I've beaten the game several times with each of the 3 peaceful victory conditions, and my current game is my first attempt at domination. Seems to be about the easiest victory condition, I just went with the other VCs first because there's more game elements to be learned/mastered with the other ones. But that's mostly backstory... Anyway, I'm playing as Mvemba, not the best civ for domination but I'm finding that the assortment of city-states has more to do with which VC you pick than anything else, including which civ. This particular game has a great selection of CS's for a dom game; I got Buenos and Zanzibar for extra amenities, Zanzibar and one other trade CS for the economy backbone, and three militaristic CS's for a 12-hammer per turn boost to building units from envoy bonuses, two of which have great suzerein bonuses as well (the Kabul XP-doubling seems to apply to every battle, and I have the almighty Carthage bonus.) Since Carthage is in the game and I'm going domination, every city's first two districts are CH and ENC. So my initial conquest and land-grab was an (5)archer rush with a single warrior for taking citiies, pretty standard and quite effective. After that there was a brief pause for expansion and development, during which I picked up 2 great generals. Moved the generals to where the 5 archers and warrior were, upgraded to crossbows and the Kongolese swordsman and started the second attack. This was extremely effective, even against walls without a seige unit, because of the +10 combat strength(it seems that all GG's have the same passive bonus: +5 strength and +1 move for units of two eras within 2 tiles, and they stack) to the crossbows and 4 movement points for all units, including the generals. For the next phase, I have a group of 7 knights that are moving in against the only civ that poses any threat to me. It's working OK I guess, I read somewhere here that knights absolutely rule the medieval era for conquest, but I'm finding that isn't really the case. There's two really important reasons why the ranged/melee composition of units seems to outperform the mounted units in the context of conquest (as opposed to the context of open-field wars of attrition, in which the mounted units are probably better): 1.) ranged units. Since civ4 (Civ3 ended the era of rock/paper/scissors combat mechanics and ever since the game has been about sheer numbers and advancement), my carpets have either consisted of exclusively slow units (melee, ranged, support, siege) or exclusively fast units (mounted.) Either way, they're accompanied by a GG. This is because the main advantage of a group of mounted units is that they can advance on a target more quickly, and that advantage is lost if the mounted units are turn-clicking as they wait for the other units to catch up. As such, the slow melee units operate with the support of ranged units, which fire with impunity and is one of the more broken game mechanics, making the slow carpets more effective than the fast ones, despite getting there later... 2.) ... but they don't get there later. This is because the extra movement points allotted by the great generals lets the slower melee and ranged units move at 4 movement points per turn if you have two GGs stacking, which is just as fast as mounted units. While it's true that the extra movement also apply to the mounted units, who have 6 or 7 movement points per turn, they really don't because the great generals themselves only have 4 movement points and the mounted units have to wait for them anyway, effectively negating the bonus they get. 3.) seige units and bombard units. These guys really help for conquering cities, particularly developed cities. And the bombard units move at the same rate as melee and ranged units, with or without GG movement bonuses. The seige units don't get the GG movement bonus, which is unfortunate, but you just tie a single melee unit to guard them as they move towards a more developed target while the faster units (around the GGs) take out a less developed target, they all get there around the same time.