 |
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2005
time: 01:04
| |
|
|
My advice on this would be: You dont really play for domination until you have the blackpowder guys with the bonus against horses (I dont know what they are called in english). Until then, you play the same as if you were going for space-race. Focus on economy, trying to get a tech-lead. Then build-up and start making war. Then comes another pause, where you build you factories. The AI does this very late. You will end up with a tech-lead and a production capacity of two AI-Civs combined. And Infantry when noone else has them yet. Only then you start pushing for domination. Once you started conquering, you will notice that your economic build-up phase was not only needed for acquiring the tech-lead, but also for maintaining your gains.
I dont do domination often at all, so others may well have a more solid and different opinion on this. Last SP-game, i actually did make it for dominiation and it was a close call, not because anyone posed a threat to me, but because i had to invade another continent in order to get the needed percentages and maintainance-cost almost killed me. I had my science at 0% and still lost a couple of hundreds each turn. The turn the borders expanded, making me win, was exactly the turn my army started to desintegrate (1963, large hemispheres, prince, epic).
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
SoCal
|
Nov 2005
time: 17:04
| |
|
|
Build up military while at peace. Attack with ferocity and take as many cities as you can quickly and then make peace. Rebuild your military and do it over again. Never stay at war for very long or the war weariness will kill you. I start warring as soon as I have axes usually. Then I will attack again when I get catapults, again when I get knights, again when I get guns.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Aug 2003
time: 01:04
| |
|
|
I expand peacefully until I start bumping into other civs then I make war. As long as my econ is not going south pretty much regardless of my technology but in advance game usually end up producing most of my units in the modern or industrial eras. usually go after the weaker civs first
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2005
time: 01:04
| |
|
|
Yeah, well, granted Snoopy. By saying ´playing economically´ i didnt exactly mean not to do any war at all, if opportunity grants it. What i rather meant was, that You shouldnt try conquering the world with maceman and no banks. What You need is a nice couple of core cities when industrialism arrives, and early conquests can become those - so they are of course helpful. One just shouldnt overdo it early on, even if going for domination, i say.
EDIT: And pangea, yeah, well, thats a different story probably. On a large hemisphere map You usually have to go intercontinental in order to hit the percentages. Makes economy all the more important. Here again, of course it wont really hurt You, if You completely conquer your own continent, if its not too big, rather sooner than later.
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 19:04
| |
|
|
I don't consider continent games to be true domination (war) games, simply because they're builder focused games by default - you have a large degree of protection from opponents. For most non-aggressive players, they're very easy games compared to Pangaea, because you don't have six other civs (or whatever) bearing down on you at any one time.
My point was that you must play a different game from somewhat earlier on to play domination if you are on an adequate difficulty level, because you should not be getting a huge technology lead at any point prior to having conquered the major tech leading civs. The way you win a domination game is by superior tactics, not superior tech, simply because the advantage you have over the AI is in tactics and not in technology, where the AI gets bonuses to help it stay competitive there. You stay competitive in tech by having three or four civs worth of cities teching for you (even at 20%) ...
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Jan 2008
time: 01:04
| |
|
|
I think you can take advantage of sweet spots, always depending on the situation.
For example, you may be able to take out an early opponent with a quick axe rush (or UU rush if applicable). You won't conquer the world with axes, so when your sweet spot is no longer sweet, you stop and build.
There will be another sweet spot with macement where if you get it fast enough you can take out an opponent before AI players' defenses get good enough to make maces very slow conquests.
So you don't try to conquer the word, you wait for the next sweet spot.
For me, the next sweet spot is riflemen, but some prefer cavalry, and there are others that can also work.
Riflemen plus a few trebuchet can easily take out an opponent or two unless they are right up with you on the tech race.
The nice thing about getting there is that infantry is close behind. When you get to infantry you can start going on a more or less permanent war economy (again, depending on circumstances; I am very much generalizing here), because you are likely to get to infantry first (I don't understand why the AI seems to put a lower priority on certain military techs than it does other techs), and infantry is a great sweet spot. By itself it can take you the rest of the way through the game, assuming that you have no particularly techy opponents, but if it doesn't, you can beeline from infantry to armor, and armor can definitely take you the rest of the way.
So by the time you are ready to go to perpetual conquest you have already conquered a few opponents (either entirely or made vassals of them) and have a substantial production advantage.
|
|
| |
|
|
King
Saskatoon, SK, CA
|
Oct 1999
time: 19:04
| |
|
|
In addition to sweet spots it's really about conquest and consolidation. In the early game you take a city or two, then get peace, consolidate, get your economy going again, then take another city or two.
As you go further down the tech tree the amount you can take in each bite becomes bigger. If you are having problems with war weariness and tech rates then you are taking too big of bites too early.
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 19:04
| |
|
|
There is no 'cycle', you just slowly lose war weariness for every turn of peace (1pt + 1%, or something like that). It rather depends on how many 'points' of war weariness you have accumulated, how long you need to stay at peace to entirely eliminate it (or to reduce it to acceptable levels).
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
|
Jan 1970
time: 20:04
| |
|
|
Is there a screen which shows my war weariness? I've seen the "hell no,..." it my cities, and enemy weariness, but never my own number.
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 19:04
| |
|
|
You can't see the actual number, no.
|
|
| |
|
|
King
Don King of the Apolyton HLA Movement
|
Dec 2002
time: 19:04
| |
|
|
Theben:
Hover over the enemy leader's name in the score table above the minimap. Underneath the diplomacy modifiers it gives you your WW points with that leader (which may be what you're calling the enemy's weariness). I just opened up a game and deliberately lost a unit on enemy ground to make sure the number went up (and was therefore my number, not the enemy's). It did.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Jul 2008
time: 01:04
| |
|
|
Oh, jeez, whenever I read stuff like this I get such a huge itch to play, it's not funny.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2005
time: 01:04
| |
|
|
But is #3 really that important. I mean in late-game it´s not, right ? Cause the culture bomb is not much against the enemy-culture accumulated in the tiles for millenia, or so i read ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Priest
I'm still confused by this. You are right that late game it works less, but it still seems to have an important effect - at least in solidifying your new territory. |
There's two situations for newly conquered cities:
1) They're only on the border for as much time as it takes your troops to heal and move on to conquer the next city
2) They're on the new border, and then you declare peace, or the enemy is able to rally and stop your advance.
For (1) the only value of a Great Artist is in speeding the advance slightly. I'd say that's not worth the use of a great person.
For (2), a GA might be required to be able to expand to the fat cross. On the other hand, that's just in the midgame. In the early game, it should be sufficient to simply whip a theatre, library, and perhaps run a normal artist. And in the late game, even a Great Artist will not be sufficient to push back the borders... literally nothing you do will change the existing civ's culture because so much has accumulated.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2005
time: 01:04
| |
|
|
So for a domination game, would you go for GAs or rather for other Great Persons ? Cause i think, i´d still prefer almost any other GP in almost any situation.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:04.
Apolyton Time is 19:04. |
top of page
|
|
|
|
|
|
