Legit strats for domination?

[WileyNg]

Try Assyria also.

Because of the UA.

But I personally love using the Huns for conquest. Best designed civ ever.

 

[Funak]

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.

Try Assyria also.

Because of the UA.

But I personally love using the Huns for conquest. Best designed civ ever.

Really don't think either of those 2 come close to doing anything outside of rushmaps.

The Huns are on the list because the Eki is crazy, even if your early-game falls flat on its face and you can't make use of your unique unit, the will carry you.
Their ability to do a rush without building any units is also pretty awesome.

 

[TheUnholyPotato]

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.

Gazebo, can I tag you on this one? Is this intended? Both halves.

1. Do the Logistics from Slingers carry over wih upgrqde? If so, why? Doesn't this contradict SotL and Atlatlist design?
2. Are Inca units meant to be conditionally immune to Melee units? If so, why?

 

[Gamewizard]

France combined with the Authority tree allows you to beeline Gunpowder for 3 movement Musketeers that pillage without using movement points. Throw in a handful of cannons and you should have one of the best Renaissance era war machines that just gobbles up culture in it's wake.

 

[Gazebo]

Gazebo, can I tag you on this one? Is this intended? Both halves.

1. Do the Logistics from Slingers carry over wih upgrqde? If so, why? Doesn't this contradict SotL and Atlatlist design?
2. Are Inca units meant to be conditionally immune to Melee units? If so, why?

#1) Yes, just like Chu-Ko-Nu. Realistically Slingers and Chukonu should probably lose the bonus on upgrade as well.

#2) Yes, that's a tactical element of their UA.

G

 

[TheUnholyPotato]

#1) Yes, just like Chu-Ko-Nu. Realistically Slingers and Chukonu should probably lose the bonus on upgrade as well.

#2) Yes, that's a tactical element of their UA.

G

This is important to know. Thank you.

I will say that I strongly disagree with 2. It will probably require them to be banned from MP (barring friendly/casual environments) until changed due to how easily it can be abused. There simply isn't counter play to it until Flight, and debatably even then.

 

[Gazebo]

This is important to know. Thank you.

I will say that I strongly disagree with 2. It will probably require them to be banned from MP (barring friendly/casual environments) until changed due to how easily it can be abused. There simply isn't counter play to it until Flight, and debatably even then.

Ranged units can readily attack them, as can cities. They're also locked onto the mountain tile, so it's not a universal advantage (unless it is a pure-ranged-in-mountains v. pure-melee-on-flatland battle).


G

 

[TheUnholyPotato]

Ranged units can readily attack them, as can cities. They're also locked onto the mountain tile, so it's not a universal advantage (unless it is a pure-ranged-in-mountains v. pure-melee-on-flatland battle).


G

Did we both read what Funak described? What can a human player do to beat Mountain slingers in ancient era (or upgraded slingers ever) or mountain artillery in Industrial? Take 1-2 rounds of fire before getting to shoot back? Mountains often get hills nearby, meaning that altitude training is necessary for even parity. How many times do you think players will need to lose against literally invincible/always advantaged (first mover) Ranged units before they get the point I'm making?

Moving on mountains is powerful. Invincibility is broken. Ask any Starcraft player about fighting Reapers (except in this analogy the Reapers are as strong as Ghosts and the terrain at the base of their cliffs slows other units). Ask Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat players about making a character with above average damage, good zone control, and generous invincibility frames.

Conditionality/location is not an excuse. You're currently laying the ultimatum of needing to kill/cripple the Inca player, or accept that you'll lose any city settled within 2-3 tiles of a mountain if Inca is at or near parity.

 

[Gazebo]

Did we both read what Funak described? What can a human player do to beat Mountain slingers in ancient era (or upgraded slingers ever) or mountain artillery in Industrial? Take 1-2 rounds of fire before getting to shoot back? Mountains often get hills nearby, meaning that altitude training is necessary for even parity. How many times do you think players will need to lose against literally invincible/always advantaged (first mover) Ranged units before they get the point I'm making?

Moving on mountains is powerful. Invincibility is broken. Ask any Starcraft player about fighting Reapers (except in this analogy the Reapers are as strong as Ghosts and the terrain at the base of their cliffs slows other units). Ask Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat players about making a character with above average damage, good zone control, and generous invincibility frames.

