Mistfit
Deity
For those of you, like myself that went to public schools. I looked it up.
I know Alerum would know what it ment but for the rest of us.
Tomorrow's word of the day will be:
GK2- The Training Day Experiment
- Thread starter Gengis Khan
- Start date
For those of you, like myself that went to public schools. I looked it up.
I know Alerum would know what it ment but for the rest of us.
Tomorrow's word of the day will be:
denyd
Emperor
As long as the MW's are fighting slow units they have retreatability so bring along a couple spearment to absorb counterattacks. Any new units the city rushes will cost population and will only be Conscript Spearmen, which will become MW food.
On the topic of food, you might consider starving down some of those ex-Persian cities to reduce the flip risk. As long as Persepolis is Persian all of those cities are subject to a flip check each turn.
On the topic of research what's next after Theology - Education will end the Great Library's power, or something on the lower branch.
On the topic of food, you might consider starving down some of those ex-Persian cities to reduce the flip risk. As long as Persepolis is Persian all of those cities are subject to a flip check each turn.
On the topic of research what's next after Theology - Education will end the Great Library's power, or something on the lower branch.
Sir Bugsy
Civ.D.
Coletite, you bring up an interesting problem, how to take Persepolis with minimal loss. Team, how would you approach this problem? Coletite has one way => starve it down, although that is going to be time consuming, figure an almost full food box, you're probably looking at at least ten turns to get it to pop 6. Plus you'll need 20 units plus replacements. How else can you take the city?
This is definitely a problem that doesn't have a textbook answer.
This is definitely a problem that doesn't have a textbook answer.
coletite
Warlord
Doggone unseasonable heat wave.... I forgot the MWs retreat ability. In that case, it looks like we probably have enough units to take out Persepolis.
Oh, and I remembered where I was going with the starvation line of thought... if Persepolis is the last city, and it is starved down to 1 citizen with no tile improvements, eventually their treasury will run out. They will then have to sell off buildings and military units until they have 0 maintenence costs (or rather 2, since they will still get gold from the city). This means that they will have no more than 4 spears (2 if Repubilc). My math may be off here. Plus, it would probably take longer than it is worth.
On second thought, ignore me.
[edit] cross-posted with Bugsy
Oh, and I remembered where I was going with the starvation line of thought... if Persepolis is the last city, and it is starved down to 1 citizen with no tile improvements, eventually their treasury will run out. They will then have to sell off buildings and military units until they have 0 maintenence costs (or rather 2, since they will still get gold from the city). This means that they will have no more than 4 spears (2 if Repubilc). My math may be off here. Plus, it would probably take longer than it is worth.
On second thought, ignore me.
[edit] cross-posted with Bugsy
Mistfit
Deity
I'll have to actually look at the save. I hope we come up with an appropriate answer because I believe it is my turnset.
Notes:
% chance per turn to flip (thanks Dianthus)
Antioch - 1.15%
Pasargadae - 1.10%
Tarsus - .50%
Notes:
% chance per turn to flip (thanks Dianthus)
Antioch - 1.15%
Pasargadae - 1.10%
Tarsus - .50%
scoutsout
Minstrel Boy
Whether you know it or not, your "let the defender defend" comment lies at the very heart of the concept of "Combined Arms". More on this in a minute, but you need to understand this: Each age has a unit that is potentially dominant, and defends as well (or nearly as well) as its contemporary defender.SwedishChef said:
Consider these:
Ancient Ages: Swords and Spears both defend at 2
Early Middle Ages: Knights and Pikes defend at 3
Industrial Age: Tanks defend at 8, Infantry at 10
Modern Age: Modern Armor defend at 16, Mech Infantry at 18.
The underlined units (and their UU replacements) are all capable of "blitz" warfare. (You could add some UUs to this list). When I use the term "blitz" in Civ warfare, I'm talking about a one-dimensional, straight ahead, get-in-the-AI's-face charge. A lot of people like to use the term blitzkrieg, because it sounds neat. True blitzkrieg campaigns are actually carefully coordinated combined arms assaults...but that's a digression.
