How to use artillery effectively...

[rysingsun]

there is more to artillery than taking city after city in one turn. the defensive use of it can be just as intense

situation: player has 100 offensive ground units ready for a stomping not counting artillery plus 150 artillery. ai has 350 ground units approximately 100 of which would likely stay in the cities during a war. the other 250 would be expected to counterattack any invasion.

preparation stage: establish a line of "dummy cities" against the rival's boarder. these will be sacrificed for the war. place all the troops and artillery in the set of cities behind these. bomb out all the roads surrounding the dummy cities.

declaration stage: declare war. disband the dummy cities leaving a no-man's land of at least 3 tiles wide between you and the rival. wait for the enemy to send his troops in.

war stage: when troops arrives within 2 squares of your culture zone move the artillery to your culture boarder and bombard everything they can reach. fast troops like cavalry are the highest priority and they can be elimininated with a tank or cavalry counterattack. such troops of course move back after battle onto their rail network. next turn do the same. on the third turn infantry will be in range. attack them with artillery the same way.

if after the first turn of infantry bombardment there are still too many non-redlined infantry in the oncoming deathstack for a unit-elimination counterattack to be wise then back up a square and allow them to advance another turn. any redlined units that choose to heal instead of advancing will be left behind leaving a smaller stack for the next turn. if you need to abandon your second line of cities to avoid them being overrun do so, and bombard the rails into oblivion like you did for the frontline cities. the larger the invading force the more territory will have to be abandoned since they WILL rebuild the road network as they advance. but the ai being what it is will continue its advance with whatever troops it has and within a few turns the stack will be small enough for a bombard to counterattack turn to take out this front line. result is 50+ troops destroyed with 5 troops lost. repeat this a few times and the enemy will be decimated. the counterattack may now begin.

this strategy can be pulled off even if you have a serious numbers disadvantage. i plan on pulling up one of my saved games where i used this strategy to the turn right before the war started and disband about 2/3 of my (non-artillery) troops because im curious to know just how badly i can be outnumbered before i simply get overwhelmed. unfortunately in the game i played i had about 170 ground troops and i was only attacked with about 100. i destroyed them all and lost about 3 tanks or something doing it. im thinking about trying it with zero ground troops and 150 artillery on the turn i declare war and relying only on reinforcements to handle the ground battles. if there were a cheat menu as in civ II id just give them an extra 200 troops.

i wouldnt mind hearing from others what sort of odds theyve gone against using this technique and come across victorious.

 

[a4phantom]

"if you want to talk about "honorable play" then let me suggest these "rules of honor":

1) never use railroads that are not explicitly inside your own culture boundary. its never done in the real world."

I could almost swear that British and American troops have used French railroads. I could be wrong though. I do think you're confusing two things however. Noone cares how "honorable" or not you personally are, or what you do in games with the AI. Using an exploit in the game to crush another player in an unrealistic and (much more importantly) undefensible way is slightly different.

 

[Own]

maybe it's just me but isn't 100 artillery over-doing it? i usually use 40.

 

[Moonsinger]

maybe it's just me but isn't 100 artillery over-doing it? i usually use 40.

It's really all depending on the game level and the size of the maps that you are playing. Also, artilleries usually miss in vanilla Civ3 and PTW; therefore, you need a hundred to be effective. In C3C, I would say about 7 out of 10 shots on the average hit the target; therefore, a stack of 100 may be a little bits overkill in C3C. Btw, this article was written long before C3C.

 

[AA-battery]

Hmm, this sounds more like chess, not Civ3. But then again there is no such thing as bombardment in chess. Nevertheless, You probably have less success with this strategy if you were fighting an AI who knew how to play chess!

But yeah, that is a lot of artillery, I barely use any.

 

[Roxlimn]

Artillery are a lot more effective in C3C than in vanilla civ. You typically won't need Settler creep to effect this, even, since most AI cities will be defended by 4 defensive units at the most. Just send your 75 Cavalry into those Infantry and you'll eventually take the city. once it's yours, you can start the Artillery city conquer chain. With Modern Armor (actually even with Panzers or just normal Tanks) you can take over the enemy civ in one turn.

With no Settler creep.

There are other ways to start the chain, especially if you know the layout and defense of enemy troops. One version proposes using Marines instead. Using 2 transports worth to a coastal city, you can usually overwhelm Infantry with Marines and take the city. With enough coastal cities in your control, you can use Artillery and Tanks/Cavalry to take out the rest of the civ. This assumes a relative or small tech disadvantage. If you're way behind, starting the Artillery chain may be the only way to get the AI, and it actually works even with no Settler creep. Since the Ai never uses Artillery, a stack of 50+ Artillery with 20 Infantry and 20 Guerilla often proves too much for it to remove, especially on good terrain. You'll probably lose much of this defensive stack, but the reward is that you can initiate the Artillery chain normally without using Settler creep.

