Confounded with Issues from Early War-Mongering

I'm probably just doing it wrong.

I began my game with Rome on King, and shared a small sub-continent with Byzantium. My goal was to take the continent, and then pursue the liberty tree to expand. I followed the Honor tree, and raised a power army of 5 Archers (later upgraded to composites), 2 spearmen, and a warrior, accompanied by a GG. I was able completely take over Byzantium, keeping 2 of their cities, and razing a useless one. I had built two caravans and traded with city-states for some extra gold. I had plenty of luxs, thanks to me stealing a worker early on. However, because of my army, I was experiencing a lot of financial trouble. My economy was so bad, it had impacted my already tenuous scientific research. I had to deviate from my plan to pursue liberty, and picked commerce for some extra cash. I built 3 other cities in an effort to expand my economy. I was able to construct Market places, and prioritized my cities to focus money, while putting some merchant specialists to work. By the time I got my economy back in order, I had over a 400 point deficit for first place. On top of that, I was hopelessly behind in technology. Granted, I didn't really invest in science as much as I should have, but I have no clue on how to juggle that with everything else I was doing. Should I just avoid rushing an army for early elbow room to expand?

Emperor Giulio said:

I'm probably just doing it wrong.

I began my game with Rome on King, and shared a small sub-continent with Byzantium. My goal was to take the continent, and then pursue the liberty tree to expand. I followed the Honor tree, and raised a power army of 5 Archers (later upgraded to composites), 2 spearmen, and a warrior, accompanied by a GG. I was able completely take over Byzantium, keeping 2 of their cities, and razing a useless one. I had built two caravans and traded with city-states for some extra gold. I had plenty of luxs, thanks to me stealing a worker early on. However, because of my army, I was experiencing a lot of financial trouble. My economy was so bad, it had impacted my already tenuous scientific research. I had to deviate from my plan to pursue liberty, and picked commerce for some extra cash. I built 3 other cities in an effort to expand my economy. I was able to construct Market places, and prioritized my cities to focus money, while putting some merchant specialists to work. By the time I got my economy back in order, I had over a 400 point deficit for first place. On top of that, I was hopelessly behind in technology. Granted, I didn't really invest in science as much as I should have, but I have no clue on how to juggle that with everything else I was doing. Should I just avoid rushing an army for early elbow room to expand?

Click to expand...

I had the exact same problem in my last game (King). I think going too deep in honor (or in my case, piety) can be a mistake. The early trees to develop are either liberty or monarchy, because they help your economy more. With liberty's finisher, settling an academy is best, I think.

I also noticed that Tradition's 4 city opener is no longer a viable strategy unless you make friends with the people you want to trade with, since you need to if you want to access their gold.

Emperor Giulio said:

I'm probably just doing it wrong.

I began my game with Rome on King, and shared a small sub-continent with Byzantium. My goal was to take the continent, and then pursue the liberty tree to expand. I followed the Honor tree, and raised a power army of 5 Archers (later upgraded to composites), 2 spearmen, and a warrior, accompanied by a GG. I was able completely take over Byzantium, keeping 2 of their cities, and razing a useless one. I had built two caravans and traded with city-states for some extra gold. I had plenty of luxs, thanks to me stealing a worker early on. However, because of my army, I was experiencing a lot of financial trouble. My economy was so bad, it had impacted my already tenuous scientific research. I had to deviate from my plan to pursue liberty, and picked commerce for some extra cash. I built 3 other cities in an effort to expand my economy. I was able to construct Market places, and prioritized my cities to focus money, while putting some merchant specialists to work. By the time I got my economy back in order, I had over a 400 point deficit for first place. On top of that, I was hopelessly behind in technology. Granted, I didn't really invest in science as much as I should have, but I have no clue on how to juggle that with everything else I was doing. Should I just avoid rushing an army for early elbow room to expand?

Click to expand...

Your problem was your start didn't you say you played as rome. Rome = Rush catapult and attack by turn 50-60 with maybe 1 or 2 catapults and 1-2 other random units. That should equal 4 - 5 units total. This also almost sounds overkill to me as I read it lol. Why on earth you built 5 archers for any reason other then def boggles my mind. You had 9 total units with gg that is a very, very large army for what I call early game war which is turn 50. Score also is misleading; tech is not getting a national college is always important as well as universities. I find that Rome's bonus in the past helps out greatly to ensure you get your national college asap. The gold problems could have been resolved either by trading for GPT or from trade routes. Also after I have the tech for national college I'm always getting markets next as they are on the way to civil service. This game is and always will be about tech; you must be able to atleast compete with the top end tech civs to be able to build wonders. If I'm going early game warfare I'm only going to have two cities and by your results I would have my must have goal of having atleast 4-5 cities by turn 100. If I'm building tall I probably won't settle many cities after this if I'm expanding I hope to have 8-10 cities by 200. I think I read a post earlier about how you don't have to rush GL and NC early game and this is true, but you can't ignore it also. If you don't have a national college by turn 100 or shortly after your doing something wrong IMO. I play the game in three stages; first is the early game which is 0 - 100. Then you have mid game 100-200. Then late game 200-300. The game should be ending by turn 350-400. This doesn't mean you win by this exact turn but you should be well on your way to victory. This is all also thrown out the window when I play the fun one city challenge; I will not play a one city challenge without the GL though; as I need national college like NOW lol. Tech is so important early and mid game as it scales off late game but if your playing catchup the entire game it's not fun. I find BNW is putting an even greater empahsis on wonders that improve tiles; like museum of mal, and colossus, and just the junge tech from universities.

Emperor Giulio said:

I also noticed that Tradition's 4 city opener is no longer a viable strategy unless you make friends with the people you want to trade with, since you need to if you want to access their gold.

