Early war has been suggested with India. Our warrior could capture India's two workers, which would cripple him pretty well. However, on emperor, India starts with 5 warriors. Edit: I must have misread the editor (or added improperly?); they start with 6 warriors.

P.S. Once the discussion about this particular war has ended, you could in the future use this thread to discuss wars in the future.

The discussion on this topic has already started in the Foreign Affairs (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113527) thread (posts 12 to 19).

There has also been a letter written to the Commander of the armed forces in his thread >>HERE<< (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113153) with some reaction (posts 24 to 28).

I proposed the war with India, and have set out my arguments in support of it within the linked threads. I haven't the time to post a summary now, but I will tomorrow if it is requested.

Since Tim was nice enough to start a thread just on war, I have brought this over from the Foreign Affairs thread. I'll also bring over Mad-Bax's post as there are lots of good points backing me up :D

Secondly, as you have pointed our MOTH, it will hurt our expansion and that is the most important goal in the early stages of and game. taking out this means we are behind the 8 ball and we will not be helping our chances of victory. The risk of capturing any Indian cities in not worth it IMO. Why take a risk that we are not prepared for. Our primary goal should be expansion, not war.

Actually, I said it might slow our expansion and might actually speed up our expansion if we get a size 1 city from India.

Some Analysis:
If we are going to war I would the following:
A. Camelot Build Queue: Either:
a. spear-granary-settler
b. warrior-warrior-warrior-granary-settler
B. Capture the 2 slaves and head home just ahead of the warrior rush.
C. Postpone our first settler by building a Granary first.
D. Work on Mining and Roading all 3 bonus grass in Camelot's radius while we wait for the onslaught.

Building the granary ahead of the settlers will allow Camelot to operate as a 4 or 5 turn settler pump for a few cycles before it drops back to a 6 turn pump. Note that with 3 mined bonus grass we could be a combo pump getting 2 turns of 5 shields for a warrior and then 4 turns of 7 + 2 on growth for a settler. This would actually be a slower start but would catch up and outpace the quicker start within about 50 turns. This doesn't even take into account the long-term benefit from having 2 slaves.

In that case:-

1. The assertion that India is not aggressive is normally true. However IIRC that aggression levels are turned up a notch. Ghandi will not be as compliant as we would normally expect.

2. It is not clear that expansion will be affected. We are talking about changing the current build from warrior (which already wastes 2 shields) to a settler pre-build for a spearman. In return we get the equivalent of 10 shields an 20 food with no upkeep costs + the use of the slaves for the 30 or more turns it will take to build our next worker. Furthermore, India will be crippled, thus allowing us to expand more easily, and give us more room for expansion and allow us to defend more lightly on the Indian borders.

3. We are more prepared for war now than we will ever be. We know exactly how many units India has and we know exactly what infrastructure it has and we know that it is building a settler - or at least has just completed one. Knowledge is power let us use it.

4. India has a resourceless UU. Trying to take out India from Chivalry onwards could be a nightmare. We need both horses and iron for knights. This is C3C and strategic resource density is MUCH lower. Combine this with being hemmed in by the Indians and our chances of building knights look slim.

5. "Our primary goal is expansion". Agreed! For expansion you need room and/or military strength. We have neither. Condemming ourselves to 150 turns painted into a tundra filled corner with 1 lux and no resources is not my idea of setting out to win a game.

6. The war will be over in around 8 turns. For the sacrifice of a few turns on a settler build and maybe re-improving a pillaged tile or two we get room for expansion and a puppy dog neighbour. We get a lower defence budget because of lower need to defend, or alternately a higher offensive capability. We get faster productivity growth due to the improvements the slaves will make and in turn faster settler factory set-up.
Potentially, we get a new city, more gold, tech parity and the security of the cattle tile to the north west.

7. England are possible the biggest warmongering nation in history. England learned much from the Romans and Vikings and others later. A war now has historical resonance and should please warmongers, traditionalists, and even builders alike.

Because it "feels scary", or because "it isn't what I usually do" or because "I prefer a peaceful strategy" are not arguments against this strategy. This game is a puzzle - we solve the puzzle. The solution is not to do what you "want" it to be, but rather what is needed to provide the bottom line. I would like that to be as impressive as possible.

I move that we take this opportunity in both hands. We are English Lions after all and we should roar!

These are all good points. I call upon all brave Englishmen to rise to this challenge and help us bring civilization to our Indian neighbors!

One topic that was brought up is the possibility of purchasing Bronze Working. I'm guessing India met somebody who knows bronze working, warrior code (which also might work), or alphabet in addition to pottery (and they bought ceremonial burial). I think a masonry-alphabet would have been an acceptable trade for them if it were possible.

Edit: I'm not sure if that made sense. If the other civ knew bronze working or warrior code, that in addition to their 17g would probably not be enough to purchase alphabet (although I'm uncertain regarding how the research cost is different from the trade cost).

It doesn't look like India has bronze working. I think they are only up CB. If we need a spear then we need to hope that our curragh finds someone new before a pre-build runs out. If we don't get BW then we will need to have 3 or 4 defending warriors to stop the Indian warrior rush.

If this were my own game I might try the worker grab. It is a considerable risk, depends on how many of India's warriors are out scouting and how many are nearby. If we can defeat the initial onslaught then we'd be in great shape. If it were possible to send the workers back unescorted and leave the warrior to try to pick off a settler too it would be even better.

