Conquest: Playing through our history...

[joncnunn]

The most freqent wars I saw playing that conquest (I was playing the Aztecs) were those between Protugal and Spain. From my perspective a few thousand miles away those wars didn't go anywhere. This is in contrast to the French - Dutch wars which resulted in France annexing 2 cities in the Netherlands.

From other games, I have succesully naped resources just inside my oppoents borders by founding a city, placing several troops inside, followed by a rush of all cultural improvements.
(In my current one, I had to nap both Iron [one tile inside oppoents territory] and Coal [outside both of our borders but one tile from the opponets border compared to two tiles from mine] that way. The nearest Rubber has also been found to be right outside my territory [three tiles from mine about five from nearest oppoent] and so I'm planning on building yet another late game city.

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Yeah, defenses are quite important for Portugal. Not that you will actually have to fight... Just build loads of musketmen to keep them at bay, so they will hesitate to declare war. I expanded my borders into Spain, by building a new city next to the saltpeter. If you are lucky you might get hold of it without war.

[joncnunn]

Bumped to note Diplomatic Victory in the Rise of the Sun conquest in April 1515.

I have two conquests left. (Rise of Rome and Middle Ages)
I'm currently playing the Middle Ages as the Turks. I don't see any peaceful victory condition on this one [Abbibs would take 1200 turns to reach 30K, only 208 turns in the game], so I guess I will evenually be attacking someone!

[Dis]

Middle Ages if fun. Never played as the turk though. But I have played as the Sacndinavians

It will be a similiar strategy (though you probably won't have a unit nears as good as the beserker). Attack civs with artifacts and take theirs. It's a fun scenario like I said, but it does suck the AI can't use their artifacts effectively.

[conmcb25]

Im lazy so I posted a picture instead. Im working on a possible win in Sengoku righ now as the Mori.

[joncnunn]

Actually, I was thinking of trying for domination victory instead. It "only" takes 25% of land area + 25% of population in this conquest. I think it would be highly out of character for Turks to bring relics to Jeruselum.

I have 5% of the land area / 7% of pop - REX winding down but not over, settlers already produced being redirected to much lower quality land than initally built for. (Darn numerous AIs going east!) I figure the additional towns + cultural expansion should bring me up to 6 or 7%.

My first planed target is the Bryzantines with planned timing right after I massively upgrade Horsemen to my UU. They have the closest unique luxary, 7% of the land area and 10% of the population. My Minimum desired goal is all their eastern fridge cities they built. One of their cities is a potiental cultural threat to my only Wine and they beat me to the spice city and their cultural boundaries block direct access to the Abu. If I have clear suppority though, I'll bring up the fall of Constopole a few of centuries.

Originally posted by Dissident
Middle Ages if fun. Never played as the turk though. But I have played as the Sacndinavians

It will be a similiar strategy (though you probably won't have a unit nears as good as the beserker). Attack civs with artifacts and take theirs. It's a fun scenario like I said, but it does suck the AI can't use their artifacts effectively.

[joncnunn]

Difficulty would depend on style of play.

Those that hate fighting wars will grade those that have to invole fighting them tougher while those that love fighting wars will grade those requiring building up interstructure as tougher.

In Mesopotamia, peaceful builders will probably prefer Egypt with the only one neighboring AI to worry about and don't care about fighting anything other than barbs. Babylon is well positoned for a player who has set the goal of capturing the one, two, or three wonders they miss.

Rise of Rome is significantly harder playing any civ other than Rome. (Rome has a tech lead + all those versions of Legions) Persia suffers from insufficent roads and may find it difficult to find time to build the needed workers due to also being in a strugle with Greece.

Napolean conquest involves Diplomacy. Those that are great manupliating the AI will find it much easier.

Originally posted by okblacke

I don't know, is it? You might think so, but playing Mesopotamia as Babylon seems a lot easier than playing it as Egypt. In other words, it might just have been luck o' the draw.

