Classical Conquest on Deity

[BeTheRowdy]

I'm working on my second Deity win. My first was domination with Scythia. Now I'm going for cultural with Persia (but still attempting to conquer early on).

I was wondering, do you find the staple Archer rush is just always the correct strategy? Or if your civ has a good Classical era unit, do you stop at the usual 3 Archers and focus instead on getting to that unit while building up production (Settler, Builder, internal Trader) or perhaps grabbing the first Great General?

Same question for any civ when strategic resources are nearby. Production into Horsemen/Swordsmen? Archers into Horsemen/Swordsmen? Just Archers and don't worry about Classical wars? What do you think is best?

Also, is it better to attack as early as possible with a new unit, or to have a stronger but more delayed attack with many stacked advantages (new unit, Oligarchy, Great General, perhaps a Barracks XP bonus)?

 

[Tarskavaig]

Good questions. I've won on Deity a few times, but only with stronger civs such as Germany, Rome, Australia and Macedonia. Lately, I've challenged myself to do a cultural victory with Saladin. It seems clear to me that yes, the Archer rush is necessary, otherwise the others will snowball you. Actually, the first time I played Alexander, looking forward to a very conquest-oriented game, everyone else was miles away (inland sea map), and I won because I could settle a large empire. But apart from that game, I've found the Archer rush to be necessary. However, with Saladin I am struggling a lot. It might just be bad luck, but I'm finding the rush to be much less reliable now than before. Either my neighbor gets their UU early, or they're able to pump out enough Chariots or Swordsmen to keep me at arms length, or there's some other aggressive civ taking both of us out.

Regarding your questions, I would say time is of the essence when rushing. I tend to attack with 4 Archers and a Warrior, while keeping the next Warrior at home for barbarians. I think it's best to conquer one city with this army first, and then, if you have some better units in the pipeline, it can be good to agree to a favorable peace deal while you prepare for the second strike. I generally go for a Builder after the initial Slingers and Warrior.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

3+ slinger into archer early is consistently strong since barbs get in your face, they can defend AI rushes, and they can take out both early AI cities and city states.

Transition is a matter of situation. You do want to stack stuff like oligarchy/GG/promotions because the extra damage/unit survival you get is pretty good for the cost of an encampment and not-so-great government alternatives if rushing.

If you can get your melee units at or above the strength of AI cities you can use them + battering rams the entire game. Sword + battering ram + great general is pretty good early on, mounted units can be better but I find their upgrade path and promotions a little less attractive than the sword --> musket path. You still want your initial archers in play so you can kill AI field armies more easily. If you keep them alive and get them promoted for extra ranged damage + 2 shots you can just erase AI field units.

Great general is huge for mobility, especially if not using a super UU and fighting with 2 move units. Later in the game you can run the policy card that gives you +1 movement when starting in own territory, and it stacks with GG so otherwise 2 move units can, with a little planning, start with 4 moves or be attacking the AI cities pretty often.

 

[Victoria]

An archer rush can be a struggle now. A lot depends on who you are next to and their secondary agenda which you cannot see. A technophile or culture crazy civ you will faceroll.

I no longer do archer rushes... I will sit back with archers waiting for a DOW while desperately get out swordsmen and battering ram and a bit of extra gold....Leave it too late and you are out scienced. If they DOW turle and kill.... a main disadvantage of an AI civ is its lack of production as they farmed every available tile and built no more mines than necessary, they have no army and will throw a single unit against your army ASAP.

If I cannot get iron I will struggle on for a cultural victory or try and get good science with good adjacency and look for trade opportunities for resources.... or alternatively go to sea... that strat is a good backup.

 

[cazaderonus]

I'm working on my second Deity win. My first was domination with Scythia. Now I'm going for cultural with Persia (but still attempting to conquer early on).

I was wondering, do you find the staple Archer rush is just always the correct strategy? Or if your civ has a good Classical era unit, do you stop at the usual 3 Archers and focus instead on getting to that unit while building up production (Settler, Builder, internal Trader) or perhaps grabbing the first Great General?

Same question for any civ when strategic resources are nearby. Production into Horsemen/Swordsmen? Archers into Horsemen/Swordsmen? Just Archers and don't worry about Classical wars? What do you think is best?

Also, is it better to attack as early as possible with a new unit, or to have a stronger but more delayed attack with many stacked advantages (new unit, Oligarchy, Great General, perhaps a Barracks XP bonus)?

