How to use artillery effectively...

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by 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".

The strategy in itself is brilliant and I'm using in civ3 all the time. For example, I would land enough troops and a settler to establish a stronghold on the enemy continent. Now just wait for the AIs to throw everything it has at me. This is a brilliant way to draw a fight and to reduce the size of the AI units. This was how I originally started with. I just have a lot of artilleries in my stronghold and wait for them to come; eventually they will run out of troops and it would be my turn to go on offensive.

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.

True! It isn't the same strategy; however, it's an improved version or the next step of the Bien Bien Phu strategy. Instead of supplying my base by air (as in Bien Bien Phu) which often unreliable because supply plane can be shot down by enemy fires , I'm using the magical railroad instead. With this magical railroad, I can move every where and anywhere that has rail instantly without any delay. Since my base is always linked to my home and supply can get there without any delay, that is what really made it better than Bien Bien Phu.

 

[Neomega]

oohh man, I dont even want to get into the railroad debate.... wait, sure.

The object of a railroad is not speed it is volume and efficiency. Railroads can move armies across continents with out a hitch. Doing so across a continent with raods is a little more difficult.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Neomega
The object of a railroad is not speed it is volume and efficiency. Railroads can move armies across continents with out a hitch. Doing so across a continent with raods is a little more difficult.

That's exactly why I call to it "the magical railroad".

 

[civ_steve]

Wow!! What a spirited exchange!

A couple of points. This strategy depends on a full 3x3 culture radius being generated when the Settler founds the outpost. Some of the discussion indicates that the Offensive player must have higher a higher Culture rating to assure the 3x3 culture radius. This might not be possible if the Offensive player is focusing on building (or upgrading) artillery, and the Defensive player is building cultural improvements. This requires more experimentation to determine what affects the new city's culture radius. Making sure you have significantly higher culture may be a defense against this type of attack.

Second point: the blitz requires these outposts to be formed, railroads to be in place and useable, and the pillaging of railroads at the end of the blitz to protect the arty stack. If this is strategy is considered excessive, Firaxis could change 1 or 2 elements of the game to restrict an extreme use of this technique. 1.) Don't allow cities to be disbanded on the turn they are created (you have to wait til next turn, which means you can't create an outpost, move a 2nd settler one space in, disband the outpost and form the next, etc...) 2.) Disrupt or pillage all railroad improvements within the recently lost cultural boundary of the Defensive Player when the city is lost. By disrupt, I mean that railroads are not useable (by anyone) for a period of time after the conquest. It could be a set period of time, or even random (although a worker could undisrupt the railroad improvement with maybe half the effort when originally created.)

Either one of these changes would stop the blitz. Creating a city, just to disband it later that turn seems abusive. (Maybe you can create the city, but not get the cultural radius until the start of your next turn. This would also restrict this type of blitz.) And I'm in favor of the railroad disruption anyway. Why should an attacker have no benefit or roads or railroads when entering the territory, and then suddenly full benefit after taking the city? For that matter, no player should get a railroad benefit if it's not within their cultural radius. These would be railroads left in the open after a city has been razed.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by civ_steve
This strategy depends on a full 3x3 culture radius being generated when the Settler founds the outpost. Some of the discussion indicates that the Offensive player must have higher a higher Culture rating to assure the 3x3 culture radius. This might not be possible if the Offensive player is focusing on building (or upgrading) artillery, and the Defensive player is building cultural improvements. This requires more experimentation to determine what affects the new city's culture radius. Making sure you have significantly higher culture may be a defense against this type of attack.

High culture is not required. In most my games, I have always been the one with the lowest culture on the planet. I don't usually build temple and library until after I get artillery. The rule is every simple: If you build your outpost 3 tiles from the enemy city, you will get the full 1 tile radius even if you have zero culture point. If you build it 2 tiles from the enemy city (this is the mininum distance between any two cities), you won't get the full 1 tile radius (dont' need to); you can park your stack of artilleries inside your outpost and they will be able to bombard the enemy city just fine. The bottom line, this strategy will work even if your civ has the lowest culture points than any civ (dead or alive) on the planet.

Second point: the blitz requires these outposts to be formed, railroads to be in place and useable, and the pillaging of railroads at the end of the blitz to protect the arty stack. If this is strategy is considered excessive, Firaxis could change 1 or 2 elements of the game to restrict an extreme use of this technique. 1.) Don't allow cities to be disbanded on the turn they are created (you have to wait til next turn, which means you can't create an outpost, move a 2nd settler one space in, disband the outpost and form the next, etc...) 2.) Disrupt or pillage all railroad improvements within the recently lost cultural boundary of the Defensive Player when the city is lost. By disrupt, I mean that railroads are not useable (by anyone) for a period of time after the conquest. It could be a set period of time, or even random (although a worker could undisrupt the railroad improvement with maybe half the effort when originally created.)

