I assume that your civ has Democracy. This is a draft of my war strategy under a democratic government. So far, it has worked very well for me at all levels (including at Deity level). It works best for a Comericial civ, but it will do well for any civ. I'm not sure if it will work for a small or standard map since I have never played any game smaller than a large map.

1. In all the game that I have played so far, I have always switched to Democracy as soon as I discovered it.

2. I always perform micromanagement during and after I emerge from Anarchy to make sure my citizens in all cities are happy or content. If they are unhappy, I will convert them to entertainer. For some city, some of my citizens may be starving to dead because there aren't enough food to support everyone. That's ok. They may be starving to dead but they die with a smile on their face.:)

3. By now, I normally control at least 3 luxuries and a continent. I normally set science and happiness to zero and the all my income to buy market and whatever necessary for all my cities.

4. At this point, I would normally make at least 1000 gold per turns. Moreover, I would normally have a leader standing by to rush the Adam Smith Trading company. At Deity level, sometimes I have to take over that Wonder from the AI. It's good to have the Adam Smith Wonder, but if I don't have it, It's not the end of the world. By the end of the Middle Ages, my civ would normally generate 3000+ gold each turn (about 500 less golds for none comercial civ)....However, I am afraid that life is not always that simple. Sometimes, we have to fight for what is rightfully ours, so for the remainding of this post, let's see how we can wage an effective war with a democratic government.

By the time I discover Magnetism, I would have trade the world maps with all the civs and pretty much know where all the resources are, especially luxury resource. I immediately build a dozen galleon and divide them into two groups, no escort is necessary. Since everyone is just recently discover Magnetism, there is no warships to worry about. I create two tash forces of 6 galleons each. I load them up with 12 of my best defenders (usually pikemen), 11 of my best fast units (usually knight or cavalry), and one settler. Note: If I have more money, I will throw in a couple more ships with defenders or creating another taskforce. Each of my task force will immediately set sail for those remoted continents wherever the luxury is located at.:)

"To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but can not make certain of defeating the enemy." - Sun Tzu Art of War.

When my task forces are in possition, I will immediately land my troops right next to those cities with luxury resource. Of course, the enemy will ask me to leave or to declare war.;) What are they thinking? I don't travel half way around the world so that I can just home.;) Of course, I declare war. Since most of the enemy cities are depend with 2 or 3 defenders and 1 offensive unit, they are no match for my invasion force. I immediately raze that city (which generated some nice slave workers), use my settler and build a city right on the same spot. I immediately fortified all my troop inside, dig a moat around it, rush a citywall during the first turn (then a barrack, and a harbor after that, ...then the temple). Note: I rush build eveything in this city at every turn.

5. By now, the enemy has mobilized his force against me. He probably also gets a few of his buddies to sign a mutual protection pact and to declare war against me too. In fact, the whole world would be at war against me at this point. That's ok, the more war the better.:)

6. Since I was the one who start the war, my democratic citizens probably start complaining by now. Oh well, it could have been worst. At least they are not religious fanatics. IMO, democratic fanatics are lot easier to deal than the religious fanatics.;) Anyway, I would do micromanagement every three or four turns to make sure that they are happy. If they are unhappy about the war or whatever, I will converse them to entertainer. For some city, some of my citizens may be starving to dead because there aren't enough food to support everyone and to keep everyone happy. They may be starving to dead but they die with a smile on their face.:) I would normally repeat this step every three turn to make sure that my citizens are happy.

7. As Sun Tzu said "the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself". Turn after turn, my enemy will try to retake those luxury resource and they will die trying. I only send out my knights or cavalries to finish off the wounded attackers. With 3000+ golds that my civ continue to produce (I always set happiness and research to zero when I'm at war), I continue rush new units every turn at my remoted outpost. Now, is a good time to rush some cannon as well. After a while, the enemy will stop attacking, it's also a good indication that they are running out of troops, now is a good time to defeat them.

8. I will only take cities that I can be able to hold. If not, I will burn them to the ground. Those extra slave workers are so nice. Note: Just make sure that you don't loose any city back to the AI. If you loose a city, your people will be very very very unhappy and some of your cities may decide to switch side. After about 20 turns, try to communicate with them to see if they are willing to sign a peace treaty.

9. Signing Peace Treaty: the moment I know that he is willing to talk, I will start a massive offense and try to take as many cities away from him as I can during that same turn, call him up and sign the peace treaty with him. Don't forget to ask him for the worldmap, techs, towns, and all his gold. Even if I have to give him something in order for him to sign a peace treaty, it's still a victory for me. My original mission is to secure resource; anything else is just a bonus on top that.

In summary: It's so easy to wage war while maintaining a democratic government. At once time, I even at war with the same civ for more than 40 consecutive turns without any problem. The key is to winning is to control all luxuries, only take what you can keep, and be willing to let your people starve to dead. Just remember, they may be starving to dead, but they always die with a smile. After you discover railroad, starvation may not be a problem after that.:)

Great Ideas! (maybe you should put Universal Suffrage and Police Stations helps too)

im gonna go try your strat rite now!!!!!!!:)

Um, I pressed Ctrl-alt-tab-f12-pgdn-del-esc-break-shift-home. Nothing happened. Wheres that civfanatics website?

(I DO have a sense of humor)

I normally don't use Democracy in a war situation. I prefer to use Republic, with Universal Suffrage. With this, there is almost NO war weariness. Try it!!:)


P.S. I changed my sig for you!:)

Democracy is the best! I have tried the Republic before and it isn't powerful as Democracy. With 3000+ golds each turn, I could buy almost anything I want or build anything I want in one turn (not including Wonder). In my current game, I have been at war with the English, the American, and the Rusian for over 60 consecutive turns already - no problem. Half of my citizens are entertainers and I have no temples or catherals - no problem. I normally build a temple to expand my boundary and sell it 4 turns later to avoid culture victory.

Democracy is better than Republic in Peace time, but not in war IMHO. There isn't a very big difference in corruption between Republic and Democracy (your cities close to the capital will have almost 0% corruption, far flung cities will have 95% corruption in any government). What really makes the difference between any government is the middle range cities. And with you having so many entertainers, think of all the potential money and shields you are losing! If half of your population is entertainers, then your better off with Monarchy. With monarchy since you have 0 war weariness, you won't lose any production at all. Sure, it has half the gold as Republic or Democracy, but you're losing half of your gold anyways because of all the entertainers! Plus in Monarchy, you get alot of free units.

The only way I see this working is if all your cities are size 35+, so that all those citizens (the extra people you have that wouldn't be able to work a tile, anyways) are entertainers, rather than taxmen or scientist. But then you are losing out on those specialists (corruption immune) also.

Originally posted by Moonsinger
Democracy is the best! I have tried the Republic before and it isn't powerful as Democracy. With 3000+ golds each turn, I could buy almost anything I want or build anything I want in one turn (not including Wonder). In my current game, I have been at war with the English, the American, and the Rusian for over 60 consecutive turns already - no problem. Half of my citizens are entertainers and I have no temples or catherals - no problem. I normally build a temple to expand my boundary and sell it 4 turns later to avoid culture victory.

Interesting post. I'd like to see a 60 turn war in Democracy with no temples or cathedrals. Personally, I either use Republic or Monarchy. my first game I used democracy in war, and it was a VERY bad experience. I play emperor, and I will only use monarchy or republic.

