Minor Annoyance
Deity
I've just came around to the idea of having offensive wars with no intention of taking cities. I may be coming late to this like with specialist economies in Civ4. I didn't know that was a strategy until people kept using the abbreviation CE and SE and I had no idea what they meant.
In a recent game I was asked to fight France, who were everyone's enemy and since I shared no boarders and just had my UU (Comanche riders) I agreed. France's army was mostly occupied by Spain so I just pillaged their tiles. Nearly all of them. At the end they offered me a city in exchange for peace.
I think the reason I don't consider this is because it's much easier to measure your own gains rather than someone else's loss. In civ 4 I found spy missions to increase unhealth or unhappiness very disruptive when used against me but I never considered them against the AI because I wouldn't see the effect.
So am I the only one who didn't think to NOT take cities in war?
In a recent game I was asked to fight France, who were everyone's enemy and since I shared no boarders and just had my UU (Comanche riders) I agreed. France's army was mostly occupied by Spain so I just pillaged their tiles. Nearly all of them. At the end they offered me a city in exchange for peace.
I think the reason I don't consider this is because it's much easier to measure your own gains rather than someone else's loss. In civ 4 I found spy missions to increase unhealth or unhappiness very disruptive when used against me but I never considered them against the AI because I wouldn't see the effect.
So am I the only one who didn't think to NOT take cities in war?