Why am I upsetting the other civs?

[mikeinmukilteo]

I'm playing on either the second or third easiest level as the Iroquois in standard sized Vanilla.

I'm guessing that around 500 BC or so, I started a war against the Americans because they created many new settlements in between my cities, twice when they had only two squares of land (no special resources). I quickly took over the three tiny colonies and then became peaceful. Otherwise, until this point I have been a pacifist and agreed to every single trade/demand sent my way by every civ.

It's now up to about 500 AD and over the last several turns nearly everyone suddenly declared war on me--the Aztecs, English, Russians and Americans. Other than the Americans, everyone's last status showed "polite" when I spoke to them. The Aztecs weren't even next to my border; they had to traipse a third of the way across the continent to engage in the battle.

What's up with that? Are there clues this is going to happen?

In case these things matter (I don't know if they do or not; that's what I'm trying to find out)...

My military advisor said our army was pretty much average with everyone. I had the Mounted Warrier, which is the best offensive unit right now. The histogram shows me, again, pretty much on equal footing as the others.

Thanks for your help.

 

[bigFRANK]

From what you have said I would assume that the Americans signed someone upto to a military alliance to come and sort you out, the other civs have decided to side with the alliance against you as they feel they will win and want a piece of the action or they have been bribed to do so. End result though is that your going to have to fight a containment war until such time as you can sue for peace and then you need to sort the politics out before you go starting wars. If any civs have yet to declare on you get them to enter an alliance with you to fight an opponent near them as that should keep the other civ from coming over to give you a good kicking.

 

[mikeinmukilteo]

The Americans jointly declared war on me along with the Russians. It all started, however, with the Aztecs, which is the biggest puzzler of them all since they were no where near me. The English fronted an assault 6-8 turns after the Aztecs finally reached me to begin their battle (I didn't bother sending anyone there; I merely stayed home for defense). Another few turns later the Russians and Americans jointly declared war on me.

How does one "sort out the politics"? I made generous trades with all of them. What else can I do? I guess I could "bribe" civs into a military agreement like you suggested they did. Is there anything else?

 

[vmxa]

Once the land is mostly taken, they have to get the land from somoeone. That means war. It does not matter that you were on good terms, you looked weak to Montie and he had decided to jump on someone and you are it.

Once they declare, they tend to look for friends to help them and if you look weak and Montie looks strong they accept the deal and declare as well.

What many players will do once they have been decalred upon, is to do what Montie did. Namely try to find some friends to bribe into the war on their side.

 

[bigFRANK]

How does one "sort out the politics"?

Protection politics

Basically any deal that has a 20 turn period will normally prevent (or at least reduce) the likely hood of the other party starting a war with you. For example the Aztecs start a war with you, you talk with the English offering them surplus fur in exchange for gold per turn, they accept and you have them in a trade deal they are therefore unlikely to attack you unless provoked.

Similarly if you have an embassy you could sign a mutual protection pact or a rights of passage agreement with a neutral, again making it likely that for 20 turns at least they should not attack you (beware both these treaties as they can result in you suffering greatly either by being dragged into a war you don’t want (MPP) or you loosing many undefended cities as soon as the ROP agreement ceases when your former friend switches sides with half his army inside your homeland).

The most definite way of getting them onside though is to have them join an alliance with you against your aggressor, some will be happy to join your cause for free, others will need payment either in gold, technology or resources, some will already have ties with the other party that mean they wont sign an alliance at this time, (however you could still sign a MPP with them and providing your not the first too attack the other party should then declare war on your enemy). Either way do it as soon as you can or you can be sure that your enemy will be on with the same the next turn.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Otherwise, until this point I have been a pacifist and agreed to every single trade/demand sent my way by every civ.

It's now up to about 500 AD and over the last several turns nearly everyone suddenly declared war on me--the Aztecs, English, Russians and Americans. Other than the Americans, everyone's last status showed "polite" when I spoke to them. The Aztecs weren't even next to my border; they had to traipse a third of the way across the continent to engage in the battle.

What's up with that? Are there clues this is going to happen?

