Different War Strategies

[jmills]

Hello All,

I would like to ask a question/begin a discussion.

Do you think it's a better idea to attack early in the game, while the AI is weak, or to wait and build up an economy that will be able to support a strong military without plunging the civ into debt and attack in the Ind/Mod era.

 

[Buccaneer]

Almost without a doubt, attack early in the game or as soon as possible. This would also mean defending against an early DoW and counterattacking if you have opponents anywhere in your vicinity. One does not let close neighbors live or grow. Also, you attack when you have a clear military superiority (qualitative and quantitative), regardless of era. Finally, you also attack when there is a weak opponent and/or opponent hated by all.

 

[mintcandy]

Hello All,
Do you think it's a better idea to attack early in the game, while the AI is weak, or to wait and build up an economy that will be able to support a strong military without plunging the civ into debt and attack in the Ind/Mod era.

Um.

If you are in debt from a war of conquest in Civ V, you're doing something wrong.

There are several negative consequences for initiating a war of conquest in Civ V, but going into debt shouldn't be one of them.

More cities means more income from tiles worked and trade routes, not to mention the gold you plunder from capturing the city itself. Selling off excess captured Workers also generates a small stream of income as well, and if you've completed the Honor tree, any units you kill will grant small sums of gold.

Debt is a reason why I go to war, rather than a reason to avoid it.

 

[jmills]

No, I'm not in debt, I was just wondering what more experienced people would say, I appreciate your opinion.

 

[DaveMcW]

Always attack as soon as you are strong enough to win.

 

[Unhappy Ood]

I agree, an early war you can win is a far better option

 

[smallfish]

Both strategies work well depending circumstances (ie. terrain, politics, civ strengths), but understand that if you choose the latter, you will face a lot of nuking, citadel bombing, large unhappiness, sudden reversals and stealth bombers. You will need to be committed to using everything at your disposal to fight really large and powerful foes.

Also Commerce Protectionism is your best friend

Always attack as soon as you are strong enough to win.

Also, this ^^

 

[ahawk]

In general, there are so many times you should attack that it may be more useful to list times not to attack:

1) When you have a strong reason to believe you have less firepower than the target (it's often okay to be outnumbered on the demographics screen, since the AI isn't good at using it's firepower in one focused area at any given time, but it's tough to say exactly how outnumbered you can be).

2) When the composition of your military makes it difficult to achieve needed objectives (the most simple example: your best target is on a different island or continent and all you have are land units). In these situations, superior numbers and/or firepower is not necessarily going to be enough to win the day.

3) When it's likely other civs will join your target and you lack the force to deal with the possible alliance. Irritate enough other leaders, and it's more likely one will join up against you voluntarily or via the target bribing them against you.

4) When it's likely you will lose most of your promoted units. It's not always good to sacrifice your best-promoted units, depending on what they are, to take a city or even capital. In particular, sacrificing upgraded and promoted unique units can sometimes be a problem, since some unique units will start with promotions that remain as you upgrade the unit. This is even a bigger issue when the promotions of the unique unit are difficult to get on a normal unit, or even impossible to get on a normal unit (Polynesia's UU, the Aztec UU, and a few others come to mind).

These are just my ideas. I play at Emperor pretty well, but not higher, so there's better advice out there, I'm sure. Just some food for thought.

 

[Bandersnatching]

Disclaimer: I play Emperor and will win most every game, but am a peaceful player, and so am not efficient with my playstyle. What I suggest is likely to not be the best option.
Depending on difficulty level, the AI can be weak at any point in the game. You will always possess tactical superiority and, by using the AI's gold against it, should always (at Emperor and below, at least) be able to have enough of an army to turn your tactical advantage into complete victory.
Generally I choose to attack selectively and infrequently, perhaps 3 times per game, but often will get into several wars with one or two neighbors because they don't like me.
I try to avoid very early warfare as I prefer to develop my empire to some extent, whether it be one excellent city or several good ones; warfare on my terms occurs in the later parts of any era in which I feel I have an advantage, or my enemy lacks one.
To me, the key to successful management of conflict is to maintain good relations with most civs, excepting the one(s) that start next to you (and are therefore your target). Also, never declare war on the popular guy unless your production and army can crush the majority of his allies. Basically, don't make enemies until you can handle them.

 

[Donaskme]

Do you think it's a better idea to attack early in the game, while the AI is weak, or to wait and build up an economy

My thoughts come from a person who doesn't do Domination victories because I find warmongering too tedious as a victory condition. That isn't to say that I don't war, because I certainly do!

If the AI plops some city right next to you to nail down a single luxury from a million miles away, you should immediately destroy it and either raze or puppet. This happens really early most times. You can't let those stay or they'll use them to assail you later. You can get a free worker that way. You can also get backstabbed by William or Washington or one of the other weasels doing that, but that's just more exp for your troops and a few extra gold when they plead for peace later.

In one notable encounter, I took down Ramse's capital early, and when he pled for peace he gave me the other of his cities I had on my docket, sparing me the effort of assaulting it. In another, Catherine was idling her capital and one other city, and declared on me with a ragtag army. I quickly wiped her off the face of the planet, and her two cities folded into my empire consolidating an entire resource-rich peninsula at about turn 150.

If you desire a nearby AI capital, you need to take that out early, before they get walls up. I like to provoke them into declaring on me if possible, then destroy their invading army, then take their capital. I'll usually end up conquering four cities maybe two of which are capitals this way, and it's always very early in the game.

Once my economy is rolling, I don't usually bother with anymore wars unless it's defensive. I have taken everything I want or need, and have punished those who encroached into my territory. Then it's usually on to a Science victory at about ~325.

 

[chmilz]

Strike as soon as you see an opportunity. On higher difficulties you simply won't out-spam, out-tech, or out-build your opponents; you'll pretty much always be an underdog. Picking a fight with the right opponent is hardest, since you ideally want one that's next to you, with easier terrain, and is hated by all. Regardless, if there's an opportunity to take a city, you take it. You may not be able to go full conquest until later in the game, but you'll never be able to go full conquest if your opponents have nukes when you bring artillery to the table.

You absolutely, positively need to neuter at least on opponent relatively early and put yourself into a leadership position.

 

[patsfan454]

mobility and range are always the keys to victory. strike without being struck back is ideal.. i cant believe they nerfed my beloved keshiks