Making war not painful?

[Tre]

Hi guys! I was just wandering if anyone has some tips for a pain free war victory.

Backstory
I'm new to both civ5 and the forums, but anyway, to get used to the game, I've been trying to get each victory twice on prince (no time or diplo though). Cultural and tech are a walk through the park, but warmongering is epicly tedious. I guess what I'm basically asking is which civ to go with for early war, since early seems the most straightforward, and furthermore, what specific base strategy should I go with that civ?
Also, is watching all of MD's videos and 2 victory of each too little to move onto the next difficulty?
K. Ty. Peace

Moderator Action: Not really a strategy discussion -> moved to GD.

 

[Biologist]

My answer assumes you have the expansion but are not using mods or DLC.

If you want to go to war as early as possible and start capturing cities right away, your best bet is the Huns. Their battering rams are absurdly powerful; if you get one from a ruin you can start conquering cities incredibly early, otherwise you'll need to beeline Bronze Working and build at least one.

If you want to take a slightly more balance approach but still want early war, choose the Greeks or Persians. Both have a good spearman UU (and the Greeks back up their hoplites well with Companion Cavalry). The Romans are a good choice for Classical - early Medieval warfare, but are risky because you need iron to build your legions. Ballistae, I believe, no longer require Iron and so can be built without sacrificing addtional legions.

If you want to rise to power during the Medieval period, it's hard not to recommend China. They get good research and gold bonuses early due to Paper Makers, and then can devastate just about any opponent with Chu-ko-nus. Enough well-promoted CKNs can wipe out an enemy military and destroy a city's defenses, letting you mop up with a few melee units. It's best to upgrade to CKNs from composite bowmen in order to save time during your offensive.

There are other civs that can be used for early war, and any civ can be successful at early-game war if used correctly (even India), but those are, in my opinion, some of the easiest to work with.

Edit: the Huns are only available if you have the expansion installed. Similarly, if you are playing the vanilla game (without the expansion) then I do think that ballistae still cost iron.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Frankly, if you've won several times and find it a walk in the park, you're more than ready to move up to the next level.

As for warring, I'd recommend reading the appropriate articles in War Academy. Mechanics of combat, Zone of control, Range combat, Amphibious invasions etc. There are several of them. Pay attention to how MadDjinn is employing these concepts in his play. Unless you have a deep enough understanding of key principles, war can be very painful. Producing a large amount of cannon fodder and suiciding all of it is not fun indeed. That's where many players stumble.

Welcome to CFC, BTW!

 

[SouljahAtWar]

I agree with you there. Warring is especially tedious (and for some strange reason, I keep winning via diplomacy). I suggest you try to maintain peaceful, ten play defensive if needed.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Rome can be good for early war, and the Glory of Rome ability helps if you're going for pure annexation.

Japan and America are good for long-term war.

Suleiman is good for war if you play random maps; he's always got an option.

Depending on the amount of water, Elizabeth can be good.

Germany and Mongolia can be interesting choices if you're trying to play the mounted game.

 

[Reier]

I agree with you there. Warring is especially tedious (and for some strange reason, I keep winning via diplomacy). I suggest you try to maintain peaceful, ten play defensive if needed.

I always thought not warring was more tedious ;p

 

[Tre]

Thanks for all of your great opinions. I do think I'm gonna take a more balanced approach to war, and maybe not go as early. With that being said, I think Either going with Persia, china, or the mayans, but I'm not sure which. And I'm prObably gOnna go for a nice ics since my last couple f game were played with only 3 cities.

 

[blazingsprocket]

I will second the Huns. Horse archers and battering rams are just too good.

 

[Crafty Bison]

Thanks for all of your great opinions. I do think I'm gonna take a more balanced approach to war, and maybe not go as early. With that being said, I think Either going with Persia, china, or the mayans, but I'm not sure which. And I'm prObably gOnna go for a nice ics since my last couple f game were played with only 3 cities.

To add a couple of names into the ring, I'd put Celts, great early UU, or maybe Babylonians, kickass UU for the time and no need to go to construction. Mayans could be decent too. China are imo the strongest domination civ over the course of the game, but for early war best pick an early UU, and as everyone says, Huns are clearly the best for that. For less tedium, try civs with units that have lots of movement, like Persians, Mongolians, English, Danes (or try the companion cavalry, sipahi, panzer).