You were there. In the case of a Regent game I played some time ago, I was Gracious with both my neighbors, yet neither one had any problem Declaring on me (at separate times ... and granted that if either one of them had any brains, they would have wiped me out in three turns due to size/power differences, but ...).

My military advisor said our army was pretty much average with everyone. I had the Mounted Warrier, which is the best offensive unit right now. The histogram shows me, again, pretty much on equal footing as the others.
Thanks for your help.

Being Strong to other civs is the best way to avoid nonsensical wars - you're still going to get hit by them, particularly if you have weak border cities, but it'll help a bit. It's also possible that - as you said Montezuma had to travel across the continent - that he'd sent them at an earlier point in time when he was stronger than you (even if you're Average with him now). Since the AI doesn't open up the Diplomacy screen to inform you that he's going to war with you, your only sign is troop movement, and especially pre-Rails, you don't usually have much in the way of prediction a lot of the time.

 

[MysteryX]

In in my experience, the militaristic civilizations are the most likely to start crazy, unexpected, unprovoked wars. Militaristic civilizations will declare war on you when they are polite toward you, when they are nowhere near you, when they have absolutely nothing to gain from war with you, when they are completely mismatched with you, regardless of how much you have bribed them.

My guess is that the militaristic Aztecs were getting itchy from being at peace too long, needed to start a war for war's sake, and randomly chose you. And then as others have stated, the Aztecs did what any AI does when war starts (and what you should do too) and started paying as many other civilizatios as possible to help.

I play the peace game too, but I'm always suspicious of the militaristic civilizations, because it just seems to me that they unpredictably forget the bribes and break their agreements.

 

[GamezRule]

Gandhi is one of the most aggressive leaders in the game sometimes.

 

[bigFRANK]

Yep have had Ghandi demand some tech from me, me refuse him and then had him declare war before despite being hopelessly outnumbered and outclassed (elephants -v- tanks). Mind his mid sized island in the current game was a nice stopping off point prior to the war with Babylon.

 

[MysteryX]

I just had a game in which I had two advance clues that a neighbor was about to go to war with me.

The first was that my only land-adjacent neighbor made several mutual protection pacts with other civs within a few turns. A neighbor entering into one mutual protection pact isn't necessarily the prelude to war, but several in a row, and he's planning to start a war and dogpile on someone.

The second was that, after obtaining all the mutual protection pacts, my neighbor suddenly didn't want to accept gold-per-tun from me in any more trades, despite the fact that we had been trading in that matter for a long time and my trading reputation was pristine.

He waited a few turns after making the mutual protection pacts, but sure enough, he finally sent his units over the border for me.

 

[Raliuven]

I don't know that I would say 'fight a war of containment until you can sue for peace'. At regent, I agree, fight a defensive war to begin if you can't immedately use offensive units to punish a backstabbing neighbor for a quick territory gain. You are unlikely to see any SOD arriving at your door. Build offenseive units - the AI respects offense more than defense. Also, your offensive units can be stationed to kill invading units rather than waiting to receive an attack they can do nothing about. If the defense is too good, the AI will avoid them, which is to say that the AI will only attack if it stands a good chance to win, which is exactly what you don't want. And your MW units will make easy pickings of the AI offensive units.

The AI will send units as they are available. That equals defeat in detail. Once you eliminate the initial rush of units, you can expand your offensive army until you can turn the battle against your nearest backstabbing neighbor. Turn him to goo and then you will find the other Civs less interested in fighting you.

Suing for peace might be a good idea at the bottom of a dogpile, but on regent you can usually just grind the other Civs into the ground with a little patience and good war tactics. If you are not at the bottom of a dogpile, then it is better to bribe allies to fight for you than to bribe enemies for peace. Better yet, if possible, bribe a neutral Civ that is between (or next to) you and the agressor. Let the AIs fight while you build a SOD for use on a nearby neighbor - possibly even your former ally!

 

[bigFRANK]

Indeed offensive units used in your own territory are fantastic defenders cavalry being great at smashing up a stack and then retreating to the nearest barracked city to heal but you need defenders too or he will loose towns.

