The Navy SEAL

[CivCorpse]

For me personally, in my last game as Lincoln I used the SEALS as land units, not amphibiously. I got to SEALS just as my main rivals were researchign assembly line and I used SEALS becuase of this - you see, with a higher base strength (24 vs 20) AND 2 first strikes, SEALS are AT WORST an even match against infantry. However, SEALS are much better against cavalry, cannons, artillery, and machine guns. Infantry aren't even really a hard counter against them. The gunpowder bonus just brings them to an even match. My opponent had stacks, just huge stacks of cavalry and cannons and grens and rifles. Even though he got to assembly line during the war I didn't face too many infantry units. Thus the SEALS served me well. Oh, and throw the march promotion in there. Very powerful.

That SEALS are an even match at worst against infantry is only true in the open field. A 3promotion (C1C2Pinch)SEAL against a 2promo or 1promo/Protective infantry with CG2 in a city, the seal only has a 36% chance of winning. That is not an even match. Marines are significantly better than infantry when attacking amphibiously, but unless you are lacking oil, it is much better to wait for combustion and tanks. And much more fun since winning battles is usually more fun than losing units.

I will definately concede that as city defenders marines are definately superior to infantry. And SEALS are unmatched until Mech Infantry. As stack defenders both are very strong but I still mix in a couple MG's to protect them against infantry. Equally promoted infantry will have a slight advantage until Combat 5 when both will be strength 30.

Attacking cities Marines are good for any opposing MG's but everything else has had a good blast of collateral from cannons. And if there are a significant number of defenders then CR2 cannons have probably done some decent damage to the MG's as well from direct assault. CR3 infantry can usually deal with them. At the point where I have marines I am only one tech away from tanks, so preserving my CR3 infantry is less important. If I am using marines rather than waiting for tanks then it is because I have no oil....and it is no coincidence that my chosen enemy just happens to have oil.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Marines will be forced to bypass MGs if there are other defenders with better odds, like infantry. So they can't really be prep-attackers in the sense of keeping cannons alive, but when combined with a good batch of flanking II cavs (who can usually retreat from MGs after maybe 1 defender win), you can then get to a point that cannons will succeed at damaging all other defenders. And then even Macemen can take the remainder of the city.

 

[mirthadir]

Yes, I agree. Also, if you get physics first you get a GS. What tech does the GS bulb at that point ? Is it electricity? That'll help you with your tech lead. Or you could run a GA.

Or save him for AlCo/SE if the game isn't close to being won. On the flip side getting an academy in another ganked out 15+ town city competes favourably with a bulb.

If I've gone to Sci Meth directly off or after Lib, I often try to snag the first past the post bonus of Physics and Communism; which often leaves me in a good position for an infantry/airship war; if that goes well then running to marines war against a backward AI makes wonderful sense.

CC: Marines are best used instead of tanks when you want a rapid kill/cap. If I'm tossing around cannons, screw the marines, just stay at AL and build more cannons; alternatively go get honest Arty. With a tech advantage, marines sniping the coast are the quickest shot of all your options.

 

[CivCorpse]

Marines will be forced to bypass MGs if there are other defenders with better odds, like infantry. So they can't really be prep-attackers in the sense of keeping cannons alive, but when combined with a good batch of flanking II cavs (who can usually retreat from MGs after maybe 1 defender win), you can then get to a point that cannons will succeed at damaging all other defenders. And then even Macemen can take the remainder of the city.

You slap a couple cheap cannons FIRST. This draws does collateral to the Infantry but not the MG's. Then MG's will usually be selected against the marines as the top defender.
As for flanking cav. If there are CG infantry present then they will be the top defenders vs the cav not the MG's. FlankingII cav are immune to first strikes and are not gunpowder units, so the MG is an 18+25%fortify=22.something strength defender while the CG infantry is strength 30 with just CG1

Or save him for AlCo/SE if the game isn't close to being won. On the flip side getting an academy in another ganked out 15+ town city competes favourably with a bulb.

If I've gone to Sci Meth directly off or after Lib, I often try to snag the first past the post bonus of Physics and Communism; which often leaves me in a good position for an infantry/airship war; if that goes well then running to marines war against a backward AI makes wonderful sense.

CC: Marines are best used instead of tanks when you want a rapid kill/cap. If I'm tossing around cannons, screw the marines, just stay at AL and build more cannons; alternatively go get honest Arty. With a tech advantage, marines sniping the coast are the quickest shot of all your options.

If you side tracked to communism and still have marines vs rifles then you might want to go up a level.
The beakers spent on Communism could have been invested in combustion+800:beakers:. As shown by many people CR3 tanks are much better than marines OR SEALS even amphibiously if the opponent is lacking anti-tank units. Artillery AND Rocketry are much more expensive and it is easier to get tanks before the AI has those techs than marines before they have AL. By delaying Combustion and thus destroyers you run the risk of the AI researching/trading for combustion and sinking your wooden ships with destroyers or even transports. Even pokey SoL and ironclads can end your war for you very quickly.

I do agree that more cannons is much faster than marines for land wars.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you side tracked to communism and still have marines vs rifles then you might want to go up a level.

You are in the habit of saying it a lot, but it's not 100% true. Trade imbalances can vault some of the world FAR ahead of the others left out, even on difficulties that challenge the player otherwise. I've had marines vs rifles on immortal, and yet I was #3 in tech! AL isn't exactly a top priority AI tech, so getting marines ASAP might be worth dialing up.

That aside, anything involving landing THEN attacking concedes a considerable advantage that is given to the amphibious attacker (who will see far less troops, gains initiative against the opponent's navy, etc). That CR III tanks are superior in this role is worth noting, but in LHC games or games without a lot of early war (both of which make your chances of being able to use your free Military academy + HE + another military academy or whatever you need city for massing superpromoted troops far, far less common) you're not going to be spamming CR III tanks so easily. Even if you are, you're going to need defenders and other troops to attack amphibiously if you want to go the amphibious exclusively route, and maybe those tanks could be saved for some land throwdowns.

Of course, "vassals off" is a HUGE assumption too, since it takes away the potential to win a continents or fractal game using naval assault exclusively (which the AI struggles mightily against, especially with a minor tech lead or parity and marines + MG in tandem as defenders). Chaining capitulations off coastal strikes is very fun and yes, very effective too.

I have to admit I only have moderate experience with nukes, but I will probably give them a go on more serious difficulties soon - the AI seems quite terrible at using them and man, would they make amphibious hits even more devastating (not to mention grant the potential for siege-less capture of inland cities quite easily).

 

[CivCorpse]

You are in the habit of saying it a lot, but it's not 100% true. Trade imbalances can vault some of the world FAR ahead of the others left out, even on difficulties that challenge the player otherwise. I've had marines vs rifles on immortal, and yet I was #3 in tech! AL isn't exactly a top priority AI tech, so getting marines ASAP might be worth dialing up.

That aside, anything involving landing THEN attacking concedes a considerable advantage that is given to the amphibious attacker (who will see far less troops, gains initiative against the opponent's navy, etc). That CR III tanks are superior in this role is worth noting, but in LHC games or games without a lot of early war (both of which make your chances of being able to use your free Military academy + HE + another military academy or whatever you need city for massing superpromoted troops far, far less common) you're not going to be spamming CR III tanks so easily. Even if you are, you're going to need defenders and other troops to attack amphibiously if you want to go the amphibious exclusively route, and maybe those tanks could be saved for some land throwdowns.

Of course, "vassals off" is a HUGE assumption too, since it takes away the potential to win a continents or fractal game using naval assault exclusively (which the AI struggles mightily against, especially with a minor tech lead or parity and marines + MG in tandem as defenders). Chaining capitulations off coastal strikes is very fun and yes, very effective too.

I have to admit I only have moderate experience with nukes, but I will probably give them a go on more serious difficulties soon - the AI seems quite terrible at using them and man, would they make amphibious hits even more devastating (not to mention grant the potential for siege-less capture of inland cities quite easily).

If you have marines/tanks/MG's vs rifles then it is probably better to drop them off and assault. The AI in question will not have railroads so the counter attack will not be as severe as the artillery flood you get once they do. blast defenses with frigates/destroyers and slap a couple cannons at them. Take the city then hop on the ship to sail to the next city.
If you have been peaceful up until that point and therefore do not have the ability to produce CR3 tanks and the AI has tech parity then marines are your best bet. But by no means is it going to be pretty.

