Peaceful expansion vs. War

[iamnleth]

I had been wondering about the pros and cons of the two: if you had to choose one of the two (each being an way to expand your empire), which would be more beneficial?

There are, of course, many things to consider:

• If the possible war target is aggressive or not (Monty, Shaka...)
• The status of your military.
• If the open area for settling is jungle/tundra covered.
• if the open are for settling has needed resources.
• If the possible war target has needed resources.
• Diplomatic penalties for war.
• The greater cost of peaceful settling (cities start at pop. 1, must improve the tiles... victims of war have big cities/improved land.

Considering these factors (and others I may have missed):

• When should I expand peacefully rather than by war?
• When should I expand by war rather than peacefully?

The reason I start this thread is because in one of my latest games as Darius (running CE), I was faced with this choice. I could have taken over Montezuma (although my military consisted of only about 15 Immortals and 5 Macemen in about 500 AD), or I could've peacefully settled a normally very nice-looking area overrun by jungle. The jungle has quite a few good resources that I could use, but Montezuma's land isn't bad either (and Montezuma is a Hindu- isolated because everyone else is buddhist). I'd really like to know which I should aim for first. It doesn't look like Hammurabi will be settling the jungle too soon, there's a large barbarian city on the isthmus between it and him. Montezuma declared on me but sent a stack of axes/spears which I could easily take out.

So, keeping this is mind, would it have been wiser for me to take out Montezuma first, risking the loss of the jungle, or should I have thrown back his invasion and peacefully settled the jungle, risking a more powerful Monty later in the game? If I were to invade him, I would atleast have to sign a peace treaty temporarily to build up military.

Help is appreciated, and discussion on which of the two is preferred is welcome!

EDIT: The difficulty is Monarch.

 

[0R4NG3]

I think you should invade, jungle cities take awhile to develop unless you have an army of workers. War on the other hand will bring immediate benefits, not the least of which is eliminate one of your biggest threats. Doesn't have to be a long war, just enough to weaken Monty and destroy his economy/research, you can always mop up later.
It also depends on the difficulty level, if you're playing on Monarch and above invading is better, otherwise you can probably afford to expand peacefully.

 

[Silence101]

Difficulty: Prince (but I usually win )

I'm a big fan of war in Civ - I couldn't imagine a game of Civ without war... to me it's one of the more exciting aspects of the game. With that said, though, expansion through war is all about opportunity. Granted, to a large extent, you create and look for that opportunity. It also involves a lot of forward thinking - if there's one Civ and a lot of prime land to my north, I might be able to peacefully expand over much of it, but I'll often kill my neighbor first while they're weak and begin claiming all of it at a slower pace. Increasing your land at another Civ's expense leads to power. You become strong by praying on the weak.

I personally don't find peaceful expansion vs. war expansion to be all that related. Sometimes I'll do both at the same time. Sometimes (rarely) I'll do neither. If there's prime real estate available, I'll settle it. The AI always has prime real estate somewhere - so typically war at some point is a good option - plus, a good way to stay on top is by keeping everyone else in their place. So, whether because of expansion or not, I'll usually find the opportunity and some reason to go to war with my neighbors.

I guess if you had to choose between either one or the other, I'd probably lean on the side of war - though it depends on how good the land is that I'm passing up for peaceful expansion and also who the enemy Civ is going to be - and what I am fighting for... (resources / do they have better land than what I would get peacefully? / Does the other Civ pose a significant threat in the future / etc...)

 

[Silence101]

The reason I start this thread is because in one of my latest games as Darius (running CE), I was faced with this choice. I could have taken over Montezuma (although my military consisted of only about 15 Immortals and 5 Macemen in about 500 AD), or I could've peacefully settled a normally very nice-looking area overrun by jungle. The jungle has quite a few good resources that I could use, but Montezuma's land isn't bad either (and Montezuma is a Hindu- isolated because everyone else is buddhist). I'd really like to know which I should aim for first. It doesn't look like Hammurabi will be settling the jungle too soon, there's a large barbarian city on the isthmus between it and him. Montezuma declared on me but sent a stack of axes/spears which I could easily take out.

So, keeping this is mind, would it have been wiser for me to take out Montezuma first, risking the loss of the jungle, or should I have thrown back his invasion and peacefully settled the jungle, risking a more powerful Monty later in the game? If I were to invade him, I would atleast have to sign a peace treaty temporarily to build up military.

Without actually seeing it, it's difficult to say for sure, but I'd probably kill Monty first and then kill the fool who took my jungle.

 

[Spiceweasel]

Kill Monty. He's not a good neighbor; sooner or later, you will be at war with him. You might as well fight him at your convenience, rather than his. If you try to peacefully expand into the jungle, Monty's nice productive cities will be spitting out hoards of troops before your new cities have built a barracks.

 

[Airefuego]

For me it depends upon whatever gives me more power... War is fun and it's the best way I know of slowing down an opposing civ

But that said, peaceful building periods are nice too...

I have played Togukawa and started in food-rich rivers miles from anyone. I was the most peaceful Togo in history! Gandhi liked me!

Eventually I killed him of course, but I think he still would have invited me to his birthday party.

 

[jason77024]

Kill Monty. He's not a good neighbor; sooner or later, you will be at war with him. You might as well fight him at your convenience, rather than his. If you try to peacefully expand into the jungle, Monty's nice productive cities will be spitting out hoards of troops before your new cities have built a barracks.

Exactly right. And hacking away jungle is such a PITA you may as well hit Monty and let someone clean up the jungle for you. Not to mention the support costs while you try to get those cities up & running, unless you found one with (say) bananas and double gems.

Jason

 

[iamnleth]

I agree with taking out Monty first, but the fact was that my military was very weak (yet, strangely, better than his). Also, the jungle was not between Monty and I -- he would not have been able to reach my new cities in the jungle.

Thanks for the great replies. I suppose my main concern is obtaining the largest amount of land at the lowest cost possible.