Managing an Arab Republic

[stalin83]

I usually prefer to build powerful autocratic regimes using the expansionist Russian Civ.moving from Monarch -> Communism and investing alot in industrial infrastructure so that I can simply outproduce my rivals and expand my empire with a vast army.

However for a change , I picked an Arab Republic in a new game which the goal of raising happiness ,low corruption and high commerce.Coz Arabs are Religious I decided to invest in temples,catherdrals & other Cultural monuments.But, I dont want to adopt an expasionist policy .I'd rather hold & develop a specific chunk of land (e.g: 1/4 world landmass) and raise the ppl's quality of life.Naturally being a republic i :

• can only have a small army
• avoid conflict as much as possible

But I'd like to develop a small force primarily for offense-based defence.(attack-heavy units) and use my higher income for deeper Espionage of other nations to 2nd guess their moves and pre-empt attacks.Anyone else ued this strategy?

 

[MAS]

Its the Role-playing style of play, I guess. And it has strong elements of "Builder style" in it.

For pure power gaining purposes republic is often advised in combination with aggressive conquest. (rather than monarchy)

But to answer you question, perhaps this is an interesting read: Builder's Dream: Building an Empire of Metropolis by Bamspeedy
This article is a bit outdated for the conquest expansion since some important things changed in C3C.

This one may also be interesting: Managing the World: the Machiavellian Doctrine by dexters
It may give you some ideas on how to play out the game role-play wise at least.

 

[DBear]

A republic with strong infrastructure and lots of luxes can afford a military buildup and war quite well.

 

[stalin83]

hmm is there a straegy or tactic a republic could adopt which could counter a large yet somewhat technically-inferior force (AI tends to keep spearmen despite advancing to Modern times hence: the Intel report states that e.g: Babalonia has a HUGE army .but individual city reports show a large yet mixed force of spearmen,musketmen & riflemen).I'm looking perhaps at the success of Israeli forces since 1948 for inspiration.

I've got bored of maintaining a massive army , which was my ususal Russian style of play.it worked well , but im looking for a challenge =)

 

[MAS]

Not only exists what you ask for, but its the advised way to play!

Only build a massive army if you actually plan to use it, every unit of it. Building defensive units and keep them in your cities is a waste, because they cost shields, turns and upkeep, but are rarely used.

Of course, even if you are a peace monger, its still important to keep at least a certain amount of units at hand, to defend yourself if the AI decides to attack. (And with "defend" I mean you attack incoming would-be invaders on your turns, with offensive units. I do not mean "letting the AI attack your fortified defensive unit." Of course, you can't always avoid needing to defend a spot with a defensive unit, This is especially the case late game, when the AI gets 3 move unit, but defensive units should be a minority in your army.)

The key to taking down more units than you lose is a combination of artillery. and using veteran fast moving units with a retreat chance.

 

[stalin83]

hi Mas, glad to hear of a more nibble means of defense =)
im on the same freq as u when it comes to offense-heavy defense , but wouldn't it be better to replace artillery with bombers?they're more adaptable.

 

[Aabraxan]

One problem with replacing artillery with bombers is that nothing upgrades to bombers. You've got to build all of them from scratch. At 100 shields apiece (IIRC), that's a lot of building to replace all of your artillery. OTOH, you can build catapults, then upgrade to trebs, cannons and, finally, artillery.

 

[stalin83]

Well true , but at present I'm not spending much on artillery coz my terrain on the border makes the use of heavy guns inpractical.another thing to note, is that once Tanks replace troops , its difficult to mount biltz attacks with slow canons.artillery is more of a siege weapon.not so much a counter to a large invasion.

 

[MAS]

Didn't you RR your empire?

When defending, artillery can move instant over your RR from all over your empire to wherever the AI decides to invade.

Bombers have lethal bombard, artillery doesn't.
One useful defense could be to red-line the invading force with artillery, then finishing it off with bombers. It takes fewer bombers this way. (But you also remove any chance to generate a MGL)

When invading:
artillery has a range of 2, so its possible to bombard an AI city from outside its cultural radius, then use the tank to finish off the units and take the city. After claiming the city, you can use AI roads and RR to move your artillery in position for the next target the next turn.
An other reason for not using bombers: Artillery will first red-line all units in a city, before destroying pop or improvements. Bombers always have a chance to hit pop or improvements. Artillery are more efficient this way.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Plus there's re-base time with bombers if your empire is getting larger than the range of an individual bomber. Artillery can be used for 1 turn attacks in conjunction with rails and combat settlers. Tanks lose vs infantry and even rifles surprisingly often unless they are red-lined. You can also use those cavalry that are leftover to kill red-lined defenders. Move a pile of artillery in covered by a couple infantry, red-line everyone, then call in the cavalry. Use your tanks for deeper invasions without artillery support, thats where bombers go well with tanks, they have the longer range. Tanks will lose to cavalry along the way if not covered by MI's, but that's acceptable to be taking core cities.