Destroying Enemy Civs

[Heavy Weapons]

If a war is going well and victory is obvious, is it better to completely destroy the enemy Civ or to leave it with a few minor cities??

 

[andrewgprv]

I like to eliminate them. But if they have something you want you can always wait 20 turns to finish them off. Make Peace on the conditions they give you want you want (i.e. Theology and Engineering) then just wait 20 turns till your Peace Agreement is up and Finish them off.

 

[ThePrankMonkey]

oh boo! i'm not waiting twenty turns to send a civ to its grave, if i can eliminate them i do it ASAP, if not i try to get as many units in place ASAP and even if breaks the peace treaty so what? i dont care and it sends a message to the other ai civs "pick a fight with me and i will show you no mercy. i am not your friend and i will not be nice to you when you were not nice to me". i usually find the other civs leave me alone or avoid me like the plague after i wipe out a civ or two.

waiting is for the weak and incompetent. seriously though.........

if you can be rid of them why wait? why prolong what is almost surely a guarantee? the other civs will see how weak that civ is and either bully it or take them over and if they did have something you wanted or needed i guess you'll be buying it from that other civ who decided not to wait.

hesitation at the moment of truth will do more harm than good.

 

[Hades]

Sorry I hit the button twice

 

[Hades]

I would kill the ones with strong culture. Otherwise I like to negotiate a peace deal with tons of tech, money, communications, map,..... Also, they can also served as your mobilization turn off switch. Another thing is if they still have a tech lead after 20 turns of peace, you can buy all the techs with a lumpsum cash and kill them after the deal concluded to get the money back.

 

[Chieftess]

I rarely leave a civ with a few cities left. There are excepts - they're too far away, war warriness is setting in, and my forces are being depleted.

 

[kgkia33]

Almost all of the time I find letting them hang on to what's left of their civ and taking what they have the best method. Your tech status really dictates what you should do. You'd be much better settling for 3 techs, all their gold and a bunch of their cities than just wiping them out for fun. If you're ahead I'd say screw 'em.

But if you do choose to take all you can get and let 'em live, make sure you get 'em after 20 turns, most likely they'll still be about the same way they were right before you settled the treaty, which is no troops, no cities, and no chance against you.

Then again I suck at the game so don't hold me to that advice.

 

[Shabbaman]

I try to finish them as quickly as possible. This will lower the chance of a culture flip most of the time.

 

[morkaphi]

I used to leave the AI civs with few cities that don't post any threat or have anything I want, for some potential to trade with them again.

However, I think v1.29 makes the AI extremely reluctant to give away techs for peace, even peace is reached, they still play hard ball and pay crap for tech/luxuries. Not that they can't afford it, but they probably REALLY, REALLY hate me.

They still die, but they die rich and advanced.

 

[gugalpm]

I agree with Hades... kill the guys with strong culture... the ones with weak culture can be set aside from destruction.

 

[Yzman]

Im my current game I left them with a few cities then got techs for peace and then 20 turns later, they are still destroyed from the war, I finish them.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Depends on what kind of war it is. If I'm simply out to conquer that civ and assimilate it into my empire, I'll most probably will simply finish them off. If it's more limited war of acquisition - I may be cleansing my continent from unwanted AI footholds, or be out to occupy a given island - I'll accept peace after securing my objectives, while obviously also taking whatever gold/techs/resources they may be willing to trade for peace. If it's a defensive war, well, destroying the enemy wouldn't be an option (if it becomes, it's no longer a defensive war).

Addition: Note also that if you accept peace with a civ reduced to 1-3 cities, chances are pretty high they'll enter a Military Alliance against you before the twenty turns have passed. Suicidal, the AIs are. This makes leaving them alive for a while more attractive, but for some reason AIs about to vanish entirely rarely has any techs I don't have.

 

[Niz02]

Originally posted by Heavy Weapons
If a war is going well and victory is obvious, is it better to completely destroy the enemy Civ or to leave it with a few minor cities??

There is a great reason not to destroy defeated civs: The other
AI civs will declare war to that weak ones. An example from my
last game -- after defeating 2 civs, Zulus and Persians, I made
peace leaving them 5-6 cities each. In several turns all other AI civs started wars against Zulus and Persians. Meanwhile, I began helping both, giving them resources. The result -- all AI changed democracy with communism and the most advanced Romans
discover new techs now in 15 turns, before they got techs in 5 turns. It is also easy for me to claim the land, building cities in choke points and initiating propaganda against captured cities.

 

[Gothmog]

Re Niz02 - a very nice first post! I agree with your points but also with Hades about the ones with cultures larger than ones own.

 

[klambert]

If you have to deal with diplomatic victory issues (i.e. you want one or you don't control the UN), you'd better find a way to eliminate them -- they'll never vote for you. Either wipe them out yourself, or (my favorite), take all the good locations & cities, get everyone else to ally with you against the evil _____ (fill in the blank), and let someone else finish them off.

I've notice that when I finish someone off, the other civs don't like me so much, but if someone else makes the coup de gras, its okay.