Care Bear War

[bamf226]

As a gamer, I've always been a Care Bear. I typically don't start any type of conflict while gaming because it's not in my nature. However, in a game like Civilization, war is typically necessary. How do I go about making that leap. It's so hard for me to go against my usual style of play and make the first attack, but I know if I sit around, even with a good army, someone will come knocking sooner or later. Before I know it, I'm spending time defending instead of progressing. How does one who doesn't like to initiate conflict make an attack to aid in progression?

 

[Zanttu]

"If you want to live in peace, prepare for war."

 

[Gone Dark]

As a gamer, I've always been a Care Bear. I typically don't start any type of conflict while gaming because it's not in my nature. However, in a game like Civilization, war is typically necessary. How do I go about making that leap. It's so hard for me to go against my usual style of play and make the first attack, but I know if I sit around, even with a good army, someone will come knocking sooner or later. Before I know it, I'm spending time defending instead of progressing. How does one who doesn't like to initiate conflict make an attack to aid in progression?

Well, you can get along quite nicely with relatively few cities until late renaissance/early industrial era, but then you should expand again.

So one way of knowing when to go to war is to beeline a military tech in that era and then exploit the window when you have monopoly on the unit that comes with it. Riflemen and cannons are two nice examples of such units.

If you are a builder you problably know how to tech fast in the first part of the game, so just get to a certain tech and charge

The most perverted version of this is obviously Elisabeth teching like mad to rifling and unleashing her Redcoats upon the world.

 

[CivMcNut]

I used to play really peaceful games myself, teching away with about 9 or 10 cities and building lots of wonders and so forth. My advice is to check that power graph out from time to time on your demographics and see how you stack up. If someone has a big lead on you in power, there's a good chance they will start demanding stuff you worked hard to get in tribute and if you refuse they will attack not long after. If you neglect your military, you'll become a target every time. If you have the largest army, the AI will leave you alone.

 

[cabert]

you want to go to war?

answer those few questions :
- why do I want to go to war?
possible answers :
1) to win by conquest(or domination but beware, it's pretty different)
2) to get some needed resources that I can see in my neighbours land (Irak?)
3) My neighbour has finished the wonder I wanted, and he must give it to me.
...

- What do I need to reach my goal? (if it's total annihilation you aim for, replace it by "what do I need to kill myneighbour")
possible answers 1) 6 axemen
2) some military tech, then some units.
3) a war ally
(could be more than 1 of the above)

As soon as you have what you identified as necessary, you attack. If you're a beginner in this matter, you probably will think you need 20 swords, 20 catapults before you can attack.
After a few assaults, you'll see that most of these units were totally useless, and delayed your assaults and made them more costly.
It's no big deal at low levels, since you will get there eventually even if aiming too high, but at higher levels, you will find yourself facing a technologically advanced foe, with more troops than you could manage because you waited too long.

A few other questions you could ask yourself, but don't always need to (depending on the answers above, the settings, and so many other things I just don't want to list) :
- who will be pissed if I attack? what can I do to avoid getting dogpiled?
- what tactics will I use? (ie from where will I attack? how many stacks? will I try to lure units out of cities by sacrificing workers? will I load boats to attack from the coast?)
- do I need to change civics to withstand the war weariness or to produce faster?
a few typical war civics : police state to prevent WW and build troops faster or universal suffrage to build units with your friends or enemies' money (extortion is always fun), bureaucracy for more hammers from the capital (good combo with PState) or vassalage for 2 more XP for each unit or nationhood for fastest and cheapest troops (but no variety, and less XPs), slavery to keep the war machine going (whipping troops, whipping necessary things in captured cities) or caste system to get the border pops after conquest faster (artists) and to keep the war machine going (merchants to avoid strikes!), theocracy for 2 more Xps where you have your state religion?

 

[InFlux5]

First and foremost, set a city to producing nothing but military units and improvements. Don't stop, regardless of what type of game you're playing, or what victory you're going for.

Try a Custom Game where you add 2-3 civs to a given map size, with medium or high sea level. The less land there is per civ, the more necessary war becomes for your own expansion, and the more likely civs are to declare war on you as they reach the limits of peaceful expansion.

In such a game you can plan for war from turn 1. Just for this game focus everything you do on raising as large an army as possible. In the early eras this usually means bronze or iron, and Slavery in order to get a production edge over the computer.

Given bronze and selective whipping, it's quite easy to overwhelm the computer with 6, 8, 12 Axemen. And once you capture a decent enemy city (e.g. their capital) things become twice as easy. Continue to focus every city on military production and your war machine will hum nicely.

Remember that if you're going to assault a capital, then you should allow as few turns between the declaration of war and the first attack as possible. The computer will begin stockpiling defensive units in the capital as soon as the war begins, so you don't want to allow any extra turns for it to get extra Archers. (In other words, don't waste time sacking a border city that will only be razed if it means you forfeit a shot at the capital.)