There is also the aspect of slowing down a trading partner. If this is continents or islands we don't want to slow our subgroup so far that we're all hopelessly behind when we make contact with other subgroups.

is it possible to see a current screenshot, or can someone direct me to a place where there is one?

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/DG6_BC3200_India.jpg

going to war is suicide. even though we would get the two workers, the indians would easily kill our lone warrior. also, the 5 warriors would reach an undefended or one warrior, possibly spearman CAPITAL city. they would destroy our probably only city. expanding in war time, especially aganist a stronger foe, would be impossible. i say we wait for swordsmen and at least 3-5 cities, before we start a war.

My worry about having a war right now is that we have 1 (count 'em, one) warrior now and another in 3 turns. Going to war with two 1/1/1 warriors is putting a lot of reliance in the RNG God.

yeah its way to early, i say expand peacefully until there is no more room, and if we need more room take it.

In my own common sense, It would be fool hearty to delcare war now when we only have one military unit that is week. Also, given the fact that in a higher difficulty level, the AI has a bonus of an extra military unit or two (Dont quote me on that since it's been a while since I mucked around with the editor). Right now, we should keep expanding with our settlers to capture good grounds for any settler/worker factory cities that we may need and also cities with excellent shield output to pump out military units quickly.

Send in George W. Bush(warrior name) and attack!

I think a quick war with India will really help, since it will cripple their infrastructure building ability, becuase we can swipe 2 of their workers. Also, this will make it possible to expand a bit more agressively later, after we make peace. I know it's risky since they get extra starting units, but the possible benifits outweigh the risk, IMO.

Send in George W. Bush(warrior name) and attack!

Now I'm more convinced than ever we should attack. If we're lucky we can get rid of W. :D

We have 10 turns in which to discover BW. The curragh will move 30 tiles in that time. India has pottery and has therefore met an expansionist (or seafaring) civ. There is therefore at least one other contactable civ. The real chance of us being able to gain BW is very high IMO. In fact I would not even trade for it with the first civ we meet with it - unless we can swap it for Alpha or Pottery + g. I would wait until we need the spear. Just let the warrior complete, start a settler prebuild for a spear.

I think George W should go to Camelot BTW, not to defend the city but to protect the irrigated wines. He can fortify across a river from the likely direction of attack IIRC. On his way back he should travel the high ground. This is not for the defensive bonus but for the range of sight. It gives him more chance of making a contact.

Ohhh, I would say war right now is very risky and we do not have the advantage.
Please save old Provo for an unprepared war.

Again another emotional argument. The risk has been quatified adequately. It is near zero. The assertion of being unprepared has been dealt with also.

Your argument basically boils down to "I'm too scared". If you win the argument you basically condem us to a small corner of the map with a long and drawn out campaign against a foe who has a resourceless UU which we will have no chance to counter since we will need iron and horses in our 80 tiles of territory.

Your argument could cost us this game. Your argument carries the risk. Your argument has not been reasoned or quantified.

Your argument carries no weight, and yet the consequences of your argument being carried are severe beyond contemplation.

The F11 screen does not show Delhi, meaning it is size 1 and has produced a settler.

basically condem us to a small corner of the map with a long and drawn out campaign against a foe who has a resourceless UU which we will have no chance to counter since we will need iron and horses in our 80 tiles of territory.


i don't believe this to be true. first of all we won't be condemded to a small corner because we are seafaring so we can churn out the naval units and if needed build colony cities. also, i said we don't need war THIS EARLY. it is true the enemy's uu would leave us with no counter but we can take them out later. i say we wait for 3-4 cities, 5 or more swordsmen and then attack the indians, with adequate city defenses in all our cities. also, we can't destroy the indians because of their vitality to us. they are so far the only civ we met and need them for techs, trading, etc... we only have one warrior with a horrible name, that honestly won't discover the world on its own. we should get bw and trade it for techs with the indians. wait for swords and THEN destroy them. :D

Don't we have the smallest military possiable? (other than no military)

I say we map more, figure out the neighbors and map and so on.
Finally, India is a more peaceful Civ and we may well take them out by the end of AA.

My usual preference is to eschew early warfare and concentrate on building a healthy, expansive, productive civilization. This is particularly true on higher levels where the opposing civs can so easily out produce the human early in the game. However, the arguments that mad-bax puts forth are compelling. The risk is actually quite minimal if our goal is not to eliminate India in this round of warfare but rather to grab its workers and then sue for a profitable peace fairly soon.

I vote war.

Of course we don't need war this early and can win later. This is an opportunity to take the early game into our hands. This can make all the difference between India beating us to the best sites time and again or us beating them and boxing them into the corner.

I rarely take on early war in my own games, but this is just too good an chance to pass up at minimal risk.

I think it's an intersting gambit. I'll have to fall on the side of those calling for war. If we come out unscratched (as I think we will), we'll have the equilalent of an extra worker and a crippled neighbor. If we fail, well... We can always start a new game. :D

I'll go ahead and post a poll on the subject.

But bussiness could suffer *everyone yeah grumble grumble "Nobodys right, Lets sell india cheap wine"*

Ah, well. That's the price one must pay for war. :D

The poll is now up. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=114000)

I say we map more, figure out the neighbors and map and so on.
Finally, India is a more peaceful Civ and we may well take them out by the end of AA.

Tell that to Gandhi. He's backstabbed, surprised attacked, and demanded things from me on more than one occasion.

I say that war is pointless. SInce i have been quoted already, I have made my feelings known and have nothing more to say but, NO WAR.