Early War vital?

[Nefelia]

I still dont buy it, its all about resource conversion.

There is more than one way to gain an early advantage. Early conquest is by far the most powerful when you have targets within a reasonable range, but it becomes a more uncertain gamble the further out you need to venture.

If early conquest is your preference when it takes 30 turns to get to your nearest neighbour, then that is your call. I'm just pointing out that on the Enormous+ maps one can pursue different strategies for long-term advantage, since the greater distances provide a security buffer for the earlier portion of the game.

Regardless of the differing effectiveness of starting strategies, I prefer not to be pigeon-holed into early conquest time and time again in order to be competitive. Larger maps provide a way out for me. Your mileage may very.

 

[Esperr]

30 turns to produce 1000s of production for 3 to 4 slingers +gold upgrade cost is still way more effiecient then hard building a settler. That was the entire point of my post. Even at 100 turns it would still be worth it if not for the fact that they would be obsolete.

You can not pidegonhole yourself or whatever or win other ways, but were talking about maxing. You *can win pretty much however, but it wont be the most efficient way.

All it shows is that warmongering is disproportionatly stronger then anything else.

 

[Victoria]

but were talking about maxing

I think they key word in the title is vital.
No it's not vital, it is the most efficient way to win but it's not vital.
A good strategy to get ahead in the game is to do what the good GOTM players do without fighting. Be efficient, encampment, 3 CH, then campuses. Chop.

 

[Esperr]

I think they key word in the title is vital.
No it's not vital, it is the most efficient way to win but it's not vital.
A good strategy to get ahead in the game is to do what the good GOTM players do without fighting. Be efficient, encampment, 3 CH, then campuses. Chop.

In the context of the games difficulty I think its ok to conflate vital and efficient, I mean theres a reason we measure wins in turn time and whether you can or cannot do it.

 

[Victoria]

In the context of the games difficulty I think its ok to conflate vital and efficient, I mean theres a reason we measure wins in turn time and whether you can or cannot do it.

Well the reasons to measure turns are to get better at playing the game faster or to consider how great you are. The former is useful, the latter is foolish. There is no other real way to measure beyond pleasure and to me that's the real yardstick.
I got great pleasure out of beating the AI on deity without going to war before T124 so I struggle with the word vital but yeah, maybe the OP went a bit OTT with the wording.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Early war is so singularly effective that I've started playing on islands maps just to protect the AI from me. I don't love islands maps, but just giving the AI a little buffer makes the game better for me.

 

[Esperr]

Early war is so singularly effective that I've started playing on islands maps just to protect the AI from me. I don't love islands maps, but just giving the AI a little buffer makes the game better for me.

Shuffle had been pretty good to me for this, lots of single tile choke points that make it hard to take citys due to cheatyface AI production spam

 

[Nigel_Tufnel2]

I've had good luck with Island Plates, using high sea level. You usually make early contact with at least one civ and CS, and really have to think about expansion. I always feel satisfaction in settling a great canal city when there are snaky landmasses..

 

[EgonSpengler]

Shuffle had been pretty good to me for this, lots of single tile choke points that make it hard to take citys due to cheatyface AI production spam

I've had good luck with Island Plates, using high sea level. You usually make early contact with at least one civ and CS, and really have to think about expansion. I always feel satisfaction in settling a great canal city when there are snaky landmasses..

I haven't tried either of those yet. I'll give them a shot.

 

[ShakaKhan]

early war is not vital to victory.
-------------------------->
war is vital to early victory.


By playing optimally, which usually involves having two early cities, then explosively expanding to six cities by conquering four, followed by either warring again or using colonization and building a settler in every city to double (possibly again to triple or quadruple) the size of your empire, most of us are finishing the game around turn 150-225. The game is set to go for more than double of the high end of that. Maybe the upper level AI's would hit a victory condition before that, but in the current (seemingly bugged) iteration of the game, the AI seems to have too much of an attention deficit to achieve a victory; if you have a high level of diplomatic visibility, you'll note that you get messages about every 5 turns that "this civ is no longer pursuing a domination victory" 5 turns later "this civ is pursuing a domination victory." 5 turns later "this civ is pursuing a culture victory. They're just too disorganized to effectively go for a victory. This means you have more time than you'll need to win. Playing aggressively early puts you in a better position to win, which results in winning earlier. But it's very doable to win most victory conditions passively or aggressively at all difficulty levels.

 

[Nefelia]

In the context of the games difficulty I think its ok to conflate vital and efficient, I mean theres a reason we measure wins in turn time and whether you can or cannot do it.

The game is only as difficult as you choose to make it. I prefer a peaceful start, and so I adjust the difficulty setting and map size accordingly.

A general response to one of the OP's comments:

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

The most vital consideration is this: are you having fun?

If you enjoy early war, then go ahead and abuse the hell out of it and choose a more challenging difficulty to keep things interesting. If you don't enjoy early war, then adjust the various settings accordingly to accommodate the play styles you enjoy.

 

[GimliLegolas]

There is more than one way to gain an early advantage. Early conquest is by far the most powerful when you have targets within a reasonable range, but it becomes a more uncertain gamble the further out you need to venture.

If early conquest is your preference when it takes 30 turns to get to your nearest neighbour, then that is your call. I'm just pointing out that on the Enormous+ maps one can pursue different strategies for long-term advantage, since the greater distances provide a security buffer for the earlier portion of the game.

Regardless of the differing effectiveness of starting strategies, I prefer not to be pigeon-holed into early conquest time and time again in order to be competitive. Larger maps provide a way out for me. Your mileage may very.

I usually play at Deity on a huge map and I have found that if I don't prepare for war I will be hammered either by barbs or by the AI. So, I usually start by building slingers, research to get to Archery as soon as possible, let my warrior explore but not too far from home and I don't tell the AI where my capital is. This usually means I can see off an early attack and then counter. But it also means I an usually too late to get a great prophet and I have to find other uses for faith

 

[Victoria]

I seem to get a large amount of space quite often on deity.. much more often than close maps. And that's standard size continents.
A scout is even more guaranteed to be of use as long as they can evade barbs, a single scout can get 6-10 goody huts or more.... that is a significant benefit to an early civ.
Its a hard choice once you have played that because you know you are vulnerable and its just a matter of time...Scout slinger builder and fingers crossed. If I can just get that builder done my troops will be so much cheaper to spam.... sometimes I take the risk and go scout builder but its fairly risky on deity... however without close civs you are going to find it a struggle so those little risks become more important in a way, assess the land and take a calculated risk based on terrain is the best option.

 

[mckinney156]

It's not vital, I just won a science game on Diety and was never in a single war. It was close though I admit, only beat out another AI going to space by a few turns by my guess. Game ended at 283 which is semi slow.

War absolutely makes the game easier and faster though.

I actually was in a war with Poland but she backstabbed me and I only defended myself, I didn't take a single Polish city.