REX vs. Warmongering

[Ghengis Brom]

I've been reading the boards here at Apolyton and over at CivFanatics since I got CivIII about three weeks ago. I have also been playing CivII for a couple years. In CivII REX was the Best, no doubt about it. In CivIII, particularly on maps smaller then huge, I don't think REX is all it's cracked up to be. As everyone knows the CivIII AI expands relentlessly. I'll use my Apolyton Tournament game as an example. I founded Babylon in 4000BC, created my first warrior in 5 turns, the date was then 3750 AD. By 3500, or 5 turns later I had already run into the Persians. The turn after that they created their second city and they were on my front door step, two turns later they had a third and fourth city. By this time I had also discovered the Chinese and Aztecs to the to the south. I had enough room to found maybe 4 more cities if I was lucky but at the speed the AI was expanding I'd be hemmed in with only 3 cities within the next 5 turns. So I decided at that point to abandon REX and go into full Bowman production. Within 10 turns I had taken 3 Persian cities including their capitol. Over the next 10 turns I finished off the Persians and taken one city from the Chinese and two from the Aztecs. I started to do what I call semi-REX after the Persians had been wiped out and by the time I had taken the Chinese Aztec cities I controlled the entire NW third of the continent. I'm hoping to finish in time for the 30th. So with the new and improved AI of CivIII I don't think REX is always the best. Just my 2 cents, let the flames begin


Me at work ------>

[War4ever]

i totally agree on any map standard or smaller..

if you have three cities just rush barracks and/or troops and take cities.... much more effective than REX ......at least early on.....

gives you new cities usually doubling your empire...and clears some breathing room to finish your REX.....

in the early game my motto is why build what you can take

[vmxa1]

War is hell, but a lot more fun. Even in large maps I expand as much as I can and go to war as soon as I can with my neighbor. You need to reduce their base to hold them down.

[David Weldon]

In addition to world type, a lot depends on what level you're playing at.

At Deity, for example, the AI has _huge_ production, science, and growth bonuses. This means that they expand even faster than a lot of people think is possible. In addition, only the first citizen in any town is content. This means that it is much more useful to rush-build with population than it is to try and build up larger cities that can compete with AI development. These two things lead to something like randomturn's vassal strategy or some other form of early military rush for dominance.

On lower levels the AI expands aggressively, but it is possible to keep up with it if you REX effectively. The larger cities allowed by happier citizens make it worth your while to avoid oppression unhappiness, and therefore it is often more useful to not rush-build too much in the early going. Without rush building it's a lot more difficult (though not impossible) to pull off an effective grunt rush in the very early going. Plus, the slower expansion of the AI means it might take longer before he builds cities close to you anyway. In the meantime, use REX for all it's worth!

It's my opinion that they two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but my personal games are influenced by level. At harder levels, I _always_ use an early military expansion or else I get crushed. At Monarch and below, I start off REXing and then enter a later Ancient Age war if it seems beneficial.