strongest or weakest first

[shmily_dana]

If you have a choice, do you prefer to conquer your enemies from strongest to weakest or from weakest to strongest?

[ChrisiusMaximus]

If they are close to me then the strongest go first every time, but basically just who ever is next to me dies

[mrmitchell]

whoever has a resource i need

[okblacke]

Originally posted by shmily_dana
If you have a choice, do you prefer to conquer your enemies from strongest to weakest or from weakest to strongest?

I generally only war for resources or for liebensraum.

And I go for inability to retaliate effectively. If a weak civ is sitting on top of needed strategic resources, they're probably toast.

If a strong civ (particularly one embroiled in a lot of wars) has a few cities near me, I'll take the local cities out figuring the strong Civ can't afford to send much my way. Particularly if there's water between us.

For plain old-fashioned warmongering, I'll pick the civ closest to me that has pissed me off the most, strong or weak. The Germans, very often.

[ok]

[vmxa1]

Close one first in most cases. If it is a very peaceful game from my perspecive and it is past the mid point, then the strongest.

[bvoncranium]

from shmily_dana:
do you prefer to conquer your enemies from strongest to weakest or from weakest to strongest?

I'd say that opponent strength is a huge factor in determining a winning strategy, but is only indirectly related to the order in which to attack opposing Civs.

I think that most players would assert that the best approach depends on the specifics of the game.

My philosophy is to go after whichever opponent will provide me with a stronger position once the battle has ended.
This usually means that many of the following are true:
* I can conquer or weaken them effectively without my Civ becoming vulnerable
* I can resolve the conflict quickly
* Through the conflict I gain resources, productivity (towns, GA, etc.) and/or strategic position
* I end up in a better position with respect to my main opposition. This often means weakening or eliminating the stronger opponents. It can also mean building a position of strength by systematically overrunning weaker Civs until you are stronger than the strong opponents.
* I hit whomever appears ill-prepared to repel my attack.
* I hit in a manner that allows my Civ to weather the diplomatic fallout.

If at least a few of these hold true, the conflict should be worthwhile, for any size of opponent Civ.

Clearly ambiguous - bvc

[Kuciwalker]

With a few armies, it doesn't matter

[bongo]

In civ2 I would often go after the strongest civ I could possible beat, I would even postpone my attack so I could take on THE strongest civ. The idea was that once I beat him, I would be the top dog. Civ#2,3 etc would of course grow stronger in the meantime but not enough to rival me, once I beat #1. If I went after #2 or 3, then #1 would be so much stronger afterwards that beating him would be close to impossible.

Now, my tactics are pretty close to what bvoncranium described in his post.

[Mad Bomber]

Almost always its the closest CIV. My aim is to take my continent, one CIV at a time. If there are equally close CIV's then I go for the one in which I can reduce the size of my borders the most, thus leading to fewer cities to defend (and fewer units left idle while my conquering is on going) The one exception is if I need to capture a strategic resource, then the nearest civ with that resource has a huge bullseye painted on them.

[TheArsenal]

I pick the closest neighbor depending on what resources and land it is sitting on. If all things are equal (they rarely are) the weakest goes first. If I have close neighbors who have an effective middle game UU (Chinese, Japan, Ottomans, etc.) I try to prune them back a great deal before they get to use it. But whatever order it goes, the goal is to clear my continent.

[gunkulator]

Another reason for war is to deny an opponent a key strategic resource. Even if I already have Iron, I want to deny the Romans, Persians or Celts of it for as long as I can. Sometimes their only source is a border town. Bend all effort on taking that town and then sue for peace asap.

Other times, you attack because you have the Germans, Mongols or Dutch as neighbors. You already know trouble will be coming early and often. You may as well pick the time. A good time is when they are already picking on someone else.

Contrary to that mentality is the "dog pile" or "vultures circling " mentality. If a strong civ is beating up on a weak civ, you are better off joining the campaign against the weakling, rather than sit back and watch the strong civ get all the spoils of war. Take a few cities for yourself. Get in an alliance and you should be able to buy a tech or two from the strong civ.

