To Mobilize Or Not To Mobilize

[MTheil3508]

Do you mobilize during wars? Or only if you are being beaten?

I only mobilize (if for some odd reason) I am getting beaten. Normally during a war, my cities not close to the front, excluding my core cities, are building something more important, such as temples, marketplaces, etc. Since I can only build military improvments and units, this seems kind of needless (exept for the added production.)

Does Mobilization reduce WW?

Lets hear everyones opinions on mobilization.

 

[cromagnon]

Sorry to steal your thunder, MTheil, but I tried this on Gen Discussion: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37602&highlight=mobilize

It may be interesting to see what the results are on this forum, as I once mused.

 

[MTheil3508]

Yea, I thought it was more a strategy/tip more than a General discussion. I might get more hits on this forum.

P.S. I thought the title was familiar.

 

[pterrok]

I voted Yes--but it's conditional...You just can't START to build non-military things during mobilization, but whatever you're working on keeps building when you switch.

So I make sure that the cities which can't produce units quickly are set to build other infrastructure FIRST, then mobilize IF I can end the war quickly.

Ending the war quickly can mean I am going to conquer someone OR I know I can probably get a peace agreement whenever I want. (Doing either of those turns off mobilization.) So that means I DON'T usually mobilize on the first turn war is declared.

Usually, right after war is declared I've razed some cities and replaced them with my own--which start to build temples or libraries to get their border expanded. But since they're usually too corrupt to get anything but 1 shield a turn, I can control when to buy it, so I might buy the first one after a turn, then set to build the other one and THEN mobilize. That way I get the increased unit production in my core cites and still get to keep expanding the front-line border...

I believe mobilization decreases WW, but it also decreases happiness--so you may have to up your happiness slider to stay the same. (The extra shields you get may or may not make up for this!)

 

[The Sane One]

I voted yes, but conditionally as well. If I'm playing as a good old capitalist (us 'ermits tend to hoard the gold), then I'll be in democracy with a defensive army on my borders with some reserve units in the interior. Basically, it's enough of an army to hold up to the first wave of a surprise attack. Since I don't have to pay too many unit salaries, I tend to become fairly wealthy. I get as many mutual protection pacts as I can, too. Then, when I think my neighbor might declare war on me in the near future, I declare war with a distant and minor power, preferably one with a tiny millitary and no means of getting their troops to my country. With this war status, I mobilize and create the defenders I'd need to withstand an invasion from the neighbors I'd been worrying about, plus an army to attack them as well. After I'm done building these guys, I'll sign a peace treaty with the distant enemy and maybe give them some money to repair the damages I caused. Thus, I'm prepared for the real threat while having saved a lot of money by taking unneccesary and somewhat idiotic risks (but hey, us 'ermits don't play to win).

A better strategy would involve tricking the distant minor nation into declaring war on you (through spies, threats, and border violations) and watching as my allies inflicted serious damage on them while I built an army for a different war.

Anyway, I voted yes.

 

[Globetrotter]

Yes too, but also depending on some circumstances, and how many more units i need to achieve my goals.

 

[Angmar]

Yes when it is required. I have been known to mobilize during a war or even during the building up for the war. For one big huge epic war which I knew was building my army was weak compared to my future enemy. 40 turns of mobilization setting and I was even, when the war broke out 5-10 turns later I had a larger army and 10 turns after that I had smashed France and they were begging for peace.

 

[cromagnon]

I'll weigh in on this, since my views have changed since the last poll. I have mobilized the last few games, but really the only effect that I can truly see is that it takes military units one less turn to be built, and I can't build temples/libraries in my newly 'acquired' cities. It's not particularly difficult for me to get out of mobilization, but I just haven't found it to be worthwhile.

 

[MTheil3508]

I could see not having too much a difference on small cities built on plains and grasslands, but a metropolis bordered by hills with a factory, nuclear plant, and manufacturing plant would kick out 79 more shields per turn during mobilization, if my math is right:

22.5+34+22.5=79 shields

[base*1.5]+[base*2]+[base*1.5]=79

 

[cromagnon]

Darn, I'm afraid I shot this thread in the foot by posting my other link.

Please vote on this poll if you have not already done so in the General Discussions one!

 

[cromagnon]

MTheil, I'm not sure I read your calculation correctly, but Mobilization does not double your productivity. It adds one shield to each square worked that already gives you a shield. So the increase to your 'base' is variable. I would guess that it increases base by an average of 30%, assuming a mix of grassland, hills, and mined grassland.

 

[MTheil3508]

If all the tiles are being used, wouldn't be 17 more shields?

By base, I forgot to mention how I got it. Every tile, out of the 17, is being used, increasing the production 17 shields. Not counting the factory, etc.

 

[RX2000]

If I know I am gonna be going to war with someone bigger than me, I'll mobilize to try and negate his production advantage. I dont mobilize unless its absolutely necessary tho..... not being able to build non-military improvements and the lowered culture output is a pain.

 

[ezdraft]

So, if i am building a wonder like shakespeare, and then mobilize, it will continue to build a the wonder?

 

[MTheil3508]

It will continue to build whatever is being built, but once it is completed or changed, you can only build military units and improvements.

 

[ezdraft]

But you can still build military wonders like the manhattan project? is there a list I can read that states which are the military items ? Can something like SDI be considered military?

 

[RX2000]

Check out Catt's excellent mobilization article for the answers to your questions ezdraft.

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3acad_mobilization.shtml

 

[Fool Inc.]

I never mobilize. Just easier to be prepare and be able to rush temples in my conquered cities.

 

[Gregski]

I rarely mobilise. If I am desperate or I know that I'll end the war, I'll make sure that my 'peace' cities are producing peaceful imps then mobilise.

 

[Effing]

I voted 'yes', but it always depends. If you've got a productive government, like demo or rep, I don't mobilize.
My usual plan for preparing a war is:
- Build tons of units in democracy and mobilize for war after a second turns
- Start a revolution
- Choose monarchy and mobilize for war
- Start the war while constantly producing wealth in your poor cities, but unis in your productive cities.