For isolated starts i admit to having VERY little experience. As a Marathon/huge player I really don't enjoy playing SIMCITY for an hour+ while working my way up to Optics. And as i am an SP player I feel no obligation to continue once I determine I am totally isolated. Particularly since I enjoy Medeivil wars the most of all. In all their sloooow slogging bloody casualty filled glory. And nothing says slow slogging war like Marathon Huge

 

[UncleJJ]

I'm not saying that fun = bad strategy. The fact is, you can get SEALS with electricity and industrialism, no resources required. To get tanks requires all of the above, plus railroad, plus combustion, plus oil. You could spend some turns teching for artillery instead to get collateral damage, but it's not necessary.

I think this option becomes attractive if you get to Sci Method and discover you don't have oil onland, which can happen if you haven't expanded much. Then techs like Combustion and Flight (except Airports) are not going to help until you capture some oil. You could do this with just infantry but marines / SEALS add a cutting edge to your forces.

First of all, they do fine against infantry. You can bombard city defenses down with your ships, even frigates, and attack with your SEALS. The 2 first strikes will help even the odds against infantry. With 2 promos you get pinch. Are all the defending infantry going to have pinch? No.

The way I see it is; if I can build marines/SEALS, then I can also have my own infantry and they can make up the bulk of my forces. The SEALS are the elite cutting edge. I won't build new infantry in preference to SEALS, but I might draft some and will certainly upgrade some of my best older troops like CR ones. If we don't have Railroads, due to an Industrialism beeline, then all archery, melee and gunpowder troops can only be upgraded to infantry. A big stack of infantry (drafted and upgraded) plus SEALs and cannons is a formidable forse against cavalry and rifles even if delivered by galleons and without air support, apart from airships.

However, they don't necessarily need to go up against infantry. See...someone said that getting a tech lead to the point where marines are fighting rifles is ridiculous, that I'm playing at too low of a level. I disagree. Many players go on and on about beelines to maces or xbows. Not every leader can do it, and you can't necessarily do it with every map, but what do you think a tech lead is about? Let's see...to get SEALS before the enemy gets infantry would mean you would need a good 3 techs more than your opponent. Easy? No, but impossible? No, not at all. Some AIs do prioritize assembly line, and for them it would be extremely difficult. However, many AIs go up the physics, biology, electricity line, etc. If you play a game concentrating on getting a tech lead, which at least 2 of the American leaders are designed to do (Lincoln and Roosevelt have traits that make a tech lead quite possible), it is quite possible to get to SEALS before your opponent has infantry. Many AIs will also go for railroad before AL, which means they have machine guns. Now, normally machine guns are formidable defenders, they eat infantry for breakfast, but they fare very poorly against marines, and even poorer against SEALS.

Agreed. It is possible to be behind the AI overall but still have several vital techs they don't. I agree that the main advantage SEALS have over infantry is the way they tackle machineguns, they also have a nice advantage attacking artillery which means they won't take much damage, unlike infantry who can lose on occassion.

So the situation when researching Assembly Line and Industrialism before Combustion is a good tactic is when you have no Oil on land and the AI you want to attack has rifles and machine guns (or will get them soon, perhaps from trade).

So, you could just ignore the marine unit as a "niche" unit, since tanks and bombers work well in most circumstances, but I find it fun to explore the uses of marines. It's even more fun to explore their uses while playing as the Americans with the SEALS.
Marines hit fast and hard. You can declare war with your boats outside of enemy borders, and then in the same turn move in and capture valuable coastal cities (or raze them). They also make strong defenders. Try my strategy of grabbing a tech lead to the point where your marines are up against cavalry, rifles, etc. It's not that difficult. I find many warmongers such as Gengis fall hard in the tech dept. by that point in the game because their economy is hammer based. It's not unheard of to grab a tech lead. It's a strategy, just like any other. Maybe you don't have a tech lead over all the AIs, maybe just a couple of them. Fine, use it. In any case, there might be times when it make sense to hit the AI hard and fast with marines, rather than waiting many turns into the future after you get oil hooked up and research the techs for flight and tanks. Maybe you don't want to wait that long.

Marines and SEALs are useful units, but normally they would be overshadowed by aircraft or tanks. The utility of carriers and destroyers on a water map is better than galleons and marines, if Oil is available. With airstrikes machine guns are no problem for infantry or even rifles and cannons.

For me personally, in my last game as Lincoln I used the SEALS as land units, not amphibiously. I got to SEALS just as my main rivals were researchign assembly line and I used SEALS becuase of this - you see, with a higher base strength (24 vs 20) AND 2 first strikes, SEALS are AT WORST an even match against infantry. However, SEALS are much better against cavalry, cannons, artillery, and machine guns. Infantry aren't even really a hard counter against them. The gunpowder bonus just brings them to an even match. My opponent had stacks, just huge stacks of cavalry and cannons and grens and rifles. Even though he got to assembly line during the war I didn't face too many infantry units. Thus the SEALS served me well. Oh, and throw the march promotion in there. Very powerful.

They are excellent stack defenders for a normal SoD and if the AI has a lot of non gunpowder troops then they are better than infantry. As I said before I seldom build infantry with hammers or whips, reserving that for other troops, instead infantry are drafted or upgraded from older troops. SEALS plus infantry is a powerful combination giving quality and quantity.

P.S. Overall an interesting post Noto , you gave me a fresh perspective on a part of the game that I thought I had sown up. Thanks.

 

[mirthadir]

If you side tracked to communism and still have marines vs rifles then you might want to go up a level.
The beakers spent on Communism could have been invested in combustion+800:beakers:. As shown by many people CR3 tanks are much better than marines OR SEALS even amphibiously if the opponent is lacking anti-tank units. Artillery AND Rocketry are much more expensive and it is easier to get tanks before the AI has those techs than marines before they have AL. By delaying Combustion and thus destroyers you run the risk of the AI researching/trading for combustion and sinking your wooden ships with destroyers or even transports. Even pokey SoL and ironclads can end your war for you very quickly.

I do agree that more cannons is much faster than marines for land wars.

I'm not talking about being the overall tech leader here, I'm talking about having a target who who still has rifles. For example, in a game a month or two back there was Monty, Pacal, Zara, and one of the English on the far side of the globe. Monty was backward and I when I finished off the infantry/airship war to control my own landmass he still had only rifles. The other three were far enough ahead to to ensure I would be facing MGs, but Monty was stuck with Rifles. I tech out to Industrialism while recovering from a bout of mad Kremlin whipping, I traded Communism thrice and Physics once (got RR this way just prior to setting out on the invasion). Spent a few turns whipping in marines, and then sent the navy off to go take a city on a hill so my CGIII/DI and DIII/CGI MGs could hold it against the hordes. Teching to combustion would have:
1. Greatly increased the odds that Monty gets AL.
2. Not allowed me to trade any techs.
3. Not given me 1.5 GAs to race out to a tech advantage and abuse US towns for production.

As it was, Monty capped easy and I managed to get to rocketry/fission before the AI finished Manhattan. Two turns after I finished Manhattan, I dropped inbound ICBM on both AIs with fission taking out their U and nuked Mutal (with at least 20 odd units) into oblivion. After that is was just run the coast and tac nuke until Pacal capped; then I flipped over to do the same to Zara.

My navy was never in danger, it ended every turn in a city garrissoned with MGs. Quite often the AI spaces their cities within range of each other; using navigation/circumnavigant makes this virtually certain to be the case. The AI could have had mass CGs and still not sunk a single wooden ship.

 

[Skallagrimson]

You slap a couple cheap cannons FIRST. This draws does collateral to the Infantry but not the MG's. Then MG's will usually be selected against the marines as the top defender.
As for flanking cav. If there are CG infantry present then they will be the top defenders vs the cav not the MG's. FlankingII cav are immune to first strikes and are not gunpowder units, so the MG is an 18+25%fortify=22.something strength defender while the CG infantry is strength 30 with just CG1

I'm not 100% married to either tactic and they're both highly situational, but I've found that there's a 1 or 2 unit advantage of fewer losses in risking the flanking cavs first overall. You lose fewer cannons, marines get a better chance of nerfing the machine gun defender(s), and then your GG super-medic and "future CRIII infantry" macemen can mop up (or cavs with CIII+blitz). In fact some purists prefer to field ALL cavs for the 2-move capability, which I've found works a treat along coasts (bombard with the navy) or in those cities that aren't so heavily-defended (at least not by rifles).