 

[Tre]

Alright, so even though I want a nice early war, I think I'm gonna stay a bit more balanced for the late game like you guys are saying, and I'm probably gonna try a ICS with the Mayans, probably on Pangea but maybe continents. seems legit, right?

 

[SouljahAtWar]

I always thought not warring was more tedious ;p

Nope, I ragequit about 80% of the time, and it's so horrible that this is a war game. I hate that. If I wanted to play a time scale based strategy game, I'd play Empire Earth 2. I just like to build.

 

[Lay_Lay]

I'm not sure why we are all dancing around the obvious here.
Keshiks > all else let's not kid ourselves

 

[Bandobras Took]

I'm not sure why we are all dancing around the obvious here.
Keshiks > all else let's not kid ourselves

On archipelago?

 

[RStark]

Before you DOW someone, you should clearly understand why you have chosen the war instead of peaceful life. The decision of going to war should be financially reasonable (in a long or short term).

 

[The Pilgrim]

Before you DOW someone, you should clearly understand why you have chosen the war instead of peaceful life. The decision of going to war should be financially reasonable (in a long or short term).

And be sure you're gonna win this war. Otherwise don't even bother to start.

 

[TrentL]

I'm going to say on a large land mass game Mongols are crazy powerful, Keshik's have the ability to fire then move afterwards so they can tear apart a city without ever getting hit, and then you just march in your a couple of melee units to get take over the city.

If you have alot of water, I'm going to say England ... even on land the Longbowman start with Range+1 upgrade, and they hit HARD they are just insane, and the ship of the line is crazy powerful for early water dominance.

Maya may not be bad for early war either since they start with archers that are cheaper than a standard archer you could start conquering right out of the gate and focus on other techs rather than archery.

Huns are pretty awesome, but when your two unique units are outdated they quickly fall behind as their racial ability is pretty lack luster.

 

[Browd]

It's easy to advise early war when you are an aggressive civ with an early UU that allows you to roll. But, when you are playing a non-aggressive civ with no particular UU advantages, there's much to be said for early preemptive wars, particularly before your neighbors start deploying their early UUs.

Recent game playing as Netherlands (not exactly a warrior civ), I spawned next to Attila (always fun) and Gandhi (not a concern), so I stole a Hun settler and worker early (set him back a bit, and had those workers improve tiles, allowing me to divert hammers to produce archers). My warrior popped an upgrade to spearman and scout an upgrade to archer. When Attila then founded a city on my doorstep, he only had warriors and battering rams (which are ineffectual on defense) and had not yet produced any horse archers. So, I quickly puppeted that city and then Attila's Court -- no more Attila to worry about.

In the meantime, I met Attila's closest neighbor -- Rome (sigh) -- who was already attacking local city states and generally becoming a nuisance (where have I heard that phrase?). Since Legions are NO FUN to fight, Rome had to go before he got to Iron Working. So, with my archers upgraded to Comp Bows, down went Rome.

With two aggressive civs out of the way and some breathing room, I was free to found a few normal cities and focus on tech and culture. When I got to Machinery before China did, down she went (Chu-Ko-Nus are also no fun). I saved Gandhi for after I got artillery (he build Great Wall and it's a needless grind to take GW-protected cities without artillery).

Absent those early preemptive wars, I really do think I would have struggled with eternal war.

 

[smallfish]

I must comment that its interesting to note that you had a Hunnic game where Rome starts next to them. Also, China and Rome on the same map...

 

[Browd]

Yeah, with William, I thought I would play a nice, peaceful, trading-oriented game. Um, not to be, although I ended it diplo (got bored--fractal map made more domination a bothersome chore).

 

[Crafty Bison]

Yeah, with William, I thought I would play a nice, peaceful, trading-oriented game. Um, not to be, although I ended it diplo (got bored--fractal map made more domination a bothersome chore).

Nice work, bet you got some good use out of the happy/gold UA for those attacks (if you still had trading partners ). Still taking 3 caps before chinese machinery is pretty nice.

Striking before the enemy is prepared; the reason why early UU's are so sought after!