Of course, sometimes a critical mass is reached whereby you won't be able to outpace the computer's ability to produce defensive units. This is the "catapult cutoff", where you have very little chance of taking a capital without siege units, due to cultural defense bonuses and the large number of defenders.

You'll be surprised how easy it is to overwhelm the AI if you truly focus on it. Again, from turn 1 resolve that every decision you make will be with the intent of building as large a military as possible. Pack in some extra computer players to ensure a nearby target. Then build, at most, two cities aside from your capital, and churn out nothing but military. Beeline for a capital, and watch your civ catapult into the lead.

 

[pigswill]

You don't need to be the aggressor. In fact there are advantages to being the injured party, first you don't get any diplo penalties for being at war,second you don't get any war weariness fighting in your own territory.

However you do need a decent military. Best option is to build yourself a stack of cats (better than trebs except against cities) and a few other units. Don't disperse them, keep them stacked up fairly near a potential front line. The cats cripple the invader's army and the other units polish off the weakened units.

Once you're at war you can either stay turtled or launch reprisals (which is a lot easier when your opponent has just lost most of their army).

Edit: If you want to overcome peacenik tendencies play an always-war game ( a level or two below your current difficulty).

 

[MyOtherName]

How does one who doesn't like to initiate conflict make an attack to aid in progression?

Go overboard -- try a hyperaggressive strategy; do not research any tech that does not lead to an improved military (or an improved capability to sustain your military). Do not build any building that does not help your military. This means you have lots of units; smash people at every opportunity.

 

[bamf226]

you want to go to war?

Not really, that's why I posted the topic.

A few other questions you could ask yourself, but don't always need to (depending on the answers above, the settings, and so many other things I just don't want to list) :
- who will be pissed if I attack? what can I do to avoid getting dogpiled?

This is what holds me back. I don't want anyone to be pissed.

 

[Zanttu]

Not really, that's why I posted the topic.

War is only needed for domination/conquest wins. Other victory types can easily be reached with peaceful methods. And if you want to be alone, then prepare for war as I posted earlier (=build good-sized army) and play your politics right. If there's someone who doesn't like you (usually there is, because of the "you traded with our enemies" modifiers it's hard to please everybody), bribe someone else to go war with him. The AI doesn't attack you if it is busy fighting someone else.

 

[bamf226]

How do you get another civ to go to war. I've tried this tactic, but when I ask what it would take to make it happen, the civ always responds he/she can't do that. If they didn't want to go to war with another civ, shouldn't the option be red?

 

[Gone Dark]

How do you get another civ to go to war. I've tried this tactic, but when I ask what it would take to make it happen, the civ always responds he/she can't do that. If they didn't want to go to war with another civ, shouldn't the option be red?

No, sometimes you just don't have enough goodies (techs, gold and so on) to bribe them with even if they are willing to go to war for the right prize.

 

[CivCorpse]

How does one who doesn't like to initiate conflict make an attack to aid in progression?

I have found it easiest to select click on the leaders name and then select declare war. This works 50% of the time...the other times are when i clicked it by mistake

 

[bamf226]

I have found it easiest to select click on the leaders name and then select declare war. This works 50% of the time...the other times are when i clicked it by mistake

Either you are being extremely sarcastic or have no idea what I'm talking about

 

[Gooblah]

War benefits your Civ, both directly and indirectly; it weakens another Civ that could (in the long-term) pose a threat to your empire, and it fetches you more land, which results in more production and commerce. It seems to me that you are focusing too much on the "negative" aspects of war, i.e, the diplomatic penalties.

The only Civs that you will get the -1 "You attacked our friends" modifier with are those that the Civ is Friendly or Pleased with. If all the Civs in the world give you this modifier, then you have picked the wrong target. The right target is a weak/isolated Civ who has no friends OR tons of enemies. Thus, other Civs won't be bribed into attacking you.

To avoid other Civs attacking you, ensure you have a large army by checking the Power Graph to see how your power stacks against that of your enemies.

 

[darkhand]

If you want to force yourself to be aggresive, try playing as Caesar and go as crazy with Praets as possible. BW, Worker, Settler, IW, settle to get iron, then chop and whip Praetorians continually. You should be able to take down several civs before they can catch up.

The problem you have to overcome is the mindset that war is bad. The best way to do that is to play games with restrictions which force war. Another possibility could be that, after Xbc, you must be at war with at least one civ at a time.

 

[Verge]

This is what holds me back. I don't want anyone to be pissed.

How do you get another civ to go to war. I've tried this tactic, but when I ask what it would take to make it happen, the civ always responds he/she can't do that. If they didn't want to go to war with another civ, shouldn't the option be red?

