war

[wijnand]

Hello,

I played a game with civ3 (ancient mediterenean) and everything worked out well. I am on a iceland and have like 20 villages and 2 other people have only a few on that same iceland. Well I wanted to take over a village of them and went with 14 units (with 7 archers and 7 palitans or something)... in that city there where only 2 palitans...

All my 14 units where killed when I attacked.. how is that possible? Or better: How can I take over the city? Is it possible to 'combine' an army so your attack goes up pretty badly because now I have to attack with my units 1 by 1...

Are there some tricks or things I must know for taking over a city?

Gr,
Wijnand

 

[Snarkhunter]

Hello,

I played a game with civ3 (ancient mediterenean) and everything worked out well. I am on a iceland and have like 20 villages and 2 other people have only a few on that same iceland. Well I wanted to take over a village of them and went with 14 units (with 7 archers and 7 palitans or something)... in that city there where only 2 palitans...

All my 14 units where killed when I attacked.. how is that possible? Or better: How can I take over the city? Is it possible to 'combine' an army so your attack goes up pretty badly because now I have to attack with my units 1 by 1...

Are there some tricks or things I must know for taking over a city?

Gr,
Wijnand

bombard units always help you deal with the vagaries of the RNG (pseudo-random number generator)--if you can knock the defenders down to 1 HP apiece, you don't have to win as many battles. I take it you are in the ancient age, so your bombard units would be catapults.

Veteran units have one more HP than regulars, and elites 1 more than vets. Either use the regulars to try to knock off HPs for your vets, to give them an even better chance, or tackle the defenders with vets up front to maximize the survival chances for everyone. (You get vets either by building a barracks in a city that makes units or by winning combats with regulars; elites, only by winning combats with vets.)

If archers aren't working for you, try to get swordsmen, with 1 extra attack point. Or use horsemen, since they have a chance to retreat when they get down to their last HP, meaning more of your army survives longer. Don't attack across a river, that helps the defender.

Those are quick ideas, there are refinements. If you post a save of the situation, the experts here can see exactly what is going on in your game.

kk

 

[Spoonwood]

Does the game referenced have swords and horsemen?

 

[wijnand]

Hi,

I have found it... you must charge with chairots/horseman and bezerks and stuff like that...

Thanks for the answers..

 

[Aabraxan]

Also, what is a palitan? If that's a spearman, then you shouldn't be attacking with them. Every military unit has a series of numbers after the name. Most of them look like this: 1.2.1. Those are Attack.Defense.Movement. A spearman is a 1.2.1 unit. 1 Attack, 2 Defense, 1 Move. That means it's a better defender than attacker. By comparison, a swordsman is 3.2.1, a better attacker than defender. Fast units, which have a movement of 2 or greater, have a chance of retreating from slow units.

Edited to add: Oh, yeah, and welcome to CFC!

 

[Sparthage]

Swordsmen are the best unit to use in the ancient age if you don't have a UU for the age.

Also, welcome to CFC!

 

[Catma]

I am wondering if swordsmen are really better than horsemen. Whether units have one or two or three attack (or defense) really doesn't seem to matter, but higher movement points and the ability to retreat (and heal) definitely do.

The proper way to fight a war on roughly equal technological ground seems to be to produce, and preserve as many units as possible, without much regard to type necessarily, and throw them at cities until they fall. Does anyone know the probability of retreat? Then again, I suppose that doesn't matter either, except in figuring out which method is playing the odds.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I am wondering if swordsmen are really better than horsemen. Whether units have one or two or three attack (or defense) really doesn't seem to matter, but higher movement points and the ability to retreat (and heal) definitely do.

The proper way to fight a war on roughly equal technological ground seems to be to produce, and preserve as many units as possible, without much regard to type necessarily, and throw them at cities until they fall. Does anyone know the probability of retreat?

Swordsmen versus horsemen is a good debate. One concern with horsemen is the one defense. If it retreats from an attack, it still needs cover. If you have ivory, the Statue of Zeus ancient cavalry is 3-2-2 with an extra hitpoint. Best of both worlds, but it does require ivory and the time taken to build the Statue of Zeus. I usually try for it if I have ivory. You get one every 5 turns.

Probability of retreat is 50%.

 

[Catma]

50%?! That's quite higher than I expected. I do believe that tears it, I'm gonna have to try using just horsemen for attacking and see how that works. It is very hard to quantify the benefits of the additional movement point, and in addition to a 50% chance to walk away from ANY battle, whether superior or inferior, is just awesome. If they decide to finish off your unit, that is two enemy units that have been tied up for that turn. With maneuvering you can set yourself up to run to the clear after assaulting a city.

Bah, but horsemen are horrible units for escorting artillery. Hmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Bucephalus]

.

Probability of retreat is 50%.

I believe that was changed 1/3 in Conquests.

 

[Spoonwood]

I agree swords/horses comes as a good debate.

The proper way to fight a war on roughly equal technological ground seems to be to produce, and preserve as many units as possible, without much regard to type necessarily, and throw them at cities until they fall. Does anyone know the probability of retreat? Then again, I suppose that doesn't matter either, except in figuring out which method is playing the odds.

Given such a preservation principle as correct, then we'd want to use units which stay around the longest. Horses upgrade to knights (for almost every tribe), which have better defense than medieval infantry and can retreat. So the "new horse" unit stays around longer than the "new sword" unit. On top of this, knights/horses upgrade to cavalry, while medieval infantry need to wait until guerrilas for an upgrade. So, even though training horses may have disadvantages in the short run, in the long run, training horses signficiantly ends up more effective (given the proper resources, of course). My experience with higher levels also comes as that you don't have all that much time to do much, if any, warring in the ancient age. Usually you won't fight much until knights and cavalry.

And that's my take. What do you think?

 

[CKS]

On top of this, knights/horses upgrade to cavalry, while medieval infantry need to wait until guerrilas for an upgrade.

On lower levels in a fast research game, there likely won't be any waiting involved, though. Both chivalry and military tradition are optional techs, so in a fast research game, I won't research them myself; I'll wait for the AI to do it. In a recent game on monarch, I'd made it through atomic theory and combustion before anyone learned military tradition. Chivalry came in about the same time as rails.

For a military win, I do think horse units are the way to go unless you like modern wars.

 

[Catma]

Between the steadier upgrade path and the fact that tech can be rushed, and knights or cavalry skipped entirely (on lower levels only?), horse units seem geared towards conflict in which you're on an even footing, or behind the enemy. If you are ahead in an early conflict, it may be convenient to use swords to finish it more quickly at perhaps greater expense. Especially if it looks like you might be able to get a continent-type area secured between swords and medieval infantry. Once you win the conflict quickly you can rush the tech to modern era.

If on the other hand you need every advantage you can get over a long-term, early/middle age slog, horse units seem to provide more utility over such a period.

Are either horses or iron more common than the other? Valued more highly by the AI?

 

[Hellfiredoom]

Swords and horsemen aren't mutually exclusive. I use a blend of both to maximize power and mobility (though I do favor mobile units no matter which Age I'm in).

 

[Spoonwood]

Swords and horsemen aren't mutually exclusive.

Sure... butin a debate on swords vs. horses you have to regard them as such.

 

[Equatore]

Horsemen are better on field, swordsmen are better in capturing cities.

 

[GamezRule]

They are both useless without catapults though.

 

[Sparthage]

I must disagree. Though useful in preserving units, catapults and artillery are hardly necessary for taking a city. However, they do make it much easier to kill their units.