edibleshrapnel
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2014
- Messages
- 7
If you sign an open borders with another player, can you just build roads everywhere and bankrupt them?
^^^
This is true, but I wasn't talking about luxes--that's dangerous! Imagine doing a 4-city tall/tradition build. You usually have one source of horses or iron that you don't use but sell. You keep disconnecting that and you can get a LOT of gold. I've never done it due to moral implications, but unlike the road idea it seems like it's got far more advantages then downsides.
Morals eh.
Do you ban warfare from your games too? AI is pretty bad at that as well.
Not doing it as a self-handicap is reasonable, but that's not a moral issue, just variant play for challenge.
I don't think you can make a rational case against pillage-sell without banning standard gameplay tactics you/most players accept under the same criteria.
As others have pointed out, you are not going to bankrupt the AI by doing this....can you just build roads everywhere and bankrupt them?
As others have pointed out, you are not going to bankrupt the AI by doing this.
That said, if workers would otherwise be idle (and it is premature to delete them), I tend to build a lot of roads in CS territories on (or within) my borders. Neighboring AIs get some of this treatment too.
My logic is (1) useful movement for my units at no cost, and (2) the way the CS moves units around, the player may need redundant paths. Plus, eventually, there will be a CS quest to connect to them, so might as well do that ahead of time.
But as Browd points out, this comes at the opportunity cost of worker turns.
It also seems to me that having roads in their territory helps the CS defend themselves. I would like to know if I am causing the CS economic troubles, but I have never noticed any indications of that.