The Industrial Ages are a bit odd because tanks come late and infantry come in early; you've also got an attacker (Cavalry) that is a leftover from the late Middle Ages...and you've got an intervening defender in the form of riflemen. This one I had to look up because I so rarely build them. They defend at 6... though I fear the conscript rifleman more than the "killer spearman".
Effective offensives in the early industrial era usually rely on combined arms of Infantry (or rifles) Artillery, and Cavalry. The defenders defend the stack, the artillery bombards the target, and the Cavalry attack it.
These same concepts can be applied in the Ancient and Middle Ages as well. Generally speaking, they give you an alternative if you lack a strategic resource(s). You will often see players describe a "poor man's army". An ancient era poor man's army would be made of Spears, Archers, and Catapults.
Though fighting in this manner takes a little more effort and coordination, consider this: For the cost of 7 Knights, I can build 2 Pikes (or 3 spears), 4 Longbows, and 9 Catapults.
All of this goes to something that the profession of arms calls "Order of Battle". Since this post is getting longwinded, I'll hit the high points. Order of Battle simply describes how you plan to fight; or how you think your enemy is planning to fight. Everything you know about yourself and your enemy is taken into account... terrain, resources, etc.
Are you equal or ahead in tech, and stocked with strategic resources? Consider the blitz. Lack a resource? Time to think it through and raise some version of the poor man's army... Do want to hammer somebody in the early/mid Industrial Age? Does the AI have infantry? Time to get serious about combined arms...
Whatever you do, it must fit within the plan; the ability to conduct coordinated assaults is the single biggest military advantage that the human player has over the AI opponent.
coletite
Warlord
There are 2 things that I'm hoping to get from this game more than anything else:
1) Conducting intra-continent warfare. I'm woefully inept at coordinating navy and supporting troops overseas.
2) Modern warfare with air support.
I'm really beginning to see (pun intended, although it makes more sense when you say it outloud) the value of bombarding from the coast and air. I have used the artillery/infantry/cavalry combo a lot, but have never used much navy.
1) Conducting intra-continent warfare. I'm woefully inept at coordinating navy and supporting troops overseas.
2) Modern warfare with air support.
I'm really beginning to see (pun intended, although it makes more sense when you say it outloud) the value of bombarding from the coast and air. I have used the artillery/infantry/cavalry combo a lot, but have never used much navy.
Commentary on SK turn log
Turn 1 AD 330:
Susa: Worker -> Pike.
Tokyo: Court -> Market.
Hlobane: Temple -> Pike (can be used to short rush
market if team wishes)
3 resistors vanish in tarsus, hire clown to help with
resistance.
In going through the preflight it became apparent there are lots of towns long food and short shields and income due to waste and corruption. Consider using tax collectors in any town that has more food than is needed to suport its population. Assign citizens to work food bonus tiles till you reach the supported limits of 12fpt for pop6 or 24fpt for pop12, then make all the rest tax collectors. Will do really nice things for the cash flow, although it will not help the science budget it may allow you to turn down the lux budget if you are spending lux money to keep the working citizens in those towns content. (Tax collectors never go on strike or riot.) By re-assigning citizens in four of the Japanese towns I raised income 13gpt.
Maunch Chunk: Courthouse -> Market.
Gourdium: Worker -> Market.
Kahnawake: Court ->Market.
Panama: Barracks -> Worker.
Persians start sun tzus.
Gandasetaigon founded 330AD
I lose one elite mountie and two vets before i realise
we need catapultts to harm persepolis, its too big,
the 50% defence bonus will be a pain in the ass.
The problem at Persepolis is three fold: the size of the city, the hill and the defense bonus received because your troops are fording a river. Put them on the hills on the other side and things will be easier.
Turn 3 AD 350:
Chivalry comes in, set to republic.
Did any of the nations on the other continent have republic, or money to offer for Chivalry? Could any MW's be upgraded to knights?
Turn 5 AD 370:
Niagra falls: Market -> Library.
clown for arbella.
