Can I get some advice on this scenario?

[Sherlock]

I pretty much suck at this game which is kind of funny as I was good enough at CiV.

Anyway, here's my situation. I'm on a continent with Shaka Zulu. I have some cities that are coming along pretty good, a few wonders, some districts. Shaka and I had a minor tussle awhile ago and he quit after losing a few units.

So here's the big question that I really don't know the answer to:

Should I leave Shaka alone, develop my cities, send some ships out to explore the world. Or should I take all his cities and just OWN this continent we're on? I'm afraid if I go with that second option the unmet Civ's will start shooting past me in science, culture, military, etc. They'll be buying universities and I'll be buying cannon fodder. OTOH it's pretty nice to have a whole continent to yourself.

So.... any advice? In terms of score I'm leading, but not by much.

 

[Sostratus]

Rule your continent. Knock out Shaka.
You won’t find science a problem if you put down campuses in his (already existing) cities. If they have campuses, make sure to build the buildings in them. Likewise with some theater squares.

The problem with Shaka is that he gets the ability to build Corps and Armies early and those formations get extra combat strength. So he will suddenly have units that shoot up by 15 strength by makings corps.
If you establish total control over your continent, you can fully go into development and only have to worry about fighting off a navy.

 

[AntSou]

1. The cities you capture will favour you in the long run.

2. Zulu will remain a pain in the ass through out and he'll force you to keep an expensive standing army because you can't trust him.

3. You should never have accepted peace and deal with him while you had free grievances, but seeing it's already done...

4. ...The Civs you find will not care for past atrocities between civs they haven't met. If you wait too long, by the time you decide to get rid of Zulu you'll likely build up negative opinion with other Civs since they'll see you as an aggressor.

 

[Victoria]

It is possible to do both, you do not need a lot of units.
Against Shaka take xbows/artill but be careful of his corps.
It is easy to get too tied up with the war game and stop developing while as I said, do both.
And ideally take him out before you meet other civs.

 

[Disgustipated]

If you are leading by score, I suggest just building up your present empire. Usually once you get the lead, you'll never lose it. But if you feel you don't have any further room to expand, you may want to conquer. Obviously you are going to have to devote some resources to having enough troops to deter attack from Zulu or fend it off if they do attack. Keep in mind conquering your continent could have diplomatic ramifications later. Even if you leave no survivors, the AI seems to know you conquered an entire civ, and can be cool to you diplomatically.

Myself, I always make these kinds of decisions based on what mood I'm in. Some games I want a peaceful games, some games the AI pisses me off with conquering city states, and I punish them. My current game on gigantic terra map I have room to expand, but I did conquer a couple Colombian cities (former city states), I could have freed the city states, but they most likely would have been conquered again, and they were so close to my territory that loyalty wasn't an issue. This is my first game going toe to toe with Colombia. A little more challenging because he built a lot of archers, but ultimately I prevailed. As expected, the AI handled the Colombian general UU poorly.