How to use artillery effectively...

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Erik Mesoy
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.

"w/rep stain for ROP abuse"? Where did you get that idea? If we are going to war, we would formally declare war in advance, and most importantly we declare war while our units (not even one) are not inside our adversary territory. If we have workers or whatever inside the AI territory, we would wait until they all withdraw before we declare war. That has always been my style.

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.

That's good for you. I orginally wrote this article as part of the strategy for the HOF games where every game is milked to its full potential. And this is one way to move yourself up if you are the weakest civ against other 15 AIs civs at the Deity level.

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.

Yes, it may be an exploit or it may be not. It's all depend on your point of view. In any case, it isn't as worst as you put it. There is no city abandonment so that I can build another one next to it (yes, I did mention about abandoning my outpost that the beginning of this thread, but that were after I liberate the target city; I didn't do it so that I can move forward infinitely). And there is absolutely no ROP abuse of any kind. Btw, I also said from the beginning that this Strategy would make us invincible and victory would seem hollow (however if you have never win a Deity level before, any kind of victory would be most glorify); therefore, I don't use it anymore.

Nevertheless, I wrote this article when I was just learning how to play Civ3 and when I was exploring possible new strategies. To use it or not is really up to the players. The bottom line, I have beeing playing the GOTM a lot more honorable than you think. I don't abuse ROP. I don't pop rush or deny resource. I don't use sucide galley because it's unrealistic. No one would know that Collumbus discovered America unless he actually made it back...I think you get the idea. There are so many other things that I don't do or do, but I don't impose my ethic upon others. I have always tried to remember where I came from and tried to behave accordingly. Sure, winning a Civ3 game may be an easy things for me nowadays, but there was a time that winning seems like the impossible. We are all have to start somewhere and I am no different. There are countless players out there that are longing to beat the AIs just once, longing to win a Deity game just once. Therefore, it would be unethical for me to impose my ethic upon them, especially when they are just trying to have fun.

 

[Grey Fox]

Nicely put Moonsinger.

 

[Jurimax]

Wow, I really enjoyed reading this thread. At first I thought "What a great strategy!", but indeed it's a litlle bit an exploit.
I don't want to chooses sides here, because in a sense all of you are correct. The only real importance lies in the fact that you enjoy the game. So if you're enjoying the game when you use this tactic, that's fine by me. If you hate this tactic and don't use it, that's fine by me...
What I'm trying to say here is that it's only game. When I buy a game, it's only to have fun. If I have fun using this or that strategy, then that's great. If somebody else is having fun using a different strategy, well that's great for them.
IMHO that's the only thing we should remember: games are bought for fun, and there will allways be differences in the ways people define fun.
And to everybody "Happy civing"

Greetings Jurimax

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Probably hidden in all the text on the subject but it's worth repeating.

Once you get to tanks you can really increase you GL's by forcing tanks to elites. By making double runs at units that have had their HP knocked down to 1 you get an elite for every tank you don't lose. Running stacks of elite tanks at enemy SOD's that have been worn down can really rack up a heavy flow of GL's.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Cartouche Bee
Once you get to tanks you can really increase you GL's by forcing tanks to elites. By making double runs at units that have had their HP knocked down to 1 you get an elite for every tank you don't lose. Running stacks of elite tanks at enemy SOD's that have been worn down can really rack up a heavy flow of GL's.

I concur! Using a lot of artillery is one of the most effective way to farm for Great Leader. Of course, one may also consider this method as an exploit too. Basically, any effective use of the human brain is an exploit since the AIs (even with the best and fastest computer in the world) can't possibly keep up with the human brain processing power. In a way, the people of the RBCiv epics are exploiting the game more than anyone that I know of.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

All the greatest historic heroic battles were won by the underdogs and they used some exploit of the situation to win. I guess finding the exploits are at least half the fun of the game.

I rarely have to resort to tanks so I'm a slow learner.

 

[barron of ideas]

I am not sure I follow the idea that winning demonstrates you have used exploits to win. Or did I not understand what you mean when you say "The people of the RBC epics are exploiting the game more than anyone that I know of."

Using "Exploits" is bad. (most people who read this would agree)

You seem to say the people of the RBC epics are using exploits.