3 resistors go in antioch. (clown hired).
Tax collectors make a greater contribution
Turn 6 AD 380:
archer beats itself to death on one of our mounties.
pasargadae flips back.
OUCH
move our mounties out to heal, ready for the catapults to arrive.
They appear scattered rather than concentrated. It is a good thing X-man is out of troops to send at them
Turn 9 AD 410:
Arbela flips back
OUCH, OUCH
Turn 10 AD 420:
Summary:
we are in position to retake the last persian city to flip, we have a persian warrior in our territory, and we are going to need more catapults to weaken persepolis.
Look carefully at the map.
One of the things I don't like about Golden Ages during war-time are the distortions introduced into the economy and the need to build military to finish off the war. I would rather use the extra shields and gold produced to build lasting improvements. One of the things that happened here is that SK made the choice to build improvements rather than military, to my mind a good call, but...
that decision prolonged the war and keeping the Persian cities under control required troops that could have been at the front, yet the most productive towns were building other things. Making a peace treaty with X-man was never really an option as getting the Persians off the continent is the manifest destiny of the Iroquois. This game really is about making the tough decisions that maintain the balance.
So what would any of you done differently?
I played ten turns with a very different outcome.
Can anybody tell me what I did?
A well-played set of turns given a difficult situation. The last stages of a continental war are the most difficult; even though the opponent is on the ropes your arms are getting very tired. Backing down and re-grouping sometimes seems like a defeat, but it is often the best thing to do. Keeping the core towns focused on improvements during the GA will deliver long term benefits.
Turn 1 AD 330:
Susa: Worker -> Pike.
Tokyo: Court -> Market.
Hlobane: Temple -> Pike (can be used to short rush
market if team wishes)
3 resistors vanish in tarsus, hire clown to help with
resistance.
In going through the preflight it became apparent there are lots of towns long food and short shields and income due to waste and corruption. Consider using tax collectors in any town that has more food than is needed to suport its population. Assign citizens to work food bonus tiles till you reach the supported limits of 12fpt for pop6 or 24fpt for pop12, then make all the rest tax collectors. Will do really nice things for the cash flow, although it will not help the science budget it may allow you to turn down the lux budget if you are spending lux money to keep the working citizens in those towns content. (Tax collectors never go on strike or riot.) By re-assigning citizens in four of the Japanese towns I raised income 13gpt.
Maunch Chunk: Courthouse -> Market.
Gourdium: Worker -> Market.
Kahnawake: Court ->Market.
Panama: Barracks -> Worker.
Persians start sun tzus.
Gandasetaigon founded 330AD
I lose one elite mountie and two vets before i realise
we need catapultts to harm persepolis, its too big,
the 50% defence bonus will be a pain in the ass.
The problem at Persepolis is three fold: the size of the city, the hill and the defense bonus received because your troops are fording a river. Put them on the hills on the other side and things will be easier.
Turn 3 AD 350:
Chivalry comes in, set to republic.
Did any of the nations on the other continent have republic, or money to offer for Chivalry? Could any MW's be upgraded to knights?
Turn 5 AD 370:
Niagra falls: Market -> Library.
clown for arbella.
3 resistors go in antioch. (clown hired).
Tax collectors make a greater contribution
Turn 6 AD 380:
archer beats itself to death on one of our mounties.
pasargadae flips back.
OUCHmove our mounties out to heal, ready for the catapults to arrive.
They appear scattered rather than concentrated. It is a good thing X-man is out of troops to send at them
Turn 9 AD 410:
Arbela flips back
OUCH, OUCHTurn 10 AD 420:
Summary:
we are in position to retake the last persian city to flip, we have a persian warrior in our territory, and we are going to need more catapults to weaken persepolis.
Look carefully at the map.
