I know on the first turn that I'm going to way with my nearest neighbor. I just don't know who it is yet. For every city you take you have to build one less settler. This production can be used to build more units to take more cities. Rinse and repeat. And don't waste a warmonger-free war to just peace out too early. Fight until you have every city in their civilization.
@@rfahlsing I leave them with the weakest city, so don't take the rep penalty for eliminating a civ. Leave them with the small (or appropriately sandwiched) city which will then usually flip and join anyways. They civ dies "naturally" and I get the city without "killing" them.
@@nateab1994 your cities exert loyalty pressure to nearby tiles so a nearby enemy city that runs out of loyalty will flip to a free City then if it isn't taken by war eventually caves to your loyalty pressure and joins u
@@BuildinWings True, Gilgabro's warcarts are some of the most terrifying things to face against in Ancient era. However, I'd argue Aztecs will still have the edge. First is that Aztecs absolutely rely on an early war, while Sumeria may be encouraged to instead focus on their ziggurats for an early tech advantage. In addition, Aztecs have a strong bonus to their production, considering how Agoge is a full civic ahead of Maneuvering. Even if Sumeria ignores ziggurats and spammed warcarts, Aztecs are more likely to reach a numerical advantage.
aR Ja >My first civ6 game >I was playing as Tomyris >Montezuma was my closest neigbour >He settled a city right between my triangle formation >I spammed Saka Horse archers (built like 5 of em, which doubled to 10) >got wiped out in less than 10 turns >He had like 12 of those Eagle Warriors
You know what, I have literally doomed those civs who were stupid enough to send unprotected settlers… Well, I just wanted to take the settlers originally, but then ended up with finishing another civ 😂 oops…
that's actually more than half the time back in vanilla. I observe that it has to do with certain civs. Saladin is guaranteed to leave his settler unprotected, harold almost always escorts his settler. And I always do war on first sight in deity, or at least as soon as I see a vulnerable settler, even if my army consists of only one warrior.
@@Chloe-vl6yp they have 2 free settlers in deity level, in addition to the first one. If you move fast, you can get one of those. And they build the fourth one rather quick. It really is pointless to build more than one settler. The cost of 1 settler quickly becomes more than the cost of four warriors, so it's better to build four warriors and send them looking for settlers to steal. Sometimes I'd setup a warrior and a couple of archers where I expect them to settle, and leave that spot unsettled so they send more settlers.
Nice video! I would like to expand on the topic of unit experience: *Waiting for your unit to drop more health before promoting has an additional downside - it can't get additional XP until you promote it! *Capturing a city (delivering the final 'blow') gives the unit a significant XP boost (at least double the amount), and since units cannot get more XP than up to their next level, you should always try to capture with units that need quite some XP, instead of units that are very near their next promotion. These are - in the grand scheme of things - minor considerations, but I always try to optimize XP gain, since units with several promotions can be significantly more powerful than newbies
just one of those things, I dont understand why it was changed from Civ 5, where XP carried over to the next level and you could earn more XP while saving the promotion for later.
@@rollercoaster478 As of now, the units do get XP even though it doesn't show on the bar or pop up on screen. But if you gain xp then promote, you'll see that it has carried over.
I haven't played in years and forgot that archers don't capture lol but remembered after 5 turns lol but those archers both got the attack 2 times in one turn and were God like later in the game. Lol So I farm a city state or barbarian forts purposely not capture right away. You'll get 6 xp every turn lol
So, there's a melee unit promotion that eliminates penalties when attacking over rivers. Does that also allow them to project a zone of control across rivers?
I always go with Scythia whenever I just want to dominate the early game. The special troops aren’t the best, but the troop healing ability is amazing in the early game if you utilize it correctly
If you play high level AI, you cannot win a war like in this video. They start out with more military units than that, the only thing the AI needs is have them renotely close to their cities.
It's very ironic that the Barbarian Scout on the right didn't go back and bring any additional douche army back with him. Happens to me every single time.
As Gilgamesh, I took out 4 city states using war carts and warriors within the first 30-40 turns. Are you sure I should be given this much power? Also, I took out the roman and the scythian empire with the same troops cos i had a medic *yeet*
"The argument is between melee units and ranged" i play alot of online multiplayer and against some amazing cpl players. There isnt really an argument, just shitloads of calvary.
Cavalry are the undisputed kings among good players, I do agree. I have a tendency to just categorize them as melee units, so I was referring to them as well with the whole melee vs. ranged debate.