A new and somewhat unique reason for war cropped up in my last game. The Greeks, who were on another continent, built the Lighthouse and therefore were the only civ capable of sending galleys across the 2 squares of ocean separating the continents. They landed 2 Settlers and 2 Hoplights in crap tundra no-man's land. I had my Swordsmen and Horsemen waiting. Attack. Lose one Swordsman, get 4 free workers, watch the galleys slowly return to Greece. 6 turns later, see the galleys coming back. Sink one with my galley. Sue for peace. Get it plus a tech too! Ancient era war across continents is so cumbersome for the attacker that you can pretty much laugh off the effects. By the time real intercontinental war was possible, the Greeks had pretty much forgiven me.

Other than that, it's usually my weakest neighbor that goes first.

[Kuciwalker]

I protect the weak civs, because it tends to even out their power, giving me even more of a lead.

[Arrian]

The first thing to do is to secure a large, productive empire. This means beating up on my neighbors. Which one to hit first depends... sometimes they pick a fight with me. Sometimes there is an obvious target, like a large civ with goodies (pyramids, luxuries, etc) that lacks key strategic resources.

All things being equal, I'll take the easy fight over the tough one... at least until I'm really strong. Once I hit a certain level of power, it doesn't really matter anymore.

After I've carved out a large enough empire, with access to all luxury types present on my continent, it's time to start picking on overseas civs. There's nothing I like more than a weak AI civ with a couple of luxuries.

-Arrian

[asleepathewheel]

varies.

usually I'll attack a smaller neighbor that I can easily overrun. or perhaps a larger one that has a lux or strat resource close to the border.

I will hit a large civ if I find they don't have a resource. Love to take out pikes with cavalry. The only problem is soon after cavs come rifles. Got bit in the ass by this the other day, the otts were in this position (no sp=no sipahi ) however a few turns after I got cavs, they got nationalism with their free tech and I was hosed.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Other times, you attack because you have the Germans, Mongols or Dutch as neighbors. You already know trouble will be coming early and often.

The Dutch? Admittedly, I've only played a few games of C3C so far, but I haven't noticed any difficulties from the Dutch. Intuitively, it doesn't seem like they should be an overly-aggressive civ.

Contrary to that mentality is the "dog pile" or "vultures circling " mentality. If a strong civ is beating up on a weak civ, you are better off joining the campaign against the weakling, rather than sit back and watch the strong civ get all the spoils of war. Take a few cities for yourself. Get in an alliance and you should be able to buy a tech or two from the strong civ.

I often turn this around on my main competition. A couple games ago, I (French) and the Romans had a fair tech lead (late stone age) on the rest of the known world; the Aztecs occupied the land in between us, and the Romans also had the Zulu to the north and the Indians to the south. The Romans demanded a tech; I declined, and they declared war. I bribed the three other civs with low level techs into a military alliance; within 10 minutes, the Romans were toast.

Of course, the flipside of this was that it was the other three civs who benefited, as I took only one Roman city. But I managed to continue to play them off of each other until only the Indians remained, and we had had nothing but sterling relations and mutual trade for millenia. The upshot--I was never in any danger, and never had to mount a major war effort.

------------------

On the other hand, this strategy can backfire. A faced a similar situation is my most recent game (Americans), where the Zulu took the place of the Romans. Again, we were separated by a couple civs (Germany, Dutch, Hittites), who weren't too far behind. I got them to attack the Zulu for me (the Mongols and French, virtual vassal-states, went along for the ride as well), but the Zulu wiped out the Dutch and the Hittites and seriously crippled the Germans, leaving only a small buffer zone between us. I managed to accelerate my tech lead during that time, so I still managed to win without a serious effort on the war front, but my strategy damn near gave birth to a killer AI equal to my power and hell-bent on my destruction.



When warmongering (which I hate to do in general), I usually go for the easy kill, someone I have boxed in through my early settler blitz. I will occasionally go to war for strategic resources... I once had an enormous empire, but nary an iron resource in sight. It was a long hard slog, but managed to subdue the Egyptians and their iron with my horsemen and archers...

[Kuciwalker]

Quote:

Other times, you attack because you have the Germans, Mongols or Dutch as neighbors. You already know trouble will be coming early and often.

