Goal Year for EC invasion?

[PaulT]

Hi, I was just wondering what the advanced players around here kept as a goal for starting their early conquest invasions. For example, what year would an army of crusaders set forth to conquer a large map?

I'm just looking for a benchmark to judge my own progress on. I want to get good enough to seriously compete in GOTm. Also, sometime s I end up having to get at least one "Off path" advance, which one(s) would you recommend in a pinch?

 

[Peaster]

That's a very good question! The ultimate goal in EC is to finish fast, and one of the main factors is how fast you can send out the first troops, probably on triremes. First, you need mapmaking for boats, and polytheism for elephants. I usually also wait for the Lighthouse and Marco's, and I prefer to send vet ellies, if possible. I need about 10 cities to build all this efficiently, and those cities are my main goal until about 1500BC. My first boats usually leave around 1000BC to 750BC. [This took some practice though... you might aim for 1AD or 500AD at first].

There are several variations. On a very large map, your first boats might hold caravans for overseas trade, for some fast cash. You might replace the elephants by settlers or diplomats or crusaders. Grigor sometimes sends his boats out sooner than mine [he makes fewer cities, no Wonders] and that often works out well, especially on smaller maps. Some players seem to manage without Marco, but that hasn't worked well for me. I sometimes build Pyramids and/or Hanging Gardens before the other Wonders, depending on the difficulty level and my growth goals.

I think you can almost always choose a tech that helps towards monarchy, trade, mapmaking or monotheism (and after that, tech shouldn't matter much). Get pottery or masonry, if you want HG/Pyr. I'll sometimes get seafaring or republic in big-growth games, maybe even navigation or democracy in especially long games (such as GOTM 70).

Lately, I have been avoiding Feudalism. But if you are a beginner to EC, building Sun Tzu instead of barracks can make your conquest simpler, especially on large maps. In general, building almost any Wonder makes EC easier, but maybe a few turns longer.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

For early conquest, especially at higher difficulty levels, the most important "off-path" tech is Pottery to get the HG. (as peaster mentions, On-track includes Monarchy, Map making, Trade, and Monotheism*. One of the keys to EC is an ICS-like early expansion and unhappiness rapidly becomes a problem with growth due to the riot factor. HG alleviates this substantially and saves you a lot of time and sheilds that would otherwise be spent building and supporting garrison troops so you can get those boats and fighting troops out that much quicker.

*As mentioned above, an alternative to Monotheism is to first pursuing Feu-Chivalry and build STWA for vet Knights. The biggest drawback here is losing warriors, which means you can't rushbuy the first row of sheilds, and if you need to garrison, for unhappiness, you will need to spend 20s.

 

[Peaster]

Another reason I don't research Feudalism much anymore is that when I get it, the AI's often get it too. From deals I can't seem to refuse, or theft, or whatever. Then they have pikemen, and EC becomes 50% harder. That's one tech I really hate to give the AI, but I still find myself doing so sometimes.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Actually, I'd say it makes it more than 50% harder. I don't know how to calculate all the combinatorial mathematics, but in short, I'm pretty sure that without pikers, a vet crusader is at least even money or better to beat anything the AI can put out there (river, walls) in a normal city. A well positioned piker actually has the statistical advantage over a vet crusader so the math all works against you. You will lose a lot more, and the defenders will have a lot more strength for the second attack as well. You can lose a lot more attackers against pikers.

 

[PaulT]

Even in my crappy games so far the AI has never reached feudalism before my invading force arrives, and I definetely don't research it. I find barracks easier than sun tzus, crusaders better than knights, warriors better than pikeman, etc.

The problem I seem to run into the most is setting up effective trireme routes to enemy civs (I always get lighthouse and it helps, but I never have enough trirems when I need them). And finding the enemy civs.

Also, at the beggining of my games I'm not sure how many horseman I should build, and how much effort I should put into my city placement. Usually I explore untill I find the limits of my island or an enemy civ, then stop building horseman.

Alot of people swear by Marco Polos for EC but how can it be effectively used to find where enemy civs are? Obviously trade maps, but everyone hates me .

 

[Magic_gorter]

The only way to get those maps with Marco Polo is to give some (not so usefull) techs to them till they are enthausiastic. Then you can get those maps.

 

[Peaster]

@Tim: I said "50%" off hand, because pikers get a 50% defense bonus against ellies/etc. I GUESS that means you need about 50% more ellies than usual, but I haven't done a careful analysis. Maybe if they also have walls and/or rivers/hills, etc, the probabilities do change so much that the damage to EC goes over 50%. Anyway, we agree pikers are bad news!

@MG: Agreed (mostly). If the AI is very hostile, you can usually bring them up to neutral by agreeing to all they ask. Though I'm not sure this is wise, and you may do OK even without agreeing. Once at neutral, they are usually willing to trade techs, and this will also raise their attitude, but probably slower than gifts would. I make tech gifts much more often than tech trades. They are often willing to trade maps at "cordial", and are always willing at "worshipful" (if both sides have mapmaking).

Sometimes they cut off talks in the middle. I think this happens mostly when trading techs [or demanding tribute], and not when you are giving techs or attempting map trades. But I'm not 100% sure about the rule on this.

@Paul: About your original question, see the GOTM71 spoiler (my game and Grigor's comments), in which a 1000BC departure is considered a very late start! But that game is Prince/small map, which is not typical.

In my games, I rarely build any horsemen, because I rely on Marco for map info. I don't even research that tech until I am eager for Polytheism (I usually go for Trade first). IMO it's not bad to make a few horses for hut-popping, defense, or even scouting, but I definitely would not build more than 4 or 5. Wait and make elephants, dips, or even explorers.

I usually rely on just a warrior or two (more at Deity level, since they are also useful as militia), or even on my settlers, for early short-range scouting. Or if a hut produces a unit, I use that. Some strong players value scouting and early AI contact more than I do. For me, it depends a lot on whether I expect to find a hut easily (am I on a small island? or a large land mass with rivers? ).

IMO almost nobody makes enough triremes for EC and/or trade (and long range scouting). Before 2000BC you should be making mostly settlers for quick new cities (and maybe 1-2 scouts). After 1500BC, about half your production should be boats and passengers (probably elephants - or maybe settlers to make colonies, dips, vans, etc) and vans for Wonders. The other half can be more settlers for nearby cities - if you value growth, as I do. The proportions are partly a matter of taste, but could also depend on whether you expect a long game (eg Deity/Emp/Large map; see GOTM70) or a short one (see GOTM71). Longer games call for more growth IMO.

It also seems to be a matter of taste whether to include trade in your EC games. IMO it's useful on large maps (better bonuses, more need for funds + techs), but it's not needed on small maps at easy levels.