How to win a war easily?

[kukumar]

I'm new to the game

[Malvastor]

The best way to win a war is to be ahead in technology.If your units are a couple eras ahead of your enemy's units (e.g. musketmen vs. swordsmen) then you'll be able to roll over them with almost no trouble.

[kukumar]

Originally posted by Malvastor:

The best way to win a war is to be ahead in technology.If your units are a couple eras ahead of your enemy's units (e.g. musketmen vs. swordsmen) then you'll be able to roll over them with almost no trouble.

Thx

[Poppy]

Don't build too many units - 4 or 5 should be enough to take over a city.

Ranged units are vital. Attack without being attacked back. Just make sure you have some melee units to protect them, or they could get ripped apart by the other civ.

For city capturing, use siege weapons (catapult/trebuchet etc). It makes it a LOT easier to break down city walls if you have 2-3 of them.

[LAG]

Originally posted by sokaras87:

Don't build siege weapons before cannons. They are being outclassed by composites and crossbows. Get one or two durable melee units for defending your 3+ ranged units and capturing the city.

exept of course, for the fact that siege units get a huge bonus against cities.

But why care about a 200% multiplier...

[Everything]

Originally posted by sokaras87:

Because they are bad against everything else. Composites and crossbows can do the job aswell while being able to destroy other units faster and not having to setup before firing. Your money is better invested in non-siege ranged units. The first siege weapon that's not bad, is the cannon.

please stop you're embarrassing yourself

[Zanteogo]

Originally posted by wew lad:

Originally posted by sokaras87:

Because they are bad against everything else. Composites and crossbows can do the job aswell while being able to destroy other units faster and not having to setup before firing. Your money is better invested in non-siege ranged units. The first siege weapon that's not bad, is the cannon.

please stop you're embarrassing yourself

Why? He's mostly right.

Catapults are pretty much pointless. Ranged units do the job almost as well and are pretty good at everything else. They can move and shoot on the same turn also.

The trebuchet has a slight use depending on how much defence a city has, they can be useful for quickly sniping a city before the defender can get his army to stop you. Mostly however, your better off just using crossbows.

Cannons are the first seige weapon that starts to win out. Plus at this point your range units lose their range and start shooting one tile away.. (which is pretty dumb, thankfully this can be modded) However, certainly in an regular game cannons start to shine.

All the siege weapons after cannons are hands down clear winners.

[LAG]

Originally posted by sokaras87:

Because they are bad against everything else. Composites and crossbows can do the job aswell while being able to destroy other units faster and not having to setup before firing. Your money is better invested in non-siege ranged units. The first siege weapon that's not bad, is the cannon.

of course crossbowmen would be better than catapults, they are different ages.
Siege wepons will awlays be the best land unit for taking out city's however, if not only due to their 3x dmg bonus to cities

[LAG]

Originally posted by Zanteogo:

Originally posted by wew lad:

please stop you're embarrassing yourself

Why? He's mostly right.

Catapults are pretty much pointless. Ranged units do the job almost as well and are pretty good at everything else. They can move and shoot on the same turn also.

The trebuchet has a slight use depending on how much defence a city has, they can be useful for quickly sniping a city before the defender can get his army to stop you. Mostly however, your better off just using crossbows.

Cannons are the first seige weapon that starts to win out. Plus at this point your range units lose their range and start shooting one tile away.. (which is pretty dumb, thankfully this can be modded) However, certainly in an regular game cannons start to shine.

All the siege weapons after cannons are hands down clear winners.

Okey since this ignorance is obviously widespread it's time for some math

Ranged unit strenghts:

Archer: 7
Coomposite bowman: 11
Crossbowman: 18

Siege unit strenght:

Catapult: 8
Trebuchet: 14
Cannon: 20

Now all siege units get a 3x bonus (200% bonus = 100% + 200% = 300%)
This puts their damamge at:

Catapult: 24
Trebuchet: 42
Cannon: 60

Catapults(24) are stronger when attacking cities than Composite bowmen(18)

Even if you have to set up on the first turn you still have one more movement point to fire.
Firing also always drain all movement(exception being cavalry/tanks)

Ranged units doesn't do the job even close to as well as siege units. All siege units are better versions when attacking cities. Your point is invalid and have no facts supporting it.

