Starting Wars

[Mr. President]

Having been playing Alpha Centauri for too long, I'm a little out of touch with this technique in Civ2. In SMAC you can usually start a war by demanding tribute and demanding withdrawal several times. That doesn't seem to work with the Civ2 AI. I'm in a Democracy before the United Nations. Any advice?

[Smash]

Use an oedo year and throw yourself into Anarchy.Attack,demand, what have you.Next turn you are back online.At least until the Senate comes in again.Just repeat then.

Or use the Statue in the same way.

[War4ever]

yes the senate will often get in the way of representative gov'ts......

however, if a civ has broken a treaty with you, sneak attacked etc....or just plain been too careless, the hawk party will intervene and allow "continued peacekeeping" against Blah blah blah

[debeest]

Send settlers into their territory. Build a city there and leave it empty, if necessary.

Block their vital roads and railroads with caravans.

Repeatedly station your troops in their territory; even if you withdraw every time it's demanded, sometimes they'll get annoyed.

If you're willing to spend a turn in anarchy, follow Smash's advice and do anything you want to them, so long as you do it the turn before an Oedo year or you have SoL.

Whatever you do, you'll soon have them crawling back to you for peace, and you won't be able to say no, as long as you're in democracy sans UN. I can't tell you how often I've maneuvered myself into a position to wipe out an entire civ in one turn, but after I capture one city, an emissary from the next city I approach nips the whole thing in the bud. I've learned one very useful trick: once you get to make war, if you're going to capture cities by killing off the defenders, first beat a whole bunch of cities down to zero defenders without capturing them. THEN capture them all. That way you might get to avoid meeting an emissary.

[Scouse Gits]

Change to a decent form of government and beat the living bejasus out of them ...

Prelate SG[1]

[Traianvs]

oh god fundamentalism is great

btw why'd you want to wage war with a democracy! your people will get unhappy! if you're going for some campaigns just get fundamentalism or communism if you haven't got fundamentalism yet

[rah]

Originally posted by Trajanus
oh god fundamentalism is great

btw why'd you want to wage war with a democracy! your people will get unhappy! if you're going for some campaigns just get fundamentalism or communism if you haven't got fundamentalism yet

Being at war had no effect on Happiness in CIV II.
It's all based on how many units you have outside of your cites (per city) whether you're at war or not. Once you've built up your cities with improvements, you'd be surprised at how many units each city can support in the field without revolting.
With a little care, fighting a war in Democracy isn't a problem, "even with your annoying senate." Having SOL offers considerably more flexability for momentarily dropping out if the Senate is giving you problems.

RAH

[TCO]

Just go fundy...

[Bloody Monk]

This is anecdotal; I have not tested this. It is my impression that the state of your reputation has an effect on how aggressive your Senate will let you be toward an AI. If my reputation is atrocious the Senate never let's me fight; if spotless or excellent I can get my way, usually, if only for a turn.

Others may have a more precise understanding and I hope they way-in here.

If reputation matters, then try to find another AI already at war with your target. If you visit them first they will ask you to join them in war against the evil whatevers. If you agree, you will be at war but your rep will not take as big a hit. You will also get an ally which might be useful. For example, you don't want to give away some key techs to get them up to enthusiastic so that they will exchange maps...but you need the intelligence to plan an invasion. You can wander around your ally's territory at will. Slower but effective.

[Gatekeeper]

Whatever you do, don't the an AI civilization get the United Nations, particularly if they have a "vendetta" against you and you're not the top civ on the map. It will make for along, drawn-out war with no end.

Gatekeeper

[Scouse Gits]

Assuming a continent all to yourself, it is very easy to perpetuate a war in Democracy. The AI emissary cannot speak to ships, so a tight naval patrol around the home shores stops intruders talking to the Senate. Home all boats to the city with Shake's to solve unhappiness caused by units at sea.

