So...war seems to suck.

[Solo4114]

Although maybe I'm doing it wrong.

I have, admittedly, skimped on building standing armies and have had cities taken (but I took 'em back!) as a result. Note to self: maintain more than two longbowmen in cities.

The thing is, I've also noticed things about attacking. When I've got what would seem like superior forces and numbers, I still end up taking casualties (which I classify both as units lost and units harmed).

For example, in my first Civ 4 game, playing as the Americans, I'd made it to a point where I had my SEAL units, tanks, and helicopters, and was invading countries still using feudal era units. And yet, my units could all still be easily destroyed sometimes. Sure they'd manage to blast through the enemy in some situations, but in others, through what seemed like sheer dumb luck, they'd be destroyed or at least noticeably damaged.

So, what exactly am I doing wrong. I know terrain counts for defense, and in some cases counts for offense (IE: crossing a river to attack reduces your attack abilities), but how the hell are a bunch of longbowmen and macemen able to take down an attack chopper? For that matter, how would a napoleonic era rifleman??

Stuff like this gets frustrating at times and makes it less interesting to fight wars (to me at least).


I've also noticed that the AI tends to maintain pretty large armies, certainly much larger than mine, although I may be more advanced than the AI. So, I was wondering if anyone has any tips for a newbie to Civ 4. I've played the Civ games since the original, but usually kept my games at not much higher than warlord. After basically beating the pants off of the AI at the lowest level, I've kicked it up to just below Prince (or whatever the "normal" level is, I guess). Basically two up from the easiest. My first game as the Japanese had me get my butt handed to me due to lousy starting position, and getting caught in a VERY costly war that lasted quite a while (but dammit I was determined to wipe 'em out).

Right now I'm playing as the English and have just gotten gunpowder. I'm playing an epic game and am at around 1380 A.D. or so. I've founded four religions just by chance, and was hoping to dominate through culture by building tons of monasteries and temples to boost culture, then build up my population, but the Russians got tetchy and declared war on me. Now I've taken two of their bordering cities, and am debating how much longer to pursue this war (to their extinction or just enough to make them sue for peace?).

So, anyway, tips would be appreciated, and perhaps an explanation as to why medieval units can at times beat modern units. It would seem that, even your basic napoleonic rifleman would be quite capable of slaughtering archers, knights, macemen, etc. without taking a scratch.

 

[Gumbolt]

The Ai is a manufcturing source for military. Always look at demographics to check your military is comparable to your rivals. Useful to maintain at a competitive level so the AI does not attack you. Its easier to take out your weakest rival and thats what the AI does. Dedicated cities for military production is very useful from an early stage in the game once you have set up your 4 or so city starting base.

If a war is getting no where why throw away good units. Go for peace. I doubt a goal on cultural win is to destroy the enemy. Protect and prey while giving border cities 6 or so units at least to defend and keeping a watchful eye on sea for invading forces.

Game of cat and mouse really. If enemy border cities have 10 defending units and you only have 3 units defending i would be worried.

 

[Solo4114]

Yeah, I mean, I'd prefer a cultural victory and culture-flipping of cities, but I try to be adaptable.

so what's the deal with modern units being taken out by dark-ages units?

 

[Crighton]

Use a combined arms strategy (stacks with spearman, bowman, infantry units, etc). Make sure tohave seige weapons (catapults, cannon, artillery) to wear down the city defenses or even to sacrifice after with suicide attacks into the city itself to weaken the actuall defenders. Destroy what you can't keep and take what you can keep as far as cities go.

 

[cabert]

2 things : tactics / strategy (for grand strategy, i'll leave it up to you)

tactics (also explaining why you get casualties)
in CIV you get one global power number, promotions, modifiers.
All these make the figures that are used for calculationg the battle's results.
For instance, your tank has a strength of 28, whereas the longbowman has a strength of 6 (big difference!). Your brand new tank has no promotion.
The millenium old longboman has city defense 3, so +20%,+25; and +30% defending city.
Being a longbowman, he has also another +25% defending city and +25% defending on a hill.
With a city on a hill, there is also +25% defense for any defender.
This makes 160% bonus for the defender! Obviously he had time to fortify too. Giving another + 35%, making a whole +195%!
That gives 17,7 strength to the old guy...

