War is a mindset, it seems

[stormwriter]

Usually I focus on everything BUT war and amassing armies. It's risky, cause i'm sure the computer senses my capitol is only protected by two warriors and no walls...

So, i KNOW i should build barracks and troops, and get the necessary military techs... but i don't.

It's like i always see something "better" to focus on. Even if i KNOW i have to ramp up soldiers and defenses, i still think, "Hmm, but if i built that university first, i could get more research while i'm building those soldiers..."
then when the university is done, i think, "Hmm, but if i got more food from the harbor, that would make my city grow faster..."

It just seems like you have it or you don't. [the military mindset]

[Ravenloff]

You don't necessarily have to have a military mindset to win a conflict, but it sure as hell helps.

In response to your angst, however, when in actual history was your point NOT true? Contrary to idealic opinion, violence has solved quite a few things throughout time.

[Byelotsar]

I'm finding I'm having to break myself of my builder habits in some ways to compete with the AIs. A weak military with a strong industrial base in CIV is far worse than a weak military with a strong industrial base in Civ3 (always my preferred situation). Even the existence of a strong standing army in CIV can deter war (and its absence encourage it), which means that if I want to be a builder, I have to be a general first and foremost.

Architect, statesman, general, prophet - the nice thing about CIV (as opposed to former Civ games) is that to succeed, you must wear many hats. I love that!

[Skanky Burns]

I alternate building guns or butter. So after a library is built, next comes a catapault. Then a temple. Then some spearmen. After a certain point I don't need the extra military anymore as my standing army is enough to get respect from the other civs, but if you are militarily weak the other civs will not be as happy to trade with you - not to mention more likely to attack you.

[Bhruic]

I managed to play one game where all my cities only had 1 archer defender for the majority of their life. But in that game I mass-swarmed my state religion to all my neighbours, so we were one big happy family.

Most of my other games, if I try and play without a military, I get swarmed hard. Even in my latest game, where I had a minimum of 3 units in each city, I got attacked multiple times. And the AI did a great job of co-ordinating their attacks (or so it seemed to me) so that I couldn't afford to focus just on one.

But I'd have to agree that I have to force myself to think of building defenders, which I never had to do in Civ3.

Bh

[Jerh9e1k5]

I found the AI in Civ3 to be very aggressive. I always found that it picked up very quickly on a weak military and always sneak attacked me because of it. Eventually I started to make sure I didn't have a weak military... I haven't had a chance to play CIV yet, but from what I've heard it is possible to go through an entire game without a single war. When I heard this I was surprised because I was used to the aggressive AI in Civ3. Perhaps it was simply my playing style that made them sneak attack me, although I was very aware of the diplomatic relations between us and made conscious efforts not to make them angry in some games.

[Quillan]

In Civ 3, I found certain factions would rarely sneak attack, and others would pretty much always sneak attack you. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that there was a random factor involved, but military strength played a big part in the decision. So far in Civ 4, I haven't been sneak attacked in the same fashion. The diplomatic relationship has degraded sometimes without any apparent reason, but I haven't had someone who was "pleased" or "friendly" with me just attack out of the blue. One result of my many single-player games of Civ 3 was that I learned to always maintain a certain level of military force. The original poster is correct; it does require you to keep it in mind throughout the game. You have to make a conscious effort to build enough military units to hold on to your territory and blunt an invasion. I'm still getting a handle on just how much force is enough, though. The AI doesn't fight the same way in this one.

[Bhruic]

The problem I find with the whole "how much force is enough" is that, defensively, you end up with the whole enemy attack force focused on a single city. So while I might have a vastly superior defense force in general, they are tied up defending each individual city, and that makes each city relatively weak. Even having 5-6 defenders in a city won't cut it if the enemy brings a stack or two of 10+ units in. That's mainly the problem I'm facing.

I suppose it's a good problem, really, because that's how I attack the AI, which means the AI is using a good strategy. But I dislike the premise that in order to be really safe, I have to be offensive. I suppose it's one of those things I'll have to adjust to.

Bh

[Byelotsar]

Originally posted by Quillan
So far in Civ 4, I haven't been sneak attacked in the same fashion. The diplomatic relationship has degraded sometimes without any apparent reason, but I haven't had someone who was "pleased" or "friendly" with me just attack out of the blue.

I've had this happen a few times (the worst being when Saladin, from whom I'd expect better behavior given his historical model's reputation for honorable conduct, and Catherine teamed up to squish me, in the middle) involving one or more civs with whom I had "pleased" relations. I suspect that this has happened because my military weakness was fairly overwhelming, inspiring these civs to make a landgrab.

Originally posted by Bhruic
The problem I find with the whole "how much force is enough" is that, defensively, you end up with the whole enemy attack force focused on a single city. So while I might have a vastly superior defense force in general, they are tied up defending each individual city, and that makes each city relatively weak. Even having 5-6 defenders in a city won't cut it if the enemy brings a stack or two of 10+ units in. That's mainly the problem I'm facing.

I suppose it's a good problem, really, because that's how I attack the AI, which means the AI is using a good strategy. But I dislike the premise that in order to be really safe, I have to be offensive. I suppose it's one of those things I'll have to adjust to.