Sometimes when I have an excess of siege or have trade-popped artillery and want to go darwinian with the siege force, I'll lead off with the rookie cannons and finish the bombardments with the senior siege (usually trianing them up to 17 XP). That's no optimal for unit preservation, but a tradeoff of a bit of WW for trimming support costs.

If you side tracked to communism and still have marines vs rifles then you might want to go up a level.

Ironically my Monarch games tend to one extreme or the other: either I get owned in the early game by a DoW when I'm not ready, OR... I survive and build my war machine and completely wipe the map in the late game, with continuous tech leads and production leads.

But even then I usually skip communism as that's easy trade-bait (along with artillery) and beeline first to industrialism (I agree about tanks ftw), then the mother of all modern techs, radio. Then the hot daughter of all modern techs, computers (INTERNET baby!) Then after that no more trades and EPs can go to fun missions without having to work so hard on tech stealing.

The beakers spent on Communism could have been invested in combustion+800:beakers:. As shown by many people CR3 tanks are much better than marines OR SEALS even amphibiously if the opponent is lacking anti-tank units. Artillery AND Rocketry are much more expensive and it is easier to get tanks before the AI has those techs than marines before they have AL. By delaying Combustion and thus destroyers you run the risk of the AI researching/trading for combustion and sinking your wooden ships with destroyers or even transports. Even pokey SoL and ironclads can end your war for you very quickly.

I do agree that more cannons is much faster than marines for land wars.

I like including a few marines anyway for those occasional river-crossing field battles. 24 + 25%, they can kiss their most powerful cav in their counterattack stack goodbye (per marine).

 

[UncleJJ]

A somewhat belated reply

The game is won independent of the quality of the land you hold. Once you churn out enough tac nukes per turn you don't need to integrate conquests. Once you reach a terminal technology point if you are nuking the world you are making an end game play. It is quite possible to chain cap all the AIs before your first conquest comes out of revolt.

True, but you are advocating huge investment (hammers and gold) in your own few cities ( CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy) and then researching a tech that blasts any captured cities into oblivion. That investment takes a great deal of time to research techs I don't need, consumes GPs for the corps that I can use in other ways (such as a golden age or two) and then sucks immense amounts of gold used to rush buy stuff and spread corps. How fast does all this investment pay back what was invested so you're making a profit? Furthermore, you gain little economically thereafter since you either blast the city into the ground or give it away effectively when you capitulate the AI. Your economy plateaus , albeit at a high level.

My approach is quite different and I get a huge economic boost from,
a) not researching at least some of the techs you need to
b) building military units directly instead of investing in infrastructure, corporations and then building them
c) Using the GPs for other purposes, maybe golden ages
d) starting the war much earlier and keeping more of the cities captured many of which will be productive and help finance the war (gold, beakers and EPs) and produce military units. Using SP means distance and colonial costs are zero, so I can pick and choose what cities to take and keep for their rich developed tiles, wonders, buildings and settled GPs. Some AI cities will be better than many of my own, so my economy grows strongly as I attack and capture more resources. At the end of the game my economy with many cities could be stronger than your few hyped up core cities with the CE/CorpE/Kremlin development. We would have to do a detailed analysis to decide that and I don't think that's worthwhile, besides I don't want anymore of your highly imaginative hand waving

Some AIs can be capitulated to avoid WW (if not in PS) and the tedium of ploughing through AI culture. But that is an option for me rather than a necessity for your CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy running FT. If you take on other cities they are just a gold drain, either due to colonial costs or because you have to make a heavy investment installing corps and rush buying buildings that will not have time to pay back the investment, so that's a clear lose-lose situation.

The point is how many you have to invest in the fighter, its carrier and redundancy and into just stupid units to kill weakened enemies. ~3 tac nukes per city kills all the defenders and you can walk anything in to take it. Further subs are cheaper than carriers and you have no basing limits using forts, cities or even other AI cities. The game should be over long before fighters become cost effective.

Note I am NOT talking about losses here, just how many you have to sink for the duration of the war. Fighters are for more expensive than tac nukes; if you have no platform for honest bombers then they are more expensive than nuking the city and rush buying the lost buildings.

It is somewhat ironic that you are worried about how many hammers I use here when you a) are prepared to spend fabulous amounts of hammers/US gold on each of your own cities and b) claim that you can outproduce my economy by a huge margin anyway. Why ever would you be worried about a few hammers when you can produce thousands every turn? Efficiency doesn't come into it, only brute force and human superior tactics over AI stupidity. Capturing juicy AI cities and using them to build replacements makes up for at least part of the inefficiency

Bull. Air promos are worse than ground promos. A high promo fighter owns a low promo jet; not just once off on a fluke, but regularly. I haven't checked the code, but I'd almost bet the air combat resolution is bugged and triply counts combat promos. If you win air power from behind against a war monger with ease, you are playing below your difficulty.

This is not my experience perhaps someone can read the relevant code for us. I have found that air combat obeys Lanchester's Law better than anything in this game. In other words numbers are more important that quality given the way air combat works. Even if the AI has a few nicely promoted jets on interception my carriers full of fighters will shoot them all down even at some loss. Typically I'll get a 2 for 1 exchange rate against equal AI aircraft and even with my fighters against his jets it would be 1 for 1.

Why? Galleons are more cost effective per slot. If your invasion force does not require resupply, what exactly do you gain by going through combustion first? It takes longer to build transports than you typically save on the transit time. Once you are actually at the target you just keep the navy in port between turns. Circumnavigant galleons and frigates can ferry troops, bring down cultural defenses, and what exactly more do you want from the navy? Half the time you can catch half the AI navy in port on the first turn.

Now waiting for flight to hit, that is a different story. But now we are talking about a MUCH later invasion that requires far more build time. Flight is far more powerful, but it is also waiting that much longer.

You have completely misjudged the time it takes to build a modern oil fueled navy and airforce. Flight is immediately after Combustion for me and I upgrade some of my galleons to transports (cheap and effective against frigates) and build destroyers while researching it. Then I build carriers (in drydocks) and fighters in inland cities. That doesn't take long at all and Kremlin whipping means the carriers and destroyers surge out of the drydocks, and the fighters can fly to the carriers while they move into position. I find transports with frigates and galleons enough to give naval superiority against frigates and SoL even when they have superior numbers. The odd upgrade of a frigate to destroyer helps against airships and top defender but is expensive. I tend to keep frigates around as a counter to obsolete units and for bombardment for quite a long time.

Bull. Tell me how I'm supposed to stop a deity AI who has chain capped his landmass half a world away before I get to astro? He's bigger; he's got wicked handicaps, and we are no longer at the point in the game where bulbing can get you and instant tech lead. If your answer to a late game difficulty is "you should have done better in the BCs" you are playing under your skill level.

I don't play deity and I doubt I ever will. I win comfortably on immortal using this and other strategies.

And here we hit the real rub, nukes are boring to you, fair enough. They are, however, the most cost effective mechanism to cause damage and win the game if you have the tech advantage. You play a SE/EE/FE combo; one of the most powerful strats in the game; however it is a royal pain in the arse to manage if you like a game to finish in under 3 hours. By the numbers, nukes; are still more cost effective than fighters if you've reached the point where you truly need either just more land, just more population, or just more turns (culture/space) to win.

Nukes are the most cost effective mechanism to cause damage to the AI if it has large stacks otherwise they are not worth the hassle. I agree the SE/EE/FE combo is one of the most powerful strategies and I am comfortable playing it but I like other strategies as well including using corps in a SE. Fighters are available earlier and are more flexible than tac nukes, especially when combined with espionage, plus there is no diplomatic penalty for each time you use one nor can they be stopped by a UN resolution.

Oh how cute. My CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy doesn't do nearly as well.