I think it has something to do with loosing the war and the mixing of civs. I'm always advancing my troops very slowly and I'm razing most cities on my path. So far, my own citizens are doing ok after 20, 30, 40, or 60 turns of war. I mean the citizen of my own civs are doing fine; if I have a city of mix civ, those cities are exetremely unhappy. If this happen, I will cut off their food suplies and killing all of them off except 1 ... eventually those cities will grow back with my own civ.:)

I don't like to switch the government in time of war because Anarchy is really bad for business and it could last forver.:( Note: After 20 turns of war, I may allocate 30% of income toward happiness. After 30 turns of war, I will allocate 50% of income toward happiness to compensate for any unhappiness. In the worst case, with 50% of income lost toward happiness, my civ is still able to make at least 1000+ golds. Of course, I will try anything to avoid a long war, but in the worst case, a long war is very doable with Democracy.

I'm really surprised that you are seeing these results; fighting a war in democracy against even 1 opponent for longer than 20 turns really causes serious war weariness. Fighting against multiple civs with no temples/cathedrals while razing most cities taken... I'd expect that that would seriously send your civ into disorder.

I can see this working, but as Bamspeedy said, you must have to hire a LOT of entertainers. If citites stay at size 12 or lower with a marketplace and all luxuries, you probably can stay at war forever in a democracy. But I also think that just going to republic would make things easier; a republic with 8 luxuries can go forever without hiring entertainers. The corruption difference between republic and democracy is not very significant.

And 3000g/turn in the Middle Ages? You have to be on a Huge map to get that kind of income. I don't think this would be as effective on smaller maps simply because you lack the income to rush an entire army in far-flung areas.

Overall though, I like the idea, and this is one of the few cases I have found where someone prefers the commercial attribute to others. :)

It is possible to get limited war weariness.

The points:
1. Thou shalt not let enemy enter your territory and stay for 1 turn or more.
2. Thou shalt not lose cities.
3. Thou shalt manage to lose as little units as you can.
4. Thou shalt not have enemy nationals in your country.
( Well, I have some doubt for this, don't know if it counts but it SEEMS to count )

In this way you can get 40+ turns with limited war weariness.

And I'm somebody who like to go war in a democratic government. Basically, it was because that I do not like change government for two times which will take an exorbitant 12 turns. And since my goal was not to conquest the world, democracy was always enough for me to take the majority of one opponent before the war weariness goes too high to control.

To wage a democratic war your efforts, IMHO, should be used in preparation. Enough troops and good position can get the war much faster.

To wage a democratic war your efforts, IMHO, should be used in preparation. Enough troops and good position can get the war much faster.

Yes, I agree this is the best way for a democratic war. Instead of using all that money to rush buy a few units every turn to continue the war, build or buy all the units you will need before the war and set the units up just outside the enemy's border, THEN declare war. If you have enough units before the war starts, the war should not last longer than 20 turns.

In monarchy with no war-weariness you could keep straggling units into the war, gradually wearing down your enemy (war of attrition), but in Democracy you need STACKS of units prior to the war starting.

Originally posted by Lawrence
It is possible to get limited war weariness.

The points:
1. Thou shalt not let enemy enter your territory and stay for 1 turn or more.
2. Thou shalt not lose cities.
3. Thou shalt manage to lose as little units as you can.
4. Thou shalt not have enemy nationals in your country.
( Well, I have some doubt for this, don't know if it counts but it SEEMS to count )

In this way you can get 40+ turns with limited war weariness.
Yup! :goodjob: Moreover, that would be my main reason to pack as much defenders as possible. And of course, I always pack along a couple settlers in my invasion force. I rarely capture enemy city unless I'm sure I can completely wipe them out within a few turn. I always refer to raze the enemy cities and rebuild them from scatch. It's safer, faster, and happier that way. Plus I can start rushing improvement right away.

On #4, set up a good defensive possition and wait for your enemy to retalliate. That give them a chance to throw everything they have at us. After they loose most of their force trying to take back what is rightfully ours, we can take the rest of their cities like taking candy from the baby.:)
"To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."

Originally posted by Lawrence
And I'm somebody who like to go war in a democratic government. Basically, it was because that I do not like change government for two times which will take an exorbitant 12 turns. And since my goal was not to conquest the world, democracy was always enough for me to take the majority of one opponent before the war weariness goes too high to control.

Me too, I love a democratic government. Even if I'm playing a religious civ, I would never want to change government. I like to play a religious civ so that I can purchase temple and catheral at a cheap price. Other than that, once I get democracry, I would never want to change to anything else.

I like to conquest the world and democracy is just perfect for that. If I am a democratic government, chances are most of the AIs are also democratic too. Therefore, everyone wants to end the war as quickly as they can. After 20 turns or so, I always seek peace to regroup and to reposition my troops before I declare war again. Since the peace treaty is signed as "peace until war is declared", I'm not breaking any treaty at all if I want to declare war again next turn. Morever, whenever peace is signed, I always ask them to turn over a couple of their towns; therefore, I can conquer extra towns without firing any shot.:)

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Yes, I agree this is the best way for a democratic war. Instead of using all that money to rush buy a few units every turn to continue the war, build or buy all the units you will need before the war and set the units up just outside the enemy's border, THEN declare war. If you have enough units before the war starts, the war should not last longer than 20 turns.
Exactly, I buy new units on the front line to reinforce the one that I just lost or just to reinforce my possition. Other than that I always try to save as much money as possible just in case something unexpected may pop up.

I like to conquest the world and democracy is just perfect for that. If I am a democratic government, chances are most of the AIs are also democratic too. Therefore, everyone wants to end the war as quickly as they can. After 20 turns or so, I always seek peace to regroup and to reposition my troops before I declare war again. Since the peace treaty is signed as "peace until war is declared", I'm not breaking any treaty at all if I want to declare war again next turn. Morever, whenever peace is signed, I always ask them to turn over a couple of their towns; therefore, I can conquer extra towns without firing any shot.

It's not really 'until war is declared'. I know that's what it says, but the peace treaty still lasts for 20 turns. Go to a civ you just signed peace with and click on 'active'. There should be (20) besides the peace treaty. Do you ever have problems winning by UN?

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
It's not really 'until war is declared'. I know that's what it says, but the peace treaty still lasts for 20 turns. Go to a civ you just signed peace with and click on 'active'. There should be (20) besides the peace treaty. Do you ever have problems winning by UN?
No wonder why I got only 1 vote at the UN election.:( :cry:

Originally posted by Moonsinger

I rarely capture enemy city unless I'm sure I can completely wipe them out within a few turn. I always refer to raze the enemy cities and rebuild them from scatch. It's safer, faster, and happier that way. Plus I can start rushing improvement right away.


That's fine as long as you want to be known as Moonsinger, the destroyer, or Moonsinger, the murderer of millions, or Moonsinger, the slaughterer of children, the destroyer of dreams.

Use your might for right. Don't take the so-called easy way.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy


It's not really 'until war is declared'. I know that's what it says, but the peace treaty still lasts for 20 turns. Go to a civ you just signed peace with and click on 'active'. There should be (20) besides the peace treaty. Do you ever have problems winning by UN?

I think you're right, but still, after 20 turns you have to declare war again, or the treaty will be silent prolonged. This is the same for trade treaties and so on. I think this means that after 20 turns, you can declare war (by renegotiating peace, and cancelling the agreement) without damage to your reputation.

