Is war the BEST strategy?

[The diplomat]

In most of the games that I have played, I pretty much have to go to war for almost the entire length of the game, so as to keep up with the AI conquest.

In one particular game, I had an early war and conquered my neighbor, and quickly conquered most of my continent. As a result, I thought that I was doing ok. When I eventually made contact with all civs and got their maps, I realize that a civ on another continent had conquered his entire continent and was 5 times bigger than me. So, I felt like I had to conquer the rest of my continent so as to remain competitive. In another game I was in a similar situation, and I decided to stop conquests and focus on science. The leading civ continued his conquest, and became so strong that a space victory was hopeless for me. So basically, I have to fight to remain competitive.

Why is the game so often just one long war from beginning to end? Is war really the only best strategy?

[Harovan]

The answer is yes. Sad but true, war is the best strategy. It's not the only one, but the easiest and most efficient. It is possible to get an early advantage by peaceful means, but one or more early oscillating wars will get that advantage easier and safer.

Regarding your game, it was probably not necessary to conquer your continent in order to remain competitive. Size is not all, due to corruption. You can have half the territory, but produce the same.

[DaveMcW]

War is the most efficient way to play simply because the AI is so bad at it. You can beat an army twice your size using basic tactics, and the game is pretty much over when you get an equal-size army with an eye on conquest.

All you really need to be competitive is a first ring of cities around your palace and FP. Normally you have to take out a civ in order to fit that in, but you don't have to wipe out everyone.

[CiverDan]

My strat is simple, give in to the AI until you get enough swords/knights, etc together then attack. I have found that the AI will only demand something from you (if they are close to you) if they are prepared to lauch an attack.

[Robber Baron]

I used to dread war with larger/more advanced AI civs, darting glances at my border, wondering when they would strike, meanwhile building frantically and furiously in what I perceived as windows of peacetime availability.
But I've learned to welcome AI incursions. DaveMcW is right: effective military tactics will almost always hamstring and weaken the AI. The windows of opportunity, against your larger, more powerful, more advanced AI rivals, are the wars, not the stretches of peace.
Not that warmongering is the only strategy for advancement and growth. It has to be complimented by efficient building and deft trading. Nevertheless, at the higher levels of play (for me, emperor), in which the AI's build and research faster, selective warring creates invaluable opportunities for advantage. Switching to wartime production seems to upset, unbalance, and upends AI growth and development.
Not that you have to do all of the fighting. Bring in some allies: spread the chaos around, drag everyone into turmoil.

[Inverse Icarus]

re thread title: yes.

[peterfharris]

Selective wars with particular objectives : yes

War to grab valuable cities or strategic resources (having regard to distance corruption) is very useful but if the war drags on too long or is too costly another peacefully developing AI civ may surpass you. Get in quick and take what is useful and keep your reputation pristine.

Be very careful about who you attack. If you hurt someone bad then make sure you permanently and severely weaken him by taking his cities and/or his resources because he will want revenge. (OTH If you are dragged into someone elses war you could sit back and do nothing so you can fully repair relations later). Always have some friends to help you, you may need them. (If you do this you might get so big you no longer need friends).

Indiscriminate wars : no way in hell

Attacking willy nilly is a really good way to get everyone to gang up and take you apart. Wiping a civilisation out also seems to make it more likely someone else will come after you (you could let your enemy keep one last worthless city out in the tundra )

War can be the best strategy. OTH War can be the worst strategy. Depends upon how and why you make war, and when and with whom and upon the diplomatic context of your wars.

[Don Giovanni]

If you have a good UU, say the Chinese Rider, I would argue that you "must" go to war at least 3 times, at least on Emperor/Deity:

1) At the very beginning - rush archers, while the AI is building.
2) After you have got replacable parts, and your opponent has not yet got Motorized Transportation, since the AI only uses Artillery defensively.
3) When your UU gives you an advantage.

IMO, ignoring these obvious advantages often proves fatal.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by The diplomat
In most of the games that I have played, I pretty much have to go to war for almost the entire length of the game, so as to keep up with the AI conquest.

Is war necessary? Of course. Do you have be in a state-of-war for the entire game? No.

For though the lion and the antelope happen to live in the same forest, the antelope still has time to grow up.

African Proverbs
http://www.zachriel.com/gotm12/

[Datajack Franit]

Of course the antelope becomes a steak within 30 turns

[joncnunn]

War is only needed even on Emperor level when you can't get enough high quality terraign (especally RIVERS) peacefully.

In my last 2 Emepror level games I've goten enough river tiles peacefully during REX to make ancient era and middle age war unneccessary. (Well 2 games ago I technically had a middle age war with a Rider, but the war consisted of the Aztecs from the other landmass dropping 1 Swordmen onto my territory, declaring war when I told them to leave and killing it with a Rider which trigured the GA.

