1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What's with all the warmongering?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Hasuike, Dec 15, 2009.

  1. Hasuike

    Hasuike Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Why does it seem like everyone goes to war as soon as they get axes on this forum? Is it just that the builders and build then war types don't post or what?

    I've never played above Prince but my friends who play do and they also don't warmonger. We don't allow domination victories (when my first game ended due to domination I was pissed off at the game cutting off like that), none of us use slavery or chopping, and we don't engage in wars of choice until after medieval/renaissance periods. I've read so many posters say you need the quick production of chopping and slavery to play high difficulty levels... seems to be untrue. Besides what about the health bonus from forests? Or the production boost from lumber mills? Someone even once said that you NEED slavery to deal with unhappiness early... that's silly to me. The first two things I struggled with when I began playing Civ4 were
    1. how to grow/tech so unhappiness was not an issue and
    2. correctly balancing expansion, military, and economy.
    I learned both w/o chopping, slavery, or war. Oh, forgot to mention I spam wonders like crazy too.

    What really amuses me is when new civ players ask questions the warmonger faction seems to have a clearly vocal majority and they speak with such certainty. The result I've casually observed over the couple years I perused this forum is that new civvers are being unduly influenced towards one style, one way of doing things. Its led to some new civvers getting odd ideas like "IND is worthless" and "best combo ever= Boudica with prats"

    So what's the deal? Where are the builders and those that build to a point and then engage in war? Are they out there or just not posting? Did the warmongers kill us all or can we not build and talk at the same time :crazyeye: ?

    Little extra info: I have war mongered from the start before but that was only because I enjoyed using Cyrus and his immortals. Those games have never compared to my use of Augustus or Bismarck of the Netherlands though.
     
  2. Badtz Maru

    Badtz Maru King

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    674
    I'm primarily a builder, but I've found that I do a lot better if I make an early attack on one of my neighbors - although I don't usually rush as soon as I get Bronze Working unless I'm playing a civ that has a good early UU. I usually attack when I get catapults if I don't have a good opportunity earlier.

    Then I'll usually just build for the rest of the game, though I'll frequently make an attack at Macemen or Rifles if I have a significant tech lead on one of my neighbors.
     
  3. mariogreymist

    mariogreymist Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,201
    I am as much a warmonger as anyone I believe. I haven't won by any means but conquest/domination/dliplomation in months. I only go to war with chariots/axes/swords when more practical than Rexing. There are at least a dozen indicators on whether to rush or not, and the sensible warmonger knows that making enemies early on has liabilities in the mid-game (Which is the most challenging section to keep a lead in, imo) in terms of economy and diplomacy; liabilities which can be mitigated or even negated by settling the land yourself. Wars fought later and with a significant tech lead and fought when the diplomatic situation is less mysterious are usually a more certain prospect for short term gains than is an axe/chariot/sword rush. (A successful rush always pays off in the end, but it can take a while when it is difficult or creates enemies)

    The exception is Rome. I will go to war with Prats every time I have iron. That's the only indicator I need.

    And the reason a lot of players (myself included) consider IND to be a weak trait is because when you spend 750 :hammers:s building the 'Mids, and I spend 400 building axes...who do you think ends up with the benefits of the Pyramids? (not to mention whatever buildings/settlers/workers I choose to build with the remaining :hammers:s)
     
  4. Izmir Stinger

    Izmir Stinger Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    Seattle
    On the highest difficulty levels you have to do everything possible that will give you an advantage. A blanket refusal to rush a neighbor will hold you back from ever being consistently successful on these difficulty levels, as often the advantages you gain from doing so are required for victory to be attainable.

    Not to say that rushing is always best, or that you must rush to win, but many games will be extremely difficult of impossible if you don't.
     
  5. Leventis

    Leventis Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Messages:
    262
    @Hasuike:

    Given that you play at Prince, it's fair to say that just about any strategy will work if you manage your game adequately. That's fine, if you play your diplo cards right you can cruise to a peaceful win, but understand that as the difficulties ramp up the human player is often forced into war in order to survive. I'm not saying you can't get away with turtling and winning evenaully, but such games are usually circumstancial and require a fair bit of planning.

    More often than not, without an early war you often find yourself boxed in with less land than the AIs, and you will get murdered if you don't resolve the issue. Attacking an AI is the most logical solution (and often the only one), since trying to out-tech the AIs with their bonuses etc is pointless. Moreover, the AI is comparatively weak at conducting wars, and the human player can take advantage of one of the game mechanics where the AI is poor.

    With regards to early expansion, slavery is often a necessity in order to support early expansion. Long story short -- without whipping you could be stuck with just 3 or 4 cities and nowhere to go.
     
  6. Molybdeus

    Molybdeus Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    528
    To put it simply: focused warfare is more powerful that placid, aimless building.

    I advise you to try making efficient use of chopping forests and slavery, and then compare it to your results without it. This is true regardless of whether you are a builder or warmonger. Or both. I build for war and make war to build.
     