And the second tutorial, Rise of Rome, is a whole hell of a lot harder.

I actually don't think they're graded. The tutorials are to ease you into things. But from what I've heard the two hardest scenarios are the first Rome one and the Napoleon one.

[ok]

[Dis]

I agree about Napoleon. I suck at manipulating the AI . And they all ganged up on me . But I still managed to pull away with more cities than I started the game with playing as Napoleon.

Rise of Rome is annoying because it is the longest. And even then I was unable to achieve domination. I won by score. My legions were getting decimated by the lowly Celts UU . I could not make any progress against their cities.

My favourite is Age of Discovery. It's a fairly peaceful scenario. Though the AI isn't the best at it. But I find they do a better job at this one than the middle ages scenario.

[conmcb25]

I won Rise of Rome once with Greece and it was not easy.

Age of Discovery is fun, and a whole lot more fun via PBEM.

Im trying Rise of Rome via PBEM right now, I just started that should be interesting.

[joncnunn]

You know, what I'm really curious about is has anyone won all conquests on the SID level?

[joncnunn]

Originally posted by Dissident

Rise of Rome is annoying because it is the longest. And even then I was unable to achieve domination. I won by score. My legions were getting decimated by the lowly Celts UU . I could not make any progress against their cities.

Rise of Rome as Rome strikes me as a conquest calling for hybird style play instead of either peaceful or pure war mongler. Trigure GA as soon as possible against the Carthages with the Legions and invest the extra gold into science, for legions II. Build up cash reserves and upon discoverly of that tech upgrade all to legions II. Maybe tempoarly slow down tech reserach at that point to finish the upgrading, but don't turn it off, progress towards Legionaries III.

I'm suprized you had trouble against the lowly Celts. I'd sugest:

1. If you weren't sending the most advanced version of Legions you had at the time, you do that.

2. In any case, send a biger stack of doom.

[Dis]

the celts were tough. And lots of tough terrain didn't help either. I didn't mess with their empire. I went for the Egyptians and the Sassanids (or whatever they are called in this scenario). All that flat land is easy pickins.

[Tolwyn]

Just started playing the conquests.(Monarch level)

Mesopotamia:
civ: Sumeria
Victory: Point limit reached after aggressive REX which wiped out Babylon and 4 wonders build.


Rise of Rome:
civ: Romans
Victory: Domination after succesfully defeated Carthage,Celts and Egypt.

comments: An easy scenario to play as Romans as to win you don't have to fight persia or even Macedonia. Get your Citizens out to settle all of Europe,England and north Africa. However you should conquer Carthage asap because if they get their production of war elephants up you're gonna have one hell of a fight on your hands.
Another tip: The only wonder worthwile imho is the temple of artemis. Let Rome build it in the golden age you're gonna have very fast and let the other cities produce units...units and even more units!

[Proserpine]

Originally posted by Dissident
the celts were tough. And lots of tough terrain didn't help either. I didn't mess with their empire. I went for the Egyptians and the Sassanids (or whatever they are called in this scenario). All that flat land is easy pickins.

Celts are not so tough, esp. once you have L(egoinnary) IIs. Terrain isn't so bad once you are over the Alps (as it was in history). Defense bunuses can also work for you in the mountains. By the time you are accross the Loire, they have at least a rudimentary road network. The thing is, attack is better than pure defense, because their units are weak on defense. Same is true for the Goths. Those guys are natural candidates for Rome to expand into. If you have an Army in the region, they have no chance. The other thing is, you need a city at around 10 o'clock position west of the Alps for one of the resources to build Bacchanalia. Once you have walls (Hadrians), defense is easy.

[conmcb25]

My experience has been similar. I usually try and get a city up relatively quickly at that cross roads just north of the Alps and about due north od Pisae. (I think its Pisae), anyway if you plop a city down on the hill to the east of that cross roads north of the Alps it slows down the expansion of the Goths towrds the Celts and visa versa, and gives you a good spring board for offensive operations as you get more legoinaire III's built.