Sounds like what you find difficult is not how to start a war, but how to conduct diplomacy.

Whether or not warmongering is a must is debatable; it's going to vary by strategy and difficulty level. Personally, however, what is a must is the need to pick an enemy or group of enemies early on in the game. Civilization 4 is not a game that rewards neutral nations; if you try to play the world's broker by being everyone's "go to" guy, then all you get is a world that thinks "meh" of you. Having the gusto to declare an opponent your diplomatic disputant will net you not only friends, but a clearer path to victory.

The AI in Civilization 4 is needy, smug, and narcissistic; it has the disposition of a hyena that thinks too highly of itself. Most players realize this from the start, and are unwilling to become the spineless sycophant that the AI would like the human player to become. But the truth of the matter is that pandering to the AI and acquiescing to its demands pays off in the long run.

That's where warfare comes into play. The AI regularly requests your assistance in its conflicts, and will give big bonuses to players that willingly participate in such wars. Declaring war always entails angering the allies of your opponent, but it also pleases the AI players that happen to have poor diplomatic relations with your foe. It's this polarization of the diplomatic arena that you should leverage to its utmost extent. Going to war usually means getting into the good graces of one, two, or even a whole bloc of AI players; you should consider a declaration of war as a potential way of further developing your alliances, which in turn can offer a vast pool of resources and services. Friendly AI players will be much more inclined to help you fight your own wars, or example. Some leaders might even do it for free.

A declaration of war should address the immediate issues: the reason for the war, the potential rewards of victory, the potential costs of conflict. But you should also consider the wider context: which bloc will I upset with this war? Which bloc will I appease? Am I going to gain new friends and allies, or am I simply going to deepen the respective feelings of my preexisting relationships? Sometimes you will find yourself in a situation where a declaration of war poses virtually no cost to yourself, but nonetheless will produce a tremendous diplomatic boon with your allies. A good example of this is a phony war, when you declare war on an inconsequential enemy on the other side of the world simply because one of your allies is currently fighting them. Even if you don't actually send in any troops, you'll still get a diplomatic bonus.


Embracing warfare, even on a relatively limited scale, means embracing a game with one or more lifetime enemies. That is a good thing, because if you play your strategic cards right, it also means you will get a circle of steadfast allies.

 

[BARBEERIAN]

One thing you might want to do if you find it hard to justify attacking someone is to join a dogpile. Multiple times during a game other Civs will ask you to join a war, go ahead and do it! You get some VERY solid diplomatic bonuses with your war allies.

You mentioned that you like to please everyone, but it's just not going to benefit you in the long run. There will always be Civ-A saying 'Stop trading with Civ X' and saying no makes them angry. Then Civ X will say 'Stop trading with Civ A' and saying no will make them angry too. You eventually just end up with muddy half-decent relations with everyone (at best). Whereas if you make a a few good decisions on who to befriend you can end up with excellent relations with the majority of the civs (enough for defensive pacts), and one or two mortal enemies. You're much better off diplomatically with fewer very solid friendships as opposed to many half decent friendships. Long story short, good friends tend to give better trade deals and more help militarily against your foes.

EDIT: Just read Verge's post, like I obviously was too lazy too until after I posted =P, it says the same thing in better detail.

 

[bamf226]

Verge, I appreciate your detailed response. For me, that addressed my concerns which I apparently was having trouble expressing. I have to wonder if the term "care bear" is not understood based on some of the responses.

A "care bear" is a person that doesn't want to ruffle anyone's feathers. He/she wants everyone to be happy and does what he/she can to prevent animosity. However, in Civ, it looks like the strong friendship of a few > a mad civ and a unhappy friend or two of the mad civ.

 

[mercury529]

Hmmm, well I will offer slightly different advice. If you are averse to starting wars yourself, maybe it would help to incite the AI into starting a war with you. For this I would suggest leveraging the Great Wall/Imperialistic trait.

Purposely fall behind on the power curve, but queue up defenders in the build queue. Get the AI to declare war on you (make demands, trade with his enemies, deny him tribute, etc). Once he declares war, finish your defenders. Let his stack enter your territory (have plenty of siege and flankers ready). Kill his stack for massive Great General points. Then after his stack is done, don't be afraid to take the war to his doorstep.

Just an idea for how to learn to appreciate the wars in civ. For me, it took me a long time to get used to the idea of going to war instead of building up/teching. Only after I got involved in some wars where I had the advantage, did I start to get an appreciation for it. Learning that siege units are the most important unit to build, made me see wars as less tedious. And then finally accepting that casualties are a necessity of war (even with 80%+ odds) helped quite a bit. Just remember, every unit you lose is less maintenance gold, so it's not all bad.