The first conquest - who to attack?

[Mordraken]

Here's a general strategy question (I was in this situation last night):

You have just got to swordsmen & catapaults, and are ready for your first conquest. You are currently leading in score, but have limited interaction with your neighbours. You DO know that you don't lead in population or in territory, but likely lead in technology & military. Your score is about 30% higher than your closest competitor, and almost double the lowest competitor (think 450 vs. 325 vs. 250)

You have 3 options on who to attack:

Neighbour #1: The largest (population & territory) civilization, and your chief competitor. Large territory means a long drawn out war (or a longer war with a peace treaty before any decicive victory), but the ability to (1) grab large territory and (2) knock down your #1 competitor. However, if you make nice with the guy, it could make for a powerful ally.

Neighbour #2: The lowest score guy - would probably be easier to roll him quickly and maybe knock out a competitor right off the bat. However, it might leave you open to an attack by another neighbour, or his smaller sized country may be better protected (more densly packed military units) meaning higher losses in the assault. Making peace with him might give you a whipping boy? But it's unlikely they can produce anything you really want...

Neighbour #3: One of the other opponents on your continent. Take the middle road, and hope for the best.

In my game I attacked Neighbour #1 (the largest and my chief competitor). I took his first city, and have enough of a force that I can push on and pillage/capture another city, maybe 2, before offering peace (probably pillage since I don't think I can hold 'em). If he doesn't take my peace offer in about 10 turns, my sprawling empire may be in trouble, but we'll see...

Thoughts?

 

[Shillen]

Usually I take the diplomatic option. Either the civ that likes me the least or the civ the other AI's like the least. If I don't take the diplomatic option then it will be the civ with the best land.

I'm assuming they're all direct neighbors as well. I would never wage my first war against a civ that I have to pass through another civ just to get to.

 

[thewandering1]

Well I always structure my games a little. Those closest to me and those that through expansion took a city spot I wanted for my own before my settler spawned usually get attacked first. By attacked either I culture bomb their ass (Culteral, Space Race or Diplomatic Victory) or reduce them to rubble quickly. I make friends with the civilizations that my culture won't rub up to before 0AD that are further away. So in short I'd go for the ones that a) have the better luxery/resources b) the ones you are currently torqueing of due to heathen faith and cose borders producing sparks. Try to keep the ones that are currently happy with you from becoming upset while you take on another empire. Alternately if you have the resources, technology and have been building up military since the beginning of the game take on your closest score competitor, just make sure you keep up research and wonder building while several of your cities are dedicated to building your 'armies' or you won't be able to maintain the superiority in units or technology to win the fights. Not sure if this works past noble at this time but seems to work below that level. The serious 'of course' is are you ready to get the negative coin each captured city will give you that you don't raze and prepare to assume control over until they come out of anarchy?

 

[Mordraken]

Interesing points Wandering1. I agree that focusing on strategic cities (with good bonus resources) is one of the determining factors, and certainly indicates which city should be attacked (given the choice).

Perhaps my situation was a little different because I had Tokuhawa, Ghengis Kahn and Montezuma as my neighbours, and NONE of them were willing to trade (although all were quite demanding). I expected war was coming sooner or later, and my choice was to target the strongest (buidling my strength while reducing my prime competitors).

That said, the city I chose was one that was "blocking" my empire. By taking it I expanded my cultural influence by 3X what the city actually had in the first place.

 

[shadow2k]

Scores in the early game don't mean anything, and rarely tell you who's going to be the real danger down the road. They may be inflated by wonders that don't mean much later on, like Stonehenge, or founding religions.

My choices will vary, depending on circumstances. Diplomatic concerns are high, because I can't afford dogpiles this early. Land values are high on the list...if I don't have enough happy/healthy resources, or a strategic resource, then that's my target. Also, wonders built or religions founded can also play a role. Not to mention location...they have to be a neighbor if I plan to keep any cities, and have to have good land. Also, aggresive neighbors like Monty get extra attention, as well as religous crusaders like Izzy. I hate getting declared on, because I'm not in control. I'd rather act first and get it out of the way, than wait and see what they do.

There is no "winning strategy" for every situation. Each will be different. Think about what you will gain from it, and make a decision from there. Heck, turn off the scores at this point, it doesn't matter yet.

 

[Bobbalouie]

I think shadow2k said it well. Too many factors for one clearcut strategy. But, all things being equal, I think I would go for the one with the least cities (not necessarily lowest score). Easier to take control faster, it'll be a shorter war, and you'll get your troops some valuable xp for fighting a bigger war.

 

[jazwana]

going for a knockout blow to the largest empire early on might lead to trouble. If you end up keeping too many cities, your economy may tank due to both the protracted war & maintenence. I'd go for taking out the weaker, smaller civs first; especially your first conquest. The capitol is going to be a prime city spot, and probably their 2nd city as well, that's two or three good ones that'll strengthen your economy sooner rather than later. Also, the techs come fast early on and it's hard to get a strategic tech lead. Just because you have swordsmen and catapults, some axemen can still make your conquest take a long time.

I've had success going for the smallest (territorially, not necessarily militarily) first, because you can take our their resources quickly and get an edge on them. It's rough going when you invade a border city thinking you're taking out their only source of copper only to find 2 more connected on the back side of their empire.



