|
Nakar Gabab
|
|
of Pedantic Nitpicking
May 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
One thing I've noticed, much to my frustration, is that early-game wars in which I prosecute total routs upon the AI tend to result in their miraculous escape across the sea, to the other side of the next civ, etc... this really gets to me. Especially since that creates yet another furious civ which now has total security from being demolished despite brutal early attacks (and I mean early, 2-3 cities).
So I've started developing a "bottling" strategy. Basically, I use warriors, archers, and later horsemen (or jags if I'm the Aztecs, because hey, jags rock) to utterly annihilate improvements and capture workers, reducing the AI's cities to meager 1-2 size towns. By further positioning my forces a square away, counterattacks always work out in my favor, and if need be, I can strike at the city to weaken defenders, capture troops, and once catapults come around, keep them in the stone age. Much as I loathe using the AI's "I won't ever attack your actual CITIES" technique, early on it works wonders. Rather than wipe their civ out (or rather, wipe out their PRESENCE only to have them flee), I use them to farm slaves (err... workers) and increase troop morale, all the while building rapidly all around them. By the time the game really begins, I've rushed a granary and temple in every city and their 1-2 cities are nothing.
So, I suppose, is this the best early expansion strategy? Or is it better to concentrate solely on the settlement race? Or should I just wipe them out and sue for peace, hoping they're stuck somewhere where they can never hurt me? I think this strategy obviously leaves a lot of civs mad at you, but since they're meaningless anyway... well... it sure seems appealing to me. What's the downside?
|
23-12-2001 08:07
|