New uses for old units

[Gen]

Originally posted by satchel
DaveMcW - while I see your point about disbanding to create workers, I am curious - does the strength of the units in the garrison matter for quelling resistors, or just the number? I know the culture flip formula does not include the strength of the units, and I have had excellent results using a stack of obsolete units to stop culture flipping (you and I have discussed culture-flip prevention on another thread).

You are right. Unit quality doesn't matter. Warrior in fact is better for quelling resistance than Modern Armor, because there are certainly better tasks for the latter

 

[Yndy]

Originally posted by Sim_One
Lure powerful enemy units to waste moves attacking your weak units, then counterattack the enemy units with your powerful units.

It's the second time i'm saying that but the AI got me with that trick once. They attacked with 40+ obsolete units in one place, lured my units there, used bombers to break rail and road connections and then send their modern 20+ units in a completely different location.

I have a higher consideration of the Civ 3 AI since then.

 

[satchel]

Originally posted by cromagnon

Satchel, my only problem with this tactic is that there is a change of giving the enemy a Great Leader. Although it's half as likely as during an attack, I had it happen twice in my last game.

hm, I didn't think of this! That's a legitimate criticism of this tactic. Still, the chance of a defensive victory causing a Great Leader is sufficiently small that the tactic may still be viable as a last ditch effort - i.e., when the only alternative is to regroup and let those elite defenders heal.

 

[greenie]

I usually like to upgrade my units and so build ones that are upgradable - Spearmen, Horsemen ---> MI and Cavalry, then tanks.

Most of the time I will have some Swordsmen lying around and a whole lot of Cavalry by the time I start building my tanks. The Swordsmen (usually the weakest non upgradable unti I have) are put, as many have said, on my borders (sometimes in fortresses).

I also post the Cavalry I don't disband for production on the border in case an AI declares war on me and sneaks some workers away, a 3 mover can ride in and retake the workers.

3 moves is also pretty sweet for pillaging, especially if you can park it in groups on a hill or mountain.

 

[cavemanf16]

I like to take my obsolete units and get rid of them. Usually I've had the time and resources to build barracks in almost all of my cities by the time certain units are becoming obsolete, meaning two things: 1) I can pay money to upgrade them, but unless they've been involved in several battles they're still only Regulars, not Veteran status, and may not perform well against a more formidable foe. 2) Because I've got Barracks, I can go ahead and build a Veteran unit that won't be obsolete anytime soon. Since I prefer to spend a ton on city imrovements (I'm a builder type, not a warmonger so much), I try to save my money for city improvements and use as few units as possible to win wars and defend my territory.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I usually upgrade everything that's possible, and usually only end up with Swordsmen, Cav and Ironclads as unupgradables (not having PTW yet).

Cav, in my mind, doesn't really get obsolete before MA turns up - it's a better pillager and slaver (=Worker capturer) than are Tanks, and I usually have plenty of Elite Cav that can be sent against 1HP enemy troops and possibly generating a GL. They're also good for suppressing resistance in captured cities (freeing Tanks and Mech Inf to carry on the attack). However, many of my non-Elite Cav units will after the appearance of Tanks sooner or later end up being disbanded, often to build Temples, Harbours or similar in newly captured cities. Left-over Ironclads and Swordsmen also tend to end up being disbanded, altho' Swordsmen not infrequently end up as token defenders in inland cities thru the entire game.

 

[MummyMan]

It's usually worth it to disband if you have to pay to support them, to get the extra cash per turn

 

[MTheil3508]

I usually upgrade most of my units, saving all elites for attack to get GL, but sometimes I forget to move elite units out of cities when upgrading units to find my elite units are back to veterans.

 

[Naval Freak]

I like to use obsolete units for Border Defence ( BD ).
I simply throw them on all of my land borders when in war. I also put some in fortresses further back in srategic points, like a mountain pass or a river.

Since they're obsolete, the BD troops damage enemy attackers and get desroyed.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by satchel
. . .
I have had excellent results using a stack of obsolete units to stop culture flipping. . . .

And if you get a bad break, or misjudge the size of garrison required, you only lose obsolete units. (And this allows you to capture cities intact and integrate them quickly into the rest of the Civ.)

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by satchel
does the strength of the units in the garrison matter for quelling resistors, or just the number? I know the culture flip formula does not include the strength of the units, and I have had excellent results using a stack of obsolete units to stop culture flipping

Strenght of the units matters for quelling resisters and -as you said- a large number of units prevents flipping.

 

[satchel]

Okay. Gen said:

Originally posted by Gen

You are right. Unit quality doesn't matter. Warrior in fact is better for quelling resistance than Modern Armor, because there are certainly better tasks for the latter

and Grille said:

Originally posted by Grille

Strenght of the units matters for quelling resisters .

