What to do about Infantry...

[guyb]

In my game now my local rivals, the Iroquis, have just discovered the Infantry. I have it now as well but the problem is my Cavalry is just nowhere near as effective an attacking force as it previously has been (as I found out to my cost).

The balance of power is about shifted now, following a continent wide draft but what attacking options can I utilise against Infantry? (I have artillary and am researching Steel)

 

[DiamondzAndGunz]

Build tons of artillery. Use them to bomb down the infantry, preferably all to 1 HP or so, and then just attack using your own infantry/cavalry. Since you bombed them all down, you shouldn't be losing too many units. Use this strategy up to when you get tanks.

 

[billindenver]

Originally posted by DiamondzAndGunz
Build tons of artillery. Use them to bomb down the infantry, preferably all to 1 HP or so, and then just attack using your own infantry/cavalry. Since you bombed them all down, you shouldn't be losing too many units. Use this strategy up to when you get tanks.

Artillery is the ticket. Build 10-100. Move them all two squares from the nearest AI city along with 3-4 infantry to protect them. Blast away at the city until the city size is 6 or less and every defender has 1 hp left. Your cavalry will mop them up after that (or infantry).

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

Originally posted by DiamondzAndGunz
Use this strategy up to when you get tanks.

Why stop after you get tanks? Artillery is even better in some ways with tanks.

Tanks have a blitz attack, and any unit that wins twice in the same turn is automatically promoted. If you bombard everything down to 1 hit point, your veteran tanks can easily defeat two enemies in one turn taking zero or minimal damage. With a good amount of artillery support you can easily have dozens of elite tanks which means more opportunities for great leaders.

Also, once you get to tanks, the AI is likely to have cities with over 12 population. You want to bombard them back down to 12, or even better 6 or 1, to reduce the AI's defensive bonuses.

 

[DiamondzAndGunz]

I didn't mean to stop using artillery once you get tanks- sorry if you misunderstood. I just meant to stop using infantry and cavalry to attack, and build up your tanks to attack with. I know that artillery is useful throughout the game, sorry if I made that unclear.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

Ah, that makes much more sense. No point in attacking with cavalry if you've got tanks instead.

 

[Emperor550]

This is just me, but after I get tanks (Panzers more specifically) artillery loses some of its bite for me. Once I've taken the border cities and can no longer bomb cities from my territory, artillery is too slow. IMHO. With my Panzers, I was able to reach the gates of Rome in 2 turns. But if I had moved my Panzers and artillery at the same speed going on my enemys tiles without roads (atleast roads I can benefit from) it would of took atleast like 7 turns. Since by now most of my cities are producing Panzers in 1 to 2 turns anyways, so I think its worth a few more destroyed tanks than waiting so long for all that artillery to arrive.

Unless of course your facing a city with 15 plus people and tons of fortified units.

 

[Arutha]

... if it move along railways.

Just don't destroy all enemy railways, and keep lots of workers moving along with your forces.
Also, when you get to tanks, you can supplement your artillery with a bomber fleet.

 

[Speaker]

I find it amazing how people underestimate the power of artillery. Most cities along cultural borders are not more than 3 tiles away, so you can move a huge stack of artillery supported by infantry onto the first tile of enemy territory, at the same time as you move your tanks into position (on high ground) if need be. The next turn, you bombard the city to rubble, use each tank to attack and win twice (and thus promote to elite), and sack the city with ease. Tanks only move 2 squares anyways, so they don't outrun artillery at all.

 

[civ_steve]

You can also use a Settler to build a city on the border. Since no city can use the tiles 2 spaces out diagonally, place your new city so it's 1 space culture overlaps one of these diagonal tiles, and you can now move your artillery and tanks into position the same turn. (This is assuming everyone has railroads where you can use them; bring lots of workers if that's not the case and upgrade as you go.)

 

[Speaker]

That is another strategy, however it is considered an exploit by some, myself included, so I do not use it. It definitely works though.

 

[Gothmog]

Hey Speaker, didn't we do that in LK38?

I guess it is a minor exploit only in that the AI doesn't do it, but I didn't think it was a RBC exploit, is it?

 

[billindenver]

Originally posted by Speaker
That is another strategy, however it is considered an exploit by some, myself included, so I do not use it. It definitely works though.

I consider it an exploit and don't do it. I don't mind waiting one extra turn to move my arty into position. I also don't pillage with explorers.

