war before tanks?

Evil_Eric_4 · November 27, 2001, 17:52

Just curious how many of you go to war voluntarily before you can build tanks.

I can see it if you need a resorce but I still would rather trade for it.
Going to war early seems to be too costly and I fear falling behind in tech if I dont consentrate on developement.

Getting dragged into a war is one thing but to do it on purpose seems counterproductive (before tanks -bombers etc.).

One more thing-
When a war breaks out I always send some "observers" .
In one game all the AIs ganged up on Egypt (I was also at war with them due to an MPP)However all I sent was a few ships to watch.Well when I saw that the one city that I wanted(it had rubber-I had none)was about to fall I contacted Cleo and offered
peace and a small lump sum of gold and she gladly handed it over to me

2 turns later Egypt was no more.I had their best city without firing a shot

The money I gave them did them no good.
BTW does the civ that took their last city get their gold?
not that it matters as Im sure she spent that cash.

Boracks · November 27, 2001, 17:59

When one of the 'feeding frenzies' breaks out, I generally send a few 'observers' as well.

In my case they consist of settlers and military units (read: real estate agents and lawyers

). After all, when cities fall, their culture is zero so they revert to one square radius, freeing up a lot of land that is now 'unclaimed'. So I claim it.

I love those early 'world wars'.

Wrong_shui · November 27, 2001, 18:06

I use to wait till the modern tiomes in civ2, but...

Playing regent, I have just spent from 600AD to 1000AD planning and preparing for an attack on an island of 15 babalonian cities.

In 5 turns I had took them all.

It was fun.

Im still running equal with everyone in the tech race.

Evil_Eric_4 · November 27, 2001, 18:08

Yea I thought of this as well--
next time Ill send settlers too

In retrospect I should have offered a resorce or lux since Id have gotten it back in 2 turns anyway.

Venger · November 27, 2001, 18:09

I go to war when I no longer can tolerate a neighbor. In my current game, this was WAY early. I can succesfully wage war at any point - but it helps to have something like a legion or knight. Cavalry is a very potent offensive unit (3 move is really too high though for this unit, especially in light of mechanized infantries 2 move)...

War is what you make of it. For the record, I destroyed Egypt and Greece before tanks, and had only 10 cities left to conquer when I finally got 10 tanks to help finish the last 3 turns of their conquest. Knights and especially cavalry were invaluable in the conquest, as was the Legion.

Venger

Evil_Eric_4 · November 27, 2001, 18:12

Venger--

Did your research suffer or were you better off in the long run?

Special_Olympic · November 27, 2001, 18:15

Of course I do. If I get Iron I might do a swordsman rush on the civ next to me at the beginning. If that goes well, I might attack the next civ in line and try to gobble most of it up.

After that I'll build tech and culture until I have Knights and then cavalry... Then I might have more wars if it seems advantageous.
It's possible to have wars and still lead in culture and tech pretty easily.

Evil_Eric_4 · November 27, 2001, 18:19

(read: real estate agents and lawyers ).

Good one LOL

mr.buddylee · November 27, 2001, 18:25

I usually play India or Japan, and in every game I've played, I start a war with someone soon after I get my special unit (war elephant or samari). I usually pick on whoever I think is weakest and least liked by the opposing AI.

I have Monarchy, and my cities are all usually above 6 before I start, and I just keep churning out my special unit and hope I can destroy them before they get gunpowder.

If they get gunpowder while we're fighting, I'll generally try to block their access to saltpeper if possible, and keep going or if I cannot block their access to saltpeper, I try to get another AI to join the fight and keep them busy.

I prefer going to war early because their culture is lower and their defenses are much weaker. They still have their warriors and spearmen running around and I usually have a nice advantage over their units and my units don't require any special resources to build, so I can churn them out no matter what resources I currently control.

I don't get another advantage like this until I get tanks, so that is generally when I take over my next neighbor

Venger · November 27, 2001, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4
Venger--

Did your research suffer or were you better off in the long run?

Hard to know with just the single game experience, but I currently have half of the score graph to myself, so I guess it didn't hurt too bad!

The key is to be a Republic as early as possible to maintain high levels of research...

Venger

adaMada · November 27, 2001, 18:31

I normally time my wars for the introduction of a new unit that puts me ahead of everyone else. This means that I'm willing to go to war with a ton of knights, but don't generally encourage it -- instead, I like to wait until calvery, mass build/upgrade, and crush a civ or two while they're still on their first or second calvery. I perdict that getting tanks will be similar for me, as I'm playing as the Germans primarially for the Panzer, which I hear is equally good.

One other thing to consider, though, is that early game wars seem to be useful -- the AI is so worried about expansion, most cities are protected w/ warriors (or a pikeman or two at most). I am playing on cheifton, so I can't say that this doesn't change at higher levels, but even so... ultra early game wars can be very efficent when it comes to eliminating another civ a bit too close for comfort...

Just my two bits...

-- adaMada

Ray K · November 27, 2001, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4
Just curious how many of you go to war voluntarily before you can build tanks.

I can see it if you need a resorce but I still would rather trade for it.

dude, no way!