The early archer rush is imo very overrated. yes it can allow you to destroy a very close civilization before they get to walls but on the long run it wont make for a good army. Unless you happen to attack an AI with advanced units, range unit such as archers or X-bows are just bad at conquering cities with walls. On the other hand, a swordsman army with a battering ram will melt walls in 2 turns, put the city under siege and are relevant a lot longer in their damage output.

So yeah, i'd rather play the map (so i'm researching the tech to reveal iron asap) or the UU. Take alexander for instance. With its UU, you basically dont need archers. you'll still build 3 for the eureka and the help they provide to trim the opponents unit. But his melee and mounted UU with a battering ram are way more dangerous than any archer rush.

I think i captured 5/6 cities in less than 15/20 turns with 15 or so units when i did my deity domination with Macedonia.

TLDR Unlike CiV, ranged units arent godlike anymore. Battering rams are.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The early archer rush is imo very overrated. yes it can allow you to destroy a very close civilization before they get to walls but on the long run it wont make for a good army. Unless you happen to attack an AI with advanced units, range unit such as archers or X-bows are just bad at conquering cities with walls. On the other hand, a swordsman army with a battering ram will melt walls in 2 turns, put the city under siege and are relevant a lot longer in their damage output.

Battering ram + melee is viable all game long. Bad as ranged path is against walls, it's quite good at clearing out units with multiple shots and damage promotions. Having a few of those behind your melee is useful all game long. Since they can hit from places melee can't it's generally a strict increase in damage output at the front, with only the worst terrain layouts preventing that.

The advantage to building them early is how they progress throughout the game, starting off as a barb counter, quite possibly netting you an early city or two for their investment, then serving as a damage supplement thereafter. The alternative is to just open warriors, but these are must less effective vs early rush than archers, less effective offensively until you hook up iron or if you have a sword UU get the research, and are less dependent on XP to shine.

If you've coughed up a few slingers only to discover you're isolated with no good city states to attack even then sure skip the archers.

 

[DrCron]

do you find the staple Archer rush is just always the correct strategy?

If the AI attacks very early (before turn 20) you can destroy their army and then take at least 1 city from them before they get walls. In this scenario archers + warriors is enough. Once they get walls you need support units (battering ram comes first, and it's good enough).

or perhaps grabbing the first Great General?

Nope. Deity AI will build more encampments than you, faster than you. In general, don't build encampments. Even if you are going for domination.

Or if your civ has a good Classical era unit, do you stop at the usual 3 Archers and focus instead on getting to that unit

Depending on how good it is. If you are playing with Persia now, immortals are not that good. They can take a hit better than an archer but if you move your units correctly your archers shouldn't be taking hits anyway. The extra cost is not worth it.

perhaps a Barracks XP bonus

Barracks are largely irrelevant in this game. Except maybe if you are going to space, your three production cities already have every IZ building bonus, they have 13 pop (so can afford another district) and you want as much extra production as possible for the Mars parts. Then you'll purchase all the encampments buildings to get that extra punch (because at that point you will producing too much gold anyway).

 

[BeTheRowdy]

Nope. Deity AI will build more encampments than you, faster than you. In general, don't build encampments. Even if you are going for domination.

Is this because you give up too much building an Encampment, or are you saying it's not possible to secure the first Great General on Deity? I find that the production cost is prohibitive. You have to run the district project two or three times. But it is possible if you want it.

What are your thoughts on mid-game Encampments for building corps and armies, or an early Encampment to make use of only one horse or iron?

Depending on how good it is. If you are playing with Persia now, immortals are not that good. They can take a hit better than an archer but if you move your units correctly your archers shouldn't be taking hits anyway. The extra cost is not worth it.

Does the ability of Immortals to use the +4 attack from Oligarchy with a ranged attack make them more worthwhile?

Barracks are largely irrelevant in this game.

I kind of feel this way too, but I've been hoping someone would prove me wrong. Promotions don't feel that hard to get, and the time it takes to build an Encampment and a Barracks cuts too hard into attack timing.

 

[Victoria]

I've been hoping someone would prove me wrong.

Not wrong for SP play currently ... maybe forever... dunno
They are apparently vital for MP because you have 2 equals fighting and the clincher then comes down to who has the best plusses. Its about the generals
Now if the AI was decent perhaps we would be forced to use generals.. If AI cities had walls to start then maybe also.
I will build one occaisionally for the eurekas and the extra +1 prod but normally stop at 1 unless a science vistory and I have time and room

 

[DrCron]

or are you saying it's not possible to secure the first Great General on Deity?

