Sigma said:
Scalefang, you used the phrase "wars of opportunity" several times in your campaign.
As you know, starting an early war can have late-game consequences. Increased military production causes a decrease in production of workers, settlers, and improvement buildings, as well as an increase in upkeep. This in turn stifles population growth, tile improvements, culture and city expansion, and research. We may severely cripple (or wipe out) a civilization, but it may also put us behind everyone else in the long term. We may eliminate a nation who would contest our borders, but that nation could also become a potential ally, and would be one of the few nations that we could trade with (until we research Astronomy). We may win many battles, but we will also lose men that could be defending our civilization at home.
There are many other factors as well. How do you define a "war of opportunity"? How would you determine whether or not we should go to war? What factors would push you towards war, and what factors would push you towards peace?
Although this question was directed to Scalefang, the other candidates may answer if they wish.
Thanks for the question, I'll answer it to the best of my ability.
First off, I'll admit that ANY war puts infrastructure on the backburner. Workers cannot improve border cities over the risk of losing them, and Libraries and the like cannot be built, slowing research and increasing upkeep. There is also the problem of score increasing faster than the military to defend it, which creates a juicy target for aggressive opponents.
War is a tool, and it's best uses are when knowledge is also applied. You are surrounded by three other civs: Spain, Aztec and America. You and Spain have different religions. In an optimal situation, one would try to cultivate a continuous friendship with America, watching the Aztecs and the Spanish. For the Aztecs are a civ that will war with you if it sees an "opportunity," as in it's military is greater than yours or a nice juicy city with cottages. An "opportunity" for you is if/when the Aztecs go to war with Spain or America. Joining a side in this instance can apply the up to +4 military campaign bonus in diplomacy, which could be enough to make Spain or America like you more and be more generous in trading. However, let us say that the Aztecs are annhilating America, razing their cities and pillaging their land, in that instance, I would vote that we go to war with America and take what we can,
especially if they have a wonder or a resource that we need/want. It is better in our hands than the Aztecs, long-term trading partners can and will turn on you in this game if they feel they have a chance or the upper hand, particularily the more aggresive civs; China, Japan and Greece as other examples.
For me, wars of opportunity are defined by the moment and the global situation. On the other hand, if our infrastructure cannot handle it, I will not advocate the war, libraries
should be built and cottages planted, if there is constant war, none of these would be accomplished and we would loose, for we were not balanced enough. All the Axemen in the world mean squat against an opponent with Infantry.
). If we do not have bronze, horses, or iron, I will try to push for construction (catapults). Catapults are deadly in Civ4. Very deadly.
