I have won a few domination games and have just decided to go for a high points game. Just starting out in a great position but central. Do you think its best I have 1 army, 2, 3, more? I mean the armies do not seem to have to be huge against AI stupidity and I have fealt the pleasure of moving troops through a large country before
EDIT By armies I mean groups of troops at a front rather than 3 knights merged into 1
expand towards the ai build a city right next to them or if they do it 1st and fortify the borders with troops. than when your ready move forward. that's all i do
easiest for me has been to open normal (scout, either builder or scout or slinger depending) settle second city asap then get a good group of archers up. Next, get great general one, ideally great general two. Beeline xbows and rampage.
Generally 3 xbows once promoted can crush fast but I like to get 5 or so which can rip a city down in one turn. A chariot to upgrade to a knight is a great city taker as well as your left over warrior(s) upgraded to swords. Also the single knight will get you that mil science eureka.
More generally the quicker you take down their walls the better. On lower difficulties that may not come into play for your first rush because AI.
Unless my country is large (and rich) enough to support a two front offensive war, I generally only keep one offensive army going. I keep the promoted units on the offensive, and use the replacements I am building and sending towards the front as garrison for newly conquered lands. Against humans or at least a somewhat competent AI.
As the AI currently is now, if you're going for speed/points, do two armies. Three, if you can swing it. They don't have to be very big (like in IV or V), as there is not any real opposition from the AI. Make your second city someone else's Capital. They're usually on a good spot. Then keep attacking.
I always garrison my home cities, even though it's largely unnecessary against the AI (The AI doesn't seem to care where your army is, so long as it's large) - no sense in developing bad habits that would hurt me in any potential multiplayer games.
Thank you @Lanthar for reading my request correctly. I know how to open, how to play, how to attack, what troops to move. I just want to know peoples opinion if you are in the middle of 4 civs what to do.
I have used tithe for my religion, have a coulke of horsemen roaming for enemy pagam worship types nosing aroung and am just gonna build inquisitors with tithe which should help pay for troops.
pump out archers and chariots and surround your borders put archers on hills and the chariots in between them till you b-line to swordman than pump them out than send the whole kit and kaboodle into the ai. use archers to weaken enemy's than send chariots into them to finish them while attacking anything that moves and getting into position to attack cities with your swordman no need for bat rams or cataplults. works for me.
Rather than convert cities before taking them, remove all blasphemers afterward cheaply with inquisitors and then missionaries easily convert pagans cheaply if need be.
Tithe just helps my money so I can afford more troops, every city I covert is another troop or 2 in my army
Yeah, I have ended up going for more dom wins than anything else lately and my strategy on number of armies changes as the game goes along.
Early war, only one army. I tend to pick off one civ, city by city at a time.
But, once it starts to get rolling and the victory is more inevitable I will branch into two armies. And I'll take my army for a specific target and I'll subdivide to maybe take out 2 cities at a time instead of just once.
The biggest problem with 2 armies is moving all the units around. BUT if you are going for max points you need to take as many AI cities as possible, so you need to do all the moving anyway - might as well grab cities as quickly as you can.
Thank you @Lanthar for reading my request correctly. I know how to open, how to play, how to attack, what troops to move. I just want to know peoples opinion if you are in the middle of 4 civs what to do.
If I am stuck in the middle, unless there is one extremely weak opponent I tend to use 1 offensive force and 1 defensive one. I find it too hard to fight 2 or more large battles without sending reinforcements to the wrong front or advancing in the wrong city order. And it cuts down on the time as well I find, one overwhelming force can keep rolling much faster than 2 strong forces. And having a small batch defensive grouping allows me to control my borders very well. Although I am very diplomatic and I always have at least 1 BFF nearby that makes my domination run smoother.
I think it's best to do a combination. For the first conquest I use one army and take out the first foe. By the time my first foe is on the floor, I'll have enough units for 2 armies. I generally don't go higher than 2.
If I am stuck in the middle, unless there is one extremely weak opponent I tend to use 1 offensive force and 1 defensive one. I find it too hard to fight 2 or more large battles without sending reinforcements to the wrong front or advancing in the wrong city order. And it cuts down on the time as well I find, one overwhelming force can keep rolling much faster than 2 strong forces. And having a small batch defensive grouping allows me to control my borders very well. Although I am very diplomatic and I always have at least 1 BFF nearby that makes my domination run smoother.
Sounds similar to how I do it. Each of my cities has a fortified ranged unit which I can use to reinforce the front line or defend the realm appropriately.
Going for a high score??!
Score is based more on empire size (land, number of cities & population) than anything else. May make for a game that is tedious at times (or at many times), but stave off defeat or victory until as late as possible. Rub out those foreign civs whose elimination may pose a threat to your victory, but not those whose elimination will give you an early win (e.g., religious victory). Do NOT raze cities, but keep and develop them unless their population would lead to severe inconvenience.
Play on a HUGE map. My understanding is that currently difficulty & speed have no bearing on score.
More fronts you can manage the better, but early on that's going to be 1, later 2-3. I find more than 2 to be extremely painful to control but it can be done.
If you are in the middle of 4 then it might be a good idea to beeline for Theocracy so you can more easily maintain two fronts. I generally try to have multiple fronts in pangea domination games and faith buying units helps to constantly refresh them. Generally my first war will have 1 front only but I usually try to build a 2nd army while the first is on mop up duty. Knights and horsemen make it easier to fight on two fronts early.
So much of your question really depends on who you are playing as and who are your neighbors let alone the difficulty level. Example is if I have the Aztec and don't happen to have a dangerous neighbor near then I will go straight for a two front war. If I find Gil next door I may choose to start with a 1 front war unless I can coax him into a joint war that will keep him busy enough for me to finish at least one target. For any civ that doesn't have an early UU then I normally try to plan on saving some room to build a few special troops just to get some use of them, this will normally become my second or third army. Try to clear at least one side so you can have your back to the sea and always remember that the biggest problem with having a lot of troops is finding the gold to upgrade. Try to save as much as you can so you can upgrade at least one army asap so that you can continue your conquests at a steady speed. A small army can normally hold your lands so don't be to worried about being surrounded at the start and they will level quickly to become your second or third army.
I think it's best to do a combination. For the first conquest I use one army and take out the first foe. By the time my first foe is on the floor, I'll have enough units for 2 armies. I generally don't go higher than 2.
I agree with this. If you go for more than two armies at once (by your original definition, clusters of half a dozen or so units) you tend to dilute all your armies - to the detriment of all.
Of course if you're talking about later on in the game and you are in front in terms of tech and the size of your civ, then go nuts : )
I usually keep only one on the offensive until after Knights, at least. It's better to pound one civ at a time to the ground than delaying conquest because you sent reinforcements to the wrong side. Also, if you begin conquering with mounted units, your army gets much more mobile.
EDIT: Depending on the strategy, it might be better to use Church Property. Rarely I see 8 followers in a city for Tithe to overcome Church Property, especially conquered ones. And since usually my army arrives before my religion, foreign cities usually don't contribute for Tithe.
Rather than convert cities before taking them, remove all blasphemers afterward cheaply with inquisitors and then missionaries easily convert pagans cheaply if need be.
Tithe just helps my money so I can afford more troops, every city I covert is another troop or 2 in my army
Ah, makes sense. I thought there was more of a trick to it that I had missed somewhere. I like Tithe, it's good for helping to support a larger army early.
The basic strategy I use is one that was successful in Civ V. Kill their troops first, the AI rarely seems to recover from this so you can let them build more cities if you want. This is based on score not being time based so you want more techs/civics/wonders/cities/pop. Do we have a definitive answer on how the score is calculated?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
