The Art of Harassment - tutorial by a pro

ivj

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Messages
60
There won't be any screenshots here, but you don't really need them. My nickname is "SuperPro," and it really does reflect on my skill - so far I've dominated almost every single game I played (at least in the earlier ages).

So what is harassment? Warcraft 3 players will be familiar with this strategy and it DOES apply to civ 3, especially in the beginning of the game. The basic idea is to have a "pretend war". To stress out your oponents and make them think they're fighting, without you actually slowing down your production. Here's the general flow:

(I only play on small/tiny maps with a lot of people, and I don't think it would work too well on bigger maps).

1) I set my city on "emphasize growth"

2) I make 2-3 warriors and use them as scouts / send them in different directions

3) After making those warriors, I would build 1 worker, and then just keep on building warriors - I wouldn't build any settlers for a while.

4) Once you have explored a bit and found the civs close to you - it's time to start. Declare war on all the civs near you (yes ALL, I generally have 3-4 wars going on 10-20 turns into the game).

5) Move your warriors into their territory and position them in the forest/jungle/hill/across river and fortify them. If there are any improvements there - pillage them (assuming they're also on the forest/jungle/hill - you wanna have good defense at all times)

THE PRESENSE OF YOUR WARRIOR WILL DO MORE DAMAGE THEN YOUR WARRIOR CAN. And this is largely psychological. Your oponent will hesitate to expand, release workers, etc. This will give you time to develop your capital and pump out even more warriors, while your scared oponent is building warriors.

6) Now you already have the advantage. The oponent psychologically believes he's at war. He cannot send troops towards your capital (which in my case is almost always undefended). He is going to sit there and build warriors, while you can fortify on his resources and slow down his growth. Meanwhile, your capital will be developing with your worker working freely.

REMEMBER - the idea is not to attack his units or cities - if you do you'll most likely loose your warriors. The idea is to station your units in good defensive positions and keep the emotional pressure on your oponents. In 99% cases your oponents will not expand, they'll not have build any improvements, and they'll just sit there and make warriors, who cannot kill yours because you'll be in the jungle + 25% fortify defense, making you nearly invulnerable to their early attacks.

7) As you make more warriors - send them over to their cities and keep up the pressure - no attacks or anything. Now you can build maybe a settler, or maybe some improvements. Still, build occasoinal warriors and send them over to harrass. At this point, if you're doing well harrasing 2-3 oponents, you can expand behind THEIR borders and harrass their neighbors too.

Using this strategy, I would typically have a score of about 1700, while everybody else is still less than a 1000.


Appendix A: Counter Measures

I have not seen anybody implement these counter measures, and they are pretty simple: harrass whoever's harrassing you. In fact, you'll probably take his capital. If someone declares war on you and starts harassing - keep one unit fortified in your capital, then build one warrior and send him over to his capital and do the same. No attacking - just harrasement.

Appendix B: Overpowered Mongolians.

Ahh Mongolians, my favorite nation to harrass with. Their special unit (skirmisher) replaces archer and has str of 4 instead of 3, plus 25+ bonuses to defenses in hills and jungles and stuff. These units are EXTREMELY overpowered. I would have wars with every single nation on a small terra map with 8 players, and i would successfully harrass ALL of them, while I expand. My capital would be able to build 1 skirmisher per turn when its size is about 6, and the skirmisher is THE strongest unit in that era. NOBODY can kill him. But he can kill anybody.

So, grab mongolians, research Archery right away, and show them all what harrasement is all about.

Appendix C: Countering Mongolians.

Since they're overpowered, you can't really counter them, with 1 exception - Incas. They're the only nation that has an early anti-archer unit, which's their warrior who gets a +100% vs archers. Therefore a warrior will be just a bit weaker than the skirmisher in the early era.


I might even post some screenshots and a game flow from an actual game later on. But remember, YOU ARE NOT FIGHTING A WAR, you're merely harrassing. If you try to fight a war, you'll loose right away (maybe not loose, but you will develop slower). So keep that in might and happy harrasin'
 
You referenced the Mongolians and the Skirmisher unit. I’m guessing you meant the Malinese.
 
This is definitely an effective strategy, as most people simply aren't smart enough to deal with it. Unfortunately, there are those of us who are very able to deal with it (incidentally, I'm an experienced WC3 player, and I'm very familiar with using this principle :)). If a player who was about as good as me used this strategy, I could nearly guarantee that I would beat them.
 
I always play my civs random, I would suspect that an aggressive or industrious civ would have an easy time breaking through a non-aggressive civ harrassment unit with two of their own and then come for my ass, especially if I'm doing 3 or 4 wars at a time? I've also noticed the AI goes for multiple targets at once, what's to stop him from going around?

Also, what difficulty setting was this on? I'm sure you could pull this off on the easier settings, but prince and on the barbarians/animals would eat you alive if you did this.
 