Picking a random game I opened up the following city - unfortunately I have no cities with only a clam to work, instead it has zero workable tiles (and was founded in the middle of a desert).
1. Infra : courthouse, grain, bank, market, grocer, forge, factory (3GD powered), and an airport.
2. Inputs: one city tile, 6 trade routes (all two ), AlCo/CreCon/CivJ/Sushi.
3. Net outputs per turn 19 and 16.07 per turn net (ignoring my WS gold) at the city location. At HQ I bring in 48 per turn net from corps and 3 per turn net from religion.
4. Total equivalent production: 51.04 per turn.
5. Now this little bugger doesn't amount to jack; it only gives me a tac nuke every 5 turns; if it were coastal (ignoring harbors and possibly custom houses) such cities would be churning out a carrier every 3.43 turns

Please note, I'm not gaming this for some artificial condition that is massively lame (e.g. an isolated clam that just happens to have no other tiles to work giving me atypically high yields from specs). This is a non-coastal, utter desert city, where I own. buy, or extort only about 30% of the world's output of the resources I consume with the corps. Also I have no overseas cities and I haven't abused GLH to be out running around at flight with it still operative (though that is hilarious to do). I've gotten my 1 tile cities down to around a nuke every 3-4 turns before (Jewish/Hindu WS, taking UoS/SM, and having 7 overseas high pop cities) .

So my little clam city (founded in 500 AD) and which whipped/built all its own infrastructure, which in the meantime has been used to draft 6 muskets and rifles, whipped 3 galleons, 3 cannons and a frigate BEFORE it whipped the carrier is less profitable than your desert city (founded in 1850AD)? I don't think so. Those 51 hammers/ turn you've just magicked out of the sand are not FREE. They are the result of an astonishing amount of gold and hammers that the rest of your economy has lavished on it. I repeat my question, have you analysed the pay back on that late game investment? The "little bugger" might be able to build a tac nuke every 5 turns but I wonder if it would not have been better to just buld the nukes in another city, certainly a lot less effort and micromanagment.

You have the temerity to accuse me of picking a lame example. I can assure you that I will have an average of at least 2 clam cities (or equivalent) every game. I know the power of corps, you are trying to teach your grandmother to suck the proverbial eggs. You are overstating the power of the CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy and underestimating the alternatives. My argument is not that you can't win that way, you can and so could I, but you need to justify why it is so much better than all the alternatives including the one I put forward. I see the CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy as just one option and not the king of all economies.

There, I fixed that for you =P

Touche ! Amusing, but not true. I am very happy to use a wide variety of economic and military strategies. I think I have have tried just about all of them. That is why I can say with confidence that you are overstating the power of the CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy. I've been there and done that - and then thought why did I bother? I could have done that quicker by just just grabbing the AI by the throat and avoiding all that investment and re-investment of profits to get even bigger profits. Few things are more profitable than a juicy AI capital!

Late game it is extremely hard to beat a fully leveraged Kremlin/trade/CorpE. Just for fun, do recall that I can get this online faster than you can yours online assuming we settle on the same turn, assuming we settle after corps are online (i.e. this is a city that we squezed onto formerly AI territory).

Now I grant your preferred method has few very strong points where mine is weak; however late game is not one of those. Getting a nuke every few turns from such a city means that:
1. Even a burnt out completely desolate city is valuable to me; this would be known as a good thing; if all I get are trade routes and resources I'm still turning a substantial profit.

Even when you take account of the huge investment and the alternative uses of that investment? I am sceptical of this claim

2. 5 crap cities in my empire, late game, can take down an enemy cap, alone every 10 turns if I have a nuke monopoly. Yes, that's right, if this whole ball gets rolling and I manage to get a nuke monopoly with my corps up, the AI is DoA.

Ditto, my first comment

3. Terminal rush buy is utter ownage. You picked a scenario (PS/Nat/Slave/SP/Theo) with a unused high food tile using a drydock in a coastal town. I picked a desert town in the middle of arse nowhere with nothing; and I still net more production.

My city was founded long before and built all its own infrastructure, yours was spoonfed and cost thousands of gold to set up.

Now there is the timing issue, you will hit your peak sooner than I will assuming we both follow a "normal" tech progression. In terms of raw output and you will be able to run a higher count early (mostly via espionage leverage which is micro hell to do properly and GP leverage).

And my economy will continue to grow as more AI resources are brought under control. When I'm near the end I just spam units everywhere and build wealth if needed. I will have a huge army, navy and airforce.

 

[noto2]

P.S. Overall an interesting post Noto , you gave me a fresh perspective on a part of the game that I thought I had sown up. Thanks.

I'm glad to hear that - finding new interesting stuff is what keeps me playing the game

 

[mirthadir]

A somewhat belated reply

True, but you are advocating huge investment (hammers and gold) in your own few cities ( CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy) and then researching a tech that blasts any captured cities into oblivion. That investment takes a great deal of time to research techs I don't need, consumes GPs for the corps that I can use in other ways (such as a golden age or two) and then sucks immense amounts of gold used to rush buy stuff and spread corps. How fast does all this investment pay back what was invested so you're making a profit? Furthermore, you gain little economically thereafter since you either blast the city into the ground or give it away effectively when you capitualate the AI. Your economy plateaus , albeit at a high level.

My approach is quite different and I get a huge economic boost from,
a) not researching at least some of the techs you need to
b) building military units dierectly instead of investing in infrastructure, corporations and then building them
c) Using the GPs for other purposes, maybe golden ages
d) starting the war much earlier and keeping more of the cities captured many of which will be productive and help finance the war (gold, beakers and EPs) and produce military units. Using SP means distance and colonial costs are zero, so I can pick and choose what cities to take and keep for their rich developed tiles, wonders, buildings and settled GPs. Some AI cities will be better than many of my own, so my economy grows strongly as I attack and capture more resources. At the end of the game my economy with many cities could be stronger than your few hyped up core cities with the CE/CorpE/Kremlin development. We would have to do a detailed analysis to decide that and I don't think that's worthwhile, besides I don't want anymore of highly imaginative hand waving

Some AIs can be capitulated to avoid WW (if not in PS) and the tedium of ploughing through AI culture. But that is an option for me rather than a necessity for your CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy running FS. If you take on other cities they are just a gold drain, either due to colonial costs or because you have to make a heavy investment installing corps and rush buying buildings that will not have time to pay back the investment, so that's a clear lose-lose situation.



It is somewhat ironic that you are worried about how many hammers I use here when you a) are prepared to spend fabulous amounts of hammers/US gold on each of your own cities and b) claim that you can outproduce my economy by a huge margin anyway. Why ever would you be worried about a few hammers when you can produce thousands every turn? Efficiency doesn't come into it only brute force. Capturing juicy AI cities and using them to build replacements makes up for at least part of the inefficiency


This is not my experience perhaps someone can read the relevant code for us. I have found that air combat obeys Lanchester's Law better than anything in this game. In other words numbers are more important that quality given the way air combat works. Even if the AI has a few nicely promoted jets on interception my carriers full of fighters will shoot them all down even at some loss



Flight is immediately after Combustion for me and I upgrade some of my galleons to transports (cheap and effective against figates) and build destroyers while researching it. Then I build carriers (in drydocks) and fighters in inland cities. That doesn't take long at all and Kremlin whipping means the carriers and destroyers surge out of the drydocks, and the fighters can fly to the carriers while they move into position. You have completely misjudged the time it takes to build a modern oil fueled navy and airforce. I find transports with frigates and galleons enough to give naval superiority against frigates and SoL even when they have superior numbers. The odd upgrade of a frigate to destroyer helps against airships and top defender but is expensive. I tend to keep frigates around as a counter to obsolete units and for bombardment for quite a long time.



I don't play deity and I doubt I ever will. I win comfortably on immortal using this and other strategies.

Nukes are the most cost effective mechanism to cause damage to the AI if it has large stacks otherwise they are not worth the hassle. I agree the SE/EE/FE combo is one of the most powerful strategies and I am comfortable playing it but I like other strategies as well including using corps in a SE. Fighters are available earlier and are more flexible than tac nukes, especially when combined with espionage, plus there is no diplomatic penalty for each time you use one nor can they be stopped by a UN resolution.


