Cyrus + Horses + Stone = gg?

[eric_]

You should be able to demand ANYTHING from them and if they refuse, WAR.

That's the bottom line right there.

 

[merdyl]

what does SE mean???

 

[eric_]

probably (S)pecialist (E)conomy

 

[futurehermit]

future hermit,

That is a good game. I've never played with Cyrus before, vanilla or new. Anyway, there is a nice synergy with representation and charismatic trait, for certain. Was it even necessary to build monuments gaining an additional +1 happiness. When I play a charismatic leader, I usually look to build stonehenge for the instant +1 happy and culture for new cities. With this start, I'm not certain you needed monuments, which is why I ask.

How about the additional boon of faster GG's combined with representation. Obviously, as the game wears on, the benefit is less. But early on, you're fueling your tech development with war (maybe not fueling, but aiding). There's so many layers of goodness here, it's a basket weaving class unto its own.

Why turn down extra ? Since is such a limiting factor to city growth, I always feel like the more the merrier.

Yes, when I get more and faster GGs and I am running a SE I always settle them. When not using SE I'll attach them as a warlord, but with SE the extra beakers makes the extra xp even more attractive.

But, yes, I totally feel like charismatic has awesome synergy with early representation.

And, yes, SE = Specialist Economy. CE = Cottage Economy.

 

[gdgrimm]

You should be able to demand ANYTHING from them and if they refuse, WAR.

That's the bottom line right there.

I disagree. Non-stop warmongering is already rewarded enough in the game, allowing someone to bypass the war weariness and cost of finishing a war, while reaping (potentially more) benefits than they would if they did finish the war would just make the easiest route to victory that much easier.

If somebody offers to capitulate, the only reason you should accept is because you feel finishing them off will be detrimental to your civilization (NOT because you think having them as a capitulated vassal is better than finishing them off). Or stated another way, only accept capitulation because YOU don't think you can finish the war -- otherwise, finish the dang war.

 

[futurehermit]

^^^I think it's more strategic than that. I mean why JUST accept a vassal if you can't finish someone off (which is a case where someone should REFUSE to capitulate!!!). You should want a vassal because they can be USEFUL to you, moreso than if you just finish them off. Part of being useful is having military to aid you (why kill all those units when you can turn them against your next enemy?) and also they have important techs that you want to avoid seeing go with them to their grave.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

I'll take vassals because they are so far from my city that I cant feasibly keep their cities, and if I raze all his cities different civs will fill the void with their cities and culture. Instead of fighting new wars over the same territory, I'll vassal and it saves me the trouble.