Warring for dummies

[jdladson]

In its most inner sense, war in civ 3 is basically a strength contest. The biggest, most advanced civ AI and human praying on the weaker civs. Have you ever wanted to just wipe out that giant civ standing between you and a HOF victory?

What you need:
at least 4 more opponent civs
At least 2 of which are weaker than you
A decent military
A non-democracy/republican government to help with unit production (Communism and Fascism is best for this)

What you do:
Build up your military to a basic size and attempt to defeat the weakest civ, then you will be that much stronger, repeat; Yes, to all of you experienced players this IS the basic strategy for you to use, but still, this is a strategy for the newbies that think they could be like America going against the British, and actually winning.

 

[Tomoyo]

You could also build tons of artillery and beat armies ten times your size.

 

[Globex]

Conquering more territory really wouldn't give you any more power. Most of the cities you capture will be highly corrupt and will only be useful as specialist farms and worker pumps. Also, during the time that you use to destroy a weak nation that poses no threat to you, your most powerful rivals will grow in strength with nothing to stop them and development in your empire will slow down because of shields that you invest in units instead of improvements.

At high levels there really is no way to build a more powerful army than AI because of the bonuses that they get. On those levels, you must use strategy and tactics to destroy empires that are way bigger than yours.

 

[Delphi456]

Conquering more territory really wouldn't give you any more power. Most of the cities you capture will be highly corrupt and will only be useful as specialist farms and worker pumps. Also, during the time that you use to destroy a weak nation that poses no threat to you, your most powerful rivals will grow in strength with nothing to stop them and development in your empire will slow down because of shields that you invest in units instead of improvements.

I'm afraid I disagree with almost every aspect of your analysis.
1. A weak AI today can be a strong AI tomorrow.
2. There probably are strategic/lux resources to be had by conquering.
3. You highly undervalue sci farms. 10 towns X 9 beakers/turn adds up over time. More farms = more unit support. Workers produced can be added back to core towns.
4. You may get a tech suing for peace.
5. Excellent leader fishing opportunity.

 

[Globex]

I'm afraid I disagree with almost every aspect of your analysis.
1. A weak AI today can be a strong AI tomorrow.

True but a strong AI can become even stronger. It would be a better strategic choice to go after the civ that poses the greater long term threat to you.

2. There probably are strategic/lux resources to be had by conquering.

Yes, but most of those luxury resources would probably be located in the territory of the largest and most powerful AI.

3. You highly undervalue sci farms. 10 towns X 9 beakers/turn adds up over time. More farms = more unit support. Workers produced can be added back to core towns.

I do not under-value the power of specialist farms and worker pumps. These cities do add to the power of your empire but that power is in the form of territory, gold, beakers, and food. The original post states that you should: attack your weakest opponent with brute force, conquer his lands and use the power gained from this conquest to conquer more powerful civs. However, in order to gain more brute militaristic strength, you must build more units. Although specialist farms are very useful, they will not increase your empire's ability to produce units faster.

4. You may get a tech suing for peace.

Yes, but a more powerful AI civ will be more advanced and have more techs to offer you in exchange for peace.

5. Excellent leader fishing opportunity.

A more powerful nation will have more units and you will have more opportunities to get a great leader.

I am not saying that attacking your weakest rival is not a good thing to do, I am saying that this strategy is not always the best strategy. There are many other factors to consider when deciding who to attack. You wouldn't waste time attacking a weak AI with no resources and luxuries stuck in the middle of the tundra, if there was more to gain by attacking a stronger nation with more desirable land and more techs and resources.

 

[jdladson]

You could also build tons of artillery and beat armies ten times your size.

You could, but when those tons of artilleries get captured by armies ten times your size, then you have a huge force of artillery bearing down on your cities that were meant for armies 10 times your size. Get the picture?

 

[MAS]

You could, but when those tons of artilleries get captured by armies ten times your size, then you have a huge force of artillery bearing down on your cities that were meant for armies 10 times your size. Get the picture?

Why would you let them get captured?

 

[Bobv13]

A weaker civ can defeat a stronger and more tech advanced civs with good tactics. And like tomoyo says artillery can play a key role. The "trick" is to draw them into battle where your artillery can reduce their mighty to their meek. The more they throw at you the better because that means more opportunity for great leaders and in turn armies, and small wonders. It's almost too easy.

 

[PaperBeetle]

You could, but when those tons of artilleries get captured by armies ten times your size, then you have a huge force of artillery bearing down on your cities that were meant for armies 10 times your size. Get the picture?

Not true. In my experience the AI simply won't take artillery on the offensive. It keeps it in town and uses it purely for taking potshots at your troops invading its empire.
The artillery SOD strategy is essentially foolproof if you have a defensive army to hide your artillery underneath. For example, the AI will choose virtually any possible target in preference to a fully healed 3-infantry army. So if you have one of those, your arts are perfectly safe.
Edit: when the AI gets Flight, the tables turn again, as they will merrily bomb infantry armies into dust.

 

[bustedsynapses]

If you attack a weak AI in undesirable terrain, raze the cities. The other AI's will kill themselves trying to establish new towns, there. The you can attack them, wipe out the new towns, and after a few victories, get them to submit to your terms. As they will all try to get to the new town sites, it's easier to get them to war upon one another.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Conquering more territory really wouldn't give you any more power. Most of the cities you capture will be highly corrupt and will only be useful as specialist farms and worker pumps. Also, during the time that you use to destroy a weak nation that poses no threat to you, your most powerful rivals will grow in strength with nothing to stop them and development in your empire will slow down because of shields that you invest in units instead of improvements.

