How Much do you Prep for Invasions?

[Dragon1965]

In my current game I have the largest country on a huge sized Pangaea world. I have 6 other nations on the continent, all with at least 25 cities. I have ~45 cities (the next biggest country probably has ~35). All the countries have similar tech levels to mine, but I surprisingly have no rubber anywhere in my territory (despite about half of it being jungle prior to clearing). Paid through the nose for rubber in a deal with China and started cranking out tanks until the contract expired. Here's what I have prepared for my invasion force (Germany will be the first victim because of a rubber deposit they have very close to my territory, and they have Panzers!):

~225 tanks
~125 infantry
~60 artillery
~ 50 Cavalry
~ 25 Swordsmen

I use the Cavalry and Swordsmen for pacifying conquered cities. I have enough of them that I can move them into conquered cities and pacify them very quickly.

For the record I started the invasion before I came in to work tonight, and I conquered 4 German cities and destroyed 2. The rubber is only 1 city away and will be conquered next turn when I get off in the morning

 

[vorlon_mi]

Disclaimer: I play at Regent level, but I read these forum articles a lot. I tend to underprepare for a land-based invasion since I rarely build a stack that large. I will invade with a stack of 20, and find that after taking 3 cities, I have to stop the invasion to garrison some of my newly-acquired cities. Resupply from my core cities is slower since my rail network is not complete yet.

My question is why you didn't press your advantage sooner, 10 turns or so before. Once you realize that you don't have rubber but the Germans do, build a stack of cavalry, cannons, and riflemen and take a chunk of their territory with that rubber supply -- before they have much chance to build infantry defenders. During your 20-turn contract with China, Germany was also building defenders, making your job harder. Even if they have another source somewhere else, you won't give them the gift of time to prepare.

 

[Aabraxan]

What level are you playing at? The level of preparation (obviously) depends on the level, as well as the landform. Pangea will require more than continents, just because you have more potential enemies, and because the AI stinks at naval invasions. At Emperor (standard, continents) what you have is more than enough to win several wars.

Please let us know how the invasion goes.

 

[Dragon1965]

Disclaimer: I play at Regent level, but I read these forum articles a lot. I tend to underprepare for a land-based invasion since I rarely build a stack that large. I will invade with a stack of 20, and find that after taking 3 cities, I have to stop the invasion to garrison some of my newly-acquired cities. Resupply from my core cities is slower since my rail network is not complete yet.

My question is why you didn't press your advantage sooner, 10 turns or so before. Once you realize that you don't have rubber but the Germans do, build a stack of cavalry, cannons, and riflemen and take a chunk of their territory with that rubber supply -- before they have much chance to build infantry defenders. During your 20-turn contract with China, Germany was also building defenders, making your job harder. Even if they have another source somewhere else, you won't give them the gift of time to prepare.

Thanks for replying. The reason I built such a huge army was that I didn't want to have to rely on success against the Germans to obtain Rubber, plus I always plan very conservatively (if I'm going to invade somebody I want everything I"m going to need before I start the war). Suppose I built a smaller force as you suggested but the random number generator takes a disliking to me, I could well end up in a quagmire against a superior opponent after falling short of my goal (the rubber deposit). That's why I signed a rubber contract with China specifically to build up a gigantic force of tanks to rub out Germany as quickly as possible.

For the record I usually play on the Warlord difficulty level, and if I'm feeling masochistic I may amp it up to Regent or Monarch. I'm generally a "builder" type and prefer to expand without fighting, if at all possible. Yeah, I can win at Regent level, but I get annoyed having to work so hard to play a game. If I want to get masochistic I'll crack out XCOM2

