Military Strategy - First Game Notes

[Peteus]

A bunch of interesting new bits about combat so far:

- Crippled ground units seem to keep their movement, which means that a horseman can attack, win the fight, then retreat to safety even when crippled.

- That's important, because it seems that melee units can't make standoff attacks like they could in Civ II - they always move into the square they conquer! That can be awkward, so you definitely have to plan for it - don't let it leave your defenseless catapult unguarded!

- The 1/3 move = 1/3 attack penalty is gone! A swordsman can take two steps on his road network, then attack at full strength! Combined with the lack of Zones of Control, that changes tactics quite a bit.

- Despite my Militaristic Chinese, I haven't gotten a Great Leader yet! Lots of Elite units, but none taking the next step. Admittedly I'm only fighting sporadically.

- The AI is a lot more clever about concentrating his forces! No more trickle of units - the Babylonians are attacking the Zulus with much success, and they are bringing a stack of up to ten or more units! The Zulu hasn't been able to mount a counter-attack, because crippled defenders are protected by the rest of the stack. And when the top unit in the stack is killed, the rest of the stack survives - that is a nice upgrade from Civ II.

- Off-continent agression is hampered quite a bit by the fact that you don't heal at all when in enemy territory! In neutral territory you heal slowly, and in your own city you heal quickly. I landed beside a Zulu city and attacked with a couple of good units, but he had a lot of soaks and wore me down - I didn't die, but gradually lost my effectiveness as a fighting force!

- Retreating: My speedy Horseman and really speedy Riders will fight until down to one HP, then retreat away from the enemy. This works even on defense! It saved me from losing any units in a defending stack at least once, when a swordsman's attack resulted in my top unit retreating instead of dying!

- Capturing Workers: Workers and settlers (and bombardment units) have no defense value, so attaking them captures them! A successful attack against defensive units stacked with workers results in the capture of the workers. The AI is smart enough to march his early settlers around with a warrior escort!

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Great notes (I'm salivating and all over the keyboard...ugh!)

Fast units sound like they have a HUGE advantage with the ability to retreat, to never lose movment points, and to attack at full strength with 1/3 left

 

[WUM]

THANKS Peteus!

seems like fast units are very importent in wars,
to destroy roads and isolate enemy-cities without staying in reach of enemy-troops!

maybe isolated enemy-cities are more prone to join your potent culture? any experience with this?

 

[Malys Faisent]

I'm pretty sure you don't lose the whole stack if you lose the top unit...though I cannot confirm it directly from memory. I seem to recall attacking several units in a stack and killing one, but the rest of the stack stayed, but that might have been in a city. I love the way you can take over workers though, especially because I'm playing industrious nations...having an extra 10 workers really helps, especially because you don't need to support them.

 

[WUM]

another question:
if you capture a settler and you have this settler build a new city for you, will that captured settler be a resistor or not???

 

[Chofritz]

Originally posted by WUM
another question:
if you capture a settler and you have this settler build a new city for you, will that captured settler be a resistor or not???

From what I've read I think that the settler will become 2 workers when you capture it, I can not confirm it though scince I don't have hte game

 

[nekulturny]

Killing one unit in the stack no longer kills the stack. Which sucks when there are ten units piled up and hammering on your doorstep...

I have had an elite unit generate a leader, btw. I think mine came out of a bowman (special unit) defending a captured city against an immortal. I never really put the leader to much use--I formed an army but then retired (poorly, I might add) since I was in an untenable position.

 

[zandar]

Great job, Peteus.

Yes, units with 2 movement have a MAJOR advantage early on...they can retreat when attacking fortified defenders. When not fortified, units with 2 movement can back off of defense as well...it makes civ with unique foot units that move 2 (Impi, Bowman, Jaguar Warrior) can give you a major boost in the Ancient Era. Even Samurai in the Middle Ages have a boost if your opponent lacks horses. The War Elephant requires no resources to make, and so far it seems like that's a major advantage because strategic resources at least in the games I've played are few and far between, and may make the difference in winning and losing early on.

Opposing civs seem to want a high price for access to SR's as well...I could never get horses away from the Babs no matter how hard I tried, and they didn't have the tech to use Saltpeter (nor was I going to give it to them). They already had iron, so in their eyes I had nothing to trade them that I wasn't going to regret later. Leaders aren't stupid, they know damned well that anyone can have technology, money or culture, but resources can be worth more than all of these combined.