I don't find Settler creep anymore a form of "cheating" than killzones are, but then again, I don't use either unless I'm pressed, and even then, I reconsider many times.

 

[superslug]

Artillery are a lot more effective in C3C than in vanilla civ. You typically won't need Settler creep to effect this, even, since most AI cities will be defended by 4 defensive units at the most.

4 defensive units? Not at Deity and especially on Sid. Settler creep is priceless there, given the AI production bonus city culture radii are pretty far out and it takes a Settler to get the Artillery in range.

Properly used, Settler creep can allow the execution of an AI in a single turn with minimal to no loss of units. That's far preferable to sending a stack of Cavalry into a fortified stack of Infantry.

 

[Roxlimn]

Well, of course. I never said that Settler creep was ineffective. I said I didn't like doing it, and attacking striaght on with Cavalry is doable if the defenses on a particular city are weak. The way I see it, it doesn't seem possible to win on Deity and Sid without massively working the game rules to their absolute limit, and there are limits to what I can accept. Part of the joy of playing for me is imagining real alternative histories and powerful struggles. This image is completely destroyed with things like Settler creep and GL elevators. It's just too "gamey" for me.

To that end, I do propose that it is possible to win lesser level games (up to Emperor at least) without resorting to these techniques.

 

[rysingsun]

i here you on what you are saying about not abusing the rules even if it makes the game harder. in a recent game i was determined not to do anything "dishonorable" but got frustrated on where to draw the line. most people will agree that rop-violated declarations of war are "an exploit" or at the least quite dishonorable, but once i decided that i couldnt do that i came up with some other forms of dishonor:

1) taunting my enemy to declare war on me while in his territory.

but if that is bad then ...

2) taunting the enemy to declare war on me at all.

3) for that matter breaking any agreement at all.

4) buying off alliances when i know full well its very purpose is to destroy the infrastructure/science making potential of all the civs involved.

5) settler creep. come on now we all know its unrealistic to build cities in foreign territory.

6) mass bombardment. but where do you draw the line? how many artillery against a city constitutes an exploit?

7) culture invasion (or whatever you want to call it) where you place a city next to an opponent's culture boundary and then rush culture improvements to grab a resource.

8) deadbeat alliances. yes, any alliance where you dont actually do any fighting.

9) filling in culture deprived areas with your own cities while your enemies ravage each other in a war.

10) kill zones (see "bombardment exploits") .. i mean .. (see number 6)

11) defensive armies that you know the enemy will never attack.

12) sending ships to make "contact" without units loaded on them and across the open seas. sacrificing ships in this way without the intent of actually settling could be considered an exploit by some who point out that the ai never does it.

13) archipelago on Sid.

14) taking all your cities off of settler production before popping a hut to try to get a settler .. then putting them back on settler.

and i came up with those in 5 minutes. how many more could i come up with if i gave it time? now if we agreed not to allow any of these at all INCLUDING a prohibition on ALL bombard units what would the game be like? ill tell you one thing it would be a lot harder. but in some ways some might consider it more fun playing for example a monarch game with all these limitations instead of a demigod game using every ace in the hole (some will say "exploit") possible. we are only playing ourselves and the fun in the win is knowing we beat the odds using the rules we choose to use. think of it as a "mod" if you like.

 

[Dreadnought]

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.

You can see the diference artillery makes, and I'm asking myself, "Why don't more people use it?"

 

[Roxlimn]

Well, Settler creep, for sure, but some of the "dishonorable" ways to "cheat" are actually OK for me. For example, breaking RoP and Trade agreements is built into the game, and you do sustain significant and expensive reputation damage after you pull these tricks. I usually don't like playing "bad civ," but there are times wherein I just want to be a nasty punk.

Quite apart from RoP breaks, I find that taunting the AI to declare war while it is in a hopelessly bad tactical position is one of the things I don't like to do. There are other things, like kill zones and worker baiting, that I generally don't stoop to doing, but a whole lot of other things are acceptable for me as well. Things I don't consider "cheating."

Declaring war, for example, when your troops are in enemy territory is generally a bad idea to begin with, in representative governments anyway, and the net value of it is questionable anyway, unless it's an RoP agreement you're breaking. Most civs won't tolerate multiple military units more than one turn on their turf and it's to prevent stuff like this. Pull off a sneaky attack and even normally friendly civs are quick to boot out your men thereafter. Moreover, it's not something a human player can't do anything about, unlike stuff like Settler creep.