So my little clam city (founded in 500 AD) and which whipped/built all its own infrastructure, which in the meantime has been used to draft 6 muskets and rifles, whipped 3 galleons, 3 cannons and a frigate BEFORE it whipped the carrier is less profitable than your desert city (founded in 1850AD)? I don't think so. Those 51 hammers/ turn you've just magicked out of the sand are not FREE. They are the result of an astonishing amount of gold and hammers that the rest of your economy has lavished on it. I repeat my question, have you analysed the pay back on that late game investment? The "little bugger" might be able to build a tac nuke every 5 turns but I wonder if it would not have been better to just buld the nukes in another city, certainly a lot less effort and micomanagment.

You have the temerity to accuse me of picking a lame example. I can assure you that I will have an average of at least 2 clam cities (or equivalent) every game. I know the power of corps, you are trying to teach your grandmother to suck the proverbial eggs. You are overstating the power of the CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy and undersetimating the alternatives. My argument is not that you can't win that way, you can and so could I, but you need to justify why it is so much better than all the alternatives including the one I put forward. I see the CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy as just one option and not the king of all economies.

Touche ! Amusing, but not true. I am very happy to use a wide variety of economic and military strategies. I think I have have tried just about all of them. That is why I can say with confidence that you are overstating the power of the CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy. I've been there and done that - and then thought why did I bother? I could have done that quicker by just just grabbing the AI by the throat and avoiding all that investment and re-investment of profits to get even bigger profits. Few things are more profitable than a juicy AI capital!

You are missing out again on the power of a CorpE. The singlest biggest gain you get with a heavy corp E is not the territory, as such, it is the the resources you gain. Capping a large AI can net me +20 in every city. If I'm nuking to cap out the AI I just avoid (as best as possible) irradiating the resource tiles I want and just take and extort away the resources I want. This gives me an instant boost to my interior and allows to me move to victory quicker. When I've done comparison games (playing through twice), the CorpE investment allowed for ~25 turn sooner wins on maps where I deemed it to be optimal than opting for a SP driven war machine. Games were (re)played in random order from the turn before lib; 2 losses that occurred with SP did not with CorpE, but both of those were from a SP first run.

I also get advantages:
a.) I don't necessarily need to research techs which you do (obviously there are no techs that are a complete waste for either of us): Constitution is a low priority for me so I can go chase free GP at Sci meth while you (unless you are doing something I'm missing) want Con asap if you lack the Mids. I can ignore democracy if I have the mids and eventually the UN; you need the building. I can ignore communism if the AI takes it and the Kremlin (in which case I have target city); you outright need it for SP.
b.) Corp execs are 100 and 100 ; if the map is good for it, this is repaid in under 2 turns. Low value buildings can just be whipped in (indeed if I have the actual clam city I will have founded long ago, whipped in the CH, the market, and hopefully the forge long, long ago). All told, I have yet to find a city which fails to break even in a CE prior to 4 cycles of the whip.
c.) Fair enough, you could spend 4 GP on 1.5 more GAs than I typically take. Of course your GAs are less powerful as you have fewer one tiles and you burn more of the bonus into .
d.) No it won't. My extra trade route means large overseas cities pay for themselves up to the point where I have 6 such cities; no questions asked; all of my trade is captured for with full multipliers; you burn a large percentage as culture by being "slider independent" and more because you don't have a full set of multipliers. I actually grow my economy faster because not only do I get the city inputs, I get exponential growth in Corps efficiency as redundant resources are FAR more viable for me.

In reality most cities, even crappy little AI ones overseas pay extremely well with 5 free trade routes (20 off the top); assuming I capture either the bank or market/grocer (an odds on bet), that gives me 30 which pays for a huge amount of maintenance. Once we toss in a harbor or the full MGB set I can come out ahead with any city. Resources dwarf all of this but then I have the options of using vassals for those. Even more fun, any city I take is an instant production powerhouse. I can build whatever I need without having to worry about airlift issues (like you do if the conquest pop is not enough to whip in an airport), without having to set up production buildings, and without having to fight for cultural tiles. If I need an airhead that is two turns and I have it. If I need the 5 settled GG with an Mil Acad city to pump out CR tanks, I can do that even if it has zero tiles to work. I have far more options than you. Once we drop in the corps for a whopping 350 per exec (aka peanuts) any city, anywhere on the globe is profitable for me.

I worry about efficiency because while I can beat any economy into the ground if I get the full CorpE up and running; the trick is getting there. At industrialism/flight/combustion/fission I may not have the juggernaut online (and I may never even try to get it online). I just have the option to build out the juggernaut. A quick jump down industrialism -> fission -> rocketry is actually game ending moving to circumvent getting the juggernaut fully ramped up. I do it because it can be the fastest/surest way to win.

You should play deity, I think you'd do better than me there.

I do not disagree with you, at all, about the strength of the SE/EE/FE combo nor the costs of using nukes. There are situations where it is optimal, there are situations where it is not. I admit I'm biased against EE for my own play (though I will play them now and again) but some situations simply are better resolved with a quick run to nukes and glowing your way to victory.

I also play all economies. I've been on a SE(P) kick of late (this may have something to do with playing Sal, Hatty, and an isolated Toko). I know where the strengths of SE lie and I know where the strengths of a properly leveraged CE lie. SE hits peak earlier and has a faster rise to peak, but it is weaker long term. Often selling out to the short term is the wiser course and it would not surprise me if SE/EE/FE is on average the best economy for the entire course of the game; however it is among the least forgiving economies to run whereas CE/CorpE is among the most forgiving. Thus when I say nukes + rushbuy is an easy way to win this, it is not that is the only or even best way to win this, just it is an easy to learn method to win there. There are times when it is optimal, but not always.

Actually, yes I have analysized the payoff for founding such cities. A coastal clam will also have been founded in 500 AD by me. I will have whipped in a Grain/CH/Market/lib (because it is cheap enough to give a return quick)/Grocer and most likely a forge (definately if Ind) possibly even a bank (if FIN). I normally do rushbuy or corps build the factory and the airport, but those are coming after they pay for themselves in a short time frame (if they won't, particularly the factory) then I'm just not going to build it. A coastal airport, BTW, pays for itself in two whip cycles ... and just happens to let me use this city to spam airpower or self-airlift.

I am not overstating the potential power of Kremlin/CorpE/CE. If anything I understate them. Shall I go WB a 7 trade route clam city with 7 overseas pop 20 cities feeding into it where I control 50% of the world's resources? Maybe throw in a triple holy city WS shrine with the AP and SM? You have 2 clam cities per game where it is literally nothing but coastal tiles and the clam? No brown tiles, no tundra/desert windmills? No desert resource tiles?

Even if we grant this is typical, when I'm going for conquest I have 5-20 crappy filler cities and my only question is "do I really need this city to do anything?"

The investment in a terminal corpe is peanuts compared to the costs of building more airpower/units to take the city. Let's just say I can use two tac nukes and 4 CG defenders, on average to take and hold a city. In terms of supporting units I need 1 transport and 1 SSN; total cost of 1,575 :hammers. A naval assault costs about 6 planes (between losses and amortizing the sunk costs over all the cities taken), 2 CVs, 8 units (4 of whom are garrison), and call it one BB, 2 transports and one DD (personally I think the numbers are higher, but let's be generous). All told that is 2,625 per city. Off the top I have 1,050 I can expend on building infra in my conquest just because it is cheaper to nuke and take. 500 gets me a full compliment of MGB. 600 :Hammers: gets me CreCon/CivJ/Sushi (CM)/AlCo. So to bring this sucker back online, costs 50 net . Of course for a small investment of 520 I can bring a forge/factory/coal plant online. Being generous let's say this city only nets me 100 per turn due to irradiation (including rushbuy). This in turn gives me net break even in a whopping 6 turns. In 10 I've paid for all the infra I will ever want to build; if for some reason it looks really dicey I just leave the bugger with MGB/CH/Harbor and STILL get a better return off the naval assault. With ecology and workers it becomes a joke to mill/mine/WS my way back. Note this is all assuming I can't use slavery to whip in any infrastructure which is an abnormal case as I tend to take or build the CR (or failing that just run Slave outright).