  7. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    I'd say you now know the basics that will really let you play the game at all. Now, if you wanna be any good at it, you'd better consider listening to what those who walked this path before you have to say!

    As to chopping forests you really have to do a calculation about how that terrain will serve you in the long run, versus getting an early tactical benefit from it. You mention Lumber Mills, but those come into play late in the game. Workshops are available early on and also become more efficient with time. With that said, I tend to not chop down everything in sight, but I have to confess it's not solely because of sound strategy for my part... I kinda like having some forest around, it generates :health: and can be preserved later (to create :)). I also like Lumber Mills! :mischief:

    As to whipping (with Slavery) you really should reconsider your stance. Once you get the hang of it it will almost feel like cheating, its that powerful!

    I do understand that you're a builder at heart, and I am also. Sometimes this gets the better of me though, and I tend to forget about the rest of the world around my own precious civilization. This is however not the hallmark of a good Civ player! :lol:

    And lastly, you should of course play the way you wanna play and not pay too much attention to what other people might pursue when they play themselves. I do think, however, that your appreciation of the game will increase with experience, and that won't be happening any time soon if you're already too set in your ways and opinions! There is no excuse not to learn useful military strategies, how to manage your espionage or to master diplomacy. It doesn't have to be just about moving on to the next difficulty level, but rather about you developing as a Civ player and finding new thing to do with the game. The more you learn, the more longevity the game will get!
     
  8. Gorey

    Gorey Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    569
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA.
    Try to plan atleast an early game skirmish with a neighbor you dont like. It doesn't have to be an all out conquest. The goal is to unlock the Heroic Epic. Take a town, beat him up abit, maybe raze some tiles.. and try to get a tech from him for peace.

    If you can pull that off.. job well done. Enjoy your shiny Heroic Epic.
     
  9. Syiss_

    Syiss_ Warlord

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    157
    It isn't that the game cant be beat without an early war, but it does make things a lot easier. The higher difficulty levels especially benefit you from an early war because the AI's have so many natural bonuses to production/commerce that you cant compete with them unless you managed to grab more land than them. When people come for advice, people suggest some early warmongering because its the most effective way to get ahead of your enemies, thus it is often the best advice that can be given. In the majority of games, you will be putting yourself in a better position to win if you head over and take out your nearest enemy at the earliest chance (axes/swords usually).

    Not to keep hammering on it, but Prince is definitely giving you an unreal expectation of how to compete. AI's get increasingly more powerful bonuses to everything, they build more units, they expand quicker, and they get more aggressive for each level up you go. That said, aggressive warmongering probably doesn't become necessary until Emperor or Immortal if you are a very good REX'er and can manage diplomacy well.

    Additional reasons for an early war approach is that you will often need the troops anyways to fend off attacks, and more often than not its your nearest neighbor who is going to be coming after you. Be proactive and get him first! :)
     
  10. Lay_Lay

    Lay_Lay King

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    839
    I'd play Monarch level a few times before assuming too much about what lies beyond Prince.
     
  11. Navarre

    Navarre Legio XIII

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    France
    The guy said he's playing at Prince level: that's above Noble, so I don't think "start playing on Noble level immediately" because he uses Slavery will look that powerful. Also, not playing on compulsive-obsessive levels where you have to beat totally whacked AI advantages doesn't make him a cheater, but merely a guy who plays the game.

    Same here: Going up to Immortal or Deity isn't the "normal" and only way to play the game, it's just what some players who see only the "must beat AI, must prove me strong" angle of playing Civ do. These players happen to be a lot on CivFanatics and there's nothing wrong with playing that way, but playing a more balanced game where you don't have to stick to what's more efficient or die doesn't make it unreal or unnatural. One can enjoy building an empire and mastering every aspect of the game without feeling a duty to beat AI cranked to maximum pwnage. If some feel it's the way they need to play, good for them, but that doesn't make the other ways of playing less "real" or less valuable.

    I've seen new players beating Monarch or Emperor without any idea of how half the mechanisms of the game were working, just by using strategys they've read on the board: do they really play "better", or have a better game experience (as in "enjoy it more") than the average player playing on Noble and fine-tuning every part of his empire ? The general consensus on the board would probably say yes, but I say they don't.

    Bottom line, play the way you like at the level you like. War is merely an aspect among many in the game, something you need to consider but by no means are you forced to rush the closest neighbor at the first occasion, even if it sure does make the game easier and is quite mandatory on higher levels.
     
  12. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    Yeah, got the difficulty levels all mixed up there... :crazyeye: Looking it up, there really is a lot more levels than I remembered. (For some reason I thought that Noble and Monarch was in fact the same thing, or something.)

    That's what I get for only playing RFC (which only have 3 levels)!
     