[Zanteogo]

Originally posted by LAG:

Originally posted by Zanteogo:

Why? He's mostly right.

Catapults are pretty much pointless. Ranged units do the job almost as well and are pretty good at everything else. They can move and shoot on the same turn also.

The trebuchet has a slight use depending on how much defence a city has, they can be useful for quickly sniping a city before the defender can get his army to stop you. Mostly however, your better off just using crossbows.

Cannons are the first seige weapon that starts to win out. Plus at this point your range units lose their range and start shooting one tile away.. (which is pretty dumb, thankfully this can be modded) However, certainly in an regular game cannons start to shine.

All the siege weapons after cannons are hands down clear winners.

Okey since this ignorance is obviously widespread it's time for some math

Ranged unit strenghts:

Archer: 7
Coomposite bowman: 11
Crossbowman: 18

Siege unit strenght:

Catapult: 8
Trebuchet: 14
Cannon: 20

Now all siege units get a 3x bonus (200% bonus = 100% + 200% = 300%)
This puts their damamge at:

Catapult: 24
Trebuchet: 42
Cannon: 60

Catapults(24) are stronger when attacking cities than Composite bowmen(18)

Even if you have to set up on the first turn you still have one more movement point to fire.
Firing also always drain all movement(exception being cavalry/tanks)

Ranged units doesn't do the job even close to as well as siege units. All siege units are better versions when attacking cities. Your point is invalid and have no facts supporting it.

No one will disagree that siege weapons have better attack values on cities. The numbers don't lie.

However, in a actual game, your almost never better off building catapults over coomposites. Coomposites are good against cities plus everything else too. Again, catapults do more damage, but are horrible on everything else and are killed quickly.

Trebuchets start to close the usefulness in game with crossbows, however, your mostly just better building crossbows because again, they are way better at killings units and are still pretty good at taking down cities.

Cannons over take crossbows and win out over GGuns because GGuns lose their range, even if they didn't, the cannon damage against cities just makes them more useful at this point.

[LAG]

Originally posted by Zanteogo:

No one will disagree that siege weapons have better attack values on cities. The numbers don't lie.

However, in a actual game, your almost never better off building catapults over coomposites. Coomposites are good against cities plus everything else too. Again, catapults do more damage, but are horrible on everything else and are killed quickly.

Trebuchets start to close the usefulness in game with crossbows, however, your mostly just better building crossbows because again, they are way better at killings units and are still pretty good at taking down cities.

Cannons over take crossbows and win out over GGuns because GGuns lose their range, even if they didn't, the cannon damage against cities just makes them more useful at this point.

Originally posted by Zanteogo:

However, in a actual game, your almost never better off building catapults over coomposites. Coomposites are good against cities plus everything else too. Again, catapults do more damage, but are horrible on everything else and are killed quickly.

Coomposites are not good against cities, i just explained this with my numbers. If you consider composite bowmen to be good against cities, then catapults and trebuchets are legendary.

Catapults are not horrible on everything else, they have 1 more strenght than archers and 3 less than composite bowmen. This is not enough to call them horrible, surely they're less useful, but not horrible.

Damage is everything against cities, how are you else expecting them to be conquered?

Catapults have 7 mele strenght, this is the same as the composite bowman and more than the archer(5). Tell me again how they are "killed of quickly" and Cbowmen are not.

You're lying in your statements

Originally posted by Zanteogo:

Trebuchets start to close the usefulness in game with crossbows, however, your mostly just better building crossbows because again, they are way better at killings units and are still pretty good at taking down cities.

Trebuchets have 4 less ranged strenght and 1 less melee strenght than crossbows. They are best at taking cities, but still very useful against units. Crossobowmen are still bad at taking cities compared to trebuchets, since a trebuchets gets more than twice their strenght when fighting against cities.

Stop lying

Originally posted by Zanteogo:

Cannons over take crossbows and win out over GGuns because GGuns lose their range, even if they didn't, the cannon damage against cities just makes them more useful at this point.

