Who do you Kill First?

[Novi Nomad]

When attempting to win by conquest, is there any particular type of opponent (i.e. aggressive expansionist, Militaristic, etc.) that you attempt to knock off first? I play on large maps, and often after exposing most of the world, I'll find myself with multiple opponents that are roughly equidistant from me. Who are the hardest enemies to get rid of if they last until later in the game? Obviously there are strategic considerations and so on, but is there generally one type of opponent that it is advantageous to eliminate before they've had a chance to really grow as a Civ?

[Bohlen]

I'll knock out whoever is closest. If that can't be determined, the Indians are always fun to pick on early. If I have a choice, I'll try and limit the expansion of either civ and see which one is having a more difficult time with the borders that I have set up…then take out that civ, knowing that their resources are low because of their limited expansion.

[Mercantile]

I am with Bohlen on half of his answer. I as a rule knock off anyone on my continent first, and then whomever is closest. However if the civ is say the Babylonians and they have only three or four cities and are not really in my path of destruction, i will keep them alive to trade with, i am a trader after all

After that, its more or less whom is the most powerfull. I like to match my civ against theirs just for the sake of killing off the contenders to my title.


I dont' mind weak civs becoming powerfull after another world power has fallen to my mighty armies. Rarely are they going to be powerfull enough to give me any real problem.

However if i had to pick on someone, again i must agree with Bohlen, the Indians are fun to pick on

[DarkCloud]

I just go after the closest civ. I make peace; and then if they are irritating (moving units in my territory) or another civ asks for me to attack them I will destroy them.

However with the Zulus, Mongols, Romans and Russians; If they are small I just attempt to destroy them before they become big evil empires.

[IamSlowwHand]

I'm inclined to agree on whoever is on my continent, but beyond that; if on a small to medium land mass with saaaay 2 Civ's the same distance.
One looks like it will remanin weaker, and one is an aggressive expansionist.
Just like any other engagement, take out the biggest threat first.
Long drawn out battles are a drain, so it has to be quick and decisive, or hit and run.

[Dissident Aggressor]

usually the closest. But a note on my conquest style, since I also like to be a builder, I build up and conquest with modern weapons. Usually in the higher difficulty levels there 1 nation almost caught up to me in size and sometimes in military techs. So if they pose a nuke threat I hit them first and hard. But if there is no threat I'll usually hit the closest, or whoever is stupid enought to attack me.

[Ming]

I'll attack anybody I run across... that is part of the fun of the game

[Gatekeeper]

Novi Nomad, et al.:

Like many other folks on this thread, I tend to terminate my nearest neighbors when the opportunity presents itself.

Unfortunately, I happen to also be a "builder" type of player ... so more often than not, I end up having to bully my way through a half-dozen or more AI cities before closing in on the last, desperate outpost of an enemy nation. Most of my nation-destroying comes after I've acquired gunpowder, cannons/artillery and calvary. It only increases with the advent of armor, flight and assorted other technologically murderous goods.

On more than one occasion I've encountered monstrously-large empires built/conquered by Mongolia, Russia, Zulus and other aggressive AI civs. Those are babies I tend to crack only when I've got eight or nine transports loaded to the gills with armor and howitzers, along with air and naval support. Guess that's what I deserve for being a "builder."

BTW, the Indians are fun to toy with. It's easy to piss them off early (say, first contact).

CYBERAmazon

[CornMaster]

I know in Civ 1 that when you played on the earth map, and you were in Europe, the first order of business was to kill the Russians and the Zulus. They were crazy when it came to military. (Largely based on their starting points. The Americans also got big but not as strong and were never a threat until late in the game. The Aztecs also could get strong if they could kill the Americans.

The rest were never really much of a challange. This is of course only on the world map with not random starting spots, (Although I don't think Civ 1 had that option), the monguls and indians could sometimes get big but not normally.

In Civ 2....who ever I meet first is usually the first to go. I usually try to pick on the largest Civ, if it's not me. The worst thing you can do is kill all the smaller civs and then have one HUGE one left and your screwed. In 1900 sending your tanks in triemes because you have no money or production!!! Anyway.

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"The best meats' in the rump!"
I AM CANADIAN!
CornEmpire Index
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[Everyman]

I generally win by conquest but when I contact a civilization in the early or middle game I still have to make a judgement call. Eliminating a civilization usually means an expenditure of units and shields and I need to decide whether it's worthwhile to go to war to take out the civ.

The main question I ask is "What do I gain by eliminating the civilization?"

Reasons for going to war with a civ are, in order of importance:

(1) I think I can take them out without losing too many resources
(2) They are impeding my expansion
(3) They are occupying a strategic spot and I want to take over their position.
(4) Take them out before they get stronger
(5) They're pissing me off

[Deity Dude]

I expand until i run into some body - then i kill them. in order to take the whole world you eventually run into everybody

[Blaupanzer]

It all comes down to opportunity costs. White and orange civs are relatively aggressive, so you might as well. Purple civs are rich and wildly expansionist; the money makes them worth it. Other than that, close is easier. The random continents are often huge on a large map, so "on my continent" is not necessarily the closest.

[Crustacian]

Nothing wrong with keeping a nice fat perfectionist civ like the Babs intact for trading til the very end.
They will even welcome your settlers to improve the ground around any cities of theirs you have takin into "protective custody". Improoving their ground = increase in your trade with them!

Take out anyone on your continent, then either the next closest or the biggest threat either way.

I agree with Merc, in keeping a few (or 1) cities prospering for trade while you go after the rest.

[Tizzy]

I just take out first whoever I meet first

[EdwardTKing]

My strategy in multi-player is "Nominative Determinism"

If my opponent calls himself the "Bloodthirsty Pirates"
or calls his cities "Hell" or "Death Awaits-U"; I assume the worst of their intentions and believe it
most appropriate to get my retaliation in first and capture, destroy, pillage, steal at first opportunity.

If he/she call cities 'Peace', 'Harmony' etc; I inevitably make peace and will even send caravans.

If he renames cities to "Edward is Excellent"; I may even give him 50 gold for fortitude in arse licking.