Early War vital?

[benjspurs]

Since i started playing the GoTM i have noticed how many other players go to war early and i can see the obvious advantages (unit promotions, expansion without settlers, and cripple opposition)

I use to enjoy more peaceful playthroughs but now think the advantages of early war are to great to miss out on.

Does everyone else feel Early War is vital? especially if going for a fewer turn victory. Or is there a good strategy to get ahead in the game without early war?

 

[juanpavo]

Growing your empire fast, early in the game, is vital. Whether you get that by spamming settlers or taking AI cities is your choice. It is easier to take a bunch of cities. Also, the AI will bring war to you if you expand in their face. Bottom line: expect war if you intend to win.

 

[EpicWestern]

Does everyone else feel Early War is vital? especially if going for a fewer turn victory. Or is there a good strategy to get ahead in the game without early war?

My religious games (which are almost always peaceful) have still been much faster victories than domination by pretty large margins. Domination and science are about the same, with culture lagging very far behind. I also always shuffle map type though which probably naturally gives me more peaceful games (due to isolated island starts) than someone just using continents or pangaea.

 

[antimony]

Because science victory is a fixed objective which scales with the number of campuses you have, the fastest win requires enough cities (~15-20) that it always seem easier to just take the other Civs out of your continent.

For culture, the objective is a moving target which makes it worth investing in culture early, plus you get actual tourism bonuses for being at peace with civilizations nearby. On high difficulty (when the AIs start with more than one city), some early war might be preferred, but on medium difficulty it's easier to imagine a peaceful route being competitive on time.

 

[Hep Roc Heretic]

Maybe not so much early war, but certainly build a strong military and use it aggressively from the beginning. Almost all of the unpleasant surprises in the early game will make you wish for strong military, so you may as well have one.

If war is an option early on, then by all means, declare war. Or not -- you will at least have a choice.

A strong military is a good start for whichever path you choose for victory.

 

[Thalassocracy]

I prefer to go for expansion first, city improvements second, large army third to go for an attack (combine new production + classical units improvement).
This is my favorite path of development during the game. I usually wait for a technological breakthrough to make the latest improvements and launch the attack.

Usually, AI does not improve its old army. It is very costly for its upkeep and quite uneffective in front of your more modern units.

 

[Victoria]

It does not have to be early, If you leave war a little then you get better eurekas and districts off the cities you take.
You are far better off delaying while you get a settler and a builder and agoge ... and even then delaying can have greater rewards, as long as you can still pwn

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

I usually open with a scout and a pair of slingers to help my warrior deal with the first barb wave. If I find a close neighbor I can transition into war mode, if I find I'm fairly isolated I have a good defense for the swarms of barbs which will pour out of the fog with nobody else nearby to harass. It's definitely worth it if you can cripple or eliminate an aggressive AI like Montezuma.

 

[Ornen]

I plan for an early war, but not before I get a worker and settler up. Depending on the circumstances, I might get a trade route up as well – you not only get the bonus food and production, but get your units into battle much quicker as well. That second city should be pointed towards an opponent and used as a forward base against them.

 

[drmuser]

I usually do not fight early wars, frequently I find it better to build up my economy, science, and culture. On the other hand, if another civ or city state starts way too close to me or takes one of my chosen city expansion locations, then I will usually conquer them.

 

[MIS]

Vital? No. Optimal? Yes

 

[Sherlock]

The weaker your military is the more likely the AI is to attack you.

 

[Esperr]

No matter what VC your going for kill your first neighbor is still rule #1. In fact, one of the issues with civ has always been that once you sack your fist neighbor it feels like the game ends on the spot because you are now so far ahead.

 

[Sherlock]

No matter what VC your going for kill your first neighbor is still rule #1. In fact, one of the issues with civ has always been that once you sack your fist neighbor it feels like the game ends on the spot because you are now so far ahead.

My experience is even if you leave them alone sooner or later they'll attack you. Unless you have a BIG army.

 

[drubell]

The AI cannot handle an early classical war with battering rams and great generals at any difficulty. In my experience it takes more resources to deal with wars in the mid game and late game than the early game. Whether or not early war is vital, I would argue that it's certainly easier.