@@TheSaxyGamer It shows as well. You do gush about calvary in the video and made it clear they're the best. I just heard melee versus ranged argument and slammed my head against the table. I'm sure this is geared for new players and this is the argument i'm sure they'll be having in their head anyway.
@@mikesnow285 They can fortify, move double that of their infantry counterparts, and their counters are at best lower movement Calvary themselves when facing off.
Hey, just a quick note about where you said that it didn't matter whether you declared a surprise war or used the formal war option. I understand you were specifically talking about creating extra grievances, but you definitely should have used the declare formal war option as declaring a war using a casus belli gives you either a tech boost or a eureka... can't remember which tree the thing is under. Anyway, just thought I'd mention that as I'm sure a lot of new players read the comments in your guides. Nice video. Cheers!
@@KFGustavo Yeah you're 100% right that it doesn't... that's how little I play domination games I had always thought that it did when I wrote this comment awhile back :)
I've found that early war is almost essential on deity level - unless grinding out a long, diplomatic victory. Yes, the civs have a heavy advantages....but they still make a lot of dumb moves, so as long as you're using all available tactics and are super aggressive, the benefits are much greater than breathlessly trying to build / expand / keep up. Thanks for the video - definitely helped - especially the importance of siege.
I always take the promotion to protect against ranged attacks. Even if I take a little longer to take the cities, I am confident that that unit will survive in the long term.
Hey good videos so far man. Just a heads up though - Ranged units like Archers and stuff do exercise Zone of Control, just they ONLY do it on the tile they occupy. Basically they do on the tile they stand, they just don't push it out to the next tiles around it which is why enemies can walk by. For the point of sieges though, they can put cities under siege. Keep up the good work though!
The fact that he establishes earlier is more so his extra city strength can take effect quicker, and perhaps garrison commander. The loyalty provided by governors is in effect the moment you send a governor to that city.
Incas and Maori they just look like so much fun to play even if Incas went the strongest the prospect of just spamming farms and making 100 food a turn just seems fun to me and the Maori just look to be super fun all around.
of course its a good idea using melee units to take down city,with montazuma. because they have eagle warriors, a melee unit with extra strength, and you are able to circle around the city before declaring the offwnsive war. with normal civ that has no early game military bones, it's almost impossible to win early fight without archers in an offensive war, not to mention siege the city. you have a bit of luck circled around the capital city with eagle warriors before declaring the war, what about your enemy is preparing for the war, having 4 warriors within close ties of the city？ do you still think melee units are better in that situation？ you only focus on siege, but most of the time in diety, it is hard to win early wars with less than 2 archers. it is rare to start a war while ai is unprepared. your idea of "melee is better in an early war" is probably correct, but you should really be more objective when making these kinds of video, like do it with no early military bones civ, pay attention to independent variables like how lucky you are in this video, it is not that often to see ai has less units than you when they know you are the neighbour.
I still believe that melee units are undoubtedly better for offensive wars than ranged units, yes. If you have the time/resources to build 2 or 3 archers to accompany your army of melee units, then there really is no reason not too. A lot of the time, though, it is best to simply rush a melee army and overwhelm your opponent before they have the chance to build up an army of their own. Every turn that you use to construct ranged units or attack with them delays your capture of the city and allows your opponent more time to construct/purchase more defensive troops which can be very dangerous.
Why would he talk about what's better for deity when all it is doing is giving the AI a multiplier. It's not his fault the AI is bad and deity doesn't fix that.
@@TheSaxyGamer You guys are both right, you need melee units to get zone of control and then you need archers on the higer difficulty. It is also about space, 3 Warriors and 3 Archers can to some damage.
@@mikesnow285 because deity civs can easily have around 300 military strength by the turn you get to able to get a reasonable amount of units deity just overwhelms you with the sheer unit spam and it doesnt matter that the AI is "stupid"
They need to change the ZOC so that it does not appear as though it's being exerted across water, newer players get super confused as to why it looks like they have ZOC but it's not actually working. Also can make it worthwhile building some coastal cities if you expect to get attacked a lot assuming you're not compromising the quality of its location too much. Unless it's a water heavy map no one's bothering to build naval units (except for barbs) or get shipbuilding early on so it's impossible for them to exert ZOC on the city.
