Taking enemy capitals

[cabert]

I think some people are are not thinking straight !

There is no rule saying you should go for the capital first.
But, as futurehermit said, in 95% of the cases, you ensure the win (of this war at least) by doing so.

someone mentionned the last ALC.
Look how easy it was to finish china after taking it's capital!
I just don't understand how someone can argue the other way round, it's so obvious!

Some rules of thumb in this matter:
- you don't want to wander into enemy territory too long (exception if you want a pillage war only).
- you don't want to attack a city defended by more units than you have = you want to take cities fast, not giving your opponent time to reinforce.
- you want to win something = capturing lowly peripheral cities isn't a goal.

Applying those 3 rules of thumb, you find that except in the situation where the enemy's core cities are more than 3 turns away, it's not a good idea to spend time taking small cities before hitting the core cities.
Why?
1) because the AIs start building loads of units when you declare
2) most of those units will be finished in core cities, not in peripheral ones
3) most of those cities will go reinforce the capital.

conclusion : if you intend to capture the capital, you need to go there asap.

 

[DutchJob]

funny that i get here now...

last night i lost my entire offensive army because of going too deep into FDR's land. he was finished, i seperated my stack for Chicago, Boston and Seattle when Monty attacks ME on Roosevelts lands...

while he could fly with his 25+ HA's over FDR's lands i was a sitting duck. lost everything which i owned of America.

Live by the sword...

 

[cabert]

funny that i get here now...

last night i lost my entire offensive army because of going too deep into FDR's land. he was finished, i seperated my stack for Chicago, Boston and Seattle when Monty attacks ME on Roosevelts lands...

while he could fly with his 25+ HA's over FDR's lands i was a sitting duck. lost everything which i owned of America.

Live by the sword...

live by the sword and check montie

 

[obsolete]

Did an experiment last game. Took over an English capital. That's great and all, except that it was a huge drain on my monies due to the long distance. Then I got swarmed by culture anyhow. Ended up bankrupting myself and lost my whole army doing so as I couldn't fund it anymore.

 

[ABigCivFan]

If you can assemble an army, go straight and capture an AI's capital 10 tiles away from your cultural border, and hold on to it for 20 turns, the game is not a challenge. On higher levels(immortal+), you have to fight AIs with higher power points than you EVERY game, which means they have more units than you and up-to-date. Tech rate is high, so very often when you travel the 10 tiles, you are up against new unit types with your old units. You get pounded by all kinds of units, siege first, then rifles, calvaries, infantry and etc, so you will lose units fast, at least lose the ability to fight effectively. Every large city you bypass pose serious threat, every tile you advance means you are getting into a deeper trap. Your army travels 1 tile per turn, Ais calvary travels 6 tiles per turn pre railroad. They can gather resource from 5-6 cities per turn against your single army. It is 95% suicide in such situiations to go straight for the capital.

The better way is to advance steadily, choose strategic targets along the way to capital, many AI cities have good resources/wonders/tiles, plan the best route, capture these strategic cities along the way, fortify/reinforce/reduce AI couter attack. Since you always fight near your cultural border, you are much safer if a second AI declares on you, you can quickly move your forces around to reinforce the weak points.

In real life military strategy, you face grave danger if you send your large force deep into enemy(with on par military resources) territory without taking all the strong-holds nearby, without securing your supply line, without strong reinforcements. You will quickly be surrounded by well corrdinated enemy from ALL direction and annihilated.

Every game is very different, the strategies are also very different depending on the game type, level, speed, civ, AIs, starting location and etc.

 

[CivSetä]

On higher levels, you might lose your entire invasion army when you travel deep into enemy territory for the capital since the AIs will pound you with piles of siege. Even if you take the capital, you will lose it fast without immediate reinforcements.

So going straight for the capital deep in enemy territory is only for very low levels (probably below Noble) when you have armies 3 times larger than AI's And if you need that pyrimid right away.

I think the best way is choose the "shortest path to capital" approach, capture all enermy cities along the way to its capital, fortify/heal, then go again. It is a lot easier.

I think that you don't understand the circumstances when going straight to the capital is optimal. It is optimal only in the very beginning of the game, when capitals are clearly the best cities. The situation that you describe is about medieval times, when you can't move your stack next to the capital. If AI has a circle of cities around the capital, your approach is definitely the right one.

But in the very beginning, when early rushes must be made on higher levels (emperor and higher), one should almost always go directly to the capital. There are very few cases where you are not able to march your stack of axes next to a capital, say 1-3 tiles away, if ancient/classical war is in your mind. Usually you can bypass minor AI cities easily, because they are not producing any culture yet.

 

[futurehermit]

Did an experiment last game. Took over an English capital. That's great and all, except that it was a huge drain on my monies due to the long distance. Then I got swarmed by culture anyhow. Ended up bankrupting myself and lost my whole army doing so as I couldn't fund it anymore.