One of the things I don't like about Golden Ages during war-time are the distortions introduced into the economy and the need to build military to finish off the war. I would rather use the extra shields and gold produced to build lasting improvements. One of the things that happened here is that SK made the choice to build improvements rather than military, to my mind a good call, but...
that decision prolonged the war and keeping the Persian cities under control required troops that could have been at the front, yet the most productive towns were building other things. Making a peace treaty with X-man was never really an option as getting the Persians off the continent is the manifest destiny of the Iroquois. This game really is about making the tough decisions that maintain the balance.
So what would any of you done differently?
I played ten turns with a very different outcome.
Can anybody tell me what I did?
A well-played set of turns given a difficult situation. The last stages of a continental war are the most difficult; even though the opponent is on the ropes your arms are getting very tired. Backing down and re-grouping sometimes seems like a defeat, but it is often the best thing to do. Keeping the core towns focused on improvements during the GA will deliver long term benefits.
scoutsout
Minstrel Boy
What you guys are witnessing is one of the weaknesses of one-dimensional blitzing tactics. The troops that are so great at blitzing get tied down as you penetrate enemy territory... quelling resistance and putting up garrisons in conquered towns... The potential is there to press a little to far, and see the offensive stall.Bede said:
I played some turns in a real slugfest game tonight... I'll have a look at the save tomorrow if you still want me to Bugs.
Mistfit
Deity
I do not know what our army looked like at the begining of the turn set but if we had injured units at the beginning of the turns it may have been better to stall the offensive to heal up, pop some cats get them into position to set up the next player. I have had the tendencies to overextend myself in my warring efforts, where I end up losing more units than necessary.
Why is monosyllabic a 5 syllable word?
Why is monosyllabic a 5 syllable word?
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,242
scoutsout said:
So... what can you do to alleviate this problem? Solutions include
1. Raze and replace cities.
2. Rushing a rax near the action for quicker healing.
3. Building some cheap units for resistance quelling.
4. Roading/railing to the front line to speed reinforcement.
5. The use of cats/canon/arty to improve surviveability and reduce the total loss of hit points.
6. The use of armies as city busters - to bear the brunt of the first attack against the strongest units.
7. Pause the war to regroup and allow healing.
8. Avoid battles other than to directly attack a city. Ignore enemy units that do not garrison cities.
What are the pros and cons of each of these tactics?
JackRules
incompertus vapulus
mad-bax,
You say: "The use of armies as city busters - to bear the brunt of the first attack against the strongest units."
Is this generally a good game plan...use available armies to initiate an assault on a city to remove strongest defenders? Then come in with single units?
You say: "The use of armies as city busters - to bear the brunt of the first attack against the strongest units."
Is this generally a good game plan...use available armies to initiate an assault on a city to remove strongest defenders? Then come in with single units?
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,242
It is a tactic that can be useful. What else can armies be useful for? Think about it.
1. Pillaging. Yeah... so what? One pillaged tile per turn. Sorry, but not a good use of such an axpensive resource.
2. Standing a stack of arty on. OK fine. That uses a third of an armies capability. But fair enough.
3. Disbanding into a city for 100shields. This is a really good use for an army. Seriously.
4. Attacking stuff.
Lets say you are attacking a city where the top defender is a vet Pike. The city is size 9 say. How many cats would you need to reduce the city to size 6 and get the pike down to a level where a knight has a good chance of winning. A knight army however will win, and if the RNG is kind can win twice. The third defender could easily be a regular spear, which is much better for your single knight or even sword. The use of the army costs you the same number of hit points, but it reduces the number of deaths (shield loss) and it reduces the number of injured units (which reduces the time it takes to complete the destruction of the enemy).
Perhaps the use of armies to pillage, or to defend is not the best use for them.
Unfortunately, armies take an age to heal. Therefore it is best to have a barracks nearby. If you rush a barracks in a captured city, you must do this instead of rushing a temple (because of the rate at which you are advancing and the time it takes to quell resistance). This puts your healing units at high flip risk. By razing and replacing a city and then rushing the rax, the flip risk is far lower. And so you begin to see that it is a combination of these techniques that gives the synergy (posh word) and so the greatest advantage. It is a question of maximising the difference between the rate of hit point generation and the rate of hit point loss... bearing in mind A/D/M values of course.
