Based on what? AFAIK this is completely untrue.
When do you start attakcing the other Civs?
- Thread starter no-genius
- Start date
Sometimes it is necessary to attack early, but I usually wait for maces + trebs or maces + spies. Sometimes, if my production isn't high enough for this, I just stockpile CR2 maces and wait to upgrade to Grens or Rifles.
Unless the AI is really close, I think expansion rather than conquest early is better, and the first time you can get a really good edge militarily (barring early UUs) is when you can drop city defenses and attack with CR maces.
So my first war is shortly after I get machinery ... usually between 1AD and 500AD.
Unless the AI is really close, I think expansion rather than conquest early is better, and the first time you can get a really good edge militarily (barring early UUs) is when you can drop city defenses and attack with CR maces.
So my first war is shortly after I get machinery ... usually between 1AD and 500AD.
I don't have too much experience playing this game, but I start most of my attacks when I get my infantry, or rifles at least. I feel safer with the tech advantage. This usually leads to tanks, and totally dominating the battle field.
After reading a lot of comments on these forums about attacking early, and how if you plan for a military victory, you should never get to the stage where you can get tanks. I decided to try to "rush", and engage an early war campaign.
What I've found is that... without the tech advantage, my units just get slaughtered !! I had axemen against Skirmishers and a force of more than 4:1. Cost me the entire stack to just kill 3 units.
I've just started playing on noble, and the combat odds seem so biased towards the computer. Unless I've got a large advantage, then the computer always seems to fkn win ><
After reading a lot of comments on these forums about attacking early, and how if you plan for a military victory, you should never get to the stage where you can get tanks. I decided to try to "rush", and engage an early war campaign.
What I've found is that... without the tech advantage, my units just get slaughtered !! I had axemen against Skirmishers and a force of more than 4:1. Cost me the entire stack to just kill 3 units.
I've just started playing on noble, and the combat odds seem so biased towards the computer. Unless I've got a large advantage, then the computer always seems to fkn win ><
Derbus, I'm new to the game too and also stepped up to Noble. What I found is you have to weaken them by destroying the improvements. I group my battle units into groups of 4 or 5 (usually axemen) and set about destroying the tile improvement around a city. I first take out all the roads to isolate it, then take out resources such as iron, stone etc to stop that city spawning advanced units, then take out the towns and farms to piss off the locals. by the time I've destroyed the improvements the city is in dire straights, and I've moved my entire army into strategic locations (hills and forests) to cover against assaults whilst I roll in my catapults/artillery to take down the city defences.
later on down the tech tree I'll build a fort on my city limits to house my bombers and bomb the crap out their city before sending in my men to finish the job. I always keep a worker nearby to plough a road up to my newly captured city so I can start raising its profile again.
It's all about cutting cities loose from the empire. Once you're cut the roads they can't get resources (unless next to a river, in which case move onto step two disregarding the roads) unless they're within city limits, take those out and they're back to the ancient ages again tech-wise. Then I take out the farms to starve the occupants of the city and the towns to damage their income, because to go to war you usually have to use expensive civics - lowering their income damages the war fund.
Hopefully this has been helpful
later on down the tech tree I'll build a fort on my city limits to house my bombers and bomb the crap out their city before sending in my men to finish the job. I always keep a worker nearby to plough a road up to my newly captured city so I can start raising its profile again.
It's all about cutting cities loose from the empire. Once you're cut the roads they can't get resources (unless next to a river, in which case move onto step two disregarding the roads) unless they're within city limits, take those out and they're back to the ancient ages again tech-wise. Then I take out the farms to starve the occupants of the city and the towns to damage their income, because to go to war you usually have to use expensive civics - lowering their income damages the war fund.
Hopefully this has been helpful
How about - As soon as I find them.
I usually play hemispheres in BtS and have on average only 1 other civ to share a continent with. I find that an early sabotage of resources or worker steal gives me a significant advantage - and since i plan on taking the continent for my own some day i don't mind the early bad diplomacy.
Also, early wars are more rewarding than late wars. And even peaceful wins can start out by kicking your neighboring civ off your land.
I usually play hemispheres in BtS and have on average only 1 other civ to share a continent with. I find that an early sabotage of resources or worker steal gives me a significant advantage - and since i plan on taking the continent for my own some day i don't mind the early bad diplomacy.
Also, early wars are more rewarding than late wars. And even peaceful wins can start out by kicking your neighboring civ off your land.
Draknith
King
I used to be a builder that wouldn't declare war until I was forced into one. However, now a days, I'm usually at war within the first 10 turns...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd wait 'till Praets are quite obsolete (let's say till Xbow/Mace) and attack Julius - if he has iron. If he doesn't.... well, there's no problem then.
Soneji
Prince and Great Steward
Nah stamp on Rome as soon as possible. They cannot keep production of Prets anywhere near that of Axe / Sword.
It depends, I normally only attack when I feel threatened.
Or, someone made a rediculous demand and its really pissed me off, or my neighbour completes a wonder that I would like.
It depends, I normally only attack when I feel threatened.
Or, someone made a rediculous demand and its really pissed me off, or my neighbour completes a wonder that I would like.
I attack a lot later in BtS than I used to in Warlords. The enemy builds more troops and allocates them better. I feel that the balance has shifted to favor building over conquering, until the open land runs out. So these days it's often maces/trebs, or not until rifles. In my current game, I was able to block off enough land for 14(!) cities, most of them heavily cottaged. My economy froze for a long time, but when it finally thawed I raced ahead to infantry, and attacked vs. rifles. I'm trying for domination on a large map with 11 AIs, so it should be a grand modern war...
peace,
lilnev
peace,
lilnev
I really like this strategy and have used it several times, although it certainly is more suited for some civs/situations more than others.
One of my favorite games to date was with Sitting Bull (BTS). He's protective and his UB is the Totem Pole, which gives +3 experience to archery units. The starting techs (hunting and myst?) worked well with this gambit. AND I started with Marble nearby, where I placed my second city. Getting copper is not as important as the UU is the dog soldier (axeman) which requires no resources.
So, in 1200BC, I completed the oracle and grabbed Feud. Switching Civics I was pumping out longbows with 8exp out of the gate, starting with CG1 and D1. A stack of these along with a handfull of dogsoldiers were pretty darn impressive against archers, warriors and axes. And I didn't worry about losing any cities with CG3 Longbows!
This is best case, but with any protective leader the Feud. slingshot can be very effective.