Ho, one more thing : did you bring down those culture%?
He could have +80% from culture!
making a total of +275%!!!
thus having a modified strength of 22,5. Still less than your tank, but not that far, and more than infantry... Knowing the longbowman also has first strike, the odds are not that bad.

So for the tactics :
* bring down the culture %, with bombers/fighters/destroyers/battleship/fregate/canon/artillery/catapult bombing.
* use highly promoted units to counter those highly promoted defenders :
city raider 1, 2, 3 would be good for your navy seal.
* if you have units causing collateral damage, send them in first. You might lose some, but the rest of your troops will be thankfull. Even better, attaking enemy troops with bombers will cause them damage, and won't hurt you if they don't have SAMs.
* war does hurt, don't expect to storm through enemy lines without a scratch. Rambo isn't avalaible in this game.


strategy :
* you've got dominating armies, why would you give catherine a chance? (I know she's hot, but it's only a picture) Does she have techs to trade? piles of money? If not, kill her off. Just don't keep too much of her cities, just the best ones (those holy cities, with with wonders and very good land around).
* Once you destroyed Catherine, your units will be promoted. Why wait any longer to find another target?

I'm no warmonger myself but CIV gives huge benefits (just think of all the money you will get from those captured/razed cities) to warmongers, it would be a shame not to take what's offered.

 

[Pantastic]

In the real world, a helicopter or tank unit takes casualties just by operating in the field; complex machinery breaks down. In the first gulf war, a lot of helicopters had to stay grounded because there weren't enough spares to keep all of them flying; those units went to a much lower strength rating even though pretty much none were lost to enemy fire.

When going up against actual opposition, these casualties increase more. Sure, a maceman can't beat a tank to death - but tank drivers don't spend an entire 1 year turn sitting in a tank at full alert in the middle of an open field. Sometime those tanks are going to have to drive down a narrow street, where they're vulnerable to greek fire or molotov cocktails. Or the crew will spend some time out eating or carousing, or will get shot full of arrows when their tank throws a track and they have to work to replace it. And while tanks are armored, they only carry 50 or so rounds for their main gun, and the trucks carrying the ammo for them to blast hordes of knights and archers aren't.

This is compounded by the fact that from what you say you're probably just tanking a tank and ramming it into messes of primitive troops without even looking at what you're doing, expecting that your superior technology will automatically win the day for you. Which is a pretty good description of the Italian campaign to conquer Ethiopia shortly before WW2, a campaign which they won but with a number of embarassing setbacks on the way.

Your first step is to mouseover the target stack while your attacking unit is selected, that will tell you your odds of winning the fight and show you what factors contribute. My guess is that you're ramming your tanks into units fully fortified in a city with a large culture bonus, which is a good way to get them killed. Use artillery or planes to reduce the defense of cities before attacking, that's your biggest 'extra casualty' source. Keep multiple units stacked together, since a big horde of primitive units will wear a lone modern unit down by hitting it in waves. To keep momentum going, bring along some medic units, though you have to use cavalry or cavalry upgraded to choppers for fast medics until you get mech infantry.

 

[East St Trader]

I suspect you are under-estimating the effect of defensive bonuses.

One of the tips which appear from time to time in-game points out that a veteran unit with a number of promotions should be treasured as it can sometimes beat a more advanced unit.

And that is true. I doubt that your choppers are losing to isolated green longbowmen caught in the open. They will, occasionally, be losing to longbowmen with a couple of relevant promotions entrenched in a high culture city built on hills.

In such cases the cumulative defensive bonus can be enough to get the medieval unit up to the point where it does have a statistical chance to win.

For myself I am not much concerned to work out some rationale for this. If I wanted to play a battle simulation game I would look for a battle simulation game. As it is, I like playing Civ.

 

[Solo4114]

You're right, I was underestimating the defensive bonuses, mostly because I don't bother with number crunching in this game. That's not particularly fun to me at all. Running through a calculus of "Ok, so he's an archer which puts him at 3, but he's on a hill with trees, plus he's in a city with a high culture level which puts him up at 18.533, so...." is goofy after a certain point. I mean, with comparable techs, sure. With units you'd expect to be vulnerable, absolutely. But as rock beats scissors, tank should beat archer. Every single time, without regard for bonuses. While bonuses are cool, at some point the tech differential should negate them.

