How do I overcome my reluctance to start a war?

orasis said:

Beer.

Works for me... I play better if I'm tipsy rather than sober lol.

Click to expand...

This

Actually, just realize that everyone will backstab you eventually and you might as well get it over with.

Tony.Uk said:

I have this shocking habit of not being aggressive enough! Only ever attack if a civ has attacked me previously, or I see a clear opportunity. In any case I rarely do so until I have dynamite.

This has always been my problems since I started playing CIV IV and V many years ago, and I cannot break this habit. I guess I am not strictly a warmongerer, but just building by itself is getting pretty boring. Also AI is quite poor in battle, and I still cannot DOW.

The problem is I can win on King but now trying Emperor and I think this incapability on my part, is holding me back. There is always one civ that runs away with wonders and science, even if next door to me I should be building up my army ready for attack
even if we are friends. Trouble is I never have a big enough army to do and on Emperor level money is tight even when trading for this.

Maybe I should stick at King. How would you suggest I solve this mental block? When
I am in a war I am Ok, it is starting one that gives me a problem.

Click to expand...

I am naturally not an aggressive player (well, not unless they attack me first, then the gloves are off!).

But I like this way, i certainly don`t see it as a problem needing curing. I like being peaceful, seeing an enemy run away then simply redoubling my efforts to catch up or taking measures to prevent him getting too strong. Eventually they make the mistake of attacking me by which I`m usually ready and will smack them back to the dark ages.

Usually.

Tony.Uk said:

I have this shocking habit of not being aggressive enough! Only ever attack if a civ has attacked me previously, or I see a clear opportunity................

The problem is I can win on King but now trying Emperor and I think this incapability on my part, is holding me back. There is always one civ that runs

Click to expand...

I had the exact same problem and found that specially with higher levels, I have to take out at least one neighbor to stand any chance of winning. Role play in to character. The world in BC was very different then now.

Save early save often

holywar said:

I am in the same boat.

Click to expand...

You are not: you are in a sea beggar, I am in a ship of the line

The AI gives you so many reasons for war... They settle close to your borders, spam prophets and convert your cities, capture your CS allies, build the same Wonders etc.
Just chose a resaon and go for it
In my current game im trying to get the Autocracy-Cultural Victory achievment ... I was very peacful the whole game but the Ottomans (with Order) have buildt a huge empire on the other continent. The other 3 remaining civs chose Autocracy. I am influental with all except the Ottomans (influence 47%). They have already buildt their 3rd Spaceship Part, have an enormous army, are Leaders in science and control the majority of CS (but nothing close to a DV) ... The Only way to win this game is war.

Shaleghi said:

I had the exact same problem and found that specially with higher levels, I have to take out at least one neighbor to stand any chance of winning. Role play in to character. The world in BC was very different then now.

Click to expand...

I am a bit like this as well. Will have to force myself more. Just one thing - is there a diplomatic penalty for DOW a friend?

yes. You are known as a backstabber.
And usually the AIs respond to it by returning the favor to a backstabber.Don t turn your back on your friend from now on !

Then I suppose you have to wait for DOF to expire? How long do they last, or can you revoke DOF?

Tony.Uk, I agree with TheGrandWazoo that war isn't necessary but it can certainly make things easier. IMO lack of war probably holds you back from success on Emperor.

I see war as a temporary drag on progress towards one's VC of choice (unless it's domination, of course). But once you conquer a city or three and those puppets and their luxes and resources start contributing to your civilization, then you'll be that much more ahead. Think of it as an investment for your future. Plus, as you observe, you may be kneecapping a potential runaway in the process.

One needs an army anyway, so why not keep 'em busy? War gives you an experienced army. There's comfort heading into the endgame knowing that anyone who attacks me will face a highly promoted force. (Consider the poor AI attacking a city when there's a battleship with logistics parked inside of it.)

DOWing a friend is a good way to get everyone to hate you, so make some enemies. In my games (I'm still on G&K, immortal), I'm usually on the receiving end of a DOW. When I first played the game, I wondered what I was doing wrong and how to avoid that until I read advice here to regard a DOW as a gift. That was excellent advice -- you get carte blanche to thrash the other civ.

There are threads on here about how to goad civs into DOWing you. In my experience, simply existing is usually enough. Once a civ has DOWed me, I consider them a fair target for the rest of the game.

Ninakoru said:

Huh, you are a bit too late on this, on Vanilla you could go swordmen rush, in g&K you could go crossbow rush. The earlier you can go war now in order to get some advantage is medieval, but waiting until artillery isn't a bad idea either. Both the new limits on gold/happiness and the absurd warmoner penalties makes warmongering more of a hassle than not.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this - while massive conquest is indeed best kept to medieval or later, you can have some very advantageous wars early on. Declaring pretty much as soon as you meet an AI, grabbing a worker/settler or two sets them back big time and gives you a nice kick up (and helping you get to the best city sites without them being taken), while giving very small warmonger penalties even with those who've met you/your victim. Don't peace out unless you abosultely need to and you can use their cities/units as training for your CBs and with the damage you've caused them, its unlikely they'll be a threat.

Then you've got options: hurt them enough and they'll be happy to peace out by giving you a city or two (with no major warmonger penalties), or if you're after their capital conquer it (maybe have to wait for x-bows, but 3-4 range CBs can do the trick in complete safety) - as long as you don't wipe them out, the diplo hit shouldn't be too bad.