1. Pillaging. Yeah... so what? One pillaged tile per turn. Sorry, but not a good use of such an axpensive resource.
2. Standing a stack of arty on. OK fine. That uses a third of an armies capability. But fair enough.
3. Disbanding into a city for 100shields. This is a really good use for an army. Seriously.
4. Attacking stuff.
Lets say you are attacking a city where the top defender is a vet Pike. The city is size 9 say. How many cats would you need to reduce the city to size 6 and get the pike down to a level where a knight has a good chance of winning. A knight army however will win, and if the RNG is kind can win twice. The third defender could easily be a regular spear, which is much better for your single knight or even sword. The use of the army costs you the same number of hit points, but it reduces the number of deaths (shield loss) and it reduces the number of injured units (which reduces the time it takes to complete the destruction of the enemy).
Perhaps the use of armies to pillage, or to defend is not the best use for them.
Unfortunately, armies take an age to heal. Therefore it is best to have a barracks nearby. If you rush a barracks in a captured city, you must do this instead of rushing a temple (because of the rate at which you are advancing and the time it takes to quell resistance). This puts your healing units at high flip risk. By razing and replacing a city and then rushing the rax, the flip risk is far lower. And so you begin to see that it is a combination of these techniques that gives the synergy (posh word) and so the greatest advantage. It is a question of maximising the difference between the rate of hit point generation and the rate of hit point loss... bearing in mind A/D/M values of course.
Mistfit
Deity
Pros & Cons:
1. Raze and replace cities.
Pro:
Lessen chance of flipping
Move the city a bit if it does not fit in the master plan.
Con:
Loose a potentially "pre-improved" city
More chance of flipping back to the enemy
2. Rushing a rax near the action for quicker healing.
Pro:
quicker healing
Con:
Costs cash or lives dependent on gov't
If this is done in a captured city it can flip to the enemy
3. Building some cheap units for resistance quelling.
Pro:
Lessen the chance of flipping
Con:
Producing a unit that will prolly only ever be used for this purpose.
A bit of a waste of shields if it is going to be an extended war
4. Roading/railing to the front line to speed reinforcement.
Pro:
Good use of workers/slaves
Con:
Taking away worker turns from the core. (if this is the case you need more workers)
5. The use of cats/canon/arty to improve surviveability and reduce the total loss of hit points.
Pro:
See heading
Con:
Not many, cost, and they are slow movers
6. The use of armies as city busters - to bear the brunt of the first attack against the strongest units.
Pro:
Lots of HP to weaken the city before attacking with a lesser unit
Con:
You need an Army
7. Pause the war to regroup and allow healing.
Pro:
Heal up and reinforce your exisitng army
Con:
Allows the enemy to do the same
Allows for more chances for captured cities to flip
8. Avoid battles other than to directly attack a city. Ignore enemy units that do not garrison cities.
Pro:
Less damage to units
Con:
If it dosen't work you are done
1. Raze and replace cities.
Pro:
Lessen chance of flipping
Move the city a bit if it does not fit in the master plan.
Con:
Loose a potentially "pre-improved" city
More chance of flipping back to the enemy
2. Rushing a rax near the action for quicker healing.
Pro:
quicker healing
Con:
Costs cash or lives dependent on gov't
If this is done in a captured city it can flip to the enemy
3. Building some cheap units for resistance quelling.
Pro:
Lessen the chance of flipping
Con:
Producing a unit that will prolly only ever be used for this purpose.
A bit of a waste of shields if it is going to be an extended war
4. Roading/railing to the front line to speed reinforcement.
Pro:
Good use of workers/slaves
Con:
Taking away worker turns from the core. (if this is the case you need more workers)
5. The use of cats/canon/arty to improve surviveability and reduce the total loss of hit points.
Pro:
See heading
Con:
Not many, cost, and they are slow movers
6. The use of armies as city busters - to bear the brunt of the first attack against the strongest units.
Pro:
Lots of HP to weaken the city before attacking with a lesser unit
Con:
You need an Army
7. Pause the war to regroup and allow healing.
Pro:
Heal up and reinforce your exisitng army
Con:
Allows the enemy to do the same
Allows for more chances for captured cities to flip
8. Avoid battles other than to directly attack a city. Ignore enemy units that do not garrison cities.
Pro:
Less damage to units
Con:
If it dosen't work you are done
mad-bax said:
Going down the list...
