Questions regarding my strategies

[superdestructo]

Hi, i've been playing dom for a little while and have even tried making a mod.

While I know a lot about the basics, I am still unclear on some specifics. Even though my tactics seem to work against a couple people I play, they are even less experienced than I am. Anyway...

Frankly speaking, my usual mode of play involves rapid expansion and swarm tactics. I like my dominions to be as productive as possible and I try to choose races that have good base troops that can be massed quickly. (Such as various Ulms, MA pithium)

So far, i've usually been able to expand quicker than my opponents and use the basic strategy of minimizing border states and maintaining strong defense. My most frequently used spells are Ash. Record, Call of the Wild, Call of the Wind, Blight and Sea King's Court.

Generally i lag behind in magic research and magic items, but having the largest and most productive country allows me to "smother" invaders by avoiding their strong armies and attacking their territory in many places at once. I'll have a lot more resources and gem income as well, so I will generally get to the point where I can be a bit liberal with these resources and will summon werewolves and springhawks each turn to aid my conquests.


Basically, my question is... will these tactics be disastrous against more apt opponents? Why and How? I mean, in a recent game I was getting like 500 free summon wolves by the end, and even though they were slaughtered almost as fast... the sheer number of them overwhelmed my opponents. Basically, it was more of a war of logistics and supply than of countering my opponents moves.

While my early game micro is pretty good and I conquer independents quickly and reliably, as I move into the later game I pretty much just group archers, have my basic shielded frontline troops, some fodder troops, some fast attakers, etc... and rely on mass numbers. Is there a more effective way to play races like Ulm?

Another time I was in a stalemate with Oceana on land/sea. They kept putting up lure of the sea and far-summoning against me but they were were unable to beat me on land as I was unable to beat them in the sea. I only had a few provences with fishmen at first, and even later when I had undead and sea-trolls I could not hold any ocean provinces. Eventually, I just started mass-blighting the oceans about a dozen times per turn and generally trying to win by attrition. Is there a better way?

Finally, I was recently in a game where an opponent was able to beat numerical odds of about 10 to 1 in frequent cases. Yet I was able to keep sending troops to harass them and capture or pressure their less defended territories while avoiding engaging the strong armies directly. While this happened, I built an army of about 60 Iron dragons commanded by several iron dragons with gift of reason and fire or earth magic. These dragon swarms were basically unbeatable in that game. I had them cast that fire-based fatigue spell to which they are immune, while others used earth buffs. In the grand scheme of things... exactly how strong are a bunch of such iron dragons? Is there a counter to them I should be aware of?

So, that's as far as I've gone strategy-wise.


PS. As funny as this may sound, some of the most fun games i've played were 2-3 PCs vs a strong CPU with some kind of advantage. For example, teaming up against LA Ermor with a 20-turn head start was often a fun co-op challenge. Other than a basic 2v2 or whatever, anyone have any good ideas for co-op multiplayer?

[Saulot]

superdestructo said:
Basically, it was more of a war of logistics and supply than of countering my opponents moves.

All war is a war of logistics and supplies

From what you've listed, you're utilizing soviet style human-wave tactics. From what I can tell, most of the top players utilize german style mobility tactics, with air and astral.

Nothing is wrong with either. However, the distinguishing factor between success and failure, will most likely be how you adapt to strategies your opponents employ. If you use your strategy as a club, one size fits all, then you will likely lose. If you can learn about your opponents, and include counter-strategies to defeat whatever they've chosen to employ, you will likely win.

You should also have several early, mid, and late game strategies prepared before you even start the game. Too often a novice player has never gotten to the end of a game, and has no clue what they want to do.

Furthermore, a strategy isn't sufficient, you must practice battle tactics. Melee, ranged, and chaff isn't enough. You must learn where to place, how to script, how much is force or firepower is enough, etc. This tends to be much harder and have a longer learning curve than picking up strategies simply by reading the strategy guides. So... practice.

Also, keep in mind luck is a factor. A significant one. From starting positions, to your neighbors, to magic sites you find, to random magic picks, etc. all of these will impact your game.

Lastly, my advice is, don't stress it too much, the game is about having fun, not beating everyone over the head with cold yet brilliant strategy and tactics.
So don't skimp on diplomacy, throwing around witty banter, or pithy turns of phrase. Also don't be a sore winner or loser, and you'll likely have players who want to beat you / or be beaten by you, again.

[capnq]

superdestructo said: Another time I was in a stalemate with Oceana on land/sea. [...] Eventually, I just started mass-blighting the oceans about a dozen times per turn and generally trying to win by attrition. Is there a better way?

IME, getting a dominion kill against an underwater nation is easier than trying to fight them in the seas.

[Ironhawk]

Generally speaking, the early and mid game are the only times where hordes of troops will benefit you. Even if you pursue a land-denial strategy as you appear to outline in your post. Eventually, a skilled opponent will simply start fielding stuff that literally cannot be beaten by any size of mortal army. The most common of these tactics are the anti-personnel SC and the battlefield-wide damage enchantments. Once these strategies become available in the mid-late game, large groups of unsupported mortal armies actually become a liability.

As for your Dragon army: they would probably be pretty effective vs human troops, but in the grand scheme of things its a criminal waste of gems. A single large SC with a moon blade or a handful of properly protected mages casting Opposition or Control could defeat that army pretty easily.

[Dedas]

That is why you support those hordes of units with powerful buffs and thugs. Overwhelming an enemy late game can be pretty devastating if done well.

[Endoperez]

How soon do you start building a second castle? It isn't too hard to conquer two provinces, the second not next to your capital, and have you scout start building a castle in the second one on turn 4, as MA Ulm. If you get lucky, you can have three or four castles by turn 16. Then you can churn out researcher-mages to get on to the magic race.

Read Baalz's guide to Marverni, posted about a week or so ago. It details very nicely what a magic-heavy nation can do in the endgame. Pythium can do that in addition to having strong military; Ulms usually have more trouble.

[Dedas]

I always build my second fortress on turn 3 as MA Ulm to take advantage of Ulm's fortress production bonus. It also helps in defense as most of your units have map move 1. The third castle I place a little further away so to maximize the other two. My motto is: "no province without a fortress should have left over resources"; unless there is something I want to build there of course.

[Endoperez]

So you build a fort on the first province you conquer? Hm. Do you do that even if there are no resource-heavy provinces around you?

Oh, and I did all my tests without a combat pretender. I wanted to see how good expansion I could get out of Ulm without pretender's help.

[Dedas]

If I'm very unlucky and the adjacent provinces to my capitol are barren wastelands, I would not build my second fortress so close. This is rarely the case though.

I have found out that getting that second fort up and running as fast as actually possible helps Ulm immensely with both expansion and research. I would even go as far and say that it is in fact necessary when Ulm against great players.

Good fortresses is one of the thing Ulm is good at so one should try to maximize that. Do not go for the cheapest fortress but rather the best mix of administration, cost, defense and build time. In Ulm's case that would be the citadel and to peg-castle. If placed correctly you will get great many resources and awesome defense, buying you time to get your slow troops into position if you are attacked.

[Sombre]

I think the defense value is irrelevant - your enemy won't sit there sieging your second castle, they'll continue to raid your provinces or go right for the cap. I'm really not sure paying attention to the admin is worth it either - even the worst fort still unlocks the resources in the province itself and being cheaper and faster to build than those with admin, you can simply get more of them. More forts means more mages and even with the admin disparity, probably more troops overall too.