1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Long Distance War

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by Carnage04, Jun 25, 2011.

  1. Carnage04

    Carnage04 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    209
    I'm currently playing an Immortal game, normal size map, lakes, as Montezuma. I've got Alexander to the Southwest and Caesar to the Southeast. Both DoWed on me by 400 AD. My army is such that I can absolutely crush one of them while holding the other off at my border with a few token troops.

    The problem is that going after either country proper is about 9 turns hiking for my Longsword/Rifle and Treb/Cannon army. Going to take rome would leave my soldiers 18 turns from the Greek capital. Being a lakes map with roads being the only way to connect, captured cities won't really be easy to link up to trade routes. I also have Egypt and Spain who are much closer so the cities seem to be a way better fit for my next wave of puppet expansion.

    What is the conventional wisdom regarding early/midgame long distance wars? Defend only, kill enough units to get extremely favorable peace terms, or go conquer?
     
  2. Uniform Sierra

    Uniform Sierra Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    139
    You'd might as well go conquer. The way I see it, you're just giving your army more XP and points towards another GG, and you'll actually be doing something as opposed to just hitting "Next turn" 20 or so times. You can also send in fast units like horsemen, or lancers and whatnot to pillage, as this gives you cash.

    I would just get a war of attrition going. Wait 4 tiles or so away from one of their cities and let them attack you until you get good peace terms. If you do take the cities, I'd raze them, I never make more than 3-4 cities.

    If diplomacy was decent, it would be nice to gift the cities to a nicer/weaker civ in favor of plenty of positive influence.
     
  3. Randall Turner

    Randall Turner King

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    679
    I don't know, US. If they're that far away, they aren't necessarily hostile forever, they might eventually be good trade partners. (No "covet your land" negative diplo modifier, which is the hardest after "warmonger" to manage.) If they turn into enemies-for-life and you also fight the close civs, that's all she wrote for friendly relations.

    Sort of curious that they'd declare, actually. Most of my remote civs stay pretty friendly. Actually, come to think of it, the only time it happens to me is if I'm waaay far ahead.

    Carnage, are either of them the tech leader? That'd make the decision easy. (You're eventually going to have to pound the tech leader anyway.) OTOH, if the current tech leader is one of the nearby civs and those guys are weak, it seems counter-intuitive but I'd be more inclined to at least try to repair relations.
     
  4. Carnage04

    Carnage04 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    209
    In this case, neither of them are tech leaders nor do they have a really strong army. I was friendly with them both when they DoWed. I held off Alexander while I conquered Babylon to the north, we signed a treaty, he DoWed again shortly after.

    One of the closer Civs is Siam, who is the tech leader.
     
  5. RedRover57

    RedRover57 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,014
    If Siam is close and starting to run away in tech then you best deal with them first. They are a pain when they get lots of elephants, plus they tend to ally every CS.
     

Share This Page