waging war under democracy, not quite impossible

[Aragörn 1]

Under the right conditions war under democracy is the best thing that can happen to u. Let me explain: Normally after a war starts u would face huge unhappiness problems after a few rounds. The clue is to plan the wars u want to wage a long time before it will actually take place. Pick the civilizations u wanna wage war against early ans start provoking him into small wars. u win a few he wins a few. After a few conflicts your people will start to see that civ as a hated enemy. Once u have democracy start building up a nice army. Although the cost of that army can be quite high staying under democracy would normally remain benificial, especially for science. Once your army is ready provoke that civ again. Dont declare war yourself. Once he declared war i saw 75% of my cities go in Celebration mode... they seemed to be happy with the war! they kept producing shields and commerce at a very nice rate. I had no civil disorder at all during the entire conflict which lasted aprox. 40 turns. The enemy was destroyed and my people were still happy. I then tried to wage a war against a civ i had had relatively good relations with and well... needless to say my people didnt really liked that and went berserk. In the later stage of the game though when u have police stations in your major cities and if possible have the universal suffrage wonder i still could wage wars lasting like 20 turns before my cities started to disorder.
All this happened on warlord level, anyone knows if this strategy still works on higher levels?

 

[Jimmicus]

I war often in the late industrial and modern age and always as democracy (once I get it, I stick to it). The groundwork for this is laid in the earlier ages, where I agressively expand before stopping when I get democracy. This give me a large country with many large cities. Loads of money and tech allows you to build a large army of advanced units which are then used to win wars quickly and completely with blitzkrieg tactics.

This works for me at monarch level and I have even had domination victories on large worlds when l was a non-mobilised democracy. All this is done without the very good provocation technique above, I think I shall try that one next time.

 

[Skulker]

As soon as humanly possible, I become a democracy. From that point on, I war as necessary. You just have to make sure your luxury and happiness city improvements are all lined up and you prepare well enough (especially alliances) that you don't get into a long drawn out conflict. I can't imagine dumping my democracy to pursue a war....

 

[Cerryl]

I've found, that it's easier sometimes not to mobilize for war while fighting the war, but I haven't really tested it well, just something I've noticed in my current game. Just seems to me when I mobilize and start losing units to an enemy, disorder becomes troublesome.

 

[Grotius]

The original poster mentioned that his citizens actually got more happy when war started. The game is designed this way, but the effect is temporary. See page 116 of the manual ("Having a rival declare war on you actually decreases war weariness...").

 

[Skulker]

I've never actually mobilized for war. I don't want to take the hit in culture and research and I suspect mobilization aggravates unrest. To me, mobilization is only necessary if you find yourself in a war for which you haven't prepared well. It's relegated to a measure of emergency/desperation . . . like drafting citizens (which I have done on occasion, but try to avoid).

 

[zebomba]

Mobilization can be very useful if you can determine the end of the war. After all, it's a free golden age.
It's also damn useful when you know the enemy will try to keep you at war. They won't acknowlegde your envoy, so let them taste some 1 turn tanks.
The provocation tactic sounds great. I read the manual but never thought about it.

 

[ptorek]

When waging war as a Republic (or Democracy I guess, but I'm in the early Middle Ages in my current game), is it better to make an alliance first? I was planning on a small war, just to grab about 3 cities that are really in my way. I am playing my first Civ3 game here, so any advice would be appreciated.

My worry is that I'll want to stop fighting, but my ally won't, and I'll be stuck between the rock of war weariness and the hard place of breaking/violating an alliance. Should I forget the small war idea and go for total annihilation of the French? If I don't ally with the English, will the French do so? Or can I bring the English into the negotiations and everything will go smoothly, we can all just get along when we need to?

By the time I get your reply I'll probably have started something, but I'd still like to hear how smart -- or idiotic -- I was.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I usually only get alliances if I want my enemy totally destroyed (this depends on the strengths of the other civs), and/or to prevent other civs from joining the war against me. You can wait for the English to sign a peace treaty with the French, then sign a peace treaty with the French, but there is no way to know how long the English will want to keep fighting. Yes, you run the risk of the French getting the English on their side if you don't align with them first. I would probably only wage war if you are able to handle it for 20 turns, then after 20 turns you can withdraw the military alliance with the English, before signing peace with the French. You also need to worry about any other civs that might be around that could join the fight.

If you can grab all 3 cities in just 2 or 3 turns, then maybe the French will be willing to discuss peace before getting the English into the war. Maybe just sign a trade embargo with the English vs. the French, will make the English be on your side, without getting into the war.