Some of you advocate waging war in a democracy, I do, and anyone that is of the builder mentality is fairly loath to switch govts. unless religious.So 1 must learn to fight in a democracy.

easy, cakewalk, simple.

First things first though, If you are in democracy, in theory you are rairoaded border to border or pretty close. The AI will at the minimum have a fairly complete road system with all cities hooked up at least.Your offensive units are either cavalry, cavalry and tanks, or modern armor, artillary of any sort is unwanted and unneeded. The other key offensive unit is the combat settler.

Build an assault force, roughly the size of his forces (estimated or actual if using spies correctly), a few more if hes got mech inf. a lot less if hes using riflemen. Include 3-5 settlers, and have 15-20 workers ready to go.

Now you should start looking for your spring board city(ies). What does this city look like? Well its within 3 squares of your borders or free land. It is roaded to your border, and its hooked up to the next city in.Ideally it has a resource of some sort, but thats gravy and not required. Now that we have decided where to start lets invade.

If the city is 3 squares away, send in the cavalry/MA and take the city, sending in a unit at a time until city is taken.Stack movement is a no-no here. After city is taken, use workers to turn road into rail to the newly taken cityand past it the 1 square in the direction of the next enemy city.Now move the entire stack of unused military, workers, and settlers to the 1 square past the city you have taken,using no movement due to railroads.

Now you must reassess. Is the next city 3 squares or less away from the new cultural limits? Yes? Repeat the previous step.

No? Now what do we do? Well thats where our friend the combat settler comes into play. Step 1 abandon the previosly taken city.This will allow you to build a new city 1square closer than before, moving your cultural border 1 square closer to the enemy. Railroad out the new square gained, and move the whole unused stack 1 square closer using no movement.Are you within 3 squares of the enemy city? Yes goto the very first step and continue. No, repeat the 1 square city move.

Using this process, it is fairly easy to get most if not all of the AI civ destroyed in a turn or 3, thereby negating the warweariness factor alltogether, as in a democracy it takes a bit longer than that for the ppl to get po'ed.

I think you're right, but still, after 20 turns you have to declare war again, or the treaty will be silent prolonged. This is the same for trade treaties and so on. I think this means that after 20 turns, you can declare war (by renegotiating peace, and cancelling the agreement) without damage to your reputation.

It depends on what you got in the peace treaty. If you had any per-turn deals (gold/turn), then after the first 20 turns you will be contacted and asked to renew the peace treaty or to declare war, after this second set of 20 turns then yes, it does silently prolong (you can declare war without a rep hit). If you just got a lump sum of cash, techs, or cities, then after the first 20 turns you can declare war again without the reputation hit.

Just be careful, that when you get asked to renew or end the peace treaty you don't have any units in their territory if you decide to declare war, or you get a reputation hit.

I'm in a democracy now. I'm sending workers up to Kandahar to build fortifications up in the mountains and hills around the city in the core boundary. The city has 5 gem resources now within city limits after expansion. I've got 18 infantry, 6 cavalry and three ironclads stationed there. I seriously doubt Persia will try and attack those positions. They will be fools to try. Persia signed a peace treaty immediately after I took it.

Now how do I improve my relations with them from furious to cautious?

Now how do I improve my relations with them from furious to cautious?

Easy, sign an MPP with ROP with them. They might turn gracious!:D

This is a great thread; I have been using a variation of this strategy for sometime. I, like Moonsing only play on maps of large or bigger, personally I like maps that I can have all 16 civs involved. A few areas where I differ though are this:

1. I never raise a city, instead let the governor control the attitudes, I have taken cities as large as 28 pop, they actually were bigger than this but I like to bombard large cities to soften up the resistance and as we all know that usually kills off a few citizens in the process, and not had them flip, by the time the governor has them firmly under control and the city growing again, the pop could be down to 4 or 6, there happy and starving to death.

Only once have I had a city flip by letting the governor govern the attitudes, I took the city from the Chinese, and found that it was a city full of Iroquois, which was a surprise on my part, I had not realized they were at war, the Iroquois had three cities surrounding it, it was basically a peninsula into the Iroquois Nation, which was why I wanted it in the first place, but I was not surprised when it flipped.

Once you have a large enemy city in your possession you can always make workers to reduce the size of it, and flood it with your workers to help prevent a flip, these have been discussed in other threads so I will not elaborate.

2. I never send my troops overseas unless I have to or I control the entire continent that I am on, that does not mean I do not go overseas, I just like my empire to be contiguous and easy to defend, exception, I will snag small islands in a heartbeat, great outposts, easy to defend, great for staging invasions later in the game and the AI rarely builds marines to even try and take these. Luxuries are nice but not necessary, temples, cathedrals and coliseums all work very well and you need them anyway. I am not saying they are not important; it is just not necessary to have far flung empires that are hard to defend for the sake of spices, when one can dominate your neighbors. I do use Moonsing’s strategy for strategic resources though.

Another note to go with this, war weariness seems to lessen when you are fighting a foe that has been a nemesis for centuries, even if you are the one to declare war, has anyone else noted this or is it my imagination?

3. On Point 5, Moonsing is correct; the AI’s buddies have probably joined the fray, but probably not as a MPP, just an alliance. If you can make peace with the first person you went to war with, you can then concentrate on the others, this has two benefits: you made peace, which gives you happy citizens, two; they declared war on you, not the other way around, so your citizens war weariness is greater, if you notice war weariness on the rise try making peace with one of the AI’s if multiple are involved, if you can make peace with one your citizens will give you more time to conduct military maneuvers on the others. Domination is the name of the game.

4. Mr. Biggboy is correct; Post 4, Universal Suffrage and Police Stations do help.

5. Press Ctrl-Alt-Shift-F12-Esc-Tab-PgDn-Home-Break to unlock a secret Civfanatics Website!! This does not work, you forgot to press F6 also.

6. Lawrence is correct on the 4th Commandment, always keep 4 or 5 Cavalry or Armour in reserve to kick out invaders; this seems to be a huge factor on the war weariness chart for democracies.

Now here is a question for everyone out there, my current game, I am playing on Earth, Marla Singer’s Earth, I decided that in this game I would try never declaring war on anyone, but if they declared war on me I would try to wipe them completely out of the game, it is 2004 now and I only have destroyed the Russians, this is a tuff policy on this world. Now here is the situation I am in Africa, Egypt to be specific, and the Aztecs are in North America, we have never gone to war, we have never even set units in each other country as far as I know, they are pretty much wiped out by the Greeks and American’s yet I seem to be the one taking the hit for it. When I go into diplomatic relations I get reminded on how I double-crossed the Aztecs, any ideas on why this might be?:confused:

The Aztecs are mad at you? Did you make a deal with the Greeks while they were at war with the Aztecs? That's probably it.

Well here's an update. We are going to have to surrender to Babylon very soon. No sooner than three turns after my last post war-weariness hit and nearly shut down the country. I had rioting in 40% of the cities. Here WE were ATTACKED by Babylon. They had moved a stack of 10 infantry into our territory right next to one of my border cities! I told them to leave. They declared war. This is a f*cking DEFENSIVE action. :aargh3: This is NOT Vietnam!

It's in critical places too, and in very stupid places. Police stations do virtually nothing to reduce war weariness. We have not lost any cities. Tanks are just hitting the ground. Babylon is ready to implode.