GGuns have 30 ranged strenght compared to cannons, so they're still 50% as effective. This was acceptable for the Cbowmen(11 vs 24) and the crossbowmen(18vs42), why is it not acceptable now? of course you still have to count witht the reduced range, but they also get vastly improved melee combat to compensate being frontline units.

Why are siege units suddenly more effective? The damage from ranged units have actually increased to a full 50%, but now that's a bad thing? you say this even if they didn't loose their range, but if anything GGuns with 2 tiles range would be the best ranged units have ever been compared to Siege units at this point?

You have serious falsehoods in your statements and little to no proof to show for it

[LAG]

I'm going to have to quote wew lad on this one

Originally posted by wew lad:

Originally posted by sokaras87:

Because they are bad against everything else. Composites and crossbows can do the job aswell while being able to destroy other units faster and not having to setup before firing. Your money is better invested in non-siege ranged units. The first siege weapon that's not bad, is the cannon.

please stop you're embarrassing yourself

[Genghis Khan Rises Again]

There are some great guides on this workshop hub on warfare that I've read and have helped immensely, so I would recommend reading some of them (Sorry I'm don't have any links). Positioning is key to winning a war, especially when you are on the defensive. The AI positions its units very poorly, so if you are playing an AI it is possible to defeat a more numerous and technological advanced foe (I have many times). If you are playing a human positioning is still important but don't expect to beat them with a weaker army. There are combat modifiers for terrain and for flanking. Try to surround enemy melee and ranged units in a way that you get flanking bonuses. Use Melee units mainly as blocks to keep damage off of your ranged units. Focus on defeating enemy ranged units first and then take out their melee. Try to keep out of enemy cities’ ranged bombardment until you have defeated most of the enemy’s units in the area. Also, use terrain to your advantage. Forest provides a defensive bonus against ranged attacks. Place your units in forest and keep the enemy out of it. Units also get defensive bonuses from melee attacks when they are on hills, in forests, or across rivers. To prepare for a successful war, it would be useful to build barracks and other XP giving buildings to give your units promotions, which also help immensely. Also, I agree with all those who support catapults and trebuchets. Early siege units are very effective against cities and make more of a dent on a city’s health than normal ranged units.

[para tea]

Originally posted by LAG:

Originally posted by Zanteogo:

No one will disagree that siege weapons have better attack values on cities. The numbers don't lie.

However, in a actual game, your almost never better off building catapults over coomposites. Coomposites are good against cities plus everything else too. Again, catapults do more damage, but are horrible on everything else and are killed quickly.

Trebuchets start to close the usefulness in game with crossbows, however, your mostly just better building crossbows because again, they are way better at killings units and are still pretty good at taking down cities.

Cannons over take crossbows and win out over GGuns because GGuns lose their range, even if they didn't, the cannon damage against cities just makes them more useful at this point.

Originally posted by Zanteogo:

However, in a actual game, your almost never better off building catapults over coomposites. Coomposites are good against cities plus everything else too. Again, catapults do more damage, but are horrible on everything else and are killed quickly.

Coomposites are not good against cities, i just explained this with my numbers. If you consider composite bowmen to be good against cities, then catapults and trebuchets are legendary.

Catapults are not horrible on everything else, they have 1 more strenght than archers and 3 less than composite bowmen. This is not enough to call them horrible, surely they're less useful, but not horrible.

Damage is everything against cities, how are you else expecting them to be conquered?

Catapults have 7 mele strenght, this is the same as the composite bowman and more than the archer(5). Tell me again how they are "killed of quickly" and Cbowmen are not.

You're lying in your statements

Originally posted by Zanteogo:

Trebuchets start to close the usefulness in game with crossbows, however, your mostly just better building crossbows because again, they are way better at killings units and are still pretty good at taking down cities.

Trebuchets have 4 less ranged strenght and 1 less melee strenght than crossbows. They are best at taking cities, but still very useful against units. Crossobowmen are still bad at taking cities compared to trebuchets, since a trebuchets gets more than twice their strenght when fighting against cities.