If you know where the enemy continent is situated blockade their ports, and periodically blast all units away. In the meantime you carry on building up your empire or the spaceship …


------------------------

SG(2)

[debeest]

Those are both useful insights, SG2. But the point of a war, I think, is to capture enemy cities, and it's hard to do that without encountering an emissary pretty soon.

[Scouse Gits]

Sure...you can fight to contain an enemy but you are not gaining territory.

If you are a rich democracy paying double bribe price for a little liberation is always helpful, especially if the civ in question is poor. This can be arranged - if prior to forming a representative goverment you are regularly receiving tribute or best of all - large lump sums to sign cease fire agreements

I know bribery is not all out war - but if you need real estate...

--------------

SG(2)

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by debeest
Those are both useful insights, SG2. But the point of a war, I think, is to capture enemy cities, and it's hard to do that without encountering an emissary pretty soon.

Am I missing something here?
If you wish to wage a war of expansion - change to a war footing and that means changing to a non-representative government.
If you wish to prevent warlike neighbours from being a pain - you can follow {2}'s adviceand contain them - or simply go fundy and destroy them - your choice.
However, it seems almost a contradiction in terms to wish to fight a war of expansion while maintaining a representative government - it is certainly possible, but just how representative is your government if vast swathes of 'your' people are conquered serfs?

SG[1]

[ramses II.]

You dont need to change government. There are some possibilities to tickle your enemies:
Build a city just on a city radius of one of the AI cities.
Ask them several times to get of your land, even if they have none on your land.
Ask another civ for war against the concerning AI civ.
Subvert their cities. Put your units on their land. Remove them, if they ask you, do it again the next turn.
Your reputation will get no spots, you can stay in demo, and war continues.

[debeest]

SG[1]: The initial question was about starting a war while in democracy; I was responding to that. I think there are often good reasons to fight a war while staying in representative government. The costs of even one turn of anarchy can be so enormous that you don't want to shift back and forth between governments. Heck, if Mr. President wanted to change to fundy or commie, there'd be no need for this thread in the first place.

[Mr. President]

That's right, the hope was to maintain the economic perks of democracy while getting into a war for my own nefarious interests. I prefer not to shift governments too often since, in my experience, it causes fairly significant waste.

Anyway, I went away and managed to start a war by using the not-so-subtle technique of surrounding a city with tanks. Since they declared war on me, my government didn't even collapse - for a while.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Mr. President
That's right, the hope was to maintain the economic perks of democracy while getting into a war for my own nefarious interests.

Grasshopper, choose the path of the celebrating communism! We love the comrade days make your economy and science pump almost like a democracy's (the small difference can easily be made up with caravans/freights). High arrow production, hordes of units, and a populace that doesn't care if they are running amok killing the AI.

[Messer Niccolò]

Originally posted by Mr. President
I prefer not to shift governments too often since, in my experience, it causes fairly significant waste.

Oedo years, remember Oedo!

[debeest]

Even when SoL or good Oedo-year timing limits you to one turn of anarchy, that can still be a huge cost, especially if you're going to go to a non-rep government but want to return to a rep government. Think about how much gold and science and shields your civilization generates in that one turn, and ponder how often you want to give it all up.

[rah]

If you use that turn to extort tribute from other civs, it doesn't hurt as much, and can be downright profitable if you haven't done it in a while. You can then rush buy enough caravans to offset the beakers lost.

RAH

[La Fayette]

OT...OT...OT:
I can't help finding that Rah has probably the most expressive avatar at Apolyton. Look at those piercing eyes, brothers! Would you dare playing MP against such a foe?

Back to topic:
I find it useful to draw a strong dividing line between offensive and defensive wars. With some training, fighting a defensive war in Demo is OK. But offensive?
I name that masochism (since you have Commie and Fundy at hand ).

[Mr. President]

Look at those piercing eyes, brothers! Would you dare playing MP against such a foe?

Good Lord, no.