Why would you attack a city that early in the game when you are so far from the enemy capital?

Going for the enemy capital is the right move, but don't attack a civ that is that far from you!!!

If you have that much space, just build your own cities for awhile until later in the game. THEN go for the capital when you can afford to wipe them out and keep their cities.

I still disagree with those who say that not going for the capital is a good idea later in the game. Sure, if Monty dogpiles you, you can get your stack wiped out. But is that the fault of going for the capital OR is it the fault of poor diplomacy? Why didn't you massage relations with Monty and have him as your ally in that war??? I routinely bypass marginal cities to go for the core of an empire later in the game, usually with cavalry (fast-moving) when they have longbows. I take out the core of their empire and then the rest is mop-up duty. Why would I give them time to whip some pikes in their core cities???

 

[ABigCivFan]

I think that you don't understand the circumstances when going straight to the capital is optimal. It is optimal only in the very beginning of the game, when capitals are clearly the best cities. The situation that you describe is about medieval times, when you can't move your stack next to the capital. If AI has a circle of cities around the capital, your approach is definitely the right one.

But in the very beginning, when early rushes must be made on higher levels (emperor and higher), one should almost always go directly to the capital. There are very few cases where you are not able to march your stack of axes next to a capital, say 1-3 tiles away, if ancient/classical war is in your mind. Usually you can bypass minor AI cities easily, because they are not producing any culture yet.

I am just giving examples to show that the claim: " You should always go staight for enemy capital first" is wrong.

 

[futurehermit]

Your claim about going for the enemy capital first being wrong is wrong

 

[cabert]

Did an experiment last game. Took over an English capital. That's great and all, except that it was a huge drain on my monies due to the long distance. Then I got swarmed by culture anyhow. Ended up bankrupting myself and lost my whole army doing so as I couldn't fund it anymore.

the idea is to take the capital first, not meaning to take only the capital.

What you do is :
- mass a stack able to take one city
- start building reinforcements
- attack the capital, take it fast
- heal, send the survivors minus a few (1 is often enough) defenders to the other cities
- finish the AI.

 

[Kev]

I agree with those who point out that the 'capital rush' is a much more viable option earlier in any game.

Very early in the game, when you have axemen and possibly chariots up against archers, it is great to be able to take the capital first thing. The other nearby cities often won't have any true offensive units to counter, there likely won't be a huge culture push from these remaining cities, and you can more easily employ a strategy of resource denial. Further, if you give the AI time while taking/razing smaller cities, you will have double the amount of defenders in the capital along with walls to be sure. A nice side-effect of taking the capital straight away is that I often find workers hiding in the capital - nice to obtain and nice to deny the enemy.

Later, the battles might be early siege (cats) along with swords/axes/macemen and possibly elephants and perhaps you will be up against archers/axes/spears and maybe even longbows/pikes/crossbows. This is still a good time to hit the capital in my mind. Pillaging and resource denial again becomes key, and you can bet the amount of defenders in the captial will multiply exponentially if one takes too long to reach it. Again, the satellite cities can be contained and even cut off for easier pickings by reinforcements, and with resource denial they should not be able to produce many (if any) offensive units to challenge your stack or your cities. The AI will produce some siege and won't need resources for these, but they seem to make poor use of cats and trebs at this stage and never coordinate well with their offense.

After this stage, the capital beeline becomes more challenging. Facing strong mounted units, more powerful siege, and larger cities that can whip quicker and usually already have a load of units in them means that a moving stack may face a fair amount of resistance on the way in. Further, resource denial becomes more difficult as there are likely several sources of these - not to mention what they might be able to obtain by trade. Also, the gunpowder units are not dependent on resources and can be made with impunity - and muskets/rifles/infantry are much better at counter-attacking at this level than their bow-and-arrow counterparts of yesteryear. There is also the diplomatic question at this level and higher where all the civs have likely been met and you run the risk of demerits with neighbors who may decide that your stretched army is no match for theirs.

In fact, later in the game I might declare war at times and just keep my units holed up in a city that I know the AI will target. Let them smash their units around and die first and then move onward to pick off cities by proximity first.

So, in essence, I think the "take capital first" strategy's usefulness is directly related to how early in the game you might be.

 

[cabert]

I don't think it's about early or late.
It's about doable or not.
It's true though that early it's often doable, and later not so often, because you'd have to spend 10 turns walking into enemy territory to reach it.

But if the capital is coastal, I go for it first thing even in the 1900es.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Taking the enemy capital is probably the biggest blow to their capacity to resist your attacks (most developed, highest production city alot of the time). It's not only how much you benefit but also how hard you hurt their ability to respond in the future. Since a capital spot is almost always given at least 4 special resource tiles (even if you can't see them yet), it is frequently a keeper. Badaboom, you will tend to see people keep them around (in SP).