Doing this can be well worth it even in a "peaceful" game, giving you an extra city or two, more early workers, highly promoted units (useful for defence if someone comes after you later) and setting back an AI massively.

@OP:

Try clicking the "Declare War" button.

PhroX said:

I disagree with this - while massive conquest is indeed best kept to medieval or later, you can have some very advantageous wars early on. Declaring pretty much as soon as you meet an AI, grabbing a worker/settler or two sets them back big time and gives you a nice kick up (and helping you get to the best city sites without them being taken), while giving very small warmonger penalties even with those who've met you/your victim. Don't peace out unless you abosultely need to and you can use their cities/units as training for your CBs and with the damage you've caused them, its unlikely they'll be a threat.

Then you've got options: hurt them enough and they'll be happy to peace out by giving you a city or two (with no major warmonger penalties), or if you're after their capital conquer it (maybe have to wait for x-bows, but 3-4 range CBs can do the trick in complete safety) - as long as you don't wipe them out, the diplo hit shouldn't be too bad.

Doing this can be well worth it even in a "peaceful" game, giving you an extra city or two, more early workers, highly promoted units (useful for defence if someone comes after you later) and setting back an AI massively.

Click to expand...

That sounds exactly like how Greece should be played

The other benefit to "training" on a weakened AI is a good way to set yourself up with a few generals to steal territory with too. Find a good NW only to have it claimed by a CS? Steal it with a general. It only makes the CS mad but they get over it soon enough.

You don't always need to take cities in early wars. Pillaging, stealing workers etc. are great ways to slow the AI's progress and benefit yourself.

Going to war or not is always situational....in my current game I could see quite early that I would have a problem if I didn't deal with one of the nearby AI....My capital is very productive and I was able to get a very productive second city going quite quickly....4 Salt; Gold; Cotton plus hills, river, a nice mountain to block easy access from the AI to the west..... [There are five AI and myself cosily sharing the continent...]

But William dropped a city between my two cities.... which, of course, can only be a "casus belli". I built up 5 composite bowmen, then with them, a warrior, and a spearman decided to launch my attack....first on the interloper city....it fell in a few turns...I lost no units..... I then went after Amsterdam...I had built an extra CB for back-up, I couldn't really position it very well....after four or five turns and the loss of two of the CBs, I had Amsterdam and William was left with one small out-of-the-way city.

The outcome was worth it....Amsterdam is in a nice location..., though the consequences were predictable. Within a short time the two strongest AI DOW'd...[Oh and so did pathetic "little" William...vindictive **** ]. But I was expecting it.....There was a long struggle, though none of my cities were really in very much danger....a few significant hit points were taken by my "salt" city....but I got that under control fairly quickly.

Now this is a part of the game I still don't understand......I can only assume that if the AI army falls below some threshold, they suddenly panic and want peace..... Anyway almost at the same time both AI asked for peace each throwing in a significant city. I don't really know why they gave up the cities. I had lots of happiness and the cities had fresh luxuries, so absorbing them was not much of a problem.

Does anyone know exactly what the mechanic is or the algorithm or whatever, by which the AI decides it must offer up a city to get a peace settlement??? In this instance, I guess the game works well enough from the AI's point-of-view. If they really wanted peace, they were right in "surmising" I would not accept a "white peace"....I didn't have to; the AI were making no headway at all.....

I've had the same issue as OP, but something that has worked for me when starting a new game:
1. Go to advanced options
2. Disable all victory conditions except Domination
3. ...
4. Profit

Koiranputki said:

Now this is a part of the game I still don't understand......I can only assume that if the AI army falls below some threshold, they suddenly panic and want peace.....

Click to expand...

It has to do with the size and strength of your army. Their location and if the other civ can see them. If they feel you are a big threat they will throw in a city and some other stuff....

I dont know the exact mechanics or numbers.

This time I tried a more aggressive game as China, but it did not do me any good on Emperor.
By mid game I took out 2 civs, but the leader Bismarck had double my army size, huge sum of gold,most of the City states, and double my number of cities. there was no way I would beat him on Science but I tried for Cultural. At the end there were just 4 civs left, I was second, and Bismarck won a science victory. I had BPT 1553, CPT 549, TPT 644, Army 549000 but still 300,000
behind Bismarck. Obviously DOW on Bismarck would not be a good idea, nor the others.

Therefore it was impossible to win this game despite being more aggressive, so I must be doing something else wrong, maybe in Diplomacy. Sigh. I also think Germany is overpowered.

Tony.Uk said:

Obviously DOW on Bismarck would not be a good idea, nor the others.

Click to expand...

Why? Just becasue he has more troops? The AI doesn't have a clue how to properly use their armies and you can easily overcome a numerical disadvanatge of 2:1, particularly if you're starting the war and thus have better control over when and where you're fighting.

Therefore it was impossible to win this game despite being more aggressive, so I must be doing something else wrong, maybe in Diplomacy. Sigh. I also think Germany is overpowered.

Click to expand...

Germany? They're decent (at least post-patch), but there much more powerful civs out ther.

Tony.Uk said:

Army 549000 but still 300,000 behind Bismarck. Obviously DOW on Bismarck would not be a good idea, nor the others.

Click to expand...

Nope, that's a common error for many players below Immortal. Total army strength means very little. A human player can easily dominate an AI this 3x more sticky points. You should have made a visit at Bismark's.