Cripple the Strong or Crush the Weak?

[SlowwHand]

I go with closest also.
After that, one should take out the biggest threat.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe

[VetLegion]

lol, now that you mentioned it War4Ever, there is something in taking a fat babylonian city and listening their women cry (on a side note you get a fat rebell city you starve to death, but hey!)

quote: Oh and i don't usually have any peace treaties ever..... if i can help it when i conquer the world...... i war with everyone usually from first contact I use MGE and lets be honest..... on a large map just build Marcos for the embassies and the maps.... the rest is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle

I rely on cese fires / peace treaties heavily. I d sign alliances if they wanted. I sign everything with anyone, after I try for some money extraction. I d sign with a barb King

I also like marco pollo for embassies, but MAPS? I have a probability of getting that like 1% in MGE! No matter what I give to AI they end up mad as hell. That is a bug really, people already complained.

[War4ever]

quote: Originally posted by VetLegion on 05-08-2001 09:30 PM lol, now that you mentioned it War4Ever, there is something in taking a fat babylonian city and listening their women cry (on a side note you get a fat rebell city you starve to death, but hey!) I also like marco pollo for embassies, but MAPS? I have a probability of getting that like 1% in MGE! No matter what I give to AI they end up mad as hell. That is a bug really, people already complained.

first contact....... once i have map making.... i gift everything early to get the map....... then i plot REVENGE for the ai for being so GREEDY of my hard earned resrearch

Maps are really quite easy early in the game

[EOL]

Whoever's closest starting with cities containing useful wonders or the capital. By the time you get to a civ further away you could already have used the units to roll-over a closer opponent and have the extra wonders/cities.

EOL

[East Street Trader]

In the strategy I'm trying at the moment (early Republic with foreign trade) I work towards a period of conquest based on a fleet of ironclads. So I look for a civ with a decent few coastal cities and, ideally, one without gunpowder.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Wow, that generated some lively debate. My own style leans toward "crush the strong," since the weak civs are generally harmless (the Aztecs in my current game are busy sending charioteers to attack my vet riflemen standing behind city walls; I think their overall strategy is being coordinated by Sisyphus). But I like democracy, and like the civ-building aspect of civ, so I tend to attack fairly late (I prefer having espionage, steel, and tactics for the units and having built Hoover for production before I really crank up the war machine). By the time I cry havoc and loose the dogs of war, I've already used dips to purchase cities with key wonders, cities which then double as kick-off points for world conquest. My first strike is thus at the guy whose likely to be the biggest annoyance if he's left alone, and I generally take out the capital first unless there's a better target (like a wonder city I can't buy because the *&^%% Germans won't switch out of democracy!).

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

[Edward]

quote: Originally posted by War4ever on 05-08-2001 07:29 PM nothing gives this Mongol warmonger more pleasure than crushing a pathetically weak Babylonian state.

Reminds me a most improbable backwards message I got very early in a recent game. I swear it's true:

"Mongol civilization destroyed by Babylonians"

Can you believe it?! Previously I'd never heard of the AI Babylonians destroying anyone (and don't expect to again).

[towigg]

quote: Originally posted by Edward on 05-10-2001 10:14 AM Reminds me a most improbable backwards message I got very early in a recent game. I swear it's true: "Mongol civilization destroyed by Babylonians" Can you believe it?! Previously I'd never heard of the AI Babylonians destroying anyone (and don't expect to again).

I am currently playing in an Emperor level game, where I now control 2/3 of the world (medium map, early modern era, cruisers and alpine troops, building Hoover), and the Babylonians are still alive, and not yet on my list of powers to conquer, since they are playing nice, like the Aztecs, unlike the Persians and Celts (currently being conquered).

However, the Mongols were destroyed very early by the Vikings when they had only one city (which is now part of my empire).

Anyway, first conquests are on the same continent that I am on (like the Vikings described above), then the nearest civilization that doesn't play nice (like the Persians described above). The nice civilizations are conquered last (like the Babylonians described above).

[War4ever]

quote: Originally posted by Edward on 05-10-2001 10:14 AM Reminds me a most improbable backwards message I got very early in a recent game. I swear it's true: "Mongol civilization destroyed by Babylonians" Can you believe it?! Previously I'd never heard of the AI Babylonians destroying anyone (and don't expect to again).

Edward this happens to All civs from time to time...... if the ai meets each other early they most often will go to war..... even if its Babylon vs Egypt

On large worlds this can be annoying especially if you don't build Marco Polo because the ai civ now has TWO "Capital" city locations...... i know only one palace but you catch my drift.... this allows the ai to grow with speed i find

[geofelt]

I do not mop up any civ early in the game. I leave one city, preferably with no palace around. If you mop it up, it will restart in a distant part of the map where it might be hard to find, and will have time to grow.
I do not know when restarting terminates, but it probably is in the 1800's.
If possible, I want sun-tzu and magellans for conquest, so I will try to get them early if I can. I go after the non-democracies first with bribery. Among the democracies, I go after the strongest first. It makes most sense to me, to take on the nearest civs first. This allows you to reinforce and consolidate your gains, while establishing a springboard to the next victim.

[Maelhavok]

Eat the crippled, feed them to the strong, eat the strong.

[Edward]

quote: Originally posted by War4ever on 05-10-2001 08:40 PM Edward this happens to All civs from time to time...... if the ai meets each other early they most often will go to war..... even if its Babylon vs Egypt

I've seen the Babylonians at war many times, but I'd never seen them totally conquer someone. Guess I need to play more!

quote: Originally posted by War4ever on 05-10-2001 08:40 PM On large worlds this can be annoying...this allows the ai to grow with speed i find

Yes, an early AI conquer gives the victor not only more cities, but also more available land to grow into.

[Dry]

Weak? Strong?
There is no general rules for me, I usually go for the biggest pain in the @$$, the guy which played with my b@| |$ since 1000 years. Usually the neighbouring Hight Priest that stole all my precious techs.

[colossus]

It is advisable to take the nearest first.
But when distance tied, take the weaker first.

The reasons are threefold:
1)It is quicker to finish them.
2)Shorter campaign duration means the civ is less likely to steal something useful from you and trade/gift it to other civ. Its lamentable you lose the gunpowder/rifleman/armor advantage in the middle of campaign. Truly you are bound to lose it sooner or later, but later is much better than sooner.
3)As you probably has some significant tech advantages over other civ, you want to slow down their discovery rates. Killing off small civs first mean effectively that big civs are researching slower.

[EthnicCleanser]

quote: Originally posted by colossus on 05-14-2001 11:31 PM It is advisable to take the nearest first. But when distance tied, take the weaker first. The reasons are threefold: 1)It is quicker to finish them. 2)Shorter campaign duration means the civ is less likely to steal something useful from you and trade/gift it to other civ. Its lamentable you lose the gunpowder/rifleman/armor advantage in the middle of campaign. Truly you are bound to lose it sooner or later, but later is much better than sooner. 3)As you probably has some significant tech advantages over other civ, you want to slow down their discovery rates. Killing off small civs first mean effectively that big civs are researching slower.

i disagree......

first , trading with the weaker civ will help your economy just as much as the larger one... especially if it is a peacefull country like the babs or egyptians.....

Better to take out the powerfull zulu's or mongols when they are just getting muskets ..... rather than letting them get rifles /artillery/ calvalry.... you don't want ai hordes of those slowing you down.

Killing the big civs before they can defend is smarter than letting them live while you punish the tiny ones..... not too mention zulus and mongols are notorious for expanding...... whereas the babs don't build so even if you get to them late..... there isn't much to kill