True! Even if Firaxis doesn't change the rule, in the good spirit of the game, we shouldn't use this strategy if people think it's illegal. So far, this strategy is legal in the GOTM, HOF, and all other tournaments.

Either one of these changes would stop the blitz. Creating a city, just to disband it later that turn seems abusive. (Maybe you can create the city, but not get the cultural radius until the start of your next turn. This would also restrict this type of blitz.) And I'm in favor of the railroad disruption anyway. Why should an attacker have no benefit or roads or railroads when entering the territory, and then suddenly full benefit after taking the city? For that matter, no player should get a railroad benefit if it's not within their cultural radius. These would be railroads left in the open after a city has been razed.

Good idea!

 

[civ_steve]

Thanks!

BTW, I'm not saying that a change needs to be implemented. You are right: there is no stipulation anywhere that this strategy is not to be used. That is a separate determination. And it may be that the game design is set up to allow, intentionally, the blitz capability (and the use of settlers is just an additional strategic element.)

One more point: one can build the Intelligence Agency fairly early in the Industrial age. This allows the builder to see the makeup of the other civ's armies, once a spy is planted. If you do this and see a huge artillery force being created, you'd know what's coming and could start to prepare (however you intend to prepare.) Perhaps a preemptive strike with the intention to pillage the enemy's rail system first.

 

[Moonsinger]

Yeah, your spies better not get caught or your civ will be the first to go.

 

[shimsham]

So basically everyone except Neomega agrees that it's a top notch strategy.

 

[Neomega]

Originally posted by shimsham
So basically everyone except Neomega agrees that it's a top notch strategy.

I'd suggest you post who you really are before I alert an administrator to this post.

 

[RufRydyr]

Regarding the use of settlers to expand into AI territory:

If it hasn't been outlawed, go for it. What's the difference between using settlers to advance and breaking a Right of Passage agreement to do a sneak attack? If the AI can be 'Happy' with me one turn and destroy my capital the next turn, turnabout is fair play. Actually, all is fair in war IMO.

In my current game, I have a very small amount of culture. Using sneak ROP attacks and 'settler encroachment' has been very helpful in my goal of total decimation and high score.

I was wondering though if it's permitted to plop a settler down on the border, move a settler beside him (or her), disband the original settler, build with the new settler, and repeat this process to reach anywhere I want in enemy territory?

Shady? Probably. An AI exploit? Probably. But am I allowed to do it? What do you guys think?

 

[USMC]

Neomega,

Alert an administrator about what? Is shimsham not allowed to disagree with you or point out that through 5 pages of posts, you ARE the only one that thinks this strategy is despicable?

A few have said that they won't use/disagree with using this strategy, but you are the only one WHINING about it.

Feel free to report me to an administrator for saying that it is my OPINION that you are acting like a baby!

 

[Neomega]

Hmm, obviously ShimSham is a sham.....

Of course, you'll learn USMC.

It's a double registration, which is a bannable offense. I have my suspicions, but I have not reported it to an administrator, because I know it is one of two people. And I've read some of their other posts and realized they have no clue how Civilization 3 works.

But anyways... no offense taken, you haven't been here long

 

[USMC]

Originally posted by Neomega
Hmm, obviously ShimSham is a sham.....

Of course, you'll learn USMC.

It's a double registration, which is a bannable offense. I have my suspicions, but I have not reported it to an administrator, because I know it is one of two people. And I've read some of their other posts and realized they have no clue how Civilization 3 works.

But anyways... no offense taken, you haven't been here long

OK, it's not really my style to do so, but now i will nit-pick.

I will learn? I truly can't imagine what you are referring to.

If it is against rules to have multiple accounts, so be it, report shimsham. If you plan to report shimsham for "not knowing how Civ3 works", perhaps you can enlighten him/her on a one on one basis. I personally do not recall having to pass a Civ3 test to register here. I suspect, however, that you were planning to report shimsham because you do not like what that person said. If you are getting this upset at us for not "understanding the spirit of the game", then you really should calm down and let us dwell in the darkness. Perhaps you should even get a new hobby.

To answer your previous concerns regarding the settler tactic:
I consider myself somewhat educated regarding military history and history in general, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no record of a group of civilians occupying 900 square miles of enemy territory during a time of war for any purpose, anywhere, ever. Certainly no group of people did it multiple times over a short period of time. YOU ARE CORRECT.

