My warmonging sucks.

[Winth]

Whenever I try and go for some head destroying, I usually can't get past the early Axeman/Swordsman rush :/ I recently played a game with Rome, but I rejected, because I was losing my stacks constantly, my economy was pits so Hammurabi was out-teching me, and... et cetera. Some tips? Maybe I should prepare better - maybe my stacks are too small?

 

[Verge]

Maybe I should prepare better - maybe my stacks are too small?

Maybe. If you post a saved game or even a few screenshots, then we can give you some comprehensive and specific advice.

 

[futurehermit]

If you think your stacks may be too small then they probably are. In the ancient era 15 is a good-sized stack to start with while reinforcing. Middle ages I find I want at minimum 40 troops before going to war. Later in the game I want at minimum 60-80 with another 60-80 to follow soon after.

If you can overrun your opponent in a short time then the war will be shorter with less war weariness and less resulting dmg to your economy.

However...

Focus on your economy first before you go to war. Get some good commerce cities going and make sure you have currency and code of laws. Once your economy feels semi-stable start to pump troops from your production cities. Check the power graph. Once your power is clearly stronger than your opponent check what size your stack(s) are. Scout out your opponent's first 3 cities. Can your stack(s) take those cities on their own? Can they still take those cities if your opponent whips/sends defenders? Your answers here should be "yes". Reinforcements should help you continue to push on to cities beyond 3 but if your advance stalls after only 1-2 cities that is not a good sign.

 

[CivCorpse]

If you think your stacks may be too small then they probably are. In the ancient era 15 is a good-sized stack to start with while reinforcing. Middle ages I find I want at minimum 40 troops before going to war. Later in the game I want at minimum 60-80 with another 60-80 to follow soon after.

If you can overrun your opponent in a short time then the war will be shorter with less war weariness and less resulting dmg to your economy.

However...

Focus on your economy first before you go to war. Get some good commerce cities going and make sure you have currency and code of laws. Once your economy feels semi-stable start to pump troops from your production cities. Check the power graph. Once your power is clearly stronger than your opponent check what size your stack(s) are. Scout out your opponent's first 3 cities. Can your stack(s) take those cities on their own? Can they still take those cities if your opponent whips/sends defenders? Your answers here should be "yes". Reinforcements should help you continue to push on to cities beyond 3 but if your advance stalls after only 1-2 cities that is not a good sign.

You're such a bully with your bulbed military techs. Be nice and build more wonders for a happier world.

 

[JBossch]

I hesitate to contradict futurehermit's advice but here goes:

Your economy should definitely be shored up first but sometimes (by this I mean ALWAYS) the picture-perfect scenario laid out just doesn't exist and before you know it, your window of opportunity has passed. Sometimes wars must be fought even without the planets having aligned first.

Instead of using ridiculously huge stacks, try beelining military techs and attacking right after you upgrade your stack. Ancient and medieval wars notwithstanding (and I do love 'em), I tend to go on the offensive when I get rifles and infantry (way before anyone else). Both are very effective against longbows and you won't have to build so many. remember, every unit costs money in upkeep.

Also, no one has mentioned the importance of siege weapons. Futurehermit, are you including them in your stack numbers? If so, they are a little closer to the numbers I usually use. You really need a ton, although I still play warlords (which is apparently ancient now) and am unfamiliar with the whole spy-induced riots.

Finally, not all wars have to finish off your opponent. In fact, often your economy is just not prepared to administer that much new territory. I see no problem with weakening a strong opponent by taking 2-3 cities then declaring peace (for a nice price) and using the ten turns to regroup.

 

[redmosquito]

If you are playing BTS dont rely on catapults and trebuchets too much. Get alpabet as soon as possible, watch your espionage points and use spies to revolt. I try to get the cities that are already within cultural borders first, to avoid early war weariness that might cripple the economy. If you have 15 praets few seige units and 3 spies, and an economy to sustain this war, that should be enough.

 

[noto]

To the OP - I find warfare all about timing. I don't understand the advice given so far by other posters. It might work on easy difficulty levels, but on the higher difficulty levels you can't "build up your economy first" before war...the AI will simply get way ahead of you. You also can't sit there and build the perfect little army for yourself. It's all about speed. Have you ever played a RTS game like Warcraft? Half the game is timing/speed. There is a similar dynamic here in Civ. There are so many different windows of opportunity to attack that occur throughout the game, like if you are the first one to cannons and grenadiers...so I can't go through all of them. But you mentioned Rome. Okay. One window of opportunity to wage war in this game is VERY VERY early in the game. Why? Because swordsmen beat fortified archers, and axemen are nearly as good. If you don't hit the enemy fast enough, you'll have to wait until you get seige weapons, like catapults, but there is a brief window of opportunity in the very early game to hit your enemy before they have a real defence. It's actually a little tough to do this with Rome, because researching iron working, finding the iron, hooking it up, and then building praets actually takes a really long time. If you want to try an easier version of the same thing, try Persia's immortals. Just research animal husbandry first, hook up the horses, build 2 cities, and then pump immortals. Don't stop building immortals until you are done destroying your enemy, and then sometimes you can even go on and destroy a second enemy. This is all occurring in the classic age window of opportunity. Now, about Rome. Rome's praets are incredibly strong, but in my opinion actually difficult to use properly because they might come so late that you need to bring along catapults. IMO that's not using them properly. You should rush STRAIGHT to iron working, make hooking up the iron your number one priority and focus on building the praets. Nothing else matters at that point. Build 2 or 3 good production cities (one to claim the iron) and then go attack. You can't stop to build infrastructure (except maybe barracks) and certainly don't dream of building wonders or more cities. If you want to build wonders in the early game, don't play Rome, besides, you can just take them from other civs anyway. So it's all about timing. You have to get those praets out as fast as you possibly can, then they will work wonders. Don't build too many cities because you can just take some of the ones you invade anyway - especially the captital. Hope that helps

 

[Verge]

Have you ever played a RTS game like Warcraft? Half the game is timing/speed. There is a similar dynamic here in Civ.

The Axe Rush is by no means a necessary strategy for higher levels, and I only do it when I have neighbors, particularly expansionist, that are just too close early in the game. Otherwise, I rarely go to war before getting catapults.

 

[noto]

I have found that on emperor, unless I completely luck out in the beginning (like 3 gold mines in capital's BFC, happened once), an early war is pretty much a necessity, no matter who I'm playing. Now, like you suggested, it might be soon enough still to wait for catapults...but personally I find wars to go much slower at that point. Imo there are only two periods of the game when war is fast and easy - very early and very late. When you have bombers and tanks, war is fast. When you have axes/chariots/swords before the enemy has a real military, war is fast. Anything in between is painfully slow and drags on.

 

[Verge]

I have found that on emperor, unless I completely luck out in the beginning (like 3 gold mines in capital's BFC, happened once), an early war is pretty much a necessity, no matter who I'm playing. Now, like you suggested, it might be soon enough still to wait for catapults...but personally I find wars to go much slower at that point. Imo there are only two periods of the game when war is fast and easy - very early and very late. When you have bombers and tanks, war is fast. When you have axes/chariots/swords before the enemy has a real military, war is fast. Anything in between is painfully slow and drags on.

My experiences with successful and effective Macemen conquests on Immortal say differently, so I guess we'll have to agree that there are a variety of viable war strategies that may fit each person's predilections differently.

 

[futurehermit]

You're such a bully with your bulbed military techs. Be nice and build more wonders for a happier world.

I hesitate to contradict futurehermit's advice but here goes:

Your economy should definitely be shored up first but sometimes (by this I mean ALWAYS) the picture-perfect scenario laid out just doesn't exist and before you know it, your window of opportunity has passed. Sometimes wars must be fought even without the planets having aligned first.

Instead of using ridiculously huge stacks, try beelining military techs and attacking right after you upgrade your stack. Ancient and medieval wars notwithstanding (and I do love 'em), I tend to go on the offensive when I get rifles and infantry (way before anyone else). Both are very effective against longbows and you won't have to build so many. remember, every unit costs money in upkeep.

Also, no one has mentioned the importance of siege weapons. Futurehermit, are you including them in your stack numbers? If so, they are a little closer to the numbers I usually use. You really need a ton, although I still play warlords (which is apparently ancient now) and am unfamiliar with the whole spy-induced riots.

Finally, not all wars have to finish off your opponent. In fact, often your economy is just not prepared to administer that much new territory. I see no problem with weakening a strong opponent by taking 2-3 cities then declaring peace (for a nice price) and using the ten turns to regroup.

Yes, I'm including siege unless you're using cav vs. longbows (+ spies?) and don't need siege or something like that. Also bombers > siege later game.

It's true the ideal situation isn't always there, but basically all I am saying is don't cripple your econ to go to war if you don't have to. Expand peacefully first if there's room while focusing on econ then go to war when the land runs out.

But, hey, if you have Shaka/Monty on your doorstep and copper nearby it can be the right move to strike first and ask questions about the economy later. With proper beelining, bulbing, and trading it is often possible to catch up in tech even if sorely behind earlier on.

 

[noto]

it's just that the cost of war is so little in the beginning of the game. In the beginning, you haven't really specialized your cities yet, and so you can try to increase their production first. War weariness isn't much of an issue. Later on, the costs of war become a much more severe problem.

 

[Verge]

it's just that the cost of war is so little in the beginning of the game. In the beginning, you haven't really specialized your cities yet, and so you can try to increase their production first. War weariness isn't much of an issue. Later on, the costs of war become a much more severe problem.

The perceived cost of an early was is low, but the opportunity cost is still moderate to high. Building stacks of axes, many of whom are going to die, consumes early , which are very valuable. They can be going towards building a strong, specialized empire.

Various players will have differing opinions as to whether or not that opportunity cost outweighs the benefits of early war. I personally don't care for the axe rush, and it hasn't hampered my game in any way when I choose not to go for one.

 

[CivCorpse]

To the OP - I find warfare all about timing. I don't understand the advice given so far by other posters. It might work on easy difficulty levels, but on the higher difficulty levels you can't "build up your economy first" before war...the AI will simply get way ahead of you. You also can't sit there and build the perfect little army for yourself. It's all about speed. Have you ever played a RTS game like Warcraft? Half the game is timing/speed. There is a similar dynamic here in Civ. There are so many different windows of opportunity to attack that occur throughout the game, like if you are the first one to cannons and grenadiers...so I can't go through all of them. But you mentioned Rome. Okay. One window of opportunity to wage war in this game is VERY VERY early in the game. Why? Because swordsmen beat fortified archers, and axemen are nearly as good. If you don't hit the enemy fast enough, you'll have to wait until you get seige weapons, like catapults, but there is a brief window of opportunity in the very early game to hit your enemy before they have a real defence. It's actually a little tough to do this with Rome, because researching iron working, finding the iron, hooking it up, and then building praets actually takes a really long time. If you want to try an easier version of the same thing, try Persia's immortals. Just research animal husbandry first, hook up the horses, build 2 cities, and then pump immortals. Don't stop building immortals until you are done destroying your enemy, and then sometimes you can even go on and destroy a second enemy. This is all occurring in the classic age window of opportunity. Now, about Rome. Rome's praets are incredibly strong, but in my opinion actually difficult to use properly because they might come so late that you need to bring along catapults. IMO that's not using them properly. You should rush STRAIGHT to iron working, make hooking up the iron your number one priority and focus on building the praets. Nothing else matters at that point. Build 2 or 3 good production cities (one to claim the iron) and then go attack. You can't stop to build infrastructure (except maybe barracks) and certainly don't dream of building wonders or more cities. If you want to build wonders in the early game, don't play Rome, besides, you can just take them from other civs anyway. So it's all about timing. You have to get those praets out as fast as you possibly can, then they will work wonders. Don't build too many cities because you can just take some of the ones you invade anyway - especially the captital. Hope that helps

So wrong in aso many ways
A. Augustus is Industrious so wonders are an option.
B. You say that the early window of opportunity in the very very early game (axe rush) is difficult to do with Rome. Ummmm, Rome starts with mining which makes it one step closer to axemen than civs without it. You are allowed to build axemen if you are Rome.
C. If you have Prats you really don't need that many cats. So while you research construction you build prats if you will be facing a lot of protective units on hills behind walls.
D. you say you cannot take the time to build your economy first. That if you do, then you can not catch the AI. Does this mean that if you do not start with copper or horses then you can not win the game? Or that isolated starts are impossible to win because you can't go to war?
E. You mentioned that one of the windows of opportunity is with swordsmen but then you turn right around and say it takes a really long time to research iron working.
F. you say don't build many cities, but rather go take them from the AI. One settler and a couple defensive units cost a lot less to build than an army of invasion. And the end result is the same, you have the same number of cities but by building them you have them sooner.
G. And it may take a bit longer to get the iron hooked up but once you do, Prats are the dominant force with no reliable counter until machinery if the opponent does not have ivory...which takes a whole lot longer to tech. If you have cats and Prats you can take over two or three civs with nice cities and improved tiles ready to be worked. But you need the economy to support them.
H. Immortals are great if the enemy doesn't have copper. In BtS the Ai builds troops to match what you build. And if you go the Immortal route and don't have horses nearby then you have to back track and start up the bW-->IW tech path....and your window is gone. If you start as rome and don't find iron then you still have a chance that you found copper for axes. Plus BW opens up slavery to whip that early army.

