Revisiting the Maginot Line

[Gray]

The Maginot Line did not do much to help the French fend off the Germans during WWII. However, it is a viable option in Civ3. It can actually be a fairly powerful one as well. For instance, I landed and captured four cities from the Aztecs in order to get control of gems and some oil. The entire area I have captured is surround by mountains.

What I have done is built a wall of fortresses between the coast and one of the towns-about a distance of 8 tiles. I destroyed all roads leading up to my fortifications from the Aztec side and I used lots of workers to build roads/railroad/fortresses along the mountains. In each of the fortresses, I have several artillery units and at least one infantry.

Now, here is the cool thing. I left one space open so that it looks like of like this:

Ocean-F-F-F-F-Space-F-F-F-City
-------------F---------F

The Aztecs tend to run their units straight for the open space, but since they are going through mountains and hills without roads (my artillery keeps taking out whatever they build) it is slow going. By the time they even get to the open space my artillery has worn them down, then on the other side they meet my cavalry and tanks. The really good thing is that for the most part this has kept them sending troops in one direction, which has left the rest of their empire open to my mobile units…

Anyone else have some cool defensives strats/stories to share???

 

[knowltok]

I had the AI alternatively going after my cities and a lone scout once. I kept moving him in and out of view of one of their cities. They would turn their entire invasion force around to chase after this "threat." Then I would hide behind a mountain and they would turn around again and head towards my cities. Basically the AI only goes towards one objective at a time and can't seem to determine relative importance.

 

[dozenlong]

I had the entire world go to war with one of my cities in the ancient era...a couple of Hopiltes and everything was fine. (Later I figured out to build embassies and make peace...)

 

[eyrei]

I like to build lines of fortresses on my borders even if I don't really need them. They just make me feel more secure, and it may actually deter the AI from declaring war if they don't have a clear line to any of your cities.

 

[ironfang]

I use to try to use natural boundaries to direct my avenues of approach and to force the AI to fight on my turf. With the growth of my empire, I have had to adopt a more strategic approach to war.

Manuever is the way I fight now. Use regions of mountains that restrict movement to move the normal 1 move units through, and the wide open spaces swarmed with Cavalry, constantly on the attack.

ironfang

 

[Alphidius]

For me, the computer usually attacks from one direction (unless the empire encircles mine which to me is an inevitable death) and all I had to do is send a couple of the best defense units there and fortify them. Offensive troops then wait with the defensive line and the mounted troops flank them.

Their units will come up to my defensive lines and either stop in front of them or attack. Either way they will not get through and my offensive troops will then wear out their numbers first, followed by the mounted units which will be able to wipe out their remaining forces.

Restore all health, move forwards, and repeat the process until into enemy territory. That's where all the pillaging comes in and the hit-and -run tatics come in. Mounted units do the attacking of cities, run back out of territory, heal and back in again. Defensive units fortify in on hills, mountains etc and the offensive with them.

Finally a group of defenders will come and block any remaining threats to my empire. The disruptions will eventually wear them down and my troops and an agreement could be made, for a price of course!

 

[Sarcastro]

I was based in Africa on the regular Earth map, and I also controlled the Middle East. I built a city in the square immediately south of the three-tile bottleneck passage to the rest of Europe and Asia, and then I built three fortresses sealing that bottleneck, anticipating that later in the game this would be a very, very important crossroads.

Of course, I was right, and the Germans and Aztecs attacked the units in those fortresses incessantly for dozens and dozens of turns throughout the course of several wars we all fought. My "wall" held up mightily.

Once, a particularly fierce attack by the Aztecs managed to take one of the fortresses, and a couple of knights slipped into my territory. They immediately captured all of the workers I had in the area, which of course was stupid because they couldn't get them out, and I recaptured them on my turn and killed the knights. If they'd been paying attention, they could probably have taken, or at least hurt, one of my minor cities in the area (as the main one was very well-defended). Or, for that matter, stayed in the captured fortress and used it to base troops from. Their loss.

I've also been using fortresses to establish a beachhead in enemy territory to land troops from transports in. Every little bit helps, and if it's on a mountain or a hill, by force is basically invincible. I'm going to always bring a worker or two along on military advances from now on.

 

[Richard III]

Ironfang: interesting comment about maneuver. I used to be a defence fanatic in Civ II: I would let the bastards come to me and a line of fortresses to weaken them before I'd make a big surging counterattack.

Now, that's just untenable. The AI works like a flood, infiltrating in strength through any defensive holes by land or sea. All of my "cool defence stories" are tales of how a last lonely picket defending a last saltpetre deposit gets overwhelmed in a desperate battle by a swarm of enemy cavalry that bypassed a border post.

