Balacing Warfare

[Raloth]

I've come to realize that I'm not nearly aggressive enough to get by on the higher difficulty levels. I can get by just fine, but it's never enough to push me over the edge to win. (Most of the time I get bored of being behind at 1200 AD and quit.)

On my last game I tried taking a more aggressive route. I made sure to actually research archery this time instead of trading for it after heading straight for alphabet lol: I like trading techs ). After building a fairly sizable army of swordsman and war charriots (I played the Egyptians), I managed to take two Incan cities. At this point HC landed a few boatfulls of troops and took my own cities. Obviously I had neglected defense, but it helps illustrate why I'm so bad at warfare.

How do I keep up a good army without sacrificing my infrastructure? Typically I am a very research oriented player. I always feel like I have to build that one last building (typically a library marketplace) before building military units so that I can stay up in tech. By that time I have some new tech for some other building I just have to build. When I do get a successful military campaign going, how do I know when to actually stop? I'm almost always tempted to just finish the job, but this spreads me too thin and the other civs almost always pass whatever lead I just gained while I rebuild. Some advice would be much appreciated!

 

[Corbeau]

I think that, for the most part, it's a matter of looking at how much building those new and shiny buildings will actually help compared to the time spent building them. The key is to build only the buildings that will do you the most good, while building units instead of low-gain buildings.

 

[Gnarfflinger]

I think that the point is tempering your war campaigns and building your infrastructure. I beelined Ironworking when I realized that I didn't have copper. Then I beelined Alphabet. I traded for the worker techs I was behind. I also financed my science by tormenting the Russians (and a Jaguar rush because I couldn't connect to Iron because I didn't have the Wheel). I ended up eliminating Catherine without keeping any cities and pillaging all resources. From what I hear that may not have been a bad thing...

If I don't get my infrastructure up to snuff, I may just go after either Isabella or Hatshepsut...

 

[Sisiutil]

No offense, but it sounds like you went about being aggressive in a very inefficient way.

You can safely delay Archery, Iron Working, and Horseback Riding (not that you needed it for War Chariots, but I'm generalizing). The key tech for early warmongering is Bronze Working. Bee-line to it, find a source of copper, plunk a city down next to it, mine it, and start building Axemen like there's no tomorrow. When you have 4-6 Axemen, go kick some AI tail. Keep building Axemen until your enemy is vanquished and driven before you and the lamentations of their women fill the air.

Axemen also make awesome city defenders, better than Archers in many ways; they can't get the City Garrison promotion, but with their +50% versus melee, they can venture out and handily deal with almost any type of pillager, especially barbarian Warriors and Archers. Give them a Combat I and a Shock promotion (+25% versus Melee) and they can go up pretty well against their own kind, too. Combine them with Spearmen to handle any mounted units and your early city defense is complete. Also, your early Warriors upgrade to Axemen, if you're looking for something to do with your war booty.

Try playing as a civ with the Aggressive trait next time. Axemen with a Combat I and City Raider I promotion (which come easily with Aggressive + cheap Barracks) are almost equivalent to Swordsmen, in fact, better if they're up against Melee units. Axemen have the additional advantage that BW is a much easier tech to obtain early on, and copper is easier to claim when there are fewer cities. (BTW, has anyone else noticed how none of the Aggressive civs start with Mining to get an early jump on BW? It would just make them too powerful out of the gate.)

As for infrastructure, you have to get used to the idea that an early war will set you back for awhile. The cities you capture come with maintenance costs; keep the best, raze the rest. Go after Code of Laws and build courthouses, go after Currency and build Markets, and of course, cottages cottages cottages, and you'll soon find yourself back on top thanks to those extra cities that you captured. While your rivals were busy throttling their growth building workers and settlers, you were off capturing their best established cities and capturing so many workers you won't know what to do with them all.