My capital city build queue:
Temple (rush-build)
Archer
Archer
Archer
Archer (start war with neighbor)
Archer
Archer
Archer
...

My captured cities build the defensive units. I don't worry about the opponent techs because I keep making new friends about trading techs every time my border expands

My attack waves start with Archers, then Swordsmen, then Longbowmen.

vini, vidi, vici.

Evil_Eric_4 · November 27, 2001, 18:37

I always play as the Americans or Germans so special units is not an option.

Maybe next game(post patch that is)Ill try being more aggressive
early on.

Ive just always been a builder so maybe its time to try a different aproach.
Thing is Im up to monarch level now and the AI seems to be real tech monsters and they freely trade these techs amongst themselves.
If Im forced to build units instead of say Libraries the next thing I know there is some civ entering middle ages while Im still researching code of laws.

Plus Im kinda lazy

Ghengis Brom · November 27, 2001, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger
I go to war when I no longer can tolerate a neighbor. In my current game, this was WAY early. I can succesfully wage war at any point - but it helps to have something like a legion or knight. Cavalry is a very potent offensive unit (3 move is really too high though for this unit, especially in light of mechanized infantries 2 move)...

War is what you make of it. For the record, I destroyed Egypt and Greece before tanks, and had only 10 cities left to conquer when I finally got 10 tanks to help finish the last 3 turns of their conquest. Knights and especially cavalry were invaluable in the conquest, as was the Legion.

Venger

I think the Firaxians mave taken into consideration that on broken terrain with no roads a horse is going to move faster then a vehicle.

Ex. A Hummer and a calvaryman arrive at the bank of a river. At it's deepest point the river is say, 12 ft. The mechanized infantry can't cross, it would be completely underwater at 7 or 8 feet of depth. The calvaryman just urges his horse on, swims across the river and keeps on going while the Hummer has to travel up or downstream to find a shallower place to cross.

Me at work ----->

Morganstern · November 27, 2001, 18:45

Like EE4, I mostly avoided wars prior to tanks in Civ 2, and did most of the fighting after obtaining them. That approach just never presented itself in my first real Civ 3 game. The land grab is just too important, even in mid-game. When first the Iroquois and then the Russians constantly violated my territory and made silly demands, my Americans had little choice but to go to war. There was some Histograph loss during the wars, but in the end I'm back in the lead with a strong position.

Venger · November 27, 2001, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghengis Brom
I think the Firaxians mave taken into consideration that on broken terrain with no roads a horse is going to move faster then a vehicle.

Ex. A Hummer and a calvaryman arrive at the bank of a river. At it's deepest point the river is say, 12 ft. The mechanized infantry can't cross, it would be completely underwater at 7 or 8 feet of depth. The calvaryman just urges his horse on, swims across the river and keeps on going while the Hummer has to travel up or downstream to find a shallower place to cross.

Well, my mechanized infantry has a higher top speed and doesn't stop running if it get's shot with a rifle...

Overall, I think I can live with Cavalty being three if Mech Inf are also three. But a mechanized infantry brigade could run down a cavalry regiment...

Anyways, I will have to play with it a little more to get a real good feel for it, but the options I'm looking at are either a dump of cavalry back to 2 (quite likely) or a boost of mechanized infantry to 3 (the other alternative). But I can't leave them as are without feeling something is goofy...

Venger

Boracks · November 27, 2001, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger

Well, my mechanized infantry has a higher top speed and doesn't stop running if it get's shot with a rifle...

Overall, I think I can live with Cavalty being three if Mech Inf are also three. But a mechanized infantry brigade could run down a cavalry regiment...

Anyways, I will have to play with it a little more to get a real good feel for it, but the options I'm looking at are either a dump of cavalry back to 2 (quite likely) or a boost of mechanized infantry to 3 (the other alternative). But I can't leave them as are without feeling something is goofy...

Venger

If the AI upgraded its units to the appropriate era then I would have no quibble with the movement rates as I would be comparing cav to the units in its era and mech inf to the units in their era. But given that the AI doesn't appear to upgrade units

, I have to agree with you.

I would lean towards the mech having a move of 3 as well as the cav. The cav's movement rate is its real advantage and changing it to a 2 would be counter-productive, IMHO.

Evil_Eric_4 · November 27, 2001, 19:21

I agree with Venger

Any unit that runs on Oil should be faster than one that runs on oats.
And as far as broken roads etc. thats why Military vehicles are 4wD.
EDIT-and horses cant run full out forever-have to rest-while an engine can run almost indefinatly.

And ships that use oil should be MUCH faster than ones that use the wind.

Special_Olympic · November 27, 2001, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger

Overall, I think I can live with Cavalty being three if Mech Inf are also three. But a mechanized infantry brigade could run down a cavalry regiment...

Venger

Well, in history horses have often been able to outpace motor vehicles in wars. Horses can eat off the land while mech inf has to transport a large amount of fuel.

On the other hand, I think Mech inf should be 3 or 4 in the game and cav should be 3.

