An underdog civ as an XP farm - a valid strategy?

Imagine I'm in war with a civ. I've conquered all its cities (including the capital) except of the last one.

Why if I don't capture the last city neither declare peace? Instead, I will bombard it eternally, farming XP for my range units.

Civ 4 had war weariness, but AFAIK Civ 5 doesn't have it. Are there any disadvantages for keeping a civ as a "punching bag" instead of destroying it?

(I'm relatively new to Civ 5 btw)

Leaving a civ one weak city is actually the better thing to do, as if you wipe it out completely you get the biggest warmonger penalty with other civs.

Mahasona said:

Leaving a civ one weak city is actually the better thing to do, as if you wipe it out completely you get the biggest warmonger penalty with other civs.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but then you have to deal with them denouncing you all game.

I'd honestly rather take the warmonger hit.

Chum said:

Yeah, but then you have to deal with them denouncing you all game.

Click to expand...

You cannot be denounced by somebody you're at war with, eh?

Mahasona said:

Leaving a civ one weak city is actually the better thing to do, as if you wipe it out completely you get the biggest warmonger penalty with other civs.

Click to expand...

That isn't what I was asking about, actually. The question was - what disadvantages the eternal war would give? Providing there won't be "real" military exercises aside of bombarding the city constantly.

From my point of view that looks stupid and game-breaking (I could be wrong tho). There must be some kind of restriction for this, like civ4 war weariness mentioned before.


upd.
Wow, Dushku, hello there! like your videos

You can stay at war for a hundred turns or more as there is no war weariness in Civ 5 (probably should be in some form). I sometimes start a war in the early game to claim more land especially if I see an AI settler approaching 'my' land, and don't make peace for an age or two. If I do make peace early I am only going to have to try and block more of it's settler spam after getting denounced. Also works great for stopping/slowing AI religion by capturing and killing missionaries and prophets. The AI seems to love sending missionaries to martyrdom.

Disadvantages; Loss of a trading partner, possible disruption of trade routes to other Civs depending on the map, maybe ending up with the odd CS declaring on you as well if the enemy AI manages to ally them. Oh, and maybe they will try and propose an embargo on you, or ban one of your luxuries in the world assembly but if you have crushed them enough they should not have much influence.

The only reason I can think of is the liberation bonus. You're correct, Civ5 does not have war weariness, instead it has an incredibly fragile diplomatic system, and warmonger penalties can weigh very heavily. There can be a tertiary civ that you have all positive diplomatic bonuses with, have a DoF and seems like they'll be your BFF. Then you get hit with a warmongerer penalty and that heavy, heavy positive diplomatic status swings past good and straight to neutral. Then some other civs that they like chain-denounce you and suddenly your friend is one of your many foes.

If a city has been taken by another civ that you're at war with and you conquer that city, you have the option of liberating it instead of burning, annexing, or puppeting. This gives control back to the original owner of the city (a loss, but often you don't want the city anyway, it would just weigh you down.) A great thing to do when you're at war with someone who conquers a city state, because you not only get the diplomatic boost but also 150 influence. By opting to liberate, you not only don't add to your warmongerer score with other civs, you subtract from it.

So liberating is a way to warmonger and still maintain some positive diplomatic relationships. BUT, you cannot liberate a city if you were at war with the civ at the time they were eliminated. Whether or not you were the one who captured their last city doesn't matter, just whether or not you were at war with them when they were killed off. And while you don't plan on removing them from the game, a third civ may DoW them and finish off their last city (that you've been bombarding, so it's health is low/zero) on the same turn, which prevents you from ever liberating any of their cities.

Yeah, when Shaka or Boney see your whipping boy and conquer them, there'll also be diplo chaos. Far stabler to see to your XP farming needs by worker stealing off a CS and never making peace. GG away their lux and farm away.

ShakaKhan said:

BUT, you cannot liberate a city if you were at war with the civ at the time they were eliminated. Whether or not you were the one who captured their last city doesn't matter, just whether or not you were at war with them when they were killed off.

Click to expand...

Actually it's the other way around. You can't liberate only if you were the one that killed them off. Doesn't matter if you're at war.

Sclb said:

Actually it's the other way around. You can't liberate only if you were the one that killed them off. Doesn't matter if you're at war.

Click to expand...

If you were the one that took their last city, then obviously you were at war. But I stand by my original statement; if someone else finishes off a civ and you were at war with them during the turn that their last city was taken, you cannot liberate their cities. Maybe you're playing a different version than I am, but I've had several games where someone else finished off a civ and there was no liberate option when I later conquered that city.

I think that's how it was with an earlier version. I used to think that you couldn't liberate if you were at war with them when someone else took their last city as well. but you can. Even the Civilopedia says you can so it appear's it's been updated too.


Or maybe you're remembering a case where Austria/Venice took a CS through their UAs and when you conquered the CS you didn't have the liberate option, but that's how it's supposed to work with those two.

Didn't think you could make the same XP farm out of CS, despite it's quite easier actually. Bombarding a city for thousands of years disturbs me, it's looks wrong, but maybe I just shouldn't expect "realism" in Civ5..

enkryptor said:

Didn't think you could make the same XP farm out of CS, despite it's quite easier actually. Bombarding a city for thousands of years disturbs me, it's looks wrong, but maybe I just shouldn't expect "realism" in Civ5..

Click to expand...

Has historical precedent, many cultures had no concept of peace, just various scales of war. And there's any number of martial cults that marched to battle because that's what they did, with no intention of capturing a city.

I actually miss war weariness as it felt like a feature to me. But the bigger problem with this strategy is that it does not provide enough XP to make it feel worth the bother. Once the city is down to 0 health, you don't get XP for shooting at it. Rather than focusing on ranged units, I find near-conquered cities better for leveling up fortified Melee units.

The inevitable denouncements once you make peace, are also tedious though. So maybe walk away, but don't peace out? Come back every 10 turns or so with fresh recruits to give XP? But I best like the idea of staying at war until the turn before some other AI kills them off. The AIs love to dog pile a civ that is losing.

War weariness should be there, though it applies indirectly in the form of AIs refusing to trade you luxuries. So, as your warmonger penalty builds, your happiness does diminish, though not in an immediate fashion.

XP farming: a melee unit fortified in your borders in range of the city can get a few XP a turn from dodging arrows (make sure it never fully heals, the AI prioritises wounded units for shooting and it needs to tank), and a couple of Composites can sit on hills behind forests and each peck at the city every turn for a bunch more. Two super healing marchers and four range logistics Xbows are quite doable without opening Honor.