1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Starting war with all of them to keep your opponents behind wrong or good tactic?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by Jheronimus, Feb 28, 2006.

  1. Jheronimus

    Jheronimus Warlord

    Feb 22, 2006
    Netherlands, Velp & Groningen
    Hello all, I'm playing at Noble (conquest large map). I notice I become better and better (just rooky).

    I've put a new strategy to the test (I had 4 opponents):

    -I wanted to keep all my opponents below me in score (to give them later in the game a final easy blow), so I razed some cities of them (mostly their capital) to get them behind me. I've done that with all four now and betrayed all of them. The point is, when I finally got them all below me, some other civ would re-establish him selve and sky rocket in score some turns later. I couldn't get up with them, I couldn't get all four of them under my thumb at the same time. Now I'm third in score and getting behind in tech, so it'll be impossible to be doing large invasions like I used to do (won't work with 'old' units).
    I also noticed the ones who did better had bigger empires then I did. I only have an empire of 6 cities in total. Is this why I fall behind? I've only done one expansion phase in the beginning, afterwards I don't expand eanymore to avoid to much maintenance.

    Is this a bad strategy or am I just being unlucky?

    And what do you do, focus on one civ each time to eliminate or on all like me?

    I didn't want them to get in front me (in score) so I started war with them to beat that score down, is this a bad idea?

    Tell me all about your tactics and strategy you use.
  2. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Apr 3, 2004
    Bad strategy,
    Choose your opponents, and choose some friends,
    You keep your opponents under you by attacking them.
    You keep your friends under you by making sure that You are the one that keeps your opponent's cities. (and general better management)
  3. MyOtherName

    MyOtherName Emperor

    Dec 7, 2004
    Maintenance is irrelevant. What matters is profit/deficit. Almost any city site will eventually turn a profit. Therefore, if you can stomach the temporary deficit it produces in the short term, you will benefit from the permanent profit it produces in the long term.

    That said, with your strategy, if you really, really wanted to stick to 6 cities, you simply have to keep oppressing your opponents -- don't give them a chance to grow back.

    As for me personally, I'm fond of big, productive empires. My first games were all similar(#), I would typically do the initial expansion, then eventually take over one neighbor entirely, and then use this terrific foundation to simply take off. In my domination victory, I had actually swallowed up three opponents, and turned an entire continent into a very rich and productive civilization. I've did similar when I tried the Julius Caesar thing -- my civ was sprawled over the entire map, with tons of productive cities. (It was so big that when I built the forbidden palace, my income suddenly jumped 100 gold per turn!)

    Maintenance isn't something you should avoid at all costs -- it is something to understand, respect, and overcome when appropriate.

    (#): Except for one -- I decided to play nice with my neighbor. I wound up being a couple votes shy of diplomatic victory. Had to switch gears to a space race, and barely caught up in time.
  4. Mordraken

    Mordraken Chieftain

    Jan 5, 2006
    I would say that is a bad strategy. If you are warring with all 4 opponents, and each opponent even has only 4 cities (to your six) then that is 4X4 = 16 cities vs. your six. Each opponent will be pumping out units and fighting against your invasion, and probably also counter-attacking you. Not only would your six cities have to be concentrating on producing units, but you will be battling enemy nations that will be ravaging your improvements and destroying your infrastructure.

    Also, because you are making all enemies, there's a good chance that (1) you won't be able to make friendly mutual trades (i.e. tech trading or resource trading) which is important and (2) the enemies may group up, which would put you even further behind.

    Like others have said, it's best to focus on one enemy at a time, and keep your mutli-front wars to a minimum. Keep the others as friends until you decide to end the friendship and attack.
  5. Crighton

    Crighton Emperor

    Jan 3, 2006
    If you're at the point where you're sacking the guys capital either: keep it and his empire OR raze everything (or some combination of the above if you can't get to ALL of his empire it'd probably be best to take the capital and maybe another city then raze the rest).

    My advice would be to try and eliminate the other civs as much as possible if not able to do so outright. A dead enemy can't take revenge upon you.
  6. automator

    automator King

    Sep 15, 2005
    Northwest USA
    You're probably seeing your score above everyone else because of the sacking. But running a war machine (especially a war machine that is taking on four civs) is expensive, at the cost of long-term improvements. Your citizens are probably also pretty unhappy about the war and refusing to work, further lowering your productivity and commerce creation.
  7. Crighton

    Crighton Emperor

    Jan 3, 2006
    good point, probly best to use the whip if that occurs:whipped:
  8. Hans Lemurson

    Hans Lemurson Prince

    Jan 2, 2006
    Silicon Valley
    Capitols are almost inherently the best city-location in an empire. Capitols also are the ones that usually have all the wonders. If you raze a city and then do nothing, the AI will probably just rebuild on that spot, since they always seem to have a settler on hand at all times. Capitols are to be captured and held, being quality cities. Razing them is foolish and wasteful.

    If you have the military superiority to raze a Civ's capitol...why not just conquer them? Or maybe just leave them with a little tiny tundrapolis... Heck, even if you do raze their capitols, why not re-settle the land?

    Like automator said, fighting a war is expensive and while building up a strong military you are neglecting domestic development and tech-research. Furthermore, if you are enemies with everyone else, there stands a good chance that they will all become friends with each other. Tech trading can greatly increase the cumulative research-rate, and if they trade with each other you may end up left in the dust.

    Finally, there is no better way to say "I hate you" than to raze someone's Capitol. It is truly a gesture that they will always remember you for.
  9. kamigawan

    kamigawan Warlord

    Nov 10, 2005
    A better strategy is to bribe other civs to go to war with each other. It really slows down their development without getting your hands dirty.

Share This Page