Plz Help: How to be Aggressive

[paintanker]

I've never really been an aggressive strategy game player. Even in Age of Mythology (if anyone's played that), I'd just build massive defenses and focus growth in my kingdom. The problem is, harder levels of Civ4 and opposing players like to kill me (obviously). I know that the best defense is a good offense, so I have to learn to be aggressive. But how?

Some problems I'm having:
Early in the game, it seems I don't have good enough military to attack anybody.
Later in the game, everybody's cities are fortified with a buttload of defenses, and I can't seem to penetrate no matter how vast my forces.
When I fight someone, I feel like I am spending so many resources on the war that I am falling behind the rest of the game, as peaceful nations put resources toward growth and progression.

So I have some general questions:
Is it better to go to war early, or late in the game?
What military precautions should I take in times of peace, and at approximately what years?
What reason should I have to attack somebody?
What sort of military should I have to attack a single city?
How many cities should I attack at once?
What sort of militart should I have to defend my city?
Should I defend my borders, or just my cities?
Is it worth it to destroy farms and cottages, etc.?
What research paths should I choose?
Should I have one city with a lot of hammers and military upgrades to pump out units, or many cities?


And any other tips you can give on being aggressive. Thanks!!!

 

[Derakon]

Build more siege.

Is it better to go to war early, or late in the game?

It is best to go to war when you can fight decisively. Ideally this means fighting with a technological advantage (e.g. riflemen vs. longbows) and numerical superiority.

What military precautions should I take in times of peace, and at approximately what years?

I don't think there's any hard-and-fast rule. Keep a decently strong standing army and make certain your border cities have at least enough garrison that you can rush more units to them before they are taken.

What reason should I have to attack somebody?

They have something you want/need (e.g. land, happiness resources, a constructed wonder, a holy city...), or they're threatening a victory.

What sort of military should I have to attack a single city?

Enough that you can take it in at most two turns. That means lots of siege, and at least as many normal units as there are garrison units in the city.

How many cities should I attack at once?

One. If you can build up enough of an army that it can be split to attack multiple cities simultaneously, then you should have declared war years earlier.

What sort of militart should I have to defend my city?

Non-border cities get whatever junk units you have sitting around. Border cities should get at least a few decent units. At least on Prince, my experience is that the AI doesn't attack much at all if you're currently on the warpath, though, so this isn't really critical.

Should I defend my borders, or just my cities?

You can't defend your borders -- it'd require spreading your units so thin that no one unit could survive any combat. Fortunately the AI just beelines your cities when at war. Really what you should do, though, is beat up his giant stack with your giant stack, and then take your stack and beat the crap out of him. Defensive wars suck because you aren't dictating the pace of the fight.

Is it worth it to destroy farms and cottages, etc.?

If you don't plan to keep the city, then pillaging cottages and strategic resources is worthwhile (towns are worth loads of cash). Everything else isn't worth the time -- you'd spend more on the extra turn's worth of unit maintenance than you get from the pillaging.

What research paths should I choose?

Bronzeworking for axemen. Animal Husbandry/The Wheel for chariots. Civil Service and Construction for macemen / catapults. Steel for cannons, Rifling for riflemen. Assembly Line for Infantry, Artillery for, well, artillery. The only seriously big one here is Steel, since cannons are miles better than catapults/trebuchets.

Should I have one city with a lot of hammers and military upgrades to pump out units, or many cities?

One or maybe two military cities is generally best, as you can concentrate your military boosters there. You only need one barracks, you only get one Heroic Epic, you can settle a bunch of Great Generals there, et cetera. Generally speaking I have one city that, once I get basic infrastructure in place, does nothing but churn out military units all game long.

 

[DMOC]

How many cities should I attack at once?
What sort of militart should I have to defend my city?

Scout out your enemy before the war. If he/she has a huge stack-of-doom in one city and weaker defenses in the other, I would suggest bringing just one stack to attack that city containing the enemy stack. If the defenses are pretty spread out, you can attack 3-4 cities at once. However, be aware that splitting your stack can be dangerous as it means that, while you attack more cities at once, the attack forces will be weaker.

Defend your cities? When you attack AI's and keep advancing, they generally hole up troops in their cities, so not much is needed (I typically do 2-3 defenders). A lot of time, my "defenders" are actually attackers healing in the city.

 

[itg]

So I have some general questions:
Is it better to go to war early, or late in the game?

