How to use artillery effectively...

[HOTZHELL]

newby questions:
1- what is 100 stack artillery?
2- what benefit is it to build a settlement next to the city you are attacking
3- I have my artillery attack for several turns before I lower the hp's of defensive units. this seems to take forever;and I usually have around 10 artillery! Am I doing somthing wrong?

thanks

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by HOTZHELL
newby questions:
1- what is 100 stack artillery?

100 stack artillery = shortcut of bad English! = a stack of 100 artillery units

2- what benefit is it to build a settlement next to the city you are attacking

As I said at the beginning of this thread, the benefit is that you can attack at lightning speed. Since artillery unit can move only 1 square per turn inside enemy territory, without using the settler, you can't move your artilleries fast enough to bombard the enemy cities within the same turn.

3- I have my artillery attack for several turns before I lower the hp's of defensive units. this seems to take forever;and I usually have around 10 artillery! Am I doing somthing wrong?

That exactly why you need a stack of at least 100 artilleries. If you have a stack of 200 artilleries, you can reduce a size 45 city to a small town within the same turn. Note: any artillery units that didn't get a chance to fire, move them to attack another city within the same turn. The bottom line, once you built a stack of 200 or more artilleries, you are pretty much invincible!

 

[civ_steve]

Hiya Moonsinger! Just wanted to say that I used a 'watered' down Artillery stack of 50 to finish off GOTM12. The strategy was quite effective against France, particularly against the formerly Japanese cities that France had just taken. Since they had no culture it was quite easy to move the Artillery within range to reduce the defenders to 1 hp, and then run them over with Cav. Unfortunately I had traded them Steam Power too recently, and there were few railroads; I compensated by keeping a large stack of workers to upgrade the roads and move my Artillery along. In one turn I took 7 cities! Thanks for the Tip!

 

[Moonsinger]

To civ_steve:

I'm glad it worked out nice for you. Thanks for your kind words and for taking the time to let me know that it worked. Most of all, thanks for bringing the sunshine into my gloomy day.

 

[anarres]

I have always been reluctant to build artillery. I like to build a large enough army to take a sizeable chunk out of the enemy, and I have found artillery too slow to be useful.

After reading this thread (all of it!) I am going to try this, although in MP you'd be lucky to get the chance to build such a large army. I can imagine turn based MP to be a very bloody affair, since if you build your army first you can wipe out your 'builder' collegue next to you. A MP game that lasts to artillery may be a rare thing...

Moonsinger: Thanks for this, this is one of the rare times I have read something here that may actually improve my playing

Neomega: You have a lot of gall to attack people and then accuse others of being 'Hostile'. There are many ways of getting your point across and being polite is not a requirement, but being rude will make enemies.

P.S. Moonsinger - I followed a link to this from a recent thread - thanks again

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by anarres
....bloody affair, since if you build your army first you can wipe out your 'builder' collegue next to you. A MP game that lasts to artillery may be a rare thing...

You could always start the game in the industrial era, modern era or future era.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
You could always start the game in the industrial era, modern era or future era.

Whoops. I kinda remember reading that somewhere else now

 

[Neomega]

always cover your tracks, you never know when Bush is looking for traitors

 

[Neomega]

always cover your tracks, you never know when Bush is looking for traitors

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Neomega
Hmm, If you see how it all started,

ME: "it's not under used.... it's shady, and not in the spirit of the game."

B-Baws: Spirit of the game my ass. War is not honourable you use every low down dirty trick you can find. This is just a way of capturing enemy railroads for your use, the fact that it happens to be implemented through settlers is irrelevant. Is it in the spirrit of the game to move workers with your carapults and cannon to build forts against that enemy cities walls? Or perhaps that just hadn't occurred to you either.

As you can see, it was not I who started out rude or hostile.

BTW, I just now saw that BBaws was inferencing forts give offensive bonuses, I can't believe I missed that all these times.

It's amazing how many times people want to reprimand me on this thread. It's also amazing how the posts are so preachy about rudeness, while being quite rude and condensending themselves.

OK. First, I'm not having a go. This is a calm conversation and I don't want a fight.