Conditionality/location is not an excuse. You're currently laying the ultimatum of needing to kill/cripple the Inca player, or accept that you'll lose any city settled within 2-3 tiles of a mountain if Inca is at or near parity.

Easy there. I'm fairly certain there are ways to deal with this aside from absolute ultimatums. I know ilteroi is still working some on the pathfinder code, part of which deals with impassibility. We still haven't shaken out exactly what impassibility is going to mean for combat. Right now that's their current situation, but it won't necessarily remain that way.

Also, no one complained about Dido in the same way from G&K, and the ability is comparable. If a little bit of attrition post-combat is necessary, so be it.

G

 

[TheUnholyPotato]

Easy there. I'm fairly certain there are ways to deal with this aside from absolute ultimatums. I know ilteroi is still working some on the pathfinder code, part of which deals with impassibility. We still haven't shaken out exactly what impassibility is going to mean for combat. Right now that's their current situation, but it won't necessarily remain that way.

Also, no one complained about Dido in the same way from G&K, and the ability is comparable. If a little bit of attrition post-combat is necessary, so be it.

G

I'm not making an ultimatum, I'm explaining my thought process in banning.

1. To beat Inca, you need an army that can attack them on both sides of any mountain zones. Otherwise they hop over the mountains and heal up any time they're losing.
2. These units can't be mobile or melee, as Inca ranged units are immune to them, and Inca also gets mobility (raw speed and choice of movement) buffs of its own for all units
3. Thus, your army must be ranged only to fight Inca, and also 1.5-2 times as large, as they'll otherwise abuse movement and LOS to concentrate power where you're weakes
4. Their units are better (Logistics) than yours and get to act first (move over/onto mountains). They can use melee units with impunity to kill your ranged units.

None of that sounds fun to play against, to me. It's actually worse than "just" being defensively superpowered, as it can be used offensively.

I'm not implying that I'll somehow try to force you to change things. It's just that playing against a statistically stronger (free logistics) enemy that outmaneuvers you (hill bonus/mountain wallhacks), can't be effectively rushed (slingers: also great at defense!), will quickly persuade anyone opposed to an MP ban.

I'm sure they're beatable. But the stuff I described is, uh, fairly unique.

Edit: Didos was movement only. Units on Mts. died in 2 turns. They are not comparable. Her UU was also worse.

 

[Iamblichos]

I'm not making an ultimatum, I'm explaining my thought process in banning.

1. To beat Inca, you need an army that can attack them on both sides of any mountain zones. Otherwise they hop over the mountains and heal up any time they're losing.
2. These units can't be mobile or melee, as Inca ranged units are immune to them, and Inca also gets mobility (raw speed and choice of movement) buffs of its own for all units
3. Thus, your army must be ranged only to fight Inca, and also 1.5-2 times as large, as they'll otherwise abuse movement and LOS to concentrate power where you're weakes
4. Their units are better (Logistics) than yours and get to act first (move over/onto mountains). They can use melee units with impunity to kill your ranged units.

None of that sounds fun to play against, to me. It's actually worse than "just" being defensively superpowered, as it can be used offensively.

I'm not implying that I'll somehow try to force you to change things. It's just that playing against a statistically stronger (free logistics) enemy that outmaneuvers you (hill bonus/mountain wallhacks), can't be effectively rushed (slingers: also great at defense!), will quickly persuade anyone opposed to an MP ban.

I'm sure they're beatable. But the stuff I described is, uh, fairly unique.

Edit: Didos was movement only. Units on Mts. died in 2 turns. They are not comparable. Her UU was also worse.

One of the ways to solve this is to make Mountains passable at some Tech, like Oceans.

 

[ExpiredReign]

I like to have mountains impassable, in fact I often change the map age to younger to make more mountains. Nothing like choke points to contain an aggressive opponent.

This 'issue' is very specific though isn't it. Your opponent has to be Inca and you have cities next to mountains, doesn't always happen so it could be considered low priority. Could be!

Is it impossible to change the un-attackable mountains? Doing so would even the play.

 

[Funak]

I'm not making an ultimatum, I'm explaining my thought process in banning.

Chill out a bit, please

To beat Inca, you need an army that can attack them on both sides of any mountain zones. Otherwise they hop over the mountains and heal up any time they're losing.