Can you imagine if troops invaded the United States and were approaching say Seattle, that the country would want to surrender? Do you think for a second that the President would not put the country in a state of Martial Law? Would people actually stop going to work in the factories? I don't think so. Of course the Supreme Court might rule Martial Law unconstitutional, but in reality I can hear the president -- to quote Andrew Jackson, "The Supreme Court made their decision. Let them enforce it." As he and the military proceeded to ignore it when confiscating Cherokee land -- and he is thought of as a national hero?

Also the movement is so unrealistic. It takes years to get a unit from a city to the front instead of weeks. Under these rules the US would have had to surrender to Japan in WWII!! And Britain would have been controlled by the Nazis. Russia may have eventually beaten Germany, but we already were starting to bomb Germany when Stalingrad was retaken in 1943.

Settling with Babylon will cause me to break an MPP with Persia. Persian wanted it and I got 300 gold per turn for it! They are now polite. I switched all non-shield or low producing tiles to entertainers. Quelling the riots cost me 250 gold per turn. My own cities can starve themselves down to a managable size. I have all cities set at zero growth. If this doesn't work, they will see Joan Stalin very soon -- they sort of are. We'll either switch to back to Monarchy or go to Communism. It isn't as if this is a police action. Babylon invaded us. Not the other way around.

My science is going very well, and changing governments will cripple this. And if I am forced to surrender, I'm going to surprise first-strike nuke the hell out of Babylon as soon as I get ICBMs. They will be nuked back to the stone age.

I think Democracy is totally unrealistic. War weariness should be high if and only if you were the aggressor. It should be none if you were defending yourself. So I guess modding it is the only choice. I think they should be allowed martial law units. Or does the game make it Democracy of the 1960s instead of Democracy of the 1940s?

I want Hammurabi dead! I want his family dead! :ar15:

Don't Republic and Democracy both get the same commerce bonus? One additional commerce in any square that is already producing one. Techs can be bought just as easily as a republic.

Republic however lets you stay at war for centuries at a time, with almost no micromanagement, while you can only fight for a few dozen turns at max as a Democracy, meanwhile endlessly micromanaging the hordes of cities you'd need to generate that 3k per turn income.

I believe the corruption difference is miniscule as well, although maybe somebody else could shed some more light on that.

In the rare case that your starting position has a few luxuries, this could mean only one period of anarchy. However this is an uncommon occurance, and you can't really count on it.

What makes Democracy the better choice? Slightly faster workers help you lay those initial railroad tracks, but it doesn't seem to outweigh the benefits of minimal war weariness.

Originally posted by Zachriel
That's fine as long as you want to be known as Moonsinger, the destroyer, or Moonsinger, the murderer of millions, or Moonsinger, the slaughterer of children, the destroyer of dreams.

The last time I talk to my citizens, they are extremely happy.:) Moreover, those civs that I destroyed, they can call me whatever they want; they have the right to do so during their last dying breath.;) After that, no one on the planet would remember about their last words. And if you ask any of my citizens, they would remember me as "Moonsinger, The Magnificent" and every day on my planet is really the "We love the Goddess Day".:)

Originally posted by No.Dice
Don't Republic and Democracy both get the same commerce bonus? One additional commerce in any square that is already producing one. Techs can be bought just as easily as a republic.
You may be right about that. However, when I'm in Democracy, I really hate to switch to anything else just becuase of the war. In most game, my civ is not a religious civ; therefore, I would loose at least 4 turns to switch to Republic and another 4 turns to switch back. That's at least 8 turns of no production or research; therefore, it's best just to stick with whatever current government that I have before the war (which is Democracy) and try to make the best out of it.:) Like Night Raider just said, fighting war in Democracy is really like talking a walk in the park. It's a lot like what's happening in the real world. Look at the USA, we don't switch government every time we need to fight a war.:)

Originally posted by Night Raider
When I go into diplomatic relations I get reminded on how I double-crossed the Aztecs, any ideas on why this might be?:confused:
Sorry! I don't have any idea on why that might happen:( Since you are trying to be peaceful, this is really not my area of expertise.;)

Originally posted by Moonsinger

The last time I talk to my citizens, they are extremely happy.:) Moreover, those civs that I destroyed, they can call me whatever they want; they have the right to do so during their last dying breath.;) After that, no one on the planet would remember about their last words. And if you ask any of my citizens, they would remember me as "Moonsinger, The Magnificent" and every day on my planet is really the "We love the Goddess Day".:)

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart . . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is <Moonsinger>, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

I forgot to mention one point on my strategy above, when you capture the 28 pop city and let the governor manage the city, set the production for a settler, once all the resistors are out, rush the settler, assuming you have the gold. If the citizens are going to die, you might as well get a few new cities for your efforts in conquering your enemy’s city, this has the added benefit of helping to insure that the city does not flip.:borg:

Also, I had a second city flip last night using the technique of letting the governor run the city, so maybe it is not as good as I thought, it was deep inside my newly acquired territory which was a little disturbing. If anyone else tries it, give me some feedback on what you think.

Originally posted by Moonsinger
By the end of the Middle Ages, my civ would normally generate 3000+ gold each turn (about 500 less golds for none comercial civ)....

There isn't such a big difference for commerical civs. At the end of the middle ages, you don't have hospitals, so your cities are size 12 and smaller: no center-tile bonus for commerical.

The other benefit for commercial civs is optimal number of cities is +1. This accounts for about 33 gold per turn, estimated generously.

How I got this estimate: Corruption due to number of cities (50 N/Nopt) is zero at the capital, and 50% at the last city within the optimal. Commerical civs add one to the optimal, so the same city would generate 50{Nopt/Nopt - Nopt/(Nopt+1)} = 50/(Nopt+1) more gold. That's 2% extra gold for large maps (Nopt=24) and 1.5% extra for huge maps (Nopt=32). A city of size 12 produces, say, 35 commerce in Democracy. If the city has a marketplace and a bank, that gives you 70 gold. That means, even if they are maximum size, your border cities will give you about one extra gold each. Between 1.4 and 1.0, depending on the map size. Your capital gives zero extra gold. Lets say you have a Forbidden palace, optimally placed so you get twice the optimal number of cities. Then, since corruption due to number of cities is linear with number of cities, the gold saved for being commerical is the gold saved in your border cities times Nopt. That's between 34 and 32, depending on your map size.

Assumptions: Your empire has twice the optimal number of cities, all of maximum size (12), all with a marketplace and a bank, with a FP optimally placed so that there is no overlap with the capital.

In pracice you might have more cities, but they will not all be of maximum size. These two effects have opposite effects in calculating the benefits of commercial civs, so I chose to ignore them both. If you don't have banks in all your cities, or if your FP is not optimally placed, (both quite likely) the benefits of being commercial would be even smaller.

Originally posted by Moonsinger

You may be right about that. However, when I'm in Democracy, I really hate to switch to anything else just becuase of the war. In most game, my civ is not a religious civ; therefore, I would loose at least 4 turns to switch to Republic and another 4 turns to switch back. That's at least 8 turns of no production or research; therefore, it's best just to stick with whatever current government that I have before the war (which is Democracy) and try to make the best out of it.:) Like Night Raider just said, fighting war in Democracy is really like talking a walk in the park. It's a lot like what's happening in the real world. Look at the USA, we don't switch government every time we need to fight a war.:)

I was thinking more along the lines of a despot ---> monarchy ---> Republic route, rather than a switch to democracy. Republic comes a good bit earlier in the tech tree, allowing an earlier switch. However, to be fair, most civs can't support an efficient Republic until about the time democracy becomes available anyway. :)

The Monarchy switch in between is used to build up your infrastructure, compensating for the loss of your military police when switching to either of the representative type governments. If you're especially blessed, and have access to 3-4 luxuries in the early game, this would mean only one period of anarchy for the entire game, switching directly to republic from despotism.