It seems to logically follow the RBCer's are bad. Did you mean to imply they are? If not, please expand on what you meant.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Cartouche Bee
All the greatest historic heroic battles were won by the underdogs and they used some exploit of the situation to win. I guess finding the exploits are at least half the fun of the game.

I rarely have to resort to tanks so I'm a slow learner.

Yes, me too. Like you, I'm a very slow learner. By the time, we get tanks, there aren't any war left to fight.

Originally posted by barron of ideas
I am not sure I follow the idea that winning demonstrates you have used exploits to win. Or did I not understand what you mean when you say "The people of the RBC epics are exploiting the game more than anyone that I know of."

Using "Exploits" is bad. (most people who read this would agree)

You seem to say the people of the RBC epics are using exploits.

It seems to logically follow the RBCer's are bad. Did you mean to imply they are? If not, please expand on what you meant.

I stand by exactly what I said. Here is a re-cap of it:

Originally posted by Moonsinger
Basically, any effective use of the human brain is an exploit since the AIs (even with the best and fastest computer in the world) can't possibly keep up with the human brain processing power. In a way, the people of the RBCiv epics are exploiting the game more than anyone that I know of.

Meaning exactly what CB just explained "All the greatest historic heroic battles were won by the underdogs and they used some exploit of the situation to win". If you want to get to the botoom of this issue, let's start another thread "The Ethic and Definition of Exploitation".

 

[Cartouche Bee]

barron, I can't really answer for Moonsinger, but I think she really implies they are the most highly concentrated group of skilled successful players. I think you may have dwelled on the exploit part a bit too much or the wrong way.

[Edit:] I was a bit late.

 

[barron of ideas]

OK, I agree the RBC ers are of awsome capability. I thought they were being criticised.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I would stand on "exploit" as doing something the computer would never consider.
The AI does attack people with which it has RoP, but does not position units next to all cities and then break RoP.
The AI does use artillery (even catapults) but does not abandon cities infinitely do use them.
Then I consider certain things to be "making up" for the AI having foreknowledge of the map, e.g. if the AI found in a spot where they miss 3 game, a fish and a whale then I can know that there will be a resource under that city.

I'm sure nobody else uses this exact definition, and I will not force it on you. This is just my reasoning behind what I consider to be exploitative.
Merry Civmas, and have a nice time playing Civ!

 

[ltcoljt]

I am going to chime in here and say that insofar as SP games go I see no problem with what anyone does, even if they are using a trainer program.

If it is a SP game in a comparative platform like the GOTM then as long as no rules are violated then there is no problem.

If it is a MP game that has defined rules, and you act within those rules there is no problem.

If it is a MP without defined rules then of course there is no problem.

If SP or MP competition with rules, if you discover a new tactic that is subsequently defined as exploitative, you should get a pat on the back for increasing the body of knowledge of the game. But it would be better to let folks know about it asap to avoid hard feelings. Using a tactic that you know might be considered an exploit without revealing it is sure not the way to win friends.

But, this is a game and this talk of ethics is a little bit of a stretch.

Now one thing that I would consider clearly unethical is playing a multiplayer game in which the rules state that there can be only one winner, and happily agreeing to cooperate with another player in order to secure a second place finish. That stinks to high heaven in my book. But thats just my opinion.

Now, what are RBC epics?

 

[alamo]

The exploit aspect of this should be considered in parallel with the old ROP exploit trick - positioning SOD's next to target cities using ROP then attacking. This is not completely realistic or in the spirit of the game, either. I don't think you could justify one while allowing the other.

Having said that, why not combine the two for an even bigger bang for the buck? If you do not mind the rep hit, then you can use ROP to strategically position settlers in the target territory to split it open like a watermellon on a hot summer day. If you have enough arty and cav you could take it all in one big bite.

Moreover, marching settlers through foreign territory is much less threatening than a SOD, not that the AI can tell the difference. Even a human player is likely to fall for it, if there aren't too many escorts. Also, if you suddenly have many cities spring up in enemy territory they are likely to waste troops trying to take them out.

I personally like to have a ton of cav so the retreaters have time to heal. Back before the random retreat it was a virtual slaughter to simply wear down inf with cav.

