anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Completely OT, will you play in the tourney for season 4?
We need more Leader division players
We need more Leader division players
How to use artillery effectively...
- Thread starter Moonsinger
- Start date
Maybe... but playing games within a timeframe is something I think I won't be able to do in the near future.Originally posted by anarres
Completely OT, will you play in the tourney for season 4?
We need more Leader division players
Sorry for being off topic. Will not post any more off topic in this thread.
sumthinelse
civ investigator
About avoiding war weariness: Please look at the maps on page 1 of this thread. On the 1st map, units that move 1 tile per turn and cannot bombard from 2 squares away (e. g. infantry) would stay in enemy territory 3 turns before they could attack. After the settler builds a city they would stay in enemy territory only 1 turn (assuming the attack was successful on the 1st turn).
It depends on how far the cultural boundary extends and the terrain, and of course whether you need to attack with slow-moving units. In some cases building an outpost city might save 3 turns in enemy territory.
If you are attacking with fast-moving units exclusively the turns spent in enemy territory might be the same.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
If you do the 'settler encroachment' method you can always bombard their city and attack in the same turn. You build a city just outside their border, and by successive disbanding and founding of new cities you can gradually move inwards.Originally posted by sumthinelse
About avoiding war weariness: Please look at the maps on page 1 of this thread. On the 1st map, units that move 1 tile per turn and cannot bombard from 2 squares away (e. g. infantry) would stay in enemy territory 3 turns before they could attack. After the settler builds a city they would stay in enemy territory only 1 turn (assuming the attack was successful on the 1st turn.
It depends on how far the cultural boundary extends and the terrain, and of course whether you need to attack with slow-moving units. In some cases building an outpost city might save 3 turns in enemy territory.
If you are attacking with fast-moving units exclusively the turns spent in enemy territory might be the same.
Obviously for this to work the enemy must have roads in the right places, and you need units that can cover the 1 tile between your city and the enemy city and attack in the same turn (with cavalry any terrain apart from jungle and mountain). And of course enough atrillery. By the time artillery comes around none of this should be a problem.
You start the turn outside their territory, and end the turn outside (because you have taken the cities you want). If the part of WW due to troops in foreign soil is calculated at the end of the turn, then you will never suffer from it.
sumthinelse
civ investigator
I think that is true unless there are some cases where the attacker's city's territory expands in an irregular way such that it does not encroach on enemy territory. Also there may be cases where the attacker cannot build a city because all the tiles on his side are mountains and/or water.
Actually, whenever I build an outpost three squares away from the defender city, I always get a full 1 square radius (as in the first pic of this thread). Whenever I build an outpost two squares away from the defender city as in this picture, I will get irregular shape as you just described (still within range of artillery).
Yes, but that would be an exploit and it may be quite expensive too (since it costs 160 golds and 2 citizens to rush each settler). I think the WW also involves the total number of units that we leave inside the enemy territory at the end of each turn. For example, if we send just 1 settler and 1 infantry into the enemy territory, the WW wouldn't be as much as leaving a stack of doom inside the enemy territory at the end of the turn.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Yeah, I agree. Exploit. It would be hard to resist though if the enemy was going to complete the spaceship, and you could take their capital in 1 turn...
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Hard to resist, but not impossible.
To be honest, I can't see myself getting in to that particular mess anyway.
To be honest, I can't see myself getting in to that particular mess anyway.
If you are an expert civ3 player, I'm sure you make multiple plans way ahead of time. Just like this artillery strategy, if you are going to use it, it has to be planed at least 20 turns in advance. A stack of 100 artilleries don't come cheat and it's not something you can produce within just a few turns. Therefore, you don't need to use this strategy to take their capital. In fact, I have never build and disband outposts so that my troop can advance anywhere within same turn. When I use this strategy, I always send my settler inside the enemy territory at least 1 turn in advance. That would give them a chance to destroy my settler and a chance for me to evaluate their strength too. It is a win-win situation for both sides; therefore, I won't end up with a hollow victory.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
@Moonsinger:
I wasn't saying that your strat was an exploit, just the 1 turn thing (that you don't use anyway). I'm sure your victories are won in a blaze of glory :rocket:
@GreyFox:
Having a range of 1 is going to be limiting, maybe too many nice units sitting in enemy terrotiry for a turn is a bit too risky.