 

[JoeBlade]

Hmm, I quite disagree with the Axemen strategy. I'm still baffled as to so many players here considering the axemen rush a run-of-the-mill approach when I can't seem to find copper within reasonable range of my starting location in at least half of my games. Heck, I think of relying solely on copper/axemen and ignoring Ironworking more of a gamble than going after an early religion, and that's saying a lot.
Settling a remote spot with copper isn't a good alternative either IMO: by the time you settle, hook up the copper and connect your cities you could very well have discovered IW *and* connected iron instead (iron always seems quite abundant, contrary to copper) Well, not unless you've put all your workers on the task of connecting the copper alone, but that'd mean your cities are most likely working several unimproved tiles. Moreover, remote equals more maintenance, which can be a killer on your economy with a mere 2-3 cities about.
I'd say: go for IW as soon as possible *unless* you're lucky enough to find copper right next door. That's the nicest thing about the BW/IW path: if you do find copper you can put off IW for a while, no debate there. If you can't find either copper or iron, go after horseback riding as a last resort. This scenario usually spells trouble, I must admit.
I do agree that going after all the military techs from the beginning is a bad call, there's really no need + the economic risk is enormous.

The infrastructure advice is very sound: when going for an early war you must accept that you'll stifle your economy for quite a while (indeed most likely until currency and code of laws). The additional land/cities should help you recover and get back in the tech race once you discover those key techs. Make sure to put off additional wars for a bit and build only the absolutely necessary amount of troops. Don't bother building 3+ defenders for cities deep within your territory; focus on defense on borders instead.
Razing less useful cities is indeed a must, without it you'll most likely pass the economical point of no return (= gigantic upkeep with no means to counterbalance) And don't let wars drag on either, because the upkeep of troops in enemy lands alone can bring your research to a grinding halt. Prolonging a war is only worth it when you can completely destroy a civ within a reasonable timeframe (such that their cultural borders will no longer put pressure on your cities). Or when you're close to winning conquest/domination, of course.

 

[shivute]

Got to agree on the axemen issue. Axemen are far too risky an approach due to the 95% chance that copper won't be easily accessible. Also beelining to iron working is a poor tactic if playing at a decent level, though iron working is normally easily accessible.
Much safer is the archer and then build swordsman once you have ironworking. The swordsman is excellent for attacking those AI cities that are always guarded by archers or the odd spearman whereas you will lose axemen.
I always hate to lose a unit, as it is time that could have been spent building another unit or spent improving a city. You will always lose axemen when attacking cities with them.

 

[Eimon Gnome]

I am with Sisiutil and the axemen. I also beeline to BW. Whatever else happens, I never settle the 3rd city without copper. Even if the distance is great. I make a point of having copper. Without it, barbs are very tough and the option of an early war disappears.

It's so much easier to take 2 towns than to settle them. By taking them you 1] get the town, and 2] have a standing army with some nice promotions. It'
s always a shame to get Lit and not have a single level 4 unit. Bye-bye HE. And a nice sized military means that you are not picked on by the aggresive civs PLUS you can be opportunistic in a potential alliance to carve up a neighbor. Get the "brothers in war" diplo bonus and some territory. What can be better?

So many pluses to an early conflict.

 

[jadajos]

How do I keep up a good army without sacrificing my infrastructure? Typically I am a very research oriented player. I always feel like I have to build that one last building (typically a library marketplace) before building military units so that I can stay up in tech. By that time I have some new tech for some other building I just have to build. When I do get a successful military campaign going, how do I know when to actually stop? I'm almost always tempted to just finish the job, but this spreads me too thin and the other civs almost always pass whatever lead I just gained while I rebuild. Some advice would be much appreciated!

Basically I'm somewhat of the same type of player, but it's actually not too hard to combine research and war every now and then. While a library (even if only for culture) is a must in almost every city (and so is the forge), i reckon to build a market place only in cities that really contribute a lot of money to your kingdom already (usually capitol + 2-3 other cities). Sometimes it might be wise to even delay the library if its in a city that doens't have to compete against strong enemy boarders cultural-wise - as a city that contributes 5 instead of 4 research points after having built a library may be more helpful producing military in the same time and contributing a newly counqered city instead.
Ideal to prepare or initiate a military strike imo is a guilded age: you can quickly develope 15-20 attacking units to overrun enemies. It also provides you with more taxe incomes, thus helping the military upkeep not to disrupt your finances.