By the end of the game I have routionely expanded up the the northern coast and an occassional city or two in England. Thats while defeating and destroying the Carthaginians.

Its one of my favorite scenarios.

Originally posted by Proserpine


Celts are not so tough, esp. once you have L(egoinnary) IIs. Terrain isn't so bad once you are over the Alps (as it was in history). Defense bunuses can also work for you in the mountains. By the time you are accross the Loire, they have at least a rudimentary road network. The thing is, attack is better than pure defense, because their units are weak on defense. Same is true for the Goths. Those guys are natural candidates for Rome to expand into. If you have an Army in the region, they have no chance. The other thing is, you need a city at around 10 o'clock position west of the Alps for one of the resources to build Bacchanalia. Once you have walls (Hadrians), defense is easy.

[Proserpine]

Originally posted by joncnunn


Rise of Rome as Rome strikes me as a conquest calling for hybird style play instead of either peaceful or pure war mongler. Trigure GA as soon as possible against the Carthages with the Legions and invest the extra gold into science, for legions II. Build up cash reserves and upon discoverly of that tech upgrade all to legions II. Maybe tempoarly slow down tech reserach at that point to finish the upgrading, but don't turn it off, progress towards Legionaries III.

I'm suprized you had trouble against the lowly Celts. I'd sugest:

1. If you weren't sending the most advanced version of Legions you had at the time, you do that.

2. In any case, send a biger stack of doom.

Particularly if you (Dissident) went after Egypt/Persia. Those guys are hard to get to from Rome in sufficient numbers, you either have to go through Scythians (in roughly the Caucasus) or via Macedon (Greece), or across the sea (which is hard as Carthage basically rules the waves. Or take Carthage, then its possible.

[Proserpine]

Originally posted by Tolwyn
Just started playing the conquests.(Monarch level)

Mesopotamia:
civ: Sumeria
Victory: Point limit reached after aggressive REX which wiped out Babylon and 4 wonders build.


Rise of Rome:
civ: Romans
Victory: Domination after succesfully defeated Carthage,Celts and Egypt.

comments: An easy scenario to play as Romans as to win you don't have to fight persia or even Macedonia. Get your Citizens out to settle all of Europe,England and north Africa. However you should conquer Carthage asap because if they get their production of war elephants up you're gonna have one hell of a fight on your hands.
Another tip: The only wonder worthwile imho is the temple of artemis. Let Rome build it in the golden age you're gonna have very fast and let the other cities produce units...units and even more units!

Carthage never produces enough elephants. Anyway, legions (II or III) can take them at least 9 times out of 10.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Tolwyn

Another tip: The only wonder worthwile imho is the temple of artemis.

Hadrians wall is awful darn nice as well.

These two in combo (Hadrians and Temple of Artemis) mean as soon as you settle or capture a city it has walls and a temple.

Those two in combo are pretty powerfull.

[Proserpine]

Originally posted by conmcb25


Hadrians wall is awful darn nice as well.

These two in combo (Hadrians and Temple of Artemis) mean as soon as you settle or capture a city it has walls and a temple.

Those two in combo are pretty powerfull.

Agreed, they are indeed. Except, of course neither work on Islands (only on the landmass where they are built), so make sure you build them on the mainland (and not in Sicily for example).

[joncnunn]

The Temple of Artemis is probably great for reducing time needed to reach domination victory (that is if you don't reach a score victory earlier) from founding new cities in vacent land + geting culture in cities that the former owner didn't build a Temple in.

The funny thing is that these wonders built in Italy will work in North Africa.

[gunkulator]

Since this is turning into a Rise of Rome thread...

When do you change gov'ts (assuming you do)? Oligarchy is not all that bad to start with. Monarchy is readily available and has the advantage of paid labor but has higher corruption. Republic is even better but it takes a while to get there. Does anyone bother with (I think it's called) Imperialism?

[joncnunn]

Oops, I must have hit reply instead of edit.