Wouldn't it make more sense, (after building up your infrastructure a bit) to switch to Republic rather than Democracy, and stay there the entire game?

Originally posted by Zachriel
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart . . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is <Moonsinger>, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
You must be mistaken me with someone else. My civ goes on living forever after I'm long gone. The last time I check, they were naming their spaceship after me.:) Therefore, their history book would remember me as "Moonsinger, The Magnificent".:) If it wasn't for me, they wouldn't be where they are "among the stars" today.;)

Originally posted by No.Dice
Wouldn't it make more sense, (after building up your infrastructure a bit) to switch to Republic rather than Democracy, and stay there the entire game?
Sure, it may be a good idea to stay with Republic until we finish building the railroad. With railroad, we could move from west to east, north to south or wherever quickly. Therefore, war can be ended within 20 turns or less.

Originally posted by Moonsinger

You must be mistaken me with someone else. My civ goes on living forever after I'm long gone. The last time I check, they were naming their spaceship after me.:) Therefore, their history book would remember me as "Moonsinger, The Magnificent".:) If it wasn't for me, they wouldn't be where they are "among the stars" today.;)

Oh. You are right. That was Ozymandius.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

My mistake.

Originally posted by Moonsinger

Sure, it may be a good idea to stay with Republic until we finish building the railroad. With railroad, we could move from west to east, north to south or wherever quickly. Therefore, war can be ended within 20 turns or less.

Why would we switch at all, If Republic is going to allow us everything a democracy does, with the freedom to fight wars with practically no time constraints?

well, worker speed increase, if it is wanted.

...well, and corruption. In this respect, Democracy I think is better than people realize.

Democracy has a government corruption distance factor of 4/9. Republic has 2/3.

Assuming an average city distance of one tenth the map size (10 tiles on a standard map), and a courthouse in each city, you get about 5% of each city's commerce that goes to your treasury instead of to corrupted officials' pockets. If you have 60 cities, each working terrain worth an average of 35 commerce, that's an extra 210 extra gold per turn (if they all have libraries, universities, marketplaces, and banks).

Is it worth the gold, science, and time lost to Anarchy and to research Printing Press and Democracy? I don't know. But Democracy certainly gives you more money once you're in it.

Originally posted by No.Dice
Why would we switch at all, If Republic is going to allow us everything a democracy does, with the freedom to fight wars with practically no time constraints?

And it also generates more income too.:) Since there is less corruption with Democracy, it means less waste; therefore it yields more income on shields, golds, and science.:)

Originally posted by Zachriel
Oh. You are right. That was Ozymandius.
That's what I thought.;)

One sung goddess who leads her civilization to flourish,
Like the new dawns which enlighten the darkness;
Like an endless source of wrought and daedal golds,
Which bring happiness to her civilization forever after.

Switching to democracy depends on how long you think you will be in Democracy. I've had several games where when I switched from Republic to Democracy I actually lost income! This was because of the mass starvation during anarchy. It sometimes takes several turns after the revolution is over before your population builds back up and you start seeing more money. In my last couple of tournament games, by the time I got democracy I only had probably about 20 or so turns left before winning so changing governments would have really slowed me down.

Democracy has slightly lower corruption. The faster workers you will also get when you get replaceable parts. With a dense build, I doubt democracy really has any benefits compared to Republic. When you are well over the optimal # of cities, your far cities will be at 95% corrupt regardless of which government you are in.

I've loaded up my last two tournament games and tested to see what would have happened if I switched to Democracy. In the first one playing as Egypt (religious, so 1 turn anarchy), I did an extremely dense build (one city for every 4 tiles). I lost alot more gold going to democracy because of the starvation during that 1 turn anarchy! Last game playing as the French. Only had about 10 cities or so on a tiny map, with just a little bit of overlapping of cities. In republic I had 42 gold lost to corruption. In democracy this dropped to 34, but my net income dropped from the starvation in anarchy.

So IMHO only go to democracy if you will be staying there for a long time. If you change more than once, or start suffering massive war weariness, you've just negated any benefits of democracy.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
So IMHO only go to democracy if you will be staying there for a long time. If you change more than once, or start suffering massive war weariness, you've just negated any benefits of democracy.
Yup, I would never change to anything else once I switch to democracy. For richer or poorer, I'm going to stay with my democratic civ to the end of game.:)

Originally posted by Moonsinger

Yup, I would never change to anything else once I switch to democracy. For richer or poorer, I'm going to stay with my democratic civ to the end of game.:) If I'm religious I usually switch to Monarchy during war.

My current civ (French) has had enough of 100 years of consecutive wars with one turn of peace in between. They are very war weary. It is kicking in after three years now. I'm in anarchy and switching to Republic or Communism until I rid the world of my enemies.

Update: I switched to Republic. Had higher corruption and even more war weariness. Oh well, going from 1930 back to 1904. This time the city where Hiawatha has 10 infantry parked, I'm not going to bother asking him to leave because he'll declare war. I know this. It's on a stupid rock out in the middle of the ocean (Falklands scenario). I'm just going to abandon the city. He can have the rock (I think it's about the size of Angel Island in SF Bay), is desert and a mountain, and has absolutely no resources.

Trinity, have you tried giving Hiawatha a ROP instead? If you give an ROP he will not declare war on you, the AI does not want to take the reputation hit.

After you have the ROP in place, assuming you have a common border with him, line your border with explorers, infantry, or workers, that will keep him out but let you go into his little home. :) Also, if he leaves the island after the ROP is in place, park a few infantry, or workers, on the small island taking up all the squares, the AI very rarely builds marines to take an island, to be honest I do not think I have ever seen it, it will land 6 to 8 Modern Armour to take a city of 1 or 2 with one defender; yet at the same time I have seen the AI through 2 Armour at a city of 20 + when I knew it had a good 30 or 40 Armour at it’s disposal, go figure.

My empire imploded at the 1930 point with 70% war weariness. According to history, it would have been ripe for Fascism or Communism. As I mentioned I went to a previous save. We are now in WW II in 1924.

This time Hiawatha allied with via MPP Hammurabi against Persia. I'm still fighting Persia. Germany formed and MPP with Hiawatha, and is fighting Persia. Rome attacked the Iroquois. So the stupid Germans are in a two front war, as is everyone else. Shaka formed an alliance or MPP with Hammurabi. Every one of these former arch enemies. So Hiawatha now offers World Map in exchange for World Map and Computers. As if. I give him my World Map as a "token of good will." Elizabeth is just sitting and watching everyone destroy each other. I think Elizabeth and I will be the only ones left.

My foreign advisor keeps reminding me that these nations betrayed my freinds, the Greeks even though I obliterated them 500 years ago. Or betrayed my friends, the Persians, with whom I'm at war. :rolleyes:

The AI needs Haloperadol or Thorozine. It is crazy. I've determined that its behavior is according to the DSM IV -- Paranoid Schizophrenia. I'm scared to death. Everything is so hair trigger. So I researched rocketry, and am doing fission now. Then Manhattan Project/UN. Then Space Exploration/Apollo. Then ICBMs (for defense - MAD).