 

[Raliuven]

Indeed offensive units used in your own territory are fantastic defenders cavalry being great at smashing up a stack and then retreating to the nearest barracked city to heal but you need defenders too or he will loose towns.

I agree to a point, but I would rather generate a 30-shield sword than a 20-shield spear. Both have the same defense, the swordsman has a 3 attack vs. 1 for the spear. The sword can cover the frontline cities as well as a spear and still offer some attack power to back up the skirmishing MW. If my only choice is swords and spears and nothing better, I might make a few spears to mix with the swords to preserve my sword strength (Or MDI, etc.).

Honestly I can't remember the last time I made a spear, pike or musketman, though. I Usually start with Infantry. They are the first defenders actually worth having, IMO. But circumstance dictate the approach and there are exceptions to every rule (no iron, etc.).

But the need for defenders is premissed on the enemy reaching my doorstep. All a spear or pike can do is sit around and wait to be attacked or watch as your land is pillaged.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Indeed offensive units used in your own territory are fantastic defenders cavalry being great at smashing up a stack and then retreating to the nearest barracked city to heal but you need defenders too or he will loose towns.

Raliuven has already covered most of the points. If you have the territory roaded, your offensive units will do most or all of the fighting. I don't use Spearmen unless they're Hoplites. Swords defend as well and if you have an Army in your stack it won't get attacked. Any later defensive units are usually stack defenders or if I'm trying to use a funnel of doom. If the AI stack is getting in a position to attack your towns things have gone wrong.

I also use Infantry as combined attack/defensive units. Since I beeline Replaceable Parts I get them reasonably early.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I agree to a point, but I would rather generate a 30-shield sword than a 20-shield spear. Both have the same defense, the swordsman has a 3 attack vs. 1 for the spear. The sword can cover the frontline cities as well as a spear and still offer some attack power to back up the skirmishing MW. If my only choice is swords and spears and nothing better, I might make a few spears to mix with the swords to preserve my sword strength (Or MDI, etc.).

Assuming you have C3C, I will agree. IMHO, one of the key differences between C3C and vanilla/PTW is the upgradeability of the swordsman. In the earlier expansions, swords didn't upgrade, while the defenders did. You could build a dozen pikes in the ancient age to defend your coastal towns, and upgrade them all the way to Mech Infantry. Swords were essential for warring in the ancient and middle ages, but had to be disbanded when gunpowder units became prevalent; they were a dead-end.

 

[bigFRANK]

Re defensive units;
During the early AA I make a few spears to stand guard over my cities until I have hooked up the tech and resources to make better units, its rare that by the time swords arrive on the scene I have my territory fully roaded so offensive unit bonus of swords normally doesn’t gain me that much, (i.e. all movement is used up to get next too enemy unit). Generally don’t bother with pikes at all (may upgrade spearmen if I have a cash surplus and am still in Despotism), muskets the odd one to stand on a mountain in an invasion zone as I land my cavalry, rifles I tend to draft a few so they can be upgraded to infantry at a latter date this is great way of solving possible starvation problems too. Infantry make a fantastic (if somewhat slow) offensive and defensive force especially if combined with artillery; in fact until modern armor becomes available I would say infantry is the mainstay of my armed forces.

 

[Raliuven]

Assuming you have C3C, I will agree. IMHO, one of the key differences between C3C and vanilla/PTW is the upgradeability of the swordsman. In the earlier expansions, swords didn't upgrade, while the defenders did. You could build a dozen pikes in the ancient age to defend your coastal towns, and upgrade them all the way to Mech Infantry. Swords were essential for warring in the ancient and middle ages, but had to be disbanded when gunpowder units became prevalent; they were a dead-end.

I'm a little unsure because of the sentence structure, but swords upgrade in PTW.

But even in Vanilla, which I played for some time, I would still be unlikely to build spears vs. swords. I agree that upgradable swords is nice, but the real challenge in Vanilla is to only build as many swords as you need. Too many and it could be a waste. Frankly, the upgrade path from sword to MDI to Gurilla is pretty weak anyway.

