Is the choice to war ...

[dorkynorky]

or not, more personality dependent or map dependent? Or alternately, what triggers do you use to decide when to go to war?

When I started playing Civ 4 at Prince level, I loved to rush. I could war in every age if I chose to and win handily. As I made my way to Emperor level I figured out that rexing had its advantages (compared to rushing) depending on the map and that you couldn't always steamroll through the game. At that point I read Snaaty's guide and got into the rut where I might or might not rush and then not do much offensively until cannons/rifles. Based on some threads a few months back I played a few games where I got early HA's and had some fun with them, but their use didn't really get incorporated into a strategy of how to assess the map and opponents to determine whether they would be useful. Now that I am playing (and winning) at Immortal, I actually find that I'm doing more warring with cats/swords and maces/trebs. It could be that is because I don't get as much land to start with or because I've had a higher number of games where I've gotten GK or Shaka as a neighbor.

I'm wanting to refine my overall strategy and am interested in what factors make people choose to war at one point over another. In specific, I guess that these could include map issues (territory/resources), opponents issues (friendly or not) and commerce opportunities (opening up opportunities to actually reach early military techs in time to take advantage of them).

 

[Isikien]

or not, more personality dependent or map dependent? Or alternately, what triggers do you use to decide when to go to war?

I'd give you more solid advice but you're way ahead of me in difficulty

 

[huh?]

Well, the game is designed around the aspect of war. While non-war aspects of the game have grown, I would say that war is still a primary design feature. With that in mind, I plan to go to war in every game even though I am not a war monger type player.

For me, the #1 reason for going to war is boredom. Improving tiles and building structures is only fun for so long. War adds another dynamic to the game to break up the building periods.

#2 is expansion. I have declared war because the AI put a city right where my settler was headed. I declare war, the AI city is auto-razed (pop1), and I put my city there. I won't even progress further into the AI territory and will declare peace as soon as possible.

#3 is for diplomatic reasons. I play with permanent alliances on. I typically target a civ or two in which I will try to become an ally later in the game. I will join every war that they ask me to. I will often join a war that they are in without being prompted.

#4 is for satisfying a victory condition. I am a fan of mid to late game wars. That is when I start my push for the conquest or domination victories.

 

[Grey Fox]

I always plan to be able to go to war. If I feel I don't need to I plan to be able to defend IF I get attacked. This includes diplomatic efforts.

Basically, I attack if I need to win. Or if I need to make it easier to win.
This includes both rushing and late game wars to end an AI's cultural attempt.

Sometimes I war because I feel like it. But usually that is because I feel it would make me win the game.

Sometimes I plan to war a lot, from the beginning of the game. But that is generally if I am going to play a leader with warlike traits and want to make the most out of them. And/or I want to win by conquest/domination. But I haven't played many games like that lately.