Possible strategy after watching game play video

[kennbenj]

Hi there,

As a long time lurker on these boards I thought I should join up now that the Civ 5 release is just a few days away.

After watching Greg's game play video I've put together a little strategy that I'm calling the Napoleon Gambit.

The basic idea is this. You build your cities close enough so that their bombardment capabilities can cover the other cities - so no more than 3 tiles away.

Besides providing the obvious defense benefits, you also cut down on road costs because your cities are so close. Greg's cities were pretty spread out in the video and it took him a long time to move his troops to the front. There was also that moment of shock when he found him self under attack from 2 cities at once.

Do you think it's a viable strategy?

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

It certainly could be helpful...for example in Greg's game, two cities flanking the chokepoint at the Sinai Peninsula would have made it very difficult for an invading army to breakthrough.

However, I ultimately think it's more important to have city placement based on resources, river access, etc. instead of trying to overlap their defensive fire.

 

[Disgustipated]

nevertheless that was the edge of his empire (actually there was a city state close to where Alexandria would be). I'm not sure if he was able to put a city there because of the city-state. It was mostly desert. I might be tempted to overlap cities in that situation (if the city state wasn't in the way) if the unhappiness hit wasn't so bad.

 

[Polobo]

Cross-Fire is viable but keep in mind that no matter how many kill-zones you setup you always have cities that can be approached from a direction not covered by cross-fire.

The biggest advantage to be gained would be a minimization of pillaging as opposed to actually defending against the front-line; thus overlap coverage of key strategic resources would work, or the chokepoint at Suez.

That is, unless we intend to exploit AI suicide behavior.

 

[Bibor]

Hi there,

As a long time lurker on these boards I thought I should join up now that the Civ 5 release is just a few days away.

After watching Greg's game play video I've put together a little strategy that I'm calling the Napoleon Gambit.

The basic idea is this. You build your cities close enough so that their bombardment capabilities can cover the other cities - so no more than 3 tiles away.

Besides providing the obvious defense benefits, you also cut down on road costs because your cities are so close. Greg's cities were pretty spread out in the video and it took him a long time to move his troops to the front. There was also that moment of shock when he found him self under attack from 2 cities at once.

Do you think it's a viable strategy?

I think it's a bit premature to already have strategies named after Napoleon. Two cities close to each other also means your opponent can attack either (or both) with little or no rearranging of troops.
It was great to watch, however, how "single unit per tile" works just perfectly.

 

[ShaqFu]

You'd end up with a lot of marginal cities (cities in the middle will have issues working many hexes), and an invader would just work their way in from the outside. Since your cities wouldn't work their full potential, they'd be smaller, and thus have less total strength; it'd be counterproductive. You'd end up with what's basically ICS, which doesn't work in Civ5.

Having two crossfiring cities is a nice bonus when it happens, but doing so as your main driving force isn't the best idea.

 

[Conspirator]

You being sarcastic there Bilbor, or?

 

[kennbenj]

You'd end up with a lot of marginal cities (cities in the middle will have issues working many hexes), and an invader would just work their way in from the outside. Since your cities wouldn't work their full potential, they'd be smaller, and thus have less total strength; it'd be counterproductive.

Here's my reasoning. I think with the way cities expand in Civ 5 - one hex at a time - makes it possible to put your cities close together and still maximize their productivity. I picture them fitting together like jigsaw pieces. Secondly I don't know if productivity will be as important this time around. What will really matter is gold. Kind of like in Civ Rev, where if you built a city that made a ton of gold each turn you could buy techs, or units or buildings with out having to worry about productivity.

 

[Bibor]

You being sarcastic there Bilbor, or?

Nope. Really. I'm a PG fan and I look forward to this type of play.

On topic: what's the point of having a strategy built around something that two trebuchets can do just as well? As a matter of fact, I don't think cities can get promotions, while trebuchets can.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Hi there,

As a long time lurker on these boards I thought I should join up now that the Civ 5 release is just a few days away.

After watching Greg's game play video I've put together a little strategy that I'm calling the Napoleon Gambit.

The basic idea is this. You build your cities close enough so that their bombardment capabilities can cover the other cities - so no more than 3 tiles away.

