1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

OCC domination victory and unit supply

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by GodDamnItAlexander, Sep 8, 2017.

  1. GodDamnItAlexander

    GodDamnItAlexander Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Messages:
    202
    I tried this strategy as Japan and after failing miserably I jumped on the opportunity to complain about unit supply in an extremely tall empire and how the strategy is currently completely irrelevant.
    Before writing any more about the subject, I wanted to try and give myself the best possible chance at executing it. I needed a Civ that can take cities no matter what his start, can conquer extremely early and have the strategy actually play into his overall theme. Guesses anyone?
    My settings were: Tiny, Emperor, Doughnut (center ocean), Assyria, Quick
    In my first game I was bordering authority Ottomans and tradition Inca. Thinking it's best to attack my weakest neighbor first, I attacked the Incas. I didn't have any iron, but regardless I was easily winning and took my first city. Unit supply was never a problem. In fact at one point I preferred building buildings instead of making more units even when I had the supply for them. After acquiring iron and some more conquering, me and Inca eventually settled into him becoming my vassal.
    By this point (~industrial era) the Ottomans were big and mighty. There was no challenging them. On one of my saves I tried attacking when he was in the middle of warring with far off Mongolia. I took one of his cites, but when his war machine finally arrived the sheer size of it convinced me there was no way. On other save I tried completing my conquering of the Incas. I was met with the same fate.
    Looking back the game seemed very winnable. I should have gone statecraft and not artistry, and maybe I should've attacked first the Ottomans and not the Incas.
    In my second game I was neighboring with authority Byzantine and Korea. After building Terrocata Army and Great Wall, once again unit supply was never an issue and I even had a sizeable surplus. On one save I tried attacking Korea, but naturally his sword men (and overall his army) were much stronger than mine. So on another save I went for the weaker Byzantine. I took one of her cities, and after seeing she had war elephants and my army was already in a pretty bad shape, I accepted peace. Meanwhile Korea was settling very aggressively. I thought to myself if I could manage to take some of his fresh cities (and his techs) that could put me in a situation to snowball this entire game. While preparing for war, he demanded horses from me, and I demanded he not demand horses or anything else for that matter, and so it began. There seemed to be glimmers of hope throughout, but an enormous technological lead with a much superior navy and army (especially numerically) meant only one thing.
    But the game still seemed winnable with overall better decision making. I think if I played both games on standard speed I would have probably won.
    TL;DR:
    Looking back my primary problems were not unit supply but mainly national wonders and upgrading units.
    National wonders - they come very delayed if at all due to the citizen number requirement.
    Upgrading units - even after conquering and puppeting there still isn't enough gold, even when selling off all my luxury resources and never investing.
     
  2. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,765
    Location:
    Beijing
    Lets get something clear. You aren't playing a one city challenge. If you had that setting enabled, you would be able to build national wonders at a much smaller population amount. You also would be forced to have just one city, not be able to conquer others

    You are giving yourself the challenge of playing a game without building settlers. Just FYI, in a recent game I had with Japan, I build only 1 settler and went on to win a very war oriented game (in the end I won by culture not domination, but I held 4 capitals and had 5 vassals). A while back as Assyria I actually did play a true OCC (I selected the advanced option) and took every other nation's capital. So its certainly possible.

    I wouldn't take donut, because that map forces a pretty straightforward fight, its going to be really difficult to grind through a larger civ. The key is to snowball science, your 12 unit army will be just fine if its lancers vs longswords. If you can quickly blitz many cities as Assyria, your science will shoot up. Also consider using Japan or Zulu, their unique buildings provide extra supply, and puppeted cities will usually build unique buildings earlier.
     
  3. GodDamnItAlexander

    GodDamnItAlexander Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Messages:
    202
    What speed did you play on? How did you manage promoting units? Which social policy did you go for after tradition? If I end up against a runaway is it basically game over?
     
  4. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,765
    Location:
    Beijing
    Standard speed. Tradition -> Aesthetics -> Rationalism. The only way you can defeat a much larger military is by being really advanced in technology. With nukes anything is possible

    For promotions, Assyria gets a ton of experience from having great works. Lancers with blitz and field guns with logistics can very quickly claim cities. I didn't bother conquering at all until renaissance era
     
  5. GodDamnItAlexander

    GodDamnItAlexander Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Messages:
    202
    The game is much harder on quick. Did you upgrade your units from era to era or made new ones? If so were you constantly short for gold? What buildings did you give up on?
    Also why wait till the renaissance? Doesn't it make more sense to start conquering asap, when the unit supply difference is low and the cities are fresh?
     
  6. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,765
    Location:
    Beijing
    Yes being on quick makes war much more difficult. You have much less time to heal and besieging cities becomes more difficult as well. Perhaps march becomes more valuable than blitz for your melee units? You need to keep them healthy

    On that game (which was a few months ago, so many things have changed) as Assyria I just bought new units rather than upgrade, because upgrade costs were ridiculous and I could just buy new units with plenty of experience. When to attack will vary based on the situation. If you want to take a holy city, attacking earlier probably makes sense
     
    GodDamnItAlexander likes this.
  7. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,364
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Since a skilled human player is always better than AI managing units, I think difficulty must be used to make up for the pace difference. So, when you play a faster game, you should lower difficulty as well, and the opposite. Though playing at very slow paces forces the player to play very aggressively, IMO.

    As a suggestion, if you want to play under the restriction of no settling yourself, you could try with more crowded maps (more civs in less space), so you can conquer cities earlier.
     
    GodDamnItAlexander likes this.
  8. GodDamnItAlexander

    GodDamnItAlexander Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Messages:
    202
    I find that on king I can just steamroll through my neighbors no problem, whereas on emperor I really have to think about my armies positioning early game. I can usually get some conquering done, but as the game goes on there's always a run away that makes winning the game seem impossible.
     

Share This Page