How do you do war in Civ3?

[kaskavel]

Actually if the AI has at least twice the amount of culture as you then you're better oft just razing them. For example in my last (Emperor-level) game was fighting Greece and tried to keep a town and Athens. Lost about 5 or 6 units in the town and Athens flipped as well. We both had Knights so couldn't leave either one empty. Had I simply razed them could've probably finished Greece off in one war. As it was it took two.

There are some things you can try. My favorite one is to immediately build workers until the city is down to size 1, while being careful not to allow it to grow in the meantime. I get free slave workers (no upkeep) while reducing the probability of a culture filp since I reduce the foreign citizen number. Then, I either keep the city if it suits my purposes or let it grow at size 3 and abandon it in order to avoid making other civs angry. (razing a city or abandoning a city with foreign population 50% or more causes a reputation hit).
A captured city does not flip during the first turn, so you should load it with a lot of troops in order to kill the resistance (probably healing at the same time). Afterwards, you can either keep a lot of troops inside (civassist helps you figure out when the chance of flipping gets to zero) or keep no troops inside and be ready to reconquer the city.
You may also intentionaly starve the city fast, although I prefer getting workers.
Conquering the next city (there are some conditions about that) helps reducing the flip risk as well. In general, keeping the war going is a good idea as far as flips go.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Then, I either keep the city if it suits my purposes or let it grow at size 3 and abandon it in order to avoid making other civs angry.

How does abandoning a city work, and what happens when you do? I've never done it. Is there some significance to abandoning a size 3 town?

 

[kaskavel]

Right click on the city, "abandon city". The terrain turns to "ruins" or something, but it is just for the eye, the tile works normaly and the ruins dissapear as soon as the tile is roaded. Selling the buildings before abandoning offers a few gold pieces. You do not get the free workers you would have gotten if you had razed the city (50% of the population rounded down I think?). If the majority of the citizens are foreign, then you get an attitude hit, just like if you had razed the city at the first place. This is rounded not in you favor, so abandoning at population 3 (1 foreign citizen and 2 newly created ones belonging to your tribe) prevents the hit. I would myself like to have a confirmation on those two last points (I am 95% certain). Cultural borders immediatley shrink and this is sometimes causing problems with trade agreements even if you immediately rebuild the city. As far as I know, there is no easy way to tell how far the enemy borders may expand after you abandon a city (there is some analysis somewhere in the site, but it is a lot of work to do), so it is not always easy to tell if you will be able to rebuild the city exactly where you want.

 

[justanick]

Then, I either keep the city if it suits my purposes or let it grow at size 3 and abandon it in order to avoid making other civs angry. (razing a city or abandoning a city with foreign population 50% or more causes a reputation hit).

This is not how it works. If you abandon a city within 20 turns of taking it, then it counts as if you raze it immediately. If however you wait the 20 turns(similar to a peace treaty), then it counts as if you abandon a city that you founded yourself, so no change in AI attitude there.

 

[justanick]

Actually if the AI has at least twice the amount of culture as you then you're better oft just razing them.

This option may seem temping and i donnot exclude the possibility that it is the best option under some circumstances. But my assessment is that in most circumstances this is not a good choice. A good strategy is to form a broad alliance to eliminate the enemy reasonably soon. I that case the enemy having ten times your culture will have little effect.

 

[kaskavel]

This is not how it works. If you abandon a city within 20 turns of taking it, then it counts as if you raze it immediately. If however you wait the 20 turns(similar to a peace treaty), then it counts as if you abandon a city that you founded yourself, so no change in AI attitude there.

Are you sure? I am certain I have read this somewhere in the forums, regardless whether it is true or not.

 

[kaskavel]

Thread 'Raze or Abandon?'

Sep 19, 2002

Everyone knows that razing cities you just captured is very bad for your reputation.

My question is, if you first choose to keep the city then use the "abandon city" option to abandon the city in the same turn, do you get the same reputation damage?

• Thunderfall
• Replies: 40
• Forum: Civ3 - General Discussions

For example, here (second post, second page). I have seen it elsewhere also.

 

[Spoonwood]

Actually if the AI has at least twice the amount of culture as you then you're better oft just razing them.

No. Usually the best option lies in leaving a few units outside of captured cities before rails and after rails get any captured cities onto your rail network immediately. Flipped cities are usually simple to recapture once one has a rail network connecting all cities. They don't get more than 2 free units on a culture flip. Then completely eliminate your target. There will be no more flips after that.

Raze and replace only makes sense if you plan to keep someone around until the very end of the game, like in a histographic game.

For example in my last (Emperor-level) game was fighting Greece and tried to keep a town and Athens. Lost about 5 or 6 units in the town and Athens flipped as well.

