Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

In a recent game, for a while, Wang Kon saw me as his worst enemy, while his attitude towards me was pleased:
View attachment 689681
How common is this kind of thing?
Not very common. WK must have been at least pleased with everyone else and had some negative modifiers with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R82
In a recent game, for a while, Wang Kon saw me as his worst enemy, while his attitude towards me was pleased:
View attachment 689681
How common is this kind of thing?

I think if you have vassals and he doesn't like them it decreases his attitude but that's hidden from the shown modifiers. That's different from just the usual negative modifier 'our rivals are vassals'
 
Assuming unrestricted leaders what is the worst possible combination of leader and civ? Bonus points if you can find one where they aren't just individually bad but the UU/UB, techs and traits actively work against one another.

There probably aren't that many examples of "UU/UB, techs and traits actively work against one another". The Monument UB civs (Egypt and Ethiopia) are kind of a waste when played by CRE leaders, but Hatshepsut and Zara are CRE and nobody thinks they are bad leaders. There are other antisynergical leaders in the base game -- Alex and Augustus for instance -- and they seem to do just fine. Another way to think of mismatched characteristics is that they give you lots of options; Augustus can kill people with Praets or he can wonder it up.

For the worst unrestricted leaders I'd try to pair bad trait combos with lackluster civs:

Tokugawa, Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Hammurabi, Churchill (no more Drill IV redcoats)

x

Celts, Holy Rome, Japan, America, Greece, Germany [added]

Maybe the worst would be Tokugawa of Celtia? Bad starting techs, traits with no economic benefit, bad UB, situational UU (it starts with Combat 1, but so do Boudicca's; CHA > PRO).
 
Which order should I attack in?
 

Attachments

  • attack.png
    attack.png
    5.6 MB · Views: 32
Which order should I attack in?
What are the defenders in the city?

If there are a lot of defenders I would attack with all my cannons (promoted to City Raider) then attack with the strongest units (cavalry, grenadier, then the janissaries).

If there are a small number (say 6 or fewer) defenders I'd be tempted to use one or two cannons to bombard the city. I think each bombard will take away 12% of the defense.

Also how do you have a Cavalry when you're researching Replaceable Parts? :crazyeye:
 
Which order should I attack in?
Before you attack with anything, use the canons to reduce the city defense bonus from 40% to 0%. You would be surprised what damage your attackers can take even against weak defenders otherwise.
 
It shouldn't be possible. Cavalry requires Rifling which requires Replacable Parts.

Standard attack pattern is
1. Reduce city defenses to 0 with siege units.
2. Usually on next turn depending on much siege units you have use your siege units to attack directly dealing collateral damage to enemy units in the city. (You will lose some/most of them but that's fine and expected.)
3. Attack with hitters like your cavalry and Jannissaries. In the majority of situation attacking in descending order of unit strength is best. So strongest units first but keep in mind that some unit types get bonuses against others and likewise there are unit-type-specific promotions too.
 
It shouldn't be possible. Cavalry requires Rifling which requires Replacable Parts.

Standard attack pattern is
1. Reduce city defenses to 0 with siege units.

This is what the AI does so it's automatically suspect. :lol:

In this specific instance it's probably best to spend a turn reducing Chicago's defense to 0. But there are lots of situations where you simply can't wait to bombard each city to 0. That can take many turns pre-gunpowder if the city has a wall.

I'm curious how other players conduct their cannon wars. Generally I try to send some cannon for pre-bombarding while the main stack is healing. I'll bombard the city closer to 0% but won't skip a turn of the main stack's movement to wait for more bombardment.

Bombarding to 0% might save some cannons, but all sorts of bad things can happen when you fight a war too slowly.
 
He may be playing Vanilla. As I recall, on Vanilla Cavalry was opened by Military Tradition + Gunpowder.
 
Is there any good strategy guide anywhere that deals specifically with the challenges and opportunities of archipelago maps? Perhaps somewhere on these forums here? I've never played on a map like that before, but I'm thinking about doing it.
 
Is there any good strategy guide anywhere that deals specifically with the challenges and opportunities of archipelago maps? Perhaps somewhere on these forums here? I've never played on a map like that before, but I'm thinking about doing it.
I'm not aware of a specific guide, but the main points would be:
- Build the Great Lighthouse. On the archipelago mapscript most if not all of your cities will be coastal and you'll have multiple landmasses to settle on early, which makes the wonder crazy good.
- Make sure to settle at least one city on another landmass than your capital early on for intercontinental domestic trade routes.
- AI in general are less threatening/capable to wage war than on land maps.
- Depending on the settings (island size, snaky continents, etc.) it may be possible to circumnavigate with galleys
 
Thank you! How many of the island will usually be connected by sea, as opposed to ocean, tiles?
 
A proper guide would have a section on traits as well. Let's just point out that IND obviously helps with the Great Lighthouse and cheap forges make whipping units easier later on. AGG is even less useful, because fighting (land) barbs won't be an issue on a water map. CRE is hugely helpful in order to get second ring food resources online quickly. On a land map it is much easier to adapt your city placement to get food in the first ring, on water maps this is often not possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R82
Top Bottom