Civilization Revolutions

[Wulf Ratbane]

Unless you go suicide catapulting.

After you bombed down the cultural defence with your catapults (or whatever siege units you use), you attack with at least four of them to deal heaps of collateral damage to the defenders.

You usually lose the catapults, but your attacks then have a field day with the defenders.

Cheers, LT.

Yes, this.

1) Put the catapults and their defending legionnaires (or any unit) next to the city, preferably in forest or hills.

2) Every round, bombard the city to wear its defenses down. (There will be a little percentage number in the lower corner of the city.) Take as many turns as you can to do this.

2b) The enemy may or may not come out of the city to attack your pile of units. If you've got good defense, he may not risk it. He knows he is safer behind the walls.

3) When the city defenses are reduced to 0%, attack first with all the catapults. They will cause "Collateral Damage" to more than one unit. If you're really lucky, some of your catapults will even withdraw after attacking and you won't lose them. But if you do lose them, don't sweat it.

3b) When I produce catapults anew, the first upgrade I give them is always bonus collateral damage, for this reason.

4) After all of your catapults have attacked, then you can start attacking the city with your regular troops.

But I can tell you for certain I would never attack a city with less than a 2:1 advantage in units. Even better if you can manage 3:1 or 4:1.

Remember, you have to hold it after you take it.

 

[Nifft]

I know in Civ IV they have a "Bombard" option. They can also attack via the normal method, and inflict collateral damage, but at least take the defensive bonus down first via bombardment. Their lack of strength means they'll take fearsome damage and often go down.

Yes. And as has been said, suicide catapults are a good idea. Just treat one or two as disposable per city you plan to conquer.

Bombers can "<S>trike" instead of "<B>ombarding", which softens up units too.

Cheers, -- N

 

[stonegod]

Remember, you have to hold it after you take it.

No you don't! Scorched earth, baby!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

No you don't! Scorched earth, baby!

I suppose if you play a very aggressive, militaristic strategy, that will work out in the long run-- but razing cities is really not good for diplomatic relations.

Civs tend to notice that sort of thing.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Yes. And as has been said, suicide catapults are a good idea. Just treat one or two as disposable per city you plan to conquer.

Bombers can "<S>trike" instead of "<B>ombarding", which softens up units too.

Heh.

"What's that? Your Anti-Tank units are at half strength after my bombers levelled the city? Oh, for shame."

I swear, last game I spent half of my bombers' turns moving them as the front kept galloping forward.

I suppose if you play a very aggressive, militaristic strategy, that will work out in the long run-- but razing cities is really not good for diplomatic relations.

Civs tend to notice that sort of thing.

I almost never destroy the city, unless they've really ticked me off, like changing hands 5 times in 6 turns. Then I lost my temper.

Imagine my surprise when the inhabitants of the razed city formed infantry units. And here I'd thought partisans were a thing of Civ2.

Brad

 

[Felon]

Again, I'm not familiar with the previous Civ games, but hearing what other have said, including in the official FAQ (which seems to consist mostly of explaining how much of the older games' features have been pared away), I get a strong impression that Civ Rev has been given the D&D 4e treatment, having been "dumbed-down" or "streamlined", depending on your point-of-view.

There is no scorching of earth, there's no "collateral damage" option for catapults, there's no queueing up items for future production. There aren't any sliders or anything that provides a deep level of customization. When you initiate an action like contacting another leader or sending a spy into an enemy city, you just get a few options that are purely take it or leave it. When a unit gets enough victories to earn an upgrade, you get two choices to pick from, also take it or leave it. Also, there's only one nuke in the game, period.

I guess it was decided that Civ making the move to consolves necessitated a more "accessible" level of simplicity. But I think they may have gone overboard. Winning through the art of diplomacy is pretty much non-existant. The AI decides what's on the table and sets non-negotiable costs. All leadeers are pretty belligerent, and seem to take little stock of how badly you've troucned them in the past or how many caravans you've sent to their cities. If their units encounter unguarded settlers or caravans, you've losing'em or paying a hefty fee. If they catch them again next turn, they won't cut you slack because you've already paid them off.

Still having loads of fun of the "just a couple more turns, then I'll go to bed" variety, but I do begin to see where there's some sparseness.

And yes, catapults rock, particularly firing from a hill.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I suppose if you play a very aggressive, militaristic strategy, that will work out in the long run-- but razing cities is really not good for diplomatic relations.

Civs tend to notice that sort of thing.

In Civ 4, the attacked civ will usually hold the grudge. Since a civ you're at war with will want to attack you at some point, you should usually destroy/vassalize that civ (if the civ is out of game, if also negates negative diplomacy scores due to "at war with our friends"-stuff).

Hence, scorched earth is actually an useful strategy if you're starting the war. And really, if they start the war, they're probably war-mongers and will try to destroy you anyway, so going for them is still a good option.

Cheers, LT.