To Pillage or not to Pillage?

[MVP]

When the barbs come, they logically like pillaging; often so do opposing Civs. Obviously, this can be really damaging to the city and the balance you have worked hard to establish.

My question is: when you attack another civ, do you pillage or not? If you do, you potentially hamper your opponent's ability to fight back, but then if you successfully take the city, then you don't have access to the improvements.

[Jaybe]

Re: To Pillage or not to Pillage?

Originally posted by MVP
My question is: when you attack another civ, do you pillage or not? If you do, you potentially hamper your opponent's ability to fight back, but then if you successfully take the city, then you don't have access to the improvements.

Exactly. So what ARE you going to do?
Short term gain (pillaging spoils) or long term forsight IF you take the city and will want those same improvements immediately. Perhaps a worker or two could rebuild them in time to be of use.

I think I had recent experiences where I should have pillaged when I didn't. Mines on plain/hills for a city that didn't have food potential or population to make use of them after capture.

[vee4473]

well, pillaging seems to be most appropriate when you might not have the units to actually take a city, but want to put a hurtin' on the other guy for as long as your units hold out.

I would say that if you have a decisive force and are reasonably certain that the city is yous AND you intend to occupy it, then why bother pillaging at all?

[vee4473]

by the way, the screams can get fairly annoying after a while if alot of pillaging is going on...one scream after another and another....usually the AI doing it to me...

[BigWilly1974]

You can make huge amounts of cash pillaging cottages/hamlets/villages/towns though...

I didn't ever used to pillage. Now I only attack when I know I will take a city, and I tend to leave the farms/mines...and pillage the towns. It might not be the best long term strategy if I were to crunch the hard numbers, but the big cash infusion is awfully nice. I usually have a horde of workers ready to rebuild, and cottages are back up before the city comes out of resistance state.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I invade with at least 2 forces.

1 force mostly mounted fast movers. These head deeper into enemy trerritory to pillage around the core.

The other force is for sacking cities. I don't pillage around what I want to keep, pillage around what I'm going to be razing. (I typically only keep ~50% of AI cities)

[Peets]

I do the same as Unorthodox
I send out a few units far away in their terrority to pillage a lot.
At the borders I leave it alone and focus on conquering what I want. (The big cities)
The small ones I always raze, no point in having them. They only give me more costs. Unless they are key points for strategic meanings.

[The Pioneer]

It always depends on how much I believe that I can take the city that I am attacking. If it is on the weak side then I pillage to weaken the enemy while trying my best to reenforce my forces. On the other side if I am on a spree and the enemy is faultering then I leave everything as is.

So long...

[Hayden]

I think in order to answer this, as with many other questions in CIV 4 is to consider what you would least like done to yourself in that situation, or if you like, what would you do in a MP game?. For me, there is nothing more annoying, then being in the mid game phase, and some Civ starts a war out of no where and before I can think all of my clams, whale, fish, crab have been destroyed and all of my cities go to unhappy/unhealthy. It forces you to take you resources away from where you want it, to build work boats. So I think if you can, definately pillage any resources you find to cut off there supply.

[Velociryx]

I usually try to take rival cities intact, so I don't pillage much.

I'd say...selective pillaging.

If I am at a disadvantage, militarily (sometimes happens in the early game, before I've had a chance to bulk up), I'll pillage as a safety play....other guy's resources decline, mine improve, build troops, smash.

If I'm facing a large enemy force approaching, I'll send some pillagers out to see if I can lure at least some of that stack away from whatever my objective is.

But for the most part, if I'm right there, and with sufficient force to take the city, I want it in one piece.

One other note: While I REALLY like the behavior of the AI (good at massing for an attack, good at pillage), I have to admit that they aren't so good at using mounted only units (for greater survival chances)....often, they just use random ground pounders...alone, it's easy to pick them off.

-=Vel=-

[Artuero]

I pillage if i can't take cities (yet, because I have been surprise attacked or I am still waiting for my forces to assemble). It can draw the defenders out and reduce the ability of the cities to generate additional forces. Also it can keep the enemy forces from pillaging me.

[MVP]

Originally posted by vee4473
by the way, the screams can get fairly annoying after a while if alot of pillaging is going on...one scream after another and another....usually the AI doing it to me...

Totally agree. The worst part about it is that if you were paying attention during the AI's move, you know where all the pillaging has been done. Then, once it is your turn, you just have to wait for all the screams...

To everyone else, thanks for your thoughts. I have always concentrated on overwhelming force to take a city and hadn't thought of sending a mounted force to do damage elsewhere. Great suggestions!