It's not possible to get the FIRST anything on Deity. But when it comes to great generals, against the AI I don't care about the first, the second... Or the last one. You simply don't need them.

What are your thoughts on mid-game Encampments for building corps and armies, or an early Encampment to make use of only one horse or iron?

For corps or armies there's no need, you should have enough production by then so that this is not a priority. Regarding horse or iron, if you only have 1 copy of 1 of those resources, and you absolutely need to make a mid-game war, and you can't secure the 2nd copy via trade (nor could you build the earlier unit and use your single copy to upgrade, as one usually does with the chariot-knight path), then it would be justified to build an encampment. Though ideally you should almost never be in that situation. Keep in mind that if you conquered early on, chances are you already took an encampment from the AI.

Does the ability of Immortals to use the +4 attack from Oligarchy with a ranged attack make them more worthwhile?

Ah, I wasn't thinking about this, but I'd say yes. I personally don't remember checking, on my Persia game, if the +4 actually applied to the ranged attack. If it does, then yes. If it only applies to the melee strength (hence only for defense) then no.

 

[cazaderonus]

I actually started a deity game with persia yesterday and doing an archer rush with that civ is a huge waste.

At turn 22 i got dowed by the 3 civs i had met. My starting location was pretty much locked because m'vemba forward settle me. So i decided to build warriors until i got to the immortal tech. I managed to repel the 3 civs (only 2 really attacked) with my 3 archers and 3 warriors i had already built (just for the sake of quick early defense and machinery eureka). i saved up all the gold i could, and insta upgraded 8 of my 9 warriors to immortal and then dowed M'vemba. 30 turns later i've got all of his cities. immortal are seriously insane. And it's good to note that m'vemba had quite a bunch of its UU which take less damage from ranged attacks (aka my immortals).

My 3 archers came along to add damage but they were really not needed. Immortals take basically no damage from a city strike even at 40 strenght (yay for the melee class upgrade path) and 8 of them will melt a wall in 3 turns. Even better, they will upgrade to musketmen with basically full promotion once i'm done taking care of those 3 AIs who made the mistake to dow me so early.

The more i play, the less i see value in the range unit class when trying to conquer cities.

As for the ? about immortals benefiting from oligarchy, i think it applied in my game. Which would make sense as immortals are defined as "melee units". And if it doesnt apply to their range attack, it will still apply to their defense vs city bombard or any other attack from units. Which is insanely good. So far, Persia is one of the most powerful early game civ i got to play, at least for conquest. That movement bonus for +10 turns after a surprise war is a complete cheat.

It's not possible to get the FIRST anything on Deity. But when it comes to great generals, against the AI I don't care about the first, the second... Or the last one. You simply don't need them.

it's very much possible. On my deity game with alexander, i prioritized a encampment with its special barracks. That and the first kills with my unit got me enough GG points fast to claim the first GG. And though it might not be needed, it still makes conquest a lot easier and smoother.

 

[DrCron]

On my deity game with alexander

I probably should have mentioned that I didn't play the regular game with Alex yet. I did win his scenario on Deity though, and the +5 GG points per kill with his UU is clearly a game-changer for early war. With any other civ, however, I maintain that you can't get the first great person of any kind on Deity. Well, actually, you can build a district and spam projects on your first city, before even building your first settler, and you might have a chance (I do it if I'm going for a religious victory and I'm not Saladin because it's pretty much the only way to get a religion), but in general it's not a good strategy.

 

[Victoria]

... you gonna slap your forehead @DrCron when I say I often get the first great admiral

 

[DrCron]

... you gonna slap your forehead @DrCron when I say I often get the first great admiral

Nah, on non-island maps this makes a lot of sense. The AI hardly ever builds many harbors. That's why on non-island maps one can get the Colossus or Great Lighthouse even on Deity. Then again, great admirals are only really useful on island maps, so...

 

[Victoria]

Uh, I only play continents. Victoria, CH/harbour/city centre triangle oozes gold, I get the half price harbour's out early. When I am at about +20 GA points the best opposition is at about 5 or 6.

GA with the mausoleum just Rock, early battleship armada with a range of 4 is scary

 

[DrCron]

I only play continents

Yup, as I said, on non-island maps the AI doesn't build many harbors, even on deity. On my last island map, even with Victoria I wasn't even remotely close to the first GA. And I was really struggling for the 2nd one. And I didn't have a chance in hell to get the Colossus or the GL. Which btw I think is a good thing. After the last patches the AI is adapting its play to island maps, they can be more challenging now.