Announcement

**Blake** · June 7, 2006, 01:56

The only "natural" conquest might be on terra, where you typically can't make up the land requirement until astronomy. So if you kill everyone before astronomy you'll get a conquest victory.

**PaganPaulwhisky** · June 7, 2006, 09:42

The war weariness is what really slows down the conquest victory, as you will have to go to war with multiple opponents at some point in the game. The earliest I have accomplished it was 1480 on marathon speed (normal map with 7 civs Price difficulty). I had Washington and just steamrolled everyone with cavalry. I could have obtained a domination vic much earlier, probably around 1100 or so, but stopped to see how the scores would compare. I also found the conquest approach to yield a lower score. The time of victory seems to be a big factor.

On small maps with less civs it is much easier, and I imagine it could be done on marathon speed quite smoothly. The Romans or Japaneese could probably do it very fast even before the middle ages with Praets or Samurai.

**samspock** · June 7, 2006, 12:28

Tiny map pangea. I did an imortal conquest win as Inca in the late bc's.

**killomatic** · June 7, 2006, 15:20

Yeah incans would probably be pretty good too. Both greeks and incans have aggressive paired with good teching traits, and it seems like you'd need a good tech lead to win conquest, since you won't have the advantage of massive numbers.

War weariness wasn't a problem for me, since I got lucky and almost everyone had a different religion, while I made sure not to choose a state religion until I got free religion, so I wouldn't be forced to fight more than 1 at a time. I actually had every leader pleased with me up until I declared war on them. My army was much too small to fight two civs also, I just couldn't make units fast enough.

Terra wouldn't seem right... I know you can tech unusually quickly while you have an army pillaging and plundering everything in sight, and there *must* be some way to leverage that into a military strategy that can beat the game as fast as domination. I just don't know what that is.

**Azuarc** · June 7, 2006, 16:36

There are really only two advantages to razing over conquering a city -- not being able to defend it (against military or culture,) and not wanting it for economical reasons. Beyond that, it's almost all gravy to simply take other people's cities, so considering the AI tends to spread its seed across the planet, you will ultimately end up with the percentage of territory you need before finding that one last AI city you need.

And, of course, the scoring system is GROSSLY skewed in favor of winning early. In Civ 1, I once won an emperor game before 3000 BC thanks to some risk-taking that paid off. If I could do the equivalent of that in CIV, I'm very scared to know what kind of point total I would get.

**Bushface** · June 7, 2006, 20:05

Conquest obviously takes longer than domination (more land to occupy) so to get a higher score by conquest you need to get a much higher population as well as more land. The "grossly skewed" scoring system (to quote Azuarc) takes no account of the type of victory. I don't know if one can reject a Domination victory and go on for total conquest to see just how much more land and how many people you need to counter the longer time.

**Ijuin** · June 7, 2006, 22:52

AFAIK you can't do that because all other victory types are disabled after you have won one victory.

Announcement

Conquest Victories

Conquest Victories

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment