Should I focus on destroying one Civ at a time?

[stormerne]

Two new members.

Welcome both!

If you are playing against the AI then you can do one thing that it never does, and that is attack with overwhelming force. (It sometimes manages that for one city but not for an entire civ.) If you can do that for two civs simultaneously, then it suggests to me that you should have done it for one rather earlier!

So it partly depends on personal playing style.

If you prefer a higher degree of risk, where you might not always succeed, then you can attack with less than overwhelming force. You can start earlier but the war may go on much longer. You don't need advanced units to do this.

If you prefer the juggernaut approach (as I do) then you fight defensively only until you know you can destroy an entire civ in just a few turns. (And then the next, and then the next...). You don't need modern units to do that, but it helps!

Or you can simply bribe your way to success. This is how one very successful player - Shadowdale - invariably does it. But you need a very different kind of civ in order to sustain the financial drain: very high trade, good communications and (mainly) democratic government.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

 

[GeneralHotRod]

I recently invaded a neighbor with catapults, crusaders, and archers. I was near their capital so I took that out early. First I destroyed the city walls with diplomats and then attacked with catapults from a nearby mountain and invaded with archers. He did not have the money to build a new capital so bribing was easy. With a few diplomats I was able to bribe all the units I needed and get a few cities while I was at it. In all I moved an invading force of 2 catapults, 1 crusader and 3 archers and destroyed a civilization of 8 cities, it was 400 or so AD. I had a large enough invasion force left behind I was able to start a new war!!!

 

[SunTzu]

Do whatever's possible, right now in my game it's the modern era it's me versus the other 6 AI's we all have the max techs. And i'm actually fighting every civilization w/o delay of fighting, so it is possible to fight as many fronts as you want.
Lets see, i'm fighting on 4 fronts now and am winning.
There was a babylonian-american front but i've sent some 20 nukes at babylon via submarine and then paradropped in taking several size 20 cities, also i'm nuking the primary area of the english.
Its somewhat hard but my huge industrial mite is giving me atleast 3 new nukes a turn

Washington has a production of 99!
I have submarines nearly everywhere loaded with nukes, anyways my advice is try a 2 front war if you feel like you can fight it.
Oh yeah, every AI has signed a pact to contain American Agression

------------------
Civilization God of War & Economic Prosperity
http://www.civfanatics.com Staff and forum moderator

<IMG SRC="http://www.homestead.com/house_of_lux/files/suntzu1.gif" border=0>
Elevators always smell different to midgets

 

[DBSD13]

I got an idea.

Make peace with them, THEN build cities next to their capital or with in its territory of their main industrial cities! That would stop them from growing any further and whether u move a units near their cities, they complain u can send them back to the middle of their empire!

 

[omichyron]

<FONT size="2">It seems to me that linking enemy cities to one's railroads can allow diplomats or spies to reach just about every enemy city in one turn. I generally don't do this, however, as it is very expensive and I have often used up all my cash buying wonders (especially on the highest difficulty level, where the AI has many fewer shields in each line to fill in). It is easier just to use armor if your foe doesn't have mechanized infantry and howitzers if he does. Early in the game, generally the only units worth using to attack with are those with two movement. I have never fought a war on more than one front before I acquired gunpowder, but I don't know if it is impossible.</FONT s>

[This message has been edited by omichyron (edited June 12, 2001).]

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by shotdown08:
so i should wait until I have armour bombers and other advanced units?

I agree with Tim's response to this in that there are several good opportunities to wage war well before this.

1. Early Game: You can usually get (relatively) advanced units from the first few huts. Elephants and chariots (at times even horsemen) will often be able to overcome a civ you see very early on, and it behooves you to take these out right away to clear your home continent.
2. Early - Mid: Before the other civs have discovered gunpowder or in many cases even construction (for city walls), units such as elephants and crusaders can be deadly against enemy phalanx - and the techs for these units (polytheism for elephants and monotheism for crusaders) are available pretty early.
3. Mid: Once the other civs have city walls and musketeers, all is not lost. With steam engine, ironclads will still defeat most units in coastal cities for you (sometimes better than bringing down city walls and then attacking). Also, before democracy, diplomats can be great - especially if you've built in a great deal of trade and have some cash to spend.
4. Later on: If a civ has been allowed to flourish, you may get to them and find that they are in a democracy with lots of riflemen and alpine troops behind city walls. This is when the modern units will have to come into play (howitzers, armor, bombers, spies, battleships, etc.).
5. Much later: If you are slow to get to them, the enemy civs WILL build the Manhattan Project and the WILL nuke you. Once you're in a nuke war it can be a serious pain as the AI is indiscriminate about bombing - at times they seem to do it for the sheer thrill of it.

------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock

 

[tank]

<FONT COLOR="Yellow">What igenerally like to do is get gunpowder as soon as possible then go out and kick some ass. If u develope gunpowder in 1000BC, nothing can stop u as long as u keep developing military unit upgrades. check out my site for more info <a href="http://www.geocities.com/sidmeiermania/index.html">http://www.geocities.com/sidmeiermania/index.html </FONT c>

 

[duke o' york]

Tank, please don't use yellow text, it's practically impossible to read.

------------------
in vino veritas

 

[Kefka]

All you have to do is highlight it with your Pointer and that yellow will become black and be easy to read! <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.grworld.com/vanillacubesgames/files/kefka.gif" border=0>"Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!"
"I will Create A monument to nothingness!"

[This message has been edited by Kefka (edited June 15, 2001).]

 

[duke o' york]

Duhh. Actually it becomes maroon, but thanks Kefka. Pretty dumb not to notice that one.

------------------
in vino veritas

 

[Kefka]

Yea I know I figured I might as well point out the noticeable eh!
and thanks for the Paddlin I enjoyed it!

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.grworld.com/vanillacubesgames/files/kefka.gif" border=0>"Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!"
"I will Create A monument to nothingness!"

 

[Simon Darkshade]

War on many fronts is quite possible and indeed enjoyable. Holding actions, fortified troops in good positions, guerrilla warfare, and mobile ravaging forces are all useful.
I have had wars against 6 othe rcivs going, with unit strenghts of 10 to 30 on each front. Proper coordination of all three arms, plus securing your homeland, are essential for this.

Total war of annihilation is good, when the correlation of forces is fully in your favour.
Usually I do wait until modern times, becuase 1.) I am usually the first to the best techs, therefore best unit advantage and 2.) the destruction is so much more fun.

The key to successful nuclear war is no to strike first unless you totally disarm the enemy within reach of you. They go for a loaded city, so sometimes you can trick them into nuking a small inconsequencial joint full of riflemen, rather than the spread out forces of the countryside.

The key to war on many fronts is ggood infrastructure and transportation ( airports are lovely, especially to secure staging points) and control of the seas. It can be often more fun to conduct a protracted war than to go in with spies and bribe everything. That just seems a little hollow to me.

However, bribing troops on another continent en masse can be a good way of getting a large number of NONE troops, which is excellent for war under a democracy.

I like war, especially against Zulus, Americans and Mongols.

------------------
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
- N.S.Khrushchev

 

[Håkon]

I will quote from a book I read once:

"The one who fights war on two fronts is stupid. The one who fights war on three is an idiot."

There you have it

. No, seriously, I think you should destroy one civ at a time, and DESTROY them. But, then again, I've only won by conquest once, so what sort of advice am I able to give?

------------------
"Go to the place that should not be named with your beliefs, Miriam Godwinson! All your New Jerusalem are belong to US!!"

Academician Provost Zakharov - "For I Have Tasted the Fruit"