Well you probably didn't need 5 or 6 units to defend that town. But so what that they flipped? That's more target practice. And when you recapture them, that's more unit support, and another city that can produce settlers, workers, or artillery type units.

Had I simply razed them could've probably finished Greece off in one war. As it was it took two.

Huh? Don't attack enemy cities unless you're eliminating someone from the game or taking them down to one city. I don't know of any exception to such a rule.

 

[justanick]

Are you sure?

Reasonably sure. I have seen no evidence to contradict the 20-turn-rule. And back in maybe 2009 i had a savegame to confirm the 20-turn-rule in a city that as i recall it still had 50% or more foreign citizens. It has been a while, though.

 

[kaskavel]

Reasonably sure. I have seen no evidence to contradict the 20-turn-rule. And back in maybe 2009 i had a savegame to confirm the 20-turn-rule in a city that as i recall it still had 50% or more foreign citizens. It has been a while, though.

One may not contradict the other. Perhaps one gets no hit if he holds the city for 20 rounds and also gets no hit if he has gained population majority.

 

[justanick]

One may not contradict the other. Perhaps one gets no hit if he holds the city for 20 rounds and also gets no hit if he has gained population majority.

The later case should be easy to prove by joining settlers or workers to a freshly taken city. Make sure to have an AI be cautious towards you as this will make detection of effects easy.

But as far as i can tell the composition of nationality does not matter in regards to the raze-penalty on AI Attitude. Looking back at 2009 i did not appear to be sure about the details, though.

Null Eigenforschung, das Experiment 02 - Seite 23

OK, hier der Zweite Versuch. Der Erste ist ja leider etwas sehr vorzeitig gescheitert: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=46901 Einstellungen bleiben die gleichen: <a href=http://www.civforum.de/attachment.php?attachmentid=124844><img...

www.civforum.de

 

[kaskavel]

The later case should be easy to prove by joining settlers or workers to a freshly taken city. Make sure to have an AI be cautious towards you as this will make detection of effects easy.

But as far as i can tell the composition of nationality does not matter in regards to the raze-penalty on AI Attitude. Looking back at 2009 i did not appear to be sure about the details, though.

Null Eigenforschung, das Experiment 02 - Seite 23

OK, hier der Zweite Versuch. Der Erste ist ja leider etwas sehr vorzeitig gescheitert: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=46901 Einstellungen bleiben die gleichen: <a href=http://www.civforum.de/attachment.php?attachmentid=124844><img...

www.civforum.de

Just checked it and it holds true. A city with 1+1 that would turn an opponent from cautious to annoyed, has no effect if the citizens become 2+1 or 3+1

 

[Jivilov]

No. Usually the best option lies in leaving a few units outside of captured cities before rails and after rails get any captured cities onto your rail network immediately. Flipped cities are usually simple to recapture once one has a rail network connecting all cities. They don't get more than 2 free units on a culture flip. Then completely eliminate your target. There will be no more flips after that

Raze and replace only makes sense if you plan to keep someone around until the very end of the game, like in a histographic game.




Well you probably didn't need 5 or 6 units to defend that town. But so what that they flipped? That's more target practice. And when you recapture them, that's more unit support, and another city that can produce settlers, workers, or artillery type units.




Huh? Don't attack enemy cities unless you're eliminating someone from the game or taking them down to one city. I don't know of any exception to such a rule.

"Usually the best option lies in leaving a few units outside of captured cities before rails and after rails get any captured cities onto your rail network immediately. Flipped cities are usually simple to recapture once one has a rail network connecting all cities. They don't get more than 2 free units on a culture flip. Then completely eliminate your target. There will be no more flips after that."

This was around 750 AD and still in Medieval Era. You're probably right about leaving units outside, but if it isn't recaptured then once it flips (which it surely will) they gotta beat the hoplite(s) with Knights. And yeah, finished Geece off in the next war by around 850 but almost certainly would've done it sooner had I simply razed from the git-go.

"Raze and replace only makes sense if you plan to keep someone around until the very end of the game, like in a histographic game."

Sorry but I don't understand this. If you look at the Culture differentials in my post you can see that Greece (along with most others) had plenty more culture than Netherlands (OOOPS! sorry didn't include this info in my OP, since corrected; my bad). Later when I attacked Germany (around 1550 AD[?]) theirs was practically three to one. OK so I leave Cities and Metros open, they're gonna flip for sure unless they're recaptured. More target practice if the latter but even then since their City culture is restored it could make recapture a pain with Artillery unless willing to risk a Pentagon Tank Army against one or two (or more?) Mech Infantry. Anyway to make a long story short, razed practically every settlement larger than two Pop the whole game, and finished with a Domination win in 1790 AD. Not exactly a Histographic game, eh wot?

