Denmark

Txurce

Deity
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
8,285
Location
Venice, California
I used v 7.1 b12 for my first conquest game since I started using TBC last October. My early policy choices are probably atypical. I started with Tradition, Aristocracy, Monarchy, Liberty, Collective Rule and Republic before shifting to Honor. I expected most of my cities to be annexed ones, and wanted a strong cultural start to make up for what I imagined would be a tail-off. I wound up building Stonehenge, so I certainly had that.

France, China and the Iroquois were on my continent - and China rushed me just after 3000 BC with two archers (an upgraded scout). Thanks, Thal! I had an upgraded scout myself and had built an extra warrior. That was enough to push back the invaders.

My game plan was built around researching math, steel, physics, astronomy, and artillery. I built a second city for its iron deposits and a third for multiple luxuries on a river. I then started building a small elite army - four Berserkers and four siege units - to attack China and its CS cultural ally. But in keeping with a balanced longterm approach and the elite concept, I also built science and growth buildings, as well as every possible hammer and military building.

This approach resulted in a slow army build, and I didn’t take China and its CS until around 500 AD, by which time I had Berserkers, trebs and my highly-promoted scout (now a crossbowman). It may have made more sense to not worry about those later military buildings and had a few more units. As you’ll see, the small size of my army affected all my decisions.

It made sense for me to attack France next – he was next to China, while the Iroquois were north of France, with a mountain range making the most direct access impossible. An amphibious assault was possible, but the Chinese invasion precluded my scouting that part of my continent, and my carvel explored the Iroquois coast last. The Iroquois branded me a warmonger, so that settled that. I bribed France into declaring war on the Iroquois, then took a maritime CS near the Iroquois for a staging area. But it took me until 1100 AD to declare war.

In the meantime America was in danger of taking over the other continent with massive population and a big tech lead. I decided to ruin my trading opportunities with them by agreeing to fight them along with the Inca in 1460. America was already at war with Spain, and I bribed little Japan to jump in. The hope here was to slow American growth and, especially, tech rate.

I took an Iroquois city, then sold it to France rather than lose a Berserker in the process. This happened three times, with France finally keeping it after making peace with the Iroquois. I made huge amounts from both the sale and the Spoils of War. But fear of losing units to a tech-peer enemy made me play a naval game – two SOTL and two caravels upgraded all the way up – until I had Mech Infantry and Rocket Artillery some time around turn 265 (late 1700s). I then took the capital in a few turns and made peace with the Iroquois in 1802 (t. 271).

Two down and five to go. The long Iroquois war, fought in the oceans and an inland sea even more than on and, was my favorite part of the game. Still, most of you probably feel I took too long, played too cautiously, and you could be right. Still, I never quite caught up to America in tech despite an excellent science rate and outrageous culture. (My own SP focus started on Rationalism until Autocracy opened up, then back to Rationalism mixed with Commerce.)

By then America was dominant and at peace on the other continent. France still had musketeers, so I targeted America next. I took a captured coastal city across a strait from my original Iroquois staging area, then quickly took the two surrounding cities and sold them to the Inca as a buffer. My fear was being overrun by the huge American war machine. In the meantime I shifted my nine bombers (upgraded to Stealth) via four cities, finally reaching the other continent. America had no defense versus the bomber, and I easily took and sold four cities before capturing Washington and accepting peace I turn 280.

I had been building nukes as a safeguard, but was able to use the Stealth bombers from central Washington to take out the Spanish capital and then renew war vs America to capture their already-captured Japanese capital. The Inca declared war on me as well, despite having only their capital plus whatever I had sold them. This time around I used nukes for the fun of it, although the bombers were much more effective, capable of taking cities in one turn as well as devastating any counter-attacks. As a result I now kept every city I took, with Police State making it no problem.

By turn 289 I had Fusion, by turn 300 six Policy trees filled, and by turn 309 I had nuked my way into the borer city next to Paris, from where my relocated bombers did the trick. Paris fell in turn 309 (1878 AD), and the game was over, with a score of 4763.

In retrospect I didn’t need the nukes, and learned that my air force could have protected my units well enough to not have to sell my conquests. Still a quandary for me is whether or not I should use a small elite army, given the Danish make-up, or forego other improvements to crank out more early units. For example, I had no pikemen in this game except the ones used for garrisoning – my first non-Berserkers were the Ski Infantry. And worst of all, I made little use of my Berserker/NSI unique attributes.

I have other comments on the Social Policies used in this game, but am posting them in a reply in the “Balance – Fewer Poor Policies” thread.
 
Thanks for the report, but I admit I'm curious as to your general impressions after the game. Specifically: You hinted in the BFP thread that the militaristic policy trees felt somewhat op, but otherwise how was the combat balance? Although it seems you didn't start warring until later, did you find the buffed pikes to be more of a deterrent to your aggression or not much of an issue? Were the naval units too strong, as someone was saying recently? Do you still think the "extended movement after moving ashore" feels like a bug? Last but not least, was it a fun game?:)
 
Thanks for the report, but I admit I'm curious as to your general impressions after the game. Specifically: You hinted in the BFP thread that the militaristic policy trees felt somewhat op, but otherwise how was the combat balance? Although it seems you didn't start warring until later, did you find the buffed pikes to be more of a deterrent to your aggression or not much of an issue? Were the naval units too strong, as someone was saying recently? Do you still think the "extended movement after moving ashore" feels like a bug? Last but not least, was it a fun game?:)

I can't believe I didn't answer all those questions - I thought I'd written too much as is. This was perhaps the most fun I've had playing Civ 5. Part of it was the fun of engaging in full-scale war, which had fallen off the radar for me. And part of it was the amphibious trait, which I probably didn't need, but made coastal invasions easier. Still another part was the realization that I would need a balanced navy (two destroyers and two battleships, starting from the bottom of the tree), which really factored into a game made more interesting due to the difficulty of getting past a mountain range and that aforementioned inland sea.

