Legit strats for domination?

[Stickerbrush]

Hey!

I have been trying to win a domination match on inmortal difficulty with the celts but i feel rather lost. Like, in the normal game you have those stabilished up strats like going xb's to get one or two enemy capitals or the "get education into dynamite" strat but i honestly don't know what are the good strats anymore. Any advice?

so far i've gone for the pantheon that gives golden age, culture and gold and have just been running around bullying other civs to get an early religion tailored for domination but i don't know what to do in the near future.

Any advice?
btw, does the pantheon that gives 100% ranged strenght and 25% supposed to work for cities only? or does it work on ranged units like xbows? does that mean that my crossbows will hit twice as hard? i haven't really had the time to try it out, but if it works like that i can definitely see it being better than the pantheon im currently using

 

[Gazebo]

Hey!

I have been trying to win a domination match on inmortal difficulty with the celts but i feel rather lost. Like, in the normal game you have those stabilished up strats like going xb's to get one or two enemy capitals or the "get education into dynamite" strat but i honestly don't know what are the good strats anymore. Any advice?

so far i've gone for the pantheon that gives golden age, culture and gold and have just been running around bullying other civs to get an early religion tailored for domination but i don't know what to do in the near future.

Any advice?
btw, does the pantheon that gives 100% ranged strenght and 25% supposed to work for cities only? or does it work on ranged units like xbows? does that mean that my crossbows will hit twice as hard? i haven't really had the time to try it out, but if it works like that i can definitely see it being better than the pantheon im currently using

It is for cities only (the Pantheon).

Celts aren't a great conquest civ - try Sweden, the Huns, or the Songhai.

G

 

[hokath]

Frankly the meta hasn't sedimented yet because a) changes are ongoing, b) not the massive numbers playing that you have in the base game.

Your strategy sounds pretty good. Remember that Religious Divisions can be a major cause of unhappiness, so you can weaken your religious opponents by sending missionaries to their cities. If in doubt just try to do well in all aspects. CBP will crush you if you heavily neglect part of the game, so don't forget about city states, science and culture in your quest for domination. Let us know how it goes!

 

[Funak]

In my opinion, Siege-weapons are the key to conquest, doing pushes as soon as you get to Trebuchets, Cannons, Artillery usually leads to good outcomes. However I don't normally do the vanilla style army where you only focus on one or two unit-types anymore, it could probably work but CPP gives pretty much all units a purpose. Ranged units might not be very good vs cities, but they can still blast enemy frontlines down earlygame or provide viable support along with damage-soaking later on. Knights and Lancers are melee monsters, they can take on same era melee units one on one but with their mobility and flanking-power they don't need to.

 

[Gort]

I'm hardly a top-level player, but if siege weapons are key to conquest, the Ottomans have gotta be a contender for domination with their massive bonuses for building siege units.

 

[Funak]

I'm hardly a top-level player, but if siege weapons are key to conquest, the Ottomans have gotta be a contender for domination with their massive bonuses for building siege units.

Build-time isn't the limiting factor on siege-weapons, resources are. In that situation Russia is in a way better situation having not only double iron but also double horses.

 

[Stickerbrush]

This might be a dumb question but where can i check what's causing my unhappiness?
on the economic overview it only says "9 total unhappiness" but it doesn't say what's causing it? where can i check that?

 

[Funak]

This might be a dumb question but where can i check what's causing my unhappiness?
on the economic overview it only says "9 total unhappiness" but it doesn't say what's causing it? where can i check that?

Tried mouse-over?

 

[Stickerbrush]

Spoiler :

This is all i can get

 

[Funak]

Spoiler :

This is all i can get

That's not how it is supposed to look, have you botched your install somehow?

 

[Stickerbrush]

Alright nevermind, i just didn't have the compatibility files enabled.
i really hate the city state diplomacy mod but i guess i will have to play with it so i can enable the compatibility files and see the happiness overview

 

[Gort]

Build-time isn't the limiting factor on siege-weapons, resources are. In that situation Russia is in a way better situation having not only double iron but also double horses.

Does that mean you feel Russia is the best civ for domination?

 

[Funak]

Does that mean you feel Russia is the best civ for domination?

They are extremely consistent, mostly because they can launch an invasion with only minor sources of strategic resources. They are not going to get screwed over by not having coal and oil later on, and they have a pretty decent unique unit. They do have a couple of problems however, main one being the late UB.

