Sometimes war is needed: is it true ?

[HenryMad]

It's three week I'm playing CIV3 and must honestly admit that I'm completely addicted. Before that I have been playing SMAC/X since 1999 and have been able to win often at Trascend.
In CIV3 I usually play as Greek at regent: quite challenging (my strategy need to be developed), sometimes I win, sometimes not.
After several losses in one random map (at Warlord level, it was the last I was playing before switching to Regent), I truly believe now that in some cases it's impossible to win by relying only on pacific and cultural expansion. As a greek I've tried always to center my strategy on science, good relationship with my neighbours, fast cultural expansion, etc. etc.
But here is the example that destroys my beliefs:
A standard map, average settings, two big islands plus a smaller one.
Isle #1 (big): Greeks (me) south, Romans (Middle map), Egyptians (north)
Isle #2 (smaller): Germans (south), Russians (North)
Isle #3 (Biggest): English (north), Chineese (middlemap), Frenchs (South)

I have no iron, saltpeeter, rubber, etc near my cities, while Romans get iron and Egyptians get Iron and Saltpeeter: therefore I start sending my workers/settlers/warriors in the centre before Romans rush in. Even if I succeed in acquiring Iron, when I leave the Ancient Era, English are already incredible strong (and German too). At this point the game is lost, no way to recover. The only mean to survive seems to fight Romans right from the beginning, destroy them and the Egyptians in turn, so to get control of the whole island (and of resources). Cultural expansion is too slow: by the time I am able to culturally acquire some roman cities, English and German have become too strong (English have destroyed Chineese and start knocking at french door, Germans are pressing Russians).
Let's suppose that Alexander the great (it's me) it's truly a pacifist, he hates war and uses the force as a defense mean only: is there a way to win in this way (note that the difficulty level is Warlord, we are far away from Deity and Monarch) ?
For those of you that are interested or would like also to give me a strategy lesson, I attach the map below (first turn, 4000 BC, 32K zipped)

[Expatriate]

If you play peacefully you dont need saltpeter that badly. Its only needed for the early gunpowder units, which you will be past pretty fast if you manage your science well. Offcourse, this means that you will want to avoid war completly during that time because your hoplites will still be your main defense. Maybe you can do a trade later to get saltpeter for just long enough to upgrade your hoplites.

The iron is still a must have for later in the game, even though you wont need to build swordsmen when you are playing the peacefull game.

Offcourse there may still be resources later in the game that you need to go to war over. Only time will tell.

As long as youre playing on warlord its easy to keep ahead in tech and then sell your tech to all the other civs for huge sums of money. Just keep them 4-5 techs behind you, so you have time to build wonders before they get the tech. You can also use the tech to trade for resources.

[Hurry]

I´m at work, so can´t check the map. Anyway, on such an easy difficulty the main question is if you have enough room to grow. My own experience shows that the default number of civs on a map gives you too little room, so I usually end up fighting for some Lebensraum.

Also, be sure to negotiate some allies and be careful not to let several enemies stack up against you. Since you probably will have a weak army, aggressive neighbours will be tempted to attack you.

[eMarkM]

I've won the majority of my games on Monarch and I'm winning my first game at Emperor (using "standard" techniques, ie non-despot rush/ICS) and have found you really need to have an early fight with a neighbor. You can be a pacifist and turtle up once you clobber a neighbor by early middle ages, but it's not a good idea to be a peacenik from the beginning. This game forces you to mix it up a little.

Ideally, you want to have the maximum number of cities possible w/o corruption being a big issue in your outliers. This is about 30-40 on standard map w/ perfectly placed palace and forbidden palace. Now you're not going to build 40 cities on your own w/ rabidly expansionist AI. You have to take them from someone. Preferably from the one who has no iron. Pick on the weakest civ in terms of resources and mow 'em down w/ swordsmen. If they can't build pikemen and swordsmen themselves, they'll be no match for you. On higher levels it is even more necessary to take down a neighbor because it's one of the few ways to keep up in tech. Take cities, sue for peace and get tech in tribute in the "vassal" strategy.

You're having a problem w/ resources because you're not expansionist enough. If you're the one who doesn't have iron, than you have to secure it. You HAVE to. Always make iron working one of your first advances and go out and claim the stuff. I haven't had a game where I wasn't able to get it. If it means creating a corruption plagued city far from my palace and core empire and building a long road to it, I do it. If it means pop rushing units like crazy to overwhelm the one who does have it, I do it. It's your #1 priority, don't sit around and accept the fate of being w/o this crucial ancient times resource. For you it appears too late since your enemies are now too strong to assail. As SOON as you see they have iron and you don't, you have to get to them and don't rest until you get that iron. These are situations I use pop rushing, which I otherwise refrain from. Otherwise, they'll get too strong and you'll end up in the situation you appear to be in.

Same applies for saltpeter and other resources later. But consider the type of terrain you settling in. Don't just go for grassland squares, you need desert, jungle and mountain ranges in your empire, too. See my post Obtaining Scarce Resources for more info on how to ensure you get everything you need.

e

[David Weldon]

There is an alternative to wars to aquire resources near boarders. You can culturally assimilate the boarder cities. The only way to reliably accomplish this quickly is to move your palace right next to the city you wish to assimilate. If it's an opposing capital, you're screwed.

At the lower levels (and especially with the patch changing the cost of a palace), you can easily get enough production to use this technique, and it can be very effective for increasing your territory without war.

I personally prefer war (it's fun!), and at higher levels I believe that there really is no alternative at all.

[vmxa1]

I agree war is the way. You can not count on culture, it could take a long time.

[Matthevv]

I'm trying a strategy of keeping the AI Civs all at the same level of power by making sure they all have the same technology. As soon as one develops a new tech I buy it and trade or give it to the rest. That stops one Civ getting a technology lead on the others. If one looks like it is getting weak, or the others gang up on it, I give it advanced technology and also cash, luxuries and resources, so that it doesn't get wiped out too easily. All the trading keeps all the Civs on good terms with me, so I can always trade for resources I need. I don't have any horses or oil, but have obtained them without difficulty via trade. I did beat up the neighboring Persians, but only because they started it! I've got a transport full of tanks on the way to China too, so that I can grab a sizeable chunk before the Japs get the lot - their days are numbered since they kept being at war with me and I couldn't trade them the latest techs. War seems to be inevitable, but I haven't found it necessary to start one myself.