Unless I have COMPLETELY misunderstood the point of these forums, the reason that whoever maintains (pays for) the VAST amounts of resources and information for newbie and veteran alike, here FREE OF CHARGE, is for others to share their experiences and get different perspectives on the GAME.

It would seem that Moonsinger did exactly that. She explained how she likes to use Artillery in the game - take it or leave it or adapt it to your own style of PLAY. Some took it, some rejected it, and some adapted it.

If her strategy is so vile and immoral and against the spirit of the game.....find a way to beat it, then beat the crap out of her when PTW comes out. And don't forget to post the results here, I am interested to find out who wins.

FYI Neomega, I registered 5 days before you but I only have a few posts because I choose to read what others post instead of running my proverbial mouth all the time.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by RufRydyr
Shady? Probably. An AI exploit? Probably. But am I allowed to do it? What do you guys think?

It's just a game. As long as you have fun and follow the rules (if you play for HoF or GoM), that's all that's really matter. As for me, I have never broken the Right of Passage agreement before (not even one). Therefore, I hope that everyone would play honorably with me in PTW. If you really need to break a deal with me, that's ok; I won't hold it against you. However, please don't hurt me too much or I will cry.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by USMC
If her strategy is so vile and immoral and against the spirit of the game.....find a way to beat it, then beat the crap out of her when PTW comes out. And don't forget to post the results here, I am interested to find out who wins.

I can't think of anyone would like to hurt me here. I do have certain secret (trick) that I'm saving for PTW. Artillery is great but "friend" is better.

 

[Neomega]

Originally posted by USMC

If it is against rules to have multiple accounts, so be it, report shimsham.

that's what the threat was for..... as for the rest, well... no. I like to think I don't suck that much.

Unless I have COMPLETELY misunderstood the point of these forums, the reason that whoever maintains (pays for) the VAST amounts of resources and information for newbie and veteran alike, here FREE OF CHARGE, is for others to share their experiences and get different perspectives on the GAME.

Oh, believe me, niether of the two likely suspects are any where newbie status. The prime suspect says alot of things about the game which simply aren't true. Like attacking terrain bonuses and such.

It would seem that Moonsinger did exactly that. She explained how she likes to use Artillery in the game - take it or leave it or adapt it to your own style of PLAY. Some took it, some rejected it, and some adapted it.

One of the reasons of these boards is also to discuss strategies. I am not really concerened about how people play a SP game... it is MP I am concerned about.

If her strategy is so vile and immoral and against the spirit of the game.....find a way to beat it, then beat the crap out of her when PTW comes out. And don't forget to post the results here, I am interested to find out who wins.

That was my intention. As you can see, I have asked people to come up with good counter strategies.

Actually, if you check my posts, you will see a good deal of them are customized graphics expansions for civ III. I don't just run off my mouth, I spend time and effort to enhance everyone gaming experience. You might even enjoy soem of these extra units.... they are more of a sci-fi leaning, however.

There really is no reason to be hostile.

As far as your points regarding the subject. Go ahead and re-read my posts, as I have addressed them.

As for me, I have never broken the Right of Passage agreement before (not even one). Therefore, I hope that everyone would play honorably with me in PTW.

Funnily, I am of the belief that breaking an RoP is a completely legal part of the game. I would not give anyone in a MP game a ROP unless we were fighting a common enemy. Any thing less to me is trusing someone too much in a world of extreme political intrigue, where the goal is not peace, but victory.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Neomega
Funnily, I am of the belief that breaking an RoP is a completely legal part of the game. I would not give anyone in a MP game a ROP unless we were fighting a common enemy. Any thing less to me is trusing someone too much in a world of extreme political intrigue, where the goal is not peace, but victory.

I concur! However, I believe I did mention my secret weapon "friend". Yeah, one can not be easily defeated
as long as one have friend. And I intend to have a lot of friends. Will thy be my friend or will thy be my enemy?

PS: When there are only two superpowers left in the world, now would be a time for the honorable fight to the death. I don't know about you, but I'm happy to settle for the second place.

 

[Neomega]

As am I, if the game is fun. If by 1300 AD it looks like you and me gonna rule the world, well, watch your back.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I do think this Settler land-claiming is an exploit. The easiest fix would seem to change the rule so that placing a city won't allow you to gain any previously owned territory that turn. Seems pretty realistic, too.

Moonsinger, if you destroy all relevent roads to prevent a counter-attack against your recently conquered cities, you also prevent yourself from repeating the strat the next turn. While you'd still deal a potentially powerful blow to your opponent for virtually no cost, it would hardly be enough to bring down an powerful neighbour.

 

[FutbolPlaya44]

GREAT IDEA!!!