Prune or Genocide?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I think the pro under genocide 'more leaders' is misleading. IN theory, if we turned a civ into a 'punching bag' to generate leaders rather than destroy them, then we would get more leaders. This should be a pro for pruning, not genocide.

well, how many times do you think we're going to declare war on the same civ. i'm talking about immediate benefits here.

i do see what ure saying though.

[Robber Baron]

Under different circumstances, I'd vote to prune and oscillate. (Sounds kinky! )
But under our circumstances, I'm voting to wipe out our first enemy, for the following reasons:
1) as Trip observes, we will need to maintain a high degree of popular support for the war (RL, among the demo game citizens), and that will be hard to do through the more-or-less continual warfare called for by hte traditional oscillating war strategy;
2) this is not so much a tech or gold grab as it is a land grab: we're going to war because our immediate vicinity sucks (sorry, sacred Banana!), and we need more room to grow.

On the other hand, a lot depends on how things unfold during the first few turns of wartime. If the military campaign hits snags and it looks like it's going to take a looong war to eliminate enemy number 1, then we might want to sue for peace after seizing a few cities. Or if, on the other hand, we slice through enemy number 1 (e.g. America) like a chainsaw through a banana, and if neighbor number 2 (e.g., France) looks on docilely and seems vulnerable (e.g., if we get horses and they don't), and if the political will to launch a second war is there, then it seems to me we might be well advised to destroy the Yanks and wheel our armies around to vassalize the French.
(A LOT of ifs, you understand)

[ThePlagueRat]

To all DIA members: protest against this poll by topping the third option!

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by UberKruX


well, how many times do you think we're going to declare war on the same civ. i'm talking about immediate benefits here.

i do see what ure saying though.

You don't have to keep redeclaring war. You can simply stay at war and not wipe them out. Set up a decent kill zone (maybe through in a couple catapults, even) and attack the units that come your way, causing promotions and eventually leaders. In essence, treat them like the barbarians they are , except barbarians won't yield GLs.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by punkbass2000


You don't have to keep redeclaring war. You can simply stay at war and not wipe them out. Set up a decent kill zone (maybe through in a couple catapults, even) and attack the units that come your way, causing promotions and eventually leaders. In essence, treat them like the barbarians they are , except barbarians won't yield GLs.

the point of keeping the alive (aside from GLs) would be for the peace treaties with accompanying techs and whatnot.

[Papa Chubby]

I must say that unless they can offer us a substantially lucrative peace treaty, they must be wiped out. Sir Ralph speaks alot about oscillating wars, but what about the additional cost of a prolonged war. Such as the cities will have to keep up producing units, certainly not as much as in the preperation phase, but we will have to replace losses. We are playing Emperor, right ?, then we will suffer defeats. We need time to build city improvements and settlers and workers, and improve the relationships with our neighbours. Womething that will probably cost us more then them. This must be a quick vicious war that will take the Americans out of play.

This is just my opinion, and since I´m not the best Civ3 player I´m more then ready to rethink them, if enough argument is provided.

[Harovan]

Papa Chubby: It's not me who preaches Oscillating wars, it's Grandmaster Vel himself , in his very basic strategy threads. Yes, our cities should build mainly settlers, but between the settlers are gaps, where the lower food production brakes settler production down. Why not build archers and spearmen in these gaps? It doesn't hurt, and our expansion will thank it.

[YuMMz]

One plus to genocide is that once the civ is gone, so is the culture flipping back to that civ AND the civ's citizens living in that city become content.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by YuMMz
One plus to genocide is that once the civ is gone, so is the culture flipping back to that civ AND the civ's citizens living in that city become content.

Culture flipping is not an issue this early, and case pink plans a temple to be rushed to deal with that one foreign citizen.

[Robber Baron]

Is there any way to switch your vote in these situations. I original originally voted for "genocide," but have since been swayed by discussion in this and other threads.

[YuMMz]

I didn't see the "first target". I thought he was just stating the pros and cons of genocide overall. So I listed a couple pros. But yes this early in the game culture flipping would not be a issue.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
Is there any way to switch your vote in these situations. I original originally voted for "genocide," but have since been swayed by discussion in this and other threads.

Welcome to more rational thought, at least. I sense that you, like I, have joined this game as much to learn as to play. I wonder how many other people change opinions? Perhaps we need to have a law requiring a debate for (insert time period) BEFORE a poll to allow people to see all sides first?

[YuMMz]

I didn't see the "first target". I thought he was just stating the pros and cons of genocide overall. So I listed a couple pros. But yes this early in the game culture flipping would not be a issue.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


Welcome to more rational thought, at least. I sense that you, like I, have joined this game as much to learn as to play.

Yep, you called it.
(It's working, too.)

[punkbass2000]

If you want to change your vote, PM Ming and ask him to do it.