 

[Sisiutil]

JoeBlade makes excellent points. Fortunately, BW is on the way to IW. Once copper appears on the map, you have a very important decision to make regarding your 2nd and, if necessary, 3rd cities.

Copper may be far away, but if it's in a distant area where a city could help seal off AI encroachment, it may be worth settling there.

If copper is just not realistically available, then Iron Working becomes a priority. Which is tough, because it takes many turns to research and there's no guarantee it will be within the boundaries of the first 3-4 cities you have probably established by then. But a civ's gotta do what a civ's gotta do.

But shivute, I disagree on the utility of Axemen if you do have copper. With their 5 strength, +50% versus Melee units, and a barracks giving them a City Raider promotion, Axemen do very well against early city defenders like Warriors and Archers. Alternatively or next, give them a Combat I and/or Shock promotion and they'll even do respectably well against their enemy counterparts. And they'll mop the floor with Swordsmen. Yes, you will lose some units. You're fighting a war and it happens. That's why you don't stop building them. If you're regretful about losing a couple of Axemen, I can't help wondering how you feel about suicide Catapults.

 

[Oggums]

I also go for bronze working asap, but I always stop for a worker tech first. If I have copper access, I usually build 1-2 settlers for axeman production, but in my capital, I will also build every building and work a couple cottages, to help pay for the war.

I don't research archery if there's no bronze; I go toward iron working and just pump out warriors for barb protection while I wait. I find that iron working comes in just as I'm about to finish my second settler, so I can place city #3 near iron. Usually if there's no copper, iron is nearby, if not right at your capital.

The difference between a copper vs. iron first war for me in an Emperor game is that with copper I'll march an axe horde straght to the enemy's capital, but with iron I may just take a couple of his border cities with swordsmans and then sue for peace. Due to the high culture defense by that time in the capital, producing enough units to take it is sometimes too costly, so I may wait for catapults instead and take it during round 2.

 

[jadajos]

Yes, you will lose some units. You're fighting a war and it happens. That's why you don't stop building them. If you're regretful about losing a couple of Axemen, I can't help wondering how you feel about suicide Catapults.

I was asking myself the very same question when I read his posting just forgot about it. It doesn't work to fight a war and not to loose units...
I like axemen as well (although I mix swordsmen in as soon as I can as they are so very powerfull for city attacks), they are perfect for in-between-city-fights to kill off swordsmen and spear units (sorry for the crappy english here I just don't know how their real name is, hope y know which unit I mean) before they reach your own cities and can get a use out of city-attack-bonuses (although the ai uses this upgrade rather rarely).

 

[JoeBlade]

But shivute, I disagree on the utility of Axemen if you do have copper. With their 5 strength, +50% versus Melee units, and a barracks giving them a City Raider promotion, Axemen do very well against early city defenders like Warriors and Archers. Alternatively or next, give them a Combat I and/or Shock promotion and they'll even do respectably well against their enemy counterparts. And they'll mop the floor with Swordsmen. Yes, you will lose some units. You're fighting a war and it happens. That's why you don't stop building them. If you're regretful about losing a couple of Axemen, I can't help wondering how you feel about suicide Catapults.

Absolutely, I used to make that very mistake a lot at first. Don't try to estimate how many you'll need and merely build one or two stacks. Instead, keep on pumping out those axemen until you've utterly destroyed your target.

When it turns out you built too many you can always send the excess units back to your cities to replace warriors (who are most likely obsolete by then), or simply protect the recently captured cities.
Building too few on the other hand will virtually always leave your axes pitted against high cultural defenses by the time reinforcements arrive...

 

[Corbeau]

That's a very good point; build more than you need. You can always find a use for more military units, especially if you run Hereditary Rule.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

How do I keep up a good army without sacrificing my infrastructure? Typically I am a very research oriented player. I always feel like I have to build that one last building (typically a library marketplace) before building military units so that I can stay up in tech.