1. Raze/replace cities
Pros: Resistance and flips aren't a problem when the cities don't exist; this frees troops from garrison duty.
Cons: Rebuilding a city, its population, and the improvements within it is costly economically - not only because you have to produce everything yourself, but because you've lost turns that the captured city might not have been in resistance. (If there is no flip and the city becomes productive immediately, you gain all that production that you have a 0% chance of seeing if you raze it.)
2. Rushing a barracks near the action
Pros: If the main problem is that troops are getting too injured to continue, they can be healed quickly and at a reasonable cost.
Cons: But if the main problem is something more to do with culture flips, not having enough units to seal the deal, or one obnoxiously large city on a hill protected by rivers on the convenient side, then the solution probably doesn't lie in being able to quickly heal units.
3. Building some cheap units for resistance quelling
Pros: Cheap units are...well...cheap, allowing an inexpensive solution to culture problems. They can also be used for the occasional battle in a pinch.
Cons: They take time and money to produce, and then they require unit support as long as they exist. They may not be worth as much (depending on potential upgrades) once the war is over, and you don't get very much out of disbanding them (since they were inexpensive to begin with).
4. Roading/railing the front line to speed reinforcement
Pros: Reinforcement is a more direct solution to the "we're burnt out for lack of troops against a powerful city" problem. Roads in and around captured cities on the war front will eventually be useful for economic reasons.
Cons: This sucks up worker turns that could be used to improve our already-productive cities (or requires building just a few more workers) and requires that units be assigned to the workers' defense. Building roads still leaves the problem of where the reinforcements will come from; that also takes up some economic output.
5. Using siege units and artillery to reduce HP loss
Pros: Catapults et al. can be massed to knock a city's defenders into submission, which allows you to take a city with fewer units.
Cons: I see catapults as most useful as part of an overall plan of attack. When they are built ahead of time and sent to the front lines in a coordinated fashion, sometimes they can be just what's needed. But building them in a sort of "after the fact" manner, as we would be doing here, has a few downsides.
Once again, it takes a reasonable amount of economic output just to build the catapults. Then we'd also have to finance defenders for the catapult stack who were at least powerful enough to make sure that the catapults don't get captured (although this is something of a function of what Persia's army is packing). Catapults are also slow, so sending them all in from the main part of the nation will take a fair amount of time.
6. Using armies to break open battles against strong units
Pros: Armies have large amounts of resources available to beat up a single unit, and if they are lucky early on, they can take out more than one unit per turn.
Cons: We don't have any armies.
...
Plus, armies are somewhat weaker in 1.29 compared to C3C (this is IIRC stuff; please correct me if I'm wrong about the bonuses - I believe armies gained attack/defense bonuses only in C3C), so their main advantage lies in their hit points. Armies can also be used in other roles - garrison duty, for example, or chasing down individual marauding units in the countryside.
7. Pause the war to regroup and allow healing.
Pros: You can get back to an economic focus, which would allow you to implement one of the other solutions suggested above. Your units do get to heal in the meantime without need for construction of a barracks that might become meaningless later.
Cons: Economic focus is a two-way street. If you aren't clearly winning the war, allowing your opponent to regroup might allow him to catch his breath long enough to make life difficult when you return to war. You may have to wait longer than you'd like to resume the war, depending on the diplomatic contacts available to your opponent. And, of course, if you stop the war in the middle, you don't get the production of the enemy's towns as quickly as you would otherwise (unless you really need the pause for reinforcement).
8. Avoid enemy units that do not garrison cities
(I'm afraid I don't really understand this one. If your eventual goal is the cities, what's the concern with the units that aren't garrisoning them? Is it mostly a question of pulling troops into cities for extra defense?)