[Proserpine]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Since this is turning into a Rise of Rome thread...

When do you change gov'ts (assuming you do)? Oligarchy is not all that bad to start with. Monarchy is readily available and has the advantage of paid labor but has higher corruption. Republic is even better but it takes a while to get there. Does anyone bother with (I think it's called) Imperialism?

Olly is fine but I change to imperialism as soon as its discovered to take advantage of cash rushing in the late game. I time discovery of Philosophy so that Imp. is the free tech.

[conmcb25]

I dont bother to switch till I get Imperialism either.

Use the Oligarchy time to do some pop rushing, pop growth isn't that much of an issue as Rome in this scenario anyway. Theres even a nice woker/ settler pump up north.

[joncnunn]

(Rise of Rome)

Don't switch to Monarchy, the increased corruption isn't worth it.

As to should I switch to Republic or should I wait and switch to Imperlism, that's much tougher and depends upon your VP score, land area, and population.

If your playing Persia you can switch to both with little penalty as you discover them, but as the other civs you probably don't want to switch govts two times.

So the moment you reach Republic, certain calculations need done:

1. How many turns would it take me to reach Imperalism? (Assuming I don't switch to Republic)

2. How close am I to winning the game?
2A. Via score limit.
2B. Via domination limit.

If it won't take long to reach #1 but #2 is a long way's off, wait for Imperalism and switch.

But if you project the game to end only a few turns after reseraching Imperalism (and switching and coming out of anarchy), switch to Republic now and don't bother to switch to Imperalism if the trade bonsus is worth more than any increased unit support cost in Republic compared to Oligarchy in that conquest.

[Tolwyn]

Originally posted by conmcb25


Hadrians wall is awful darn nice as well.

These two in combo (Hadrians and Temple of Artemis) mean as soon as you settle or capture a city it has walls and a temple.

Those two in combo are pretty powerfull.

True indeed, however in my game I was so dominant on the military side of things that walls didn't matter. So I build units, units and even more units.

[conmcb25]

That will work as well Tolwyn, however it sure helps in REX to send out a garrison and a settler and know when it plops down a city that garrison already has walls. That enables you to focas your offensive units on offensive operations vice babysitting settlers.


Either approach will work

[gunkulator]

Hadrian's Wall seems kinda pointless for Rome. They're militaristic so walls are only 10 shields anyway. It sure takes a lot of new cities make back that investment. I build it anyway just so that the Persians don't get it.

Settling as Rome takes a bit of planning since your citizens move 2 but garrisons only move 1.

I assume everyone takes Sicily first, followed by Corsica and Sardina. What next? On to Carthage or beat up the Celts?

[joncnunn]

I usally don't escort settlers. Their usally only going three, four, or five tiles from the nearest town before founding one, for a distance further away I already have a military unit fortified in place where I want the next city before it's built.

Well, I think everyone secures Silicy first, but some skip Corsica and Sardina and head directly to Carthage (The McArthur gambit) and sack it next followed by elimating the rest of Carthage civ while others take Silicy, then Corsica, next Sardina, and next Carthage.

It's generally best to avoid a two front war, so I highly recomend knocking out the Carthage civ before taking out the Celts.

Originally posted by gunkulator
Hadrian's Wall seems kinda pointless for Rome. They're militaristic so walls are only 10 shields anyway. It sure takes a lot of new cities make back that investment. I build it anyway just so that the Persians don't get it.

Settling as Rome takes a bit of planning since your citizens move 2 but garrisons only move 1.

I assume everyone takes Sicily first, followed by Corsica and Sardina. What next? On to Carthage or beat up the Celts?

[conmcb25]

I agree on avoiding two front wars.

But if Cathage is beat down enough to essentially be a "mop up operation" then you can go after the Celts. I have done that before.

[conmcb25]

There are now TWO PBEM's of the Rise of Rome Scenario going on, it should be interesting to see how these turn out in PBEM.