War strategy
- Thread starter ALA Gator
- Start date
Like most things in Civ, it depends. In general hitting the core is best, but it is not the easiest and often is not in range. Hitting the core is especially useful, when they are fairly strong.
It makes their being able to response much harder as they lose their production core.
It makes their being able to response much harder as they lose their production core.
psweetman1590
Emperor
If you're in republic or democracy, often the most efficient way to completely wipe out another civ is to go straight for the core. Just like in a bar fight, you want to hit the guy where it's going to hurt most so that he can't hit back. After you take out the core, the rest is going to be a walk in the park.
However, as VMXA said, sometimes it's not in range, or you don't have the strength needed to go straight for the jugular vein. Although in that case, I'd rather not fight at that point, as it would most likely be a losing battle. If you can't afford to take the core when you're at your strongest, how are you going to be able to after sustaining losses from taking the periphery?
However, as VMXA said, sometimes it's not in range, or you don't have the strength needed to go straight for the jugular vein. Although in that case, I'd rather not fight at that point, as it would most likely be a losing battle. If you can't afford to take the core when you're at your strongest, how are you going to be able to after sustaining losses from taking the periphery?
In many cases, the core will have the city defense bonus, plus 3 defenders; while the periphery will have no bonus defense, and only 1 or 2 defenders. This make for low losses if using cats to redline.
I don't like attacking the core immediately because AI fast units will be ambushing me via roads, from the fog of war. I'd rather take a small town to draw out AI offensive units, and attack them on my newly aquired land, giving me the movement advantage.
You may choose to not attack the core, even while very strong. I do this often, when all I want to do is expand safely and I am not concerned about them using their core.
Just like a constrictor, just keep squeezing them. I may be do it for fun or I may be more concerned about other civs and I do not want them to have a chance to hit me.
I would more inclined to go for the core, if I was not so strong. I then want them to be less able to recover and counter.
Just like a constrictor, just keep squeezing them. I may be do it for fun or I may be more concerned about other civs and I do not want them to have a chance to hit me.
I would more inclined to go for the core, if I was not so strong. I then want them to be less able to recover and counter.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
it depends. On low levels, I just go where I want.
On medium high levels, I let them come to me to take out as much of their stack as a I can on my terms (to reduce weariness), then I drive to the core.
On high levels, I usually wait to weather the storm, then pick them off a town at a time, usually with an ally attacking them from the other side if i can get it.
On medium high levels, I let them come to me to take out as much of their stack as a I can on my terms (to reduce weariness), then I drive to the core.
On high levels, I usually wait to weather the storm, then pick them off a town at a time, usually with an ally attacking them from the other side if i can get it.
I always attack in two places. In this case, the eastern side is close to the core and the western side is the frontier area and the two areas are separated by a large inland sea. My civ is all the way around this sea with the Egyptians at both ends. I have railroads between both ends so I can go back and forth with ease
I think I should concentrate on the core first but it will be slower than the periphery because the cities are huge
Good thing I have lots and lots of artillery!! An of course I will use some takns to keep them honest on the other end...
Aramazd
Deity
I attack the core if I want to destroy a civ. If I just want some more cities, I take the ones I want.
ecuwins
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,315
Whether I hit the core or not I go for a 2 pronged attack. The AI is really bad at splitting up its troops. Take 2 cities and raze them -- it is good to already have some settlers built and on the way. Now if the battles went well I will maintain my 2 battle groups. If the battles went bad I will fall back, consolidate my forces, and redeploy with one big mean nasty stack.
MAS
Deity
I start with the cities closest to me and move the front line forward. From one side to the other.
If the core happens to be nearby It will thus go down earlier, but if the core is on the other side, it will end up going down later.
If my target is on an other continent and it doesn't make much difference what cities are closer to me, I'll of course take the location of the core into consideration, preferably taking it earlier, rather than later. But its not significantly more important than other considerations.
If the core happens to be nearby It will thus go down earlier, but if the core is on the other side, it will end up going down later.
If my target is on an other continent and it doesn't make much difference what cities are closer to me, I'll of course take the location of the core into consideration, preferably taking it earlier, rather than later. But its not significantly more important than other considerations.
Queen of Swords
Not a cheesy TV show
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2006
- Messages
- 75
I like to take out strategic resources. For instance, if the only rubber source the enemy has is near their capital, and I can be sure they aren't obtaining it anywhere else, and I don't yet have flight, I'll send in a force of a few infantry and a couple of cavs. Maybe an artillery or two as well if I can spare them. Especially if the infantry can keep to high ground, the AI is unlikely to attack them. With each step forward, the infantry protect the stack while the cavalry slip out, pillage and slip back in. I was waging war against England in my latest game, and I wiped the land clean around London, shrank the city down from 12 to 6, disconnected their rubber and dyes and finally parked the stack on a nearby mountain so I could keep adding cavalry to it until the time came to conquer London.
It only works once because it will ruin your reputation, but it works excellently:
Sign a ROP, move strong troops next to your enemies core cities (or mounted units in between with the range to reach 2/3 cities) and ROP rape your victim.
Hold the core cities long enough (4-5 turns) to get peripheral cities in the peace treaty.
Usually you do this if you want to achieve a domination or conquest victory.
PS: Sign 2 or 3 ROPS, because in the 20 turns they last (the AIs will definitely not renew them) you may have the chance to repeat the process with another civ.
Sign a ROP, move strong troops next to your enemies core cities (or mounted units in between with the range to reach 2/3 cities) and ROP rape your victim.
Hold the core cities long enough (4-5 turns) to get peripheral cities in the peace treaty.
Usually you do this if you want to achieve a domination or conquest victory.
PS: Sign 2 or 3 ROPS, because in the 20 turns they last (the AIs will definitely not renew them) you may have the chance to repeat the process with another civ.
seanos08
Monarch
I usually take cities that I want ie. the closest ones or those with res or lux. i don't go for the core before taking all the cities on the way so I can use their roads and RR.