If we include the whip, which is 75% of these types of games for me; Sushi or CM makes my whip far more efficient than yours. Once I drop in CivJ and CM (total cost of 600 :gold); a podunk nowhere city can build itself out with ease.

When I'm near the end I'm just plain spamming units everywhere. I have gold coming out my ears and every city is dropping a tac nuke every other turn (the core cities have sufficient overflow to bring up the marginal cities to this rate).

 

[Flying Pig]

The SEALS are among the best units if used properly - they can maintain themselves in the field for a long time without stoppiing, attack over rivers and from transporrts and they have first strikes. This makes them good for what I call 'pillage wars' where a stack is sent in with the aim of destroying infrastructure; specifically uranium and stuff that gives a military advantage.

 

[Wodan]

Try the Wolfshanze mod Immortals to get a real feel for what the March promotion can do.

 

[UncleJJ]

a.) I don't necessarily need to research techs which you do (obviously there are no techs that are a complete waste for either of us): Constitution is a low priority for me so I can go chase free GP at Sci meth while you (unless you are doing something I'm missing) want Con asap if you lack the Mids. I can ignore democracy if I have the mids and eventually the UN; you need the building. I can ignore communism if the AI takes it and the Kremlin (in which case I have target city); you outright need it for SP.

A major reason I emphasise early research of Constitution and Communism is for jails and intelligence agency as well as the two civics. These two buildings are at the core of my late game espionage strategy and are amazing value compared to any other building in the game... for 300 hammers I get 100% multiplier and 12 base EPs.

b.) Corp execs are 100 and 100 ; if the map is good for it, this is repaid in under 2 turns. Low value buildings can just be whipped in (indeed if I have the actual clam city I will have founded long ago, whipped in the CH, the market, and hopefully the forge long, long ago). All told, I have yet to find a city which fails to break even in a CE prior to 4 cycles of the whip.

There is something wrong with your concept of repayment of costs by corporations. There is no way a corporation can repay the 100 hammers for its executive in 2 turns. You seem to be taking the entire output of the fully developed city (and not just the part attributable to the corporation) and generating 100 hammers. If you are taking the entire hammer and gold output of the city then you need to compare that with the total hammers and gold invested in constructing that city. My rough sums indicate your desert city requires 1700 hammers and 400 gold to build the infrastructure and executives. Assuming 1 hammer is worth 2 gold (its cost with US under Kremlin) that becomes 3800 gold. The output is 19 hammers (= 38) + 16 and 48 in the corp HQ = 102 gold. So the repayment time for the total cost of the city could be estimated as 3800 / 102 = 37 turns of full output. That is not impressive. What's more this assumes you have WS, Kremlin and TGD built elsewhere and have acquired the 4 different GPs required for the HQs. I'll grant the Kremlin and WS but TGD is from a late technology and very expensive costing 1750 hammers that can't easily be hurried. What's more these components your city relies on will not be available all at once but are spread over many 10's of turns as technologies are researched, stolen or traded for and when ("if" might be more accurate) the appropriate GP becomes available. This CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy is not something that springs into existance in a short time but rather has an agonising and protracted birthing process.

The investment in a terminal corpe is peanuts compared to the costs of building more airpower/units to take the city. Let's just say I can use two tac nukes and 4 CG defenders, on average to take and hold a city. In terms of supporting units I need 1 transport and 1 SSN; total cost of 1,575 :hammers. A naval assault costs about 6 planes (between losses and amortizing the sunk costs over all the cities taken), 2 CVs, 8 units (4 of whom are garrison), and call it one BB, 2 transports and one DD (personally I think the numbers are higher, but let's be generous). All told that is 2,625 per city. Off the top I have 1,050 I can expend on building infra in my conquest just because it is cheaper to nuke and take. 500 gets me a full compliment of MGB. 600 :Hammers: gets me CreCon/CivJ/Sushi (CM)/AlCo. So to bring this sucker back online, costs 50 net . Of course for a small investment of 520 I can bring a forge/factory/coal plant online. Being generous let's say this city only nets me 100 per turn due to irradiation (including rushbuy). This in turn gives me net break even in a whopping 6 turns. In 10 I've paid for all the infra I will ever want to build; if for some reason it looks really dicey I just leave the bugger with MGB/CH/Harbor and STILL get a better return off the naval assault. With ecology and workers it becomes a joke to mill/mine/WS my way back. Note this is all assuming I can't use slavery to whip in any infrastructure which is an abnormal case as I tend to take or build the CR (or failing that just run Slave outright).

I'm not sure what you're trying to estimate here. You use 2 tac nukes per city = 500 hammers and then take and hold the city with 4 units. Then you try to estimate what it costs me to invade another continent, getting it horribly wrong. Let me give you some statistics from an interesting Emperor game that due to starting circumstances was tougher than most immortal games. It was a bloody war of attrition for my continent and once that was secured I was many techs behind the other continent, they hated me and Ragnar declared war with cannons and cavalry when I still had catapults and cataphracts. I repelled him easily and struggled to catch up and build an invasion force based around carriers and destroyers.

Just before I won the game here are the stats. I built 10 carriers and 45 fighters, losing 10 fighters in air battles. They destroyed 11 airships, 22 fighters and 23 bombers, a 5.5 for 1 exchange rate for air units. I built 25 destroyers and lost 3 of them while sinking 36 enemy destroyers, 6 transport and 3 subs, an exchange rate of 15 to 1. That is impressive but it is 95% attributable to the fighters and occassionally my airships and bombers damaging the enemy before the destroyers finished them off. I built 9 airships and 12 bombers losing none of either. So my careful use of fighters resulted in total air-sea dominance. I could go anywhere, if and when I wanted, and they could go nowhere without serious losses.

The land war has a similar one sided exchange in the late game. My large army consisted of Para 3, SAM inf, 29, Inf 9, AT 6, Rifle 29, MG 33, +50 older troops = 160 ground troops, plus Art 17 and Gunships 22, and 12 cav.
With air support followed by cannons and artillery they killed 21 Gunships, 14 Art, 25 Cav, 9 Para, 8 SAM, 55 Inf, 6 Rifle and 8 MG. (totalling 126 units)
My losses were 5 Rifles, 2 Art, 1 Cav, 2 Cataphracts (totalling 10 units). The unit exchange rate was 12.6 to 1 and even more if you take the higher average cost of the enemy troops. I put the stunning victory down to my fighters victory in the air war. Everything stemmed from that.

That army, fleet and airforce captured 16 cities, wiped out one civ and capitulated 2 more. I had 44 cities at the end and Louis my main rival had 19 left when he gave up giving me a Domination victory.

So you see your estimates of the costs are wildly out. You would have used 32 tac nukes costing 8000 hammers to capture 16 cities while I lost 10 fighters (1000), 3 destroyers (600) and 10 ground units (about 1200) for a total of 2800 and about 35% of the hammer cost. In addition I gained bucket loads of experience and GG points and could use several of the captured cities to draft a few more troops. If you were playing this with your strategy it would have been amusing to see if you could have sailed your galleons across the sea (about 5 moves) with all those destroyers about. In fact, even your subs carrying the tac nukes might have had a hard time with the airships spotting them and the destroyers to hunt them.

 

[mirthadir]

A major reason I emphasise early research of Constitution and Communism is for jails and intelligence agency as well as the two civics. These two buildings are at the core of my late game espionage strategy and are amazing value compared to any other building in the game... for 300 hammers I get 100% multiplier and 12 base EPs.


There is something wrong with your concept of repayment of costs by corporations. There is no way a corporation can repay the 100 hammers for its executive in 2 turns. You seem to be taking the entire output of the fully developed city (and not just the part attributable to the corporation) and generating 100 hammers. If you are taking the entire hammer and gold output of the city then you need to compare that with the total hammers and gold invested in constructing that city. My rough sums indicate your desert city requires 1700 hammers and 400 gold to build the infrastructure and executives. Assuming 1 hammer is worth 2 gold (its cost with US under Kremlin) that becomes 3800 gold. The output is 19 hammers (= 38) + 16 and 48 in the corp HQ = 102 gold. So the repayment time for the total cost of the city could be estimated as 3800 / 102 = 37 turns of full output. That is not impressive. What's more this assumes you have WS, Kremlin and TGD built elsewhere and have acquired the 4 different GPs required for the HQs. I'll grant the Kremlin and WS but TGD is from a late technology and very expensive costing 1750 hammers that can't easily be hurried. What's more these components your city relies on will not be available all at once but are spread over many 10's of turns as technologies are researched, stolen or traded for and when ("if" might be more accurate) the appropriate GP becomes available. This CE/CorpE/Kremlin economy is not something that springs into existance in a short time but rather has an agonising and protracted birthing process.


