Is the opportunity cost of early aggression just not worth it?

Seems like unless there is a clear leader of the game with certain luxuries or possibly natural wonders, early aggression is very hard to pull off/make it worth it. So are civs like Mongolia, Huns, Zulu just kinda meh?

Pretty much yes.

.

I had a lot of fun with both the Zulu and the Assyrians going for an all out early Conquest. In both cases I had to let one player (on a Standard size 8 player map) live long enough to reach the mid Industrial Era to unlock ideologies (for the two achievements Conquest Victory with Autocracy/Order). In principle, I had the game won in the Medieval Era and parked my units outside the last civs borders in the early Renaissance Era.

I see threads like this and I shake my head. War is almost ALWAYS worth it for humans because the AI is really not good at tactical combat. I have yet to take a stab at Deity in BNW but in G&K I considered going early war with an early war race (Monty, Genghis, Atilla) akin to cheating because it really wasn't hard to "win".

The only BNW game I've gone conquest on was an Emperor-Zulu and it was ridiculously easy. I wound up with -30 happiness, but this turned into a boon as the endless rebels showing up in my territory provided a constant flow of cash and culture for my Honor-bound Spearmen and then Impis. It actually felt somewhat exploitative.

You have to be comfortable running at a major deficit (you will make gold through murder), puppeting everything in sight (even cities you want, you can always annex them later) and be good at dealing with massive unhappiness (your puppets love to spam happiness buildings to help you out here). The result is an easy victory at just about any difficulty level (I can't speak for a warmongering Immortal or Deity in BNW yet, but I will come around to it).

It really REALLY is the easiest way to turn into a run-away unstoppable juggernaut. In my Zulu game I had planted my flag in 4 capital cities and had completely wiped out 2 civs by turn 150 and had 3x the score of 2nd place, who was the next "target". Oh yeah and with just about every wonder in the game (conquered Ramesses) at that time my economy was bustling from all the side bonuses.

The catch of it is that it's almost the polar opposite of playing the traditional "builder". I personally am an instinctual builder so I really have to put myself in the seek and destroy mindset to go warmonger but once you figure it out it's just a different skill with different goals (never strop breaking things) and by the time you HAVE to slow down (start losing cities to unrest) it's too late for the AI. Then you can take a hard earned breather and either go hardcore wide-empire builder mode and win however you like OR just upgrade some units and fire up the war machine again.

Nice -30 happiness there feralminded

I tend to go with not quite as early a war as I did in G&K. Waiting until my economy and happiness is on sound footing. This means probably the first war with Trebs instead of Cats.

So, I agree that early aggression is not rewarding, but reasonably early can be.

Cheers.

manu-fan said:

Nice -30 happiness there feralminded

Click to expand...

Eh, as I said it turned out to be massively profitable. Roughly every 2-3 turns I'd have 2 barbs spawn inside my territory where my 3-4 homeguard Impi's could easily ride out and gank them (the best is the double horseman rebel span vs the Impis) for a quick 30-40 gold and culture. Negative Happiness and revenue don't mean anything when you have 50% of the territory on the map, have over 2000 gold you made plundering cities, and outside of leaving a police force behind to kill and profit from the rebels have no reason to slow down. The best part of the conquest was when I moved to take Washington and he built Notre Dame in his capital 2 turns before I DoW'd him and took it down ... it's pretty sweet to be able to take a city and net positive happiness from it.

As I said it's a VERY different game from the standard builder pattern where you try and make the happiest, most scientific, most progressive civilization possible but in the end a win is a win. You have to be very good at the tactical side of the game (for instance I'd never touch catapults or any siege before Artillery with a 10' pole, but I'll take as many Composite Bows as you've got) ... and you have to keep a close eye on what wonders are where or which civs have capable defense forces ... but it's almost always profitable if you have a civ that can exploit it.