Pyrodrew · November 27, 2001, 20:33

It depends. But look at it this way, if there is no more land to settle & I'm getting new cities in the beginning via conquest & you're not, I will be able to build up those cities with culture & tech to surpass your lead simply due to the quantity of cities I would have over you. It's a long-term investment that can pay off. The risk of course is losing, but if you're substantially stronger & corruption isn't strangling you - why not? On my current Regent game in the middle ages I ran out of things to build (I had the tech lead too)... then I was thrust into my GoldenAge for completing a wonder. I would have been crazy to waste all that extra production on 'wealth'. Now the cities I've conquered are adding culture & science very handsomely to me... if I stayed in my box they would not be. What about culture? I obtained a few cities via culture, but war allows you to gain cities MUCH faster than culture.

There are other advantages to war as well, but I don't want to make this post too long.

Quote:

ships that use oil should be MUCH faster than ones that use the wind.

Agreed.

jdd2007 · November 27, 2001, 20:50

well, i dont know about the rest of ya, but i war on and off the whole game. it works pretty well. i go to war when i have the advantage, raze (always raze) a few cities, show them cavalry are not to be messed with and then settle for gold and tech if they have any...

Andrew_Jay · November 27, 2001, 21:15

I find going to war in Civ 3 a lot easier and a lot more fun than in civ 2, at any age or tech level.
In civ 2 I'd just put infantry (and equivalents, pikes etc.) in my cities, maybe some important spots on my border and sit back and wait for the modern stuff before launching any real campaigns.
But in this, I find it a lot easier to get a good number of units, which are fairly decent. I find the Persian Immortals a fantastic early game unit, even up into medieval times.
I think what makes the waring better is how land gets grabbed up so soon, like some others here have mentioned.

Seneca · November 27, 2001, 21:17

I just go to war whenever I get bored...

madmario · November 27, 2001, 22:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray K

My attack waves start with Archers, then Swordsmen, then Longbowmen.

I sometimes have a warrior or two (then swordsmen if they survive), but then archers, and then horsemen asap, because they are more durable than the 1 move units.

I almost always war early too.

Evil_Eric_4 · November 28, 2001, 00:52

Well-How enlightning

Thanx for the input everyone
for the record I have been in early wars -I just didnt provoke them.And Im always prepared just in case

Once I get this game patched Ill start a new game and try some of these stratigies-- again thanx all

Badtz Maru · November 28, 2001, 01:01

I usually don't go on the offensive until I get cavalry. I've been messing with the rules some, though, and with my new ruleset waging an offensive war can be a lot easier earlier in the game - I've given most mounted units the Blitz ability and increased the speed of every unit except the settler. Units on foot all move 2 except for marines and samurai that go 3, most mounted units go 4 with a few exceptions (Riders go 5, Knights and War Elephants go 3), and I've really cranked up the speed of naval units.

Evil_Eric_4 · November 28, 2001, 01:17

wow--
Badtz Maru--I did exactly the same thing.
I meant it only for the HUGE maps though.
And only one save game-the rest I use stock rules.
even the Knights and elephants in mine are the same as yours.
Unfurtunately I had to take away the blitz deal for tanks as you cant have a tank attacking 8 times in one turn

I also unchecked the air superiority box and made fighters like small bombers I call them fighter-bombers(original huh?).
I also increased all hitpoints by 2.
I made some other smaller tweaks and am still testing all the new settings but its nice to be able to get an army across the sea before all the other civs can tear another civ apart.
Im just surprised that anyone else thought of the exact same thing as me

Like I said though im still testing it and would never cite experiances from this particular game as if I was using stock rules.
edit-I kept workers at 1 mp since I figured that them and settlers have a lot of equipment.

War4ever · November 28, 2001, 01:47

i go to war anytime i see an advantage.....and to clip the ais wings a bit....they can get too big for their britched

Badtz Maru · November 28, 2001, 01:52

That's funny, I increased the HP on my units too - though it was only by 1.

I haven't got to tanks yet with my ruleset, but I didn't make them as fast as you did yours - I think they are only 4 or 5 movement.

I made a number of other tweaks too - it's a lot better than my first attempt at a mod, though my making elephants a strategic resource isn't working so I'm going to have to make some changes to the war elephants (I made them require elephants and saltpeter, and gave them a 6 attack, 4 defense, and a 4 bombard ability). I also increased the bombard ability on almost everything that has it.

Once I get it balanced out I'll probably make it available here. Other neat things I did include having the pyramids make a temple in every city on the continent (that may be a bit too good), gave courthouses a culture rating of 2 (and the AI builds them everywhere now!), made the police station require nationalism and reduce corruption, and made shakespeares theater create one happy citizen everywhere. I actually increased corruption slightly to make up for the various things that reduce corruption.

Evil_Eric_4 · November 28, 2001, 02:08

I made modern tanks 8 and early tanks 6 wit panzers at 7.

I did the Police station thing too.

helos transport 2.
Oh yeah and only modern foot units can be air tranported{hoping to urge the AI to upgrade}dont know if it worked yet though.
unfortunatly helos can still transport ancient units(no way around this im afraid)
also dest. can see subs .All bombardment units were made more powerfull{again hoping AI will build more of them although I fear they wont and ill have to reset them because it will give me an unfair advantage.)
And many other things too numerous to get into right now.