1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

How to use artillery effectively...

Discussion in 'Civ3 Strategy Articles' started by Moonsinger, Jun 17, 2002.

  1. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Iowa
    Artillery is great! However, it can move only one tile per tun 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 about loosing 100 chance of bombardment. Plus, I want my all my artilleries to be extremely mobile and stay far away from the frontline until they are needed.

    1. First I move a settler three tiles away from the enemy city. Don't forget to include at least four infantries to defend your settler.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Iowa
    2. By the next turn, you should be able to build a temporary outpost and use it as a base to attack the enemy city. In this case, the enemy capital city of Zimbabwe is the target. Immediately build the railroad and move your stack of artilleries into position. I also move on a cavalry unit next to the enemy city so that I can see if my artillery hit its target.:)
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Iowa
    3. Now, start bombard the enemy city to dirt. In this case, Zimbabwe is defended by six infantries. You need to reduce all defenders hit point to 1.
     

    Attached Files:

  4. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Iowa
    4. After taking the city, I disband my outpost and get ready for taking the next city. Any artillery that didn't get a chance to fire, I just move them against another city.:) With this method, my stack of 100 artilleries, I can take at least three heavily defended cities in every turn. The war can start and end very quickly for the enemy. Artillery rocks! Artillery and cavalry are my #1 units. By the time I get tank, I usually already control the whole world.:)
     

    Attached Files:

  5. Lawrence

    Lawrence Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2002
    Messages:
    152
    Location:
    Beta Centauri
    Good strat!:D

    And I found it dull to watch 100 artillery fire in one turn individually, so I always turn 'animate war' off when I use my stak of artilleries.:D
     
  6. joespaniel

    joespaniel Unescorted Settler

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,260
    Location:
    The Old Pueblo
    Thats really sick and twisted.

    I love it! :lol:

    Good one Moonsinger.
     
  7. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Iowa
    Oh, I forgot to mention one thing: After I liberate/capture a city, I would normally use that city to rush produce more settlers or workers. The good thing about producing settlers and workers in a recently captured city is that we don't have to pay for their upkeep. If you produce a worker, that worker will be treated as slave worker (work twice as slow as normal worker). If you produce a settler, that settler will have your former enemy's nationality; therefore, you don't have to pay upkeep for them.:) I normally have a stock of at least a couple dozen settlers without having to pay for their upkeep.:) Beside, you want to reduce the number of foreign citizen in your city anyway. The less foreign citizen, the less likely they do a culture flip...and producing settlers/wokers is a best way to reduce them.:)

    When war is declared, I would send an average of three of these foreign settlers into enemy territory in every turn; if the enemy manage to destroy one of my settlers, I would still have many others to play with.:) Therefore, they can expect their city to be under bombardment in every turns.:)
     
  8. RufRydyr

    RufRydyr QSC Map Maker

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    584
    Location:
    Ft. Walton Beach, FL USA
    :goodjob:
    Great idea. Wish I'd thought of it! I've been a big believer in arty for a while, tho some don't like it. I like to get the city down to size 12 or better yet 6 to reduce the defense and hurt the defenders. For the really big cities, nukes are so much fun!
     
  9. Lt. 'Killer' M.

    Lt. 'Killer' M. Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,475
    Moonsinger: you're mean! :D :goodjob: And you could even consider abandoning the enemy towns if your outposts are better situated. No more Culture flips, and lots of instant slaves if you raze the newly captured :D
     
  10. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Iowa
    I prefer to keep the enemy cities because they usually already built market, bank, courthouse, policestation, among many other improvement. Of course, my artilleries usually mis-fire and destroy most of those improvements, but most of the time, the bank or market does survive. Within 1 turn, I could start rushing settlers from those city to reduce foreign pops to size 1, there is no chance for those cities to flip.:) Of course, I use those foreign settlers to build more outposts. Because I usually build outposts by using foreign settlers, these outpost could also get flip too; therefore, it's best if I disband them and keep the cities instead.:)

