TheRealCzar
Chieftain
I'm just offering a tactic I've found effective for dealing with empires that have too many troops, and you're outnumbered. "Reasonable" military tech parity is assumed!
My armies are usually built of veteran city attackers (swords/axes->maces-> grenadiers (upgraded) -> infantry), and siege equipment with other units as cover. I think, from reading around the forum, this is a pretty standard attacking stack.
The real problem with city raiders, is that on the defensive, they're just green recruits. So instead of taking cities, provided the men are the bookie's favourite when attacking cities (not unlikely with city raider 3 grenadiers versus rifles for example), its often better to stay outside the city, allowing the enemy to repeatedly reinforce it, before repeatedly killing all the defenders. you can either leave the last defender alive, or kill him with cavalry and pull back out. Obviously, you don't want to leave isolated units.
After the first defenders are destroyed, it should get easier, because their replacements will not get the +25% fortify bonus, and often are not proper defenders, but rather attacking units pressganged by necessity.
A medic is of course completely vital, as it allows your troops heal +15% a turn in enemy territory.
Also, the target city, the proverbial Verdun, should not be a defensive strong point (e.g. on a hill, across a river) and if possible, should have good defensive terrain to camp on outside it. A method of reinforcement or escape is nice!
Enough cover units may hold the city, but in the face of a large counter attack, your cover units may win the first battles, but are weakened and are no longer the best defender, then I find irreplaceable CRIII grenadiers defending against cavalry.
The advantages of this are
1) That the enemy will keep sending units to defend, which means they're not attacking.
2)Your units keep getting better with each victory, city raider III grenadiers, with combat I and pinch.
3) With luck, you get to stay on territory which provides a defensive bonus, whereas the city will offer you none for the first turns.
4) In addition your city raiders keep engaging on their terms, that is, attacking a city. +75% is a massive bonus, maces equal green rifles with it.
5) Often more defensible positions are weakened to provide new garrison troops, so a fortied infantry unit on a hill across a river sacrifices 75% defense bonus to go help out.
The obvious disadvantages are:
1) You're not making fast progress, when the city is only reinforced a small amount, you can move in and stay without fear of large counter attack, but this takes several turns.
2) Taking the city may be necessary to remove cultural border hindrance, or access to a resource vital to continued success.
This tactic is only really necessary when you're outnumbered, if you have the numerical advantage, you're better off pressing ahead and making ground.
Also, clearly this is principally a SP tactic, BUT I have used it successfully in MP, by repeatedly bombarding a city bombers, and attacking with amphibious tanks, killing lots of mech infantry that my foe kept trying to replace.
Thoughts?
My armies are usually built of veteran city attackers (swords/axes->maces-> grenadiers (upgraded) -> infantry), and siege equipment with other units as cover. I think, from reading around the forum, this is a pretty standard attacking stack.
The real problem with city raiders, is that on the defensive, they're just green recruits. So instead of taking cities, provided the men are the bookie's favourite when attacking cities (not unlikely with city raider 3 grenadiers versus rifles for example), its often better to stay outside the city, allowing the enemy to repeatedly reinforce it, before repeatedly killing all the defenders. you can either leave the last defender alive, or kill him with cavalry and pull back out. Obviously, you don't want to leave isolated units.
After the first defenders are destroyed, it should get easier, because their replacements will not get the +25% fortify bonus, and often are not proper defenders, but rather attacking units pressganged by necessity.
A medic is of course completely vital, as it allows your troops heal +15% a turn in enemy territory.
Also, the target city, the proverbial Verdun, should not be a defensive strong point (e.g. on a hill, across a river) and if possible, should have good defensive terrain to camp on outside it. A method of reinforcement or escape is nice!
Enough cover units may hold the city, but in the face of a large counter attack, your cover units may win the first battles, but are weakened and are no longer the best defender, then I find irreplaceable CRIII grenadiers defending against cavalry.
The advantages of this are
1) That the enemy will keep sending units to defend, which means they're not attacking.
2)Your units keep getting better with each victory, city raider III grenadiers, with combat I and pinch.
3) With luck, you get to stay on territory which provides a defensive bonus, whereas the city will offer you none for the first turns.
4) In addition your city raiders keep engaging on their terms, that is, attacking a city. +75% is a massive bonus, maces equal green rifles with it.
5) Often more defensible positions are weakened to provide new garrison troops, so a fortied infantry unit on a hill across a river sacrifices 75% defense bonus to go help out.
The obvious disadvantages are:
1) You're not making fast progress, when the city is only reinforced a small amount, you can move in and stay without fear of large counter attack, but this takes several turns.
2) Taking the city may be necessary to remove cultural border hindrance, or access to a resource vital to continued success.
This tactic is only really necessary when you're outnumbered, if you have the numerical advantage, you're better off pressing ahead and making ground.
Also, clearly this is principally a SP tactic, BUT I have used it successfully in MP, by repeatedly bombarding a city bombers, and attacking with amphibious tanks, killing lots of mech infantry that my foe kept trying to replace.
Thoughts?
)
