-Jrabbit conquest -- Spoiler Thread

[Scouse Gits]

Well done M.le Marquis!

I thought my "record" would be short lived - so much went wrong.

SG[1]

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Some milestones:
1808 - Sniveling Germans put out of their misery
1850 - fundamentalism!
1857 - Zulu wiped off the political radar
1866 - World purged of Persians
1867 - Celts accept their fate for a mere 414 gold


Score: 1187, rating 154%
Population: 19,500,000

The 1830s were a trying time. Many ironclads went to the bottom. Also, I lost about 8 veteran cavalry against the walls of Cardiff. 20+ turns later I took it with about a dozen fanatics and some cavalry. I nearly went broke rushbuying units early on. My general strategy was just to pump out bad boys and move them to the fronts as quickly as possible. I lost several galleys, but luckily only once while anybody was on board. One delay at the end was that it took me until about 1865 to even find the last 3 cities.

Just as in SG's game, it could have gone more smoothly.

[-Jrabbit]

I did it the other way -- Celts first, Persians last.
I think we all had our problems. (I recall a fully loaded, well-escorted transport going down.) I'd love to go back and do it again, but it wouldn't be fair -- I know where to find those missing cities.

Great job, Marquis!!!

(Maybe now Campo will take up the banner...)

[Straybow]

I have always found Fundies to be far too unbalanced and Commies to be somewhat unbalanced. Notice that one really needs not ask what government is used for the end game in a conquest victory?

I always play with rules changed to Fundies pays support after 0 (Fundy units are zero support and half the shield cost of similar strength units, that's good enough) and Commies equivalent palace distance set to 8. That seems to put the three modern gov types on a more equal footing.

I also like to play with the limitation that I only change to a type of government once and stick with it.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Well, Straybow, set up a comparison game! You may decide the rules of play, see how others stack up.

I almost never play fundamentalism. I agree that it gives far too strong an advantage to that civ. The only reason I did in this game is because of the circumstance - complete conquest in under 70 years was my target.

LaFayette started some threads here (or was it in the General forum?) for scenarios. In the "Delenda Sunt" thread about the game's default Rome scenario, players managed to complete the game in under 50 turns without resorting to fundy or commie. I even managed to win as the celts - in despotism - in 99 years! The race against the clock is fun, try this game!

[Scouse Gits]

If you are playing against the AI and don't like Fundy - don't go there! Your proposed rules totally cripple 'Soft Fundy' from Leo's and make it non-viable - it seems to me that your games run much later than mine - it is extremely rre that Fundamentalism has been discovered before the end of my typical games...

SG[1]

[Campo]

(Maybe now Campo will take up the banner...)

I got the file. If I can find time this weekend I'll give it a shot.

I had hoped to clean out the attic and basement, and work on the yard, but I'll try the game if I can get just one of them done.

[-Jrabbit]

This must be the thread for family men. Totally understand the spring cleaning thing, Campo -- same stuff going on in my world.

Hope you can find time for the game, but don't rush -- just have fun. (It took me 2 sessions.)

[Campo]

Well after I got my work done I had almost enough time to finish this game. I started with your 1800 save and played until the 1890's. There were still some Persian cities left and it looked like I'd probably pass 1900 before finishing the cleanup. At that point I was running out of time and so far past everyone else that I quit.

Jrabbit -- a few weeks ago I was givng you advice, and now you're beating my time. Maybe you've picked up something from Ming and rah after all.

I don't know how you guys play normal and large maps -- the turns took so long compared to what I'm used to. I'd only be playing 3 civ games a year if I didn't use small maps.

The game raised a point I've wondered about: what's the best strategy when the most powerful civ (after you) is located past some weaker civs. Generally I like to conquer the biggest one first, to prevent it from gaining more power while I'm tied up fighter the others. However there are problems when you have to go by weaker civs to do it. In this game I started after the Persians but the Zulus kept sinking my ships. After losing too many units I was really annoyed and went after them. What does everyone else do in this situation?

[-Jrabbit]

I'm certainly no expert, Campo, but I do go after it differently. I judge my attack priorities by board position, not relative strength. My biggest problem is when I have to fight allied civs on multiple front -- It prevents you from staging a cohesive assault, since you're always rushbuilding unplanned units to deal with problems like the Zulu-Persian one you had.

I went after the Celts first, using spies to bribe and ironclads and cavalry to attack. Meanwhile, I built ironclad patrols on the Persian/Zulu perimeter, using them to scout (hoping for the oppty to reach vet status) while I finished the rail network. Then, the same spy/cav attack plan. The Zulus were more accessible, so they went first. When I got to the Persians, I just made it a point to go for the capital first (took about 7 or 8 spies before the walls came down). No civ stands long after that.

IIRC, SG(1)(?) went after the Persians first, too, so he might have some insight on attacking the strong civ first..

[Campo]

I had a problem finding the Persian capital. They were pretty spread out, and I looked in the wrong places first. That didn't help.