War-- what is it good for?

CygnusZ · November 4, 2001, 01:08

Absolutley Nothing!

I've noticed in my games that the AI will just about never declare war on me and it'll live peacefully in its own borders, only occasionally annoying me by attempting to build a city in my culture gaps.

But, on the other hand, the advantages to having a large civilization are rather limited. So, here's the question:

Why would a civ go to war? The only reason which really rings true is:
A.Very early game expansion
B.Strategic Resources

But wait, isn't that a catch-22? Why would you want strategic resources for that war it's better not to fight? As long as your military is scary enough, that the enemy AI thinks it would cause him losses to attack you, he won't. What is the point of having a war for a strategic resource you could just trade, build up your scary military, and then forget about? It saves you the hassle of having the damn resource war in the first place which is redunant to begin with!

... is this too confusing or does it make sense?

sekong · November 4, 2001, 01:36

Same question here. But I do have a reason: higher score. But still, I did not declare war on them yet.

Transcend · November 4, 2001, 12:28

What is war good for?
3) Getting more cities.
4) Preventing potential invaders from attacking and pillaging your territory.
5) Removing potential rivals to your victory.

I think these should be enough reason to carry out wars.

Eudaimic · November 4, 2001, 13:37

I've seen the Iroquis' be wiped off the map by the Aztecs in what I would call 'aggressive expansion' like NOBODIES business!

Bosh · November 4, 2001, 14:15

War is useful if you make the map crowded (I like huge pangea little land map with 16 civs) so that you have to fight for breathing space. And its just great seeing my Immortal hordes trample the zulus

CygnusZ · November 4, 2001, 14:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Transcend
What is war good for?
3) Getting more cities.
4) Preventing potential invaders from attacking and pillaging your territory.
5) Removing potential rivals to your victory.

I think these should be enough reason to carry out wars.

Yeah, but that's the thing.

1: Getting more cities won't necessarily help anything but your civ-score, as the corruption creates a serious problem

2: Taking cities to protect yourself? Yes! But isn't that more defensive? Attacking so that you're not attacked? Certainly not logic employed in Civ2 very often....

3: I don't think any Civ that has the potential to be your real rival will still be standing next to you by the time it begins to make a difference. A fight between the two most major civs in CivIII simpmly *CAN'T* end well.

Kc7mxo · November 4, 2001, 20:49

I find that the best thing to do with war is to burn down enemy cities. This makes your ai opponents weaker, without burdening you with corruption problems.

So in essence, the changes that they made in civ 3 to discourage war mongering has just made me a nasty bastard who commits genocide instead.

MaSsConFUsi0n · November 5, 2001, 01:57

war is fun... just burn down the enemy cities and take the extra workers. then, if you want that city spot, just make a settler and put it there. that way, that city won't go back to it's previous owner and you get extra workers.

MaSsConFUsi0n

Leonid · November 5, 2001, 02:18

Also you might wanan take the cities that have cool wonders in them ofcourse. The english beat me to Leonardo's workshop by 1 turn. So thats a good excuse for me to declare war.

Mahdimael · November 5, 2001, 02:20

I declared war against the English very early on and basically burned all of their cities to the ground. This has created a lot more empty space for me to colonize. I only took the cities that were furthest from me (to extend my border)

Barry Brenesal · November 5, 2001, 03:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Transcend
What is war good for?
3) Getting more cities.
4) Preventing potential invaders from attacking and pillaging your territory.
5) Removing potential rivals to your victory.

I think these should be enough reason to carry out wars.

Here's another: wars tend to focus potential rivals on some victim other than yourself. This is especially usefu to recalll when you're top of the heap, and everybody's gunning for you.

Dr. Nick · November 5, 2001, 05:56

To get all those French slave workers... MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

SITS · November 5, 2001, 06:11

In the game I'm playing - Huge map, 16 Civs, Warlord, 2 continients (14 Civs including me on one the big one and 2 civs on the other.)

I got up to about 1110 AD without any war - not even AI vs AI. Then all of a sudden Japan sent units into my territory after walking through 6 other civs to attack one city. I was confused at first but I realised he was after my horses after I cut off supply to him. Anyway I rebuffed him and contacted the Germans and paid them to take the Japanese out - that's when world war I started! All the AI's started attacking each other and I was using diplomacy to play them off each other. I then discovered gunpowder and found I had no access to saltpeter but my friends from the beginning the Russians did so I had to take them out!

So war is useful and it has completely changed the game. Because I attacked Russia other Civs have cancelled their Right of Passage agreements with me. I'm now the biggest and the baddest on the planet but I don't know how it is going to pan out if they all gang up against me.

Dr. Nick · November 5, 2001, 17:59

Well, in my third game as Russia there was only 1 source of iron on the entire continent. I grabbed it fast, but it was far away from me, so I've had to go to three wars to make sure I kept it.

But now that I finished the enemy off with my kickass cossack hordes, It'll be a peaceful time before another war comes to the shores of Russia.

vovan · November 5, 2001, 23:11

Quote:

Originally posted by CygnusZ

Yeah, but that's the thing.

1: Getting more cities won't necessarily help anything but your civ-score, as the corruption creates a serious problem

2: Taking cities to protect yourself? Yes! But isn't that more defensive? Attacking so that you're not attacked? Certainly not logic employed in Civ2 very often....

3: I don't think any Civ that has the potential to be your real rival will still be standing next to you by the time it begins to make a difference. A fight between the two most major civs in CivIII simpmly *CAN'T* end well.

I think you are trying to answer the ultimate question of life.

What is war good for? People have tried to answer this for centuries! The ultimate answer is absolutely nothing !

Concerning civ 3, though:

a. I agree with Transcend
b. Plain fun

Skanky Burns · November 6, 2001, 04:34

Quote:

Originally posted by vovansim
What is war good for? People have tried to answer this for centuries! The ultimate answer is absolutely nothing !

Well, the enemy cities aren't going to raze themselves, are they??

notyoueither · November 6, 2001, 06:17

WAR, Huuh, what it is goood for?

Absolutely everrythinng!

1. Liebensraum. Must have more space! Would you share North America with 2 other civs? Thought not.

2. Slaves. Many, many, many slaves polishing the mountain tops and refilling the river basins of your civ.

3. Elimination of competition. Surest way to ensure that the major opposition does not fling some gally off towards some nearby star, or worse yet, dominate the globe with their gauche neuveau Hollywood culture (that sux).

4. Finally, what else are Legions good for? Aboslutely NOTHIN!

Say it agaain...

joer · November 6, 2001, 17:32

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
WAR, Huuh, what it is goood for?

1. Liebensraum. Must have more space! Would you share North America with 2 other civs? Thought not.

I love that typo.

Liebensraum means 'loving space' in German. So the message here is to make war, in order to have more space to make love later.

Seriously, I'm sure the author meant Lebensraum (living space). The misspell just struck me as funny.

notyoueither · November 7, 2001, 04:42

Hey, as a smart Roman consul once said...

Make war, then love. In that order.

Attribution unavailable...

ps

Damn Germans, thought the guide said *this way to camp grounds*...

Two Legions later I figured I shouldn't trust my German