Multiplayer Strategy N v S first 60 turns

MasterMishi

Warlord
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
251
I played a top mp player on duel north south today, got killed in 60 turns! I was keeping up and had more money, but settled for iron 3 turns later than my opponent and my production was worse as i grew my cities to size 4 and this it seemed was enough to turn the tide of the war. i lost the warriors i had ready to upgrade defending a city. In retrospect it would have been better to let the city get killed. withdraw the warriors and upgrade asap. I pays to be on the offensive.

But I think I worked out the most optimal tactics for this map anyway:

Scout in cap
grow to size 2
spam settlers in cap
beeline iron working
settle on top of resources ideally gold / silver, then on iron hopefully a 6iron, each new city stays size 1 and works a hill.
settle cities close 2/3 hexs apart (except 6iron - could be anywhere on map) towards you opponent to deny their expansion and to launch your assault.
if you keep pop of cities low you can just keep making new ones happiness not a prob as much. city tile is most efficient tile yield.
Each new city makes warrior.
Upgrade warrior with gold.
Make a spear if you run out of estimated gold to upgrade. it will finish much quicker than built sword and be stronger than a unupgraded warrior.
build one worker- make it mine the worked hills/ cap lux
scout opponents land and put your scout on their iron tile/ buy an iron tile to prevent them settling for it/ delay settling
tech animal after iron
then go steel probably
then you may need more workers and calendar etc but you probably won by now

any thoughts?
how might map differ the strategy?
 
Oligarchy warriors fortified in a forest are really tough. It's not enough, but still can resist to swords if enough of them. An early monument can be very valuable for later defense if you don't get a culture ruin (if they are enabled). Plant cities with forests in front and for choke points.

For such games, chopping rules also.
 
there is not one way, it all depends on your policies and nation.

but the easiest way is to bunker with tradition and oligarchy, and so i will give you a basic plan how i do it.

first scout
settler after scout (set city to max gold if there's no 3 food/production tile)
after settler set capital to max. production, which means often either 2 woods or 1 hill; build worker
then grow the 2 cities until you reach -1 happiness
meanwhile build 2 units (if you got scout archer create a fresh scout, else focus on 1 archer per city atleast);

now you must decide either horses or iron, and dont forget which UU you maybe can build.

last msg: archers and spearmen can stop any swordmen rush with oligarchy. without it you need production advantage like a well played liberty rush will offer.
 
there is not one way, it all depends on your policies and nation.

but the easiest way is to bunker with tradition and oligarchy, and so i will give you a basic plan how i do it.

first scout
settler after scout (set city to max gold if there's no 3 food/production tile)
after settler set capital to max. production, which means often either 2 woods or 1 hill; build worker
then grow the 2 cities until you reach -1 happiness
meanwhile build 2 units (if you got scout archer create a fresh scout, else focus on 1 archer per city atleast);

now you must decide either horses or iron, and dont forget which UU you maybe can build.

last msg: archers and spearmen can stop any swordmen rush with oligarchy. without it you need production advantage like a well played liberty rush will offer.

What if i want sword rush also? I may get stuck with warriors. Building archers for me mean i'm going to play a defensive game until strong tech/units advantage. Can you do both?

If i count building turns,

turn 14-15 : 2 cities no worker and a scout
turn 22 :built 1 worker in cap and 1 warrior in 2nd city
turn 32 : 3 archers (or 2 archers + monument)
turn 36-40 : Ennemy is in your territory with 4 swords and you may not have oligarchy yet if no early monument

Some other paths from me and Smote :

Turn 33-38: go liberty and spam 4-5 cities and built 5-6 warriors and settle on iron.
or,
Turn 38-40 : NC first combined with liberty. 3rd city settle iron, upgrade 2-3 warriors to swords. Then build more swords. Wait for longswordmen for turn 55-58.
 
i tell you why i dont like a pure sword rush. a combined force will always beat you especially if they got oligarchy.

2 shots from an archer in open terrain kill a swordmen. spears have the same fight value as swords with oligarchy. walls will make cities hard targets (of course just build them in the border town if you have a sufficient army) and so on.

i would only do a real sword rush if i play a nation suited for it like aztecs.

but yeah you were correct with one point. yesterday i forgot to write you often need a monument. dont forget with your money you can do also variable things and dont forget you can chop woods, which are positioned at bad locations for example in direction to your enemy next to your own cities. chop them for monument or units.
 
i tell you why i dont like a pure sword rush. a combined force will always beat you especially if they got oligarchy.