Stop lying

Originally posted by Zanteogo:

Cannons over take crossbows and win out over GGuns because GGuns lose their range, even if they didn't, the cannon damage against cities just makes them more useful at this point.

GGuns have 30 ranged strenght compared to cannons, so they're still 50% as effective. This was acceptable for the Cbowmen(11 vs 24) and the crossbowmen(18vs42), why is it not acceptable now? of course you still have to count witht the reduced range, but they also get vastly improved melee combat to compensate being frontline units.

Why are siege units suddenly more effective? The damage from ranged units have actually increased to a full 50%, but now that's a bad thing? you say this even if they didn't loose their range, but if anything GGuns with 2 tiles range would be the best ranged units have ever been compared to Siege units at this point?

You have serious falsehoods in your statements and little to no proof to show for it

Zantego is right, for a few reasons.

1. The Classical Era. Concerning catapults and comps, comps are better. Even though they do less damage to the cities, they are not bad. Comps can defend better than catapults, because they can move more often and benefit from terrain defenses. They also are very good at killing units, making them much better for attacking cities, while if you use catapults they would die a lot easier. In general you want a few blocker melees and a few ranged, but if a city is strongly defended and is really worth it, catapults can have their place. For Melees, spearmen are the best.
   
   
   
2. The Medeival Era. Around now you will be getting Trebuchets and XBows. Using the arguement from before, with the strength v melee making it more valuable than extra strength v city is much more important. Pikemen are essentially the best melee, because longswords are pretty bad because they come too late, especially being in a bad part of the tech tree, along with needing iron.
   
   
3. The Renaissance era. The cannon is definitely better than the last 2 siege units, it comes into play much less. The Renaissance excels in naval combat, with Privateers and Frigates. It is important to note that there are no new ranged units here. Cannons would see a lot more use, but are in a very impractical point in the tech tree, because you will be wanting to get industrialization and scientific theory, and for war you will want to be getting navigation. Also, if you want a land battle, you will want to wait until the industrial era.
   
   
4. The Industrial Era. Here siege units are amazing, because they get 3 range and can shoot over hills and forests and jungles and mountains. You don't see gatling guns much unless they are stationed inside a city, because of their 1 range.
   
   
5. Beyond becomes much more complicated, and I would just like to focus on the eras before. If I made any mistakes, please point them out, but I like to help you. If you need anymore help, the civ sub-reddit, www.reddit.com/r/civ/ , can help you much more.

[para tea]

Also, Catapults are very outclassed by every classical UU, and chariot archers are amazing.

[LAG]

Originally posted by George. The Bank Owner.:

Zantego is right, for a few reasons.


The Classical Era. Concerning catapults and comps, comps are better. Even though they do less damage to the cities, they are not bad. Comps can defend better than catapults, because they can move more often and benefit from terrain defenses. They also are very good at killing units, making them much better for attacking cities, while if you use catapults they would die a lot easier. In general you want a few blocker melees and a few ranged, but if a city is strongly defended and is really worth it, catapults can have their place. For Melees, spearmen are the best.


The Medeival Era. Around now you will be getting Trebuchets and XBows. Using the arguement from before, with the strength v melee making it more valuable than extra strength v city is much more important. Pikemen are essentially the best melee, because longswords are pretty bad because they come too late, especially being in a bad part of the tech tree, along with needing iron.

The Renaissance era. The cannon is definitely better than the last 2 siege units, it comes into play much less. The Renaissance excels in naval combat, with Privateers and Frigates. It is important to note that there are no new ranged units here. Cannons would see a lot more use, but are in a very impractical point in the tech tree, because you will be wanting to get industrialization and scientific theory, and for war you will want to be getting navigation. Also, if you want a land battle, you will want to wait until the industrial era.

The Industrial Era. Here siege units are amazing, because they get 3 range and can shoot over hills and forests and jungles and mountains. You don't see gatling guns much unless they are stationed inside a city, because of their 1 range.

Beyond becomes much more complicated, and I would just like to focus on the eras before. If I made any mistakes, please point them out, but I like to help you. If you need anymore help, the civ sub-reddit, www.reddit.com/r/civ/ , can help you much more.

Please do remove quotes in quotes so it's easier to see what and who you are reffering too.