I'm finding I'm forced to rely much more on cavalry units as a mobile defence, and even more so to attack road/rail junctions to prevent the "swarm" from concentrating.

 

[ahenobarb]

I noticed that the AI in one of my games chose not to attack anything but isolated units even during war. he had a stack of hoplites in my land (around 20-30) and a large force of horses. We went to war because I asked him to leave my borders, which caused him to declare war. But once we were going at it, those stacks of troops high-tailed it over the mountains to their home turf, while I picked them off piece by piece with the retreat function of cavalry.

But he walked right past cities and fortresses, but never attacked them. I have riflemen and city walls. Is the AI smart enough to know he couldn't win those battles for the city?

 

[Arrian]

The use of fortresses (or even just fortified footsoldiers on good defensive terrain) is a great tactic vs. the AI. It knows attacking those units will hurt, so it moves onto the empty (flat, non-defensive bonus) terrain. That's when your mobile units can slaughter them. Then, counterattack. Just remember - if you leave an opening, the AI will attempt to slip past you and either 1) capture workers (which is WAAAYY overdone, and an AI weakness) or 2) break things (which is a real pain, and I give the AI props for this).

One other thing I've noticed: the AI does not build a "Maginot line." I have seen it put a fort on a chokepoint and staff it with a good defensive unit, and that's great. But you never see it take a few good defensive units and put them up on the mountains and hills near its border with you. This would force YOU onto the flat terrain and thus hamper an invasion. I always shoot for mountains and hills once I enter AI territory during an invasion. If the AI took that away from me, then I would have more difficulty... and have to use a LOT more artillery. I think this could be addressed, particularly since they are supposedly going to try to address the AI "endless patrolling units" syndrome in the patch. The two go hand-in-hand. Right now, if the AI doesn't have an immediate task for a unit, it "patrols." Not only should the AI be told not to do that, but it should be told to take some of those units and occupy the high ground.

-Arrian

 

[jaguara]

As I am sure anyone will tell you, one of my greatest priorities is to connect my empire by rail as fast as possible. Once this is in place, you do not need the 3-4 defensive units in each city that I keep hearing people saying (I rarely have 3 defensive units in a city even before that unless it is in a key position under attack). Instead you can keep a rapid deployment force of available units spread throughout your cities.

It is not about having the largest force, but having the largest force in the place where it counts. With proper defences - say a few fortified infantry in mountains ahead of your cities, you can see approaching foes - and dynamically move your units quickly from one end of the continent to where they are needed.

You can even "borrow" mobile offensive units. Move the cavalry in by RR, then attack that stack in the open, killing one then pull him back to the city he started in - where he may be posted to quell an uprising, or keep a city from defecting for culture. Just make sure you are going to win if you do this, or that you have other units to replace him with if lost.

In my current game, each city has a single infantry, with key cities having two. I have a reserve of about 4-5 infantry that can be moved to reinforce any city that comes under attack, as well as about 6 artillery and about 10 cavalry as a counter-attack force. This, of course, varies based on your situation, terrain and tech levels. (I am ahead in tech - they have riflemen and cavalry, and I have natural terrain as a barrier to some degree)

Sorry for being so long...I'll cut it off here

Jaguara

 

[jhigham]

One of the biggest changes with the AI and game is that you need offensive units. I could do well with two of the strongest defensive unit in a city in I or II, but now you need to be able to attack. You can't use ZOC to stop them, and they won't just blindly attack your city. If you don't have offensive units they'll just run by your cities and go for the crown jewels.

One thing that is very handy to look for is a river bend. If you can place a city in the elbow (if that is the correct side with respects to your empire) then the computer will have a harder time attacking. I was getting slammed by the germans, with a 2 city front (and hills in between). I placed defensive units on the hills, so the computer sent all of his units south and attacked my city, over the river (other alternative was cross the river onto grassland, and risk exposure to counter-attack).

The coolest thing, though, was that the computer did not keep doing this. They got hammered pretty hard, but their next batch of units went north and actually took my city for a turn (I was counting too much on my units in the hills being deterrent).

Terrain is very important, can't forget about it at any point. If you have a mountain or hill next too your city is is worth putting a defensive unit on it, just to keep the enemy from stacking there. I got stuck trying to force a rifleman off of one such site, and it HURT.

I also am not sure I like the 'advance with attack' item. It really throws you out of position in some situations (you have to move a defense unit forward, or your offensive unit is toast). However, since this doesn't happen for stacks, I will often just attack until only one unit is left, and then sit back.

