Deciding your First War Target

[miked1991]

Its a problem I often run into, it's 2000BC, I've built that nice big army of axes/chariots or whatever. I'm almost double the power of most of the civs in the game. But, who do I rush? I'll usually have the espionage to see 2/3 civs as I'll concentrate it on those closest on me, so I can see their power ratings.

My question is who should I rush? For example, I might have Shaka, Mansa Musa and Joao around me. Shaka's got the highest power rating of the three and is already looking quite dangerous. Joao has the highest score as he always does, and is going to be the usually well balanced pain in the butt he usually is, and ofc he already has a good deal of archers and a lot of cities to get through. Mansa is by far the weakest target, but do I want to kill the guy who's going to give me many techs in the future?

I'm not asking about the specific situation above, just generally who is the best to go for? Should my priority be to take on the guy who's going to become my fiercest rival to try to get him out of the game? Or should I go for the present weakest player, just concentrating on getting myself that extra land right now?

 

[§L¥ Gµ¥]

I usually attack who's gonna be the bigger problem later. Why?

Because even marginal land is better than a pain in the ass. Even with marginal terrain [plains, gills desert, no food resources etc] you can still manage to build wealth/research with the appropriate techs which can keep you competitive for quite some time until you're ready to go on the offensive again.

 

[dirtyparrot]

I would not take score into account. With Shaka, it's usually an eventuality. But, it really depends on the map and the situation. I tend to consider who has good land and how easy it would be for me to quickly take that particular AI out.

 

[mi6agent]

just attach your nearest neibour. Reason ? Obviously maintance fee later and you have more room to expand . if more than 1 neighbour ? Attack who less agressive, not protective , have better capital or even only his capital is not on the hill ? You have to judge yourself, these are important factors that vary from game to game.

 

[JBossch]

Its a problem I often run into, it's 2000BC, I've built that nice big army of axes/chariots or whatever. I'm almost double the power of most of the civs in the game. But, who do I rush?

You should know who your target is before you build an army.

 

[Gral]

I attack my nearest and dearest neihbour
Usually attack very early and if I play continets, I am trying to destroy all the civs on my continebt, so I could concetrate on building and researching.

 

[UncleJJ]

It is not just who you need to attack because of their potential strength but why are you attacking. My early wars are often for space or some key resource like ivory that I want to have and the AI to not have. So if Augustus has ivory and Shaka doesn't he gets attacked first. With ivory I don't care about Shaka.

You need to take account of the economics as well. What are you going to do with the captured cities? How will you pay the increased maintenance and still tech to the key technologies needed for economic recovery (Currency, CoL etc.) . That usually means early wars have to be close ranged or the distance component will kill your economy. Also you need to defend your new won possessions and if they are all spread out that is more difficult.

 

[muxec]

Does Shaka have any neighbors except for you? Mansa Musa is very hard to rush due to his UU. Can you rush both Joao and Shaka while having reasonable diplo with MM? The idea here is not to kill both targets completely but to take capital and metal city to cripple their growth and ensure a soft target in the future.

 

[DaveMcW]

Your first war should be against the easiest target.

Sure you can buy some techs from Mansa, but pumping beakers from his former cities into your research pool is even better.

 

[GyroLeader]

Yeah, i would recommend easiest target, after that i usually be so strong, have lots of cities and land, so its easy to conquer the stronger too.

Land is power.

 

[Powerslave]

I usually go after the Protective civs, because their trait is so useless. It's like they only have one trait. Aggressive/Protective (Tokugawa) can be tricky in the gunpowder age, though.

Mostly, I pick on the peaceful builders (Mansa Musa, Gandhi), people with multiple holy cities (Isabella, Saladin), and whoever is behind me in tech. Usually, I can't be bothered to knock off more than three civs before I fall back to my standard SS victory. I can't help it. I like the modern age.

 

[dankok8]

If you can manage it and all 3 are close, definitely Shaka. He gets much tougher to take later and may declare on you at any time. Don't touch Mansa - he has Skirmishers and those are amazing city defenders! Later in the game, Mansa gets easier and easier to kill unless he seriously runs away in tech. Joao is another possible target, but you can take him later. If he doesn't get too much land (12+ cities which he can cuz he's an amazing REXer), he's not dangerous for the most part. Oh and don't rely on Chariots too much against Shaka cuz he has Impis. Focus on Axemen instead. EDIT: and oh try not to leave Shaka alive or at least leave him with very little or else he can be a pain if he hates you.

 

[wioneo]

I usually go after the Protective civs, because their trait is so useless.

Interesting strategy there. Maybe I'm the only one who avoids them like the plague unless they NEED to die...

 

[brianb1974]

There's a lot to consider when you're plotting your rush.

1) The most important factor is geographic location. It's better to rush someone close.
..a) Less maintainance
..b) Easier to hook up to trade network
..c) Your troops reach the target sooner making the rush more of a rush, and f things go well, you will be better positioned to turn your veteran army toward another target.
..d) It's easier to consolidate and defend your empire if you conquer a neighbor than if you conquer someone far away.

2) Quality of target's land--who has resources and tiles and cities (holy? wonders?) that you want to take. I ranked this #2 because it can be decisive if some AI spawned in a gem field, but usually it's about a wash. All capital cities are usually decent quality except for the all forest ones. And even those are nice because you can turn those forests into wonders. Or save the forests and eventually build a great park for 17 free specialists.

3) Vulnerability of target--I like to start with the easiest target
a) It's harder to beat protective archers (or bowmen or skirmishers)
b) It's harder (or potentially dangerous) to take down a civ who has horses or metal--if you see that a rival is about to hook up his military resources, that favors a pre-emptive rush
c) It's harder to take down a civ in slavery who will whip defenders
d) It's harder to take cities on hills
e) It's easier to take down a civ who is just sending out settlers. He might have 4-5 archers guarding a big city, but then send a couple of them out with a new settler--this is a vulnerable moment.

4) Personality
a) Montezuma, Tokugawa, Alexander, are annoying neighbors. Shaka can be too.
b) Mansa Musa is a great neighbor and trading partner--I almost never rush him. Willem is also pretty nice.

5) Politics. It's unlikely to be a huge factor this early in the game unless you are on a pangaea but who is friendly with whom? How are the religions shaping up? Is anybody universally despised?