Originally posted by George. The Bank Owner.:

The Classical Era. Concerning catapults and comps, comps are better. Even though they do less damage to the cities, they are not bad. Comps can defend better than catapults, because they can move more often and benefit from terrain defenses. They also are very good at killing units, making them much better for attacking cities, while if you use catapults they would die a lot easier. In general you want a few blocker melees and a few ranged, but if a city is strongly defended and is really worth it, catapults can have their place. For Melees, spearmen are the best.

Let me start off by saying that the subject is "can you neglect siege units until the rennasaince(cannons) because Ranged units(arcers, Carchers and Crossbowmen) are better?" anything outside this subject is void

I've never said comps were bad. I've also never said comps were worse at defending. I have stated that siege units often have more melee strenght. They are of course better at killing units, it's what they are made for. Siege wepons however are made for attacking cities, not units.

Being able to kill units does not justify destroying cities, of course cities are most of the time protected by units, but Ranged units generarly come to a halt when targeting the actual city. Thus siege equipment is needed for dealing effective damage to cities.

Catapults wouldn't die alot easier than combisite bowmen, terrain will give bonuses to bowmen that they won't give to catapults, but there is no given that the city isn't located on an island or with grassland/dessert.

Most cities are strongly defended, especially in the early stage of the game when you usually don't have alotof cities, you'd want to protect the ones you have. Later there might be fresh colonies for plunder, but that's as said; later.

The big point here is that you cannot capture a fortified enemy city without siege equipment. At least without suffering heavy losses.

Melee units are not related to the topic so i won't discuss that.

Originally posted by George. The Bank Owner.:

The Medeival Era. Around now you will be getting Trebuchets and XBows. Using the arguement from before, with the strength v melee making it more valuable than extra strength v city is much more important. Pikemen are essentially the best melee, because longswords are pretty bad because they come too late, especially being in a bad part of the tech tree, along with needing iron.

Why are you discussing Pikemen and longswordmen? that is not a part of the discussion. Cease this at once or make a new thread.

I don't know what you're smoking if you think 1 extra melee strenght justifices dealing half as much ranged damage to cities. Maybe i've misread it(and hope so), but if it's what you're saying. An 8,33% reduced damage would somehow justify not being able to deal 200% dmg to cities. That is just plain wrong. Reduced damage wouldn't even come into account considering it doesn't take 10 attacks to kill A Cbowman.

Originally posted by George. The Bank Owner.:

The Renaissance era. The cannon is definitely better than the last 2 siege units, it comes into play much less. The Renaissance excels in naval combat, with Privateers and Frigates. It is important to note that there are no new ranged units here. Cannons would see a lot more use, but are in a very impractical point in the tech tree, because you will be wanting to get industrialization and scientific theory, and for war you will want to be getting navigation. Also, if you want a land battle, you will want to wait until the industrial era.

Again, Naval combat has nothing to do with the post, why are you talking about it?
We are neither discussing tech routes here, just basic unit comparison.
And the cannons being in a bad place is at least better than ranged units, since they're not there in the first place.

The cannon is definitely better than the last 2 siege units, it comes into play much
less.

And what is this?! You're saying the cannon is better than catapults and trebutchets becuase it's used less? like, less?

Then you procced to go against whatever nonsense you just said and say they get a lot more use? what, wasn't there any conquerable land before the renaisance maybe? pretty sure siege units only get more and more relevant.

I can only assume this was some kind of mistake on your part and that you meant the opposite or something.

if you want a land battle, you will want to wait until the industrial era.

And what is this? are you saying that cannons are bad because you shouldn't use them?
looks like cicular logic; It shouldn't be used because it's bad and it's bad because it shouldn't be used?

Originally posted by George. The Bank Owner.:

The Industrial Era. Here siege units are amazing, because they get 3 range and can shoot over hills and forests and jungles and mountains. You don't see gatling guns much unless they are stationed inside a city, because of their 1 range.

Great and very informative but not a part of the discussion. We only go to the cannon, everything after that is Siege wepon game



I might've been a bit agressive in my texting here, but i find a lot of faults in waht you say and can't help myself