 

[Kev]

I don't think it's about early or late.
It's about doable or not.
It's true though that early it's often doable, and later not so often, because you'd have to spend 10 turns walking into enemy territory to reach it.

But if the capital is coastal, I go for it first thing even in the 1900es.

Totally agree. I love to load up some transports with Marines and send them in after some destroyer/battleship bombardment.

Of course the "doable" factor will be the final aspect in the decision given that there are so many variables - location, enemy unique units involved, protective/aggressive traits, diplomacy, wonders, etc. The early vs. later aspect is a general overview in my mind.

 

[rabidveggie]

Taking a capital serves many roles
1) Usually has the most resources in it
2) Often there best production city
3) Usually near the center of their territory so it can split there territories in half
4) Likely there top culture city and probably has wonders or holy cities in it
5) In multiplayer the loss of a capital is demoralizing to a Human even if they are still doing well without it. Often they'll quit once its lost or at least draw troops from outlying cities. Often a human will simply quit and the computer is much less intelligent during wartime.

Thats not to say its smart taking it at times it can stretch your forces thin and you may have to raze it rather than allow it to fall back into enemy control.

 

[obsolete]

I think an over-looked point (and big one) is that going deeper to take capitals is harder when using a QUICK TURNS instead of the extended timeline. This maximizes movement & UV unit life.

I often use the quicker timeline as these games take forever as it is. I think I'll turn it down a notch to normal next time. Usually things do go much easier that way anyhow for me.

 

[Solo4114]

I suppose another way to approach this is if the enemy's capital is deep in enemy territory is to build two stacks of doom. One stack designed purely to take and hold the enemy's capital, and a second stack to push in on his borders (or take out his second most powerful city). Some of this depends on placement of the cities, of course, and how long it'll take you to get to them. Obviously if you're lucky enough to have units with the commando promotion, that's ideal for deep strikes as well.

But anyway, you could take out the capital and then begin wiping out the other AI cities.

 

[JackOfClubs]

I think the best way is choose the "shortest path to capital" approach, capture all enermy cities along the way to its capital, fortify/heal, then go again. It is a lot easier.

I agree. Although I would tend to raze rather than capture unless there is a good reason to keep the city. One of the side benefits is that if you cut a path to the capital, you can use the roads that are now in neutral territory. Of course, later in the game this isn't as likely since culture borders will overlap from other cities but you still have a better chance of finding a quick path for your reinforcements if you knock out some cities along the way.

Also, if you're lucky, you can isolate some resources from the new capital by destroying the trade routes along the way.

Prior to large invasion try convert enermy cities to your religion, it takes longer term planning, but it will give you invaluable info(almost like free spies everywhere) after the invasion starts.

This only works if you own the holy city. If your enemy owns it, he will be able to see your cities which puts you at a disadvantage. That would be one of the cities I would keep in the above scenario. In fact, I sometimes prioritize the holy city above the capital, calling a truce once I have it so that I can plan the next phase of the invasion more competently.

 

[futurehermit]

I think an over-looked point (and big one) is that going deeper to take capitals is harder when using a QUICK TURNS instead of the extended timeline. This maximizes movement & UV unit life.

I often use the quicker timeline as these games take forever as it is. I think I'll turn it down a notch to normal next time. Usually things do go much easier that way anyhow for me.

Krikey, no wonder we disagree, if you play on quick, the AI could be two eras ahead of you on tech by the time you move 10 squares to get to the AI capital

On a more serious note, I fully agree with Cabert that it's all about "doability". I like to go for a cavalry beeline and will thus zip into the heart of any empire to strike the capital. There isn't much that can touch cavalry effectively if the AI still has only medieval units.

But regardless of the tech situation, it is often feasible to plan a route to take a capital. Of course if the AI is so far ahead of you on power that you have to spend many turns defending before going on the offensive, it probably won't be feasible. But then you want to be the leader on the power graph if at all possible

 

[ABigCivFan]

There are many factors we need to consider when planning route of attack. Many non-capital AI cities can give you some sorely needed res, if you are low on health, go for that city which has wheat. Capturing that city will give your empire a +2 (with granary) which allows all your cities grow faster.

There is no doubt that sacking enemy capital will deal the biggest blow to that single AI; but at competitive levels, it often will cost your entire army to do so while the other 7 AIs build up their armies. Thats why I almost always stream line the city taking process: concentrate attacking force, take strategic cities, fortify/heal/reinforce, and allow my cultural border to absorb the new land. I can often quickly turn these cities to be useful for my empire. Raze the city if it is useless, at least you get to use the road around it.

During the early era of the game, on higher levels and higher speed(normal), enemy capitals grow cultural defense fast, you most likely have to take non-capital cities(with low cultural defense) first with the few units you have. Capital becomes feasible target only when you have sufficiently weaked the AI and have assembled a good size veteran CR melee and siege.

Thats why I would never generalize or identify a single strategy as the "best" in this game.