WAR ROOM -- "GENERALS ONLY"

[wargasm23]

hi,

your identification has been verified.

welcome to my WAR ROOM

this topic if for generals both newb and veteran to discuss some amazing new possiblilities in attacking and defending against enemy units.

all must POST and EXPLAIN why you chose that vote

have fun,

 

[Woody]

My favorite factors are not in that poll, more advanced technology and overwhelming numbers.

 

[Yzman]

I agree with woody. None of those really describe an offensive war.

 

[Shabbaman]

None of the above. Lame poll imho. There are two things that I try to take advantage of in an offensive war:

mobility and artillery

 

[warmonger]

numbers of superior units at the elite7vetran level is the crucial factor. Terrian helps but is part of the tactics not the overall strategy of "do I go now or not" Really helps if you have heaps of knights when everybody else has warriors.

 

[werdhertz]

Terrain is one of the biggest factors with me. I almost never cross plains, grasslands, desert, if im in a war. The AI seems to have an evil nack of always staging counter attacks at the worst possible moments

Another factor with me is opening up two fronts in an offensive war. I try to do this always, and if i myself cant, i try to get another Civ in the war that is on a seperate front.

To contradict what i just said, i also try and avoid getting other Civs into the war with military alliances as when i feel the need to call a peace treaty, i soemtimes have to wait up to 20 turns till the deal is over so i wont break it and ruin my reputation

Artillery is good to have as well, i almost always bring it alogn with me in war. Catapults less so than Cannons or Artillery.

Micro-managing my cities so they wont turn into a country of civil disorder I always remain in my goverment of choice while waging war, as i dont generally use religious civs and the time of anarchy hurts, so i have to micro-manage as much as possible.

Hmm, what else. Using sea fareing units to carry land units over on a seperate front to cause chaos and disorganization.

There are a ton of things, usually depending on the situation.

 

[Gothmog]

I use terrain extensively as well. Especially to cover troops going in for some pillaging.

I think it goes without saying that one should always have vet troops, I typically only build 4 or 5 normal troops in an entire game. I like elite troops but I don't wait around for them. Stacks of elite troops are the advantage of a militaristic civ.

I will also almost always go to war if I have a clear tech advantage but because I play at Diety this almost never happens, or only for a brief window.

I do like to use my SU, especially if it is an early game one (I need every edge I can get). This can be much like a tech advantage (immortals go through spears like butter).

As far as "do I go now or not", I usually don't decare war at all - I don't have to. Usually someone is trying to extort from me, or using my territory as a door mat - I don't respond well to those things.

The other factor not listed in the poll is the use of combined arms. This relates to both artillery and mobile units as well as the simple archer+spearman type combo's.

Overall though the most constant factor for me is using terrain thoughtfully on offence and defence.

 

[Hades]

Use offensive units to attack and defensive units to defend. Even in enemy terriroty, you need defensive units to defend your invasion forces.

 

[Lynx]

I find that terrain is your best ally, as while Vetrean/elite help, I cant help remembering countless times where rank ddint matter, and conscripts prevailed, moving on to become elite.Terrain can make the difference between long and slow advances or a ' Blitzkreig ' advance. you should avoid opponents on moutains except obviously obsolete units (MA against Knights or Spearmen).

 

[xavitor]

I went for terrain out of those options, a small force can hold off a much larger one with a simple line of mountains, often the AI won't attack because of the bad odds, I've had three units hold off a stack of 10 because the AI wanted to get to the city behind and wasn't willing to lose units to attack, so it wandered up and back for several turns before finally choosing a softer target (but still much stronger than the city they were first after.

 

[wargasm23]

some interesting viewpoints shared here,

i want to use the terrain bonuses more in my attacks. maybe that is why i lose advanced units to primitive computer units.

can someone help me?

thanks guys,

 

[Gothmog]

Hello wargasm23.

No offence about my comment on your other thread, you just sounded a little spaced out.

The basics of using terrain are simple - never attack someone in the mountains or over a river, hills aren't as bad but still to be avoided. Use the converse philosophy on defence, make them attack you over a river or on a mountain. A fortified spearman in the mountains will often take out an attacking knight then you could get promoted and gain a hit point furthur strengthening you. In fact the AI will often go around a fortified unit in the mountains. This will force them out into the open where they can be delt with more easily. Move defensive units along mountain ranges into enemy territory or to deny them mountainous positions near your cities. Go sit on their iron and pillage it, then wait for the counterattack. The most easily forgoten rule is never attack over rivers - I think the bonus is 50%. Thus turning a spearman into a piker - and this is cumulative with the fortified bonus (another 50% I think).

I hope that helps.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Gothmog
The most easily forgoten rule is never attack over rivers - I think the bonus is 50%. Thus turning a spearman into a piker - and this is cumulative with the fortified bonus (another 50% I think).

AFAIK, the bonus for defending an attack across a river is 25%. And don't you just take their defending score, do the multipliers and compare against your attacking score?

Also, I do attack lone spearmen on rivers or mountains if I have a few knights passing and I am at war. Sometimes you _have_ to attack as your units are all offensive and there is nothing but mountain between the enemy and your city you need to protect.

I don't like rules that say 'do this' or 'don't do that' because every game is unique. Generally, I agree though - you must not forget defensive bounses, and attacking on a mountain is _tough_.