2 shots from an archer in open terrain kill a swordmen. spears have the same fight value as swords with oligarchy. walls will make cities hard targets (of course just build them in the border town if you have a sufficient army) and so on.

i would only do a real sword rush if i play a nation suited for it like aztecs.

Personally I judge Russia, France, and Rome as most suited for sword rush, due to more hammers/extra iron, faster liberty, and better swords respectively.

The easy way to fight vs archers while sword rushing is to: Don't attack, until you can kill an archer or have 6 swordsmen in a broad circle around city. Then converge all swordsmen at the same time from all sides. Theres not much he can do if he doesn't have at least 4-5 units guarding city.

In that case, go invade his other city. If he doesn't have 1, tech to catapults.

Sword rush is best countered by: Horse or sword rush w/ oligarchy.
Other way of countering: Have nice chokepoint, 1 archer, 1 spearman/warrior, oligarchy, build 2nd archer if needed.
 
Hmm ok. With archers you can let open terrain in front since you will abuse of ranged attacks. But if 4-5 swords advance at high pace it may be difficult to hide them efficiently and not losing them. A little choke point is highly appreciated(like a big mountain on a side of city).

At opposite, if you build warriors and spearmen in early turns and sit them in forests/hills in front, you can always build just one archer well put in your city. Don't attack with your melee units unless ratio is more than 1:1. Injured swords can't kill them.
Logically, you want more melee units if you settle with forests in front and/or a single path choke point with an hill or forest in front, with a single archer(upgraded scout will do!). If you have plains in front of you, you want more archers.

Horses can do a great job at defending cities. Horses are also good archer killers when fighting in plains. Do you build at least 1 or 2 spearmen to counter a possible horse rush? Or simply because they fight well against swords under oligarchy? Maybe both after all...
 
Horses can do a great job at defending cities. Horses are also good archer killers when fighting in plains. Do you build at least 1 or 2 spearmen to counter a possible horse rush? Or simply because they fight well against swords under oligarchy? Maybe both after all...

Post-patch, I've actually never been horse-rushed. I would rush-buy spearmen probably. I might lose whatever city gets hit first if I'm caught by surprise.

But no, I don't generally prepare for horse rush because it is so rare.

I am actually most scared of war elephant rush, from someone with a better connection than me. Building horsemen vs India is almost required because war elephants are so hard to catch otherwise.
 
I'd imagine Iroquios to be pretty nifty too. They start (if bias is on) in the middle of a grand forest which is good if you want to chop, move quickly through your rough forest terrain and Mohawk warriors are ideal especially if you need to defend.

Also Iroquios archers in dense forests within friendly territory can always move one tile away and shoot. Same applies to an upgraded scout of course.

Edit: Oh right, didn't verify whether NvsS map even has biases enabled or a lot of forest.
 
I don't want to sound arrogant, but I have about a 95% win rate in multiplayer. With that said, here is my take:

First would be your civ selection. In a true duel map, as you have already found, the game is not going to be epic in length. Swords or Pikes are going to be the most dominant unit unless there is a pre-agreed peace period. Longswords will probably be the final unit that takes the other player out. You are also guaranteed to be going for a military victory. It would then make sense to select a civ with strong low-level UU's or strong early-game advantages.

Secondly, you'll want to completely and utterly disregard science if you wish to survive. You'll want to disregard buildings that you would normally have to build like monuments and libraries. Each of these buildings puts you behind 1 or 2 military units worth of production. You'll almost positively have to go with the honor path to get an early General and then either experience or additional flanking bonus (I'd take the bonus). You don't need to out-science your opponent because after iron working it really won't matter much since you'll go right for Steel or Civil (if you get no iron).

Next, you'll need to save every penny of your cash for unit upgrades so you should never buy any tiles around your cities unless it is an iron pile that you must have or are stealing from your opponent. You'll need to be in the constant mindset of 'kill or be killed'. Things like stealing a worker from your opponent early (even if you can't get it home, just delete it!) or stealing a city-state worker for your use can be game-changing. Things like posting warriors as 'attack-lookouts' or to fend off settlers is also key.