 

[stinkubus]

Agoge and Maneuver make it easy to create most of the units you will ever need, with any Civ, during the first 30-40 turns of the game on almost any map, so it makes sense that early war is always advisable. The only real exceptions are if your nearest neighbor is Gilgamesh, Montezuma, and Cleopatra (since the last patch). AI Cleo spams those chariot archers now. They are brittle, but a plain old warrior or archer will die if the chariot archer gets the first shot.

Any of those early UUs can be problematic if you are trying to rush with warriors and archers and if I see more than one I usually wait for better units. If they are that close and I can't rush them early I really like giving the DOF and getting them to expand right up next to me. I'll expand in the other direction and go find another target. Once the DOF is up I can go claim the cities they were gracious enough to build for me.

 

[Nefelia]

No matter what VC your going for kill your first neighbor is still rule #1.

That depends very much on map size. If you have a neighbour within easy reach, the best strategy tends to be to take him out early for living space and security. On larger maps (Enormous, Giant, Ludicrous), your nearest neighbour may be far enough away to delay hostilities.

In fact, one of the issues with civ has always been that once you sack your fist neighbor it feels like the game ends on the spot because you are now so far ahead.

I tend to play on the Giant Earth Map, and as a builder rather than an early warmonger. The greater distances involved change the dynamics quite a bit. It takes a bit longer for invasion forces to reach their targets in the early game, and that gives the defender enough time to build a few extra units and stand a better chance of repelling the invader. It also makes peaceful expansion via settler spam more viable.

In my latest game on the GEM, I didn't see any real military action until after I reached the Industrial Era (despite a couple of silly declarations from distant empires that never bothered to send troops my way).

 

[Victoria]

I started a deity game last night as England and found 5 CS (1 gold, 1 science, 0 culture) before I found Tomyris who was only about 10 tiles away through rough terrain but it was too late to take her early. Only us 2 on the continent.
I have been messing around and it's turn 125 and I've just taken her first city. To be honest looking at the victory screen I can win any victory from here ( I have cartography so am now seeing other players)

A peaceful deity mess around and I can win?....I have had the feeling for a while that the AI civs have been throttled again but this is concreting it for me. The throttling seems to be around city numbers and as long as you are pushing science well ... early war is not vital..

 

[Art Morte]

"Vital" might be too strong a word, but I feel it's too obviously good a strategy. There are no downsides and the extra cities give you a biggish boost regardless of what you want to do next. If the AI was better at warfare it would balance this early game strategy, but they fall prey easily to a few archers and a couple of warriors. I made a thread a few days ago suggesting that maybe there should be "forced" garrison for conquered cities for some number of turns, or the city would rebel back to previous owner. That might at least slow the conquerer down a bit.

 

[Esperr]

That depends very much on map size. If you have a neighbour within easy reach, the best strategy tends to be to take him out early for living space and security. On larger maps (Enormous, Giant, Ludicrous), your nearest neighbour may be far enough away to delay hostilities.



I tend to play on the Giant Earth Map, and as a builder rather than an early warmonger. The greater distances involved change the dynamics quite a bit. It takes a bit longer for invasion forces to reach their targets in the early game, and that gives the defender enough time to build a few extra units and stand a better chance of repelling the invader. It also makes peaceful expansion via settler spam more viable.

In my latest game on the GEM, I didn't see any real military action until after I reached the Industrial Era (despite a couple of silly declarations from distant empires that never bothered to send troops my way).

I still dont buy it, its all about resource conversion. Building a few archers and your starting warrior and taking 3-4 citys, even with travel time is still going to produce way more then hard building your own settlers. You have the settler cost, the pop loss from the city, you have to move it and you get very little in return. The city is fresh and has no buildings and infrastructure. Taking a city early, even something like size 3 with just a granary or a monument and one infrastructure piece is just so much more powerful, hardbuilding will never out yield conquering, even if the cost disgustingly high.

You can argue that distance would be a factor, but I would still rather tech ship building and try to snag somebody far away even then. If your iso start you don't have a choice anyway, but I can't really imagine at what distance I wouldn't try to kill my first neighbor, unless I was RP or something.