 

[sabreX]

I have always found that terrain is one of the biggest factors in determining results of a battle, (large tech gaps asside i.e. tank vs spearman) but numbers is the next biggest factor. When I attack I always follow a rule of three, always have three attacking units for every defending unit. This is the bare minimum because you have to figure that the first unit to attack will be lost the second will probably die if not they will be in the red and the third to break thru. Of couse that's not figuring in the defensive units that you will want once you capture a city, of course you can just raze the city which works well too. I find if I don't want to bother with culture flipping during a campain I just raze the city and set up the workes as colonies on the resource square with a defensive unit. This works in later wars where the land is fully developed and you have a city connected to the now neutral roads.

So if you out number your opponent you shouldn't have much of a problem if your units are around the same tech level, but if you add artillery (cannon, catapult) then you can get by with fewer troops.

 

[wargasm23]

hey wood and yzman technology isn't everything i can personally testify to that civ3 is more than just teching and attacking. I used to send my super advanced army to be slaughtered by the tens to weaker enemy computer units.

I used to be in the majority of civ3 players who thought you could win just because you got a few legionaires and horsemen. Boy have i learned. I also JUST learned that you only work the amont of squares that the population icons are on. I used to develop everything around my city even though my population was only 3 HAHAHAH!! Now if i have a population of 3 I only work 3 squares then work on a temple to get more citizens.

One thing that bothers me is when my corruption is skyrocket at the begining of the game and i am a few techs from changing governemnts and masonry. It takes forever to make roads from your capitol to the troubled cities. I feel barracks should also help quench early levels of corruption too.

It is Unannymous Terrain Rules!!

 

[Gothmog]

Re anarres:

The river bonus may well be 25%, I am not sure, it sure feels like 50% sometimes . Is this in the rules somewhere? I am also not sure what your next comment means. "And don't you just take their defending score, do the multipliers and compare against your attacking score?". I certainly didn't mean to imply that you get an attacking bonus, only the defender gets the bonus. Thus, if the bonus were 50% then the defense value 2 spear becomes akin to a defense value 3 spear - or better if fortified or on a hill/mountain.

I too don't use any rule as an ultimate. As you say, context is everything. I will certainly not let an enemy pillage my only Iron if I have any chance to stop him. Even if it means attacking over a river onto a mountain. But I will try to make sure that I have a defender there before he does. I was just trying to cover "the basics". My guess is I didn't say anything you didn't already know.

Re wargasm23: Sounds like you are learning well. One comment - you don't necessarily need a temple to grow even if you don't have luxuries try using your happiness slider.

 

[Woody]

hey wood and yzman technology isn't everything i can personally testify to that civ3 is more than just teching and attacking. I used to send my super advanced army to be slaughtered by the tens to weaker enemy computer units

I tend to play my games as a builder/warmonger, I build my cities and infrastructure as peaceful as possible, but when I discover a tech that reveals a resource (iron/saltpeter/horses/etc), I will wage a war if needed to aquire at least two or three sources of that resource, hopeful leaving some of the AI without that resource. Also when I first get the tech that give me a new offensive unit (swordsman/knight/calvary/tanks/modern armor) I will scout out my neighbors to see if I can use that new unit to my advantage in a quick war.

Civ III is a lot more than "teching and attacking" but war in Civ III is only about using the right units in the right numbers at the right time.

 

[Yzman]

Originally posted by wargasm23
hey wood and yzman technology isn't everything i can personally testify to that civ3 is more than just teching and attacking. I used to send my super advanced army to be slaughtered by the tens to weaker enemy computer units.

I used to be in the majority of civ3 players who thought you could win just because you got a few legionaires and horsemen. Boy have i learned. I also JUST learned that you only work the amont of squares that the population icons are on. I used to develop everything around my city even though my population was only 3 HAHAHAH!! Now if i have a population of 3 I only work 3 squares then work on a temple to get more citizens.

One thing that bothers me is when my corruption is skyrocket at the begining of the game and i am a few techs from changing governemnts and masonry. It takes forever to make roads from your capitol to the troubled cities. I feel barracks should also help quench early levels of corruption too.

It is Unannymous Terrain Rules!!

Believe me, playing on emporer, I know that those are not the only things that come into effect. But the effects are large. I was merely saying that the options in your poll are more for a denfensive war, not really an offensive one. Knowing how to combine troops is probably the most important thing, such as infantry, calvary with some artillery for a defensive war. But you will see that having superior tech, production, and troop numbers is the real key to winning wars in this game. You could use the best strategies ever, but if you have 10 horsemen against their infantry, even with artillery, you will still not win.

 

[gugalpm]

Specialty Unit... Legionnaires in mine hands are invincible...

 

[MSGT John Drew]

My wars begin from the very beginning of the game - at 4000 BC - when I decide how to build my core of 5-6 cities - militaristic traits - and production values -- then during the strategic resource gathering phase when iron and horse resources need to be scouted and taken. If a majority of the above fits then I'll build those 5-6 cities first then shift all production to military units -- spearmen + swordsmen + horsemen + UUs(if able) -- and in that order with a little variance every now and then.

My civilization expansion will then come from conquest.

EDIT: I still need to see how to use Archers. I know they're good (maybe) but I really can't fit them into my strategies. Maybe when I start using them then I can take off 900 years off my early conquest victories.