 

[zebomba2]

Personally, I don t think we need to go harsh towards each other, do we?
Anyway, it s a good idea AND an exploit. But whatever, deity games are NBC(nuclear, biological and chemical) allowed area. The AI's bonus is just outrageous, so everything is ok.
Including ROP rape, ICS, arty exploit, resource denial, lux strategy, pope state, and the removed despotism whipping.
Besides, whether you, me or Moonsinger uses it or not, it s our own business.
Just don t use it against lower AIs than deity, or in MP.

 

[Numdydar]

The problem with your strategy with a human is two fold. If a settler of yours ever crossed my border, I would consider it an act of war and kill it.

The other method to slow or stop your advance is to build over-lapping cities near your border that would never grow past size 6. I would then build all the culture building (plus a wall and barracks). This would have the benefit of pushing my borders out as far and as fast as possible and may be able to flip any of your cities that were built too close in the process.

There are several other ways to halt your strategy that I want to keep to my self for the time being

Just keep in mind that for every great strategy that one develops, there is another one that can blunt or offset it.

 

[DaveMcW]

The easiest way to block this strategy is as a human is pillage all roads connecting your borders.

 

[Wellington]

I've just come across this thread, as I recently got a computer fast enough to play the big maps.

I just want to say, I'm totally in favor this strategy! As somebody who holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Modern European History, I don't see any reason why people are complaining about ethics. THe thing about history and war is, it's so deep and so long that any statements made generalizing about whether or not settlers have ever been used in combat, or whether something's remotely possible, are probably wrong.

In the length of human history there is so much variety and so many notions of ethics, that the game Civ 3 can't even hope to come close to "historical accuracy". Anybody who's worried about historical accuracy may as well give up now. It's an historically-themed game, but it's woefully inaccurate - it really focuses entirely on Western (i.e., European) military history as taught at the high school level in America, using broad historical generalizations. If you think you're recreating accurately the feel of history in a given place at a given time, you're wrong.

The game is supposed to be *fun*! It follows its own rules, and just as in the real world, those rules were made to be broken. Real wars use every possible strategy, regardless of whether they're "fair" or "ethical". Despite the chemical weapons ban of 1919, chemical weapons continue to be used. Despite the land mine treaties, land mines continue to be used. So should moonsinger's strategy be used? Damn right it should! It *is* in the spirit of historical war to use whatever loopholes you can to win. I guarantee you that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston S. Churchill and Joseph Stalin did not care whether or not they were being fair in utilizing strategies to win the second World War. In the real world, would you rather win a war at all cost and guarantee your continued survival, especially against an "evil" aggressive enemy, or would you rather be fair, dead, and wiped off the Earth? Humanity has continually chosen the former.


Anyway, I love the strategy, I love the pages, and I'm glad these kinds of debates are taking place! I've played Civ games since I was in high school (the original Civ for DOS) but I love learning new strategies. Thanks Moonsinger!

 

[Moonsinger]

Thank you for your kind words, Wellington. I do really think that this strategy is honorable and won't be considered as an exploit if we don't build and disband city in the same turn or capture and disband city in the same turn.

Originally posted by Numdydar
The other method to slow or stop your advance is to build over-lapping cities near your border that would never grow past size 6. I would then build all the culture building (plus a wall and barracks). This would have the benefit of pushing my borders out as far and as fast as possible and may be able to flip any of your cities that were built too close in the process.

Numdydar: I don't think your method/methods will work. Basically, unless all your border towns have the culture ring of 3 or 4 (which is very unlikely), I'm just going to launch my cavalries to take one of those towns and the rest of your cities will fall like the dominos. Since you already build you cities close to each others, you would help my artilleries to advance quickly without me having to build additional outpost.

 

[Starving Poet]

Moonsinger, I would just like to commend you for actually sticking with something, even through all the onslaughts for almost a year now.

I'm from Illinois and I just thought Iowa was a wasteland You bring light to my world.

 

[wvfoos]

This article is amazing.

So simple, yet, idiot me never figured it out, to just build a city to park my arty in, then disband it.

With an army of settlers and workers (and in my current game, i've got both - ive got about 10 settlers just hanging out in my capital), and a stack of arty, and a couple of offensive and defensive units, you can run right through the enemy's land like crap through a goose..