Bh

I've found it useful to maintain a solid garrison in all my cities, but also to have a pool of mobile defenders in some central city (typically but not always my capital), or a city easily accessible from all border cities. In the event of war, these mobile defenders can then rush out and bolster any city which is beseiged by overwhelming forces. Not only does this help me more fluidly distribute defenders, but I can also make use of the unit rename function to title them all "Mobile Defense Force".

It keeps me from having to pour treasure into a military which consists of 10+ defenders per city by letting me put my teeth where the action is. Most of my wars thus far have been defensive actions anyway, which involves simply crushing the enemy army.

[Bhruic]

I've tried something similar. But the "best" city defenders tend to be 1 movement types, and my Empire is usually spread out enough that even a "central" city is 3-4 turns away from the outskirts. When AI players declare war, I find they've usually got their forces right on the border, and are at my city in 1-2 turns. So I have to rely on the local defenses to hold out long enough for the mobile defenses to arrive.

In my last game, I tried a slightly different approach of "unit sliding". That is, instead of trying to take Unit A from City A to City D, I'd move Unit A to City B, Unit B to City C, and Unit C to City D. With roads, that's 2 turns max between cities, so the defenses can reach wherever they need to without problems.

It mostly worked, I just had to deal with the cleanup from despoiling. But I find it tends to break down fast when I'm attacked from multiple AI players (which is usually how it goes). The AI certainly values "already at war" as a "should I attack them" variable.

Bh

[Byelotsar]

Originally posted by Bhruic
It mostly worked, I just had to deal with the cleanup from despoiling. But I find it tends to break down fast when I'm attacked from multiple AI players (which is usually how it goes). The AI certainly values "already at war" as a "should I attack them" variable.

Bh

Concur.

Admittedly, the idea of an MDF has the problem of movement, so it's best done in the post-railroad age with conventional defenders. I've found fast units, though, to be a serious asset before that technology becomes available. Offensive units, of course, work just fine for taking proactive defense of a city. A handful of horse archers (mobile) and a few axemen (stationed in the city) can bring a world of hurt to attackers.

The other option, which I've only toyed with, is having several suicide catapults/cannons/artillery with collateral damage upgrades stationed in my border cities. The AI is clever enough to spread out its units, but when you do face a stack or two, collateral damage is the Red Button to push. Plus, having them in place allows for a rapid counter-attack if need be, or mobilization if drawn into a war against your neighbors by an ally.

I like the idea of "unit sliding", as you call it, though personally I would tend to just denude my cities deeper in my territory to defend those more at the front. If I can displace one unit to help the city in one turn, great. But if over three turns I can get three or four units there by weakening my internal defenses, no problem (usually).

One nice thing about the current seige model is that it will typically take a few turns to level a mid-sized city's defensive bonus. Response time is little hurt by centralizing defenders, but I've usually found my cities hold out long enough for the three or four turns to pass. My infrastructure gets chewed up, but that's less crucial than holding the city.

[Dactyl]

Here's a trick I've noticed that the AI will sometimes play. Say that civ X is at war with civ Y. After a while civ X asks you to join the war against Y. You gladly join in and, on the very next turn X makes peace with Y and you are stuck fighting Y alone.

[Quillan]

Originally posted by Byelotsar


I've found it useful to maintain a solid garrison in all my cities, but also to have a pool of mobile defenders in some central city (typically but not always my capital), or a city easily accessible from all border cities.

That is exactly the strategy I used in Civ 3, and try to maintain in Civ 4. The "reaction force", as I call them, are not generally defensive units. Rather, they are fast moving offensive units. When the enemy comes rolling in, I hit them with the reaction force. If the AI is already lined up on your border when he declares war on you, you're going to take some damage. But you can hopefully confine that to just the one or two cities he's swarming. Even if you lose fights, hopefully you cause damage enough to force the enemy to sit still and heal for a while, which buys you some time to build more military units. Collateral damage units are worth their weight in gold in the immediate reaction to an invasion; I recommend keeping a catapult or two in every border city where you might be attacked by a neighbor.

[Meef]

I managed to play (and win) a game without leading a single war! it all depends on you! pay tribute, if necessary! (i know it hurts, but usually a civ asking for tribute already approached your weakest city with a massiv stack of units)
If the AI has no reason to be furious with you, they wont go to war with you.
I always try to make sure, that my close neighbors are my friends and if a distant nation declares war on me, i make that friend between us go to war with them. unlike in earlier civ versions, a war is no longer necessary to be succesful. on the contrary an early war weakens you. I´d rather focus on cultural expansion, than on military.

[Dis]

since upgrade paths go all the way up, there is no real excuse to neglect building military units. Long as you have the gold to updgrade that is . And as far as I can tell, they don't lose their promotions with the upgrades (unlike civ3 where elites became veteran).

But yeah I still have the same problem. So much to build, so little time. I only leave one defender in all my border cities. Actually all my cities only have 1 defender. I use offensive troops as my defense. My current game I have many horse archers and now knights for my defense. I'm still not sure how much is enough. But I haven't been attacked this game...yet. I'm currently building many knights to root out the barbarians on the other continent (terran world). That's a lot of fun.