At high levels there really is no way to build a more powerful army than AI because of the bonuses that they get. On those levels, you must use strategy and tactics to destroy empires that are way bigger than yours.

Conquering more territory is essential to victory! Go into communism and all cities will be productive enough to matter, and new turf can serve as strategic locations and lux/strat resource mines. Always try to go for neighboring weaklings to expand that way, or other same-continent civ, and only when you HAVE to fight other civs on other continents do so. But yes, on the higher levels, strategy is essential because of the AI's free units, so plan for an artillery-defender SOD to shred defenders from afar and a mobile force to blitz as many cities as fast as possible as soon as possible.

I'm afraid I disagree with almost every aspect of your analysis.
1. A weak AI today can be a strong AI tomorrow.
2. There probably are strategic/lux resources to be had by conquering.
3. You highly undervalue sci farms. 10 towns X 9 beakers/turn adds up over time. More farms = more unit support. Workers produced can be added back to core towns.
4. You may get a tech suing for peace.
5. Excellent leader fishing opportunity.

AIs tend to stay the same, just at different proportions, unless they conquer each other. Yes, luxuries and strategic resources are a great reason to invade. I use communism for huge empires, so I hardly ever use Specialist farms. Sometimes the AI will have a tech you don't, and aren't going to research for awhile yet, so just get it, wait, and kill them. But most of the time they're not advanced enough, so I just kill them . Leaders are hecka useful, so try for one at least, get an army, WIN A BATTLE, then you're saved, because you can build armies anytime, but even so, I rarely use MGLs for Great Wonders. Use SGLs instead.

 

[Globex]

Conquering more territory is essential to victory! Go into communism and all cities will be productive enough to matter, and new turf can serve as strategic locations and lux/strat resource mines. Always try to go for neighboring weaklings to expand that way, or other same-continent civ, and only when you HAVE to fight other civs on other continents do so. But yes, on the higher levels, strategy is essential because of the AI's free units, so plan for an artillery-defender SOD to shred defenders from afar and a mobile force to blitz as many cities as fast as possible as soon as possible.

I know that conquering more territory is very useful and is essential to victory. I often try to establish a few military bases close to my rivals so that I would have strategic locations to attack from. My point is that always attacking your weakest rival is not always the best choice. There are other factors to consider when choosing whom to declare war against. Other things that you have to consider are location, what you could gain by attacking, and landforms that might slow down your conquest. If your weakest rival does not have any luxuries or resources, and has a very mountainous territory that would make conquest difficult, but your strongest rival has a city with a luxury that is close to one of your bases, then it would be more strategically wise to attack the stronger AI.

I guess it is my fault for trying to argue against certain parts of the original post rather than arguing against the post as a whole.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Sorry, I assumed that strategic locations and resources are a given for attacking

 

[Smellincoffee]

I'm afraid I disagree with almost every aspect of your analysis.
1. A weak AI today can be a strong AI tomorrow.
2. There probably are strategic/lux resources to be had by conquering.
3. You highly undervalue sci farms. 10 towns X 9 beakers/turn adds up over time. More farms = more unit support. Workers produced can be added back to core towns.
4. You may get a tech suing for peace.
5. Excellent leader fishing opportunity.

If the player is competeting with another civilization for a HOF score, attacking that civilization can help the player -- not by making the player stronger, but by making his competition weaker. I played a game yesterday (when I should have been writing term papers) on a East Med. map, as Rome. Greece and I were far and away the two powers of the map -- everyone else but the Celts were lagging four to five techs away. (The Celts were about two techs behind on average.)

Given how close we were, I knew a conflict with Greece was inevitable. When Alexander invaded, I was already building the galleys, legionnaires, medieval infantry, and trebuchets that I would need to invade. I took three cities (Athens, Sparta, and Corinth) and then could I have stopped the war, but I carried it on for a while longer so I could grab horses, wine, and furs.

Even if I had stopped after taking those first three cities -- Greece's core -- the war would have been won. Greece would have faded to become like the Celts, at best. I crippled my biggest rival, but I also gained a number of resources. I also used Greek slaves and a settler that I rushed out of Corinth to claim saltpeter in northern Africa (below Tunsinia).

 

[bustedsynapses]

I try not to fight the smaller civs. In my experience, the largest civ will almost always attack me. If I'm at war with the smaller civ, then I'm soon at war with everyone else. If I war with the larger civ, then sometimes, I can get the smaller civ to join in the festivities. Of course, they often war against me, anyway, but I try.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Huh. I try to wait until two AI are at war with each other. I'll either attack a third at this point, or wait until one irritates me more than the other, and declare against that one (often with an MA). After a few turns of this, the other AI dogpile that civ.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

I attack wherever the attack is easiest and a war plan is certain (i,e my closest neighbors or people on the other side of somebody who I have a RoP with). If you have a good first-and-second turn warplan, you can take as much as 8 cities in one turn (my record).

 

[Lexicus]

I've wiped out entire Civs in one turn...on Chieftain.

I try to attack the weaker guys, then go into Communism in order to be powerful enough to take on the big dogs.

 

[Light-Giver]

If you want to conquor alot of citys from opposing weaker civs be communist, the corruption in the city would be minaule and if you add a improvement for every unit you make it will get over time as powerful as your other citys

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Communism is one of the best warmongering govs for large empires. Its limited corruption can make all of your cities somewhat useful.