Against the Inca you should probably not settle cities directly adjacent to mountains, yes this sounds kinda harsh, but just moving one tile away from the mountain completely removes their advantage.

These units can't be mobile or melee, as Inca ranged units are immune to them, and Inca also gets mobility (raw speed and choice of movement) buffs of its own for all units
Thus, your army must be ranged only to fight Inca, and also 1.5-2 times as large, as they'll otherwise abuse movement and LOS to concentrate power where you're weakes
Their units are better (Logistics) than yours and get to act first (move over/onto mountains). They can use melee units with impunity to kill your ranged units.

None of that sounds fun to play against, to me. It's actually worse than "just" being defensively superpowered, as it can be used offensively.

It can be used offensively, but it kinda relies on the enemy settling badly.
I will totally agree that the UA is powerful, but it is a full UA, having it any weaker than that and you would have to invent a new UA for the civ.

Edit: Didos was movement only. Units on Mts. died in 2 turns. They are not comparable. Her UU was also worse.

The big difference is that the Carthaginian UA was the free harbors, that mountainwalking was just something extra. For the Inca the mountainwalking is their UA. It is kinda comparable to Danish Cannons disembarking loading up and shooting on the same turn or English SoTLs swooping in from three leagues away and blasting your navy before you can respond to it. You could probably put Keshik and Camel archer cheese into that same category, although they only require flat-lands as opposed to mountains to carry out their cheese.



On the topic of Logistics, the only UU that doesn't keep logistics when upgraded is the Mayan Atlatlist. SoTL, Hwacha, Chu-ko-nu and slingers keep theirs (a lot more impactful on the hwacha and the SoTL actually considering ranged units kinda fall off a bit after crossbows)



Also before you start crying about 'telling someone not to settle near a mountain is not a solution' I'll have to direct you towards the only counterplay vs England in vanilla, not settling anything coastal.

 

[TheUnholyPotato]

Chill out a bit, please

I ... am calm? Please explain how should I be calmer. I just stated that I was not offering an ultimatum to Gazebo.

Against the Inca you should probably not settle cities directly adjacent to mountains, yes this sounds kinda harsh, but just moving one tile away from the mountain completely removes their advantage.

It can be used offensively, but it kinda relies on the enemy settling badly.
I will totally agree that the UA is powerful, but it is a full UA, having it any weaker than that and you would have to invent a new UA for the civ.

Did you completely ignore my statements about artillery and archery? Archery + Horsemen (and later Stealth Bombers) was one of the primary strategies in vanilla Civ MP for conquest due to it's low risk and high power. I do not want a return to that sort of play. 2 and 3 tiles makes for increasingly absurd no-go-zones. What other Civ has that kind of zoning power?

The big difference is that the Carthaginian UA was the free harbors, that mountainwalking was just something extra. For the Inca the mountainwalking is their UA. It is kinda comparable to Danish Cannons disembarking loading up and shooting on the same turn or English SoTLs swooping in from three leagues away and blasting your navy before you can respond to it. You could probably put Keshik and Camel archer cheese into that same category, although they only require flat-lands as opposed to mountains to carry out their cheese.

Please explain which of those rendered opposing melee units useless. As in literally without function.

Indeed, Keshiks and Camels came closest to being beaten by Knights, though even that was suspect.

SotL's were probably the closest comparison, in that there was not a strong melee unit to beat them, as there is now.

All of these comparisons correspond to mobility, which is fine. I already covered this. Invincibility is not fine under any circumstances.

On the topic of Logistics, the only UU that doesn't keep logistics when upgraded is the Mayan Atlatlist. SoTL, Hwacha, Chu-ko-nu and slingers keep theirs (a lot more impactful on the hwacha and the SoTL actually considering ranged units kinda fall off a bit after crossbows)

I strongly disagree with retained Logistics under any conditions. There was an extensive discussion about the unfair power of double shots a while ago. That needs to be earned, and even then I am somewhat suspicious of it. A 100% increase in XP gain and Combat Strength is very high-impact, even if it necessitates immobility for land units (and reduced mobility for sea units).

Gazebo implied that SotL's do not retain logistics on upgrade. Is that incorrect?

Also before you start crying about 'telling someone not to settle near a mountain is not a solution' I'll have to direct you towards the only counterplay vs England in vanilla, not settling anything coastal.