As for 'best', no probably not. There are quite a few civs that does exceptionally well for domination. Either by just laying low until a specific tech or by keeping an army advantage throughout the game. Some examples would be:

England, Sweden, Ottoman, Rome, Japan, Zulu, Russia, France.

Then there are a few that still does pretty well with domination:
Aztecs, Mongolia, Huns, Iroquois, Inca, Songhai.

Main difference is that they kinda lack the power to completely roll everything over. Most of them have other things going for them, like great UBs however.

 

[TheUnholyPotato]

Then there are a few that still does pretty well with domination:
Aztecs, Mongolia, Huns, Iroquois, Inca, Songhai.

I'd tentatively add Greece to that list. It requires a non-trivial quantity of non-Conquest play (City States), but 20% combat strength is nothing to scoff at (double Morale). Acropolis's Culture on kill/City strength also synergizes, though it doesn't actually aid in the conquest. The Hoplite is fairly mediocre, however.

Similar arguments can be made for Persia (though much, much more circumstantially) and more from the Courthouse than UU/UA.

Denmark is also tolerable, as looting is deceptively powerful for healing purposes.

After that, things get increasingly marginal. America, Assyria, Poland, and Spain can all be described as "conquest-friendly," though they aren't genuinely focused on it (with the exception of Assyria).

 

[Funak]

I'd tentatively add Greece to that list. It requires a non-trivial quantity of non-Conquest play (City States), but 20% combat strength is nothing to scoff at (double Morale). Acropolis's Culture on kill/City strength also synergizes, though it doesn't actually aid in the conquest. The Hoplite is fairly mediocre, however.

Similar arguments can be made for Persia (though much, much more circumstantially) and more from the Courthouse than UU/UA.

Denmark is also tolerable, as looting is deceptively powerful for healing purposes.

After that, things get increasingly marginal. America, Assyria, Poland, and Spain can all be described as "conquest-friendly," though they aren't genuinely focused on it (with the exception of Assyria).

I left out quite a few civs from that list mostly because I don't think they have the focus required. Greece have to focus on city-states, and their unique unit/building are both not that fantastic for warfare.
Compared for example to Inca, they have a unique improvement that is going to result in a whole lot of more food in your cities, possibly also more production when combined with their starting bias. That along with their ability to settle cities on mountains they are able to keep up with the rest of the civs while still building up an army.
In warfare they have a unique archer with two unique promotions, this archer is so powerful that you pretty much always have the option to kill off your neighbor with a few of them. On top of that, they are able to use hills and mountains for strategic advantage.


Note that I'm not saying Greece is bad, at all, I'm just saying that they aren't anywhere near as versatile, so their ability to focus on warfare is more limited.

 

[TheUnholyPotato]

While I don't doubt your experience, how is that doable, when said archer only has three combat strength? Everything other than another archer is more or less guaranteed to kill it in one hit. Logistics is powerful, but it doesn't strike me as that powerful.

 

[IcyAngel]

While I don't doubt your experience, how is that doable, when said archer only has three combat strength? Everything other than another archer is more or less guaranteed to kill it in one hit. Logistics is powerful, but it doesn't strike me as that powerful.

Warriors don't kill archers in one hit. If you position properly, three normal archers + a warrior can kill an army of AI warriors (usually what they build early), and take a city pre-mathematics/walls.

You only need two slingers + a warrior to do the same. 12 effective dmg vs 7 effective dmg is a huge difference that early!

 

[TheUnholyPotato]

Warriors don't kill archers in one hit. If you position properly, three normal archers + a warrior can kill an army of AI warriors (usually what they build early), and take a city pre-mathematics/walls.

You only need two slingers + a warrior to do the same. 12 effective dmg vs 7 effective dmg is a huge difference that early!

Slingers have 2 less CS than an archer, and 2 less RCS, as well. 5/3, as of most recent version.

 

[Funak]

While I don't doubt your experience, how is that doable, when said archer only has three combat strength? Everything other than another archer is more or less guaranteed to kill it in one hit. Logistics is powerful, but it doesn't strike me as that powerful.

The lower combat strength isn't carried over when upgraded, so it's hardly a longterm problem.

Before that however you can easily use hills or block with melee units to avoid getting melee'd. Standing on top of mountains also makes your units un-attackable. If all else fails you still have a 50% chance to withdraw.

and 2 less RCS, as well. 5/3, as of most recent version.

6/3 actually.

 

[zeta]

I would add Carthage to the domination civ. I mean, cities with connections give gold which greatly increase your military management. More gold = more units and less poverty.