Besides providing the obvious defense benefits, you also cut down on road costs because your cities are so close. Greg's cities were pretty spread out in the video and it took him a long time to move his troops to the front. There was also that moment of shock when he found him self under attack from 2 cities at once.

Do you think it's a viable strategy?

seppuku !

 

[sucksforyou112]

...
Or you could spawn great generals and use citadels...

 

[Disgustipated]

Here's my reasoning. I think with the way cities expand in Civ 5 - one hex at a time - makes it possible to put your cities close together and still maximize their productivity. I picture them fitting together like jigsaw pieces. Secondly I don't know if productivity will be as important this time around. What will really matter is gold. Kind of like in Civ Rev, where if you built a city that made a ton of gold each turn you could buy techs, or units or buildings with out having to worry about productivity.

I was thinking this as well. It seems to me cities take extremely long to expand to the third ring. I don't think he had any 3rd ring stuff in the Japan game. So maybe late industrial to modern times you get access to that? Seems like over half the game you don't have access to many of your tiles.

Why not ICS? It may hurt in the late game, but give you a turn advantage, tactical advantage, and strategic advantage in the first half of the game.

 

[PawelS]

I think city placement should be based on other reasons than using "crossfire", during a war you can just use some artillery instead of the extra cities.

 

[Zhahz]

However, I ultimately think it's more important to have city placement based on resources, river access, etc. instead of trying to overlap their defensive fire.

That and I'd rather not have a strategy that focuses on my defending my cities from troops being that close.

I'd rather stomp my enemies on the field than rely on city defense, or better yet, be on the offensive if there's fighting.

 

[MisterBarca]

Here's my reasoning. I think with the way cities expand in Civ 5 - one hex at a time - makes it possible to put your cities close together and still maximize their productivity. I picture them fitting together like jigsaw pieces. Secondly I don't know if productivity will be as important this time around. What will really matter is gold. Kind of like in Civ Rev, where if you built a city that made a ton of gold each turn you could buy techs, or units or buildings with out having to worry about productivity.

It's a flat-out horrible idea. Sorry to be blunt. The game does not reward making a lot of cities--you'd take too much of a happiness and culture hit (in terms of progressing the Social Policies tree).

 

[Disgustipated]

It's a flat-out horrible idea. Sorry to be blunt. The game does not reward making a lot of cities--you'd take too much of a happiness and culture hit (in terms of progressing the Social Policies tree).

How does it hurt culture? I admit I don't know all the game mechanics (I haven't checked that other website out). I've been wondering what the drawbacks to ICS are. I would think having to build more city buildings (granaries etc.) would also ratchet up the cost since buildings aren't free anymore.

 

[MisterBarca]

How does it hurt culture? I admit I don't know all the game mechanics (I haven't checked that other website out). I've been wondering what the drawbacks to ICS are. I would think having to build more city buildings (granaries etc.) would also ratchet up the cost since buildings aren't free anymore.

Each city you own will increase Social Policy costs by 30%.

http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_cities.html#social_policies

 

[ShaqFu]

I've been wondering what the drawbacks to ICS are.

Happiness would lead to empire-wide underproduction, high SP costs would deny you needed bonuses, building maintenance would drain your economy, and your cities would be underpopulated due to Settlers using food.

Civ5 seems to encourage a few big cities over many small ones. From the looks of it, Civ5 might be the game to finally break ICS's grip on successful Civving.

 

[grant2004]

I think the strategy would be far better with artilery units as has already been suggested. Recal how powerful Greg's trebuchet was, it was outright killing full strength units two tech levels past it once it got the 2 shots per turn promotion. 2 Trebuchets would have the same capability if you could focus their fire on the same tile. If you got both of them to have a double fire promotion... devestation.

 

[Disgustipated]

Happiness would lead to empire-wide underproduction, high SP costs would deny you needed bonuses, building maintenance would drain your economy, and your cities would be underpopulated due to Settlers using food.

Civ5 seems to encourage a few big cities over many small ones. From the looks of it, Civ5 might be the game to finally break ICS's grip on successful Civving.

I like large empires though . Makes me wonder what my strategy will be for my very first game. I have no idea how many cities to build. Neither did I know in civ4 either. I remember getting in serious money trouble in civ4 due to over expansion.