The much more difficult and nuanced game, to me, is the opportunistic expansion/war game where you only take enough to enhance your non-dominance win-con. I am admittedly much worse at this but at the highest levels it's really quite hard to win non-diplo victories without at least some early (and some very late) opportunistic expansion/war. To me this is the most skillful kind of play (and where I know I personally am a bit behind the pros).

I'm not sure if Zulu count as 'early' - I certainly think that agression at the time you get Impis is just about perfect.

Playing as Zulu I was able to take two capitals and one city that had been built ina perfect spot for science (right by a mountain and surrounded by jungle). I think hunkered down and rode out a science victory, it worked pretty well.

It does seem like other early aggressive civs would have a lot more issues than Zulu, as Zulu comes online a bit later and you have the lower upkeep cost UA.

It depends on the situation I think. If one plays on a TSL Europe mod and one are the English or Celts, one should try their damnedest to eliminate the opposition and gain all of Great Britain. But, if one is somewhere else say, Eastern Europe as Poland, the potential profits of early war probably won't outweigh building up infrastructure, culture, etc.

Sometimes, though, early war can be very fun and one should throw caution to the wind!

I'm playing a game now where early conquest was an excellent option. I'm playing as England and was going to go to do a NC start with Longbow conquest of a neighbor. I had 2 excellent city locations and a 3rd very solid one. Instead of building 2 cities and getting the NC out fast I went to 3 cities to grab a mountainous terrain before the Inca's spread north through them to me having bonuses in the territory. Because I wouldn't have 3 libraries up in time I teched to comp bows before phil and got archers out fast. I allied a Military CS through barb camps and a little gold. The third library finished just as I got through phil to start building NC. My army of 7-8 comp bows + 2 warriors took out Spain to my west. I had some negative happiness for awhile but I built colosseums and beelined teched to Notre Dame and used GE from liberty. I'm just hitting Renaissance only 1-2 techs behind leader. 4 cities in powerful locations 2 great puppets (may annex at some point). I might miss a longbow war catching up on infrastructure but SotL war should still fit in nicely.

I wouldn't say early wars aren't feasible or worth it. This early war put me in complete control of half a continent primed for control of the mid game with lots of options. You have to know when and where to strike. If the terrain doesn't suit it then yes its probably not worth it. I wouldn't attack the Inca early in this game because of the bad terrain (hills w/ trees no range LoS to cities)

Snuffleupagus said:

I'm not sure if Zulu count as 'early' - I certainly think that agression at the time you get Impis is just about perfect.

Click to expand...

You only need to play Zulu and use those Buffalo-loin wearing spearmen and run over a few cities before you realize the Zulu are an Ancient War civ with two ridiculous era upgrades (Medieval to Impis, and Industrial to Riflemen). Again only one play of the Zulu but I took 2 capitals before Impis using super spears and a couple Bows.Composites, 3 more with Impis (and at that point completely ridiculously upgraded Crossbows with 3 range and double attacks), and then the rest with Rifles and silly powerful Gatlings.

feralminded said:

I see threads like this and I shake my head. War is almost ALWAYS worth it for humans because the AI is really not good at tactical combat. I have yet to take a stab at Deity in BNW but in G&K I considered going early war with an early war race (Monty, Genghis, Atilla) akin to cheating because it really wasn't hard to "win".

The only BNW game I've gone conquest on was an Emperor-Zulu and it was ridiculously easy. I wound up with -30 happiness, but this turned into a boon as the endless rebels showing up in my territory provided a constant flow of cash and culture for my Honor-bound Spearmen and then Impis. It actually felt somewhat exploitative.

You have to be comfortable running at a major deficit (you will make gold through murder), puppeting everything in sight (even cities you want, you can always annex them later) and be good at dealing with massive unhappiness (your puppets love to spam happiness buildings to help you out here). The result is an easy victory at just about any difficulty level (I can't speak for a warmongering Immortal or Deity in BNW yet, but I will come around to it).

