To warmonger or not to warmonger...

To warmonger or Not to warmonger...

  • It takes skill and cunning, so its the best way!(warmonger)

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • If I can talk my way to victory, I am the better player.(Diplomat)

    Votes: 10 27.8%
  • Can't I talk to them after I beat them to a fine paste? (Both)

    Votes: 18 50.0%

  • Total voters
    36

Dystopia

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
4
I have noticed by reading several threads on #5 that people tend to just annihilate every civilization as fast as possible. My question is, do you really need to spread over the planet like the plague to win? If I descover a nearby civilization that is hogging resources that I direly need, they will get their heads bashed by my club-wielding warriors of doom, but do I really need to go farther?
(this is a long example, read if you want, but not neccessary to poll)

I did not participate in this most recent GOTM but I did make my own. I was playing as france with a fairly large portion of my continent to myself. (it "kinda" resembled north america, and I was controlling the northern part... it was a large map.) My area was made up of plains, grasslands, floodplains and mountains, and I had Iron, horses, ivory, and furs. My N/W section was mostly arctic and mountains (picture alaska.) Below me was China, who was controlling an Iron source and some spices, to the se of them was america, who inhabited mostly mountains and forests, and to the south of them was the Iriqouis.(sp?) A narrow land bridge connected my continent to the other large continent between the Americans and Iriqouis and led off east, where it bulged, then narrowed (like the panama area) and opened up into another large continent, where the Egyptians controlled a large section that narrowed at the top, exiting to a LARGE continent controlled in equal sections by the germans, the Indians and the Greeks. By the time I had descovered them, the aztecs were gone. Above this continent was Japan, who controlled their own series of islands. Verry appropriate for them =P All of these civilizations (save those on my continent and the japanese) had equal territories in comparison to mine. Early in the game (about 300-400 BC) egypt moved into my continent capturing the American cities with little effort. They then made peace with the americans only controlling about 3 of their 12 cities. The Iriqouis were there next target, but only lost about 4 of their 11 cities before signing a peace treaty. (this is just a rough estimate at the number of cities, I don't have it memorized.) Soon after this my people started getting upset, so China's spices were looking mighty good. I took 3 of their cities and declared peace, which kept my people happy. Around 100 AD the egyptians were at it again, attacking America. Fearing that I might lose a valuable ally, I intervened and got the Iriqouis on my side, retaking all of the americans/Iriqouis lost cities before pushing half way into the land bridge. I gave back all of the lost cities to the Americans and Iriqouis (making them EXTREMELY happy) except for one city that had 4 dyes in its territory (after all, I'm generous, but not stupid. After my swordsmen and pikemen had thrashed most of the egyptians massive horde of pathetic charriot guys, I declared peace (getting a HUGE settlement out of them) to give my people a rest. Long story short, with the aid of america and the Iriqouis I eliminated the chinese, and the egyptians and taking several cities from the Germans (with the aid of india, who all but wiped out Germany's ally, Greece) and then sat on my massive land mass for the next 2000 years untill I eventually won a histographic victory over the Germans. To keep my score as high as possible I prevented others from building space ships, and I completed the UN so I didn't have to worry aabout an early ending. by the end of the game I amassed 6342 pts. (or close to that number) So, this goes to show you that you don't have to just wipe out your neigbors, I would have had a MUCH more difficult time without my allies.
 
Um, if a mod reads this can they extend the poll timout? Its set at 0 days right now...
 
It is not necessary to dominate the world to have fun, or even to win Civ3. That's why they gave you spaceship.

Personally, I rarely finish games, but rather set goals, such as war or wonder. If I survive to the modern age with a somewhat stable world of cooperating nations, then I have "won."

I have blitzed the world before, but that's when the Civ3 illusion breaks down for me. Hordes of tanks conquering is "unrealistic" and uninteresting and tedious; I'll build a spaceship instead, or retire. If I do sweep the world for kicks, I usually use combined arms. Even though tank blitzing might be more efficient in terms of game mechanics, it's more fun and "realistic" using combined arms. It adds a challenging element and enhances the cultural aspects of the late game.
 
Seeing as this poll is in the GOTM forum, I vote for Warmongering because that's the way I've put up my highest scoring games. I agree with you, I can win other ways. However, on average, it's been tougher & rarer for me to do so in such a dominating fashion. Outside of GOTM, I agree with Zachriel on simply enjoying the different aspects of the game.

PS, I couldn't make it through your whole post (paragraphs?, so many parenthesis! :crazyeye: ), so whether or not I answered your Q :) ...
 
Originally posted by chiefpaco
Seeing as this poll is in the GOTM forum, I vote for Warmongering because that's the way I've put up my highest scoring games. I agree with you, I can win other ways. However, on average, it's been tougher & rarer for me to do so in such a dominating fashion. Outside of GOTM, I agree with Zachriel on simply enjoying the different aspects of the game.

PS, I couldn't make it through your whole post (paragraphs?, so many parenthesis! :crazyeye: ), so whether or not I answered your Q :) ...

Yes, chiefpaco is right! If your goal is a high score, you need to hit them early and hit them hard. Then hit them again, harder.
 
