How can I deal with the massive amounts of enemy units?

[Abjsalon]

Hi Civ Fans

I love the Vox Populi mod - Have played it several times and almost always win the game when playing King difficulty.

I´ve now tried several games on Emeperor level, but always lose due to being an attacked by an AI who has MASSIVE amounts of units.

One game I played shoshone Indians. I had taken down the Atzecs, and had an army of highly leveled units and several GGs. The Ottomans declared war. I immediately threw down two citadels, constructed roads to the citadels so that I could reinforce my units and moved my remaining GG to the battle site. For decades my soliders fought with perfect discipline not losing a single unit while mass-slaughtering the invaders... But alas in the end it wasnt enough, the stream of units coming in was just never-ending.

Last games I played Marokko and was attacked by Songhai. Kabash+Citadel+road+GG didn´t do the trick for me.

In both games I was technologically even or a litlle ahead of my opponents.

How do you guys manage war on emeperor level and above?

On Vanilla playing this defensive style of warfare always worked really well, but since the unit-upgrade systems has changed so much I feel all the good defensive upgrades are gone. Instead the flanking bonus gives a big advantage when you have more units than your opponent - Which further strengthens the AI.
Also OP upgrades like the double ranged shot has been nerfed - which is a good thing, I just dont know how to handle the AI when I cant expolit this anymore.

Looking forward to hearing your answers

 

[tu_79]

You've answered yourself. I'm not proficent in Emperor yet, but some players adviced to hit the unit cap if you can. So, you won't be holding positions for long.

 

[Abjsalon]

Thanks for the answer, but I dont think I answered myself. I just wrote what I´ve tried - and that it didn´t work.

What does it mean "to hit the unit cap?"

 

[tu_79]

Sorry, I meant the unit supply limit. In King more units is useful for the opportunities, but not really needed, as you can beat the AI just developing cities. Now you need to win wars. (or be a very efficient Tradition civ). I'm facing the same problem as you, and the only exit I foresee is delaying more buildings in favor of units.

 

[SirCarlGustav]

It really does depend on which Era you're having trouble with, because different units dominate different Eras and you should have a variety of units accordingly.

My one recommendation for Ancient Era warfare is to ALWAYS build a Scout either first or after your first building upon starting a game. So if you don't play with Ancient Ruins choose either Shrine or Monument and then Scout, but if you play with ruins then Scout first. And after you build him, never let him die. Ever, he should make it all the way to the Explorer upgrade.

The reason being that the AI cannot handle a Survivalism III + Medic II Scout without the aid of Horsemen or Skirmishers. High level Scouts laugh off the damage done by Spearman if they're in a defensive tile and once you've figured out how to trap enemies with Zone of Control you can whittle them down. Use your Shock III + March melee units to provide flanking bonuses for your mounted Cavalry to come in and hit melee units when they're weak, and use their mobility to take out enemy Archers behind their ranks.

I cannot stress enough just how important defensive terrain is when you're at war with a larger military. Rivers, forests and hills will keep your units alive and safe from ranged units and will provide opportunities to create choke points. Just make sure you destroy their core army quickly and don't waste any time in a stalemate unless you have no choice and intent to defend until peace. The AI gets bigger bonuses to production and thus will often be able to outproduce you if you let them, which is why you can't keep taking potshots over hills with your ranged units forever. You need to use your mounted and scout units to raid their strategic resources and pillage their productive tiles if you want to slow their supply of units.

Also remember that each time you damage their units they gain experience, so attack with the intent to kill unless you want a stronger, fully healed unit to come back after you. And by the way, "hitting the unit cap" means fielding the largest army made possible by a combination of the number of cities you have and your total population. You can check your supply cap in the military overview. The supply cap is another reason why you cannot fight a defensive war for long, you need to raze or puppet the enemy's cities so that they can't maintain such a superpower level military. Target their strategic resources or the cities with the most population and not just any of their cities.

 

[Y.O.]

So I just made the transition from king to Emperor and definitely found the difficulty change of war a bit jarring. Civs like Denmark have huge armies and them going authority makes war a long battle of attrition. I would say hit the unit cap as often as you can--if you can't make any more units, gift them to the nearest city-state. I usually send 3 or 4 units to one within travel distance, so I don't have to wait 3 turns between each gifting. Have a few cities dedicated to military production, and make sure those cities have hills or forests; both have defensive bonuses and you can build mines and lumber mills, respectively. I try to have one for ranged, one for melee, and two coastal cities dedicated to a navy, but I have the tendency to play aggressive Civs. It's also important to have medic units--you don't worry about it much in King, but it's crucial on Emperor IMO. With all that being said, don't be afraid to go aggressive. I found that bunkering isn't a suitable style for VP. Could just be me, but you have to at least push to take cities, even if you only make them to be puppets. Always aim to be in the top half of military, even if it means a few of your cities are behind infrastructure wise.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I'm playing on immortal. Some things that help me (though occasionally I'll still be eventually overrun by the AI "Zerg hordes" ):
1. Very careful city placements to limit the potential AI's bombardment positions. I'd rather have 1-2 cities less if it means that the vulnerable cities are well positioned. In my experience, I can handle my cities being constantly attacked by melee units for 100s of turns, as long as they're very rarely range-attacked.