I had 8 opponents in the game. Of course only 7 show on the Foreign Advisor screen. The 8th never appears so you don't know with whom they are allied, even though I eliminated the Greeks. That 8th is my neighbor Shaka.

So Hammurabi is trotting into my newly conquored territory with Hiawatha after the Persians. I give them both RoPs. I'm just about done with my business with Persia, and will make peace with them in two turns. I just upgraded all infantry to Mech Infantry.

I made a double tile depth row of fortresses at the choke points and put Mech Infantry and artillery in them. BTW those are mountain tiles. And stuck my outdated swordsmen in the tiles in front of them. Defense in depth. I dropped three Mech Infantry, a couple tanks, and a worker on the island, on which I discovered another source of oil. So I'm rushing a Harbor on it and building fortifications on all unoccupied tiles.

I can afford some 50 more military units (I have over 310 now, 19 are workers). 84 cities. Corruption may cause me to abandon some of them. How many of those 50 will be ICBMs, I don't know.

Underground testing will begin in 8 turns. I think it's time to watch Dr. Strangelove. :rocket2:

Paranoid? You're only paranoid if they're not really after you.

My Democracy just collapsed into anarchy, and I kept every citixen happy with Entertainers :confused:

That's what I was talking about. You can't wage war, defensive or otherwise, with a democracy.

Sign a peace treaty. Give 'em an RoP. Don't make any alliances, MPP or otherwise. The only one to make is a trade embargo on the one civ everyone is after. If you're approached for an alliance or MPP, don't give it. Make a counter-offer of a gift of your world map.

Know your enemies, but trade with them often.

Build about 50 ICBMs. You should be safe then. Use them if attacked to nuke them back to the stone age. Any war will be very short.

Originally posted by Grey Fox
My Democracy just collapsed into anarchy, and I kept every citixen happy with Entertainers :confused:
That has never happened to me. You should be able to last at least 40 turns of war in Democracy without much of a problem. If I have to stay at war longer than that, I just allocate all of my income to keep them happy. Of course, if that still doesn't work, let them starve to dead.:)

I think the trick is to go to war with multiple civs. Every now and then, I sign the peace treaty with one civ to boot up the citizen happiness. Unless I decide to wipe out an entire civ, I try not taking too many cities away from it. I have noticed that AI doesn't want to surrender if it knows that I'm trying to wipe it out. This seems to be true only when I'm the one who declares war then takes many of its cities. On the other hand, if it is the one who declares war, it's ok for me to take as many cities as posible and still be able to ask for peace after 20 turns or so.

Oh, I forgot to mention. It seems to me that religious or military civs like to stay at war longer than commence or scientific civs. Therefore, we better watch out for those guys; they like to prolong the war forever.:(

It's in the GOTM only me and China left. I was only in the war for like 5 turns and then it happened... I had every citizen as either a specialist or happy, except in a few cities... must be because I have been warring pretty much in Democracy before or something. (With Peace inbetween).

Originally posted by Moonsinger
Oh, I forgot to mention. It seems to me that religious or military civs like to stay at war longer than commence or scientific civs. Therefore, we better watch out for those guys; they like to prolong the war forever.:(

I'm not so sure I completely agree. Xerses is a major pain. It seems he's always at war. What's up with that?

The best behaved civ I've run into is the English. They always seem to quietly build up.

I also like the Bola on Caesar -- nice Mussolini touch, Firaxis. I hate being his neighbor.

It does seem like the Babylonians, Iroquois, Zulus, and the Germans have finally decided that the Judean Peoples Front is not the real enemy -- It's the Romans. Maybe that will take the heat off for a bit. I don't worry about a Roman Spearman and Centurion running around my territory. They're all that's left of Rome on the northern continent. The northwestern continent is Rome's strong point.

Originally posted by Night Raider
When I go into diplomatic relations I get reminded on how I double-crossed the Aztecs, any ideas on why this might be?

This reminds me about a problem I've always had until recently. On my emperor game, I was doing really good peacefully. I had managed to secure plenty of tradeable resources and a sizeable empire without going to war. This let me catch up in technology by trading my resources for them and also getting those lovely per-turn deals for my spices, silks, etc. I got a RoP with everyone to keep relations good. Everyone was polite towards me. I was looking at a good chance of winning a diplomatic victory...

then the impossible happened.

Rome, my neighbor, declared war on me for no reason and took three of my border cities that same turn. I froze in disbelief. Not only because this would be my first victory on emperor, giving me the "right" to play on deity, but they BROKE A ROP! For no reason!

It gets worse too. I reloaded, not wanting to start over after having played good up until then and signed a MPP with Rome and several other guys. Next turn, they STILL attacked me!!:mad:

But anyway, getting to the point, I couldn't trade resources anymore after that for techs (or anything for that matter).Why? I was trading stuff to Rome when they attacked. So even though they attacked me under a RoP and even a MPP, it still looked like I traded resources to them for cash and techs only to stop giving them the resources after I had gotten what I wanted.

Bottom line, just try to look out for those 20 turn deals. If you are giving resources or per-turn gold and the deal is broken, the other civs won't trust you anymore. If, say, you are supplying iron to the Iroquois for something and they are fighting, say, the Russians and Germans and they cut the Iroquois road and harbors off completely, YOU are looked at as the thief even though the Iroquois are the ones who lost their trade route to you.


I eventually did get a U.N. victory btw. Rome was a very lonely nation during that war.:)

Originally posted by Trinity
I'm not so sure I completely agree. Xerses is a major pain. It seems he's always at war. What's up with that?
He is a militaristic civ! That's why he like to be at war. Just like I previously mentioned, religious or militaristic civ seem to prolong war.

The best behaved civ I've run into is the English. They always seem to quietly build up.
Well, the English is a comercial and expansionist civ; therefore, war is not good for business.:) America and France are also well behave. Watch out for the India, Egypt, Babylon, Japan, Aztecs, and Iroquois; those religious guys love to stay at war. I guess they learn that by studying those religious fanatics in the real world. Holy war this and holy war that and war will last forever.:(

If you didn't know it, I'll tell you know. Every Civilization has an aggression level, and it can be found in the editor.

There are 5 levels of aggression, and here is how they are spread:

Agression Level 1
- France
- India

Agression Level 2
- China
- Iroquois

Agression Level 3
- Egypt
- Greece
- America
- England

Agression Level 4
- Rome
- Babylon
- Japan
- Russia
- Persia
- Aztecs

Agression Level 5
- Germany
- Zulu

Originally posted by Zeromus
Rome, my neighbor, declared war on me for no reason and took three of my border cities that same turn. I froze in disbelief. Not only because this would be my first victory on emperor, giving me the "right" to play on deity, but they BROKE A ROP! For no reason!
Since Rome is a militaristic civ, it supposes to attack and conquer the weaker civ. Germany and Japan would also like to do the same thing. Btw, I would have done the same thing too.;) I guess France, America, Britain, Russia, China, and Greece are the few that don't like to break treaty for no reason. In the real world, Russia and China seem scary, but they have never really broken any treaty for no reason.

I can see why Russia is at "Agression Level 4".;) However, she seems well behave in most of my game. As long as I'm stronger than her, she won't dare declaring war.