Which one's right? Does anyone know of an authoritative comment on this question, or an empirical study of it?

 

[Grille]

to satchel: It's an empirical study. When i capture a city and move lots of offensive units in (say 10-15 cavalery units) and there are 5 resisters, it takes 2-4 turns to quell resistance. Put some infantery (e.g. 4-5) units into city and resistance stops usually next turn. Maybe i'm lucky and what i said is not true in general - i just have the feeling it's better to put there strong units (and i believe my military advisor is right ;-) )

 

[Globetrotter]

Originally posted by cromagnon
Satchel, my only problem with this tactic is that there is a change of giving the enemy a Great Leader. Although it's half as likely as during an attack, I had it happen twice in my last game.

To Cromagnon and Satchel:

True, unless you still keep a minimum armed force behind the obsolete units to finish off the enemy, and that would take care of the GL generated.

And if he attacks your obsolete units with his major force, then your major force would be sweeping "freely" behind enemy lines, cutting his supplies and communications, conquering his cities, and you will be there to greet the enemy GL who's cowardly leaving the battlefield with a minimal escort...

On top of that, this escort means that he has to remove units from the front where he has been fighting, and that again will weaken his attacking force and make your obsolete units breathe a bit...

There are lots of profits behind this

Still i believe that in any circumstance, you should always have a minimum force following your obsolete units, to take over if need be.

 

[Gen]

Grille, satchel: I've never experienced any difference so I don't have a proof that better units quell resistance faster (or vice versa). I believe unit strength doesn't matter, though. All factors are in bic (bix) file, so you can check them yourself: your civ culture, enemy civ culture and finally a bit of luck (look at "chance of initial resistance" and "chance for continued resistance"). Of course military unit numbers also apply here but I don't remember if there is some edit control or formula shown somewhere. I think this is hardcoded. I can't, however, say for sure that only number (not strength) counts because as I've said before I don't have a proof. Maybe I was more lucky than Grille but all my obsolete units worked just as well as modern ones.

 

[satchel]

Originally posted by Grille
to satchel: It's an empirical study. When i capture a city and move lots of offensive units in (say 10-15 cavalery units) and there are 5 resisters, it takes 2-4 turns to quell resistance. Put some infantery (e.g. 4-5) units into city and resistance stops usually next turn. Maybe i'm lucky and what i said is not true in general - i just have the feeling it's better to put there strong units (and i believe my military advisor is right ;-) )

Thanks Grille, though I was hoping someone had done a more systematic study that doesn't rely on subjective feelings. I can't run the study myself right now, so I was hoping someone else had done so.

 

[scoutsout]

Here's a dirty little trick I pulled once. I wanted to see how fast I could conquer Babylon on a Pangea map. I had Modern Armor and Mech infantry, he had Riflemen (he had the tech, no rubber).

Any city that had only one square between it and my border was attacked by mech infantry. The deeper ones were attacked with Modern Armor. If there was a last defender or two left, I attacked with Cavalry (2 armies and about 50 units) to conserve MA/MI for follow-on attacks. Babylon would lose 14 cities in one turn, and fall in the second.

After capturing several cities, there were a bunch of Babylonian workers on rail lines in what was now MY territory. Since all enemy units are disbanded when the last city falls, I kinda wanted to capture them.

Here's the dirty trick:

I woke up a bunch of REGULAR SPEARMEN from my oldest core cities (I ONLY upgrade veteran units), moved them along the rails, and captured the workers!

 

[The Last Conformist]

This is one fairly extreme case of thread revival, scoutsout! Ten months and two days ...

What I wrote back in Januar is still basically true, altho I now end up with Guerillas instead of Swordsmen, thanks to PTW. While they're little more use than Swordsmen in the era of MA and MI, they do take out redlined Tanks fairly reliably, which has felt helpful at times.

I've also acquired a habit of not upgrading defenders in unthreatened cities. I could disband them, but a Spearman isn't alot of shields, and if I suddenly need a real defender, upgrading a Spearman is cheaper than rushing a new one.

 

[scoutsout]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
I've also acquired a habit of not upgrading defenders in unthreatened cities. I could disband them, but a Spearman isn't alot of shields, and if I suddenly need a real defender, upgrading a Spearman is cheaper than rushing a new one.

A good point - though if you're caught that short on defenders, you miscalculated something...

 

[Grille]

anyone who takes my posts above too serious, could be punished by loosing 'strong' units per flip...
I was naive enough to see a coincidence between "We should garrison Blabla with strong units..." and actually doing so, back then

Meanwhile, there's a resistance-quelling article in the War Academy anyways.