How to use artillery effectively...

[Neomega]

I guess there is only one counter to this strategy, keep every border clear of roads and railroads. It'll be interesting to see how expert players manage their empires to stave off the likes of you. Awful shame the dramatic tactics that will have to be used out of fear of allies stabbing you in the back, settler rushing and running you out of the game in one turn.

Cartouche Bee said "What about "You attacked me before I was ready, so I quit!", or "Wait, I thought you were going to attack where I had prepared my defenses." "

This is guilt by association, they are not applicable to this discussion, and not what we were discussing, quit trying to bring in irrelevant vectors.

Finally, I present you guys with a challenge:

How do you propose you would ever defend against this strategy.... is there even a way to defend against it? For your info.... WAR is not turn based, this game is, and using your settler as such is taking advantage of the turn based aspects of the game.

I promise not to reply to any more of your ignorant remarks until you answer my question, so here it is again....

What is a valid defense against the settler rushing exploit?

I assure you, there is none.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Ahh, the "My point of view is the only one that matters!" defense. That's a good one to!

You could always start a "defense thread", and discuss that topic there.

Getting artillery in range of the enemy is a valid offensive tactic, some won't like it but...

 

[pterrok]

I've concentrated 20 or so arty at a time and I can see that expanding that to 100 would be devastating. The problem is there is no counter-attack in the game--bombers can be taken down by SAMs now or regular fighters, but arty acts at a distance with no counter measure. If they were to add some code that would initiate 'artillery duels' then the mass arty strategy would not be the panacea.

What it would do is that when you use arty to attack a stack with defending arty, it gets to fire back, BUT, it picks a random target in the attacking stack and if it 'hits' an attacking arty it is destroyed since they don't have hit points.

Another way to change it might be to make arty not be self-propelled; it would have to be towed by a unit to move. When the arty was dropped off it could not fire that turn as it was being unlimbered and the towing unit could not move any further. The next turn the arty could fire and the towing unit could move normally. This would both cause you to tie up all those units towing your 100 arty and you'd have to have the arty in place one turn for the enemy to respond before you could pound him. Cavalry towing arty would be reduced to 1 movement point, but mechanized units could tow at the normal rate.

Or they could move themselves but not allow them to use the railroad movement rate--they could move along roads and get that bonus, but not just zip across the continent to pound someone so you'd have to do some prior planning to make it work. If that seems draconian, think about the movement rules in general for a bit; anything can move anywhere within a year by rail, planes can rebase to anywhere, yet naval units can go 5 squares?!? I guess they didn't want you to be able to instantly invade another continent, but if they see that mass arty can unbalance things they could amend their movement rules. (I'd rather give ships the ability to move anywhere in your sea or the open ocean once you have the appropriate tech, but they would end their turn upon entering 'enemy' seas and use their movement factor when moving in enemy seas thereafter...but I've digresed! <g>)

 

[jshelr]

The settler represents claiming property. If this is already claimed by another civ it's an act of war. During war, that clearly still applies.

As for reality, replacing indigenous population with your own pop during a prolonged war should bring to mind, for Americans at least, our standard method of gaining territory. What we need on this thread is an Indian who can tell the tale of how his people were displaced in North America. Ethnic cleansing has been pretty rampant over the last century for us to say that the settler is not a military unit. Anyone from Isreal care to comment? Woops, strike that last. Not politically correct.

 

[billindenver]

Have a 'max stack' rule,i.e., no more than 20 units can ever occupy the same tile at the same time. Realistically, it makes sense. No army ever has concentrated 200 divisions in an area of a few square miles, so why should we be able to stack 200 divisions into a city?

As to the original strategy, I think it's pretty clever. However, it could be counterattacked the same way. You start with a stack of 100 artillery and 100 infantry. It takes 25 arty to kill one town, and those arty can't move again that turn, so you have to leave 25 infantry to guard them. Assuming you take four towns using 25 arty per town, you'll be left with 4 stacks of 25 inf and 25 arty. That may be even more weakened if you leave a garrison in your 'outpost' city. These stacks might be able to catch up, if I didn't use cav to cut the roads before they restacked. But say I had 50 art/inf/cav. I use those 50 to reduce your stack of 25 arty/inf and capture an additional 25 arty of my own, then use the captured stack to attack the prior stack, etc.

Alternatively, I could plunk about 20 or 50 infantry in the main border town. Even 100 arty would have trouble beating that, what with misses, and damage to the town.

IMO, the only way to defend against this is to replicate it or do a massive infantry stockup in the first city.

 

[Neomega]

If you had read earlier in this post, you would see I proposed to moonsinger the counterattack would destroy his army and I'd get to capture his arties too, but he said he'd pilliage the roads, and hes right, if he pilliages the surounding roads, I cant reach him.