 

[peace_frog]

I don't understand how people conduct warfare without artillery in the industrial age. I can't watch my troops commit mass suicide bouncing off of fortified infantry in a city. These are my people...

I do agree with the emperor that artillery become more cumbersome when you get MA (or if germany as early as the pnazer wich also has a 3 move radius.) I am willing to wait a turn or two to get the artillery in range. But if you are invading a cultural power like Babylon, non border cities may have as many as 5 squares to go through. (why the AI builds so far apart I'll never know but that is another story) That translates into waiting 4 turns for your artillery and I like to keep my wars short.

The only replacement I can find is stealth bombers and they are so damn expensive. It hurts to give up two MA for one stealth. This is why I usually go for the space race or UN. Modern warfare gets tedious fast.

 

[Shillen]

You can also eliminate their rubber supply. Riflemen are easy to kill. I have no clue why infantry need rubber though but that's besides the point. No rubber = no infantry, no mech infantry, no tanks, no modern armor. If you're ever going for conquest or domination victory take away all rubber supplies first and it'll be so much easier.

 

[Speaker]

Hey Speaker, didn't we do that in LK38?

If I recall, we landed settlers and then used them to create beachheads. This, however, is different. I think it falls under the "Throwaway Cities" exploit, which is defined as this:

"With the addition of the "Abandon City" feature, it is now possible to use settlers to indefinitely extend your cultural reach on any given turn. Given enough settlers, you can gain an effective RoP Rape without need for the RoP, by capturing or settling, moving a setter one tile further in, abandoning the old city, founding a new one, rinse and repeat. This is an unfortunate side effect of an otherwise reasonable and useful new option. To prevent the defeat of enemy zones of cultural control via throwaway cities, a number of prohibitions are now necessary: 1) You may not abandon a city on the same turn you capture it. 2) You may not abandon any captured city with active resisters remaining. 3) You are strictly prohibited from moving settlers into or through the territory of ANY city you intend to abandon. What you ARE allowed to do is to raze or abandon a city, let cultural borders adjust, then you can move the settlers through if you wish, coping with the enemy's cultural control zones."

 

[Bloog]

You also can blast your throw-away settlement with your own artillery. Takes a bit more settles, though .

 

[Gothmog]

Thanks for the quote Speaker.
I still think what civ_steve said is in a grey area. If I understand what he said correctly he was advocating settling a city right outside the enemies territory so as to grab a space that is two squares from the city center, but outside the cities 21 squares (i.e. 2 squares North, South, East or West of the city). Now you own a square that is close enough to bombard the city with Arti and have tanks attack in 1 turn (assuming there is a road there already). I don't think that counts as an Throwaway Cities exploit does it? Especially if one intends to keep the city and raze the enemy one. I do this myself on occasion (really just to use my tanks, I don't use stacks of Arti unless I am coming from behind - I find it a bit crude), it would be no harder to wait one more turn to attack (but I'm impatient that way). I'm just not seeing the exploit. In fact the AI will settle in this position, just not for the explicit purpose of gaining a square to attack with tanks in one turn.

I think you are correct that it was beachhead cities in LK38 and they weren't abandoned. Nor were the closest Korean cities, which leads to my next question. What if you found a city inside the enemies territory, take the nearest city, and then keep both? That is effectively the same as the beachheads we used in LK38, is that a RBC exploit? I would say that is more of an exploit than what civ_steve advocates above.

Edit: I know you aren't the final authority or anything, I'm really just interested and trying to engage you in debate.

 

[Woody]

I don't understand how people conduct warfare without artillery in the industrial age. I can't watch my troops commit mass suicide bouncing off of fortified infantry in a city. These are my people...

My theory is that by not building artillery/bombers I can have anywhere from 50%-100% more fast attack units. Since I always have vetern or better units it is likely that they will retreat even when loosing so actually loses are not great. With only fast units you can blitzkrieg across the map and not have to wait for the one movement artillery to move into postion. This really helps keep war weariness down so you can stay in democracy for most wars.

 

[Speaker]

What if you found a city inside the enemies territory, take the nearest city, and then keep both? That is effectively the same as the beachheads we used in LK38, is that a RBC exploit? I would say that is more of an exploit than what civ_steve advocates above.

I don't really see that as an exploit. I see the exploit as using founded cities on the periphery of cultural borders to push back the borders. This operates under the assumption that you have established cities bordering theirs, so the newly-founded city on the border is nothing more than a throwaway. Why would you otherwise found a new city two tiles away from an already existing one unless doing some serious ICS?