 

[Moonsinger]

i5) settler creep. come on now we all know its unrealistic to build cities in foreign territory.

The word "city" can be misleading sometimes. In other games like Age of Wonder or Master of Magic, the settler build an outpost or a small colony and eventually that outpost may grow into a village/town, then that town may grow into a city, then that city may grow into a metropolis. Civ3 is kinda working like that. For example, an outpost is of size 1, a town is between size 2 and size 6, a city is between size 7 and 12, any thing bigger than 12 is a metropolis. Therefore, realistically, it's ok to build an outpost in foreign territory during wartime.

Btw, settler creep is also a misleading word too. Basically, settler creep is a technique where you build an outpost for the purpose of moving another settler forward, then immediately disband the outpost so that your other settler can creep forward one tile. With enough settlers (and assuming that there was good road everywhere), you can creep to someone capital in just one turn.

On the other hand, moving a settler into an enemy territory so that you can setup an outpost of operation on the next turn or shorten your supply route, that is a valid tactic in the real world and I don't consider that as "creepping", exploit, or dishonorable tactic. Though, it sounds a little bit creepy, but it isn't the same thing as creepping up one tile and disband so that you can creep up another tile.

 

[Roxlimn]

I'm unsure about that, Moonsinger. The bare fact is that Settler creep, at its most basic, is using small city game characteristics to render national boundaries and road/rail rules mostly pointless. The entire point of cultural bounadaries is that you control the roads and rail, and healing. Using small city rules to circumvent boundary issues seems a bit underhanded and against the spirit of boundary concepts, whether it's all the way to the enemy capital, or just enough to set artillery in range.

 

[Moonsinger]

I'm unsure about that, Moonsinger. The bare fact is that Settler creep, at its most basic, is using small city game characteristics to render national boundaries and road/rail rules mostly pointless. The entire point of cultural bounadaries is that you control the roads and rail, and healing. Using small city rules to circumvent boundary issues seems a bit underhanded and against the spirit of boundary concepts, whether it's all the way to the enemy capital, or just enough to set artillery in range.

I'm not sure about that either. IMO, there are other far worst exploits than this. For example, signing Right of Passage then sending workers over to help build roads all over the place. Since the AIs aren't in any hurry connecting their trade routes with you, to speed up that process, you help them build roads. Is this really an exploit? Some may say yes, other may say no. Nevertheless, it is 100% legal for the GOTM. It's really up to the players to decide when and when not to use them.

PS: Of course, with roads every where, it would become much easier and faster to conquer their civs too.

 

[Roxlimn]

There are worst exploits than Settler Creep, Moonsinger, but making roads for an AI you plan on conquering sometime in the far future isn't one of them. Neither is it an exploit, IMO, to make roads for them to expedite trade networks. Countries "help" other countries for their own interests all the time. Why not in Civ?

The real exploit in using workers to "improve" enemy territory is in irrigating squares you know is much better mined or planting forests in every tile your enemy's territory. Now that's cheating, and I don't know of anyone who can say it isn't.

 

[Moonsinger]

There are worst exploits than Settler Creep, Moonsinger, but making roads for an AI you plan on conquering sometime in the far future isn't one of them. Neither is it an exploit, IMO, to make roads for them to expedite trade networks. Countries "help" other countries for their own interests all the time. Why not in Civ?

The road network is very important. For example, if the only way Mexico can trade with Canada is through the US land route, do you think the US would just simply stand by and let them sending workers over to build an express way from Mexico to Canada anyway they want? I pick that example to illustrate a point: each of us may view the same tactic differently - just like I view worker building road on foreign nation as an exploit while other may disagree.

The real exploit in using workers to "improve" enemy territory is in irrigating squares you know is much better mined or planting forests in every tile your enemy's territory. Now that's cheating, and I don't know of anyone who can say it isn't.

And building road or railroad isn't? Well, cheating is a strong word - "exploit" may be a better word for it. For example, let's go back to the Mexico and Canada example again: If Canada want to attack Mexico and if the US doesn't have a good road network, do you think it is ok for Canada to sign RoP with the US, then send their workers over to build road and railroad to enable faster troop movement for them? Without a good road network, it would take Canada forever to get to Mexico, you know. By building railroad from across the US, the Canadian troops would be able to move from Canada to Mexico in just one turn. If that isn't an exploit, then I don't know what will. Like I said before, sending workers over to build road/railroad on somebody else land is an exploit. Unless the GOTM or the HOF doesn't allow it, I don't mind using it and I don't mind if anyone else using it.

