'll gladly concede that point) - but that discussion goes to situational analysis and comparing tactics; both of which are beyond the scope of the article, and beside the point of this discussion.

 

[Wakboth]

Hey. If folks can debate over the use of undelines in the article, I think it's fair to debate *when* to use the information in the article as well. That's all I'm trying to do. I just get concerned sometimes because newer players will read an article like this one and think they should be adjusting their play to make use of it, rather then just knowing the tactics to use if the situation should come up when they'll need it.

The article was presented as "what you can do with the marine unit", but restricted itself almost completely to attacking a city during a continent invasion. It was basically an article about amphibous assault, not the marine unit, and I felt (and still feel) that the first thing to know about a tactic is when to use it (hence the nature of my response).

How about showing other uses for marines? It can do more then just capture a city from the sea. It can capture *any* sqare from the sea. It can attack any stack of units from the sea. I mentioned being able to attack workers and such. That's important. In a PvP type game, this can be critical. Ever played against someone who'll spread unit out along coastal areas to make it harder for you to land? Marines can break that easily.

Just the threat of marines off a coastline can affect the unit movements of the other player or AI. Sometimes, that can be a more effective use of a unit then just tossing it into combat.

Are marines "useless"? Of course not. I just happen to think that the city assault use for marines is not just not the only use, but not necessarily even the most potent use of this particular unit.

 

[yankees]

thanks you to scout and very much to Ision. Ision your way of analysing is amazing you look very deep into the strategys. i have used some of the ideas in the article and isions comments in my game and it has worked well

Wakboth some of what you say is true but you seem not to want to hear anybody ideas. you talk very rude and you talk down to people.

 

[scoutsout]

Originally posted by yankees
thanks you to scout and very much to Ision. Ision your way of analysing is amazing you look very deep into the strategys. i have used some of the ideas in the article and isions comments in my game and it has worked well

@ Yankees - for some reason I didn't catch your post until now. The notification thing must have gotten messed up when they were updating the forums. Messy couple of days...but thanks for the kind words.

If what I wrote helps one player in one game, then I'm happy. If that one player is you, so much the better. Did you apply the full set of tactics, or borrow some ideas? I'd be interested to know what you took from the article and how you used it. I'd also like to know what ideas you took from Ision's posts, or if you took a little from both, etc.

@ Wakboth: In your latest post you state that your intent was to debate "when to use the information in the article". Your earlier posts are not consistent with this stated intent. You take a very clear position that amphibious assaults are the wrong way to go, and you argue that point at some length. I don't know why, but your latest post seems inconsistent with your earlier ones.

 

[Longasc]

I think all has been said. Now I want to read about the use of Helicopters!

 

[Wakboth]

Originally posted by scoutsout
@ Wakboth: In your latest post you state that your intent was to debate "when to use the information in the article". Your earlier posts are not consistent with this stated intent. You take a very clear position that amphibious assaults are the wrong way to go, and you argue that point at some length. I don't know why, but your latest post seems inconsistent with your earlier ones.

Not really inconsistent at all. I did come on a bit strong in my first post, so I was just trying to soften the position a bit. I still firmly believe that 99% of the time, you'll do better using a traditional invasion rather then trying to take a city directly from sea using marines. I've never stated any disagreement with the tactics you posted. I just disagree with the frequency at which those tactics will be needed.

As a real world example. I'm sure there are whole libraries full of tactical plans for fighting a nuclear war out there somewhere. I'm sure they are full of brilliant and incredibly detailed ideas compiled by some really smart people who really now the topic. That does not mean that it would be knocking the quality of their tactical advice to say that we should avoid using nuclear weapons in the first place, and that we could probably find a better way of "winning", and that maybe those plans should be used only if nothing else will work.

That's all I'm saying. If you can achieve a foothold on an AI continent without making a marine assault on a city from sea, then you probably should. Obviously, the decisions not going to be as extreme as deciding to use nukes in the real world, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not knocking the validity of the tactics in the article. Just trying to make it clear to the reader that there are usually better ways to land troops on an AI continent. "Break Glass in case of emergency" is a very valid analogy...

 

[dowski]

This is a great article. I like it because it really highlights the uses for Marines, a unit that doesn't get too much attention. Frankly, I get bored with the same old stack of death recipe for success. You do a good job of dealing with the tactics of naval assault.

It was mentioned in the thread that landing troops onto mountains or hills was a preferable way to conduct an invasion. One thing that I was thinking is that is is very unrealistic to land troops from the ocean into mountains. I know that Civ isn't all about realism, and I will still land troops into mountains when I feel like it too , but the marine assault sounds like a much more accurate way of conducting an invasion. I hope that they remove the ability to land onto mountains and hills in Civ4. Maybe there is a way to mod the current game?

dowski

 

[Keaka26]

Id just like to say, that I really enjoyed this article and ALL of the following posts for the most part. Thanks to those who participated intelligently in it.

Ive been on a lot of forums, and threads usually end up going way off topic, turn into flamewars, or just do anything but make sense. I've come to really appreciate this forum because of the seeming higher level of maturity compared to others. I also love the bits of history mixed in (obviously because its game related).

Keep it up guys.

Back On Topic:

Could marines be effectively used to stage a sort of blitzkreig/lightning strikes on all an enemies coastal cities on a given continent? Load up several transports with marines and just go city to city, razing each as you went along, until they had nothing left on the coast? Would this even be a useful tactic?