Regarding my invasion it was a success and went off with hardly any issues. I conquered all the border cities in the first turn and spread out from there, moving in Cavalry/Swordsmen to squash dissent (leftover from previous eras, I never disband them because they are still useful for suppressing dissent in newly conquered cities when I finally do start conquering). It took me 5 turns or so to conquer nearly all their cities before I subjected them to a humiliating peace treaty (couldn't get to their other cities without crossing other countries). Here's the kicker: totally curbstomped Germany and then LOST not that much afterward because England won the "Space Race", lol. I always disable the spaceship win but forgot this time. I was way ahead in population, size, culture, and military, too. Man, that was super annoying. I think the game ranked me "Joan of Arc - The Strong", lol

 

[Aabraxan]

....For the record I usually play on the Warlord difficulty level, and if I'm feeling masochistic I may amp it up to Regent or Monarch. I'm generally a "builder" type and prefer to expand without fighting, if at all possible. Yeah, I can win at Regent level, but I get annoyed having to work so hard to play a game.....

.... huge sized Pangaea world. I have 6 other nations on the continent, all with at least 25 cities. I have ~45 cities .... Here's what I have prepared for my invasion force (Germany will be the first victim because of a rubber deposit they have very close to my territory, and they have Panzers!):

~225 tanks
~125 infantry
~60 artillery
~ 50 Cavalry
~ 25 Swordsmen....

I'm glad the invasion was a success. At Regent or Monarch, you should have absolutely run over the AI with an army that size. In fact, if you were going for conquest or domination (it doesn't sound like you were), the AI really shouldn't survive long enough for you to build 225 tanks, much less long enough for you to have to worry about attacking a superior foe. You can do a lot of damage to an empire with 225 tanks, much less 225 tanks + all that other stuff.

It sounds like I have a more aggressive playstyle than you do, a style which Scoutsout summed up in 2006 quite nicely:

You guys misunderstand me. I am actually a builder at heart.

Seriously, I like to build stuff:

• I like to build cities, so that I may build an empire...
• I like to build barracks, so I can build veteran units.
• I like to build roads, to connect my trade network, make some gold, and move some units.
• I like to build markets, for happiness, gold, and unit support.
• I like to build libraries, so I can learn to build better units.
• I like to build MORE cities, for more unit support
• I like to build railroads, so I can move my units really fast.
• I like to build factories, so I can build units faster
• I like to build things that throw rocks and drop bombs, so I can ... kill other civs' units!
• I like to build universities and banks... (see "libraries" and "markets")
• I like to build airfields, so I can move units around really, REALLY fast.

With that said, I have a couple of (moderately squishy) rules about invasions:
1. Have a reason for invading. A resource, a worker, a lux, even just because your neighbor needs to be taken down a peg. Have a reason.
2. Never start a war with less than 4 swords. I prefer to have more than that, but that can't always be helped.

....Regarding my invasion it was a success and went off with hardly any issues. I conquered all the border cities in the first turn and spread out from there, moving in Cavalry/Swordsmen to squash dissent (leftover from previous eras, I never disband them because they are still useful for suppressing dissent in newly conquered cities when I finally do start conquering).....

You know you don't have to suppress dissent, right? You could raze those cities.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

You know you don't have to suppress dissent, right? You could raze those cities.

What is the advantage of razing cities versus keeping them for territory (Resources & Luxes aside)?

 

[Aabraxan]

Each practice has its advantages & I do some of each. When you keep a city, at least one foreign citizen always remains. As long as that citizen's host civ survives, it's bad for war weariness. I don't recall exactly how bad, but I often get "we cannot forget the cruel oppression you have bore upon us" for the reason for that citizen's unhappiness. And, of course, you have to have units for suppression. I prefer to keep my units moving & taking territory.

ETA: Another option exists: Capture & starve. When you capture a city, make everyone a specialist, have them build workers, and cash-rush as appropriate. If memory serves, the workers come out as slaves, so no maintenance to pay. When it gets down to size 1, let it grow with your own citizens again.

 

[vmxa]

Not as much as an SG I was in in PTW. We tested the whole invasion down to the last unit and it was a good thing we did or the invasion would have failed. I wish I had the log for that run, I cannot even recall the names of our team. I know Aeson was on it at different points, the game lasted two years. We found out later that two EU teams had made a pact at the start. Sill it was a gas.