Keep in mind the playfield is critical. You have to completely dump your concept of 'proper city placement'. You naturally are going to want to settle next to luxuries and resources. You should completely throw that mindset out the window. Each of your cities is a step towards domination and you are militaristic, right? Your cities should be mini-forts designed to choke your opponent and defend against their advancing forces. Cities on hills with low-defense tiles around them are key. Desert, Marsh, Tundra- these are all very bad for defending units. If you pop a city in an area surrounded by hills and forests, unless you control those tiles, you are giving your opponent a huge defensive advantage while they are trying to sack your home! You should also chop out your settlers with any surrounding forests (even outside your borders). Stopping your city growth is painful enough, let alone the amount of turns to get a settler out.

Another easy tip to give you an advantage is that your third city will likely come very close to the time when you get iron working. Regardless of where the iron is, plop this city right on top of it. You immediately get the resource and the city really won't be much of a contributing factor going forward as your attack force should be ready to roll (warriors ready to upgrade and a pile of 300 gold in the bank). Even in quick, mining a pile can take up to 5 turns and that is a big difference- like you saw- you missed your upgrades by 3 turns!

Lastly, don't panic. Play smart and calculated. Don't get into a click-fest and accidentally move your units into squares they just left unless it is a sure kill. You'll end up putting them in the heart of battle with no chance to fight back and by click-festing you end up losing them altogether. Don't go buying a bunch of units with cash you should be saving for upgrading because you see more units coming than you have. Keep your defending units on defense tiles (hills, forests, etc) and attack their units of negative defense tiles (like march and desert). Little things like a warrior or spearman on a hill with a forest can really mess up an attacking swordsman. And of course, practice makes perfect.

Civs to play in a Duel: (Obviously people will have different takes, this is MY take).

China: You may be able to skip going honor path and get a General through battle (barbs/opponent) and use your social policies elsewhere to grow your cities or produce settlers faster. Your General is also stronger giving you more of an attack bonus. You'll also get a second one pretty quick once the battle really starts so you can replace a fallen General or pop a golden age to get extra gold and build units quicker. Unfortunately, going for the awesome Chu-ko-nu is almost a waste in a duel because you'll need Steel.

Russia:
The extra production from resources and the double strategic bonus can really make Russia deadly, especially if there is only a 2-pile of iron and you get it! The increased production can help you pop out units faster than your opponent too. Unfortunately your UU is too far in to be of any help.

Japan: Likely the best of all duelists simply because there will be blood, and Japanese warriors don't back down. The bonus of hurt units acting like full units is ridiculously strong in a duel. If you can get to Samurais, you should win hands down.

France: Although you will never get to their UU, France's culture bonus can be a game changer too. You will get tiles twice as fast as your opponent and your new cities will not need monuments to expand. The math is simple, the money you will save from not having to buy any tiles, and the additional picks of good tiles from cultured area can be key to your success.

Germany: The barb encampment unit-turning and gold bonus can be very nice, but don't go chasing that and leaving your cities undefended. The bigger bonus comes from the Landsknecht, a strong early UU that can really cause some trouble.

Greece: Oh the pick of the cheapest of all Duelists! The duelist's UU dream come true. The endless Hoplite rush is truly overwhelming and when played right, Greece can be unstoppable in a duel even against the best defenders. If you attack early with your overpowered hoplites (you may even get one in a hut even!) and put your opponent on defense, just keep a steady stream going towards them. You can also just skip the whole iron concept because you'll want to go for your Companion Calvary which will prove purely devastating. I personally find Greece to be cheap, and if the player is good, the only real defense is Japan.

Aztecs: I'm not big on them, but the early UU Jaguar is pretty nice. Likewise, you know there is going to be battle and that culture bonus may open tiles and unlock civics that can change the war. They're not my first choice, but played correctly, they will do a good job.

Iroquois: Nice early UU and if you start with 'normal' start bias, you have a strong Capital advantage. You can chop until you are blue in the face and you start with stronger units than your opponents. But keep in mind, you will get outpaced quickly, so you shoudl plan an early skirmish to try and set your opponent back.

Persia: Immortals are wicked little monsters and they are available immediately. You're not very likely to get a golden age too quick, but if you do that is a nice benefit at 50% longer. Like the Iroquois though, you better exploit your advantage early if you hope to win. The classic Immortal Rush!

Songhai: These guys are teetering on the yes/no for me but more yes than no. If played right and given enough time, they can be awesome. But time is not something you get a lot of in a duel. The extra gold from encampments can give you an edge on upgrading and the fact that you will want to b-line right for their ridiculously overpowered Mandekalu means you are not iron dependent... but you are horse dependent. If you get horses though, spamming out horsemen (which is otherwise a bad idea) gives you highly mobile units that when upgraded will simply lay waste to your opponent.


