Primitive Conquest

[Peaster]

It is not too difficult to conquer a Civ2 world using only elephants. It's possible with just chariots; I've done it at Emperor level, with help from non-attacking units such as boats and diplomats. What are the most primitive possible attacking units ?

I guess the answer will be horsemen. I tried it at Diety/7/normal map without success, but I was a bit unlucky and a bit careless (I alllowed an AI to build the GW). Has anyone tried this before ?

Is it possible with just warriors and dips ?

[Straybow]

Doubt it. They can barely kill unfortified units. Phalanx, maybe... although it isn't really more "primative" than Horsemen.

[Bloody Monk]

Win by Siege

What if you were in Fundy--10 units with no shield cost--and had, pick a number, 150 cities, each of which built their 10 warriors.

The attack plan is to flood the AI cities with your warriors so that every tile is covered by your units. You cause the cities to lose units and pop due to lack of food and shields. Yes it would take a while because the AI would attack, killing a certain number of warriors, at least for a few turns. But they are expendable and replaceable. Just march into the empty tiles.

It might work.

It would be so boring you would want to kill yourself. On the plus side it would not be as boring as a high score attempt...but, still, the result for you would be the same.

But if it worked....

Monk

[Peaster]

I agree that it'd be almost impossible and maybe very boring. You'd have to avoid Feudalism, to keep making warriors. If you could do that, and still get to espionage (Dips/spies/etc are allowed) you'd have a good chance to reduce the AI to size-one capitols, without much production, and then you have a good chance.

I just finished a conquest at D/7 with just horses and dips, though I failed a few times first. It was lots of fun. I guess you don't have to be a genius to do it, but the usual obstacles to conquest become much bigger - the Great Wall, cities on rivers, AI's with Feudalism/pikemen, and so on. I posted a log at the CFC/Strategy Forum, if anyone's interested.

Good luck with your succession game!

[Bloody Monk]

Nice Game!! What happens at D/7?? (= Deity + 7)??

Come play with us or join in the discussion.

Monk

[Peaster]

Sorry - I meant normal Diety, with 7 civs. The map also seems important in this kind of game (plentiful grass/plains, with few rivers/hills is best). I played normal size, random geography, and got a fairly average map.

I don't think I'd enjoy playing succession style, but maybe I'll join the conversation, or at least look in from time to time. Thanks!

[Peaster]

Update: I played a practice game at warlord level using warriors and dips, and am now convinced such a conquest is possible. I conquered two and a half civs, and decided the rest should work out OK. I cheated up a decent start to the game, so this is not a legal effort, and so I didn't see any point to finishing.

Monk described the game plan pretty well already. But I found the AI didn't try very hard to wipe out my warriors (and a few phalanxes, used only for defense). Maybe this is a function of playing at warlord level. It was fairly easy to waltz in and siege the AI capitols. But the seiges were not always effective (eg for a city under monarchy, with access to fish). Poisoning might be a good alternative, assuming it is legal. I feel suitcase nukes are not legal.

It was not horribly boring, maybe since the whole idea was so new, and I never made all the warrior hordes I though I'd need. When I finally decided to attack, I was surprised to find that vet warriors aren't all that bad. It only takes about 5 to kill off a fortified phalanx on plains (though I'd suggest having backups nearby). So, a direct attack is probably better than a seige, unless the defending city poses special problems (on a river, lots of defenders, it must be reduced/razed to avoid certain techs, etc). A siege works best if the defender is a republic or despot, and you take away all the sea tiles first.

I played to 1600BC (120 turns) and had just entered soft Fundy. I expected Espionage in about 5 more turns, but that's probably not really necessary. I was pretty lucky overall (no capitols on rivers, no Great Wall, etc). So, I can't claim this would work at Deity - or even that it's likely to work again at Warlord - but it's definitely not impossible.

[Bloody Monk]

This is so cool that you did this, Sweet Pea. I can't tell you how happy reading this made me feel!! Chuckling to myself like an old fool, I'm such a Civ nerd. Congrats and for following up on this idea.

Monk

[Peaster]

Thanks very much, Monk. A few players at CFC want to play a warrior conquest comparison game. I think we'll announce it in a new thread there within a few days, and any interested Poly players are very welcome to join in!

[Magic_gorter]

I finished yesterday the comparisongame on CFC....and we now know that winning with only warriors is possible. The main tactic was not to wait to long before attacking with 15-20 warriors. After capturing the capital the other cities were no big deal. The comparisongame was on warlord level..so how it will be on higher levels is still the big question. I posted my log in the comparisongame thread on CFC for anybody who wants to know more.

[Peaster]

Since Magic's last post, he and I have also played comparison games at King level (we both won) and at Deity. I won at Diety, around 1200AD IIRC, but it was a difficult game. I had to fight off some aggressive Greeks early on, and couldn't build the Lighthouse before the Sioux did so. This made the conquest (and overseas trade) much harder and slower. I think Magic will also win his game if he keeps playing.

We agree that the Great Wall is a key early WoW in these games. It allows you to invade AI homelands pretty safely with settlers, and then amass 20 or so vet warriors there. Usually a settler builds a fortess adjacent to the capitol, and the warriors gather there for a grand attack.

I usually build up big ICS-style monarchy civs, big enough to solve support problems, and with lots of trade for a big economy. I think Magic has a leaner style (but with at least 50 cities, I'd guess). I doubt he trades much.

Neither of us waits for the modern age. We both try to finish fast, under monarchy, before the AI's get good techs and good units. City walls aren't major problems, since sabotage is allowed.

It's not rocket science, I guess, and we almost have it down to a routine, except that many things can go wrong. For example -

* If an AI gets Feudalism, and you capture one of their cities, you (probably) get it too. Which means you cannot make any more warriors, your only legal weapon. You might still win, but this could really hurt your odds. Likewise, it is dangerous to pop huts after Warrior Code.

* If an AI gets the Great Wall, a victory seems very unlikely. (ditto for Lighthouse on some maps, and HG at Deity).

* An AI capitol on a river is not impossible to defeat, but it's tough. Fill it with a few Archers, a catapult and a couple of elephants and it's VERY tough (the Vikings had this set-up in my game). Even a fortress is not safe for the warriors.

* If the AI has built roads near its capitol, then you can approach with a charged settler and build a fortress there. Without the roads (and without peace), it's a pretty big risk.

* A large aggressive neighbor, like my Greeks, can be very hard to counter in the early game (before diplomats, the Great Wall, and hordes of vet warriors). I had to defend against lots of Greek horsemen with wounded settlers on forests, for example. An early war can really set you back.

Well, that's my report. I don't think conquering with warriors will become a great Civ2 fad, but I'd recommend trying it at least once.