Is this an exploit or a tactic?

[Belisar]

If the AI wants the city with its massive stacks then it takes it and we get to take advantage. The AI sucks strategically. If it didn't it wouldn't need ridiculous production bonuses. He isn't worldbuildering or otherwise breaking game rules, rendering it a perfectly legit move.

I second that.
The AI has it's bonuses, we tactics like this to dezimate huge stacks, I see no exploit.
It's similar to the old AW-tactic in Civ3 of "baiting" the AI with an empty city to a favorable "killing zone".

 

[troytheface]

yes, for those who fail to fight in the field or adequately defend cities and need every advantage to overcome the AI, it is a valid and needed tactic. One could theoretically do it a couple of times until someone razes the city.

 

[JBossch]

I'm not even sure why this is cheesy. The move is not without its drawbacks as you lose valuable buildings and population in a city you would rather be developing. I have used it a couple times in the case of a surprise AI DoW and never felt like I was using an exploit. On high difficulties the AI produces some insanely huge stacks and we humans have to have some methods of equalizing things.

 

[Lexicus]

On the other hand, it's a trap that I'm sure many armies in human history have fallen into -- capturing a city and garrisoning troops in a place that becomes a death trap upon counterattack. As r_rolo notes, Stalingrad pretty much was this method of battle.

Ehh. Stalingrad was more a result of Hitler forcing Sixth Army to neglect its flanks.

 

[CivCorpse]

a tactic used and written about by some, however, surrendering a city and losing buildings for an easier counter attack is not very heroic. I say stand your ground and win or lose and defend the virgins in the temples.

Temples produce culture, culture buildings are destroyed when a city is taken. No temple means no virgins.

 

[madscientist]

My opinion is it's a tactic. As far as honorable, hell on Diety I think honor goes out the window, survival of the fittest.

 

[vanatteveldt]

The tactic of itself is legitimate: let the enemy take a position and then besiege him there. I think the place the french lost in vietnam probably also qualifies.

The game-technical problem is that CR is just too strong in this case. IMHO City Raider should negate city defense benefits, but in civ a city in revolt is open terrain except for the CG promotions (which the AI doesn't take in sufficient numbers in attacking stacks).

I think the real problem is that a city can have 0% defensive bonus. Even cities bombed to rubble (which a catapult is totally incapable of and even atom bombs or prolonged bombin/artillery campaigns leave a lot of walls etc standing) should have a defensive bonus of 25-50% as it is so much easier to defend if you have all sorts of features left like moats, building walls, piles of rubble, etc. Siege weapons can take down the great defensive features of a city (walls, castle, buildings) but after the big obstacles are gone (ie defense down from 100-200% to 25-50%) only try to kill units.

Related rant: why the hell does a revolt suddenly remove all the walls and castles? And why does a garrison not make a revolt more expensive?

Proposed patches:
- siege can only remove non-cultural defense (or max half of cultural defense)
- spy mission can only remove cultural defense and is more expensive with more garrison
[- if possible, CR only works to counter city defense and CR promo's]

 

[obsolete]

but reinforcing a unit on a forested hill is a known exploit and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it.

Hmm...........

 

[ICNP]

Tactic. You lose the building's and such so it's still a risk.

Stasis rush however (putting minor troops near cap to keep AI from settling) is an exploit.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Tactic. You lose the building's and such so it's still a risk.

Stasis rush however (putting minor troops near cap to keep AI from settling) is an exploit.

Try doing it on immortal . God help you when there's 15 archers swarming around. I can pin the AI but it's seriously hard to get archers there in time.

Of course, the other problem is that if you stick one AI in stasis, and there is another AI nearby, it will settle the land. Faster than you, as it has both bonuses and a basic advantage since you put hammers into units and not expansion.

The AI's reaction to it is a little ponderous admittedly but it's annoying even to humans (who also run a real risk of getting killed outright if they've neglected military and see the 4 warrior march...).

It carries risks and can screw you if you don't know what you're doing, so it's hardly an exploit.

 

[pangu]

I vote that it is not an exploit. Tactical retreat so as to gain a combat advantage is good war strategy in real life.

I actually use this tactic quite a lot. I find that the biggest impact is not to lose that city for a turn (after all, that city is recently captured, chances are that it is unlikely to have many buildings remaining there), but WW.

Losing a city, then recapturing it jerks up WW a lot, esp when that city is a recently captured city where I am not culturally dominant. I think that is the main downside which makes me think twice before using this tactic.

 

[vicawoo]

it's a tactic that exploits the AI. But I think it's fair game, you're just trying to find the best terrain, and this is the same game where we watch AI throw themselves at fortified drill 4 units. If I had CG3 longbows, I'd probably keep them in the city, and they'd probably kill off at least one unit each.

Imagine if Barbarians had smart AI. They would camp on strategic resources, roam in packs to clear out fogbusters until they spawned enough to overrun every civilization.

 

[Cabledawg]

I find that the biggest impact is not to lose that city for a turn (after all, that city is recently captured, chances are that it is unlikely to have many buildings remaining there), but WW.

Losing a city, then recapturing it jerks up WW a lot, esp when that city is a recently captured city where I am not culturally dominant.

My games almost allways end up with me in Police State and this game was no exception. Deity requires constant warring....or at least it does with me. I war not just for land but to keep the more advanced AI trimmed back. Mt Rushmore + Jails + Police State = no war wearyness.

Im still in the game and Ragnar is still building monster SOD. Im barely ahead of him in techs. What I lack in units, I make up in better units. This is my Military city.......5 Instructors, HE, West Point, Mil Academy and I own the Pentagon and Im Charismatic. I can make a anti tank unit....attach a GG and I have a woody 3 medic 3 40% healer right off the bat. Not only does it keep an army moving fast , but i can absorb big SOD and be healed the next turn.