Should I start a world war?

[V.O.C.'02]

This is the deal

I'm on a standard map, with 2 big continents, about the same size. (iroquis, warlord)

One is totally mine ( kicked of the americans and the aztecs)
And the other continent is equally divided between the germans, the romans, the greek and the egyptians.

Would it be smart to start a world war through MPP's so the would kill each other off, and the only thing that I would have to do is defend my coast and kill off the weakened civs?

[Arrian]

Actually, I'd pick one of the civs over there (preferably one that has a couple of luxury resources) and invade them. Meanwhile, paying for either straight alliances or MPPs with the other civs. Make sure you capture the luxuries, and leave the rest to the other AI's.

In a recent game I chose to attack America. They were #4 or 5 (out of 6 remaining civs) in power, but had two luxuries I didn't have. I paid off the Greeks to ally with me and crushed them. A cautionary tale, though: By doing this, I inadvertantly triggered a Greek golden age. Shortly after the fall of America, the Greeks asked me for an MPP. I refused, and they attacked me THAT TURN. The AI had a bunch of troops and a GA going on, so it was gonna hit somebody. I slaughtered them, but it was a bit of a surprise. Se be careful about unexpected outcomes.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

If you can work it out, it's best to start the war with an Alliance rather than a MPP. Usually it will assure you of only having 1 opponent.

[Harovan]

Sounds like the small version of my recent game (iroquois/huge/continents/monarch). I also slaughtered the Aztecs and Americans early and had a continent for me alone. On a second continent were the French and the Russians, and on a third (biggest) the rest of the gang, 11 AIs. Decreasing, because there was a huge world war, from nationalism upward.

I decided not to wage a war, because I had a solid tech lead and could trade for all luxuries. Nice if one has a monopoly for 3 luxuries. I made a MPP with France (#2 after me) and a bit later we together (erm... rather me alone, but France started) slaughtered Russia. I had no need to intervene on the big continent, and so I went for the space race. I won earlier by culture, though.

So unless you see there something really valuable, or want at all price win by conquest or domination, I wouldn't do it.

[Theseus]

What is your overall objective?

It sounds like you are dominating the game, and are 4 times the size of anyone else. Therefore, I can;t think of a real need to start a world war, unless you need GLs / techs / luxuries.

I think, my friend, you are ready to move up from warlord.

[Cookie Monster]

Hit F11 and see if your rankings are at or near number one. Then check your score ala the histograph. If you are behind one of the other civs pick a war with them and weaken them. Don't start a world war unless you really have to. Like in real life, world war in Civ3 can get ugly really fast.

[V.O.C.'02]

Originally posted by Theseus
I think, my friend, you are ready to move up from warlord.

that's so sweet

But I still need to learn some more, It's coming..( I feel the force is strong). Once I,m able to dela with the money-issues. I'll be on my way like a pantzer.

[Solver]

If the enemy civs got something I want, I will start the war, and let the mayhem be there. If not, I will probably leave them in peace.

BTW, when there's a WW going on, I'm usually in pretty actively, at least with a force of Infantry running around and pillaging the enemy lands. WWs in Civ are very fun.

[animalda]

Re: Should I start a world war?

Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
This is the deal

I'm on a standard map, with 2 big continents, about the same size. (iroquis, warlord)

One is totally mine ( kicked of the americans and the aztecs)
And the other continent is equally divided between the germans, the romans, the greek and the egyptians.

Would it be smart to start a world war through MPP's so the would kill each other off, and the only thing that I would have to do is defend my coast and kill off the weakened civs?

I would give peace a chance.

[dojoboy]

I definitely recommend Alliances v. MPPs, especially if your in republic or democracy, with Universal Suffrage GW. You can break alliances but not MPPs. MPPs can be messy.

Its time to have some fun. Sign a RoP w/ the one your most likely to war with, then park 1-2 defensive units on their resources and wait. When war breaks out pillage, roam, and pillage. If you can get units around their capital during an RoP, its easy to cut them off from resources. I love watching the enemy's cities burn during war. Of couse, let them start the war.

[V.O.C.'02]

I'm starting to realize the game is all about money (gold).

No money, no science, no (extra) happiness. No buying techs unless for your (bad) cities, luxuries etc. no happiness, eventually less production,

No money = no units, no improvements = no culture = case lost

Face it money is what makes the world go round ( and round,a round, and round)

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
I'm starting to realize the game is all about money (gold).

No money, no science, no (extra) happiness. No buying techs unless for your (bad) cities, luxuries etc. no happiness, eventually less production,

No money = no units, no improvements = no culture = case lost

Face it money is what makes the world go round ( and round,a round, and round)

I agree. In Civ2 money and shields were very important. Now that in Civ3 shields are no longer needed for unit support money takes the highest importance. If you have enough money you can always rush buy stuff.

[Arrian]

A strong economy is very important, I'd say from the mid-middle ages onward. Not so much in ancient times, particularly under despotism. I put a high priority on marketplaces, banks, libraries and universities for this reason.

-Arrian

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by Arrian
A strong economy is very important, I'd say from the mid-middle ages onward. Not so much in ancient times, particularly under despotism. I put a high priority on marketplaces, banks, libraries and universities for this reason.

-Arrian

Arrian:

Just curious, at what point in the game do you begin concentrating on building up your infrastructure?

Lately, in the early game I build nothing but military units and the occasional worker/settler.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to size you up for MP when the XP comes out.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by Solver
If the enemy civs got something I want, I will start the war, and let the mayhem be there. If not, I will probably leave them in peace.

BTW, when there's a WW going on, I'm usually in pretty actively, at least with a force of Infantry running around and pillaging the enemy lands. WWs in Civ are very fun.

I'm kind of the opposite!
When the World War come around i usually stay neutral and sell ROP to everybody, so that i can position my troops in their territory!

When I see that one civ is heavily loosing troops and start to put in the field spearman and swordman, that is the time I enter the war.

Usually at that time the 20 turns deal for the ROP is expired, so I pick the civ who is winning the war.
cancel my RoP with them, cancel my peace treaty and take over their cities (generally poorly defended since almost all of their troops are at the front.

In a few turns that civ is destroyed and I'm acclaimed as the savior of the world.

And as a savior I than decide to unite all the civs under my wise guide

Saluti