 

[Spoonwood]

More target practice if the latter but even then since their City culture is restored it could make recapture a pain with Artillery unless willing to risk a Pentagon Tank Army against one or two (or more?) Mech Infantry.

I have no idea why you're talking about tank armies. I've never found them to have any relevance in any game that I recall, except a few games where I played for space, and I got attacked in the modern era.

If you have artillery proper, recapturing should be even easier than with just a rail network. You already have a city nearby and you roll in the guns, fire, and then charge. Alright, maybe you don't? Then you bring a settler into their territory, plant a city the next turn, roll in the guns, fire, and charge. The new surburb won't flip ever.

For a relevant strategy article with pictures see here.

Anyway to make a long story short, razed practically every settlement larger than two Pop the whole game, and finished with a Domination win in 1790 AD.

I don't know what your start was like. But even with a poor start, 1790 AD strikes me as a late finish for a military game on Emperor, unless you play some variant. Even for a 60% map. Basically once artillery proper come into play, combat settlers and cavalry charges can end all relevant wars. Razing cities makes that difficult to impossible to do.

OK so I leave Cities and Metros open, they're gonna flip for sure unless they're recaptured.

They won't flip every turn. First off, no city can flip on the turn you capture it. So, in the worst case, you might control some city every other turn. Second, they won't flip for sure. It's only a probability. Third, it's well under 50% of the time that cities flip in practice playing capture and keep.

 

[Jivilov]

Ah well, you guys are the experts. Never won a game higher than Demigod so the tricks you're using are pretty well beyond me. Anyway thanks for your feedback and keep on truckin'. Cheers!

 

[kaskavel]

One may not contradict the other. Perhaps one gets no hit if he holds the city for 20 rounds and also gets no hit if he has gained population majority.

I confirmed that both of those statements are true.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Basically once artillery proper come into play, combat settlers and cavalry charges can end all relevant wars.

I've never heard this term before. What is a "combat settler"?

 

[tjs282]

I've never heard this term before. What is a "combat settler"?

Its a Settler built (often by cash-rushing, or unit-disbanding, in a recently captured town) to aggressively extend your borders into enemy territory, ideally to claim sections of already railed tiles (or tiles you can rail with a Worker-stack), which then allows you to bring your entire Arty-stack into range of an enemy town(s), and bombard all the defenders down to 1HP, all within the same turn.

The Civ3 War Academy article by Moonsinger (that I could swear I saw Spoonwood link in a recent post, but I can't remember where?) is the 'classic' explanation of this tactic.

*Rummage*

Never mind, here 'tis:

How to Use Artillery Effectively - CivFanatics

Artillery is great! However, it can move only one tile per turn inside enemy territory. Well, that's no good! If you do that, you could tie up your entire tack of artilleries at least one turn before you can use it against enemy city. If you have a tack of 100 artilleries, we are talking

www.civfanatics.com

 

[justanick]

The Civ3 War Academy article by Moonsinger (that I could swear I saw Spoonwood link in a recent post, but I can't remember where?

Here:

For a relevant strategy article with pictures see here.

 

[Jivilov]

There are some things you can try. My favorite one is to immediately build workers until the city is down to size 1, while being careful not to allow it to grow in the meantime. I get free slave workers (no upkeep) while reducing the probability of a culture filp since I reduce the foreign citizen number. Then, I either keep the city if it suits my purposes or let it grow at size 3 and abandon it in order to avoid making other civs angry. (razing a city or abandoning a city with foreign population 50% or more causes a reputation hit).
A captured city does not flip during the first turn, so you should load it with a lot of troops in order to kill the resistance (probably healing at the same time). Afterwards, you can either keep a lot of troops inside (civassist helps you figure out when the chance of flipping gets to zero) or keep no troops inside and be ready to reconquer the city.
You may also intentionaly starve the city fast, although I prefer getting workers.
Conquering the next city (there are some conditions about that) helps reducing the flip risk as well. In general, keeping the war going is a good idea as far as flips go.

Right. Been there, done that. Trouble is, this Town flipped on the second turn, causing me to lose a small stack (don't have CivAssist to tell me what the odds are). Much the same happened in Athens, although only lost a single unit there. OK, no biggie, so reconquered the same settlements but they flipped again! At that point, decided discretion is the greater part of valor and sued for peace. Next round proved decisive, although razing most settlements caused every AI to be furious with me (playing as Netherlands).

BTW Spoonwood told me that Cavalry and Artillery are a decisive combo which allows a player to sweep the board before Modern Times. Trouble is, Replaceable Parts comes much later than Military Tradition. Dunno by what wizardly he manages to get them together for a decisive push before then, and anyway this was a (randomly selected) Continents map which obliged William to amass an invasion fleet before entering Bismarck's domain. Perhaps this combo is restricted to Pangea maps?