  13. Syiss_

    Syiss_ Warlord

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    157
    I never said anything about whats normal or told the guy how to enjoy the game. What I did say is that just because a certain strategy works on Prince or even Monarch, doesnt mean it works on Emperor, Immortal, and Deity. He made the claim that whipping/chopping and early wars and aggression aren't necessary to win at higher levels based on his knowledge, and I simply claim that maybe he isn't qualified to judge that without the relevant experience. If he and his friends can move up to Immortal and win by peaceful means, then bravo to them, and I'm happy they enjoy the game. However, he asked why people always suggest certain strategies (chop/whip/aggression) when people come seeking advice on how to win a game, and I gave him his answer.
     
  14. Glassfan

    Glassfan Mostly harmless

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    3,952
    Location:
    Kent
    In real life history you have both war and peace and so in Civ. A little war is neccessary for expansion to secure the resources you need and may or may not get through trade. A lot of war is just plain fun.

    The game has plenty of room for strategic variation and philosophical differences. If it seems the forums are full of warmongers, it may be that a lot of game mechanics are devoted to the competion inherent between players -- something comonplace in virtually every game above "Shoots(Spel?) and Ladders".
     
  15. Lay_Lay

    Lay_Lay King

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    839
    On Settler level, war is not at all needed to win.

    On Prince level, you really don't need to have war in order to win often. And you don't need a variety of tactics. Just build lots of wonders and some defense longbows, be not inefficient at it, don't be awful at diplomacy. Win.
    He is using Prince strategies with perhaps some higher level gambit style research strats learned here. Some of these gambits/slingshots can win you plenty of Monarch level games, but at some point in going up levels you may need to change major parts of your strategy.

    Even if he were to remain on Prince level forever (to keep the game fun), by mastering some of the high level strategies discussed here and employing them in his Prince level games, he will be winning every game with ease. He would want to move up to Monarch (to keep the game fun.) Prince would be way too easy for him. This he almost refuses to believe, though we know little of him other than his one post.
     
  16. dcorban

    dcorban Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    Canada
    Slavery in real history was powerful.
     
  17. Bradicus

    Bradicus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Canada
    Faith may move mountains, but the Pyramids were built with the WHIP!!!!

    Well I guess people to be whipped were necessary too. Poor Jews :( I wonder if the state of Israel could issue a bill for uncollected pay... or repossess the Pyramids :p Ahhh I shouldn't joke about such sensitive topics! I'll get myself into trouble!
     
  18. Afro Shine

    Afro Shine Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9
    same im not much of a warmonger ( unless an A.I builds a city too closed to me too early and its in a horrible position i hate bad cities )

    i also refuse to whip my own people :) and i believe that population is power so i usually have a lot of forest still intact unless i really wanted a wonder like mids or Stonehenge if i founded a religion but other than that i keep forests for health with 10+ being average size in mid ancient to classical.
     
  19. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    Indeed:... no: the pyramids were built by Egyptian laborers, properly paid, fed and housed. (There are no records of Jews helping to build pyramids, not in Egyptian sources nor in the bible.)

    As to the OP: I'm not a warmonger (far from it). Indeed I do not post on strategy (I leave that to the strategists) and only make war to end it ASAP, as it interferes with my cultural/technical expansion strategy.
     
  20. Hasuike

    Hasuike Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    With a couple exceptions I seems to be misunderstood. I do have experience with higher levels of the game through watching other players (some are the ones who first exposed me to the series) and I have tried chopping/whipping myself many times. That's why I started the post in the first place, because the assertions made by warmongerers on the forum do not match my experiences.

    It seems that questioning the aggressive strat with chopping/whipping causes many on this forum to assume the person doing the questioning is an amateur. I didn't think that people would regard a self proclaimed builder to mean that one who never wars, is incapable of planning and efficiency, and is so lacking in an open mind as to never try a different approach to the game. I do go to war, just not early on for the most part (usually at least try and wait for an available siege unit). With few exceptions I usually go to war when I know not that I can defeat the enemy but when I can wipe them off the map so as to avoid a long war and unintended consequences of "incomplete" or long conquest. Times I have tried in the past to emulate the warmongerer strat usually gave me a temporary advantage in the early game the dissipates by the modern era. It seemed to lower the long term potential of my empire and often left me in the modern age with one large opponent to deal with who had tech parity with me... making further conquest and undesirable alternative. When I build early and war later I have never had an opposing force equal to me in the modern age which makes a difference considering the power of nukes.

    A friend also reminded me that not everyone plays the same map type or size as well so that would be useful information. I tend to play large (highest size my comp handles well all the way through the modern age) and the type varies: Terra, Continents, Big and Medium/Small, and Archipelago are the ones I play most often.

    Navarre seems to have understood my intent in playing the game rather well too. I am not looking for the ball busting civ game from hell whatsoever. And as far as mastery is concerned, I usually work on more productive things like my studies in politics and law or my hobby, martial arts. Those things are so demanding, mastery of civ is not high on the list of priorities. I play civ cuz I can't train or read all day every day LOL.
     

Share This Page