Your first war

[realpolitic]

This is a strategy that works on rather crowded Planets including my usual : Emporer, 16 civs HUGE map:
At Emporer level, you get 70% of the food shields and tech growth of the AI, at Diety it's 60%. AI is settling everywhere, if you do the same you get beaten. There is an Achilles heel: a that expansion rate cities are underprotected.

For 30 shields you get:
a settler
0 increase in your civs population +2 increase in your civs food

For 60 shields you get
3 archers or 2 swordsmen or 2 horsemen
roughly 1 conquered city
an increse in population and food
captured workers
future tribute from another civ
a weakened civ for a future war.


To get the maximum out of war you should have your roads in place and attack ASAP, usually with just 2 cities(to keep unit costs from bankrupting you).

<b>The Difference Between war in Civ II and III</B>
In Civ II units were paid for in shields,so having too many old units slowed down the fight. In CivIII upkeep is in gold, so it slows down your tech UNTIL you've conquered cities with them. Also consider the luxury slider as a temporary tool to get you more science in the long term. Alpha Centuri is about 400 turns away.


60 shields =
3 archers ==> 6 offence 3 defence
2 swordsmen=>6offence 4 defence

Archers now beats swordsmen later.
Ive learned this the hard way playing the Perians, and needing archers to take the Iron.

Ive found that about 6 regular archers and a spearman is enough to start my first war (if Im producing 100% military). With this calculation, I rarely build any Barracks for my first war. By defining

Total offence = # of units * offence * experience

160 shields in 1 city=
Barracks + 6 Vereran Archers
TO = 6 * 2 * 4 = 48
OR
8 Regular Archers
TO = 8*2*3 =48

Because I only need 6 archers to start, I want to have results by the time my ENTIRE civ has produced about 200 shields, so building barracks isn't a good idea for a nonmilitaristic civ.

<b>The first war just weakens a civ</b>
Eventually they'll pop rush troops, things will bog down, or you'll approach their capitol with inadequate culture. Now is the time to ask for peace.

<b>They have now declared war on themselves</B>
Poprushing has cut their population
Made them unhappy
And they're paying you tribute.

Now is the time to build libraries. By the time its time to fight again, maybe they'll have a government that doesn't allow poprushing.

<b>The next enemy</b>
If you can techtrade early, you might have money for upgrades. Maybe build warriors, THEN get an Iron contract instant swordsmen. Another possibilty reseach enginnering , sell it. Then upgrade to longbowmen.

[Datajack Franit]

What the hell is an emporer?

[joncnunn]

Actually, if you want to use Swordmen in your first war on Emperor, it's okay if you've built them as Warriors. (Build the Baracks first so their vetran, preferably chopping down some forest to speed it up.)

Then just save up the cash for the massive upgrade & pray for Iron in your territory.

When succesful it results in:

60 Shields -> 6 Swords -> 18 attack / 12 defense

This works even better if you have a Swordmen replacement UU.

[realpolitic]

I have had a hard time getting the Iron that early. If I were to mapwhore, perhaps. Playing other strategy games, Ive become reluctant to share or sell my maps. I'd also have to add 120 shields for the Barracks and Harbor.

[Nor Me]

Re: Your first war

On the same settings, I usually find that

Originally posted by realpolitic
a weakened civ for a future war.

means a stronger civ on the other side.
If you attack this early, you're not going to have enough time to explore that much. Your slow archers have to decide which direction they're going in so early that I would not know what was going on further away than the target.
On a tiny map, of course you shouldn't need 2 cities.
I usually play on emperor when the AI only produce 80% faster which may be much easier .

[realpolitic]

Re: Re: Your first war

Originally posted by Nor Me
On the same settings, I usually find that

means a stronger civ on the other side.
If you attack this early, you're not going to have enough time to explore that much. Your slow archers have to decide which direction they're going in so early that I would not know what was going on further away than the target.
On a tiny map, of course you shouldn't need 2 cities.
I usually play on emperor when the AI only produce 80% faster which may be much easier .

I meant my first enemy was a weakened state, in my current game he's also hemmed in.

[nbarclay]

The problem with early warfare is that although it fatally weakens one opponent, it also weakens you relative to the rest of the world. There are times when crowding makes early warfare necessary (and those also tend to be the times when early warfare is most profitable because a short distance between civs means less corruption in captured cities), but I view that approach as a backup plan for if I can't build a strong enough economy without fighting early, not as a first choice.

Of course Deity is an entirely different matter from lesser levels, and I haven't played it enough to have any advice there. Deity tends to push players into a type of strategy I don't regard as all that much fun - too much early fighting (and against too powerful an opponents) for my taste.

