docbud
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,518
ToCan anyone tell me whether one is better off to be allies with a city state or just invade them and take the strategic resources?
I'm playing Hiawatha (Prince level), and decided to go with diplomacy (I had a lousy start at beginning of game and was dog-piled on). I since took over most of my continent and am making a ton of cash (280+ a turn. I'm playing epic speed, and it's around 1980 or so.
Several of my allied city states have a ton of oil and aluminum but they are NOT drilling nor mining for it. And it's been that way for over a few hundred years. And to make it worse, I have the patronage tree completely filled out, so I should be getting double the resources.
I'm tempted to just invade them and take it myself, and to hell with the double amount.
But I figure I can get a diplomatic/UN win so I don't want to do that.
But--in general--would I have been better off invading and taking the resources and concentrate on autocracy (which when filled out gives me double the resources I own)?
EDIT: I can't lose either way as I am way ahead tech-wise and military wise. I've got bombers and tanks and nukes, while the other civs are only at pikemen and Washington just got to minutemen.
It's just frustrating spending all this cash on city states and not getting those double resources.
I'm playing Hiawatha (Prince level), and decided to go with diplomacy (I had a lousy start at beginning of game and was dog-piled on). I since took over most of my continent and am making a ton of cash (280+ a turn. I'm playing epic speed, and it's around 1980 or so.
Several of my allied city states have a ton of oil and aluminum but they are NOT drilling nor mining for it. And it's been that way for over a few hundred years. And to make it worse, I have the patronage tree completely filled out, so I should be getting double the resources.
I'm tempted to just invade them and take it myself, and to hell with the double amount.
But I figure I can get a diplomatic/UN win so I don't want to do that.
But--in general--would I have been better off invading and taking the resources and concentrate on autocracy (which when filled out gives me double the resources I own)?
EDIT: I can't lose either way as I am way ahead tech-wise and military wise. I've got bombers and tanks and nukes, while the other civs are only at pikemen and Washington just got to minutemen.
It's just frustrating spending all this cash on city states and not getting those double resources.