    PS: If I the liberated a town of size 5, I can rush 5 slave workers or 2 slave settlers and a slave worker. If I raze a town of size 5, I would get 1 slave worker. Therefore, I get a better deal by not razing it. And if I liberate a dozen cities of size 12 or above, I would have plenty of slave workers and slave settlers.:)
     
  11. Lt. 'Killer' M.

    Lt. 'Killer' M. Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,475
    Moonsinger: I usually get more than 1 Worker from razing, unless the city is size 2. but aside from that: I'd also only raze if the old placement sucks (i.e. move it two tiles and you can build ironworks, or 6 cities all 1 tile away from the river
     
  12. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Iowa
    I think the formula is 4 to 1. For example, if you raze a town of size 4 or below, you get zero worker, size 5 will give 1 worker, size 8 will give 2 workers, size 12 will give 3 workers, size 16 will give 4 workers, ... and so on. This doesn't include the workers that already in the city before the raze. And yes, location is everything; if a city is right on the grassland and there is a hill next to it, I would raze/disband it and rebuild it on the hill (because I don't like wasting grassland like that).
     
  13. Solver

    Solver Civ4/5 beta tester

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,260
    Location:
    Latvia, Riga
    Gonna try it, good idea! Except that I will, to my invasion force, add a Transport with Settlers, and a Transport with Workers, just in case.
     
  14. Zouave

    Zouave Crusader

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,603
    That reminds me. How come we don't have stack bombardment?
    That sure would kill the tedium.

    BUT, stack bombardment would be optional, as we would always want some artillery ready to utilize the new friendly roads to move quickly against the enemy.
     
  15. Richard III

    Richard III Duke of Gloucester

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    4,872
    Location:
    bla
    Fantastic article!! I first started reading and thought, bla, bla, bla, but then, suddenly - hey! WOW!

    Good work.

    Will use it tomorrow.

    R.III
     
  16. MightyMac

    MightyMac Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2002
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    look behind you cause i'm laughing
    This maybe the breakthrough that I'll need to win the current world war that i'm in.

    Thanks
     
  17. smallstepforman

    smallstepforman Megalomaniac

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I dont like the idea of using a settler to build a temporary outpost. Big deal if my campaigns last 1-2 turns more per city, my democracy (with increasing luxury rate) can take it. It gives time for my cavalry to heal and reinforcements to arrive and settle in. I only use 20-30 artillery instead of 100 - think of the support costs.

    After a while, I disband some artillery/cavalry to rush manufacture temples and courthouses, in order to minimise culture flip.
     
  18. ainwood

    ainwood Consultant. Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    30,010
    One thing I'd add, is not only do you want to reduce the hitpoints of the defenders to 1, it is also a great benefit to reduce the city population - turn a metropolis into a city, or a city into a town to reduce the defensive bonus of the troops stationed there.
     
  19. Jon Shaw

    Jon Shaw Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2002
    Messages:
    345
    Location:
    Oxford, England
    I'm no expert at civ3, but it does seem a little long winded maintaining all those artillery (as someone said above) and planning ahead (founding new cities- the settler has to crawl over enemy terriotory at one square per turn- an attacking cavalry unit could cover 3 squares per turn). If it is so difficult to kill an infantry unit with cavalry, I prefer to simply wait for tanks rather than massing huge armies of cavalry and artillery and planning complex campaigns turns ahead.

    Also, I thought that if you built a settler with a foreign citizen the settler formed a new city with that same foreign citizen still. I havent checked this for several patches though.

    However, to each his own! :)
     
  20. ainwood

    ainwood Consultant. Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    30,010
    Even with a veteran tank against veteran infantry in a metropolis, the odds of the tank winning are only around 35%. If you bombard first to reduce the HPs down to 1, then the odds improve to 90%. If you can bombard the metropolis down to a city as well, then the odds improve to around 94%.

    It also works for mech infantry too.
     

Share This Page