Buildaholics Anonymous

 

[The Tyrant]

Hmm, I quite disagree with the Axemen strategy. I'm still baffled as to so many players here considering the axemen rush a run-of-the-mill approach when I can't seem to find copper within reasonable range of my starting location in at least half of my games. Heck, I think of relying solely on copper/axemen and ignoring Ironworking more of a gamble than going after an early religion, and that's saying a lot.

I don't think anyone seriously relies on an axemen strategy from turn one unless they "pre-approve" every starting position with WorldBuilder. If you intend to go for IW, then BW is along the way. As JoeBlade pointed out, if you see copper within a reasonable distance after discovering BW, then there is no real need to spend the relatively long time researching IW at that point. The axemen strategy is obviously only meant to be used if you have copper readily available. I've played a lot of no-copper (and no-iron) starts, but when I do get copper early, it is axemen all the way.

As Sisiutil pointed out, if you have axemen available then you can bypass archery for the time being. Axemen not only substitute very well for archers, but they can step out of a city and attack a pillaging unit much more effectively than an archer could. Anything that lets me streamline my tech path in the early game (not having to research a dead-end tech like archery) is a good thing. It means earlier access to the techs that can really help.

Shivute, since you always play with raging barbarians on, I agree that in your case it is a good idea to get archers since it will be difficult to protect your copper mine and connecting roads. In a regular-barbarians game, however, going for BW early to find out if you have copper available is a very good strategy. I always expect to lose units when fighting. Losses are undesirable, but a fact of war. I simply take the odds into account and bring enough to win after suffering losses. In fact, I usually bring enough to lose more than I expect I will. In overkill I trust.

Edit: Oh, and others pointed out, once I gear up for war, the unit production doesn't stop until the war ends. A steady stream of units means you can quickly respond to a changing situation. If you try to be in builder mode while at war, your options are very limited. War mode means practically every city is producing units non-stop.

 

[The Tyrant]

How do I keep up a good army without sacrificing my infrastructure? Typically I am a very research oriented player. I always feel like I have to build that one last building (typically a library marketplace) before building military units so that I can stay up in tech.

In the early years, let tech suffer. The question isn't "How do I keep up a good army without sacrificing my infrastructure?" The question really is "Will sacrificing military production sacrifice my infrastructure?" The answer is Yes. If you build infrastructure before defenders, you're building infrastructure for the AI who takes your cities from you. If you build defenders before infrastructure, you get to keep the infrastructure.

When you decide to go to war, you check the AI's military strength and try to choose the weakest of those who also have cities you would like to own, right? The AI does the same. If you are the one with the weakest military, but sweet cities, guess who gets picked on. If your military isn't large enough to go conquering, it probably isn't large enough to prevent attack either.

Really, this is dependent on your difficulty level. The higher the difficulty level you play, the more you have to pay attention to early warfare, or at least the ability to wage early war.

 

[StrideCollosus]

How do I keep up a good army without sacrificing my infrastructure?

A couple of previous posters have hinted at this but I'll make it explicit - make sure that each city is focused, i.e. you don't need to build every building in every city. For example, having a library is pretty useless if the city is not producing much research, barracks is a waste of production if you never intend to build military units in that city, etc.

I tend to orientate each city towards culture, science, military, naval, commerce, etc. (sometimes they overlap). If you do that, you can build infrastructure AND an army. The only time that you'd 'override' this is when you're gearing up for war when most cities will be producing units.

 

[Gnarfflinger]

I do build barracks in each city because when I go to war, the more Axes I can pump out, the faster I recover from the war.

Given the opportunity, I look at the benefits of the buildings, and any immediate needs. When there is nothing else of more benefit, then I look at culture (temples, threatres). Right now, it's Granaries that I'm wondering about. If I like poprushing (and I do), then maybe I ought to build them, but I usually find that I need Barracks and Libraries more often...