War is viable at all stages of the game. The gains from very early wars (known as rushes) usually snowball into strong mid- and late-game positions. Rushing with axemen or chariots is common and effective. Chariots require a little more skill, but IMO they are more effective, esp. on higher levels. For prince and below, warrior rushes are possible and often technically the best move, but if you use them as a crutch, moving up to monarch will be very tough.

Mid-to-late game, try to get a tech lead, as Derakon said. If you prioritize rifling, you can usually send out riflemen against muskets/longbows, even on high levels. combine this with the draft to raise a big army very quickly. A personal favorite strategy of mine is to prioritize steel (taking steel from liberalism is nice) for cannons + whatever footmen you have. The main downside is you can't draft cannons, so you need strong production.

What military precautions should I take in times of peace, and at approximately what years?

Diplo is always the best defense. Monitor your enemies to see when they go into WHEOOHRN (we have enough on our hands right now) mode. You can see this on an AI's diplo screen by mousing over the redded-out buttons to bribe them into war. An AI in WHEOOHRN mode is planning war (or in a war already), and the target may be you. Be ready.

What reason should I have to attack somebody?

You should almost always attack if you think you can win decisively.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Prior Art: self imposed rules to improve my war mongering

See Also: Buildaholics Anonymous

 

[ethemenanki]

My thoughts on this:

Is it better to go to war early, or late in the game?

Depends on the victory you want. If you are going for conquest, the answer is not late or early but as often as possible.

What military precautions should I take in times of peace, and at approximately what years?

Building sufficient siege and massing espionage points against your next victim. What year? Immediatley and without interruption.
If other leaders are pleased or friendly towards you, you can demand 10 gold from them without suffering negative diplomacy. This will hinder them for ten rounds to interfere.
Locate and attack the position of the enemies main army, aka stack of doom.

What reason should I have to attack somebody?

You are stronger than them.

What sort of military should I have to attack a single city?

A large bunch of city raiders, cavalry, siege and small escorting groups of medics, anti-melee, anti-cavalry, city defender and the like.

How many cities should I attack at once?

Depends on your opponent. If he's weak enough, splitting stacks can save time, leading to a higher score in the end. Bad defended smaller towns can usually be overrun with flanking cavalry.

What sort of militart should I have to defend my city?

Just a mix of anti-something units and some cavalry to counter pillagers.

Should I defend my borders, or just my cities?

Depends on what's there. If it's fully grown cottages or resources, of course.

Is it worth it to destroy farms and cottages, etc.?

Depends if you want to keep the city or return it to a vassal. If you're not keeping it, burn everything down to finance your war effort. Also, burn down the cities you don't need and burn down the cities you don't want your vassal to have.
If you don't see a chance of conquering your foe, just destroy everything you can. Listen to fire related music while doing so: "We don't need no water, let those motherers burn..." .

What research paths should I choose?

Stick to the practical things like mathematics, engeneering, chemistry and the like. You can force your victims to give you the rest and conquer the wonders you don't build.
Build your courthouses and jails and use espionage to get additional techs you want. Use your vassals to research for you.

Should I have one city with a lot of hammers and military upgrades to pump out units, or many cities?

At least one specialized city for highly trained troops. Other cities that are capable of producing suiciders and garrisons at least help in my games. Take a look at enemy cities you conquered, sometimes there is a military instructor or two.

EDIT: Oh yes, and if you got nationalism: Draft your population into service. In an empire with ten cities, that's already twenty or thirty invaders more for you. People will riot, but what do you care?

 

[Winth]

Two questions of mine, the ever-failing to win on Emperor person:

Would you go to war if given the chance to capture some juicy cities but otherwise not aiming to destroy the other civ entirely? On games of players such as kossin, I usually see buildup and then total obliteration with a ton of whipped/drafted units - something I have a disdain for, because while I do whip, I tend to always anticipate problems with my research later due to the population deaths.

Also, Construction, how much of a priority and how to compromise it's discovery with the other techs such as Currency or Civil Service?

 

[Derakon]

Not that I've even beaten Monarch yet, but as I see it, your wars should end as soon as they aren't accomplishing anything useful. If you declare war and seize two good cities, then discover you don't have the momentum to get the rest of them, then declare peace; you can always declare war again later (after 10 turns have passed).

