when is the best time to attack

[Harbourboy]

I agree that it is almost always a good idea to attack much earlier than 1100 AD, usually with Axes, unless you have a better early unique unit.

 

[bassist2119]

Also, don't forget that razing cities and pillaging land gives gold, allowing the initial 100% research period to last longer. In a few of my best games, a couple of gold huts plus some early pillaging/razing allowed for 100% research until shrines + market/grocer era, during which it didn't need to drop below 90%

 

[Ecofarm]

Hell, you can fight effective wars at the very beginning. Unless you've got a good early-game UU you probably won't be taking cities

I did not use a UU. I was Inca, but only had 1 Quecha in my army (medic_3).
Noble/standard/pangea/normal.
I kept only the capitals, my economy never suffered.
Cities built: 3
Cities razed: 22

(Ok, I won't post this screen again. It just comes in so handy, and looks so cool!) Besides, it could not be more relavant.

 

[Dan Quale]

Early attacking is the only way to go on higher difficulties, Until last week I was a monarch player, when I began and won my first empororer game with roosevelt. The most satisfying victory in battle I have ever had was sacking a 19 population istanbul around 300 bc, which had 4 food resources and 2gems, a shame it only had 2 archers and a spearmen. Long story very shortened it was a 1752 space victory coming from a gigantic tech disadvantage. The interesting thing i noticed in the final score were the units I produced.... 88 axemen, 29 lost and 18 still in commission at the end. With that 23 cats 4 trebs and 11 knights I conquered mehmed, elizabeth, and napoleon all by around 1100 ad with mehmed and napoleon both dead by 100 bc. The key to victory was diplomacy, catherine ended up with 2 capitulates by the end of the game, but saved me from destruction twice. Catherine is with out a doubt the best ally you can ever have, she will not go for a diplomatic victory even if she is near the population to win it alone, just countless stupid resolutions, and too much military/millitary research to even compete space wise(although I was at 56% landmass).

 

[cabert]

Early attacking is the only way to go on higher difficulties, Until last week I was a monarch player, when I began and won my first empororer game with roosevelt. The most satisfying victory in battle I have ever had was sacking a 19 population istanbul around 300 bc, which had 4 food resources and 2gems, a shame it only had 2 archers and a spearmen. Long story very shortened it was a 1752 space victory coming from a gigantic tech disadvantage. The interesting thing i noticed in the final score were the units I produced.... 88 axemen, 29 lost and 18 still in commission at the end. With that 23 cats 4 trebs and 11 knights I conquered mehmed, elizabeth, and napoleon all by around 1100 ad with mehmed and napoleon both dead by 100 bc. The key to victory was diplomacy, catherine ended up with 2 capitulates by the end of the game, but saved me from destruction twice. Catherine is with out a doubt the best ally you can ever have, she will not go for a diplomatic victory even if she is near the population to win it alone, just countless stupid resolutions, and too much military/millitary research to even compete space wise(although I was at 56% landmass).

I won an almost totally peaceful cultural win on emperor (warlords 2.08), using Spain.
The only war I had was defensive, with catapults, LB and muskets against cavalries and canons.

 

[mrt144]

I won an almost totally peaceful cultural win on emperor (warlords 2.08), using Spain.
The only war I had was defensive, with catapults, LB and muskets against cavalries and canons.

I have to concur. One of the best victories I had was a cultural one where I only fought 6-7 battles TOTAL the entire game. not because I am a builder, but because people say it cant be done.