The Dutch? Admittedly, I've only played a few games of C3C so far, but I haven't noticed any difficulties from the Dutch. Intuitively, it doesn't seem like they should be an overly-aggressive civ.

I wouldn't want to take on the Dutch. Cheap, early Muskets that don't require Saltpeter = attacker's nightmare. The French are just as bad.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Quote: Other times, you attack because you have the Germans, Mongols or Dutch as neighbors. You already know trouble will be coming early and often. The Dutch? Admittedly, I've only played a few games of C3C so far, but I haven't noticed any difficulties from the Dutch. Intuitively, it doesn't seem like they should be an overly-aggressive civ.

I wouldn't want to take on the Dutch. Cheap, early Muskets that don't require Saltpeter = attacker's nightmare. The French are just as bad.

I hate running up against the dutch in the middle ages. Take em out early or late. They always seem to be strong in my games, that ag trait is potent. and it seems that they always build the lighthouse (if I don't build it)


I love playing as them, one of my favorite new civs.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Guynemer The Dutch? Admittedly, I've only played a few games of C3C so far, but I haven't noticed any difficulties from the Dutch. Intuitively, it doesn't seem like they should be an overly-aggressive civ.

I believe any Civ becomes aggressive if it feels it has enough of a lead.

In C3C, it seems to always be the Dutch or the Celts, and one of the Native American tribes (Inca or Maya, I can never keep 'em straight, I think the latter) that turn into kick-ass opponents. They all have the Ag trait which, as it turns out, plays into the AI strategy.

Other oddities I've noticed: The Spanish always attack early on, extremely feebly, and are usually in the stone age forever. The Arabs will expand tremendously, developing a huge early point lead, and then will stagnate in the middle ages. (Some political commentary there, perhaps?) The Vikings flounder depressingly.

There's a message somewhere on 'poly about how certain cultures favor certain structures, and this is why they often flounder.

It adds a strange sort of repetitiveness to games. You quickly learn who the threats are, when they're going to be threatening, and when they're going to cease being threatening.

[ok]

[:) Smiley]

Isn't there a way to play that turns off the bonuses?

[Rasputin]

always the strong ones first

[Alexander's Horse]

I go for whoever is closest, most strategic.

I just had a big war with the Chinese and Russians. The Russians were stronger so I made peace with them. After I crushed the Chinese, the Russians were surrounded on 3 sides with their backs to the sea.

So I crushed them too

[Rasputin]

i like to encourage the smalller to attack the larger. can save me going to war with numerous civs at once

[Alexander's Horse]

Have you multi played yet Raz?

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Have you multi played yet Raz?

started a few yes but never got to finish one the people at gamespy same as the old zone people, quit when losing .....

[Alexander's Horse]

we should get an Aussie group started - you know I'm reliable.

[Rasputin]

yeah i tried to spike some interest a while ago.... but couldnt get any takewrs..


which version you playing ???

[Johann Moritz]

Always the close one. If there is no more space to expand and several civs surround me, I'll either go for the weakest or the one that will have his UU available sooner.

[shmily_dana]

Funny you mentioned the Dutch...

I was running neck and neck with them with my Germans. They pulled ahead wars with Russia and Ottomans. I chewed up USA and Spain to keep up. They dominated their continent and I dominate mine. I ate up the rest, but they did not take much more territory from the Greeks or Byz on their continent. I took the two island civs (Maya and Aztecs). I have taken over those two, so I now control most of the world (I need 5% more to get 66%). THey have a big army, but mine is bigger. I've moved most of it over there for the big attack. This is a REGENT level game, so I have a hugh tech advantage.

Anyhow, I'm glad I saved them for last, it will be much more interesting then running over some spearmen on an island of the last place Aztecs to finish the game.

[Boracks]

Oddly enough, just had to make this decision, who next? (And since they were mentioned, I point out I'm the Dutch.)

England, Spain and Russia were next to me on an archipelago type of map. All three had RoP with me that could be cancelled and I could easily take any one of them. What I did was check the relations. England and Spain were polite but Russia was annoyed. So the Russian RoP was cancelled, war was declared and their area is now being consoldated.

Of course, this means another decision in a few turns but Portugal and Scandinavia are now easily accessable. Hmm...

[Zero]

I attack everyone.