Sorenson used to come in to our private chat and swear us to not tell that he did. I was the weakest link for sure. Poly was a great site back then. In the end we did not have UR and they did. The invasion of a massive content owned by one team went down so well, found one path to reach them by sea.

 

[justanick]

What is the advantage of razing cities versus keeping them for territory (Resources & Luxes aside)?

There are 2 options.

1. Raze them upon capture. Then you get some slaves, around one per two points of population. So those slaves are the advantage.

2. Capture the city, sell the buildings and then abandon the city. This kills off all of the population, but you get a little bit of cash for selling the buildings. Also you can still use the city for moving your units, which may be crucial for your logistics.

Neither option convinces me and in either case you get the diplomatic penalty for your genocide.


The best option is to practically ignore those taken cities. You may put your units in them in the turn of capture because it will not flip in the same turn. But afterwards you put no units in it or just one lone defender. You will thereby risk that the town flips. You may put offensive units next to it to capture it back.

But all that just distracts from the bigger truth so to speak. You need many fast units such as cavalry and you need to use them to take every city. Once the enemy civ is eliminated you stop ignoring those taken cities and put a few units in them to convert resisting citizens into regular ones. This will then happen at a rate of 1 per unit per turn because their home civilizaton does no longer exist.

So to come back to the initial question of the thread: When you prepare for war you need to prepare for no less than total annilihation of the enemy. Build up a good sized army of a few defenders, some artillery and many fast attackers such as cavalry. When you start the war make a military alliance against your enemy with every other civ. Renew those alliances every time they are broken. Pay for those alliances with gtp, try to get some hard goods like techs or workers in return.

Depending on how strong the enemy is, you may wait a few turns before you try to take cities. Just take out units and let your wounded units heal. Once the enemy empire is ripe for taking, take it in total. Capture every single city till the last one is taken. This will also end the military alliances because the target no longer exists.

 

[justanick]

When you keep a city, at least one foreign citizen always remains.

That is only true in the short run. Every turn each foreign citizen has a chance to be assimiliated into your culture. This chance solely depends on your government. It is 2% for most governments including republic. For communism and democracy it is 4%.

So after 40 turns 55.4% or 80.5% are expected to be assimiliated, but it is purely random.

As long as that citizen's host civ survives, it's bad for war weariness.

Technically that is not war weariness. Each citizen whose home civilization you are at war with gives you one discontent. This is even true if as Maya your UU creates barbarian slaves and you make them join a city.

ETA: Another option exists: Capture & starve. When you capture a city, make everyone a specialist, have them build workers, and cash-rush as appropriate. If memory serves, the workers come out as slaves, so no maintenance to pay.

They will only be slaves if no citizen of your culture exist. Since assimilation can occur this is tricky gamble.

Instead of workers you can use settlers. This reduces population twice as fast. But you need to get 30 shields per turn. So that would require to disband say 10 MedInf and 1 cavalry in that captured city. You donnot always have that amount of spare units.

Having a high amount of spare units is often an indication that you are making something wrong.

 

[Aabraxan]

That is only true in the short run. Every turn each foreign citizen has a chance to be assimiliated into your culture. This chance solely depends on your government. It is 2% for most governments including republic. For communism and democracy it is 4%.

Ah, so my memory didn't serve me quite right. Fair enough.

....Technically that is not war wearinesa. Each citizen whose home civilization you are at war with gives you one discontent. This is even true if as Maya your UU creates barbarian slaves and you make them join a city.

Also fair enough. I guess I just didn't notice them unless I was at war.

...They will only be slaves if no citizen of your culture exist. Since assimilation can occur this is tricky gamble.

I'll have to disagree on the issue of whether it's a tricky gamble. When you capture a city, make all of its citizens specialists. That prevents any native citizens from appearing due to growth. Disband a slave or a catapult or an obsolete unit to get the first few shields of a worker, and cash-rush. Rinse and repeat every turn. Obviously, this depends on having a few spare units and cash around, but it's neither tricky nor a gamble. Tedious, maybe....

