Who is the better warmonger?

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

There's no reason why Shaka can't raze as well - but for the earlier part of the game razing at double speed is very effective for Atilla to impose "control" of the map as stated. Instead of crippling yourself by taking cities, razing them just cripples the AI who are left with whatever city you leave them - with their workers/settlers immobilized whilst you do whatever you will/build cities wherever you want.

I think that's quite an effective strategy.

Shaka - focuses on getting a few cities to turn into Impi factories and then just spams the crap out of them. By that point however there are usually a lot more enemy cities to wade through - and although Impi's make short work of enemy units they have no advantage against cities. Shaka lacks the ability to control the early map with a super early rush and thus although better suited to a domination victory early/mid game might be in a position where it is difficult to win by the time he gets there!

Thats why I voted for Attila, while alot of people would want to build up their economy first and go to war later which fits Shaka more then Attila, destroying the opponents economy instead of build your own to start with can be more effective.
As said no need to take cities, just cripple them and kill everything else.
Ultra early warfare should not be about conquest but about map control which in practice is conquest because both still gain you land.

 

[njmfff]

Both are great, but in hands of human player, The Huns will dominate.

Poor Shaka would not have a chance to get to Impi(s) when horde of Horse Archers start rolling... and in hands of a good players, 2 warriors, 2 rams and 3-4 horse archers are enough to dominate most of the civs in early game.

City Razing isn't bad as people turn it out to be. It quickly clears useless cities and later on, when there are huge cities with high pop, it takes half the time to burn them down... which means, half the time the usual unhappiness from captured\burning cities.

Shaka's UA of less cost maintenance isn't all that useful, since good players won't need many units anyway to conquer cities and kill armies.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Don't razed cities produce ancient ruins because I had one game as Egypt I razed a Shoshone city and the ruins had also an ancient ruins on it.
That would give some big Culture advanatge to early warfare.

 

[njmfff]

Not sure of Vanilla (forgot it, could be?), but in GnK and BWN they don't... but there's a chance that antiquity will spawn where razed cities was.

 

[GhostSalsa]

But there is no point of keeping an OK city which would currently hamper your science & warmongering abilities.

I think ppl are too hung up on me saying they were "ok." If I had settled somewhere else or in the same place it wouldn't have been much better. I wasn't running tradition so no free-bies anyway. I try to avoid tradition for my war games (because it's OP) so in measuring Atilla and Shaka it's not considered. Anyway I really didn't have a choice tactically. Warmongering value is exactly why I kept it - it was right next to Athens so I could pillage and kill and come back to heal. It was a cramped map - Inca and Ethiopia were too strong to expand towards yet.

All I'm pointing out is that pre-BNW, I would have benefited more from that tactically un-razed puppet. In BNW I was forced to keep it as a drain or - as I did - annex it but then deal with annoying national wonder penalties. BNW doesn't reward early warfare. I kept my enemies in check and conquered my continent but wasn't a superpower.

 

[tat501]

I tend to think BNW doesn't reward warfare full stop unless the reason for doing it is either to raze a city to place your own one there, or to win the game via domination.

 

[reddishrecue]

Being next to a civilization with Atilla on a land map in the ancient and classical era can give atilla a good advantage. With a few horse archers and rams, the Huns can easily sack a neighboring capital city in the earlier periods without allowing other civilizations to know about it. However, once they get to the medieval or later eras, the horse archers and rams lose their touch.

Impies also have this issue. Once other civilizations reach renaissance eras and above, impies also lose their touch.

Aren't there any other warmonger though?
Germany's furor teutonics also have a melee unit discount.

 

[tat501]

Being next to a civilization with Atilla on a land map in the ancient and classical era can give atilla a good advantage. With a few horse archers and rams, the Huns can easily sack a neighboring capital city in the earlier periods without allowing other civilizations to know about it. However, once they get to the medieval or later eras, the horse archers and rams lose their touch.

Impies also have this issue. Once other civilizations reach renaissance eras and above, impies also lose their touch.

Aren't there any other warmonger though?
Germany's furor teutonics also have a melee unit discount.

Germany has become an outstanding warmonger with the recent patch - if it wasn't already. Free huge early barb army supported by reduced maintenance - followed by wealth and production bonuses with the hanse supporting landsknecht force purchased as mercenaries through commerce - and the hanse also means you build your core cities into Panzer factories for the late game.

England is a good pure warmonger - but probably not in the same league as the others unless the map is right, as is Mongolia.