If you look at the screenshot (not the greatest example, but still), I position Canberra so that the forests to the west prevent it being exposed to ranged fire from 2-3 tiles away (until the modern era when artileries have indirect fire). I'll make sure to not chop the forests down until I have conquered the Songhai cities and made Canberra a non-vulnerable city. I'd wait even if the forest tiles had luxuries etc. on them, as they're not worth exposing the city. I'll also keep the forest unchopped on the hill to the north, so I'll be able to keep my unit on the stone tile to the north safe from ranged. the sheep hill to the south could be problematic if Songhai managed to put a catapult etc. on it, but I can put a melee unit to the east in a fort and then two ranged units further east. So when the Songhai will put their range units on any on the west forest tiles or sheep hill, I'll be able to quickly destroy them.

2. Be careful which unit kills the enemy unit. Use units placed in citadels, forts and cities or ranged units to finish the enemy unit. In the above example, Songhai will have a mass of units western to the forests. If any of my units will move to the forest tile, it will almost certainly be killed in one turn. So I make sure that by killing his forest-stationed unit I don't move my unit to the tile. So for example I'll use a horseman or two to wound the unit before retreating them, then further attack with ranged units/bombard units, then finish him off with the unit in the city (which I'll move it in once my horsemen retreated after attacking). Units don't leave cities, forts and citadels upon killing the enemy unit. (but they do if there's only a civilian unit you're attacking, so be careful when destroying isolated enemy GGs, emissaries etc.).

3. Even if you go tradition or progress, consider spending the 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th social policies on authority opener and the first one on the right side of the tree (increased unit cap, science and 15 hit points healed on kill), even if that means it will delay finishing the progress/tradition tree. How early you should take these two authority policies depend on when you'll start to be seriously attacked by the AI. This will help you profit from constant wars (by earning culture and science), it will help you hold your defensive positions (15 hp healing is massive) and it will help you have enough units even with less cities (increased unit cap).

4. Be sure to prioritize the medic 1 and 2 promotions so your units will heal quickly.

5. Be patient. This is crucial. I'll often have "only" 6 or 7 cities until the renaissance era and won't conquer any until mid/late renaissance era or early industrial. Until then, keep improving your military (and racking up promotions), benefiting from defensive wars (science, culture), tying the AI's resources to futilly attacking you. At some point, your units will be so buffed up with promotions you'll be able to slowly steamroll your way to the AIs cities. And again, don't rush conquering. By using the two above authority policies, you gain a lot even by slowly moving into the enemy's territory.

6. Tying into the "be patient" advice-> short-term it will bother you that you have to leave forests/jungles unchopped even with luxuries, iron,..., on them, but it will pay off in the long term. Also, you'll sometimes have to "waste" a good tile by putting a fort on it instead of building a village on it. Again, it will be worth it in the long run.

7. On the city placements -> sometimes it's worth settling two or three tiles away from the ocean and sacrificing those ocean tiles if it means it will be much more defensible. It's much harder to play the defensive war with naval units (because there aren't any obstacles to ranged fire, any defensive chokepoints, terrain bonuses).

8. Chokepoints. Be sure to sacrifice your city placement or (not) improving a forested tile if it means you'll be able to control a chokepoint and pick enemy units apart with your ranged units and fort-stationed melee units (which will heal 15 hp on finishing off the enemy unit).

Ok, so much for now, hope it helps. Best of luck!

 

[Gazebo]

Generally-speaking, how are you finding the AI's tactical behavior during war? I hope an improvement over vanilla!

G

 

[tu_79]

You don't care about behavior if they come 4 to 1. You fight and desperate.

 

[ElliotS]

Honestly it's all experience. I play on Deity where they have probably 2x more units than the ASs you're facing and sometimes I need to start defensively, sometimes I can alpha-strike and fight them on their soil. Sometimes fighting a stronger opponent defensively won't work, but attacking their cities and forcing them to be defensive can. (especially with naval superiority.)

It's not easy to put into words, so just fight and learn.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Hey, Abjsalon, I just wanted to post a picture showing a sacrifice of coastal cities for the benefit of better defensive positions. Hope our replies are helping you with your war efforts.

 

[Strigvir]

Generally-speaking, how are you finding the AI's tactical behavior during war? I hope an improvement over vanilla!

G

They are pretty clever, but that's a double edged sword tbh, as it outlines the basic problems with Civ5 combat. The combination of lower cap, the general annoyance of managing carpets (the one AI doesn't have to deal with) and the lack of cheesy strats means the only way to counter a big army is to field an even bigger army to avoid being flanked. Otherwise it becomes a 100+ turns stalemate with both sides spewing units faster than they die (take note this is on Epic, I bet faster speeds are even worse in that regard).

 

[Dawnpromise]

Generally-speaking, how are you finding the AI's tactical behavior during war? I hope an improvement over vanilla!