As for prioritizing Construction, hard to say. My inclination is that Civil Service should come first because of Bureaucracy, but that does push back the point at which you can start building catapults. Then again, pushing back Civil Service also delays the point at which you can start building macemen. *shrug*

 

[itg]

Two questions of mine, the ever-failing to win on Emperor person:

Would you go to war if given the chance to capture some juicy cities but otherwise not aiming to destroy the other civ entirely? On games of players such as kossin, I usually see buildup and then total obliteration with a ton of whipped/drafted units - something I have a disdain for, because while I do whip, I tend to always anticipate problems with my research later due to the population deaths.

Also, Construction, how much of a priority and how to compromise it's discovery with the other techs such as Currency or Civil Service?

It can be worthwhile to capture a few cities, extort techs/gold, then finish the job once you've built back up. If you can capture and hold a few cities, though, there's no reason not to come back and finish the job, though. If you don't, you'll probably be fighting revolts and border pressure for the rest of the game, meaning those supposedly juicy cities will probably drag on your economy for a long while.

Don't worry about temporary research problems due to whipping/drafting. You'll more than make up for it with your new cities.

Construction is only a priority if you're planning a catapult war. The AIs love it, so it's usually poor tradebait.

 

[mirthadir]

Construction is only a priority if you're planning a catapult war. The AIs love it, so it's usually poor tradebait.

Umm. No. On higher difficulties where the AI bonuses start to get crazy, siege becomes just as useful on defense as offense. When the AI plans a pult war you need a counter and your siege is highly effective for that. Indeed you can stand off an AI with knights and maces with ancient units ... if you can hit it with enough siege. Going by the numbers, pults can be the most effective mass unit counter on defense and construction then becomes a priority whenever early war comes knocking.

As for prioritizing Construction, hard to say. My inclination is that Civil Service should come first because of Bureaucracy, but that does push back the point at which you can start building catapults. Then again, pushing back Civil Service also delays the point at which you can start building macemen. *shrug*

Pults are far more cost effective than maces; further CS typically as much further into the tech path. Often I will bulb philo (CoL + med) and that gives me enough trade to easily snag construction before CS comes online. If I get on an early conquest roll from axes (lots of CRIII axes or CI/Cover/whatever) then a beeline to alpha -> math -> construction means I can keep on pushing. With enough cottage support I can turn an early rush into a land mass clearing push - and do it before the AI can start playing vassal games.

Stick to the practical things like mathematics, engeneering, chemistry and the like. You can force your victims to give you the rest and conquer the wonders you don't build.
Build your courthouses and jails and use espionage to get additional techs you want. Use your vassals to research for you.

Your victim's research becomes severely handicapped when you take half his land. Relying on extortion is a recipe for falling behind on higher difficulties. The "impractical stuff" like Philo, Paper, Edu, Lib are much better trade bait than say engineering or guilds (the "war" techs) and as a bonus are much easier to bulb. Running a few scientists can let you keep pounding out heavy units while making a pretty nice bulb run and trading for new techs. More importantly bulbs + lib can position you for a strong draft/cannon war.

 

[itg]

Umm. No. On higher difficulties where the AI bonuses start to get crazy, siege becomes just as useful on defense as offense. When the AI plans a pult war you need a counter and your siege is highly effective for that. Indeed you can stand off an AI with knights and maces with ancient units ... if you can hit it with enough siege. Going by the numbers, pults can be the most effective mass unit counter on defense and construction then becomes a priority whenever early war comes knocking.

Yeah, you're right about catapults being good defense. But situations where you need to beeline construction to stay alive and can do it are very rare. At least I've never encountered one, ever. It's normally fine to backfill it, which is what I meant by "not a priority."

 

[AutomatedTeller]

being aggressive probably doesn't give you a decisive advantage early... but it helps. You can build a rax faster, which means you get your axe stack out a few turns faster. Your axes have a 10% built in advantage, and you can give them all cover (cover is better than city raider vs. a defending archer)

 

[nishant1911]

don't be aggressive .be peaceful and set an example.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

Make war on sight.

 

[revengeofmakno]

Some good ideas already discussed. What I would add and emphasize is that fortune consistently favours a player who can knock off a neighbour or two or even three early. The consequences in terms of diplomacy and lost research and development are less than they will be later and the gains will be with you for longer. I personally don't enjoy being so aggressive except with leaders such as Genghis or Alexander who are bred for it and don't have good chances with other strategies.

When going for an early attack, don't hesitate or have any doubts, do it all out. It is preferable to completely eliminate the opponents. If not, at least permanently and decisively cripple them. A successful early conquest or two will give you the resources, cities and security to fill in what you neglected while building the offensive army.

Later on in the game, decisions to go to war are much more complex.