Great War-Mongering Civ?

[guermantes]

There is a pretty nice and exhaustive discussion about the Woodsman III plus Medics dynamics here...

[The Priest]

Thanks, thats a great link. Shows that getting a woodsman III medic III is almost impossible if we are still talking about deliberately weak units, and you are not some very particular civs, and even for those civs still very difficult.

Nevertheless I feel a game as the incas coming on to experiment with woodsman III

[fani]

I wanted to play a warmongering game and for the first!! time i played Boudica...better than i expected...A very nice choice actually if you like using lots of infantry...

[Blaupanzer]

Best Civ overall is Rome. It's really for newbies, but the Praetorian is way overpowered for its era and allows all kinds of outrageously bold assaults against your opponents. Either leader is good although I prefer Augustus when they come up on random leaders. I also like the warmongering potential of Montezuma and the Aztecs and their sacrificial altar. As noted above the Mongols also rock -- with Kublai Khan as the best long-term leader. (You can only kill what you can reach.)

For warmongering go with smaller maps or more civs than the default number. 9 civs on a large map means that the early UUs are wasted, as it will take time to find other civs and you will be building cities of your own. If you go large with 9 civs (the default) then the observer's notes about Japan are correct. The Samurai is a very dangerous unit. The Chinese Cho-ko-nu should not be overlooked either -- that collateral damage can be very useful in taking down SODs (Stacks of Doom) from your opponents.

[wodan11]

The problem with Rome, Aztecs, etc, are that their UUs come at inopportune times to really make extensive use out of, because the empire can't financially support huge gains.

What they do is allow the player to leverage them and turn a small early empire to a relatively large empire (relative, compared to other civs on the same map). This in turn will give the edge to allow a 2nd phase of warmongering later in the game. The player just won't be using Praets all that much. And, in fact, it's easy to overdo and end up with a lot of costs that really serve to delay the 2nd warmonger phase, which would mean Praets are counter-productive to some extent.

Equally efficient, if not more so, as a warmonger technique is to choose a civ/leader which will allow the financial boost needed to get the economy to the point where it can support the 2nd war phase sooner in the game.

Wodan

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by wodan11
The problem with Rome, Aztecs, etc, are that their UUs come at inopportune times to really make extensive use out of, because the empire can't financially support huge gains.

... And, in fact, it's easy to overdo and end up with a lot of costs that really serve to delay the 2nd warmonger phase, which would mean Praets are counter-productive to some extent.

Just because YOU can't seem to do it.

Actually, it's more fun and challenging this way. While some games see them little used, most games see my legions over-extending my empire quite well.

Quick! I need Currency & Code of Laws! Get building that courthouse, producing that gold.

[Felch]

Originally posted by rah
For mid game wars, I'm a big fan of the etheopians.
Organized for ease of maintaining all the land you conquer. And creative for squeezing out the land of other civs.
And the mustket replacement is fun. Rush to gunpowder and buid lots of them. Start them with the mounted promotion and they can handle almost anything it that era.
And even better, since they start with promotion instead of just abilities (like janisaries) They become wicked rifleman and even better infantry.

Or choosing a protective civ and rush to crossbowman and longbowman. The native americans are a good choice for this one.

I like to get gunpowder quickly, switch to Vassal and/or Theocracy, and start pumping out the Orumos as fast as I can. Get a nice large army of guys that upgrade into true killing machines.

[rah]

Yeah, if you're a war monger and have a lot of them left when they upgrade all the way to mech inf. They're unbeatable. Of course at any upgrade they're tough.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by wodan11
The problem with Rome, Aztecs, etc, are that their UUs come at inopportune times to really make extensive use out of, because the empire can't financially support huge gains.

What they do is allow the player to leverage them and turn a small early empire to a relatively large empire (relative, compared to other civs on the same map). This in turn will give the edge to allow a 2nd phase of warmongering later in the game. The player just won't be using Praets all that much. And, in fact, it's easy to overdo and end up with a lot of costs that really serve to delay the 2nd warmonger phase, which would mean Praets are counter-productive to some extent.

Equally efficient, if not more so, as a warmonger technique is to choose a civ/leader which will allow the financial boost needed to get the economy to the point where it can support the 2nd war phase sooner in the game.

Wodan

Oh, how i found out the hard way a couple of games ago, when i drew Augustus... I was on a continent of 5 (in a large hemisphere world of 10), crushed 2. Then my army began to rapidly desintegrate due to lack of funds. Of course the remaining two then stole ´my´ empire. I quit.

[wodan11]

Yeah.

So what I'm saying is that it may be just as valid a "warmonger" technique to choose, say, Elizabeth or Victoria, and do a modest early war with normal units, and then go hog wild in the Renaissance / early modern.

[fani]

I think it depends on the level you play, but at monarch with julius i am pretty confident that i can build a HUGE empire using praetorians and having science below 30% for a long time...it is still relatively easy to keep up to the tech race...just give me iron!

[wodan11]

Originally posted by fani
...having science below 30% for a long time...

You make it sound like that's a benefit.

[fani]

errr...despite keeping science below 30%...

[MoonWolf]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11


Oh, how i found out the hard way a couple of games ago, when i drew Augustus... I was on a continent of 5 (in a large hemisphere world of 10), crushed 2. Then my army began to rapidly desintegrate due to lack of funds. Of course the remaining two then stole ´my´ empire. I quit.

Look to history That's excactly what happened with the Roman empire. It needed to costantly grow to be able survive. When it couldn't grow anymore, it started to fall apart and became overrun by other tribes/ civilizations

[Blaupanzer]

More directly, Rome fell because it could not afford to maintain the armies to protect and police such a large empire. Of course, corruption (inevitable in poorly policed situations) and ethnic rivalries/aspirations did not help either. In Civ terms, you have too many cities with high maintenance costs to afford a sufficient army.

Also in Civ, if the machine sees possible deficit spending, it disbands units instead. To add insult to injury, it disbands those units farthest away from the capitol. This can result in it disbanding high quality units while leaving low qualit, inexperienced units in place. Never let the machine decide this for you!