I wasn't saying that your strat was an exploit, just the 1 turn thing (that you don't use anyway). I'm sure your victories are won in a blaze of glory :rocket:
@GreyFox:
Having a range of 1 is going to be limiting, maybe too many nice units sitting in enemy terrotiry for a turn is a bit too risky.
Since the Hwacha has the range of 1 (the artillery has the range of 2), I don't think this strategy will work. However, the Hwacha is great for defensive purpose since it has the same fire power as artillery and it comes a lot earlier in the tech tree. Since it's upgradable to artillery too, that would be another bonus.
In this screenshot, a settler was escorted by an army of infantries was able to move two squares inside enemy territory. Even though the Chinese culture was incredibly high, we would still get the full 1-square radius around our "Omega" outpost. Of course, a stack of over 100 artilleries immediately bombarded both Canton and Nanking and reduced all the defenders to 1HPs. By spending as little as just 1 settler, we are able to instantly capture 2 major cities without any problem.
Attachments
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
I just came across this thread and...
I am totally against this strategy. How about suggesting it in Succesion Games forum, where people play Civ3 and share opinions and the same time?
Quote from LKendter, paraphrased: "No city building/abandoning exploits. A city may Not be abandoned on the first turn (that you own it, or after you build it) since this allows you to build-move settler-abandon, repeat repeat repeat, infinitely far."
The suggestions of abandoning and building new cities to blitz with 2-move units and settlers is... exploitative, and unrealistic. Where did the 2 million plus population go? Put to the sword? Razed with the city? How is capture-abandon different from raze, except that you get movement through enemy territory? *EXPLOIT*
I accept building cities in enemy territory sometimes, but this...
Building one outpost like this- Barely outside acceptable. I would not use it. Artillery have 1 move for a reason.
And the rep stain! Declaring war with loads of units inside their territory, and then abandoning the cities!
Artillery are a great unit, but... Not this way!
*feels like bringing this to the attention of RBD players and Lkendter and Sullla, who will pass ethics judgement on it*
I am totally against this strategy. How about suggesting it in Succesion Games forum, where people play Civ3 and share opinions and the same time?
Quote from LKendter, paraphrased: "No city building/abandoning exploits. A city may Not be abandoned on the first turn (that you own it, or after you build it) since this allows you to build-move settler-abandon, repeat repeat repeat, infinitely far."
The suggestions of abandoning and building new cities to blitz with 2-move units and settlers is... exploitative, and unrealistic. Where did the 2 million plus population go? Put to the sword? Razed with the city? How is capture-abandon different from raze, except that you get movement through enemy territory? *EXPLOIT*
I accept building cities in enemy territory sometimes, but this...
Building one outpost like this- Barely outside acceptable. I would not use it. Artillery have 1 move for a reason.
And the rep stain! Declaring war with loads of units inside their territory, and then abandoning the cities!
Artillery are a great unit, but... Not this way!
*feels like bringing this to the attention of RBD players and Lkendter and Sullla, who will pass ethics judgement on it*
Yes, I would consider that as an exploit and victory would be so hollow that losing would be much happier. However, in this case: the rule of such exploitation that you just mentioned doesn't apply. If you send the settler into the AI territory at least 1 turn in advance and don't abandon it so that you can build a new one just 1 tile next to it, then it's a valid strategy.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter if it's an exploit or not because this thread is not about the ethic of the game. You should always follow the rule of the tournament that you are playing. For example, if it's an OCC tournament, then building a second city would simply disqualify you from the tournament. If the tournament does not allow the use of artillery, then don't use it. It's as simple as that.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
One city as an outpost, ok, I use that sometimes too. But planting it deep in enemy territory (w/rep stain for ROP abuse!) is not something I feel like doing. Sure, do it, go ahead, but I don't really like it.
I respect you as a good player, but your artillery strategy seems ont he brink of exploitative. The example in post #31, page 1 or 2 according to your prefs, is an exploit. I'm very glad you admitted to that.
I have stopped playing the GOTM. Milking, nuke terraforming, mapstat and apollo. I play the RBCiv epics instead. Ethics there are clearly defined, and those who don't like it... haven't heard of it.
Not quite. I have some of my own ethics beyond the tourney rules.
I respect you as a good player, but your artillery strategy seems ont he brink of exploitative. The example in post #31, page 1 or 2 according to your prefs, is an exploit. I'm very glad you admitted to that.
Similar threads