I mean, I know this is pure numbers vs. numbers, but there should be another calculation or multiplyer when you have units of widely varying technology. Musketmen vs. knights? Ok, I can see how the tech difference isn't SO far that it's unmanageable. But at a certain point, this stuff gets just plain silly.

What the hell is an Archer going to do to a tank? Even if he IS in a city, on a hill, with forests, strong cultural ties to his city, and the blessings of St. Whosits and the sun at his back, that archer should be toast. Period.

Another example. My attack chopper attacks a city that is defended by pikemen. The pikemen manage to damage the chopper. Not kill it, but damage it nonetheless. Ok, what the hell? How exactly is a pikeman going to even get close enough to the chopper to hurt it??

It's stuff like this -- where it isn't just the result of random bad luck, and is more the result of the game operating more on a number-crunching approach than a logical "Hey that'd never happen in the real world" approach that gets me.

There ought to be some kind of calculation applied to tech differences logically speaking. IE: melee units can't do squat vs. flying units or armored units. Or, like, cavalry can't hurt mechanized infantry (because cavalry units lacked the weaponry to harm armored targets -- at least as cavalry are depicted in the game).

It just strikes me as goofy when you have situations like this and they come purely from the fact that the game is just looking at numbers (which, honestly, is all the game can do), and that the designers didn't bother to create some kind of multiplier that gets you towards more realistic outcomes.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoy the game, but stuff like this puts me off to the warfare aspect of it because it just comes across as straight-up number crunching, and not well designed number crunching at that. I have zero interest in being a statistician the same way others aren't looking for a battle simulation. I don't need a real-time strategy game here, or need to have control over every last shoelace on my soldiers' uniforms, but even with all these defensive bonuses, there ought to be SOME consideration for what would happen in a real battle. If they want to simulate breakdowns and mechanical wear and tear, that's perfectly cool. Add in a factor whereby mechanized units in enemy territory can suffer from "critical breakdowns" or can't repair damage the way humans can because of spare parts issues. That'd be great! But the notion of pikemen -- even fortified, highly experienced, touched-by-god-himself pikemen beating an attack chopper is just plain silly. When the tech differential is that significant, there ought to be something in the game which reflects this and causes the outcome to more depict what you'd expect in a real-life situation.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Although maybe I'm doing it wrong.

That was my problem (it might still be - we'll find out the next time I jump up a level).

But I learned that
a) promotions are a big deal, and in early eras they come primarily from using troops - which means more activity than simply waiting for barbs to stroll in.

b) when advancing, you want defensive units covering for your attackers, so that when you arrive at your target, the attackers are full strength and ready to go

with that in mind
c) as with everything else in this game, specialize. That's what the promotions are for, after all.

d) cover and shock have respectable, but limited, lifespans. Woodman II loses some effectiveness after the lawnmowers have gone through. But City Raider III never goes out of style.

 

[Pantastic]

You don't need to calculate a single thing. Like I said in my post, just MOUSE OVER the unit you're going to attack and those odds are all calculated out for you. You can gripe all you want that modern units are completely invulnerable to older units, but it's simply not true as I've already pointed out, and you're certainly not going to convince Sid and Firaxis of that.

 

[Solo4114]

Oh I've definitely been playing around with promotions. I make sure my units are specialized and like to do things like include medic units, heavy assault units, anti-archer units, etc. I actually love that aspect about this version of the game.

At least in my current game, technology is roughly equal. Horse archers vs. knights and such. But there are extreme confrontations which play out not as a result of a bad roll, but as a result of bad calculations and the lack of tech differential factors which would make sense.

 

[Solo4114]

You don't need to calculate a single thing. Like I said in my post, just MOUSE OVER the unit you're going to attack and those odds are all calculated out for you. You can gripe all you want that modern units are completely invulnerable to older units, but it's simply not true as I've already pointed out, and you're certainly not going to convince Sid and Firaxis of that.

I appreciate the tip on the odds calculator and will use that in the future, but it still strikes me as stupid that certain fights even take this into account. Have Sid & co. ever explained WHY they permit this kind of thing?

 

[Guerra]

Just remember this:

Don't start a war that will last a thousand years. Build up troops fast, get an ally to attack, then suprise their ass, storm 2 of their best cities or more, and you should be fine.

Long wars are counterproductive. Keep that in mind. War is costly and horrible unless you suprise their ass.