I think that last part is important. Whoever gets, holds, and uses SR's will be the civ that wins, and civs that have units that require less or no resources may be a very good choice in tight quarters. My one iron mine allowing me Immortals has made all the difference in this game, otherwise I wouldn't have a unit with an attack greater than 3 until the longbowman came along (and without saltpeter I would have been truly screwed.)

Resources, it seems, are vital to playing, so much so that if you start a game and don't have access to iron, horses, or saltpeter, you might as well start over, because the civs that DO have these resources (or powerful units that don't need them) will run you over en masse.

In other words if you don't have iron, don't bother fighting a war in the Ancient or Middle ages...you'll NEVER beat even simple spearmen without an army, and your enemies will probably figure this out and deny Iron or Horses to you at all costs. Meanwhile, you'll be up to your neck in Swordsmen, Knights, Musketmen, etc.

Suddenly the Greeks with their 1/3/1 Hoplite don't look like such a bad choice. You may have to depend on them until Riflemen to defend your entire empire!

Bottom Line: Where Civ 1 was all about climbing the tech tree the fastest, Civ II was all about getting the Wonders the fastest, Civ III is all about getting strategic resources the fastest. If you're losing the resource battle, you more than likely WILL lose the game. All the culture in the world doesn't help if you're facing a mess of Calvary because the guy next door has Horses and Saltpeter and you have Longbowmen and Spearmen due to the fact you have squat.

 

[Max_scrymgeour]

My stratagy if you are a island nation such as Britian always build a large navy that is how the british thanks to the victorys of Nelson built the world largest empire so far 25% of the wold plus 1/4 of the worlds pop still have Her Majesty the Queen as their head of state.

 

[ironfang]

Awesome point about the resources. It doesnt matter if you have worlds largest fleet... if your fleet is wooden frigates. If your dont have iron, you dont have iron clads or battle ships, and that is where resources become the greatest advantage.

Ironfang

 

[Ruffin]

Some of the later game resources (oil, rubber, uranium) may make it worthwhile to hang on til the modern age. Look at the MidEast today - worthless sand until someone figured out what that black stuff oozing out of the ground was for. You may be screwed early on but be able to trade for the resources you need later.

 

[Jezner]

Colonies kick ass. Low overhead. Low maintence. All resources. They only thing you need to do is connect the colony your capital with a road and watch the resources flow in. I've slapped colonies in the mountains, in the jungles, and even on the tundra. In my opinion, they are pivotal for strategic resource dominance. just make sure you protect it.

 

[Dearmad]

Yeah, but what about when some foreigner slaps down a city next to your colony and wipes out your colony...

or does that not wipe it out if yu have it guarded- wipes out MY colonies everytime!

 

[Yossarian]

Even if you have a unit on your colony, an enemy city placed next to it will take the colony. Not good!

 

[Libertarian]

Originally posted by WankersRevenge
Colonies kick ass. Low overhead. Low maintence. All resources. They only thing you need to do is connect the colony your capital with a road and watch the resources flow in. I've slapped colonies in the mountains, in the jungles, and even on the tundra. In my opinion, they are pivotal for strategic resource dominance. just make sure you protect it.

Does the road have to connect directly to the capital? Or can it, for example, connect to a city that has a road that connects to the capital?

 

[Peteus]

Roads may run through cities, and through the territory of other Civs (unless you are at war with them.) Also, two cities with ports are considered connected if you could sail a ship from one to the other. Two cities with airports are always connected.

 

[ironfang]

What is the prerequisit for colonies? My workers cannot build them.

Ironfang

 

[Yossarian]

The only prerequisite is that the square has to contain a strategic or luxury resource.

 

[catmandu]

Originally posted by ironfang
What is the prerequisit for colonies? My workers cannot build them.

This confused me as well at first. The only places you can build a colony are on either luxuries (wine, furs, etc.) or strategic resources. I kept trying to build a colony on a gold deposit and wondering why I couldn't until I figured this out.

 

[Diety]

depending on trade routes through other people's territory is dangerous... when you goto war with them, poof, all your resources are gonne...