Thumbs down on mobilization

[Richard III]

Tried mobilization for the first time this weekend.

It's a cool feature - as a history geek, any feature they've added to diversify a civ's behaviour is cool. But strategically, it sucks unless you're on a rampage and razing any cities you take, because the damn thing won't let you rush that desperately needed Temple because it's "peacetime construction."

At least they were thoughtful enough to allow you to build harbors. I'd convoyed a Zulu Armada chock-full of impi and riflemen from my island continent to the mainland, all to plant a city beside an all-English iron concentration in the middle of a war (doing this was faster than taking all three of the English cities in the vicinity). If I hadn't been able to build that harbor, the zulu would be no more and I'd be off watching movies tonight...

BFK

 

[tetley]

Check out mobilization right after you get Hoover Dam up. Oh man, you're a killing machine! No oil, no problem--go out and take it.

 

[bakant]

Another problem with mobilization (bug?) is that you have to end a war to get out of it. So if you switch to mobilization while not in a war you have to start a war and then stop a war to get out of it.

 

[Dragon2]

I got into a situation where I was in first place but had to fight a war to stop the fifth-place civ from completing a spaceship. Mobilization really came in handy. As soon as I had taken their capital and destroyed the spaceship, things went back to normal.

But don't mobilize while you have a mutual protection pact, or you may never get back to normal.

It's really annoying while mobilized not to be able to build a temple in a city in enemy territory. I view this as a military move to grab more land, but it's forbidden.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by bakant
Another problem with mobilization (bug?) is that you have to end a war to get out of it. So if you switch to mobilization while not in a war you have to start a war and then stop a war to get out of it.

I'm not so sure it's a bug. I took it to be like this:

If you are mobilizing, it's whipping your civ and your population into a war frenzy, convincing them they have to make sacrifices to fight the good fight (hence the production bonuses). If you are not at war - as I was when I mobilized this weekend - then you are sort of nominating your enemy first.

And the "must end with peace" rule suggests that you can't just whip your people into a war frenzy without then satisfying that lust for hate, death, slaughter, razing of Newton's University and Newscastle w/out regard for casualties, etc.

It's simplistic, but since it's a new tool, simplistic rules make for a richer game than no rules. I can think of several historical examples that sort of fit the current characteristics of the rule. Still, like I said, the price - no peacetime builds - seems too expensive to pay in an offensive war.

R.III

 

[tetley]

I disagree about avoiding the Mutual Protection pacts. You can kill the pact after 20 turns. I can't remember exactly how I did it, but I know it's possible. I think I went to "Active trades", and then selected the protection pact and that killed it.

So what does this mean you can do?

1) Say, 10 turns before going to war, enter a protection pact and mobilize.
2) Go to war for about 5 turns.
3) Sell your victim a peace treaty for techs and lump sum gold. Don't do per-turn stuff, for obvious reasons.
4) You'll re-declare war midway through the victim's turn, but this is AFTER he attacks your friend. This severely blunts his counterattack against you for that turn, if he attacks you at all.
5) Attack him again & renegotiate another peace treaty, if you can. After awhile he just stops talking to you.
6) Kill the pact when the 20 turns are up.
7) Laugh at the other 2 civs as they continue fighting.

Coincidentally, this is pretty close to exactly what Queen Elizabeth does. Don't enter pacts with her, unless you figure out a way to turn her own tricks against her.