I'm not sure what you're trying to estimate here. You use 2 tac nukes per city = 500 hammers and then take and hold the city with 4 units. Then you try to estimate what it costs me to invade another continent, getting it horribly wrong. Let me give you some statistics from an interesting Emperor game that due to starting circumstances was tougher than most immortal games. It was a bloody war of attrition for my continent and once that was secured I was many techs behind the other continent, they hated me and Ragnar declared war with cannons and cavalry when I still had catapults and cataphracts. I repelled him easily and struggled to catch up and build an invasion force based around carriers and destroyers.

Just before I won the game here are the stats. I built 10 carriers and 45 fighters, losing 10 fighters in air battles. They destroyed 11 airships, 22 fighters and 23 bombers, a 5.5 for 1 exchange rate for air units. I built 25 destroyers and lost 3 of them while sinking 36 enemy destroyers, 6 transport and 3 subs, an exchange rate of 15 to 1. That is impressive but it is 95% attributable to the fighters and occassionally my airships and bombers damaging the enemy before the destroyers finished them off. I built 9 airships and 12 bombers losing none of either. So my careful use of fighters resulted in total air-sea dominance. I could go anywhere, if and when I wanted, and they could go nowhere without serious losses.

The land war has a similar one sided exchange in the late game. My large army consisted of Para 3, SAM inf, 29, Inf 9, AT 6, Rifle 29, MG 33, +50 older troops = 160 ground troops, plus Art 17 and Gunships 22, and 12 cav.
With air support followed by cannons and artillery they killed 21 Gunships, 14 Art, 25 Cav, 9 Para, 8 SAM, 55 Inf, 6 Rifle and 8 MG. (totalling 126 units)
My losses were 5 Rifles, 2 Art, 1 Cav, 2 Cataphracts (totalling 10 units). The unit exchange rate was 12.6 to 1 and even more if you take the higher average cost of the enemy troops. I put the stunning victory down to my fighters victory in the air war. Everything stemmed from that.

That army, fleet and airforce captured 16 cities, wiped out one civ and capitulated 2 more. I had 44 cities at the end and Louis my main rival had 19 left when he gave up giving me a Domination victory.

So you see your estimates of the costs are wildly out. You would have used 32 tac nukes costing 8000 hammers to capture 16 cities while I lost 10 fighters (1000), 3 destroyers (600) and 10 ground units (about 1200) for a total of 2800 and about 35% of the hammer cost. In addition I gained bucket loads of experience and GG points and could use several of the captured cities to draft a few more troops. If you were playing this with your strategy it would have been amusing to see if you could have sailed your galleons across the sea (about 5 moves) with all those destroyers about. In fact, even your subs carrying the tac nukes might have had a hard time with the airships spotting them and the destroyers to hunt them.

I get the how to run SE(Sp) and similarly with a CE/EE you have to prioritize those techs. I'm just saying every strat let's you skimp on certain techs.

Why can't I recoup the cost of execs in 2 turns if the map is good for it? In my last major CorpE I controlled ~25 Fe/Cu/Au/Ag/Coal with Mining betwen myself, my vassals, and my trades. That mods up to 50 a turn, if the map is good for it corporate execs can pay for themselves in under 2 turns. Even if I have only 10 resources that still is a whopping 5 turns to repay the cost.

Listen JJ, I picked on of my worst CorpE games with a one tile desert city. I could have easily gone for another desert city with far better gain - I didn't look for a stronger crap city because I decided to prove a simple point, that once the CorpE juggernaut gets rolling it flattens anything else in the game. No matter how much you wax philosophical about the power of whipping out carriers from crap coastal cities; that city will eventually become more powerful under a CorpE. Getting there, that is the hard part, but once you have it forget about trying to find anything more powerful. With truly insane CorpE running around I'm often tempted to just raze every enemy city and resettle in a coastal ICS grid just to maximize the corps potential.

I mean seriously, JJ, that is a city with no overseas trade, isn't coastal, and has minimal resources being fed into it. It is just about as pathetic as the CorpE ever gets; and you are reduced to sputtering about how you founded a clam city back in the day (like it wouldn't pay for itself just working coastal tiles) and used the whip (as though I wouldn't be whipping in the basics long before corps either). Get over it, you said, "That means a little fishing village which is useless in your empire ..." this has been handily refuted. You can piss and moan all you want about one specific example, but given that you have been reduced to making an arguement about timeframe for one of the most marginal CorpE cities is laughable.

I have never claimed that a CorpE comes early or easy, but if you can get there it makes the game go into easy mode. I've said umpteen times to you that you peak sooner, but lower. You play the short/medium term and I (when I play this way) go for the medium/long term. Why you keep whining about this when it is a given, I'll never know.

Your totals for the war:

45 fighters - 4,500 .
25 destroyers - 5,000
10 carriers - 1,750
9 airships - 360
12 bombers - 1,680

Ignoring transports for now, you have just acknowledging spending 13,290 on support costs; their survival rate is immaterial - the are sunk and you get none back for surviving terminal forces. In order to have the forces to make a city takeable you have 830 per city in support costs ignoring transports and ignoring disparities in required ground forces. To whit, my support forces would have cost 8,000 . Congrats, you have just proven that it is cheaper and quite likely far quicker to nuke down the enemy.

Now granted you are on the defensive here, but this ain't exactly what I call a denunciation of nukes as a quick game ending tactic. If you are attacked at steel/mil sci you'd be an idiot to tech out to nukes. On the other hand if already at physics/AL the numbers are nearly so one-sided; particularly if you are deep in beelines. If we did opt to rush out to nukes I'd have a far easier time of it. Stablize my borders, get to fission/rockety, and then game my cashflow/finishing Manhattan to rushbuy enough nukes in 2 turns to flatten all the AIs. After the nukes fly I am facing wooden navies and a few BBs/galleons/and SSBNs can acheive naval supremacy. I might run a few SSGNs just in case the AI actually has enough naval units to warrant the intermediate response between nuking the stack and letting the AI expend its irreplacable ships attacking me.

Frankly though you have a very warped idea about how one carries out nuke warfare. If on the defensive, you use ICBMs and irradiate strategic resources (U and oil mostly); this nerfs the AI hard. You then proceed to build either a small naval SoD to go take an airhead or you send out dispersed transports assuming that half of them will die, but that the AI will not have enough deep oceon units left with no oil or U to to intercept them all. You then drop ICBMs down on the target city and walk in and then begin rushbuying an airport and subs in your new production powerhouse (or alternatively raze an opening in the culture and then drop a new city to get the ball rolling quicker).

Using a wooden navy is an offensive gambit to agress sooner. In that scenario you simply send your forces off the coast, nuke the target city, and walk in. All your SSBNs head into your new port, you then send them off the next turn to strike the next coastal city, take that port, and walk in there as well. Your navy is never exposed on the high seas between turns.

