Sacking

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by sophist
That's what I'm saying... the aim isn't to gain anything. The aim is to hurt your opponent.

cIV just took a big turn towards RTS if its better to hurt your opponent than boost your own econ.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
cIV just took a big turn towards RTS if its better to hurt your opponent than boost your own econ.

Please, would everyone stop making such statements as 'attacking early is always better', or 'hurting your opponent is always better than building' and so on? This is simply not true. I have not seen any best overall strategies yet. It's not because atm you only see one option that that is per definition the best one!

The correct answer to whether hurting someone is better than building is... it depends. It depends on your playstyle. It depends on the map. It depends on your opponents. It depends on who you started with. It depends on tech choices. It depends on religion things. It depends on so many things, there is not just one answer!

I'm not saying that you should stop debating options, but please keep in mind that's just what they are: options. I'm waiting to see the first poster make an true analysis, leading to one preferred strategy over another one, in all possible cases. Until that time, I strongly believe there is not one way to victory.

DeepO

[Metaliturtle]

I'm not saying this is the only strategy, rather it could be a good one, and Sulla's walkthrough with its close proximity to other civs makes me wonder if this isn't at least a viable and lucrative option. (Especially since he could get a double holy city by attacking Gandhi)

[Konquest02]

Originally posted by sophist
That's what I'm saying... the aim isn't to gain anything. The aim is to hurt your opponent.

You should add a disclaimer on this statement...

When making war, the goal is to hurt your opponent so that you can be stronger than him afterwards would have been better. If you hurt your opponent but invest too much resources in war, the other AIs will get in front of you and in the end you will lose.

It's all a question of balance.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Metaliturtle
I'm not saying this is the only strategy, rather it could be a good one, and Sulla's walkthrough with its close proximity to other civs makes me wonder if this isn't at least a viable and lucrative option. (Especially since he could get a double holy city by attacking Gandhi)

Oh, it surely is, and a lot of fun too

Sullla's review is of a very peaceful game, though, and I suspect on lower difficulty setting than he normally plays. He has made a couple of choices which I would have done differently, in some way taking over one civ if I could. But I suspect he still wants to show the great works, and how it gives an option to peacefully expand as well. That works best if you don't mess with your neighbour's smaller cities early on.

DeepO

[sophist]

I figure there are certain key times you would want to do something like this. Perhaps a neighbor is only a few turns from discovering a technology that you absolutely must have first, such as one that gives a religion. You happen to have a large army hanging around from a war in the not-too-distant past, so you don't have to sacrifice any extra resources to create one. Your target, however, has been a builder, so doesn't have a super strong army. You land your army by one of their cities, one that's not too central, but also of some significance. You capture or raze the city, and then send your army through their lands laying waste. That nation will then have to divert resources to building an army, which depresses their scientific progress. You have the army already built and some buffer space, which allows you to continue researching full speed during those key turns. Once you've achieved your goal, you sue for peace, and perhaps give back the city you captured, because fighting a protracted war would be too damaging because you just awakened a sleeping giant.