I personally don't feel it's clever, I've thought about it, but, if I wanted a game where i had an advantage over the AI, I would've played warlord difficulty. The AI would never do a settler rush.

 

[Moonsinger]

Neomega: For the record, I am really is a "she".

billindenver: Like Neomega just said, if you look at my previous screenshots of my battle sequence where I took 3 major German cities in the same turn, you may notice that I have to leave at least three stacks of artillery behide (each stack has around 25 to 50 artilleries) because they can't be moved after I fired them. However, these stacks are 4 tiles or more within my border; no enemy cavalry could ever be able to reach them. Of course, the enemy could build an outpost, move another settler forward, then disband the previous outpost and build another outpost 1 tile foreward from the the previous one; basically, each settler will enable them to move forward 1 tile within the same turn. Therefore, the only way to counteract this strategy is to use this strategy; however, that would work ONLY IF there road to move forward.

Since the AI would never use this strategy, I don't have to destroy any road; however, if I ever play against the human player, I would destroy all surrounding roads to prevent the enemy settlers from reaching within range. Basically, even if my stack of artilleries are defendless, there is no way you could reach them in one turn.

PS: I had 180+ artilleries in my last game (deity level on a huge map) and I tell you...the AIs which were 4 times stronger than me didn't stand a chance. Unless I play for the high score, I would not use this strategy because there is no fun taking candies from the babies. Even the human players would have a very tough time against this strategy, the AI would have no chance. Unless it's banned, I would use it when I play the GOM.

 

[Yndy]

Nice topic here.
I already used the tactics you described Moonsinger. Now I don't disband the cities I use for "outposts", and I place them one tile away from enemy cities.

I try to avoid taking advantage of the flaws in the game. I mean with enough settlers to disband and the AI having roads in his territory you could get anywhere in one turn (build town, advance settler one tile, disband first, build second, advance third, disband second... you get the idea).

I was also playing deity with the AI having larger armies than me. What did he do? He threw a nuke at me and destroyed 30+ arty, 2 Tank Armies, 10+ infantry, a couple of tanks.

And I was happy. I had moved some 30+ unused arty, 40+ tanks anf 10+ infantry just out of the nuke's range.

So an answer for your tactic Moonsinger would be:
hurry to Nukes and blast you stacks of doom to kingdom come

 

[Neomega]

hmm, nukes, hadn't even thought of that. (I still have yet to use one, I really should turn off space race victory)

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Yndy
I try to avoid taking advantage of the flaws in the game. I mean with enough settlers to disband and the AI having roads in his territory you could get anywhere in one turn (build town, advance settler one tile, disband first, build second, advance third, disband second... you get the idea).

I concur! Btw, I did mention about that previously. This is exactly why we need to take out all the surrounding roads (when we play against another human in the multiplayer version) to prevent the enemy from counter attack using this strategy.

I was also playing deity with the AI having larger armies than me. What did he do? He trew a nuke at me and destroyed 30+ arty, 2 Tank Armies, 10+ infantry, a couple of tanks.

In my deity game (huge map with 12 civs), I took the AIs out of the game by using cavalry and atillery to prevent them from discovering tank and nuke. My philosophy is very simple: If I don't have nuke, no one else should have it. If you build nuke before I do, I would consider the game is over and will try to take you out of the game or die in trying.

So an answer for your tactic Moonsinger would be:
hurry to Nukes and blast you stacks of doom to kingdom come

It's a possibility if you survive long enough to build nuke. Even if you have the technology, you still have to build that GW before you can build the nuke.

 

[Yndy]

Moonsinger you are right, of course. In a human to human combat the rush would be to get repacable parts. The first who does that should try to balst everyone out before they get the tech.

I think I'll follow your guidance and build some 70+ arty. 40 does not seem enough (and my enemies don't have any more nukes).

Hey did you try this strat with cannons, or even catapults?

sure, there would't be no two tiles range but still ...

Edit: Guess what ... I only saw my "threw - trew" mistake in Moonsinger's quote. lol

One has to add a speller to forums...

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Yndy
I think I'll follow your guidance and build some 70+ arty. 40 does not seem enough (and my enemies don't have any more nukes).

70 is a good number, 100 is even better. Shortly after I discover Replacement Parts, I usually have around 150 artilleries (about twice the number of infantries and as many cavalries as artilleries; sometimes, even more artilleries than cavalries).

Hey did you try this strat with cannons, or even catapults?

No, I have never tried this with cannons or catapults. I don't think this method going to work with cannons or catapults for a couple of reasons:

1. Cannon and catpult have the range of 1
2. No Railroad! By the time we discover railroad, Replacement Parts is just two techs away.
3. The risk of being captured by the enemy is too great.

