Conquest, the solution to everything?

[Arrowstorm]

So, I don't know if there's a thread that answers this, but if so, I couldn't find the keywords involved.

It bugs me a bit that war and conquest seems like the most beneficial things you can do, no matter the victory condition. You will get more land and better cities, that can generate more science for you. If you puppet cities, they will generate culture for you, without increasing the culture cost of social policies. Domination is obvious enough. Even diplomacy seems to benefit from this, removing competition and just using the city state votes.

You can't compete with somebody that goes in war and gets cities on it. They get better at everything. In full-out multiplayer, people might gang up on runaways/bloodthirsty players, but in singleplayer or in a game with half AI or more, conquest only makes you stronger than a peaceful approach ever could or will.

Is Maul > Wall? Don't know if BNW will "fix" it, tourism seems to give you a reason to wipe out somebody who threatens your culture, and unless the AI is going to be able to use the World Congress well, it seems like more power to the players.

 

[joncnunn]

Against the AI, you can still win without conquering any of the AIs cities even on Immortal level.
(Most of the AIs Science ratings are too low; which allows a 4 city empire to outproduce a wide AI empire in science.)

 

[Arrowstorm]

Against the AI, you can still win without conquering any of the AIs cities even on Immortal level.
(Most of the AIs Science ratings are too low; which allows a 4 city empire to outproduce a wide AI empire in science.)

You can, but there's little reason not to do it. The AI will usually attack anyway, might as well be the first. I also normally play with my dad or someone else, and if they set themselves to conquer, what can I do if not the same thing?