To war or not to war: Is playing peaceful the better option?

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

It's possible Tubman just sucks. I'm unlikely to play with her again.

It seems like many civs and leader have a specific way to play and I think Tubman is one of them. Find a leader who agenda doesn't like you and forward settle them. If your playing Egypt avoid war so you can use your production to build Tjaty and wonders.

If I do chose war the mistake I make is going after the capital. The AI seems to throw everything the have at defending the capital making it costly so it's better to take the lightly defended cities as they are worth the same victory points.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

My experience is that you can avoid war completely, but you have to work at it, because you can't really stay Allied to anybody for long: to the AI, Alliance = Let's Go Fight Someone!

- And if you use up your Influence Suzing Independents, you will inevitably have someone (or several someones) try an Endeavor with you that you have no Influence left to reply to, and after a few of those somebody is Denouncing you and getting ready to fight you.

On the other hand, once in a war the AIs are remarkably quick to end it. Even with no settlements having changed hands, and my forces having made no advances into the opposing territory, I have had AI Leaders propose giving me a settlement in a peace deal - when they were part of an Alliance and so had nobody else threatening them. I can only conclude that War Weariness really punches all the AI's buttons, even when it doesn't register anywhere in the UI (as in, we are both showing the same War Weariness numbers)

And player tend to lose so many friends just to hook oneself allying with any other player. As Benny Franklin who runs the US of A, Pacachuti running Mexico is surprisingly a good friend that allying with him 'will shake the world, (with Pumas and Jaguars roar in the wake)'. (just like what he claims he can do when goes to war). so make friends with everyone, but ally with none. especially if player can do Railroad Tycoon winning, this requires that player is NOT at war with anybody.

 

[aelf]

And player tend to lose so many friends just to hook oneself allying with any other player. As Benny Franklin who runs the US of A, Pacachuti running Mexico is surprisingly a good friend that allying with him 'will shake the world, (with Pumas and Jaguars roar in the wake)'. (just like what he claims he can do when goes to war). so make friends with everyone, but ally with none. especially if player can do Railroad Tycoon winning, this requires that player is NOT at war with anybody.

An alliance is a double-edged sword, but as soon as you have an enemy on your continent, it's safer to have one. An enemy can ally with another civ and gang up on you, and the other civ will happily attack you even if friendly. Unless you're far more powerful than them, but this is often not the case on higher difficulties.

To make matters worse, compared to the initial release of the game, it's harder now to get an alliance because the AI seems reluctant to have more than one ally, so you gotta commit to it early.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

An alliance is a double-edged sword, but as soon as you have an enemy on your continent, it's safer to have one. An enemy can ally with another civ and gang up on you, and the other civ will happily attack you even if friendly. Unless you're far more powerful than them, but this is often not the case on higher difficulties.

To make matters worse, compared to the initial release of the game, it's harder now to get an alliance because the AI seems reluctant to have more than one ally, so you gotta commit to it early.

And risk getting World War when not ready?

^ My second victory. as Benny Franklin. and quite a peaceful winning. possible by doubledealings with both sides of conflicts.

 

[aelf]

In my experience, being double-teamed is much worse than having a 2v2.

It is definitely possible to pick a bad ally, so that's one pitfall you should avoid.