 

[CivCorpse]

@JJ: Nukes are more hammer efficient than conventional means on standard sized maps. IF the enemy does not have SDI and IF they don't have the capability to throw nukes back. And IF you do not need useable land to compete with a bigger AI (Shaka with 5 vassals comes to mind). It is not measured by the number of hammers for units lost but by the total number of hammers invested in all units used to capture cities. Garrison units need not be considered as both will be used regardless of the method of taking the city.
@Mirth. I use Corps as well. But you estimation of how long it takes to repay the hammer investment is a bit off.
Your estimate of 50 per turn seems high. Even assuming all modifying buildings you don't get 50 from 25 Mining Inc resources. You get 13. My last game I had exactly 25 of iron/copper/gold/silver/coal and my Mining Inc bonus was 13. It is not a 1 to 1 resource exchange. A city with forge factory and power will boost that to 26 per turn. The hammers for the mining exec are repaid in 4 turns. With 10 resources it takes 10 turns not 5. If you use the to build wealth to repay the gold investment then you have to double that because the can't be counted towards both. The initial investment is only repaid when used to build something else. Then you have to take into account the cost of any other Corp exec. In my case Sids Sushi. At that point figuring out when the cost is repaid becomes hazy as how you use the food can differ wildly from city to city. And it takes a while for the new food to grow a mature city to the point where the food is being used for anything beyond growth. Even with the correct calculations above Corp execs are definately worth the investment. Usually to my HE and IW cities then to other cities that spam them until it is completely spread.
I would advise not razing cities to replace them with an ICS spam. In doing so you must now incorporate the cost of a courthouse/forge/factory/power source. As you are now on a new continent 3GD does not supply power. This is a significant investment that really strains the benefits of establishing a new city. 640 is required just for those improvements. even with Kremlin rush buying it will be a long time before all of that begins to show a return. Also since you are now on a new continent, colonial expenses begin to rack up. Making each new city a cash drain on the economy until they have repaid the initial investment. Plus the investment in building a settler must be figured in as well. If you are in Nuke and Cap mode then the end of the game will probably arrive before you get your investment back.
As for Nuke war vs conventional war. There is a point where it becomes a better hammer investment to take cities conventionally. Depending on how many units you think you will need. The reason for this is city taking troops are largely reusable whereas nukes are not. Using JJ's and your calculations this turns out to be roughly 24. You forgot to include the 1500 for Manhatten Project so it is 1500:hammers + 12,000 for ICBMs. Unless you count on being the only one capable of launching nukes, another 1000 for SDI. Plus the cost of however many tacticalnukes/ICBMs you need to take out enemy Uranium and Oil.
The main reason I favor conventional warfare is the land taken is not a desert wasteland. In my last game(which I am attaching) I took 12 cities from Mansa that are now contributing nearly 1500:beakers: per turn. I used corps and US rush buying for the libraries/unis and labs in some of the cities. Also all cities are building wealth while I wait the 3 turns until the last space ship part is built. If I was still in war mode the slider might be lower and i would be in U.S. rather than Rep. The game could have been won quite a while ago if i had decided to just go take out Saladin but i had lots of fun wars and Saladin was my buddy most of the game. I decided i wanted a space win cuz i hadn't done one in a while.
I am a big fan of Corps though and really like Sids/Mining. Could you post a game save so i can see how you configure your cities using corps? I would love to see if I can improve my own use.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Your estimate of 50 per turn seems high. Even assuming all modifying buildings you don't get 50 from 25 Mining Inc resources. You get 13. My last game I had exactly 25 of iron/copper/gold/silver/coal and my Mining Inc bonus was 13. It is not a 1 to 1 resource exchange.

Unless I'm not understanding what you meant, the hammers you get per resource depends on mapsize. The larger the map the less bonus you get per resource. I don't have the numbers available right now though.

 

[mirthadir]

@JJ: @Mirth. I use Corps as well. But you estimation of how long it takes to repay the hammer investment is a bit off.
Your estimate of 50 per turn seems high. Even assuming all modifying buildings you don't get 50 from 25 Mining Inc resources. You get 13. My last game I had exactly 25 of iron/copper/gold/silver/coal and my Mining Inc bonus was 13. It is not a 1 to 1 resource exchange. A city with forge factory and power will boost that to 26 per turn. The hammers for the mining exec are repaid in 4 turns. With 10 resources it takes 10 turns not 5. If you use the to build wealth to repay the gold investment then you have to double that because the can't be counted towards both. The initial investment is only repaid when used to build something else. Then you have to take into account the cost of any other Corp exec. In my case Sids Sushi. At that point figuring out when the cost is repaid becomes hazy as how you use the food can differ wildly from city to city. And it takes a while for the new food to grow a mature city to the point where the food is being used for anything beyond growth. Even with the correct calculations above Corp execs are definately worth the investment. Usually to my HE and IW cities then to other cities that spam them until it is completely spread.
I would advise not razing cities to replace them with an ICS spam. In doing so you must now incorporate the cost of a courthouse/forge/factory/power source. As you are now on a new continent 3GD does not supply power. This is a significant investment that really strains the benefits of establishing a new city. 640 is required just for those improvements. even with Kremlin rush buying it will be a long time before all of that begins to show a return. Also since you are now on a new continent, colonial expenses begin to rack up. Making each new city a cash drain on the economy until they have repaid the initial investment. Plus the investment in building a settler must be figured in as well. If you are in Nuke and Cap mode then the end of the game will probably arrive before you get your investment back.
As for Nuke war vs conventional war. There is a point where it becomes a better hammer investment to take cities conventionally. Depending on how many units you think you will need. The reason for this is city taking troops are largely reusable whereas nukes are not. Using JJ's and your calculations this turns out to be roughly 24. You forgot to include the 1500 for Manhatten Project so it is 1500:hammers + 12,000 for ICBMs. Unless you count on being the only one capable of launching nukes, another 1000 for SDI. Plus the cost of however many tacticalnukes/ICBMs you need to take out enemy Uranium and Oil.
The main reason I favor conventional warfare is the land taken is not a desert wasteland. In my last game(which I am attaching) I took 12 cities from Mansa that are now contributing nearly 1500:beakers: per turn. I used corps and US rush buying for the libraries/unis and labs in some of the cities. Also all cities are building wealth while I wait the 3 turns until the last space ship part is built. If I was still in war mode the slider might be lower and i would be in U.S. rather than Rep. The game could have been won quite a while ago if i had decided to just go take out Saladin but i had lots of fun wars and Saladin was my buddy most of the game. I decided i wanted a space win cuz i hadn't done one in a while.
I am a big fan of Corps though and really like Sids/Mining. Could you post a game save so i can see how you configure your cities using corps? I would love to see if I can improve my own use.

Are sure it was Mining and not CreCon? Further that you are only counting the Mining resources? In my current game I have 13 resources for an early Mining Inc. (this is just a bog standard tech to Fusion and powerbuild the ship, unless an event improves AI -AI relations), my 1 tile city with no improvements is giving me 14 with luck I shall hit alpha centauri by 1800 (thank you MM and Zara).

ICS can be worth it if the resource count gets high enough; it still is tedious beyond all imagining. Like my comment about 2 turn repayment, this is a map dependant phenmona based upon the number and distribution of resources. You should not expect to be able to recoup resources invested in two turns, but it is possible. When I'm running around in a ganked Kremlin/CE/CorpE I treat and as interchangeable because they virtually are. If I was going to be more rigorous I suppose I should state that Mining requires to work for 3 turns to pay back the investment cost in a high performance situation, but honestly if I'm not going to have another 10 turns of game, why am I not just rushing to that point?

As far as nuke wars, yes if I build manhattan I assume I have a monopoly. If I'm dropping it into place then I'm going to have a full compliment of nukes (ICBMs or ICBMS/Tacs) 2 turns later. That is a monopoly and I aim to keep; going so far as nuke AIs who are going to get upset about me nuking other AIs. I may not have a tech monopoly, but the AI sucks at quickly getting nukes up. Rarely I will nuke a nuke holding AI; most often this a hail mary or an alpha strike mean to kill the AI on turn 0 of the war (this requires really high cost conquest costs, but it is far cheaper than having nukes inbound when you have no defenses). This virtually requires that you have only a handful of interior cities to take.

I will see if I can post a game, but I'm due to drop off the public grid shortly for an indeterminate amount of time. I should see if I still have my Midas OCC save; Izzy who founded Hinduism, Judaism, Confucianism, and Christianity; shrined them, gave the AIs religion, and then also gave them corps. I was running enviro/Rep of course, but my HQs were letting me use queue loading to drop an ICBM every 2 turns A nice leisurely stroll to space with a massively warmed planet behind me.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

FWIW, most of the fastest deity space HoF games make heavy, heavy use of mining inc. Corps are ridiculously powerful beyond SP, IF you get the resources and set them up. It's not always easy to judge if the outlay will pay back compared to SP prior to winning the game, at least not for someone like me who plays games in ~ 2 hours. Nevertheless, SP peaking earlier/lower is a valid point and worth considering. I noticed I use corps considerably more when clawing in contended games and SP more if I have a lot of cities and my tech position is strong enough that I can topple someone in short order.