It really REALLY is the easiest way to turn into a run-away unstoppable juggernaut. In my Zulu game I had planted my flag in 4 capital cities and had completely wiped out 2 civs by turn 150 and had 3x the score of 2nd place, who was the next "target". Oh yeah and with just about every wonder in the game (conquered Ramesses) at that time my economy was bustling from all the side bonuses.

The catch of it is that it's almost the polar opposite of playing the traditional "builder". I personally am an instinctual builder so I really have to put myself in the seek and destroy mindset to go warmonger but once you figure it out it's just a different skill with different goals (never strop breaking things) and by the time you HAVE to slow down (start losing cities to unrest) it's too late for the AI. Then you can take a hard earned breather and either go hardcore wide-empire builder mode and win however you like OR just upgrade some units and fire up the war machine again.

Click to expand...

Please continue telling us how to play based on your one game sample.

bonafide11 said:

Please continue telling us how to play based on your one game sample.

Click to expand...

Please continue to make helpful comments that contribute to the thread.

Please everyone leave witty one liners. We all enjoy it. Surely. Maybe. I promise you.

feralminded said:

Please continue to make helpful comments that contribute to the thread.

Click to expand...

Do you think a really early war strategy would work also? Such as Montezuma rushing with Jaguar Warriors, Babylon rushing with Bowmen? If so how would you do this? (btw this IS meant to be constructive, as I find your strategy interesting, I just grabbed your last post)

feralminded said:

The only BNW game I've gone conquest on was an Emperor-Zulu and it was ridiculously easy. I wound up with -30 happiness.

Click to expand...

Please tell us how you could possible kill something or produce something with -30 happiness?

That's a -60% combat efficiency. Barbarians would have no trouble killing your Impi with that kind of modifier.

and by the time you HAVE to slow down (start losing cities to unrest) it's too late for the A

Click to expand...

I actually find it very hard to warmonger due to happiness. If I keep cities unhappiness stacks pretty fast. If I raze them I immediately get crazy unhappiness and AI tears apart my units before the city is razed. Also, rebels. Basically I can only war successfully if I somehow managed to stack 20+ happiness which is very difficult to do for me. Not sure what am I doing wrong.

Early war prevents early expansion by AI which leaves room for your own cities

Raze cities to the ground to keep the land majestic and open for only your people to enjoy. Also, capitals generally have the most optimized surroundings for production/growth/gold generation and are very valuable early on.

Tall players may have more incentive to build 3-4 early cities and get those early wonders, focus on techs, maybe even puppet. But going wide and making full use of the Liberty bonus to settler production means you may need to keep your neighbours from building those horribly placed cities near you, so to war you must go!

Mathematics is not hard to get, and a Spear/Catapult army is potent enough in the early game to take on most AI expansions.

Ankh said:

Please tell us how you could possible kill something or produce something with -30 happiness?

That's a -60% combat efficiency. Barbarians would have no trouble killing your Impi with that kind of modifier.

Click to expand...

Exactly. -30 happiness has way too significant of repercussions for it to be a viable strategy in most games. Maybe the poster had a lucky game where things bounced his way, or maybe he was playing on a tiny map with only a few other civs, but you can't continue to grow, produce, research, make gold, or fight wars with -30 happiness, especially in the early game. Even if you conquer your immediate neighbors, a distant AI will easily surpass you in research, and along with that, eventually military. It's simply not a sustainable strategy in 99% of games to think you can keep pace with the AI when you have extreme unhappiness.

I've always been a huge fan of early warmongering, but in BNW, the consequences of early aggression may outweigh the benefits. If you do decide to pursue early warmongering, you need to be careful not to be overly aggressive with it or it will hinder you in the long run. It's probably safer and more beneficial to play a peaceful early game though.

ParadigmPlague said:

So are civs like Mongolia, Huns, Zulu just kinda meh?

Click to expand...

Keshiks replace knights and are still useful up to Industrial. Zulu I don't have much experience with, but their pike replacement seems like it should hold out for quite a while as well.

The Civs you should be questioning are Civs like Rome, Byzantium, and the other classical era Civs.