Click to expand...

I disagree this is totally a viable strategy; tradition has always been the best opener since they nerfed liberty. There is no value in one great person; or one free settler. I will only consider taking liberty if I'm on a map larger than standard. I only say this because your only going to have 5-6 cities when playing on standard before the map starts filling out or you go to war. If I'm playing on a large map I can have 8-10 cities making liberty worth taking. The best and biggest bonus from tradition are still intact; they are free monuments and the wonder building bonus. There is nothing more important than infrastructure; and free buildings are awesome. The free adequct is also awesome.

I just finished a game as Babylon on King, and I've noticed the AI produces far less Units in BNW on this difficulty. I'll agree that I should produce less units, but I think the focus on archers to composites is a better means of waging war. At least I think they are for the early war; siege weapons are very good once other civs start making more defensive buildings. Once I upgraded the crossbowmen to gantlng-guns, I started mowing down enemy with a slowly advancing wall of units (I think range units they are a good investment).

Changes in tile yield take a little getting-used-to.

I always set my tile yields manually anyway, so my perspective might be skewed from someone who sets governor options. There's no set "rule of thumb" but there are some things to consider.

Growing your population too quickly is bound to cost you. Having to pay building maintenance on happiness nets the effect, early on, of "paying to have people just to have people" compounded with the already-existing issue "growing population just to keep them happy".

So you need to learn to prioritize a little better. It's sad when you have to sacrifice using a delicious 4-food tile awhile for a 1 food 1 production 2 gold, as it seems counter intuitive. Most people are stuck in the mindset "growth = king", and maybe in a way that's true eventually, but "on the way there" you need to nurture and maintain your needs.

"Well I already know that," you say...

...well, hold on a sec. Another bad choice you made was to "add more cities" early. With Rome in particular with +25% building bonus, now you're being nickle and dimed to death for every monument, shrine, library, colosseum, etc, you're building "quickly". You've complicated the problem of "growing population just to pay to keep them happy". Further, with multiple city happiness cost, you're "growing population just to pay to keep them happy some more" AND you just effectively stomped your potential for golden ages.

So, now that you're a little more experienced with what's going on, anticipate a little better next time. Keep your capitol large and strong early, but limit the population size and costs in "satellite cities" until you can meet the costs.

On a final note, keeping Byz alive would potentially have netted you more income. Selling duplicate luxuries at 6gpt and higher yield from caravans to AI opponent cities would certainly have solved all your problems. Sometimes you just want to warmonger, though, and sometimes I do, too, and you need to anticipate the hidden cost in "lost trade".

Right now, I'm playing a King game with Rome on a Terra map, everything standard. I have chosen to go with Tradition this time, and things are looking a lot better. But I've scraped my hopes of Early warmongering, perhaps it's wiser to develop one's core cities first. I plan on forging a strong relationship with Venice, and Egypt (for now) as I could benefit from them to help fund my wars. I need to take out Japan to the north of me, before they get any bold ideas. Ultimately, I plan on a domination victory.

On a map like this, were everyone knows each other, the earliest my wars can start are after I've establish a good relationship with trading partners, or else I'll become hated and alienated into poverty from the world.

I'm guessing the only way to implement an early rush, as a wise strategy, is on a small duel map, against one other civ.

For other maps, perhaps now, the early military action in the game is primarily against the barbarians. Nevertheless, the incentive to purse honor, and be a (early-ish) war-monger is still there, because actively killing barbs, will train your units for future wars, give you XP, and extra gold. This will help establish good relationships with CS that target barbs, as you will need them, after the world gets angry at your aggressiveness.

Maybe Honor and Patronage is a good combo for a war-monger?

A war is fueled by production and science, you need a healthy empire to conduct one successfully.

I tried tradition and liberty both, and so far i don't see big changes. Going wide is harder now, so in most situations tradition looks better to me, but both have their merits. Getting new cities on the ground earlier gives quite some advantage.

Keeping the economy going relies on trade routes now, without the river commerce you have a lot less income. If you kill off your neighbours you have only the CS to trade with, for a lot less income.

raze useless city until pop 1, then give to another civ, then have trade with them

sliverius said:

raze useless city until pop 1, then give to another civ, then have trade with them

Click to expand...

I'd call that exploiting

sliverius said:

raze useless city until pop 1, then give to another civ, then have trade with them

Click to expand...

Interesting, I'll try that. I like using these kinds of tactics, like stealing a CS worker early on, instead of producing one.

digrosz said:

I'd call that exploiting

Click to expand...

I called it slavery

in history, there are some story, that the captured city is handed to lesser lord, and the population are driven away

Emperor Giulio said:

Interesting, I'll try that. I like using these kinds of tactics, like stealing a CS worker early on, instead of producing one.

Click to expand...

also consider this tactic also, pump your city with food trading, then make as many as you can trading post.
I got so many gold and other civ also trade to destined city.

watch always the city that other civ want to trade with you, then make other trade related building to pump the profit

sliverius said:

I called it slavery

in history, there are some story, that the captured city is handed to lesser lord, and the population are driven away



also consider this tactic also, pump your city with food trading, then make as many as you can trading post.
I got so many gold and other civ also trade to destined city.

watch always the city that other civ want to trade with you, then make other trade related building to pump the profit

Click to expand...

Also, I wonder if the AI purposefully relinquishes a city to the player after a war, in an effort to bomb them with unhappiness. Morocco tried to hand over a level 23 city to me, while my happiness was at -9. If I accepted, it would have caused a lot of social unrest, and rebellions. I tried to ask for gold or luxs instead, but they weren't going for it.