Whether spear, pike or musketman - even rifles IMO - they are just standing around watching the battle. Meanwhile, how much gold have you spent to upgrade a spear into a Mech Infantry?

I'm not saying a handful of defenders aren't nice to have, especially at the Infantry stages. But really, if you are fighting an offensive war (even defensively), then your 'defenders' rarely see meaningful action anyway (as Ataxerxes mentioned).

Here is the problem - if I could have spears, I'd rather have swords/MDI. If I could have pikes, I'd rather have knights. If I could have musketmen, I'd rather have cavalry. It starts to break down at rifles, but rifles are so close to Infantry that they don't get much action (at least for me). The point being, the defensive value offered is either the same as that possesed the offensive unit or is so little an advantage I'd rather have the attack rating and movement.

When might I produce a spear? A city with a shield production of 7 might attract me to a spear. 1 spear every 3 rounds with 1 wasted shield vs. 1 sword every 5 rounds with 5 wasted shields. If that spear is greek, then I'm more likely to spend the shields.

 

[Raliuven]

Re defensive units;
During the early AA I make a few spears to stand guard over my cities until I have hooked up the tech and resources to make better units, its rare that by the time swords arrive on the scene I have my territory fully roaded so offensive unit bonus of swords normally doesn’t gain me that much, (i.e. all movement is used up to get next too enemy unit). Generally don’t bother with pikes at all (may upgrade spearmen if I have a cash surplus and am still in Despotism), muskets the odd one to stand on a mountain in an invasion zone as I land my cavalry, rifles I tend to draft a few so they can be upgraded to infantry at a latter date this is great way of solving possible starvation problems too. Infantry make a fantastic (if somewhat slow) offensive and defensive force especially if combined with artillery; in fact until modern armor becomes available I would say infantry is the mainstay of my armed forces.

If your land is not sufficiently roaded, then you need to produce more workers. Worker production should match or excede settler production. Roads will multiple the power of your military (as you noted). Build roads, not spears. The main advantatges or fighting a defensive battle within your boards are short supply lines and manueverablity. Sufficient roads are essential to both. And hey, they make money too, so everyone is happy.

 

[MysteryX]

If your land is not sufficiently roaded, then you need to produce more workers. Worker production should match or excede settler production. Roads will multiple the power of your military (as you noted). Build roads, not spears. The main advantatges or fighting a defensive battle within your boards are short supply lines and manueverablity. Sufficient roads are essential to both. And hey, they make money too, so everyone is happy.

The strategy may depend in part on the map. I play a lot of Monarch games on Standard 100 x 100 maps, usually with continents. Since I probably have several AI opponents very close to me, and they have bonus units to start and production bonuses for difficultly level, it's often an immediate priority to "mark my territory" with a few settlements as fast as possible to block the AI opponents from overrunning my starting position with settlements, and drive the AI to settle in other directions.

That generally means I have to use my capital to pump out at least three or four settlers (along with cheap defenders) as fast as I can, meaning I can't squeeze out any workers (unless I am absolutely blessed with a starting location that gives me an abundance of riches in bonus shields and food).

Once I can box out a territory boundary that the AI won't try to overrun for a while (until other land available to the AI is used up), then I can start interspersing workers with my settlement units to get all my settlements connected, provide access to resources, and start improving land around my core cities.

I don't play on bigger than Standard maps. I'm guessing with more space between starting locations, slowing down the settler/defender production to get more workers out is a better strategy, because you have more time before the AI starts sniffing out your area, and using that extra time to improve your core early pays long-term dividends. But on a smaller map, by the time I get a few workers out to improve my first couple of settlements, I probaby have an AI opponent surrounding me with its settlements.

 

[bigFRANK]

I suppose to some extent it depends on what map your playing on, my current game (huge world map, 16 civs) my earliest expansion efforts once finding I was alone in Australia was to take and hold the Malaysian peninsular, 1 hill town there stops all other Civs from coming south into Indonesia and Australia (without ocean going boats) that town has my defensive units garrisoned in it and I am just now filling the land below it and my capital with towns and roads.