 

[Roxlimn]

No, Moonsinger, I would expect Mexico to have trade talks with the US Government (RoP agreement) precursor to multiple multinationally sponsored highway development projects. The road networks benefit the US, so it's not like it isn't beneficial, and Mexico benefits as well by having trade routes to Canada. It's a win-win situation that's replicated in Ancient, Medieval, and Modern deals.

It's all very kosher.

Now cheating is a strong word, but I will not refrain from using it when you're building forests on grassland cattle tiles the AI owns, or when irrigating the heck out of a city in the middle of grassland plains prior to the development of Theology. The AI can't handle the strategic impact of such passive aggressive behavior and it's much too powerful not to have a palpable effect.

Likewise, when countries go to war, Corps of Engineers are completely normal and expected. These guys build roads, bridges, railraods, what have you, and they will often build these things on friendly territory on the say-so of the governing power (RoP). I do not understand what is so unusual about this. It's not like it isn't common practice in real life.

 

[Moonsinger]

No, Moonsinger, I would expect Mexico to have trade talks with the US Government (RoP agreement) precursor to multiple multinationally sponsored highway development projects. The road networks benefit the US, so it's not like it isn't beneficial, and Mexico benefits as well by having trade routes to Canada. It's a win-win situation that's replicated in Ancient, Medieval, and Modern deals.

True, it would benefit the US, but it would benefit Mexico and Canada much more. Don't forget that it will improve troop movement when they decide to attack. If they promise that they would be my friend forever, then sure.

It's all very kosher.

Now cheating is a strong word, but I will not refrain from using it when you're building forests on grassland cattle tiles the AI owns, or when irrigating the heck out of a city in the middle of grassland plains prior to the development of Theology. The AI can't handle the strategic impact of such passive aggressive behavior and it's much too powerful not to have a palpable effect.

I do not disagree with you here - exactly why the recent patch of C3C won't allow that. However, building road and railroad is still possible; so let's focus on building road and rails instead. "Cheating" would be really a strong word for building roads and rails on someone else land. That was what I originally focusing on...the road and and rail network. I don't have any disagreement with you on the forest building issue.

Likewise, when countries go to war, Corps of Engineers are completely normal and expected. These guys build roads, bridges, railraods, what have you, and they will often build these things on friendly territory on the say-so of the governing power (RoP). I do not understand what is so unusual about this. It's not like it isn't common practice in real life.

Likewise, when countries go to war, it's perfectly normal to setup supply outpost at the front line. Supply outpost would help extend the range of your operation - your range of control - your influent in the surrounding area. Therefore, I don't see anything so "creepy" or so unusual about this. Using a settler to extend the range of your operation seems very reasonable to me. In away, it isn't any worst than using worker to build road and rails so that your units can travel faster on somebody else land. Please note that I'm not talking about creepping and disbanding so you can creep so more in the same turn. If you move your settler forward from the previous turn, I don't see anything wrong with using that settler to bring your troops into enemy range. After all, it's normal to send scouts and engineers ahead to prepare the land for your main troops.

 

[Roxlimn]

Likewise, when countries go to war, it's perfectly normal to setup supply outpost at the front line. Supply outpost would help extend the range of your operation - your range of control - your influent in the surrounding area. Therefore, I don't see anything so "creepy" or so unusual about this. Using a settler to extend the range of your operation seems very reasonable to me.

That's a bit of a stretch. There are outpost type improvements in Civ3 and any of them can mimic the effect of a forward outpost, supply or not. Supply outposts do not allow you to use the rail networks of an enemy nation and probably won't help much against depredations by the local populace - cultural control. Settler extension into cultural borders are unrealistic at the most basic level, especially in war. More damaging, they undermine the point of having borders in the first place, and that's why Settler creeping in any form is, IMO, contrary to the basic concepts of the game from day one. It would probably be best to remove the "1 tile minimum" cultural control effect of placing Settlers, especially when they are used to subvert tiles within the cultural control of a culturally stronger city. Until that can be worked into the game, however, we must simply acknowledge the defect and not use it to win.

 

[Moonsinger]

It would probably be best to remove the "1 tile minimum" cultural control effect of placing Settlers, especially when they are used to subvert tiles within the cultural control of a culturally stronger city. Until that can be worked into the game, however, we must simply acknowledge the defect and not use it to win.

It seems to me that your interpretation of the boundary rule is way too strict. Even those players at the Realms Beyond don't do that. In any case, you should follow your own heart and play with the rule that you are most comfortable with.