G-Major I
- Thread starter superslug
- Start date
Kalleyao said:
Winning isn't a problem! On a huge map emperor, the human player could easily have a tech lead; therefore, winning by military Conquest isn't a problem. The problem for me is that I recently shot myself on my foot by giving away my computer. No computer = no game; what was I thinking?
At the time, it seemed like a good excuse for getting a new system. I'm going now...will check back in about two weeks after I get my new machine.
Sumorex
Warlord
Moonsinger said:Winning isn't a problem! On a huge map emperor, the human player could easily have a tech lead; therefore, winning by military Conquest isn't a problem. The problem for me is that I recently shot myself on my foot by giving away my computer. No computer = no game; what was I thinking?
That is like quitting your job without having a new one waiting!
I'd be miserable quickly
My Hatty game got kinda screwed I think.
It's now 800AD, 6 down, one more whenever I decide to take his two cities. However, my forces (a bit over 20 WC) are trapped at the other end of the map, behind a civ who ended open borders with me, and has recently gotten longbows, too. So, bottom line is, I can't get my forces back home, or bring reinforcements, before I take out that civ.
Don't know if I'll take the time to play it out, but I doubt I'd finish much faster than 1500.
Hatty is definitely a lot faster in the beginning than Rome, by the time they'd even get some praetorians out, I already had taken out two civs. Didn't build a second city, but kept some conquered ones. Unit upkeep is a killer, but I found that actually very little research is needed for quite a while.
I'd estimate, on a good map position and without diplomatical accidents like mine (and some better planning overall), Hatty can finish in 500AD. I'm pretty certain it's possible before anyone gets longbows.
Rome would be quite a different playstyle, calculating well which forces to send where, since they're slow. On the other hand they're strong. I don't have much experience with Rome, so I can't make good guesses here.
It's now 800AD, 6 down, one more whenever I decide to take his two cities. However, my forces (a bit over 20 WC) are trapped at the other end of the map, behind a civ who ended open borders with me, and has recently gotten longbows, too. So, bottom line is, I can't get my forces back home, or bring reinforcements, before I take out that civ.
Don't know if I'll take the time to play it out, but I doubt I'd finish much faster than 1500.
Hatty is definitely a lot faster in the beginning than Rome, by the time they'd even get some praetorians out, I already had taken out two civs. Didn't build a second city, but kept some conquered ones. Unit upkeep is a killer, but I found that actually very little research is needed for quite a while.
I'd estimate, on a good map position and without diplomatical accidents like mine (and some better planning overall), Hatty can finish in 500AD. I'm pretty certain it's possible before anyone gets longbows.
Rome would be quite a different playstyle, calculating well which forces to send where, since they're slow. On the other hand they're strong. I don't have much experience with Rome, so I can't make good guesses here.
Kalleyao said:Really?!There're no games submitted huge conquest to beta hof.
IIRC, there were a few games submitted on huge domination. I myself have won huge domination a few time on Monarch and Immortal. Although I have never won a huge conquest, I think it's much easier than domination. May be I will play one this weekend.
PS: My new system came today.
At the moment, it has nothing else installed but Civ4. That's just so sad because there are so much important things I should be doing. I don't really know why I even think of playing game.Moonsinger said:
I think huge domination is easier than conquest. In dominationýou only need to kill several AIs but conquest needs all. Conquest=10AIs. domination= maybe 6-7. Then wait for your borders to expand.
cause its fun.Moonsinger said:
Kalleyao said:
For me, huge conquest is much easier than huge domination. In huge domination, I have to wait until I get Code of Law. My tactic for huge domination is very simple:
1. Primary focus on research toward Code of Law
2. Within 40 turns from getting Code of Law, I start a trainning war. This first war is mostly fought on the open field to promote my troops.
3. Adopt Slavery so when Code of Law come, I could pop-rush a court house in all liberated cities.
If my goal is to win by Conquests, I don't even have to wait for Code of Law. At emperor level, I think the Inca will do better than the Roman. With good starting location, I think I can eliminate the first two civs and cripple the third during the first 40 turns. Eliminate at least 2 more civs using swordmans, then the last 5 civs using the combination of spears, swords, and catapults. My prediction is that the the game will end before 1 BC. I can't wait to give it a try this weekend. It probably won't take more than 5 hours per game.