True. Warmongering IS necessary... to a point. THis entirely depends on map size. I almost ALWAYS play on large or huge maps, with at LEAST 10, usually 12 civ's. In a situation like this, warmongering is the easy was to GO BROKE AND WEAK. Take my example. Egypt went gung ho early in the game and thrashed america and the Iriqouis, making a HUGE empire. This also made them verry drawn out. A conquering force can only stay strong for so long before another smaller yet militarily capable civilization takes out their entire empire city by city. Say you have 40 swordsmen or a mixture of both swordsmen and spearmen to get the job done. You ravage a rival civilization nad capture oh say... 10 cities. Now, in order to hold your ground and not create any weaknesses, you must leave only a minor defence in the rear cities and move the bulk of your force up to the front. Also to prevent weaknesses you should probably try to even your forces out, not just group them all in one city. Egypt did this perfectly. Textbook stuff. However, the odds that their forces in a single city are stronger than my entire offensive capability is pretty slim. I attacked a single city with the brunt of my forces and left a few units to fill in the gaps to slow down any counter-offensives so I could react to them. I then took each city, one by one, eliminating the largest part of their army, and then, along with my allies, cleaned up the rest. Moving my army half way into their territory was easy because I had removed almost all of their offensive capability, so all I had to do was fortify and kick back as they threw a rather weak force at me in a futile attempt to remove me.

The only reason that these massive *kill* *kill* *Kill* tactics work is because the computer isn't good at tactics. None of this would work against human opponents... god I can't wait for multiplayer...
 
Sorry =P In my mind it IS just one paragraph. Unfortunatly it came out as 5... without indentation... oh well.
 
You have a point. You can win and even score alot of points by not being a warmongerer real early in the game. You claim as much land as you can and then build infrastructure to make your 'core' cities very powerful. This comes in handy later in the game. On large and huge maps you have more space in between starting locations that it give you more flexibility in how you want to play the game. On smaller maps you start so much closer to your opponents that it would be foolish not to take over your neighbor, because having cities in what used to be their territory won't experience much corruption, plus with less territory, your more likely to be denied valuable resources and luxuries.

Take a look at how my game and Badluck's game in the HoF (regent level), though I finished with a higher score (he finished his game 200 years before I did) if he had played it out until the same time I did we would have had almost exactly the same score. He was a warmonger very early, I didn't wage war until the 1600's I believe. The difference was I built up my infrastructure so I was able to conquer half the world in about 30-40 turns. And had the money to quickly buy hospitals, marketplaces in all the 150+ newly conquered cities. He could have beat me in score if he had built several more cities and 'milked' the game for as long as I did. That goes to show how scoring works in this game.

The way the scoring system works, if you don't win by say 500 A.D(maybe even earlier), your almost always better off playing until 2050 A.D., like you did.

But to get real, real high scores you need to claim as much territory as possible as early as possible. Large maps make it easier for score, simply because there is more territory to claim. I'm too much of a builder, so I need to start being a warmongerer sooner than I'd like to be if I want real high scores. Since the score is based primarily on territory and it is averaged throughout the game, that is why you need alot of territory quickly.

And yes, when the AI gets strung out, their army is spread all over the map, I use this to my advantage all the time. I'll get the Egyptians to fight a civ on the opposite side of them, then withdraw the alliance and attack. Most of their offensive army is on the other side of the map, so I just need to take out a couple of offensive units, then just worry about their defenders.


In a situation like this, warmongering is the easy was to GO BROKE AND WEAK.

If it wasn't for scoring, then claiming more territory would be pretty useless because those cities would be so corrupt, anyways (unless they contained resources). That's another good reason for warmongering, is to gain luxuries for free. And in Monarchy, despotism, communism having more cities would allow you to support more units for free (and more units = more respect from other civs). Warmongering does have some negatives. For example: Under monarchy you had say 100 free units, then you switch to Republic or Democracy. If you don't have your 'core' cities developed at all with any infrastructure, not many roads, not many luxuries, etc. you will take a big hit on all those unit costs, plus the lost contentness from military police. So you need to find a good balance between warmongering and being a 'builder'.
 
Originally posted by Dystopia
So, this goes to show you that you don't have to just wipe out your neigbors, I would have had a MUCH more difficult time without my allies.

If your goal is to maximize your score, then your objective is clear:
destroy all opponents as quickly as you can using any means possible. Then depending on the date this is accomplished, either finish the game or milk it to 2050.

Sure having allies makes this easier, but once its just you and the allies left then its time to stab them in the back.

With the new awards coming for next months GOTM, I can see other strategies being used to win them. In particular, the fastest space victory can probably be done quickest when you have some viable opponents helping you with the research.
 
I prefer to play with the persians, because a large force of immortals prevents any attack by the AI. Then if there is sombody in my the way of the extent my civ can grow without complete corruprion (in republic) then I destroy them. Then regardless I make sure I am always the first on my continent to get knights, If i havent yet had a golden age I use my immortals to get the golden age then promote and mass produce knights, or I just promote and mass produce. The AI has by this time built up there cities alright so i can take them all. I use this conquest to creat a great leader and build my forbidden palce in the best location given the map I am working on. Then I usually work diplomatically unless the AI really wants a fight, then I burn the world to the ground. And if there stupid enough to fight me late in the game they will find combined arms, and ICBM's combined are a devestating combo hit.
 
Back
Top Bottom