And did the Danish bonus landing moves seem like a bug? No - it didn't make them unbeatable. But does it make them a top-tier power? I think so. It was particularly useful (and outrageous) with my upgraded scout, who could land, move, shoot, and go back in the water for safety... tur after turn.

Moving to more general TBC questions, I noticed the Chinese pikemen had a stronger defense, but it didn't slow me down much. I gave my heavy ships the siege promotions, and this was very helpful... but it wasn't like they leveled cities - and the enemy could fore back (especially with artillery, of course). I wouldn't dial them down meaningfully.

I'll still save my OP comments for the BFP thread.
 
Here's my usual approach to warfare:

  1. Representation and quick expand.
  2. Spoils of War.
  3. An AI or two usually declares war between #1 and #2 since I don't build many military units yet. If no one's declared war I skip to #6.
  4. I fight defensively while building up my force, gaining experience for my units.
  5. Continue fighting until they ask for surrender, accept it for a few thousand gold.
  6. Conquer nearby citystates.
  7. #6 makes nearby civs mad, and I attack those who have DoW'd or attack a neighbor.
Like you, I focus on culture buildings in the early game. I get farms and villages as improvements. I purchase workers/monuments/temples in the first two eras since they're so efficient to buy, then purchase workers/workshops/windmills in later eras. Production is usually reserved for inefficient things like military units, libraries, and markets.

For technology, I usually don't go for cats/trebs right away. These are my priorities:

  1. Luxury resource unlocks
  2. Animal Husbandry+Bronze Working
  3. Philosophy
  4. Metal Casting
  5. Optics
  6. Machinery
  7. Astronomy
  8. Rifling
  9. Dynamite
I build my strategic-resource units during the early battles defending the fast expansion, and once I have enough of a core army I shift to building siege units.

I build a few cannon fodder non-strategic units to protect the core elite part of my army. These spears/pikes are the ones I move in to enemy territory first, so any hidden threats I was unaware of kill those instead of my more valuable, experienced forces. If a leader has iron UUs like berserkers I also use horses as cannon fodder.
 
I never thought your approach would be so close to what I wound up doing. The big difference is going for the Liberty tree up to Representation. I just played a Germany game where I skipped Tradition altogether - a first for me - but switched out before Representation. I agree that it's worth getting, and will try it in my next game.

A question regarding your early expansion - do you build only in luxury sites, or do you fill every possible viable city site as a future economic engine for your war machine?

I also hadn't thought of buying workshops and windmills, but will keep that in mind.

I also don't go for siege units right away, preferring to build infrastructure. Again, a likely exception is with Germany, because of the potential of a mid-early rush.

I haven't built enough cannon fodder, and decided in my current game to add some in my next one.
 
In the early game I only build at luxury/strategic resources because happiness is usually very limited. When I get monpolization I have a second expansion wave filling out the remaining space on the continent.
 
Is it just me or doesn't some of the tactics used seem more like exploits of the AI rather than legitimate options?

Like selling conquered cities? Or hiding a unit in the water?

Would be like Hitler putting Paris on the market in 1940; just doesn't seem quite right.

And also, units should be more vulnerable in the water, not less. Even melee units ought to have a way to harm another melee unit in the water. I mean can you visualize an ancient sword fight where the less strong unit would take to the water and be saved from retaliation. Wouldn't the other swordsmen, who can also take to the water, chase them down and board their boats and rap them upside the head?
 
Is it just me or doesn't some of the tactics used seem more like exploits of the AI rather than legitimate options?

Like selling conquered cities? Or hiding a unit in the water?

Would be like Hitler putting Paris on the market in 1940; just doesn't seem quite right.

And also, units should be more vulnerable in the water, not less. Even melee units ought to have a way to harm another melee unit in the water. I mean can you visualize an ancient sword fight where the less strong unit would take to the water and be saved from retaliation. Wouldn't the other swordsmen, who can also take to the water, chase them down and board their boats and rap them upside the head?

Selling cities does seem a bit exploit-like. Since on water a single trireme can destroy an infantry while taking no damage I don't actually see a big problem with that part of water combat. It's slightly unrealistic, but historically in Civ games transports haven't been able to initiate combat.
 
Selling cities does seem a bit exploit-like. Since on water a single trireme can destroy an infantry while taking no damage I don't actually see a big problem with that part of water combat. It's slightly unrealistic, but historically in Civ games transports haven't been able to initiate combat.

But in previous Civs a melee unit couldn't just run into the water to save his skin.....

If there happened to be boats nearby and the units ran to them and scuttled off, well okay, they got lucky (or were smart) to have the opportunity, but now it is silly that I can run my units into the water at will and they are safe. And even if there are triremes about, the AI doesn't seem to care much about trying to squash my units in the water like I do to his....
 
Top Bottom