I do not play the "Easy" levels and am not a warmonger by any means in the early game and have found that economy first is a sound strategy idependant of having offensive resourses available very early. I only gear for war from the onset if I have one of the lunatics as a neighbor or the AI starts so close that there is not enough room for early peaceful expansion.

CIV is NOT a RTS game like warccraft, it is more involved with many more diverse elements affecting gameplay. And should not be played with a RTS frame of mind. Especially on larger maps. Larger maps require you to build your economy. Because your neighbors are usually farther away. If you go conquer them at the beginning and keep cities the mainanance will cripple you. If you raze the cities then the other AI will settle there because they have the economy to support the cities, while you are behind in tech because you spent your tiome and gold on a war.

 

[CivCorpse]

If you are playing BTS dont rely on catapults and trebuchets too much. Get alpabet as soon as possible, watch your espionage points and use spies to revolt. I try to get the cities that are already within cultural borders first, to avoid early war weariness that might cripple the economy. If you have 15 praets few seige units and 3 spies, and an economy to sustain this war, that should be enough.

Seige weapons are guaranteed to reduce defenses, spies might not. Seige weapons don't poof back to the capital afterwards spies do. Spies don't have th ability to damage units in a city, seige weapons do. Even if nerfed in BtS for collateral damage, all they have to do is survive the attack and you get a GG point. People tend to forget that you get exp and GG points just for surviving a fight if you withdraw. Having your cats and trebs continue attacking even when they will do a tiny bit of damage adds GG points at a good rate. Also I am not sure if the cost of missions is based on actual number of EPs at the time or the number you have accrued long term against a civ. If using them affects that rate then you are opening yourself up to more successful city poisonings and other missions by the AI. Also EPs and spies do not affect your power ranking so the AI might be more likely to attack you or be bribed into a war against you by another AI.

 

[noto]

Ok, maybe I should clarify. Of course you can win with an isolated start...in fact, you can win the game without ever capturing cities, some of the time. Cultural victory is possible with an isolated start/peaceful game. So is diplo. If you play as Portugal on the Terra map and go and colonize the entire new world, heck, you could even win the space race in a peaceful game. Also, yes, you can build up your economy first and then go to war against a neighbour. You can fill out all the space and build basic infrastructure in all of your cities, then go out with a medieval army for conquering. All of that works. It also depends on what resources you start with. If you have no horses, iron, or copper, you may want to wait until gunpowder before getting aggressive. However, what I was saying before is that I find that in Civ4 BTS - it still seems easier to think in terms of the sword. Don't get me wrong, I wish it weren't so. In Civ 2 it was a no brainer - you play aggressively and you win. You could steal techs from someone when you took their city for crying out loud. In Civ 3, conquest was also necessary and rapid expansion wasn't so hard on the economy. Now with civ 4 bts, apparently early war isn't such a necessity any more, right? Well...it certainly isn't as necessary as it was in Civ 2 or 3, granted. However, can you really play at emporer level and go and grab as much land at the beginning as you can, and then just peacefully build up to a space victory? No. Maybe you can, CivCorpse, and if you can then you're a much better player than I am, because I can't. If I don't have at least a few major military campaigns in my game I will lose (except for those special circumstances, like isolated start with a TON of land). On prince I can win the game without ever declaring war, yes, but not on emp. The AI is just too fast to out build. So, sooner or later I have to go invading. Now, you are right that one can wait until the medieval or renaissance eras to invade. I just find that in my personal experience, an early war makes conquering easier. I even played a game once where I got to gunpowder and muskets and cannons while Egypt was still using archers and chariots, and I invaded then. I thought with my tech lead it would be a breeze. Well...taking the cities was easy, but by that point in the game the WW was killing me and I didn't yet have jails and the war just ground down to a halt simply due to the WW with me only taking 5 of egypt's 15 or so cities. Then egypt vassalized to the strongest civ on my continent. What an uphill battle. Compare that to an early war when you take your enemy's capital, which is on great land, and you get an early gg with early high level units, which can then be upgraded all making your next war much easier.

