Is this an exploit or a strategy?

[OTAKUjbski]

Consider the following:

• Loading into a transport vessel from within a city does not cost movement for either parties involved
• A transport vessel can (un)load on the high seas when stacked with another transport having cargo space
• (Un)loading and movement can both be done on the same turn

What happens when you add these together with a string of transport vessels?

The ability to move virtually an unlimited number of units across the sea a virtually unlimited number of tiles in a single turn.

The actual process is simple:

1. Load units into transport vessel #1
2. Move transport vessel #1 on top of transport vessel #2
3. Unload & Load units from vessel #1 into vessel #2
4. Rinse & Repeat with #2-#3, #3-#4, etc. until you get where you're going

The number of situations in which this is possible is limited by your and your enemy's naval strength and your ability to defend the chain.

However, long before Airports are even a fantasy, unlimited movement is possible by way of this strategy.

So, is this a strategic tool to keep in your belt, or just a simple exploit?

 

[svv]

I didn't think you could load or unload more than once in a single turn.

This reminds me of playing "Heroes of Might and Magic" um... III or IV, not sure which, where you'd load your troops up with a "hero," who could then hand them off to another hero, on and on in a "hero chain."

 

[DaveMcW]

Usually the supply chain is so expensive to build and defend that it doesn't give any advantage.

The one case it does help is when you are reinforcing a cross-continental invasion. You already have the ships from your initial landing, and ship chaining allows fresh units to start fighting as soon as they are built.

 

[tazpn314]

I agree with DaveMcW on most points. I've used it for exactly that purpose on a invasion that is not too far away. It should probably be classified as an exploit but then its almost difficult enough to get going that its balanced out some. What like to see is transports that could handle more units perhaps at the cost of movement.

 

[Darth Meanie]

I would consider it an exploitation of the game engine, it does however require you to use all of those resources, so I think it is an acceptable naval maneuver, as it can be stopped by prudent attack and requires simultaneous movement.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Its not as helpful as it looks - you wouldn't start an invasion this way - by drip feeding units across. You would use every available transport and stuff it with troops. Your second wave of reinforcements won't be sent this way either - they will probably be sent on transports that were constructed just after the invasion fleet was sent and dispatched as soon as they can - long before you could establish the chain.

Later on it could help accelerate a third and subsequent wave, but by then you probably have a secure foothold and will want to use your transports for rapid assault up the coast rather than leave them in a long hard to defend chain.

In general the success of an intercontinental invasion for me isn't in how fast I can get reinforcements there - its whether I can arrive in sufficient force to establish a strong beachhead and pursue further cities. This strategy doesn't help me there and it carries a risk in making my transports hard to defend.

So I agree - its probably an exploit but I am not sure it helps you much.

 

[TRJS]

I don't see it as an exploit as the benefit is only available in certain situations. Furthermore, the increased risk to your transports will often outwiegh any benefit obtained.

 

[anglosaxon]

You could use this to build up the defence of a city you have just captured in a beachhead invasion, it would be very useful for that. Meanwhile your main attackforce is healing its damage in this city while your defenders cope with the enemy's counterattack (the AI will almost immediately try and retake a city it has just lost if it is of medium size or above inthe middle/late game).

 

[Bagpuss]

It's got to be classed as an exploit. The designers can't have intended for this to be possible and, if they were aware of it, I'm sure it would have been patched out of the game by now. Surely for it not to be classed as an exploit the AI would have to know how to take advantage of it?

Well spotted though.

 

[Storminator]

Not an exploit. It's an attempt to mitigate the appallingly slow speed of naval units. Can it really take 5-10 years to get a bunch of tanks across the ocean?

It worked that way in Civ2 as I recall.

And again, not really an awe inspiring tactic. Useful, but not amazing.

PS

 

[PublicEnemy]

Not an exploit in my opinion.
For an overseas invasion it's best to launch the first wave with as many troops as possible, once you have a foothold you can then use this method to keep troops coming in every turn.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Maybe an exploit, but I don't see it as being much of a problem. Even though it's instananeous transport of troops, you would need several transports to transport a handful of units at a time. It's basically sending few units really fast (spreading out transports) versus tons of units really slowly (floating stack of doom). And as others have pointed out, you want the stack of doom right for the initial invasion.

 

[oyzar]

not an exploit at all. your troop transportation is still limited by the number of transports you have. You need distance/moves transports to carry over cargohold units which isnt very much and would have pretty much the same effect if you had enough transports to go back and forth anyways picking up x new units each time...

 

[civ4legs]

Certainly an exploit, though as has been pointed out, perhaps not a major one.

That being said, it becomes significantly more powerful once transports are available, and especially if you win the circumnavigation bonus; your chain can include less ships, and carry more attackers. In particular if you have a tech lead on navy (which in my experience is pretty easy to attain), you don't really need to defend the transports; frigates have no hope against a transport, and it's pitifully easy to avoid ironclads...

Now that I write that, I think it's a bigger exploit!

The first time I noticed this maneuver was way back in my Colonization playing days...

 

[Bagpuss]

Can it really take 5-10 years to get a bunch of tanks across the ocean?

Since when did Civ years ever bear any sensible relation to reality? Shall we talk about how many years it takes a bomber to fly from one end of your empire to the other?

 

[NaZdReG]

honestly over those kind of distances it is less useful than just slogging back and forth. I would rather drop off an initial pair of stacks in the 15-20 unit range, then send the ships home.. by the time they make the crossing I have another 15-20 units built. 1/2 the fleet goes over and you just see waves every 5 turns or so of 15 units making a shore landing. combined with arriving in city, then getting to move across captured territory w/o penalty it is more than sufficient.

NaZ

 

[Whitefire]

It's got to be classed as an exploit. The designers can't have intended for this to be possible and, if they were aware of it, I'm sure it would have been patched out of the game by now. Surely for it not to be classed as an exploit the AI would have to know how to take advantage of it?

This "exploit" has been present since the original version of Civ. Nothing new here to see. Move along.

 

[Storminator]

Shall we talk about how many years it takes a bomber to fly from one end of your empire to the other?

Yes.

This is one of the major problems with both air and sea power in Civ, and if I had a magic wand, it's the one thing I would address.

PS

 

[tycoonist]

didn't realise this was still present. i remember it fondly from civ3

 

[Florian]

It has to be an exploit, because it's a use of game mechanics that destroys the verisimilitude of the simulation--and that's the definition of an exploit.