war-time economy is it worth it?

[reefer addict]

i had thought that a war-time economy was a great way to beef up your military when you were caught up on your infrastructure. now i think its an act of desperation.
good...cheaper military cost
bad...cant change out untill a peace treaty is signed (which is rarely up to the player), cant build anything but military and your per turn culture drops about 40%

can anyone list anymore reasons to use or not use a war-time economy?

[Cyclotron]

There's a great thread on this in the Civ3-strategy forum. Try there for some details and strats with wartime economies.

[Jawa Jocky]

War-time economy just seems to prolong your inedible loss. You could probably use it successfully on a marginal game. I tend to use the ctrl+shift+Q instead. The AI however loves war-time economy.

[FrantzX]

There are times when it will save your ass. The same for drafting. Multiple front wars and massive AI alliances come to mind.

[Inverse Icarus]

war-time economy is it worth it?

yes.

[Stuie]

It's good for building spaceship components. Other than that, my regular economy seems sufficient to maintain any war.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Stuie
It's good for building spaceship components. Other than that, my regular economy seems sufficient to maintain any war.

You don't get the shield bonus for building spaceship parts (or military buildings / improvements) - you only get the shield bonus when building military units.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Catt
You don't get the shield bonus for building spaceship parts (or military buildings / improvements) - you only get the shield bonus when building military units.

Oops, you're right. Been awhile since I a) built a spaceship, b) used wartime economy and c) got enough sleep. Mea culpa.

So no, the wartime economy usually isn't worth it unless you're on the losing side of a war with the AI, and how often does that happen once you have Nationalism?

[Skanky Burns]

It depends on how much you are at war. If you're going for domination or military victory, yes. If not, mostly no.

[Jethro83]

Mobilization saved me from a fate of military mediocrity once.

Since back then I was nothing more than a peaceful builder type, my military was extremely poor. And so, I used mobilization to force myself to beef it up (I always end up sidetracked by city improvements yet to be built. Take them away, and what else can I build (apart from wealth obviously)?). Within a short amount of time, I shot up to number 1 on the list of most powerful civs.

So for me, it helps break down the psychological barrier that compels me to build nothing but city improvements.

[Inverse Icarus]

war time economy is KEY to my warmonger-ness-ocity, and is great for the late game, when all my major cities have all the improvements i need. TRUE not being able to build temples / libraries in the captured cities sucks a bit, but half priced units is more than a compensation.

[Panag]

Originally posted by reefer addict
i had thought that a war-time economy was a great way to beef up your military when you were caught up on your infrastructure. now i think its an act of desperation.
good...cheaper military cost
bad...cant change out untill a peace treaty is signed (which is rarely up to the player), cant build anything but military and your per turn culture drops about 40%

can anyone list anymore reasons to use or not use a war-time economy?

hi ,

its good for when you go to war , except for that , ....but then again that is why its called war-time economy , ......and its a good thing , ......

have a nice day

[HazieDaVampire]

i used it once when i had loads of modern armor on the boarder to who i was about to attack, it was a bit of a militery blunder and i was losing untis faster than expected, so i quickly changed to war time econamy and started pumping out modern armor and ended up with toment modern armor for my transport ships, haha!

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky
War-time economy just seems to prolong your inedible loss.

Indeed, and I have a tough time swallowing a bitter defeat as well.



Sorry, I just couldn't help it....

[Sava]

I like to have my economy strong enough so that I can mass units without having to switch

[Panag]

Originally posted by Barchan


Indeed, and I have a tough time swallowing a bitter defeat as well.



Sorry, I just couldn't help it....

hi ,

losing a battle or two , aint a big deal , as long as you win the war , ....

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sava
I like to have my economy strong enough so that I can mass units without having to switch

hi ,

still ones in a while it can be usefull to switch , ...

have a nice day

[Barchan]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

losing a battle or two , aint a big deal , as long as you win the war , ....

have a nice day

panag,

That wooshing sound above your head was the sound of my joke flying over it. But it was very subtle, and since English doesn't appear to be your first language (at least I sincerely hope it isn't, anyway), I'll take your attempt to console me as being a genuine gesture of goodwill. However, if you reread my post and focus on the quoted phrase (particularly the word "inedible"), I think you'll get the joke.

You have yourself a nice little day as well, buddy.

[ahenobarb]

War mobilization is a always a waste. One extra unit of shield production is nothing compared to the loss of the ability to build anything but units.


Oh yeah, and what about after you've taken everyone of your enemies civs cities except that junk size 1 city on the other side of the globe and they still refuse a peace treaty! Result - build units, build units, build units load them on a slow moving ship to go take care of them. Useless.

If you built your civ up right you won't need war mobilization. Just maintain a large standing army instead.

[Rust]

War Time Mobilization is the only way to build units. All others are a waste and lead to ruin.

[Theseus]

Could we get a little more extreme, in either direction (or both)?

LOL

[Cookie Monster]

IMHO wartime economy if used properly is another powerful tool at our disposal for crushing the AI.

Allow me to briefly explain.

Wartime economy in the late industrial early modern eras is great because you usually have built up the infrastructure in all your cities that matter. So while you are at war why not pop out military units like there's no tomorrow? You'll crush your enemies sooner and maybe even bring them to the nego. table faster. Thus you go back to peace economy.

