First into battle?

MattH · April 24, 2003, 21:34

What unts do you throw into battle first- and where do they go?
I tend to attack first with regular/obsolete (if any) units, then veteran. I always try to capture cities with elites. I can, however, see a benefit in attacking with elites first and then going for the kill with veterans. If you have more elites, the second option seems to be the best for creating GL's.

Also, how do you normally flank a city? I usually sacrifice a couple units usefullness for 1 or 2 turns to cut of reinforcements. Would it be better for there to be no need for flanking operation (greater loss of life)?

vmxa1 · April 24, 2003, 23:01

There are too many variables for a simple answer.
What is the size of the the town, what type of defenders, what units do I have for the attack? Is the town connected to any other cities and by what means (road/RR). Do I have bombardment units? Do I have to fight across a river?
I am unlikely to use any units as sacrificial unless I have a reason to believe it will work. IOW if I a situation such as they have a spearmen in a size 2 town and I have 2 units (say a vet warrior and a regular warrior), then I may toss the regular at the spearmen. This may not be a good example, but you get teh point.

Cruddy · April 24, 2003, 23:08

I almost never have obsolete units to commit - they're nearly always disbanded or upgraded. I never build regulars except by mistake (DOH! I was sure that place had a barracks...). Just a big stack of vets usually, and the first thing to attack is... artillery!

The AI rarely has the opportunity to reinforce - when I go in, it's to win quickly. It might take a turn or two to get through the cultural border, but if I can't take a city every other turn then I'm not really trying...

I subscribe to the Colin Powell theory of armies, that is overwhelming force. I doubt, however, it would work too well against human opponents.

Sometimes, if my manufacturing base isn't the best, I'll build up conscripts (use them to finish off the wounded). In the short term I lose the probability of a few great leaders, but in the long term I end up with a better army. The usual scenario is a defensive war against a huge opponent (Persians most often).

bongo · April 25, 2003, 06:48

I generally avoid using obsolete/weak units as cannon-fodder. Especially when fighting miltaristic civs. Sending cavalry before your tanks to soften up defenders will eventually backfire when the enemy infantry gets promoted.

Don Giovanni · April 25, 2003, 07:43

Usually I try to avoid regular units altogether (only units upgraded from regular warriors, built by accident, or built with the purpose of disbanding!).

I also preserve my elites for easy kills. Why ?

Consider this very over-simplistic example:

A veteran tank and an elite tank have to fight two consecutive identical battles. If the veteran wins twice, it will be promoted. Let the probability of each vet victory be 75%, and 85% for the elite. Let the chance of generating a leader be 1/16. Then consider the outcomes:

O1: Both survive - vet is upgraded and the elite doesn't generate a leader (prob: 0.75*0.75*(15/16)*(15/16) = 0.4944)
O2: Both get killed - and no leader (prob: (1-0.85) + 0.85*(15/16)*0.15 = 0.2695)
O3: All other outcomes. (prob: 0.2361)

The first two outcomes represent a slight advantage if you choose the veteran to engage in battle - you will either get one veteran promoted or only lose one veteran, when you would otherwise lose an elite).

The rest of the outcomes represent a significant advantage if you choose the elite - you end up with at least one more unit (tank or leader).

If you alter the probabilities of the vet (first column) and elite (second column) victory you get the probability of O3 below (third column):

85% 95% 27%
75% 85% 24%
65% 75% 20%
55% 65% 17%
45% 55% 14%
35% 45% 11%
25% 35% 8%
15% 25% 5%
5% 15% 3%

These results suggest that the lower the probability of victory the more you should use veterans instead of elite units. I know this example is very simplistic, and the probabalities are arbitrary, but I think it's useful anyway. The big undecided issue is of course: What is the value of a promotion, or a leader ? Well, that depends!

Arrian · April 25, 2003, 10:22

I tend to lead with veteran fastmovers and finish with either footsloggers or any elite units (fastmover or footslogger) I've got. Occasionally, though, I may lead with elites. It depends.

The exception to the "lead with vet horsies" rule of thumb is if I'm facing enemy fastmovers in a good defensive position (horsies on hills/mts, Impi, etc). Then I probably lead with vet footsloggers to make sure I win.

I almost never use regular attack troops.

-Arrian

TheArsenal · April 25, 2003, 17:28

Depends on a ton of factors. The most important being, is this war on my terms or the AI's? If the AI attacks first, anything can happen. The second is where I sit on the tech tree in relation to other civs.

But, on my terms - and I'm generalizing here - I build huge numbers of horse mounted units (and, if needed for cross water invasions, early sea transports), upgrade them to Calvary the very second I get MT, and go to war. If all goes well, the AI is overwhelmed enough that I can fortify cities with wounded units not fearing a counter-attack, and wait for the more defensive slow movers and cannons to come up from the rear to take over garrison duty. In a planned battle such as this, the great majority of my units will have come from cities with barracks. And all units on the edge of the attack are veterans.

Obsolete units sit garrisoned in my territory, to be upgraded if they are needed defensively in case I'm attacked.

MattH · April 25, 2003, 18:04

I agree with Arsenal- the action really depends on circumstances. If I have to fight a heavily defended city with not enough artillery, any regular units will perish first. I usually use veterans to whittle the defense down and elites finish the job. Smaller cities are used as 'promotion factories'- the veteran units are sent there to become elite. Of course, once you're in the MA and have an army factory, there is not much need for this type of strategy (warmonger only).

TheArsenal · April 25, 2003, 18:42

OT a bit, but this talk of attacking has me thinking:

I don't know if this was discussed before I arrived, but I think it would be interesting to give the Last Standing City of a nation the ability to "fight for its life". Meaning, a civ down to one city, would get a massively formidable defensive bonus, provided it had no active settlers on the map.

Yes, I know, throw it in the warehouse over there stacked to the roof with "ideas I'd like to see, but most likely never will".

peterfharris · April 28, 2003, 00:56

An AI civ down to its' last city is stuffed anyway. I notice that if the AI has only one city it will never build improvements. This means if there is no where for it to send a settler it will build nothing but units and periodically disband a unit when it can't afford the upkeep and that is all it will do. Without improvements the civ falls backward really fast. A defensive bonus on a useless unit is not worth much, just delays the agony.

HAND · April 28, 2003, 13:09

The times I attack are probably later in the game..probably industrious age...with Tanks(its too hard with Cavalry attacking fortified Riflemen in cities/fortresses) before the enemy get Civil defence. I switch to total war to pump out Tanks by the bucket load!

MattH · April 28, 2003, 16:39

Tanks- not quite the howitzers of CIV II™

bongo · April 28, 2003, 17:22

They work well once you place them in armies though.

TheArsenal · April 28, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by peterfharris
An AI civ down to its' last city is stuffed anyway. I notice that if the AI has only one city it will never build improvements. This means if there is no where for it to send a settler it will build nothing but units and periodically disband a unit when it can't afford the upkeep and that is all it will do. Without improvements the civ falls backward really fast. A defensive bonus on a useless unit is not worth much, just delays the agony.

No question. An AI down to one city is at your mercy. No expert here, but I find at this point the AI is defending with some fairly weak units, since it seems to throw everything half way worthwhile into offense. What I had in mind is more conceptual than an actual defensive asset to a dying civ: a nation fighting for its life. It would be interesting making it a bit harder to destroy a nation than to take an earlier city with the same defensive posture. Even if "harder" turned out not to mean much in the scheme of things.