Nathan

Edit: Huge/16 may make early warfare more profitable than on smaller maps because the distance between civs is lower compared with the overall map size. On standard maps (what I play most often), captured cities tend to be almost completely corrupt under Despotism, but I wouldn't be shocked if they're a bit more productive on the Huge/16 setting.

[DaveMcW]

The key to early war is to hit the enemy while they are still expanding. You can tell when the AIs stop expanding because their culture starts going up.

The AI's expansion phase lasts longer on Huge maps so you have more time to set up the attack. Early wars on smaller maps are much harder to profit from, and often involve a gamble.

I prefer a 12-swordman rush over a 6-archer rush. It costs the same amount of shields (in warriors) and you get your upgrade gold back through tech extortion. But I often just wait for 25 swordmen/horsemen and wipe my neighbor off the map.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
I prefer a 12-swordman rush over a 6-archer rush. It costs the same amount of shields (in warriors) and you get your upgrade gold back through tech extortion.

I guess one of my personal biases shows here. One of my goals in any Civ game is to push my technological progress as fast as I reasonably can. I like having techs centuries before they were available in the real world. And I can do that more effectively if I research myself and trade with the AIs than I can if I let the AIs do all the work and settle for only what I can extort.

But my strategy also has a much more practical advantage. On anything but pangea maps, helping to push the pace of technology on my own continent puts me in a stronger position relative to the AIs on other continents.

Nathan

[Datajack Franit]

Seems a very good strategy to me!

[Theseus]

Arrian (I think) made an interesting observation a long time ago... when I play on Large maps, or play with one less than the max AI civs, and I also use a slowmover UU or primary attack unit, the result will often be a stronger (i.e., more numerous) AI military... resulting in more opportunities for early GLs.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus
Arrian (I think) made an interesting observation a long time ago... when I play on Large maps, or play with one less than the max AI civs, and I also use a slowmover UU or primary attack unit, the result will often be a stronger (i.e., more numerous) AI military... resulting in more opportunities for early GLs.

But also resulting in a longer, more expensive war with more production diverted away from peaceful pursuits, right? A militaristic approach has both advantages and disadvantages.

Nathan

[Theseus]

Actually, when I am fighting such early wars, I typically have the time to build improvements in my better towns / cities while the troops are on their way.

Warbuilder.

[Dominae]

On large maps with fewer civs you have much longer to prepare yourself to exploiit the AI's hidden disadvantages: poor military tactics, FP placement, trading policies, tendency to enter Communism and the whole list of dirty tricks involving ROPs. The fact that you get more Leaders is icing on the cake.

Unfortunately, small maps (with more AIs) are also less fun because the AI's bonuses are all too apparent. That's why I always play Standard maps, which were designed to be just the right size to let you (successfully) attempt any strategy you want, without getting the feeling the game is either "cheating" or "stupid".

Concerning Barbs: more Barbs means more money for upgrades. Thus, Rome and Persia are at their best when Barbs are Raging. In contrast, playing with no Barbs and attempting to put a Swordsmen upgrade plan into action will result in some seriously stunted research.

[Edit: Hm, looks like the last paragraph belongs in that other thread...makes sense here too, I guess.]


Dominae

[Nor Me]

I still don't know about large maps but on standard maps I've been experimenting successfully with an even earlier war.
Here's the theory:

I'm playing with a militaristic, expansionist civ. I know that I have a good chance of getting a settler from a hut provided I don't build any (100% out of my last 12 games as expansionists on standard maps.) Normally, I'd build a granary. But, as a non-inustrious civ, 60 shields on a granary is only really worth it if I then concentrate on building settlers in my capital. This means that I cannot rush and am in danger of being rushed.
Alternatively, I can follow scouts with a barracks and 4 or 5 archers. An expansionist civ should have no problem with paying upkeep. I don't build a settler until I've reached 5 population. Doing this, I've sometimes been able to get 2 settlers from huts though the last one usually has to walk some distance. This is enough tommean I can still REX faster than a non-expansionist civ.

The usual cost:
1 granary in capital
More gold spent on lux and upkeep than I'm going to get back through extortion.

The usual gain:
A weakened or even eliminated neighbor
About 2 cities captured or extorted
At least 1 elite archer
Often about 5 elite victories.

I've not been lucky so far but this last one should give a 1/4 chance of getting the Pyramids. That's not going to slow down my REX.

Obviously this is only worth it if:
a) you have no bonus food
b) one civ is closer than the others.

But these happen often and when they don't it's normally because I have a good start anyway. I think that starting units play a large part in the success of this tactic. I've had trouble getting it to work on Deity. I've only been very successful using it on Monarch. On Emperor, it's more reasonable.