Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Lexicus]

I think you are right ...it's been a while

And for me not only has it been a while but i played on like Warlord difficulty back then....I had a very different understanding of the game

 

[Plains-Cow]

and there are certainly plenty of other ways to win. Cur rushes are just very popular among high-level players, but other stuff is effective.

Yeah, curs added with BTS. It was Cavalry that was strong in earlier versions and really a somewhat similar gambit as I think they were accessible a bit earlier than they are now in BTS.

DRAFT. RIFLES.

 

[f1rpo]

I have this old thread bookmarked for a list of gameplay changes in the expansions: link
It actually describes the pre-BtS gameplay, e.g. names the BtS units that didn't yet exist in Warlords; rather confusing. And I've noticed a couple of minor errors: The "key interface differences" actually come mostly from the BULL/BUFFY mods, Phalanx never had a free March promotion, Still a good list imo. Edit: The extra free worker for the AI on the high difficulty levels prior to BtS arguably also should've been mentioned.
For Warlords additions, this even older, more complete list is probably better: link
Some of the stuff mentioned in the replies actually comes from patches. Maybe also worth pointing out that BtS encompasses the WL changes apart from the historical scenarios in WL (some of which have been converted for use with BtS by modders though).

i am surprised that there is still some one playing this game .

One advantage of BtS is that it gets you on the same page as the ones surprisingly still playing and posting here.

 

[AspiringScholar]

and there are certainly plenty of other ways to win. Cur rushes are just very popular among high-level players, but other stuff is effective.

Yeah, curs added with BTS. It was Cavalry that was strong in earlier versions and really a somewhat similar gambit as I think they were accessible a bit earlier than they are now in BTS.

As I haven't played unmodded BtS in a long time, what are some other popular high-level gambits? I think tanks are up there as well for DOM wins. In RI, cavalry is seriously disadvantaged in attacking cities which have defenses up, so the same approach doesn't really work there, even though for most of the timeline it is very strong in the field.

 

[civac]

Tanks are a bit late. They are good but they are more like a third war type of thing.

Going cannons is very effective and very reliable vs the AI. The are also earlier timings with axe/cat/(elephant) and treb/mace or knight.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I was a big fan of treb/mace, personally, but that was on Monarch when I don't think it's got a great track record at higher levels. Medieval war had an interesting niche.

 

[Lexicus]

surprisingly

No surprises, it's still the best of the civ games.

 

[Lexicus]

As I haven't played unmodded BtS in a long time, what are some other popular high-level gambits? I think tanks are up there as well for DOM wins.

Tanks come too late. For high-level play some early UUs are good rush units; the Persian Immortal and anything that replaces an Axeman are good candidates. The Praetorian is also a very strong unit to rush with.

Maces are quite strong as well if you beeline them, and I've even made xbows work on Emperor, again if you get them early enough.

Elephants + catapults is another popular play if you have Ivory nearby.

A cannon rush (beelining Steel then using cannons to support a mix of muskets, pikes, xbows, and maces) is a very strong play as is the already-mentioned Cur rush.

Draft rifles is pretty strong but you may have issues if you're waiting until rifling to do any military expansion. Again on Emperor I often wait until rifles/cannons before waging serious aggressive wars, if I can tech to rifles and cannons before the AIs get grenadiers I can take huge amounts of territory at very little risk and with very few losses.

 

[Lexicus]

I was a big fan of treb/mace, personally, but that was on Monarch when I don't think it's got a great track record at higher levels. Medieval war had an interesting niche.

The problem is the time after castles but before cannons is tough for offensive war. Fortified cities need absurd amounts of pre-GP siege to reduce and the attacker typically has to 'price in' very heavy casualties. It can be done but it isn't optimal.

 

[Plains-Cow]

On higher difficulties, attacking in the middle ages is essentially a non-starter (unless possibly with Cataphracts under certain scenarios) because of the time it takes to bombard castle-walls down with trebs. The AI can build them in 1 turn, and then pump out units that offsets your invasion while you bombard. It's a waste of hammers, and it's much better to to Cuirs if you want a quicker attack on an AI pre-rifling because their gunpowder factors ignore middle age defenses.

 

[antimony]

Don't neglect custom options. You can always turn off some things like espionage or vassals, and of course events if you don't like those warlords or bts features. Corporations come really late and can be ignored most games. Turning off tech trading also changes the strategy a bit.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Don't neglect custom options. You can always turn off some things like espionage or vassals, and of course events if you don't like those warlords or bts features. Corporations come really late and can be ignored most games. Turning off tech trading also changes the strategy a bit.

If I turn off espionage, how could my man Sitting Bull get so many DOWs against him by poisoning wells?

 

[civac]

Medieval war absolutely works. Castle defenses are an issue. You need to bring a lot of siege (precision cats are good). You can cut losses down a lot by using knights instead of maces. With CR trebs and knights you have very strong attackers. Yes, it's slow but you don't actually have many casualties. I play without tech trading though. Maybe, medieval wars are too slow for TT games.

 

[lymond]

Oh yeah, Golden Ages were an important change with the No Anarchy feature....that was a huge change and can be used strategically.

 

[mohamed II]

a question out of the subject . how to change my info from cheftain to monarch ?

 

[Lexicus]

a question out of the subject . how to change my info from cheftain to monarch ?

Go to "account details" and enter a custom title. FYI the default titles depend on post count.

 

[mohamed II]

This was a game on monarch difficulty. Should I move to emperor or playing a few games on monarch before rising up the difficulty
View attachment 1000194138.jpg

 

[AcaMetis]

HC of the Incas is an extremely powerful leader, and the final end score doesn't really say much of anything (IIRC the thresholds are way out of date considering not just years and years of optimizations and advanced strategies, but even things like the two expansions). My recommendation is to play a "final exam" map to see if you're really able to handle a given difficulty level comfortably - something like Tokugawa, Fractal, Temperate climate/Medium sealevel, and otherwise your preferred default settings.

 

[Samson]

This was a game on monarch difficulty. Should I move to emperor or playing a few games on monarch before rising up the difficulty
View attachment 698081

It depends on how you have fun playing a game. If you enjoy a hard game where you could struggle, is likely to need significant micromanagement and you may lose anyway then I would say move up. You will learn more, and if you enjoy the challenge you could have more fun.

If you have more fun managing your empire on its inevitable rise to conquer the world then you may enjoy it more to get more experience at monarch.

 

[mycophobia]

Will huts pop barbs if the No Barbarians option is on?