 

[Mr. Nice]

You're right, I was underestimating the defensive bonuses, mostly because I don't bother with number crunching in this game. That's not particularly fun to me at all. Running through a calculus of "Ok, so he's an archer which puts him at 3, but he's on a hill with trees, plus he's in a city with a high culture level which puts him up at 18.533, so...." is goofy after a certain point.

You don't have to do the number crunching. The game does it for you. just right drag over your intended victim, and look at the percentage chance of victory given in the bottom left before committing to battle. It does also give the full break down of what bonuses you and your opponent have, but you don't have to read it. One caveat: There is a known bug with this where first strikes aren't involved, it doesn't correctly account for them, in general it overestimates the chance of a unit with first strike winning, and can give chances > 100%.
If you are attacking old, established cities, then bombarding with either arty or bombers is a must.
Also, if you really aren't paying attention to the numbers at all, do note that injured units lose strength (a unit at 50% health fights at 50% strength etc.) So try to avoid attacking with injured troops, and as said above bring medics along.

 

[Solo4114]

Oh I firmly agree. That's why I try to avoid it unless I know it's useful. Most of the time I won't bother with war and will go for a spaceship victory or U.N. victory. Actually, from Civ 1 to Civ 4, I don't think I've EVER won a game through warfare.

 

[Solo4114]

You don't have to do the number crunching. The game does it for you. just right drag over your intended victim, and look at the percentage chance of victory given in the bottom left before committing to battle. It does also give the full break down of what bonuses you and your opponent have, but you don't have to read it. One caveat: There is a known bug with this where first strikes aren't involved, it doesn't correctly account for them, in general it overestimates the chance of a unit with first strike winning, and can give chances > 100%.
If you are attacking old, established cities, then bombarding with either arty or bombers is a must.
Also, if you really aren't paying attention to the numbers at all, do note that injured units lose strength (a unit at 50% health fights at 50% strength etc.) So try to avoid attacking with injured troops, and as said above bring medics along.

Oh, I never attack with injured troops unless I have to. Especially when attacking a city, I'll often just let them rest until healed (especially with medics in the stack) and have other units attack.


Ok, new question. With seige weapons, I usually bomb or bombard cities to wear down their cultural defenses. I've also noticed that seige weapons and such seem basically useless against troops. Most of the time if I attack with them, they die. They'll damage the enemy -- sometimes the whole stack -- but they die nonetheless. Is there some trick to keeping seige weapons alive? I've noticed sometimes they manage to retreat but there's no "flanking" option as a promotion.

So what's the deal? How do you keep your seige weapons alive and have them remain useful against troops instead of just against cities?

 

[atreas]

First of all - I completely agree with the weird war results - how could I not, since my first post in this forum was exactly on this subject. I even had proposed an "era based" modifier where a unit that is 2 eras behind should just watch and get killed. But that's not how the game is now - so I returned to reality.

I can recall quite a few threads on this subjects (like "battles you have problem stomaching") that shows you are not alone. Still, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to play best with the current system - just pretend that you are not seeing a longbowman but a much inferior tank, if that annoys you. All the advices given by cabert were correct, and they should make the losses quite less. After all, the point is that you probably don't use YOUR weapons with maximum effect, so it is in a way correct that you have some losses.

 

[Solo4114]

Yeah, true. It's just been one of those annoying things that's existed basically since Civ 1. I just can't figure why they don't code it out of existence. It's almost like the designers want to keep it in.

I dunno. There's a bunch of things I'd do to change the way war gets fought in this game (some of which may have already been changed and I just haven't figure it out yet), but I'll definitely use the mouse thing more. I tend to just use keyboard directions which is probably a big part of why I had no idea this even existed. Well, that and I haven't read the manual cover to cover.

 

[kzoocauchy]

So what's the deal? How do you keep your seige weapons alive and have them remain useful against troops instead of just against cities?

I never expect my artillery to live, not in the first couple strikes against a huge stack, at least. With any luck, some of them will get the 25% withdrawal chance to kick in. Generally in the modern era, I tend to use artillery for bombardment and bombers or fighters for the actual attacking. That's the best way I've found to keep them alive.

 

[Solo4114]

Yeah, that's what I do too, but I'm talking pre-aircraft. There doesn't seem to be any way to keep stuff alive unless you get that lucky withdrawal roll. Unless you're using your catapults as suicide units, it kind of makes promotions like the collateral damage thing pointless (since bombarding doesn't seem to include collateral damage to units).