So I've managed to get a decent tech lead on my first Prince game at last, and things are going smoothly... I got Astronomy out of first discovering liberalism, switched to free religion and am now trading with everybody. So far so good, seems like a space or diplomatic victory should be within reach.

But... it's a bit quiet like this. And most AIs have bigger armies than me. So I'd like them to fight, in order to reduce their armies and thus their willingness to fight/bully me, and slow down their tech as well. I can convince just about anyone to go to war with someone by giving away techs, and if I do this simultaneously I could start a huge world war and remain the uninvolved middleman.

Only problem is... who should fight with whom? And if people live on different continents, should I trade Astronomy to one of them? And is it really worth it? Or will creating lots of wars force me to choose sides in the end, at least when it comes to trading? Does it matter considering trading with worst enemies (and refusing to stop) how much the AI actually hates that enemy and whether he is at war with him?
loads of questions, but I guess the central one is: how many techs is a war worth?

my savegame (http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/70276/Wang_PH_I_AD-1556.CivWarlordsSave)

Bribing everyone into war is a good way to preserve a tech lead and give yourself some insurance against being attacked. Not only does war force the AIs to divert resources from tech to millitary, but it also makes tech trading between the AIs less likely. This is a good tactic for space race and culture victories. I dont think it will help you with diplomatic victory unless you're willing to get your hands dirty. Just because everyone hates everyone else doesn't mean they will vote you victor in the UN. You have to get the AIs Friendly with you to get their vote, and starting a bunch of wars wont help with that unless you join in the wars too. You could declare war on 1 or 2 of the weaker AIs and then bribe the stronger AIs to do your fighting for you, probably for fewer techs than if you had not declared first. You can get relations points for "mutual military struggle" (anywhere from +1 to +4 I believe) that might help you win a diplomatic victory.

There is the risk that giving away techs to start a war will help create a monster that will out tech you and beat you to the space ship in the end. Beware of helping a financial or organized AI.

I like doing this. If I want to attack someone, but they're army is the same size as me, I try to get a friend in. Get a friend in first, and 2 turns later, attack them. All their offense will already be halfway across the map probably, and kill them.

But get the 2 strongest to fight each other. When one starts losing, get the next most powerful civ to attack the one that's winning. Then when he starts winning, get the next civ to attack them. But look more at the borders than anything else. Having 2 civs that are half a world away aren't going to do much damage.

If I were you, I'd get into a fight, maybe just take a city or two.

2 reasons to make the AI fight each other:
A) You fear for your safety - ie if you don't divert their attention, they will declare war on you.

B) You fear that an AI might out-tech you, and you want to slow him down

Reasons not to do this....I usually am stingy with handing away techs, because I fear someone will backstab me using my own techs, or out-tech me

A)Someone might out-tech you

B)AI's might vassilize to eachother even if nobody loses any cities(yes they do that with each-other)

C)The winners of the wars might go after you(Monty has done this to me before, he's a raveing lunitic)

D) The AI's might make peace after 5 turns of war, and then take advantage of that free tech you gave em.

But then if you've been able to bribe someone to war then you will get their relationship damaged and their deals canceled which means the possiblity of war happening again in the future is very likely unless they patch up their religious differences.

When bribing someone into a war, make sure they fight someone of nearly equal power or else one of them will get crushed and the other will grow bigger.

I agree with people her- make sure you don't inadvernetedly engineer your downfall and your rival's rise to power.

In a recent game, myself as Mansa Musa payed Alexander,Montezuma and Tokugawa against all the over Civs on a full 18-player map. I joined in a couple of the wars, against my neighbours, for example, but at round 1900, only these three remain. I payed Alexander to declare war on Montezuma, and Tokugawa to declare war on Alex. Alex and Monty made pace...and Alex conquered Tokugawa. Now i have 2 massivley larger and more powerfull neighbours who have Annoyed at me due to "You Brought In A War Ally Againsr Us!" They both refuse declare war on the other, because "They have enough on our hands right now!". Meaning they're coming after me. Oops.

Yeah, check the power graphs before hand. If there is a large differnce between them don't do it. And donate some cavalry to both sides to aid in pillaging.

Vassal States has really messed up this strategy, now instead of fighting for a long time and both coming out weak someone will capitulate after losing only 1 or 2 cities and now you have a much stronger two-civ opponent to deal with. Really annoying also when you're winning a war and suddenly the enemy will 'capitulate' to your weaker war ally who was hardly achieving anything, and now you have to accept peace or fight your long-time friend along with the enemy. There really needs to be some changes to the way capitulation works IMO.

Thanks for the tips. It worked out nicely all together, no one has grown to hate me because of this line of action, and no one became to powerful by my tech gifts. And yes, some of them kept declaring war on each other time and time again, and even brought in war allies of their own. It's a good idea to encourage and support an unadvanced but strong AI to fight against a protective AI, it seems that the AI can't very well calculate how uneffective that war is going to be.

The realism is far to be sought though. This behaviour is as morally despicable as it gets, yet the AI just swallows it with some -1 modifiers. I brought 2 civs to fight against the only civ that was friendly to me, and he was still friendly. It shouldn't read (-2: you have brought a war ally against us) but (-6: you are fighting us by proxy!). And the AIs who I sent into war should not get (-1: you refused to help us during war-time) when I don't join the war I made them start, but (-3: you set us up!). Or, it should be almost impossible to make an AI start a war against a civ you are not at war with (there should be an option where you declare war simultaneously, and gift the AI something for joining in that plot), especially if you are actually trading with them!

yeah thats bad for diplomatic victory. f you bribe civs into wars they will come and ask to join them. if you say no, it gets you penalty points...

anyway I stopped doing that after I gave 3 tech to a civs, declared war and made peace like 7 turns later...

Thanks for the tips. It worked out nicely all together, no one has grown to hate me because of this line of action, and no one became to powerful by my tech gifts. And yes, some of them kept declaring war on each other time and time again, and even brought in war allies of their own. It's a good idea to encourage and support an unadvanced but strong AI to fight against a protective AI, it seems that the AI can't very well calculate how uneffective that war is going to be.

The realism is far to be sought though. This behaviour is as morally despicable as it gets, yet the AI just swallows it with some -1 modifiers. I brought 2 civs to fight against the only civ that was friendly to me, and he was still friendly. It shouldn't read (-2: you have brought a war ally against us) but (-6: you are fighting us by proxy!). And the AIs who I sent into war should not get (-1: you refused to help us during war-time) when I don't join the war I made them start, but (-3: you set us up!). Or, it should be almost impossible to make an AI start a war against a civ you are not at war with (there should be an option where you declare war simultaneously, and gift the AI something for joining in that plot), especially if you are actually trading with them!
Why would that be realistic, espechially if you PAYED them techs to go to war? There's nothing wrong with 1-3 free techs in my openion. I wish the AI would bribe ME to go to war :)

Why would that be realistic, espechially if you PAYED them techs to go to war? There's nothing wrong with 1-3 free techs in my openion. I wish the AI would bribe ME to go to war :)

same for me!
why do they always ask for FREE help?

Why would that be realistic, espechially if you PAYED them techs to go to war? There's nothing wrong with 1-3 free techs in my openion. I wish the AI would bribe ME to go to war :)

That's because you wage wars you can actually win conclusively. The AI is rarely able to obliterate an enemy. Hence they should expect me to declare war jointly, or at the very least stop trading with their supposed target. Often enough AI's let themselves be bribed into wars they get absolutely nothing out of (especially if they're warmongers), and when I don't help them with it, they only get slightly less friendly.
It's true that the AI should try to bribe you to go to war though. There's a thread on the general board about that right now.