expert question

[jake03]

Ok I am sure this has come up before so bear with me. Has anyone won a standard game using only Warriors?

[Ecthy]

I once tested how many warriors I'd need to beat a mech inf on mountain with river, in a fortress , veteran etc. blabla

I needed about 200 of them (cheating)

[splangy]

i did, 1 vs 1 in multiplayer i started on the same island as another mper and just walked over his cities with wariors

[Ecthy]

did you really?

it actually suffices to fortify a few warriors in a city to protect against warriors.... and you need even less phalanxes to to that...how come he didn't beat the crap out of you? did he suck that bad?

[Laszlo]

No, not with just warriors, but one game I tried it with only one city and with no offensive units. I never attacked another unit or city, though they tried really hard to get mine. Call it the Quaker or Buddhist civ (or the one Ghandi should have led).

I built up my capital, and by the last age I was even bagging every new wonder. My population didn't get to forty or anything because I had to mine so many hills (and I didn't know about the 'airfield extras'), but my production was really good.

Anyway, the Space Race was a close call. My ship was a bare bones gas tank and engine, and even so the landing date just beat the next up civ by a couple of years.

Next I should try it in Warlord mode. It's a surprisingly fast game even with the space ship. Having only an engineer and one city really speeds things up a lot!

[Meeko]

Yes, I've won games with no offensive units and only one city...OCC games...or other. Yes, OCC is an extreme strategy, but not recommended to be continued after the AC landing...*shudded*

[Laszlo]

Meeko, I just now read about OCC in the Great Library. Before I didn't know that there was a club/competition. And I also found out how bad I am compared to those high scorers.

Yes, OCC is an extreme strategy, but not recommended to be continued after the AC landing...*shudded

And about that, I did play about twenty turns afterwards with the intent of taking over the world with only my one city left standing and I see what you mean. The Russians kept on pummeling me with whatever they had, and my stealth fighters destroyed hundreds of stacked units, but it's reached a kind of stand-off where neither is likely to win.

I guess now I'll go back to start another game, this time employing the strategies gleaned from the forums.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

A while ago some players won without ever settling. Huts provided all the units to conquer AI cities, from which the war machine rolled. They did, however, use advanced units. Maybe some variant on this could provide some fun.

[Ecthy]

you're talking aboutthe nomad strategy... it was quite fun, but sometimes it could lead to your instant death

[Meeko]

Advanced Units

What did you mean by "advanced units"?

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Re: Advanced Units

Originally posted by Meeko
What did you mean by "advanced units"?

Any new unit available when a new tech is discovered. That means anything besides the warrior, in this case. Nothing outside the standard game.

[jake03]

I can hardly believe that no one has been able to do this, Ming are you out there? SG? Come on guy warm up the hard drive looks like a challange

[splangy]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
did you really?

it actually suffices to fortify a few warriors in a city to protect against warriors.... and you need even less phalanxes to to that...how come he didn't beat the crap out of you? did he suck that bad?

well there were 5 reasons,

1- he rather explore and expand
2- he didn't have bronze working
3- i only built warriors but a hoarse and chariot from huts did help
4- im a imperialistic fascist he wanted peace, i lied, and over ran him and his 3 citys.
5- i had the advantage of surprise, he just couldn't change production that fast, i ended up storming a city well before he could get organized.