....Instead of workers you can use settlers. This reduces population twice as fast. But you need to get 30 shields per turn. So that would require to disband say 10 MedInf and 1 cavalry in that captured city. You donnot always have that amount of spare units.

But isn't there some chance that the settler will be foreign? I've been gone a while, but there's something about this ringing a bell in the back of my head.

Having a high amount of spare units is often an indication that you are making something wrong.

"Spare units?" What are those? All I have are "units I haven't used yet."

 

[justanick]

I'll have to disagree on the issue of whether it's a tricky gamble.

Fair enough. One reason why i think it to be tricky is that assimilation occurs before production. If so, then you risk creating a native worker instead of a slave. I am not quite certain whether assimilation occurs before production.

Another risk is that you can only cash rush if you have no resisting citizen and not riot either.

But isn't there some chance that the settler will be foreign?

That actually is the idea. The settler ought to be foreign. This will make the settler free of maintenance.

Technically it is unit support, maintenance refers to buildings.

"Spare units?" What are those?

Those that have not been disbanded, yet. Having more units than free unit support means that you have to pay for them and that is best avoided, at least in principle. Other concerns such as mere survival can be paramount.

 

[Aabraxan]

I was kidding about the 'spare units.'

Thanks for reminding me of how some of this works.

 

[tjs282]

I don't recall exactly how bad, but I often get "we cannot forget the cruel oppression you have bore upon us" for the reason for that citizen's unhappiness.

Psssst...

That message is technically for whipping-unhappiness. You see it quite often in the late game, when the AI-Civs at war tend to go Fascist, and then desperately whip their population into (defensive-)units.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Consider razing a city you just captured if it was placed very badly, e.g., one space off the coast instead of coastal. Or not on a river when it could be.

Most of the time I follow the practice of "set all the citizens to specialists and starve it down to size 1 for the remainder of the war." Each time the city shrinks, the citizens re-deploy to work tiles, so I have to remember to turn then all into nerds again. Since I tend not to pillage all the roads around the cities I conquer, they are quickly reconnected to my trade network for luxuries. If I forget to reset (because I'm focused on the war), the luxuries help reduce my flip risk a little.

I have not yet followed the advice in the other thread about setting the captured city's governor to "manage moods".

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Since I tend not to pillage all the roads around the cities I conquer, they are quickly reconnected to my trade network for luxuries.

My last game (Monarch/Maya/Standard/Continents/60%), I discovered that capturing a city for the resource it's sitting on (aluminum, in this case) does not connect to my trade network via harbor for some reason, only via land. It ended up making no difference (an AI war between Zulu and Egypt inadvertently placed some aluminum in my territory at the last minute anyway), but this was surprising to me, and the Space Race seemed close enough it could have cost me the game (but didn't, though the toughest game I've had yet). Still, it does not make sense to me.

 

[Aabraxan]

My last game (Monarch/Maya/Standard/Continents/60%), I discovered that capturing a city for the resource it's sitting on (aluminum, in this case) does not connect to my trade network via harbor for some reason, only via land. It ended up making no difference (an AI war between Zulu and Egypt inadvertently placed some aluminum in my territory at the last minute anyway), but this was surprising to me, and the Space Race seemed close enough it could have cost me the game (but didn't, though the toughest game I've had yet). Still, it does not make sense to me.

Did you have harbors on both shores? Is it possible that your 'shipping route' cut across territory of a civ with which you were at war?

 

[md4]

Since it's Aluminium we're talking about, it seems late enough in the game that harbours can be connected via ocean and—though possible—isn't likely to run into that issue.

 

[Aabraxan]

Ah, true.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Did you have harbors on both shores? Is it possible that your 'shipping route' cut across territory of a civ with which you were at war?

Yes to harbors. Both cities were along the same shoreline, in fact. Yes, it's possible the shipping route cut across American territory, there, but since that late there was ocean I didn't expect it to be a problem.