You say not to worry about early war if no one's nearby, but I see you're playing Aztec, whose entire early game is strengthened by war. Should you make an exception there?
how come when you attacked that city they have 2 units to throw at you but when i attack a city at this time in the game they have an army of spearman and archers that get made every 3 turns i have no idea what to do in this game
Hmmm. I really like lots of ranged (once you have archers, which I go for quickly). For promotions, I do them IMMEDIATELY. You don't gain experience if you have a waiting promotion. Don't forget Magnus with a double promotion doesn't cost any population when building your settlers.
Saxy : Decide to declare war in first 10 turns *Neighbour spawned right next to you : take the first settler and end the game in first turn even before your game is loaded.*
I wish there was a way to raze CURRENT cities. Maybe you hadn't played late game that often cuz you're super 3lite and tend to claim dominance by turn 250 lol BUT it really doesn't take long to get to 12 pop (which is a good place to stop) IF the city is in a good spot. I am always open to raze... HOWEVER it sucks when you a) take a city early like displayed before seeing all the tiles around it (and say you choose to keep it only to find out it could be positioned MUCH better) b) you settle in a place you think might be good but later change your mind. Well I just hate that you can't choose to abandon and raze your OWN cities. I just want to be Nero and watch the world burn xD.
Rush to horseman, or swordsman. Build slinger slinger settler slinger, builder for horses. Only settle plains hills for the bonus production if ya can. Rush catapults after deciding on which troop. Swordsman benefit from oligarchy, horsemen dont but thier faster. Take pantheon for 25% perduction towards ancient era troops. Woth envoy in war city state if you can for bonus production in capital towars troops. If troop pro. Bonus is gone take production pantheon. In order to support a big army you need gold and luxuries that give gold help. Look up early war tips for civ 6 on youtube. theres a new video this dude uploaded recently. That where i got the build order an tips.
Every game that I've gone for early war and took over my base continent, I won, but when I did not, I lost because my growth was limited, more competition had advanced resources in later game, and they consistently caused me problems throughout my growth such as settling in between my cities, declaring war on me when I'm working toward progressing my trees, etc. The only downside I've seen for early war is that you spend the whole game with everyone mad at you. Lol.
whichever civ you play with, slinger rushes are highly effective. keep your warrior safe. rush the range units - they're cheap. then get the 50% discount civic as quickly as possible and upgrade them to archers, get your civ specific and use the archers for defense. scout rush with cree. just rush the closest civ to you and you have 4 cities within 20 turns. suddenly you have the possibility to focus on nice stuff in your capital. buildings etc. warrior rushes aren't very efficient. your warriors die too quickly and the AI cheats. leaving a city on 1HP? boom. it has walls next turn :I
Later in the game if you can isolate one city so that it rebels you can simply wait for it to become a free city then conquer it without warmonger penalty (I think).
This was the guide I needed. I'm new to Civ. My first few games let me turtle up until I got bombers, then I go crazy, but my most recent game gave me the unfortunate starting position of being close to 3 other civs, so I had to punch at least one of them out early on. I ended up eliminating one of them before they had walls, but I didn't have a siege, so taking their cities took WAY too long due to healing.
4:45 You can go to the settings and turn on „always show yields in HUD Ribon“ so you can see the military strenght of another Civ. You can also just go to the rankings for each victory tipe and when looking at Domination you see the MS.
Isn't Ayr settled as close as possible due to the proximity to the capital? I think that is why it's one tile off from the fresh water in this case. You wouldn't even be able to put a city down on that river.
1. Open 2 sligners, settler, builder. The best army to start a war is 3-4 archers, your warrior as meat shield and 2 horsmans. Alexander is probably your best choice. 2. B-line horseback riding 3. Build 2nd city for horse and/or near 1st victime to kill. Kill babarians and gain xp for your troops. 4. Upgrade sligners to archers and build some more (3-4 total). Don't lose any troops if bellow deity is quite easy. 5. Build 2 horsman and chop a forrest down with the charge left on your builder when you have minning to get them faster. 6. Reaserch massonerie and go to war. Make a battering ram after the horsemans. 7. Kill troops first. Empty his land and pillage everything you want like science or heal your troops. Archers do the heavy lift and are OP. 8. Suround the city and put under siege so it doesn't heal. Build/buy a battering ram. 9. Blitz the civ. Try to push for a second civ and take every city that will not help you winning the game (including crap city states like religious one) 10. Now, you should have 10 city by turn 100 or more. Settle what is left of the land, build reaserch buildings and the city center buildings like monuments, granary and water mill. (only walls you need). You're now big enough to snowball whatever you want. Sligners are better than figthers. Don't build fighters.
it is important to research computers asap, way before the waters rise, there is a nasty glitch in this game, if a city does not build a wall in time, just a slight rise in the water resets the building of a seawall to zero, it's the dumbest bug ever. made me rage quit this game on emperor, marathon, uninstalled the game and took a walk!