I used a similar strategy to take out Julius Caesar last night. (Our small continent just wasn't big enough for the two of us.) But he didn't just sit there building warriors. He built walls and archers, so it wasn't quite as easy as you describe. Still, with barracks and choosing the forest upgrades for my warriors, they managed to hold their own in the forest next to the roman cities, until I got iron and my swordsmen laid waste to the roman empire...
 
This is not a good strategy unless you're playing at lower levels or against idiots.

Someone tested me with this once. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti. Wait, I mean, I just ignored it and took his capital. It's pretty easy to recognize. Basically, I went about business as usual. I pretty much escort all unprotected troops anyway. Then, I slid two warriors out back and took his capital. Game over.

The key is to recognize it. If someone goes to war with multiple people, if someone sends a troop who just fortifies in an area and doesn't attack, and if he sends 3, 4, 5 units that all occupy different spaces, you should know.
 
exactly

about the skirmisher - its not exactly overpowered, because no one said you have to attack it! Its quite easy to take out your capital while you build one, or to counter harrass.
 
NOte: This is only for multiplayer. If you play singplayer, well, I'm sure you know about the curious dry feeling between where your legs meet.
 
I've heard this strategy called "the choke". And it's a good one.

For all the people raving about how founding all the religions is hugely valuable, or how war is way too challenging, they're not thinking hard enough. This is a VERY smart startegy.

Good job.
 
gogogo warcraft 3 harass :) But you guys are right the counter to it is just like in wc3 to either anicipate that he will harass and then go do your stuff somewhere not nearby your own base(the peaceful) or to move the attack to his base which often is more vulnerable
 
Harassing is great, and something (as you've mentioned) most WC3 players should be aware of. I've actually has someone attempt this on me, but my tech path puts me in a good position to keep them honest. (Germans get Archery and Bronze working fast)

A good counter is to play a zone defense. Don't just defend your cities, counter-attack units that even get close to you. You can destroy them a lot easier this way, don't let them pillage and fortify, say, your iron mine on a hill :)

I've never been on the harassing end myself, but as a later game civ and player I should start.
 
Any strategy has a counter. You must be able to counter the counterstrategy ... and I don't see how that is very possible with this one, as you've overextended yourself. Further, the more civs you do this too ... the higher chance someone will recognize the strategy.
 
The real problem I see with this strategy can be summed up in one sentence.

It will almost always work against anyone who's never seen it before, but it will almost always fail against anyone who's seen it even once.
 
The AI is relatively poorly equipped to deal with this one. That's the key.
 
"It will almost always work against anyone who's never seen it before, but it will almost always fail against anyone who's seen it even once."

Mm BS. I just finished playing a game where I was fighting a VERY skilled player. I playing Mails, and I kept him and his 3 cities pinned while i had only one. In the mid game he had the score of about 700 while I had about 250. At the end, I had about 1700 when he had about 1200. Oh yeah there were 2 other players there but they were nutural most of the time.
 
Heres the deal...

6) Now you already have the advantage. The oponent psychologically believes he's at war. He cannot send troops towards your capital (which in my case is almost always undefended). He is going to sit there and build warriors, while you can fortify on his resources and slow down his growth. Meanwhile, your capital will be developing with your worker working freely.

This is how you gain advantage, by making them build nothing but warriors...

3) After making those warriors, I would build 1 worker, and then just keep on building warriors - I wouldn't build any settlers for a while.

Then to get the advantage, you'll have to build nothing but warriors...

Seriously, why would anyone fight a warrior on top of a hill fortified? I would dare you to come to me before anything, and I'll sure as hell probably find your base with my scout also...

The old saying goes...

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

First one to raise their fist is the first one to lose...

Especially since anyone knows to beat someone you don't fight their army, you fight their capital... So why would they waste time on a lonely warrior on top of a hill? When it'll take about a billion to take out an archer in the city?
 
I don't get it. If I saw someone do this, I'd build an axeman and start raking in exp, then head for his capital. Unless I'm unlucky enough not to have copper nearby. Axemen owns warriors, no matter how many def bonuses they have.
 
"Then to get the advantage, you'll have to build nothing but warriors..."

At first, later you can build settlers.

"Seriously, why would anyone fight a warrior on top of a hill fortified?"

So that their worker can work and they wouldn't be afraid to move their settlers around. Don't believe me? Go try it. My warrior was attacked 100% of the time.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first rock..."

... And I shall smoketh it.

"Especially since anyone knows to beat someone you don't fight their army, you fight their capital"

Yes, especially when your OWN capital is besieged? U know that gut feeling you get when someone's burning down your cities? That's when you don't make logical choices, you make emotional ones. And when this is a beginning of a great sounding game, are you really going to be all tough'n sh1t and send out your only warrior to attack my capital while my warrior is fortified on a hill near yours?
 
"I don't get it. If I saw someone do this, I'd build an axeman and start raking in exp, then head for his capital. Unless I'm unlucky enough not to have copper nearby. Axemen owns warriors, no matter how many def bonuses they have."

LOL. Don't you get it. I'll have your city surrounded long before you even research bronze working.
 
Back
Top Bottom