 

[Ruffin]

Concur completely on road/rail to every city. The game I'm in now, the Zulus declared war on me and marched a stack of 30+ units out onto the plain between us (Impis and Archers as they had no horses and neglected to develop the iron they had). I'd already spun up to invade the Iroquois on the other end of the continent and was able to shift 30 or so knights to that front in three turns. Nice bloodbath ensued too... around 30 Zulu killed to 3 of mine in just one turn.

It's nice to see the AI plays the Zulu as they actually were. These were people who, after 20 years exposure to firearms, still fired them up into the air to "give them power", just like throwing their traditional spears. These Zulu planned ahead just as well and I now have a 30 knight army ready to roll over their now-undefended homeland... with workers in tow to build roads as I go. The Iroquois can wait.

Note: Horse units can't disengage from Impis, which is why I lost 2 of those 3 knights.

 

[knowltok]

I don't know about anyone else, but I was shocked to learn that railroads still give unlimited movement. This seems completely unrealistic to me. I know the game is measured in years and all, but wars to my mind were always fought at a different time scale, else why don't ships have unlimited movement in later ages? I wouldn't want to see the game bogged down by excessive rules and statistics, but it seems unrealistic to me that in one turn you can move 50 units from one side of your empire to the other. Next turn you can move them back. I'm glad you can't use opponents rails and roads since that stops the cheese tactic of building RR up to one of their cities that was connected by rail and using artillery and later howitzers to conquer massive chunks of their empire in one turn. Anyone else agree with me?:arrow:

 

[jaguara]

I have to agree somewhat here with knowltok. I was a CIV1 and AC player, but not CIV2. In Civ1, RR use was not totally unlimited, but virtually - eventually a movement point was removed if you went far enough - still only really effected units with one movement.

It is actually worse than Knowltok states...about moving an army from one side on one turn then back on the next...

In my current game, I had cavalry holding newly captured cities on my Eastern Front, and ready as a counter-attack force against my Eastern foe (and getting ready for the next city)...when suddenly a Western foe declared war and mmoved a HUGE stack of units near to one of my cities in the West.

Here is the kicker...I was able to move my artillery by rail to the city (about 6 units) and bombard away the high defence units, then move my cavalry by rail to attack the stack, then with their remaining movement point I was able to MOVE THEM BACK TO THE ORIGINATING CITY in the same turn...so that they could still hold the newly captured cities. (This could have backfired if I lost too many of the cavalry - but against inferior troops on grassland I took the risk). I lost no units, and they healed nicely on the following turn, and were ready to repeat the event if required...

 

[Wondian]

I agree that railroads are quite exaggerated. They should have cost some movement points and I think it should be equal for all units (assume that you are transported by a train. It doesn't matter whether you are mounted or on foot!). Also it seems unfair that you move a unit to a farther city and bring it back in one turn by rail, whereas you can only take it to the same distance (provided that there are airports in both cities)and can't bring back by airlift in one turn!

 

[ironfang]

I disagree. I think the rail actually helps transition from Ancient forms of transit to more modern forms.

For those who "still" have not moved away from the CivII mentality, you need to rethink your tactics. Railway is an AWESOME advantage. It also becomes a High Priority Target, especially when invading an enemy who has alot of industial power.

All out, one round conquest days are over. If you fight (and the AI does this sometimes as well) in CivII fashion, your gonna lose (especially in modern/industrial age). Utilizing bombers and bombardment to damage an enemy prior to invasion is almost a must, if you ever want to hold on to conquored territory.

20 bombers can effectively stop your "across the country in one turn" problem.

ironfang

 

[Wondian]

OK Ironfang, it is an option to accept CIV as a game that creates its own (alternative) reality and rules to practice "pure" strategy (such as chess, etc.). But it is fun for me as it becomes closer to be a perfect simulation of the actual reality. In that sense, if something comes "illogical" or "irrational" to me, I tend to become (somewhat) unsatisfied.

 

[eyrei]

If we try to reconcile real time, CIV3 turns, and unit movement, we are only going to give ourselves headaches.

 

[ironfang]

Hrm. Ok. Well. If you want real, you would be VERY unsatisfied. Real would go "something" like this.

- Your an emporer for 20 years, and then you die of old age, disease, etc.. then the AI takes over.
- You sit in your castle and order your armies to war. 20 years later a messenger returns to tell you you've lost. You never "really" know what happened, because Generals (and not the single leader) leads the armies.
- Your enemy has consorted with lords on your borders to allow troops to cross into your country. You figure this out as a catapult/cannon ball smashes through your front window.
- Each city has a governor that kinda listens to you, takes what he feels is fair, and sends you the rest.
- You decide to lead the armies yourself and the AI takes over the "nation building" for you... muhahahaha.

This is Civ. There are other games that come close to the above discription if thats what you want, but I dont think anyone would really like them as much as Civ.

ironfang