Although BBaws sounded sarcastic, you were very quickly condesending and rude yourself:

Originally posted by Neomega
Boy... I told you what to do and you didn't do it, maybe its the pompous brit in you, so turn your nose down to read the screen, and I know it's hard because it is written in American English, but I'll try and put it in words you understand:
[...]
Now listen up child, don't answer my question with another question. Answer it with simply a name of two nations, and the date of which time this occured.

Anyway, that is what I meant when I said when you were being hostile. I never said you started it. And only a few posts ago did you call others hostile yourself. That was my first sentance.

My second sentance was a simple truth. You don't need to be polite to post here, and you will make enemies by being rude. There is always a middle road of assertiveness without having resorting to personal insult.

Again, I don't want a fight, and I don't think I have been rude to you. I don't think I have been condesending either, although that is much more subjective as it's all about whether or not you feel that I have patronised you. I can assure you I think of you as an equal, so I don't really think I have been condesending ether.

There is of course a small amount of hypocracy in what I say as I myself have offended people here (including mods), but what is life if not sharing our experiences and learning from them?

No hard feelings (I hope).

P.S. I agree with a lot of what you say, and I haven't decided how 'fair' I consider this strat. And ROP rape is of course completely valid (and has been used in the real world many times), so at least we agree on something

 

[sumthinelse]

Hey guys, the bickering here:

 

[sumthinelse]

I don't think thia has been mentioned: If I am a democracy, and I leave units in enemy territory war weariness can occur almost immediately. If I can attack from my own territory after building a city that may reduce the time sitting in enemy territory, and thus reduce WW.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by sumthinelse
I don't think thia has been mentioned: If I am a democracy, and I leave units in enemy territory war weariness can occur almost immediately. If I can attack from my own territory after building a city that may reduce the time sitting in enemy territory, and thus reduce WW.

When you attack a city using this strategy you have to enter enemy territory to do so. The settler will give you maybe only 1 turns grace from this.

However, if WW from being in a opponents territory only happens if you are in their territory at the end of your turn, then maybe you could avoid this part of WW altogether.

Can anyone confirm/deny this? Could be another huge advantage it it is true...

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by anarres
However, if WW from being in a opponents territory only happens if you are in their territory at the end of your turn, then maybe you could avoid this part of WW altogether.

How?

The settler has to enter the territory in 1 turn, and then the next turn can he build the city.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
How?

The settler has to enter the territory in 1 turn, and then the next turn can he build the city.

If you have enough settlers settle 1 square outside his land. Next, move another settler one square further in (right next to your city). Disband the first city and found a new one with the second settler, this time the settler is inside the old cultural boundary. Carry on this process until you are near enough to bombard.

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by anarres
Disband the first city and found a new one with the second settler, this time the settler is inside the old cultural boundary. Carry on this process until you are near enough to bombard.

If you disband the first city, the Rival-cultural borders will grow back.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
If you disband the first city, the Rival-cultural borders will grow back.

It doesn't matter. Your second settler is in enemy territory after disbanding the first city, and it can move (i.e. build a city) in the same turn. Therefore it doesn't ever end it's go inside enemy territory, as it now has it's own city with it's own territory.

Do this ad-infinitum to get wherever you want in enemy territory in the same turn (as long as they have roads).

 

[Grey Fox]

yeah... well, if that isn't an exploit I don't know what it is...

 

[anarres]

Whilst I often use a single settler to nudge a bit towards a city, and even sometimes a second time in the same turn, I personally would never build a settler just to disband it and build one in the square next to it.

Any settler I use to encroach is _always_ part of my new empire - I tend to destroy most AI cities.

IMHO, If you have the resources to squander like this then you should have won the game along time ago. My games tend to live on the edge, even more so recently.

 

[Grey Fox]

I agree anarress. My games are like that too. Building a city close to the enemies border, (If you know you can culturally keep it) is often a good idea.

And since I started playing Deity my games are also on the edge, where if I would risk something, It might be the loss of the game. In some way, my most succeful Deity game, and my only win so far (have another game I'm about to win too), was a No war game. But now I'm going off topic.