It all depends what difficulty you're on too, the lower the difficulty the more you can afford to tank your economy and still stay in the lead.

 

[Drofd]

You attack guy 1 for his border cities fast and raze them then crank on culture to take back the newly settled cities peacfully

 

[ElJojo]

it seems no one has brought the question of religion which is often very important when I decide who's gonna be my first victim. If I feel like warmongering I don't research religion which means no shrine. So I check the neighbours, who founded the most popular religion on the continent ? And if possible I go for his holy city. The spanish are quite useful for that, they research religion and they do a good job spreading it, then you just have to take it.
Otherwise i check if neighbour 1 has any chance to become a real threat someday. And most of the time I will hit him first but I am not going for his whole empire, that would kill my economy, I spot two or three rich cities and take them quick. Usually when you take two big cities, he's ready for peace.
I don't think you should always aim for complete annihilation of your ooponents.

 

[Mordraken]

Just an update on my game. As I mentioned, I made a quick attack against the stronger neighbour (with the most land & largest population). At the time I wrote this, I had captured a smaller city, and planned to go after one other one (and probably raze it).

Surprisingly, the city I had targeted (I knew it was somewhere on the map, but hadn't found it just yet) turned out to be Tokyo (vs. Tokagawa), and was defended lightly enough that I was able to take it. Tokagawa sued for peace shortly afterwards, and then it was a long process of rebuilding.

I'm now about 50 turns after the war, and I have lept ahead. The conquored cities are farily decent, but the most important thing is that Tokagawa has droped in standings to WAY below (he's now less than half of my score, and is in 5th place). Of course, other competitors have jumped up, but now I feel I am probably in a position to take Tokagawa out (maybe after 10-15 turns of dedicated military building), but in this one instance, taking out the main competitor seems to have strengthened me and completely crushed him.

Not to say that this will always happen (getting his capital that was defended by only 5 units was fortuitious) but IMO if you have a military & technological advantage early, going after one of the top players and getting some large cities can pay dividends later.

 

[DangerousMonkey]

I would say that if you are starting a war, and you arn't attacking your weakest neighbor, you better have a damn good reason. And by "weakest" I mean the one with the worst military/smallest empire. By going for a weaker opponent you risk the least while gaining the most. A weak opponent means a short war with reasonably certain gains, hopefully allowing your to re-deploy your forces defensively before anyone else can threaten you. A strong opponent means a drawn out war with an unknown outcome, leaving you vulnerable to a sneak attack from somebody else. Remember, every weak opponent you absorb into your empire puts you in a better position to wage that final war against that main opponent that you know will happen someday.

Shadow2k is right, score doesn't mean all that much, at least in multiplayer. In single player though score is a pretty good way of knowing who's on top, as the AI is fairly predictable and tends to behave the same way under the same circumstances, and as such tends to have a high or low score for pretty standard reasons. An AI probably doesn't have a low score becaue they've been chop-rushing a massive stack instead of expanding.

In multiplayer especialy you'll want some intelegence on who sucks and who doesn't before you attack. The best way to understand who's good and who isn't is by watching their behavior. Are they developing thier land/chopping forests? Do they have a few pickets outside thier boarders? Do they have units stationed on stratiegic spots in their empire? If they arn't doing one or more of these things, and they have a low score, or seem to have obsolete units, they'll probably make an easy target.

Still, be careful. A really good player might be "playing possum" and pretending to be an easy target. If a player has a suspiciously high score, a well developed infrastructure, and cities that are very well placed, and yet seems to be horribly defended, you should watch out for them. They might be a wolf in sheep's clothing with some defensive units and a stack of 20 War Chariots waiting just out of view to come kick your ass when you least suspect it.

 

[Rameau's Nephew]

I'd also add that strategic comparisons can be important in this decision. Most notably, I'd rather attack an enemy with easily-pillaged iron/copper/horses than one who has their major resources secure on the other side of their empire.

 

[Seven05]

A couple of considerations when dealing with the AI:

If you have a big strong neighbor, their early game score is mostly from land area and population.

If you have a small neighbor who is keeping up, so to speak, with the score leaders they should be your target since their score is going to be based off of more important (possibly long-term) aspects such as holy cities and technology.

Considering that my personal preference is to leave the warmonger civs alone and just build up enough military along their border to encourage them to look elsewhere. Instead, I'll go for the tech leader or the player that has the potential to become a late game tech leader. There are a few resons for this, first I'm more likely to get a good payoff when they ask for peace, sometimes I'll accept two or three peace treaties before destroying them. Second, since the AI is so fond of trading technology with other AI if I eliminate or cripple the civilization that is responsible for the majority of the technology the AI's have it will be considerably easier to subdue the other players later when I have a substantial tech lead.

Another target to consider is the cultural powerhouse. If you eliminate them first you will have fewer problems with their culture filling in the gap while you fight the other civs later.

If you still can't decide, sometimes it is a good strategy to take out the "middle" empire (geogrpahic middle that is) first. If you can do it and cut off the trade routes between the other two it may make your life easier. Of course it can also backfire on you and throw you into a two-front war...