Just a thought.....

[Panag]

Originally posted by Barchan


panag,

That wooshing sound above your head was the sound of my joke flying over it. But it was very subtle, and since English doesn't appear to be your first language (at least I sincerely hope it isn't, anyway), I'll take your attempt to console me as being a genuine gesture of goodwill. However, if you reread my post and focus on the quoted phrase (particularly the word "inedible"), I think you'll get the joke.

You have yourself a nice little day as well, buddy.

hi ,

so did you get the other joke also then , ......
english is the first , ......

anyway , it does not matter , .......

mobilization during a golden age is a nice way to get units fast , .........

an other way to get units faster is to plant some forest here and there , .....

maybe only a shield here or there , but they could make the differnce between the number of turns that you need for the unit(s) , ..

have a nice day

[Indignator]

Originally posted by ahenobarb
Oh yeah, and what about after you've taken everyone of your enemies civs cities except that junk size 1 city on the other side of the globe and they still refuse a peace treaty! Result - build units, build units, build units load them on a slow moving ship to go take care of them. Useless.

Well then your in a pickle, but that's just poor planning on your side. If you were smart and decided to mobilize, you would send troops to that city ASAP so you would avoid this prediciment.

Anyway, personaly I thing mobilization is great. It has been mentioned that you can't build temples or libraries in the cities you conquer. I don't know about you, but the level of unhappines and corruption in my new cities is so high, that the temple or library is 1/10th finished by the time the war ends. So I usually mobilize, and then use all those hordes of units to speed up the production in my new cities.

Also, one game I defeated an enemy with a horde of swordsmen, which I then used as the standard defense. I then wanted to upgrade them to riflemen, so I had to build them. So what I did is I waited until I was ready to conquer my next victim, so that the mobilization greatly increased the rate at which I replaced the swordsmen.

Also, I use mobilization because when I wage war I have the vast majority of my cities build units anyway. So I mobilize, incease the production rate, and overwhelm the AI, ending the war very quickly. This way, by mobilizing I think I am better of than if I waged normal war.

Another tactic that I like is in preperation for a major war with a strong civ. I attack a weak civ, mobilize, and pump out units to attack the strong civ. Then, after capturing several cities of the weak civ I offer them back in exchange for peace. This way I was able to quickly prepare for the major offensive.

Now, I play at Warlord, so these strategies might be completaly useless at higher levels of difficulty.

[DrFell]

War-time mobilization is great for conquest games, where you need to keep production on units as much time as possible and do not have time for improvements (as you might not on smaller maps). For example, here's a game I played for the civfan toruney, now if I'd had time to finish this game I would likely have got the fastest finish in the Elite division (I did a lot of the game in just one day, which is why I neglected a lot of microing). In this game I demonstrate the use of war-time mobilization and railroads to achieve high production with virtually no city improvements but barracks:

[ahenobarb]

I disagree. War mobilization is a tool of the weak. Only use it if you're about to get rolled over by another civ. Otherwise stay out of it during your wars.

The effect is to transfer control of your economy to the whim of your AI opponent. If you are a democracy you will get war weariness, if your mobilized you get it worse. The effect is that over the course of the war, more and more of your cities revolt, meaning that you have to take production away from actually producing units and change them to entertainers -- but the point of mobilization is to get that extra production bonus. What has actually happened is that you have become less productive, because less of your citizens are producing. ... And you are stuck because you can't get out without the peace treat, which the AI often won't give even after you've conquered 75% of his territory.

If your not mobilized, no peace treaty? Who cares -- I'm coming to get you! And your (the player's) cities are full of shiny happy people holding hands and you have shiny new swords or tanks hacking away at will in the enemy cities territories. You've got cultural improvements going up and you can continue to work on those marginal cities.

The most effective strategy is to stockpile units and keep them near the borders waiting to overwhelm your opponent. If you haven't done this already, war-mobilization isn't going to help much. The only time I would use War-mobilization is if your are behind in units ("Compared to these guys we have a weak military") In other words, its an act of deparation.

[Catt]

Originally posted by ahenobarb
If you are a democracy you will get war weariness, if your mobilized you get it worse.

Is this true? How do you know this?

Thanks, Catt

[Panag]

Originally posted by Catt


Is this true? How do you know this?

Thanks, Catt

hi ,

for every one drafted , one citizen unhappy for 20 turns , ...

have a nice day

[Catt]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

for every one drafted , one cirizen unhappy for 20 turns , ...

have a nice day

But mobilization is different than drafting. Mobilization is a change to economic output, not drafting.

Catt

[kring]

Just like all other options of the game, it has a place and time when it is highly effective.

You can also wartime mobilize before you go to war. Just remember, though, you then HAVE to go to war to get out of it.

I don't typically use it, but I don't consider it a tool of the weak. I consider it an option in my Civ 3 toolkit, to be used in the appropriate way.

Maintaining a large standing army/military is expensive, both IRL and in Civ 3. I usually maintain a fair sized one, trying to stay equal to or bigger than the AI's. Even then, it is no guarantee. I have good old Gandhi demand stuff 2 times in my current game, both times I refused and he declared war. One was over a map he wanted. And my army was larger and more advanced than his!

The decision to mobilize or not is best done when the potential need arises. Are the benefits worth the costs? Only you can decide.