Do you ever make war before Medieval age?

[Humdinger]

I play standard BNW (no mods, no major variations in game setup) either on Emperor with standard size maps or King with Huge maps.

When I see a nearby Civ begin to run away in the tech race or else they annoy me by spamming cities nearby, I start to think about war.

Almost every time I've taken the plunge I've regretted it. Ancient and Classical cities with walls and/or defending troops take a long time to grind through and force me to produce additional units rather than useful buildings. When I do manage to take out my opponent I am faced with unpalatable choices - either puppet the cities and watch my happiness and or economy hit the skids or raze the cities and face the possibility of perma-war against the rest of the world.

Its very frustrating. On the other hand, once I get to somewhere around crossbows/musketeers/cannon I can then pretty much go to perma-war, assuming I haven't already lost the game.

So, am I missing something or is this just the logical progression of the "enhancements" that "encourage" late game play? And if so, should I just avoid playing civs that don't have bonuses after the early part of the game?

 

[vivalamexico]

Civs like Assyria or the Huns are just screaming out for early game conquest, and with them it can be very rewarding.
Other than that, in my experience an Xbow rush is more effective than a CB rush, but some people can make the latter work
BUT if you are really hemmed in by the AI's forward settling (which you should't be on king or emp), early war is sometimes a must. Just try to befriend people first (or not meet anyone). The former way will give you trading partners to keep up your economy and happiness during war, and the latter will make future relations better

 

[Cerilis]

I remember in one of my earlier emperor games with Babylon I was sharing a continent with Alex.
You can probably guess how that concluded: Alex builds his second city directly next to my capital, where I wanted to build my own second city. I took it with composite bows and a spearman tank before he could fortify it with more troops and then repelled his warrior charge coming from Athens.
Didn't hinder me a lot, but to be fair, I was already prepared for early war because, well..Alex.

 

[Sherlock]

Very early game if I find someone's Settler I take them. That loss usually hobbles them sufficiently that they never really recover. They usually settle for peace shortly after.

I call this the 'you get one war we won't hold against you' strategy.

 

[Zaimejs]

This is one major issue I've been having as of late with Civ V. War=Death of civilization. If I get into an early war, I may win a city or two... but by the time the chips have fallen, I'm six techs behind the leaders, every wonder is gone, and I'm playing catch up for the rest of the game on happiness and gold.

It takes centuries to recover at all. It is bothersome. I understand that war can be a drain, but there should be some initial rubber band after winning. Look at what happens to civs after real wars. Even those who lost WWII recovered quickly.

 

[joncnunn]

I've sometimes DOWed civs in the Ancient era.
Ones that dare send an escorted settler close to my territory.
Thanks for the free worker. (Other than that I ignore the war I just started and am willing to declare peace as soon as its allowed; denying the AI a city near me was the only objective of the war)

 

[danaphanous]

Tried both, but found that if I actually go for conquest and take a few cities in ancient/classical it hobbles me. Puppets aren't good for the beginning with the exception of maybe a super-sweet capitol. I find the most effective early wars to be nerfing wars. Just hurt them some but don't actually take cities.

Only civ I've done this successfully with was Shaka. Wiped out a civ with 3 cities by early classical. Started the war that Wiped out the rest upon opening impi in early medieval. I don't find the tech hard to catch up on but happiness and becoming and AI target who no one trades with is the bigger problem.

 

[Vitruvius]

War doesn't have to be conquest. I sometimes get into settling disputes and wars at classical age

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[civ54lyfe]

if you get forwarded in Ancient (not so viable with just Archers) or early-mid Classical then it's almost a must. but that doesn't mean your unit literally have to be sitting there on the enemy city for a few centuries. if i keep a harass unit near the city and yet keep scouting the land and/or harassing the enemy capitol while performing your usual build order, i more often than not get lucky enough to upgrade to CBs and stop AI reinforcement of the city. almost always there will be a worker captured to improve my own cap, as well as highly promoted units. even when it doesn't work out, at least you could say it wasn't a boring and long game

 

[magritte]

This is one major issue I've been having as of late with Civ V. War=Death of civilization. If I get into an early war, I may win a city or two... but by the time the chips have fallen, I'm six techs behind the leaders, every wonder is gone, and I'm playing catch up for the rest of the game on happiness and gold.

It takes centuries to recover at all. It is bothersome. I understand that war can be a drain, but there should be some initial rubber band after winning. Look at what happens to civs after real wars. Even those who lost WWII recovered quickly.

I think the problem is that cities are too strong and heal too quickly. You need to build a lot of units to go on the offensive but very few are necessary to defend. If the A.I. attacks you early in the game, trying to take its cities is probably not worth it. Later in the game, you can rebuild any lost units quickly and there aren't the severe happiness penalties for continuous warfare that existed in earlier Civ games. So warfare goes from being overly costly to too cheap as the game progresses.

 

[qemist]

I've sometimes DOWed civs in the Ancient era.
Ones that dare send an escorted settler close to my territory.
Thanks for the free worker. (Other than that I ignore the war I just started and am willing to declare peace as soon as its allowed; denying the AI a city near me was the only objective of the war)

Very early war like this is a no-brainer. The AI seems programmed to forgive and forget early on. Usually after you steal a worker/settler they will go for peace straight up after a few turns. An alternative if you find yourself in a deathmatch situation (e.g. isolated start with Alex or Shaka etc as your "cotmate") is to try to "sit" on them. Post your units around their capital and relentlessly pick off workers, attack settlers etc.

 

[Humdinger]

Thank you for all the responses.

It seems the consensus is "Go to war only when you can steal some free workers" or to inhibit a neighbor's growth. Taking cities is pretty much off the menu.

 

[LoneRebel]

Yeah, even though I can't stand the people who whine about it all the time, even I will agree that warmonger penalties seem a bit too large in the early game in BNW.

It's not like the ancient and classical eras were some kind of paradise of peace and prosperity. Constant wars between empires were pretty much the rule. In the absence of modern transport and communications, nations were pretty isolated from each other and modern-day systems of international law and sovereignty hadn't yet been developed, so it wasn't as if all the nations of the world would begin banding together and denouncing a warmonger. Did everyone else denounce Rome for all the wars they fought to expand their empire in all directions? It's what Sagax called the "not-enough-information" environment of pre-industrial times. Oh, I'm sure Han Dynasty China knew, even if only through third-party traders and not through direct contact, that there was a powerful empire far to the west, and they probably knew that that empire was expanding through conquest, but they certainly didn't start denouncing Rome for it. And vice-versa.

From a gameplay perspective, it bothers me for the civs with early game UUs. How are we supposed to use these effectively with how large the early-game warmongering penalties are?

 

[Nashoa]

Yeah, even though I can't stand the people who whine about it all the time, even I will agree that warmonger penalties seem a bit too large in the early game in BNW.

From a gameplay perspective, it bothers me for the civs with early game UUs. How are we supposed to use these effectively with how large the early-game warmongering penalties are?

I agree.

I like the idea of having AI not remember/care until philosophy(Just wars vs. unjust, good vs. evil)? or later. I'd say writing but its sooo early and humanity did not really start recording history, in the modern sense, for awhile anyhow. Early on its just competing propaganda from both sides. We don't even know which side actually won battles because they both claim too.

Making distance matter would be a good idea as well, like in your Rome example.