Dunno about easier, that depends on what's easy for you, but conquest is certainly faster. To get domination, you have to pay for all those cities, so you need infrastructure and some growth, besides the conquering. I'd be impressed if anyone would manage domination on a huge map before 1500AD, and don't think it'd even be possible before 1000AD, which I'm pretty sure several people will be able to do with conquest.
So, who else is playing this gauntlet at the moment? What did you achieve so far, with which civ and map?
So, who else is playing this gauntlet at the moment? What did you achieve so far, with which civ and map?
Thrar said:
That's exactly why Code of Law is very important. Pop-rushing the courthouse usually cost 2 people (for organized civ). Since those extra unhappy people are going to die anyway, may well put them into good use. Instead of a meaningless dead, they are now giving their life for the greater good.
I have a new secret weapon that I haven't told anyone yet. When I capture a new city, I can easily pop-rush a new Praetorian for the cost of 1 pop in every 2 turns (the first one would take only 1 turn). For example, if you capture a city of size 4, you should be able to pop-rush 3 new Praetorians within 5 turns. After that, you can give that city away or let the enemy to have it (if you like, you can take it back and raze it to the ground). I really love this tactic because it's following the spirit of Julius Ceasar and Alexander the Great. Their armies were constantly growing because they were able to assimilate new unhappy-angry people into their armies. Now, you all can do it too.
It's definitely giving a lot of extra speed to conquest. I hope no one would consider this as an exploit. I think it's really a good tactic and I'm very proud of it.At what level?
For example, at warlord level or below, one could easily dominate the world long before 1000 AD. Check out those huge score game by A_Turkish_Guy.Not yet, but it's on my schedule for this weekend.
If you have creative or stonehenge you don't need code of laws. |Money isn't problem because as you capture cities you will get money. My tactic is to not capture every city then settle like 40 chopped settlers and wait 30 turns for borders to expand.Moonsinger said:
Kalleyao said:
Since it's a huge map, I think the long distance will swallow your treasury much faster than you can capture them. Even on a small map, I have to use anarchy to slow down them down. If you are going to wait around for 30 turns, may well get Code of Laws. Plus, Code of Laws will also help increase your final score too. Since population means score, 40 cities of size 1 doesn't score as good as 40 developed cities with religion and courthouse.
I don't think it will go down much. It doesn't take long to get to Mathematics. We need to get to Mathematics fast so that we can search for Construction. Without catapult, it would be tough to eliminate the last 3 civs.
Nono, I mean I raze most of the cities I capture. Of course I also use anarchy to allow my settlers to move and settle. I block off the AIs I don't attack with culture by settling a wall of cities. Then I pre-build setller. When I have enough I build like 10 settlers at 1 turn. Then I use anarchy to prevent them from disband. I slowly settle bakwards fill out the gap in my map and win.Moonsinger said:
Yes, but it's fastest finish.Moonsinger said:Since population means score, 40 cities of size 1 doesn't score as good as 40 developed cities with religion and courthouse.
Chopping isn't the only problem, the domination limit is fixed.Moonsinger said:
Damnit, I need a break from this. Screwed up another Hatty game, more and more I'm starting to understand that diplomacy isn't totally unimportant here, being careful whom to attack because people may close borders etc.
With Hatty, at best there are 3 opponents left that require catapult and elephant assistance, it seems. So I doubt I'll be able to finish significantly earlier than 1000AD with my current approach.
Probably Rome is better after all... :-/
With Hatty, at best there are 3 opponents left that require catapult and elephant assistance, it seems. So I doubt I'll be able to finish significantly earlier than 1000AD with my current approach.
Probably Rome is better after all... :-/
Sorry, I was way off on my previous post. A huge map is much bigger than I thought. I doubt I will be able to finish any sooner than 1000 AD. I was playing on the Great Plains starting at the bottom left corner of the map (took almost eternity to road myself out of those hills and forests). So far, my computer had locked up twice around 320 BC.
So much for the new computer!
I'm done playing this game.
Good luck to you all!
So much for the new computer! I'm done playing this game.Good luck to you all!
Similar threads
