Domination advice plz

i usually just pillage farms when my units are low on health everything else i leave alone don't want to damage my future improvements which will SOON BE MINE
 
Not necessarily as the map can restrict what you can attack with, that's why corps/armies are useful later on
Despite this, you can still get away with less units, e.g. once you knocked down the walls you can move your catapult (or whatever) to the next city. Ranged units can hop easily between the two as fast-moving mounted units. Having less units also brings the benefits of more promotions. No-one has said this, but when you forms corps or armies, they all take on the promotion level of the highest unit, so using less units in the early battles is better in the long run.
 
I never knew when you took over a holy city their UB turned into your UB, I took spain and every city had a stave church, weird.

I think it happens for every UB.

Thinking about it, it creates an interesting situation for Norway. Since most AI builds Holy Sites almost everywhere (and its buildings as well), you actually get your UB in many cities you conquer. So it's a minor advantage, both for enhanced bonus and the fact you don't need to build it (actually you don't even need to research it). It doesn't happen so often, for example, with Poland's Sukiennice or Arabia's Madrasa.
 
Despite this, you can still get away with less units, e.g. once you knocked down the walls you can move your catapult (or whatever) to the next city. Ranged units can hop easily between the two as fast-moving mounted units. Having less units also brings the benefits of more promotions. No-one has said this, but when you forms corps or armies, they all take on the promotion level of the highest unit, so using less units in the early battles is better in the long run.
Getting away with less units isn't the point though. Attacking on a wider front against multiple opponents speeds it up requiring few upgrades and saves you gold in the long term. Also a quicker war means less war weariness. The main restriction on number of troops is the maintenance in my experience.
 
Getting away with less units isn't the point though. Attacking on a wider front against multiple opponents speeds it up requiring few upgrades and saves you gold in the long term. Also a quicker war means less war weariness. The main restriction on number of troops is the maintenance in my experience.
That's certainly a restriction. Less maintenance also equals more gold for upgrades. It sounds like we take different routes - I prefer fewer units with more promotions and upgrades. You'd rather have more units with fewer promotions and upgrades. I think mine is a lot easier to control, at the very least.
 
Fewer, better units is my default style as well. If nothing else, the situations that call for that arrangement seem to arise much more often. Closing in on a city that I want to capture is usually the goal of my wars, and arranging my units to concentrate their firepower on a single hex is much easier when there are fewer of them. So even if I'm not trying to narrow the front, it happens all by itself as I approach the city.

I suppose a human opponent would look for ways to take advantage and widen the front and stretch my armies, but the AI isn't capable of that level of strategy, so it only ever comes up at random, and rarely. Once in a blue moon, I'm forced to engage an AI army heavy in cavalry on plains or grasslands, which can be a little challenging, if only because I haven't built my army for that. The Battle of Kursk or the Mongol Invasions just never happen in my games.
 
Back
Top Bottom