 

[CivCorpse]

It might work on easy difficulty levels, but on the higher difficulty levels you can't "build up your economy first" before war...the AI will simply get way ahead of you.

I wasn't claiming war was not a part of the game, but rather the statement that you can not wait until your economy is built up.

 

[futurehermit]

In my experience early wars depend on a variety of factors:

1) You must have a close neighbour. The costs are just too high otherwise. This doesn't always happen.

2) You must have some kind of military resource you can leverage. Chariots may or may not work. Axes may or may not work (Try axe-rushing babylon or sitting bull if they have their UUs). Swords may or may not work.

3) You have to have a plan for recovering your economy one way or another. This is the easiest of the three, but I think lower-level players just keep every city they sack and that gets them into trouble. Only keeping select city and knowing how to rebuild your economy and/or not devastate it while attacking is important.

If you meet these three criteria then an early war can be very nice. However, if you don't then building up your economy first then going to war can also be very nice. I agree, however, that later wars can tend to lag on longer doing more damage to your economy. If you can build enough cities that you can beeline to something like knights or cavalry to get a fast-moving military edge then that can be sweet. Later in the game when you get tanks/bombers you can war very fast.

In my current game with Cathy I built around 9 cities peacefully (fits her traits) then got declared on by Issy, which was ok because I was going to attack her any way. I wasn't quite ready so was on the defense at first. This actually worked out to my advantage cuz I built the GW and with imperialistic I got a couple extra GGs. One became a medic3 unit one became an offensive warlord with the +xp promotion, CR3, and then combat promotions as he won fights (he is still around with over 50xp in the industrial age--he's now an infantry). The rest were settled in my HE city (I got fascism first as well).

I took the fight to Issy with maces and catas (I beelined machinery after CS which is something I normally don't do because I want to lightbulb liberalism, but I didn't have a gpfarm unfortunately). The war was long, but lower WW cuz I took out most of her troops on my territory. After taking her out I had 14 cities and it was ca. 1300AD. I then went peacefully toward the SoL and building up my cities. I teched toward rifling on the way to fascism and attacked Charlamagne once I had jails, rushmore, and police state. I also had infantry, cossacks, and cannons. This was a relatively short war with minimal WW damage to my economy.

Now I think I will really move quickly on to Babylon then the other continent (Mansa first...) because I just opened up tanks and bombers plus I have a highly promoted army from previous wars (something I normally wouldn't have if I just waited centuries for faster-moving troops--a trade-off).

Hopefully I can finish things with tanks/bombers but if necessary I'll tech towards modern armor and stealth bombers (fun, fun...)

Anyways, I tell this story to show that yes earlier and later warfare is faster but the in-between wars can work with lesser cost to your economy if you plan for it. Getting rushmore, jails, police state really helped that second in-between war and killing most of issy's troops on my territory really helped the first one (only really lost suicide catapults on her territory for lower WW costs)

 

[Daedal]

IMO the toughest part of warmongering at any point, but especially early in the game, is giving up all those to build up huge stacks. Unfortunately, if you don't do that, you'll lose more because you won't have enough stack defenders to keep your attackers alive or you won't have enough attackers/siege engines to get wars done fast. Then you end up spiraling down into a world of pain where your wars drag on, your economy kicks the bucket, and your people all become .

The conclusion I've drawn from all this is: if you're going to war, GO TO WAR. Every city that can contribute to the effort in any way should build units. Even hammer poor cities can build garrison units to keep your people happy and to shore up captured cities or act as suicide stack defenders in desperate situations. Don't be afraid to chop forests or use the whip even if, like me, it makes you cringe to give up those resources on units that will most likely die. If it makes you feel any better, consider every civ you destroy a really nifty world wonder. Then you won't feel so bad about the you spent conquering it.

 

[KMadCandy]

edit: i decided to spare you my pointless ramblings for once. i know, you're shocked!