Civs Not to play in a Duel:


India: People think the War Elephant is great. It's simply not. The happiness bonus is nice, but also not strong enough to make them a good candidate.

England: Likely one of the worst duel picks you can take. The Longbow is sweet, but by the time you get there you'll be dead.

America: Being able to see your impending death a few turns earlier isn't going to stop it.

Arabia: If you get to oil in a duel, you're doing something wrong. Likewise if you can get to your UU you're opponent sucks.

Egypt: If you are trying to build wonders in a duel, unless it is the Great Library, you're not going to win anyway, so feel free to pick them.

Ottomans: Likely the worst duel civ you can get.

Rome: Also just not a good duelist. In a normal game they are great, but you likely won't be building a lot of buildings in a duel and your UU's are too far out to take advantage of.

Siam: I don't foresee you making many City State friends in a duel. And even if you did, there won't be enough time for it to make a big enough difference.

HOPE THIS HELPS!
 
Rome: Also just not a good duelist. In a normal game they are great, but you likely won't be building a lot of buildings in a duel and your UU's are too far out to take advantage of.

Legions at 13 strengh? Coupled with a GG or under oligarchy, they are very strong. You can make a very fast road network with them. I think Rome deserves more love.

You are right about setting your civ to be full military. But sometimes the map gives you opportunities to take more peaceful paths, or let you think about exploiting an amphibious attack! If turn limit is set, highest score can be the winner.
 
Civs Not to play in a Duel:

Siam: I don't foresee you making many City State friends in a duel. And even if you did, there won't be enough time for it to make a big enough difference.

HOPE THIS HELPS!


I've gotta disagree on this one. Siam has always been one of the strongest nations, and I see no reason it should be different in a duel situation. The best way to play them is likely to defensively sword or horse rush and get oligarchy, id expect, then try to make your your way to chivalry for naresuan elephants [which don't take horses OR iron]. Opp will likely panic a little when you get elephants. Meanwhile, you can then go for Wats in every city (without library!) and you should win eventually from the 2 scientists in each city. The city state feature is just bonus.

Of course if opp doesnt rush and does a defense strategy, then just sit back and tech better, because you're Siam ! :lol:
 
I'll have to liberty and build 20 settlers, scattered over the map and ready to settle the turn b4 end :lol:

This is actually a common way to boost score in last turns for duel with turn limit. Before 1.41 patch, wonders were also a great points generators.
 
This is actually a common way to boost score in last turns for duel with turn limit. Before 1.41 patch, wonders were also a great points generators.

Gotcha. I guess score turns out to be a metric of area, which still makes it legitimate.

I dislike score victory most, myself.
 
where are the arguments why the UU chariots units are rubbish?

egypt and india are great defenders and can turn the tide after your first wave. i wanna see, how you handle the massive range combat bonus these both offer.

especially a elephant is nearly undestructible in indias home land combined with oligarchy and the chariot is nearly as effective in combat as an archer (just no good defense but cheaper and faster). also i would strongly suggest as egypt to rush one wonder atleast, for example like stonehenge an grab fast additional policies even if its only oligarchy plus honor.
 
where are the arguments why the UU chariots units are rubbish?

egypt and india are great defenders and can turn the tide after your first wave. i wanna see, how you handle the massive range combat bonus these both offer.

especially a elephant is nearly undestructible in indias home land combined with oligarchy and the chariot is nearly as effective in combat as an archer (just no good defense but cheaper and faster). also i would strongly suggest as egypt to rush one wonder atleast, for example like stonehenge an grab fast additional policies even if its only oligarchy plus honor.

I think egypt rushing stonehenge would die very easily to a sword rush.
 
where are the arguments why the UU chariots units are rubbish?

egypt and india are great defenders and can turn the tide after your first wave. i wanna see, how you handle the massive range combat bonus these both offer.

especially a elephant is nearly undestructible in indias home land combined with oligarchy and the chariot is nearly as effective in combat as an archer (just no good defense but cheaper and faster). also i would strongly suggest as egypt to rush one wonder atleast, for example like stonehenge an grab fast additional policies even if its only oligarchy plus honor.

As I said, those were *my* takes. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions. We all play differently, that is what keeps MP fun! :)
 
Back
Top Bottom