I was suzerian to a really strong city state on my last game playing as England, America had a city not too far from the city state and my furthest north city so I tried to take it. My units were getting absolutely destroyed every time I tried to take it, but the city state went into them and had an artillery unit by the year 1710 some how and completely annihilated them😂
Unpopular opinion...walls shouldn't be allowed to go up mid-siege. If you're already attacking a city, the defending city should not be able to just get walls up to stop the attack. It makes no sense.
Personally, I always use 3 warriors and 3 Archers, plus 1 Archer for each city I plan to keep. Major bonus, is if you're lucky enough to get an Apostle with the Chaplain promotion, but that's rare in an EARLY early war. I usually attack later than what you're doing. I use the melee to gain siege the city and to protect my warriors. Let the archers wear down the city and if I have a battering ram (I never build more than one, too expensive to build two). Builds up Archer experience, and also choose which melee unit that will capture the city for the experience bonus, as you get a lot more than just attacking. Using the archers allows you to leave one in the city. I always grab Victor as my second Governor. His three turn to establish in a city can make a difference, especially when you can't take their capital first. Razing a city, never do if the city is over 3/4 pop in the later game. I'll just suck up the computer's stupid starting location as most of the time those cities never amount to much anyways. I rarely play anything but Poundmaker, so I usually can't rush a early early war. Like you did with the Aztecs. Eagle Warriors with a couple or more luxuries are easy steam rolling, like you showed, but any other civ (besides Sumeria) is going to have a hard time with a 5 warrior attack on a 3 city assault.
I don't like this strat. There is benefit in removing a rival, but any city you take that early seems like a net loss. There's always empty space for a settler, it's cheaper to build than five warriors, and it doesn't distract you from getting important things done (monument, holy site, campus, tile improvements, barb hunting, ect). Wait until the AI fixes the place up, then take all their stuff.
A lil bit of a late comment, but I keep running into problems with domination where quickly others hate me and me occupying a capital worsens everyone's opinion and I quickly start to deal with a lot of war.
Damn, I didn't make good use of Gilgamesh. I'm in the atomic era now and agreed to join some Samoan in a war against Gandhi. He is on another continent so it's hard getting my units over there. I had to retreat because I landed in the worst spot I could. It was like D day.
As far as Razing a city due to it not being on fresh water. This is nonsensical to me. The cost of the Aqueduct is not that different from that of a Settler (in fact, my favorite Roman strategy is to take random North African Desert cities on earth TSL maps and just set up an early 18 base production cost Aqueduct connecting to an Oasis etc..) this is not only cheaper than the settler even for standard aqueducts, but you get the free farms etc.. and other early tile improvements without having to make another builder...leaving the Aztecs free to use those builder charges to cut the aqueduct cost.
One thing I really like doing in this game is to play against civs with unique units from the same age, or fairly close.. so early game fighting.. Rome, Macedon, Persia, Greece (Gorgo), Scythia, Egypt, Sumeria. Also makes the game more historically real having all of these civs together. :-)
The game I started yesterday japan settled within 5 tiles of me. Yeah I completely destroyed them and they awakened a strange blood lust in me. First ever domination victory under my belt!
What you mean no difference? I get 150 grievance, even on turn 8. Did they nerf early war? Should I denounce and declare war after 5 turn to get the 25 grievance discount?
This video was made before grievances were added to the game, so yes, early war is a little harder now due to the grievance penalty. If you know that you're going to declare war, it is worthwhile to do a formal war instead.
Game 1: I played Kristina. Started on a spit of land. At the other end of it was Gligamesh. Had room for just 1 city. Tried Early War; got stomped by War-Carts. Gave up Game 2: Again, Kristina. Tried Real-world start. Appeared in Sweden right next to Harald for Norway. Who stomped me. Damn it. Game 3: Kupe. Found some land. It contained Gilgamesh, Aztec and Japan. Who all declared on me at roughly the same time. And I got stomped again. I think the Civ6 RNG hates me.
Never knew I could siege, previously it took about 40 turns and about 10-11 warriors to defeat a city, this will make winning significantly easier with Germany, thanks