In the modern era, war is needed if it turns out there's no Alluminum in your territory and you need to acquire it. (That turned out to be the case in my current game, so I got the AI to declare war on me via demanding they take their ships out of my coastal waters and annexed a spare Uranium, Bach's, 3 Gems, Alliumum, Sistine's Chapel, a 3rd coal, and a useless spare Saltpeter into my territory before War Werrious was getting problemic and so I then declared peace in exchange for receciving 59 gold per turn for the next 20 turns, along with all the cash they had on hand along with an update on the WM.) I razed their capital which contained the Pyraimds + Great Wall + Oracle, along with several Small Wonders and a Culture rating around 7400 just before signing the treaty.

[PrinceBimz]

I say absolutely no! I am getting the living hell beat out of me trying to fight wars. I get behind on tech and end up having all kinds of problems. It depends on the game if war is the best strategy or not. I have played some of my best games fighting short limited wars and trying to stay diplomatic terms with the other nations. I guess if you really plan a war and do it right...build up alot of military know where to attack and which units to use and how to attack. Also you want to find out if they are allied or have MPP with other nations. War can get really ugly and cost you your game if you are not careful. It happens to me all the time.

[Catt]

Yes. But it's not the most fun way to play .

Catt

[ducki]

I say no to the thread title.

It might be the most effective, but to me "best" entails more than 2-tiles between cities with zero improvements but hordes and hordes of units.

Yeah, I know that's oversimplifying. Sue me. I'm still new to warmongering, but I still try to war as little as possible while still warring effectively.

[Arrian]

In many situations, yes. But there are so many variables in CivIII that a simple yes or no to that question seems inadequate.

Map settings, difficulty, civ choice (if you're militaristic, for instance, not fighting is essentially wasting one of your traits)... these things all matter.

If you're playing as the Americans on a map that gives you lots of room to expand, you had better have some very good reasons for going to war early, because you've got the best REX civ in the game and room to expand peacefully (total lack of a key resource, like iron, is a good reason. Another would be an aggressive AI neighbor with a dangerous UU if you let them live... like Rome).

Still, if you gain an advantage from peaceful expansion and development, at some point it behooves you to turn that advantage (whether it manifests itself as a production advantage, technological advantage or both) into a military advantage and use it to beat on somebody.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Originally posted by ducki
I say no to the thread title.

It might be the most effective, but to me "best" entails more than 2-tiles between cities with zero improvements but hordes and hordes of units.

It needs to be a good builder to be a good warmonger. Both together make up a good player. What you're describing will work for the moment, may be in a tiny pangea game, that never gets out of the ancient age. Under other circumstances, it won't work for long, because you'll have a terrible economy and will fall back in science. Horsemen fail bloody if they meet muskets, you know, and extorting techs for peace won't work forever.

Yeah, I know that's oversimplifying. Sue me. I'm still new to warmongering, but I still try to war as little as possible while still warring effectively.

Nobody will be sued here. We're all here to learn.

[Alex]

Most of the time, yes. War is the best strategy. As ducki said, it is usually the most effective one, not necessarily the best, but it is a sure winner. Besides, the game is currently geared towards war.

[joncnunn]

If the AI weren't so bad at war, there would be fewer war monglers.

[TacticalGrace]

War is great if you win.

Not so hot if you lose.

[Fried-Psitalon]

This is one area in which I think Civ does justice to "the real world," at least in the more ancient eras. If you were the stronger power pre-A.D., absolutely war was the best idea. Over time, though, as your neighbors find out who has a habit of beating on who, you find yourself more and more alone, with less and less treaties as the warmonger. Get too much of a reputation for it and you'll find the other countries of the world ganging up on you to beat you down- just ask Saddam. (Very rough interpretation of the Iraq-Kuwait situation, not the current one, apologies for inaccuracy.)

In Multiplayer, war is absolutely the best and only strategy. In SP, war is a tool, like any other. Is it more efficient to build up this town or take that one? Costs, benefits. I've won games on Monarch without launching a single war- it's tough, but doable. Usually, 'correctly fought' wars are over resources someone else has, that you don't..... which is actually very realistic if you think about it.

[joncnunn]

Attitude of the civ with the spare stategic resource towards you is also important:

If they are Gracious, you'll probably get a good deal for the resource buying it at the right moments and leting it lapse when you don't need it. (Say with Oil, buying it right when Mobile Warfare is discovered, building lots of Tanks for 20 turns, then letting it lapse until Sythenic Armor, and reactiving it to upgrade all Tanks & Infentry into Modern Armor & Mobile Infentry.)

But if their annoyed, your probably better off taking it over with your military.

