How could I have won this game?

[chicorbeef]

Hey guys!

So, after a long hiatus from Civ V, I decided to reinstall, load up a game of Vox Populi, and attempt a game.

I set up a random game, rolled Portugal, and had an....interesting game to say the least. Although I did have some success this game (I allied practically every city-state on the map with no real competition and conquered neighboring India), I decided to just retire after I lost 3 city-state allies with nothing I can seemingly do about it, and having a runaway Assyria on my hands with T-34's while I have nothing but Cacadores (Portugal's UU in 3rd/4th UC) to defend myself.

My main question is, how do you effectively deal with a military/tech runaway like this? Should I have passed resolutions like scholars in residence sooner, should I have engaged them in war sooner? I believe I did do a good job ensuring they don't have city-state allies but that is starting to backfire on me as they just conquer my allies and take away my last hope of winning the game.

I did not turn on logging this game (will do for next time).

On the bright side, I definitely feel as if the AI has gotten significantly stronger, so kudos to the modding team for an incredible game!

If anybody else has experience similar to this in their own games, I would love to hear it!

Settings are:
Pangea
Deity
Quick speed
Small map size
Events/tech trading disabled

Mod List:
Vox Populi 4.16
More Unique Components for VP (v88)
Music Changer (shouldn't impact gameplay whatsoever but it was an active mod)

I'm attaching 2 screenshots below/last save of my last turn played in this game, as well as my initial save, if someone else wants to try this game.

 

[hokath]

Well judging by the map and tech advantage I guess he's been ahead for a while?
Did you manage to get the sanction on him?
Quick speed unfortunately doesn't always give you a lot of time to respond, I have found!

 

[chicorbeef]

Well judging by the map and tech advantage I guess he's been ahead for a while?
Did you manage to get the sanction on him?
Quick speed unfortunately doesn't always give you a lot of time to respond, I have found!

He was almost at parity until he conquered the Netherlands. He is sanctioned but it doesn't really do much.

I think maybe I could have won this if I supported the Netherlands against Assyria, because it's hard to defend all my city-state allies across the map using my own limited forces and simultaneously defend myself.

It wasn't until the Modern Era where he rapidly jumped from Fusiliers to Tanks/Infantry that I felt the game was out of hand. I was surprised at how he beelined Combined Arms so fast.

 

[Legen]

He was almost at parity until he conquered the Netherlands.

Assyria's UA gives them a large science lead as he starts taking cities, making them a snowballing civ. To prevent Assyria from winning, you'd have to ensure they can't capture cities anywhere. The same rationale applies to other civs that are rewarded for conquering, like the Aztecs, and any civ with the Crusader Spirit reformation belief.

From the screenshots, it's not just Netherlands, but also India, that you had to help in order to curb Assyria. It is possible that Assyria started taking off not when they conquered Netherlands's cities, but India's cities, taking advantage of the latter being weakened by your previous wars against Gandhi.

 

[chicorbeef]

Assyria's UA gives them a large science lead as he starts taking cities, making them a snowballing civ. To prevent Assyria from winning, you'd have to ensure they can't capture cities anywhere. The same rationale applies to other civs that are rewarded for conquering, like the Aztecs, and any civ with the Crusader Spirit reformation belief.

From the screenshots, it's not just Netherlands, but also India, that you had to help in order to curb Assyria. It is possible that Assyria started taking off not when they conquered Netherlands's cities, but India's cities, taking advantage of the latter being weakened by your previous wars against Gandhi.

The point about India is interesting. I joined in Assyria's war against India (they declared war first)-they conquered one city, whereas I conquered the rest of India and left them as a one city vassal. The city of Mumbai the Assyrians have was actually conquered by me, the Assyrians conquered it back.

The logic I was using, was that by controlling the holy city of Delhi and vassalizing India, I could open up a path of victory for myself. Perhaps this was too greedy, I could have passed through world religion and let India keep the votes, and maybe keep India alive to defend against the Assyrians.

Do you think it's better to team up against the weak with the strong to carve out more of an empire for yourself, or to ally with the weak against the strong even if you don't have as much to directly gain? I guess that's what I should ask myself.

 

[azum4roll]

If you're both on the same side of your enemy, allying is rarely worth it compared to conquering/vassalizing them yourself. It's painful to move through their territory, and they'll just turn against you when they become a vassal of your enemy.

 

[chicorbeef]

If you're both on the same side of your enemy, allying is rarely worth it compared to conquering/vassalizing them yourself. It's painful to move through their territory, and they'll just turn against you when they become a vassal of your enemy.

Yeah, fair enough. But simply letting Assyria take over India doesn't seem like the right move, and conquering India myself didn't work, so...I'm at a bit of a loss lol.