 

[Grey Fox]

In multiplayer, and with "Turnless Mode" turned on (which is a mode I will play in alot anyway, I think), 2 artillary stacks of 50 each could be pondering each other at the same time (or so). And as it's 'Turnless', somone could be sneaking up your back at the same time with 30 or so cavalry, or tanks, and you are concentrating your defense on one front. You might have railroads, but he will be using them too, when city after city falls. Once you move your defense from your front, he might take you there aswell!

Replace the he with she if you like

Anyway, the turnless mode in MP will be very interesting.

Keep up the good work Moonsinger

EDIT: I sort of read the discussion about the use of settlers. And even if I would like to be objective, I would agree with Neomega. To use the settlers to 'exploit' the rules (the roads/RR's are supposed to be unusable before you capture/raze the cities) is out of the spirit of the game, as Neomega put it. In reality, you didn't go inside enemy territory and established a base, and then attacked. You attacked, established a base, and then continued your attack. If necessary.
To use this tactics in MP? Well, if you want to. It's not honorable, but atleast a human can adapt.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
In multiplayer, and with "Turnless Mode" turned on (which is a mode I will play in alot anyway, I think), 2 artillary stacks of 50 each could be pondering each other at the same time (or so). And as it's 'Turnless', somone could be sneaking up your back at the same time with 30 or so cavalry, or tanks, and you are concentrating your defense on one front. You might have railroads, but he will be using them too, when city after city falls. Once you move your defense from your front, he might take you there aswell!

Yes, I concur! This strategy won't work in turnless mode. Oh well, it's time to produce more bombers.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
In reality, you didn't go inside enemy territory and established a base, and then attacked. You attacked, established a base, and then continued your attack. If necessary.
To use this tactics in MP? Well, if you want to. It's not honorable, but atleast a human can adapt.

I have thought about what you said about being honorable and all. That's the main reason why I only use this strategy at Deity level nowadays. The AI are just too strong at this level; without exploiting their weaknesses, I wouldn't stand a chance. In reality, the French established a base deep inside the enemy territory first; this battle was known as Dien Bien Phu (Vietnam 1953-1954). There are also many times during War World II, and in many other wars where it's tactical advantage to send paratroopers to establish a base or a suppy line deep inside the enemy terrritory. Therefore, the only honor in question here is that the AI doesn't know how to use this strategy. The fact that AIs are outnumbering me at least 4 to 1 at Deity level would justify my honors everytime I fire my artilleries. Of course, since this strategy is well known nowadays, it's fair game in MP.

 

[Neomega]

There are also many times during War World II, and in many other wars where it's tactical advantage to send paratroopers to establish a base or a suppy line deep inside the enemy terrritory.

Isn't there a unit called paratroopers in Civ III?

 

[Neomega]

the French established a base deep inside the enemy territory first; this battle was known as Dien Bien Phu (Vietnam 1953-1954).

Alost all of the supplies were flown in, in this battle. And alot of military firebases were set up too. And, this was not done to allow the use of roads or railroads any way, this was in dense jungled, mountainous terrain. In fact I don't think a whole lot of seizing of anything happened, seeing how the "bowl" they tried to make a base was only about 10 square miles. Thats one tenth of a civ III tile. You gotta find an instance with 900 square miles!

Oh yeah, and the French go the sh*t beat out of them.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Neomega
Isn't there a unit called paratroopers in Civ III?

Yes, but paratrooper unit is useless! We can't setup base or outpost with it.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Neomega
Alost all of the supplies were flown in, in this battle. And alot of military firebases were set up too. And, this was not done to allow the use of roads or railroads any way, this was in dense jungled, mountainous terrain. In fact I don't think a whole lot of seizing of anything happened, seeing how the "bowl" they tried to make a base was only about 10 square miles. Thats one tenth of a civ III tile. You gotta find an instance with 900 square miles!

Yes, I know they didn't use railroad in that battle. I was just simply point out that it's a valid strategy to establish a base deep inside the enemy territory before attacking their stronghold.

Oh yeah, and the French go the sh*t beat out of them.

They could have won if they didn't under-estimate the range of the Viet Ming 's artilleries. It was a brilliant strategy; too bad they lost.

 

[Neomega]

Actually it was a ridiculous strategy. They underestimated the Minh's determination to fight, and worse, they let themselves be surrounded and destroyed. I wouldn't call any battle where the commander commits suicide and 23,000 men of a world power lose their lives, whilst nary a barefoot guerilla gets a scratch as "brilliant".

This really isn't the same strategy as you propose anyhow, their base had no ground links to their home. It would be impossible to move in forces like 100+ artillery and mass infantry. In fact, this was an attempt at the opposite, to make the Minh go on the offensive. It would be akin to airdropping a worker ot two on a jungle surrounded by mountains, building a fortress, and moving guns and infantry into the surrounding mountains, and then waiting for an attack.