Oh, another quick question: Is there a more modern version of the Privateer? Im a little newbish still, and was curious.

Thanks again guys!
Keaka

 

[scoutsout]

Thanks for the compliment Keaka

Oh, another quick question: Is there a more modern version of the Privateer? Im a little newbish still, and was curious.

No, the Privateer is the only naval unit that can attack without starting a war... dig down the threads and you should find one on Privateers. Here's a thread with some decent stuff on Civ Naval Warfare.

Could marines be effectively used to stage a sort of blitzkreig/lightning strikes on all an enemies coastal cities on a given continent? Load up several transports with marines and just go city to city, razing each as you went along, until they had nothing left on the coast? Would this even be a useful tactic?

This has the potential to get into the sort of situation-specific analysis I had hoped to avoid. While it is a technique that might be appropriate in a specific circumstance, there are a couple of potential problems. Once you've razed all the enemy coastal cities, you'll have a fair sized force of Marines that are now somewhat limited in their usefulness. This is part of the reason the tactics in the article stress the "tip of the spear" concept, immediately followed by units that are more suitable for general land warfare. (The key to blitzing is not only hitting hard, but continuing to hit hard.) While the Marines can hit hard from the sea, the CivIII Marine would have a much harder time pushing inland. "Blitzing" with Marines might be suitable in an "Island Hopping" campaign, or in situations where coastal cities are are all you want to hit. That's not to say I think your idea is "bad", but I believe it might only be suitable for a specific situation.

 

[Keaka26]

I understand what you're saying about specific times when specific tactics are useful....The worst part, as your pointed out, is the future limited uses of those marines after the naval campaign is over...Maybe just take them on blind attacks en masse inland. Single out the large cities, and raze them. Continue until you have no more marines to pay upkeep on.

Since Im fairly certain my current game will be won, I'd like to have a bit of fun with it. I plan to have a monopoly on the ocean.

Build marines and transports, go to war, raze all coastal cities of one country. Work my way into peace, proceed to repeat on the next country, until I dominate the oceans...

 

[DJMGator13]

Hey Scout,

Good article.

I have a couple of questions or points.

As to your concern for cultural flip in the recently taken city, if on your transport you include a settler could you move the transport into the captured city unload all your units (with movement points intact) than disband the city and immediately use your settler to reestablish a new city on that spot and in the same turn? This would lessen the cultural flip chance, I think.

This question may be better directed to Ision.
It was stated that the AI reacts to the marines in the transports even before landing. If your transport is say 5 tiles at sea does the AI react to it? That should be out of their view but as we know the AI sees all. Would the AI infact move units into the target city or area if the transport is that far out?

 

[scoutsout]

Thanks for the compliment Gator. As to how the AI reacts, I honestly don't know, and it's been a little while since I've read through this thread, so I don't remember right off who asserted that.

Your suggestion regarding the settler and culture flipping is interesting, I honestly never thought of that... it sounds a little like a potential exploit... My first instinct would be to form a perimeter of infantry/tanks around the city, so that if it flipped it couldn't be reinforced (and easily re-taken the next turn).

 

[Gengis Khan]

As to your concern for cultural flip in the recently taken city, if on your transport you include a settler could you move the transport into the captured city unload all your units (with movement points intact) than disband the city and immediately use your settler to reestablish a new city on that spot and in the same turn? This would lessen the cultural flip chance, I think.

My $.02

Yes, you can and it's a very common tactic I use when "landing" invasions because of how beat up the city gets anyways.

However, when taking the AI city with Marines there's (normally) far less artillary bombardment so the cities normally remain mostly intact. A city that comes with a harbor to heal your beat up ships that traveled so far, a barracks to in your foothold to heal injured units, and possibly even an airport to speed up deployment of troops is easily worth the flip risk anyday. A foothold like that can cut your war time/losses in half easily.

As to your second question........... I have no idea. I'd assume that the AI recongnises the ships & sends a navy, but doesn't recognise the threat to their cities. Just a guess though.

 

[jst666]

I have in an occasion used marines against a (much)stronger opponent for surprise attack. If my rival is much stronger than me, so that an invasion cannot be done by me, but weak enough that he most likely cannot invade me, but I NEED to hurt her, I'll raze three of her big coastal cities. Surely that is bad politics and bad for the reputation, but the rival might just lose the vital SS-part she needed.

And if I'm clearly the strongest and 100% sure I'll win, then I'll build marines occasionally to be used as foot-soldiers because, as funky it may sound, I kinda like their combat animation.

 

[zerksees]

I think this is a good article to get people thinking about how marines might work in their games.

I would like to put in my 2 cents:

1) One advantage to Marines is that you can use the element of surprise to attack an enemy city that may not be well defended. Did you say this and I missed it? If you land a stack of units on a mountain it is likely the AI will demand that you leave their territory, and therefore will have a chance to attack before you can fortify. Once they see you there you can be sure the nearby cities won't be low on units.

I have not tried this type of assault yet but this article made me think it as an option.

2) One disadvantage is the low attack value. Try attacking MI in a size 14 city on a hill with a radar tower. You will need a lot of marines to take that one. Check the odds in the combat calculator.

This can be offset with bombers or battleships bombarding to soften up the units. This is a must IMO. The battleships can double as transport escorts.

3) So far (playing panacea and continents mostly) I have had only 1 case where I "needed" marines to take a city. In other cases I take the one tile island cities in peace negotiations, or let my AI allies take the city. So I see them as a specialty unit that is not in my game plan 95% of the time.