Moonsinger you are a cruel player. I could never starve my own citizens to death :(

Originally posted by JFL_Dragon
Moonsinger you are a cruel player. I could never starve my own citizens to death :(

I guess I fall into that category. I play a democracy like Stalin. You are weary of a war I didn't start. You decide to riot. Rioters get no food. Shield production doesn't drop. I cut food first. :skull:

So just before major war weariness set in, I wanted to take one more city because of the oil resources (it turns out there's aluminum there :) ), then I was done with my business with Persia. The Iroquois were about to wipe them out anyway. The Brits had been annoyed and suddenly became polite. I thought something was up. One of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition states: The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife.

That turn, Xerses forms an alliance with the Brits. I settle with Xerses. Elizabeth won't talk. Elizabeth bombards a coastal city. So I go after one of hers that has oil. I cut a deal with Shaka to sell him gems. Next turn I try to settle with the Brits. She won't talk. I take the British city, and nail 8 bombers in the process. I try to settle, and she still won't talk. Okay. This means I take her harbor on that small northern continent next turn, and her last oil resource. I think she'll talk then.

BTW as soon as I settled with Xerses, the war weariness left, and it was unaffected by the evil British attack.

Originally posted by JFL_Dragon
Moonsinger you are a cruel player. I could never starve my own citizens to death :(
At least they died with a smile on their face.;) If the other civ get a hold of them, their fates could have been worst.

Moonsinger: We seem to have very similar playing styles :D Especially how you establish that beachhead :D :goodjob:

and I love starving resistors and whiners

Democracies can sustain war for a long time if they follow a few rules

1) Obtain as many luxuries as possible (this is critical for a democracy) at least 6 is needed to sustain a 30 turn war
(luxuries w/ Marketplaces will increase happy faces 12 happy faces w/ 6 luxieries, 16 @7 luxuries and 20@ 8. A temple/cathedral/ marketplace w/ 8 luxuries and you can be at war as long as you like. In fact I will go to war more for a luxury than for a strategic resourse.

2) never end a turn w/ units in enemy territory or if you do only do this for a very short time.

3) Dont initiate first combat in enemy territory

4) When capturing a new city, rush build a temple after resistance ends.

5) Dont raise a city to the ground when first captured but if it culture flips, then BURN, BABY, BURN!:D

Luxuries are the most important factor in waging long wars w/ Democracy, if you dont have 6. These should be proirity #1 if you plan to go to war (otherwise make it short and sweet:king:

The problem with #2 is that you may not be able to attack the city the ensuing turn unless you have knights, cavalry, tanks, modern armor, and may be more likely to have enemy units in your territory at the end of the turn.

WW is done very strangely. If you're winning the war, it should go down. If you're losing, it should go up. It should be geared to whether or not you're taking cities, how many troops get sent home to you in body bags, not on a specific number of turns. Otherwise we never would have survived WWII.

I may end a turn with 40 units in enemy territory attacking 5 to 8 cities depending upon what opposition I'm facing. This is where religious civs come in handy. Temple, cathedral, marketplace in combo with Sistine Chapel, and as many luxury resources you can get your hands on comes in handy. If the commie college kids want communism -- they get it.

Yeah religious civs are great at that, Keep in mind
every civ has to be played differently

That being said we are talking about war as a democracy not as a commie.

to #2, yeah you might have troops in enemy territory for a few turns, thats ok, just dont have it done on a continual basis. When you take a city its now part of your territory, use it to your advantage. Dont start out for a new city until the next turn, if you have a few troops still in enemy territory regroup them in your newly accuired territory (this may not be an option but you should regroup your forces every 5-6 turns or so.)

Originally posted by Lawrence
It is possible to get limited war weariness.

The points:
1. Thou shalt not let enemy enter your territory and stay for 1 turn or more.
2. Thou shalt not lose cities.
3. Thou shalt manage to lose as little units as you can.
4. Thou shalt not have enemy nationals in your country.
( Well, I have some doubt for this, don't know if it counts but it SEEMS to count )

In this way you can get 40+ turns with limited war weariness.

A few more points:
Capture one or more enemy cities at least every other turn. I’ve observed that I can decrease the number of entertainers, and/or the happiness tax, after a capturing a city or two. A solid string of victories sometimes produces WLTKD!

Also, I believe point 4 above is valid. Before advancing, I always eliminate all enemy units from within my borders. This calms my people, and protects my interior cities which are only lightly defended, usually with non-upgradeable, out-of-date units.

As stated by others, once I’m in Democracy, I really don’t want to switch, or go back and forth - this action is too expensive. So, plan and prepare so that when the war starts, you can make it short and sweet.

I would add another point, too. Make the other guy declare war. Most often this is accomplished when you ask a trespasser to leave, but they declare war instead.

Using all of the above, my experience is that I can maintain a war almost indefinitely as a Democracy without starving my population and while still maintaining reasonable production. Practically, because of the cost, I try to capture a preset objective quickly, then negotiate a favorable peace. The objectives always include specific geography, and maybe luxuries or resources. At Emperor and Diety levels, the goal may include obtaining one or more advances. The objective should be sufficient to noticably improve my game standing, otherwise the war is pointless.

Most of my wars have been highly profitable and not problematic, but they haven’t been 40 turns either - I might hit 20. This leads to a question:

Why fight a 40 turn war? If you’re losing the war, you sue for peace as soon as possible. If you’re winning the war, hit the enemy hard, then make them part with the goodies you want, besides the territory you already took. They can/will only give so much no matter how long the war. Unless you plan to eliminate the AI Civ, practically, you can probably do better with two ten turn wars, than one 20 turn war. So, why fight long wars?
Klem

Originally posted by Klem
Why fight a 40 turn war? If you’re losing the war, you sue for peace as soon as possible.
I would always sue for peace as soon as peace talk is possible. However, sometimes, they refused to talk. Even though they are loosing the war badly, they still refuse to talk.:( Can't sue for peace if they refuse to accept our diplomatic convoy.

Originally posted by Moonsinger

I would always sue for peace as soon as peace talk is possible. However, sometimes, they refused to talk. Even though they are loosing the war badly, they still refuse to talk.:( Can't sue for peace if they refuse to accept our diplomatic convoy.

I've had games with maybe 12 or 15 turns where the AI would refuse to talk. I can't prove it, but my gut feel is that I wasn't hitting them hard enough to bring them to the table. And it's nice to know you can end the war, particularly if the objective is limited, such as a critical resource.

My recent experiences, usually Emperor level, seem to indicate that taking multiple cities, preferably every turn, and killing all AI troops on your turf every turn, is capable of starting the peace process in 4 or 5 turns or so. If I can't be agressive, then I try to avoid war because it might drag out and not be of any value.
Klem

Originally posted by Klem
I've had games with maybe 12 or 15 turns where the AI would refuse to talk. I can't prove it, but my gut feel is that I wasn't hitting them hard enough to bring them to the table. And it's nice to know you can end the war, particularly if the objective is limited, such as a critical resource.

I have noticed in patch 1.29f, if I enter the war honorably, they will talk within 10 turns or less.:) Nowadays, before I declare war, I check for "Active" treaty. If there is no active treaty, I'm sure they will talk within 20 turns or less.:) And yes, hitting them hard would definitely bring them to the table sooner.

I have been looking at this problem of the civ refusing to talk to you when you are successfull. I have found that an easy way to get the dialogue going is not to attack them at all for one turn. The next turn they are ready to talk.

Best way to enter war in honor.

