 |
|  |
 |
|
pcasey
|
|
I have to confess that I'm a bit of a pacifist turtle in these types of games. I keep my head down, farm my patch of ground until I get a technological lead, and then expand and conquer the world. So I come to CIV III with my own set of biases, but with that said ...
I've been playing some with military conquest as my goal and I'm having to rethink my initial assumptions. Specifically, I've sort of come to the conclusion that *conquest* doesn't work. I don't mean a military win doesn't work, I mean that *razing* is the way to go.
1) I can realistically only use about 20% of the map. After that, cities are so far away from my palace or forbidden palace that they're utterly useless as anything except pop-rush farms and I think pop rushing is sort of tedious.
2) Taking big cities from an enemy is bloody hard b/c of the resistance factor. Through experimentation, I've found that if I keep one non bombard/non air unit in the city per population point I can prevent the city reverting. Still, thats 25 modern armor in a lot of cases. Do you know what else I could be doing with 25 modern armor?
3) If a city is going to be useless anyway, and its going to cost me 25 modern armor for 3 turns to whip it into shape, why take it? I can just raze it and take 5 cities the next turn with my armor and raze them too.
It just seems to me that CIV III makes conquest per se difficult because of the culture reversion thing, and pretty useless because of the crazy way corruption ramps up. So why fight the tide? Burn everything to the ground. Its faster, and its not like you lose out on the production you might have gotten from the city anyway.
Oh, one other comment.
I *love* the religious trait. I can play peace in democracy all the time and drop to communisim whenever I'm in a way without a serious produciton hit. This is way more useful than militaristic in my opinion.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pedders
|
|
Aberdeen, Scotland
Nov 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
That's right. Most people conclude that you want to keep the city, not the native population
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Moonsinger
|
|
I raze only cities that are closed to each other. If I'm in Depotism, I would use the citizen to hurry up the temple, library, coliseum, university, and so on. The bigger size of the captured city, the better. By the time, I'm done with it (normally within 3 turns), a size 12 cities would become a size 3 cities. If I'm in Democracy, I would pay to hurry up a temple, a library, and and so on. Under a democracy government, I would normally generate more than 1500 golds per turn anyway, so purchasing a brand new library or a temple is really no big deal. Beside, you can always let them die of hunger which would bring the city size down to any size you want.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pcasey
|
|
I run all my wars in communism, so I've definately gone down the conquer and pop rush road, but I honestly find I'm better off razing the city and found a new one. Here's why.
To conquery and pop rush a city down to a manageable size I have to garrison it for, say, 3 turns until the resistance ends run a constant risk it'll revert back to its home civ, even after resistance is over.
Then it'll take me 3 turns and 15 population to get a temple, library, and cathedal build. I end up with a size 3 city with some improvements about 80% of the time and a size 8 revolting city I have to reconquer 20% of the time.
If instead I raze it and found a new city on its site, I have no garrison requirement, and inside of 6 turns I'll have a size 3 or 4 city of my own people, albeit without improvements.
I just don't think its worth the garrison requirement and revolt risk to try to pop-rush a captured city down to a manageable size. I seem to do much better just razing the city, founding a new one if its close enough to a palace to be worth the trouble, and moving my assault force onward. No messy garrison requirements, no risk of reversion, and I'll have a good sized city in that site in a few years anyway since the whole surrounding area will be farmed and railroaded already...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MarshalN
|
|
I think it depends on what period you're talking in. In the ancient era, razing and then rebuilding costs a lot in terms of production/population. If your culture is semi-decent, you should be able to keep the city since in the ancient era you shouldn't be way off your continent attacking anyway.
Later on though, I think I agree that razing is the way to go. Otherwise it's too expensive (the opportunity cost of 25 modern armour sitting there) and too risky.
Which brings a slight problem -- if you're conquering for resources, you HAVE to bring a settler along or you might be waging a war for nothing when the city defects 10 turns later.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pcasey
|
|
If you're the first one to cavalry, I agree that you're crazy not to rush an AI civ. Its just too good an opportunity to miss.
Don't miss out in an ancient era rush though. Depending on your play style I find horsemen and war chariots work wonders against anyone except the greeks (dratted hoplites).
Or you could just do swordsman/legionaries/immortals, but they can't retreat like the faster units so don't usually work as well imho.
For better or for worse, I'm a born again rusher in civiii. Kinda makes me sad actually as it sort of ruins the game that there are certain key technologies that if you get first, let you get a free rush off.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gnomos
|
|
I'm currently playing the second tournament, 8 civs standard 80% water archipelago, monarch. we're well into industrial, and I'm still playing despotism BY CHOICE and loving it.
At first I thought I'd switch to communism, but at this point I don't want to put up with 5-6 turns of non-production. Anyway, when I conquer a city, I look at all that population as free improvements. I dump a pile of units in the city to quel resistors in 1 turn. Typically I get one shield built for that, which halves the cost of a build.
I then just crack the whip, baby. Free improvements. Pop rush a temple, a granary, a barracks, a harbor, units, whatever. The bigger the city the more you get out of it. Once you get the city down to 1 pop all that unhappiness is manageable. Now you just pop rush units. Soon as it hits pop 2 that's another pikeman or something.
I built tons of pikemen to start, had my tech turned down to 10%, fought the first war with swordsmen, and bartered tech to the max. Since I pop rush builds, I don't need cash except to buy tech, and I don't need to research anything either, so I've banked a lot of cash, upwards of 7K in the 1600s. I just pop rush improvements and units, and conquer other civs. I am a despot, after all! 
I've found that later in the game it's a good thing to take the city, not raze it, so you get the culture footprint. This way you can use road/railroad movement, and not be restricted to moving 1 tile per movement point when you're inside the enemy culture border. Sure, I suppose you could build lots of settlers, raze and rebuild, but why build settlers when you can build more units instead, and have cities for free?
I get a lot of damaged cavalry now taking a city, even with lots of bombardment, so a ready made city with a pop rushed barracks in it is nice for healing up units. Generally I have enough units for 3 fights, so 1 group is fighting, one moving, and one recovering in the last city I took, providing my garrison force for free. Back home I'm drafting like mad and pop rushing more units to provide garrisons when I'm ready to move on. It's a good idea to build lots of spearmen early via pop rushing, they will upgrade all the way to mech infantry. All the workers I capture build my railroad (free slave labor roxors) 
Last edited by gnomos on 12-12-2001 at 14:16
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|