[ducki]

If you want to see some game descriptions where war as we normally think of it is not an option, go check out the AU 203 game.
Game thread - http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=72862

Spoiler thread - http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=72863

You can see some players doing rather well without waging a war of conquest until Communism, believe it or not, and at Monarch-Emperor levels.

It's a lot of work, don't get me wrong, but sometimes more work is more fun.

[Nor Me]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Attitude of the civ with the spare stategic resource towards you is also important:

If they are Gracious, you'll probably get a good deal for the resource buying it at the right moments and leting it lapse when you don't need it. (Say with Oil, buying it right when Mobile Warfare is discovered, building lots of Tanks for 20 turns, then letting it lapse until Sythenic Armor, and reactiving it to upgrade all Tanks & Infentry into Modern Armor & Mobile Infentry.)

But if their annoyed, your probably better off taking it over with your military.

I've tested this and the attitude of the civ makes no difference. Furthermore it's cheaper to buy Oil before you discover a tech which allows something good with it. So you can get it almost for free before Combustion and cheaply again when you finish the industrial era

[joncnunn]

In my own games, civs that are furious with me always give worse deals both ways than those civs I have better relations with.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Originally posted by Nor Me


I've tested this and the attitude of the civ makes no difference. Furthermore it's cheaper to buy Oil before you discover a tech which allows something good with it. So you can get it almost for free before Combustion and cheaply again when you finish the industrial era

Erm, with all due respect, this is patently untrue. Now, if you tweak a Civ's attitude in one or two turns and then look for a major change in how much they'll pay/charge for something, no change will be evidenced. If, on the other hand, your Civ has been on good terms with another Civ all along, they're going to be more willing to deal with you.

It's been proven many times that Civs have long-term memories of treaties and deals- this is merely one more case of it. Instant changes? They're not dumb. Long-term behavior? That's another story. Easily tested: Save a game at a certain point, then play 50-100 turns or so treating a Civ like your best friend, and 50-100 turns or so harassing his units and skirmishing his cities. As long as the economic strength of the country remains a constant, you'll see noticeable benefits to behaving civilly with your neighbors.

[Nor Me]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon


Erm, with all due respect, this is patently untrue. Now, if you tweak a Civ's attitude in one or two turns and then look for a major change in how much they'll pay/charge for something, no change will be evidenced. If, on the other hand, your Civ has been on good terms with another Civ all along, they're going to be more willing to deal with you.

It's been proven many times that Civs have long-term memories of treaties and deals- this is merely one more case of it. Instant changes? They're not dumb. Long-term behavior? That's another story. Easily tested: Save a game at a certain point, then play 50-100 turns or so treating a Civ like your best friend, and 50-100 turns or so harassing his units and skirmishing his cities. As long as the economic strength of the country remains a constant, you'll see noticeable benefits to behaving civilly with your neighbors.

I'm sure this is true of things like military alliances but I've never seen it for resources.
A simpler test, which has the merit of distinguishing bilateral attitude from multilateral reputation, is load a save and pillage all of one resource you control and compare prices between civs.
I tried this on 3 random saves. The differences in price were never more than 10% and often couldn't be explained on an attitude basis.
In one game I would be able to buy saltpetre from 2 polite civs for a minimum of 1653 gold and could make peace with a furious civ and buy saltpetre for 1684 gold.

So if there is an effect, it is insignificant compared to timing and probably not worth playing to.

[joncnunn]

What your noticing is additional factors involved for resources (and luxaries)

Perhaps the largest factor for luxaries is how many other luxaries the buyer already has. (The more they have, the more each additional one costs.)

Second most important factor is population of the buying empire.

And at the end is the relationship modifer.

For strategic resources, what can currently be built with the resources is probably the largest factor.

Second is # of cities in the empire.

And at the end of the relationship modifer.

Techs are simpler:

Primary determinates is base cost and how many people around have that tech.

Second is a discount if the buyer has the tech partually researched.

Third is relationship.

In any case when you are the one doing the buying a tech or resource or luxary, you can notice the difference that relationship makes much easier than when you are selling it, because more factors are constant when you are buying.

I'd say that 31 gold is worth paying attention to in your example, athough unless I want to upgrade a bunch of Knights to Calvary in the near future I won't be buying Saltpeter at any price.

[Nor Me]

Most of that is known:Partial and pointless formulae: resource cost

Attitude is one of the things I don't know about.
I would imagine it to be a multiplier so when you aren't on a huge map, the 31 gold out of 1684 size effect would be insignificant.

[Feckan Eejit]

war is always the best policy

[Tattila the Hun]

Ever played a game where you're Allways at war with Everybody? Quite fun. Naturally one can make peace from time to time, but declare war right away.