Make sure you have NO troops in the target's territory.

1)go to diplomacy diologue
2)Check to see if there are any active trades or agreements, if there are wait until they expire.
3) When all agreements have expired, renegotiate the peace treaty (double click on it)
4) If they don't give you what you want (you are starting this war for a reason, right?) then click "forget it", Then agree that the civ is scum and you are at war with no political repercussions.

@ Moonsinger

Nice tactics. But loathsome. Loathsome? LOATHSOME!

The real chalenge is to try to play the game like in real life. Kohabitate, buy resurces, use extortion, trade resurces and if can't do it this way and you're threatened then make war. If they piss you off - a lot - then make war. That's the chalenge.

The game dosen't simulate very well what happens if you act like you - I mean in trading sence. NOBODY would trade with you if you'd be acting like this in real life. And you don't have to act as a state or a nation. Ask your friends what they would say if you acted like this in relations with them.

Edit: double post!

Originally posted by truetom
The real chalenge is to try to play the game like in real life. Kohabitate, buy resurces, use extortion, trade resurces and if can't do it this way and you're threatened then make war. If they piss you off - a lot - then make war. That's the chalenge.

The game dosen't simulate very well what happens if you act like you - I mean in trading sence. NOBODY would trade with you if you'd be acting like this in real life. And you don't have to act as a state or a nation. Ask your friends what they would say if you acted like this in relations with them.

Actually, even in real life, nobody would know that you are bad if you don't get caught!;) Of course, since I have never broken a treaty with anyone, how can they possibly refuse to trade with me? For example, you and I, we have signed a peace treaty for 20 turns. Within 10 turns or so, you break the peace treaty with me and attack me first (of course, you were forced by MPP or whatever, but either ways, you are the one who break the treaty, not me). Now, I retaliate and raze 3 of your major cities...can you possibly blame me for what just happened? If you didn't declare war against me in the first place, I could never have any reason to raze your cities. Therefore, in a way, you brought that upon yourself.;) After the war is over, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to trade with me. I razed your cities because I was upset and deeply hurt by your treachery.:cry: (At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.;))

If you are gonna declare war in a democracy, it is very viable, that you end it quick, or become a commie, one or the other. Because it is very rare you have 5-8 differing luxuries under you control. SOOOO, in conclusion, opress your people with communism, betray every treaty you ever sign, and take off the diplomatic victory!!!!



PS: these are not my real life views, and do not reflect this chat board, or the commercials shown here's views

PSS: I have a signed contract, it's a disclaimer i gotta put on all harsh posts with no humanity in them at all :)

PSSS: I dont really have a contract.

Originally posted by Lawrence
It is possible to get limited war weariness.

The points:
1. Thou shalt not let enemy enter your territory and stay for 1 turn or more.
2. Thou shalt not lose cities.
3. Thou shalt manage to lose as little units as you can.
4. Thou shalt not have enemy nationals in your country.
( Well, I have some doubt for this, don't know if it counts but it SEEMS to count )

In this way you can get 40+ turns with limited war weariness.

If you (democracy) leave units in enemy territory for more than 1 turn that can cause war weariness even if you comply with all the above rules, even if you never lose a single unit or city.

I personally only switch tod democracy for one time, and switch back to republic after. That time is the very important railroad building time.

I agree in part with Moonsinger.

War wariness only seems to effect outer cities with mixed populations - let them suffer - they have high corruption anyway - therefore converting a few to entertainers does not really make much difference.

The total number of science and commerce points seen in the domestic advisor screen is MUCH higher than with for instance Monarchy even with a number of your cities in disarray and with say 30% luxuries. (I am not sure why maybe someone can tell me?)

Production does not seem to suffer as democracy has 150% production. The exception being in the outer-mixed cities effected by war weariness.

I still think some temples, cathedrals and luxury resources would be useful though.

Personally however if im already winning I can't be bothered sorting out unhappy cities each turn it's easier to change to another government type.

Originally posted by Steaton
I agree in part with Moonsinger.

War wariness only seems to effect outer cities with mixed populations - let them suffer - they have high corruption anyway - therefore converting a few to entertainers does not really make much difference.If you stay in a war for a long time, and if you are fighting an offensive war or if you stay with your units in enemy territory for a long time you will get war weariness everywhere. I've had 60%, and even more of my own citizens be unhappy because of the war (the rest because of overcrowding like usual).

The total number of science and commerce points seen in the domestic advisor screen is MUCH higher than with for instance Monarchy even with a number of your cities in disarray and with say 30% luxuries. (I am not sure why maybe someone can tell me?)Because democracy has lower corruption and it get +1 Gold on every tile.

Production does not seem to suffer as democracy has 150% production. The exception being in the outer-mixed cities effected by war weariness.Democracy don't get 150% production, they got 50% faster workers.

Originally posted by Steaton
I agree in part with Moonsinger.

War wariness only seems to effect outer cities with mixed populations - let them suffer - they have high corruption anyway - therefore converting a few to entertainers does not really make much difference.



Incorrect, it makes all the difference, if you allow these cities slip and stay in disorder you will fall into anarchy. So to fight a war in democracy you must avoid anarchy by keeping cities out of disorder. You can always let the governor keep it sorted out if the task is too strenuous. Some people hate that option and if you are so inclined the trick is to turn the governor on to fix the happiness and then turn him back off right away, the best of both worlds method. :)

Originally posted by Cartouche Bee


Incorrect, it makes all the difference, if you allow these cities slip and stay in disorder you will fall into anarchy. So to fight a war in democracy you must avoid anarchy by keeping cities out of disorder. You can always let the governor keep it sorted out if the task is too strenuous. Some people hate that option and if you are so inclined the trick is to turn the governor on to fix the happiness and then turn him back off right away, the best of both worlds method. :)

Or just click on the town center when in the city screen. That will "optimize" the citizens.

Originally posted by Zachriel


Or just click on the town center when in the city screen. That will "optimize" the citizens.

Yes, another nice easy method that I don't use enough. :)

ACE article.. i might jus try an play the game ur way :)

while i dont doubt you win these wars let me ask you this? is it possible the real reason you win the wars is not because of this strategy but because you are economically and militarily so superior before you even start? if this strategy is successful how much more successful could you be fighting your enemies one at a time? all you give up is a few luxuries but the wars are quick and war weariness doesnt build up to obscene levels. furthermore you did not mention the chance of falling into anarchy during long wars under democracy.

im a believer in democracy. but im also a believer in the religious trait. ill go to war in democracy and should my war take longer than expected and i fall into anarchy its not a big loss under this circumstance. but declaring on all nations at once though it might bring about victory does not strike me as the "optimal" strategy.

I rarely capture enemy city unless I'm sure I can completely wipe them out within a few turn. I always refer to raze the enemy cities and rebuild them from scatch. It's safer, faster, and happier that way. Plus I can start rushing improvement right away.


That's fine as long as you want to be known as Moonsinger, the destroyer, or Moonsinger, the murderer of millions, or Moonsinger, the slaughterer of children, the destroyer of dreams.

Use your might for right. Don't take the so-called easy way.

I don't care how old this thread is, I read this and laughed my ass off (LMAO!!!11!1!)...

You may wish to look into this little trick to eliminate that little happiness micromanagement you were trying to pull off. Use the governor to manage citizen moods and he will essentially do exactly what you were, I typically use the governor in my games for moods, food and shield production to make for the ultimate happy war state.