I agree. We should definitely make steps back towards unfair and non-interactive gameplay. While we're at it, could we boost internal trade route yields by 50% each era? After all, Civ:BE has shown that to be the future of Civ game design.

Sarcasm aside, this is exactly the example of what Gazebo has said that he wishes to avoid: easily exploitable mechanics which are modestly powerful in AI hands, but can be used by humans to absurd effect. The movement bonus on hills is approximately equivalent to the first third of the American UA.

A more moderate approach is not allowing them to create mountainous mega-fortresses, but to provide another 1-2 minor bonuses, and a moderate one.

 

[Funak]

Did you completely ignore my statements about artillery and archery? Archery + Horsemen (and later Stealth Bombers) was one of the primary strategies in vanilla Civ MP for conquest due to it's low risk and high power. I do not want a return to that sort of play. 2 and 3 tiles makes for increasingly absurd no-go-zones. What other Civ has that kind of zoning power?

Considering Artillery have indirect fire, you can place them behind mountain-ranges and achieve the exact same result.

I strongly disagree with retained Logistics under any conditions. There was an extensive discussion about the unfair power of double shots a while ago. That needs to be earned, and even then I am somewhat suspicious of it. A 100% increase in XP gain and Combat Strength is very high-impact, even if it necessitates immobility for land units (and reduced mobility for sea units).

It is just a promotion, a fairly strong promotion sure, but there are other strong promotions, like the French ignore ZoC and the American Ignore tile-cost, even free march for the Swedish Carolean. I don't think logistics stands out as being that much better than the others, especially not on a archer. Korean Hwacha upgrading into logistics Artillery is a bit more questionable, but I don't think that's necessarily too strong either.

By the way in case you missed that, firing your second shot consumes all your remaining movement, so it is pretty highly reduced mobility for sea units.

Gazebo implied that SotL's do not retain logistics on upgrade. Is that incorrect?

Last time I checked they all kept it, except the Mayan Atlatlist.

I agree. We should definitely make steps back towards unfair and non-interactive gameplay. While we're at it, could we boost internal trade route yields by 50% each era? After all, Civ:BE has shown that to be the future of Civ game design.

Sarcasm aside, this is exactly the example of what Gazebo has said that he wishes to avoid: easily exploitable mechanics which are modestly powerful in AI hands, but can be used by humans to absurd effect. The movement bonus on hills is approximately equivalent to the first third of the American UA.

A more moderate approach is not allowing them to create mountainous mega-fortresses, but to provide another 1-2 minor bonuses, and a moderate one.

Some civ forcing you to not settle too close to specific terrain isn't exactly too bad, at least imo. I mean if you settle a forest-city vs Iroquois you're going to get severely punished for it, pretty much the same deal here.

By the way if you want to complain about the Incan UA, there probably is a better place to do that

 

[supracseduch]

How about something like 15 attrition per turn if a unit ends its turn on a mountain? That way, their ranged units can't just keep pummeling down enemy melee units with impunity. They can still retreat across mountains or use them for ambushes. That's fine.

And I too wish to change the unique units' abilities. We should be able to come up with more interesting and less overpowered abilities than just double-attacks. That was supposed to be the Chu-Ko-Nu's specialty. Now five "unique" units (three of which are archery-type) make use of it.

 

[TheUnholyPotato]

Moving the discussion to the appropriate location.

 

[Funak]

How about something like 15 attrition per turn if a unit ends its turn on a mountain? That way, their ranged units can't just keep pummeling down enemy melee units with impunity. They can still retreat across mountains or use them for ambushes. That's fine.

It was removed because it was silly, attacking from mountains was intended.

And I too wish to change the unique units' abilities. We should be able to come up with more interesting and less overpowered abilities than just double-attacks. That was supposed to be the Chu-Ko-Nu's specialty. Now five "unique" units (three of which are archery-type) make use of it.

We already tried that, which is the reason why the Babyloning Bowman have indirect fire, that was the best anyone could think of (+1 range was out of the question)

 

[TheUnholyPotato]

These discussions are derailing Stickerbrush's thread. Consider continuing them in appropriate threads:

Logistics

Inca

 

[Gokudo01]

which WC resolutions are the best for domination ?

Casus belli is really good and scholar in residence allows you to catch up.
World science initiative doesn't seem to be good on aggressive players because you will always have a big score.