--
I think it may be time to sit down and come up with another rather tactical plan for how to clean up in Persia, especially with a deadly size-11 Persepolis. Then, once we have a workable plan, we can see how the "time and money" factor fits into that plan. (All the plans above require an investment in turns [to move catapults, say] and resources [to build the catapults and their defenders]; a more definite plan might allow us to better judge which plan is the best.)
Mistfit
Deity
nice write-up GJ
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,242
Yep. That's pretty much it Mistfit. So every tactic has risks, the skill is in deciding which risks to take and when.
Note particularly point 7. Mistfit is absolutely correct. Whilst you heal and regroup, the enemy does the same. So how much are you gaining? Is it possible to acheive the same thing another way? Keeping your units in stacks is important for this. If you use a unit in a stack to kill a stray enemy unit, your unit may end its turn away from the stack. Over a few turns you have injured units spread all over the place, with the enemy diving out of the fog and picking them off. Don't do it. Ignore them. If they decide to suicide on your SOD between turns then more fool them. So keep your stacks togehter. Have more than 1 stack. Put a defender at the base of the stack so your injured elites are never on top. Rest one stack for a turn but attack with the other. Don't build huge stacks that are far bigger than you need to attack a single city. Split them into several stacks and let them take it in turns to heal. Get a kill rate above 10 to 1 and you are laughing. Sir Pleb and Bamspeedy have both demonstarted the ability to achieve kill rates of 50 to 1 and more! Then you can play Sid.
Note particularly point 7. Mistfit is absolutely correct. Whilst you heal and regroup, the enemy does the same. So how much are you gaining? Is it possible to acheive the same thing another way? Keeping your units in stacks is important for this. If you use a unit in a stack to kill a stray enemy unit, your unit may end its turn away from the stack. Over a few turns you have injured units spread all over the place, with the enemy diving out of the fog and picking them off. Don't do it. Ignore them. If they decide to suicide on your SOD between turns then more fool them. So keep your stacks togehter. Have more than 1 stack. Put a defender at the base of the stack so your injured elites are never on top. Rest one stack for a turn but attack with the other. Don't build huge stacks that are far bigger than you need to attack a single city. Split them into several stacks and let them take it in turns to heal. Get a kill rate above 10 to 1 and you are laughing. Sir Pleb and Bamspeedy have both demonstarted the ability to achieve kill rates of 50 to 1 and more! Then you can play Sid.
Mistfit
Deity
Shows I have a long way to go
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,242
And another thing... 
The raze and replace tactic goes hand in hand with the road/rail to the front line tactic. Razing cities gives free workers. You can accumulate a gazillion workers (roughly) very quickly and it is possible to road and rail BEYOND where your stacks are every turn at zero cost. Don't rail to where your stacks are. Rail to where they need to be. So the first thing you do at the start of every turn is get your slaves to rail to the next target, then use those rails on the same turn for your SOD. It is not difficult to rail 6 tiles inside enemy territory, use a combat settler to push back the culture and use the rails to take the next city.
If you pillage the enemy to death you cannot do that since the underlying roads are lost which means workers will end their turn as soon as they step onto the tile. Be careful what you pillage. Try to leave a road network on flat ground as far as possible, for future rails.
The raze and replace tactic goes hand in hand with the road/rail to the front line tactic. Razing cities gives free workers. You can accumulate a gazillion workers (roughly) very quickly and it is possible to road and rail BEYOND where your stacks are every turn at zero cost. Don't rail to where your stacks are. Rail to where they need to be. So the first thing you do at the start of every turn is get your slaves to rail to the next target, then use those rails on the same turn for your SOD. It is not difficult to rail 6 tiles inside enemy territory, use a combat settler to push back the culture and use the rails to take the next city.
If you pillage the enemy to death you cannot do that since the underlying roads are lost which means workers will end their turn as soon as they step onto the tile. Be careful what you pillage. Try to leave a road network on flat ground as far as possible, for future rails.