I just don't like government-hopping. *shrug* It's a personal failing.

[rah]

Originally posted by La Fayette
I can't help finding that Rah has probably the most expressive avatar at Apolyton. Look at those piercing eyes, brothers! Would you dare playing MP against such a foe?

Most of the MP players have said it looks like a very ugly transvestite feather dancer.

On-topic, with the right infrastructure, Wars aren't a problem in any government. (the only time I drop out of Demo, is when the senate gives me problems. With sol no problem, revolt for a turn, demand tribute, kill, continue.
Of without SOL, revolt (the year before an odeo year) choose any non-rep government, then go on your offensive, demand tribute, conquer cities don't worry about emissaries, make sure you contact every civ to make sure you're still at war
Then before your turn ends, revolt again, it will let you choose demo on the spot. Now you don't have to worry about emissaries for awhile.

RAH

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by rah

Of without SOL, revolt (the year before an odeo year) choose any non-rep government, then go on your offensive, demand tribute, conquer cities don't worry about emissaries, make sure you contact every civ to make sure you're still at war
Then before your turn ends, revolt again, it will let you choose demo on the spot. Now you don't have to worry about emissaries for awhile. RAH

Really??!! How completely cool!!! Thanks for pointing this out, RAH.

It's 920. You revolt. You select Monarchy as 940 begins. You rock and roll and at the end of 940 revolt again. The game lets you immediately change Gov't again??? (Sorry for stating what is obvious to you; I just want to be sure I understand.)

*****
Bloody Monk amazed again by the detail of what has been discovered and shared here.

[rah]

Yes, you must do the second revolt during the odeo year. If you have already selected a gov that turn, it will let you change it later in the turn. I don't do it often, but it does work.

RAH

[debeest]

RAH: My understanding of the manual is that when you revolt and go into anarchy, you produce no trade and no shields until you restore a government. (To my shame, in spite of all the inaccuracies in the manual, I've never verified the accuracy of this point. Some things I've read here lead me to wonder whether it's true. Is it?) Supposing you've got 40 cities, averaging size 12, for 520 city squares potentially worked. How often can you exact enough tribute to make up for the loss of all the trade and shields from all those citizens? (My experience is that I almost never get tribute from anyone except an adjacent civ, and often many of the civs are not close enough.)

[Scouse Gits]

It is my experience that when in Anarchy two things happen: You get enormous loss of shields & arrows by corruption and whatever the Science setting no beakers are added to the box. Unless I am practicing advanced self-delusion the rest of the mechanics function normally - ie you get food growth/starvation, builds continue (subject to the loss by corruption) and taxes are collected (subject again to the corruption loss).

SG[1]

[rah]

Originally posted by debeest
RAH: My understanding of the manual is that when you revolt and go into anarchy, you produce no trade and no shields until you restore a government. (To my shame, in spite of all the inaccuracies in the manual, I've never verified the accuracy of this point. Some things I've read here lead me to wonder whether it's true. Is it?) Supposing you've got 40 cities, averaging size 12, for 520 city squares potentially worked. How often can you exact enough tribute to make up for the loss of all the trade and shields from all those citizens? (My experience is that I almost never get tribute from anyone except an adjacent civ, and often many of the civs are not close enough.)

If you let them build up their war chests by not doing it often, it can be profitable (check using an embassy and wait till they have 3000 gold). Especially if you slap them around a bit before you do it. And since your purpose of dropping out of Democracy is to bi*ch slap them, it's kind of convienent. I''ve gotten over 5K before. The Civ version you're playing does make a difference though. The Civ gold MP edition makes it less likely that the AIs will empty their coffers.

RAH

SG(1) Yes, no science but you get the food and the reduced production, not sure on the taxes, which wouldn't be much anyway. (which is why I'm not sure) I believe the manual says no taxes, but the manual has been wrong before

[Nilat]

Fundementalismn halves science!!!!