G

They are pretty clever, but that's a double edged sword tbh, as it outlines the basic problems with Civ5 combat. The combination of lower cap, the general annoyance of managing carpets (the one AI doesn't have to deal with) and the lack of cheesy strats means the only way to counter a big army is to field an even bigger army to avoid being flanked. Otherwise it becomes a 100+ turns stalemate with both sides spewing units faster than they die (take note this is on Epic, I bet faster speeds are even worse in that regard).

Personally, I feel that 'mass unit warfare' is when the games combat get so much less tactical it turns into a chore. There's no real 'active' solution aside from turtle up, keep up a chokepoint, and pile on the ranged attackers.

That said, I do find learning how to properly 'fall back' is a useful skill in such situations. Learn how to withdraw and replace injured units for healing if they're taking more damage then they can deal with.

From a design perspective I'd like to see units or promotions made available that can deal damage to 'groups' or 'waves' of enemies even if the damage to additional targets is greatly reduced dealing 33% or even a fixed 5 damage to nearby units would be a great boon when late game war rolls around. (Something like the Swedish Caroleon's Grenadier promotion would be great for this role.)

Right now the only real solution for massive armies is to start dropping nukes liberally. Which in some cases maybe be counter intuitive when dealing with an invading force, either in your own lands or when defending an ally.

Maybe let regular missiles do AoE damage like nukes do? (with smaller area and reduced damage of course. Maybe with a chance of pillaging tiles effected as well, just no fallout).

 

[Gazebo]

They are pretty clever, but that's a double edged sword tbh, as it outlines the basic problems with Civ5 combat. The combination of lower cap, the general annoyance of managing carpets (the one AI doesn't have to deal with) and the lack of cheesy strats means the only way to counter a big army is to field an even bigger army to avoid being flanked. Otherwise it becomes a 100+ turns stalemate with both sides spewing units faster than they die (take note this is on Epic, I bet faster speeds are even worse in that regard).

Personally, I feel that 'mass unit warfare' is when the games combat get so much less tactical it turns into a chore. There's no real 'active' solution aside from turtle up, keep up a chokepoint, and pile on the ranged attackers.

That said, I do find learning how to properly 'fall back' is a useful skill in such situations. Learn how to withdraw and replace injured units for healing if they're taking more damage then they can deal with.

From a design perspective I'd like to see units or promotions made available that can deal damage to 'groups' or 'waves' of enemies even if the damage to additional targets is greatly reduced dealing 33% or even a fixed 5 damage to nearby units would be a great boon when late game war rolls around. (Something like the Swedish Caroleon's Grenadier promotion would be great for this role.)

Right now the only real solution for massive armies is to start dropping nukes liberally. Which in some cases maybe be counter intuitive when dealing with an invading force, either in your own lands or when defending an ally.

Maybe let regular missiles do AoE damage like nukes do? (with smaller area and reduced damage of course. Maybe with a chance of pillaging tiles effected as well, just no fallout).

Yeah, I guess the only sure-fire method to solve that problem would be to increase unit costs. I've considered having unit production costs increase the closer you get to your unit cap, but that might just punish the humans. I could also reduce the AI's unit supply handicap bonus quite a bit.

 

[Dawnpromise]

Yeah, I guess the only sure-fire method to solve that problem would be to increase unit costs. I've considered having unit production costs increase the closer you get to your unit cap, but that might just punish the humans. I could also reduce the AI's unit supply handicap bonus quite a bit.

That certainly would help. One of the reasons late-game wars drag so much is that most civs start reaching a point where they can field units faster then they lose them. This is neither satisfying to gameplay or presenting any level or realism about how wars strain a nation (though that element is ment to be represented by war weariness, to varying success).

 

[Gazebo]

That certainly would help. One of the reasons late-game wars drag so much is that most civs start reaching a point where they can field units faster then they lose them. This is neither satisfying to gameplay or presenting any level or realism about how wars strain a nation (though that element is ment to be represented by war weariness, to varying success).

Which?

 

[Dawnpromise]

Which?

Which what? Please clarify.

 

[Gazebo]

Which what? Please clarify.

>That certainly would help.

Which of my two points? The production cost increase, or the cap decrease?

 

[Dawnpromise]

Either, and/or.

I personally have NEVER seen the unit cap except on the receiving end, even on the rare times I go for domination (I find an elite force to hit one foe at a time and a defensive force typically works out.)

A production cost increase when approaching your unit cap would also be a way to make the unit cap feel more relevant as again, its just some arbitrary number I'm never going to see anyway so what does it matter?

As far as I'm concerned you could toy with both levers until a happy balance is found. I may be the anomaly here however as personally as I usually don't play aggressively, partly because wars quickly escalate to mass unit management that so part I wish I could outsource it to the AI (Which is praise for the AI but a black mark about game-play when you'd rather the game played itself.)

 

[pandasnail]

I hit the early game supply cap pretty often nowadays. Once I go conquering, it stops being an issue, but in the Classical and maybe Medieval, it for sure matters I find.

And actually, in my last game I was at the cap even in the Atomic Era. But I only had five cities, and all four of my neighbors hated me and kept in constant multi-front warfare, literally DoWing me the turn the peace deal ended multiple times. Guess that's what happens when you use your UA to steal their best tiles. I think that's aberrational, altho I don't play tall often to be positive.