Do you wipe out Civs or Keep them in Civ 6?

[GKShaman]

Background Info: I am Persia, Immortal, Pangea, possibly going Domination.

I remember in 5 you should have never wiped out Civs because the hate stayed forever and some civs would liberate other civs.

Also in this case Spain did a surprise war on me and I captured two of his cities and burned a third. He has Valencia left. Its not conflicting with any tiles of my other two cities.

 

[GKShaman]

This is a snapshot of the situation:

Nothing Special about Valencia it seems.

 

[blackcatatonic]

There's no 'sometimes' option. I do wipe them out 9 times out of 10, unless playing culturally or I have people I've met that I want to stay friends with. Some AI are kill on sight: Pericles, because he always runs away in culture especially, and Bismarck, because we'll never be friends with that agenda of his.

In Civ 5 I used to delay exploration if I was still finishing off an AI in the early/mid-game so as to not pick up warmonger hate from unmet Civs, but in 6 it seems like you can't get away with that so easily any more: delaying exploration is more costly than in 5, and reputation seems to often spread even to AIs you haven't met, even if the AI you killed is long gone by the time you meet them.

 

[bite]

I tend to be super peaceful unless attacked and then I don't stop until they are gone

 

[Halcyan2]

I keep them around, but I usually liberate one of their cities at some point so they don't hate me (and instead they become my trading partner).

The main thing is that the eras move too fast which means you lose out on getting some Great People. If you eliminate the weak players, that generally increases the mean technological/cultural progress level of the remaining players. If you hamstring the weak players and keep them around, they lower the average which gives you more time to get all of the Great People. Gotta catch 'em all!

 

[isau]

I try to wipe them out but I will say that I play my own modded game, to the exclusion of the Vanilla game, and in general I have a hard time wiping out enemy capitals, especially in the early game, due to some rule changes that give free walls in the capital and let you build Encampments much earlier. The "hate" you get from enemies for occupying their cities is so extreme that you might as well kill them if you can. That said, I may look into lowering that value too, to make it more worth it.

 

[ShakaKhan]

Optimum scenario: you widdle a civ down to one city, take that city's HP down to 0, and have a city-state finish him off.

 

[DocRock]

I always wipe them out. I just can't stand their constant diplomatic whining that steals my turn time. In 5 I had to kill every last one of them because of the cultural pressure that still was killing my happiness. The only game where I kept them is Civ 4, because the vassal system was so great.

 

[Jonathan]

I sometimes play a peaceful game and don't take cities. However, if I start taking cities, I feel better if I can make a clean job of it and eliminate that opponent.

 

[masda_gib]

I nearly always leave some cities when conquering opponents.

Early on, when I try to cut down threatening neighbors, I leave them with 1-2 crap cities, just to trade and have them around but not so much that they will ever be a thread again.
Later when going Domination I only take spearhead cities, capitals or nice (big, wonders, good districts) cities.

The only time I really wipe out another civ is when I want to win a Culture vic and they too are very cultural or even ahead of me in the tourism game. Then the world must forget their existence...

 

[Disgustipated]

In the early game I may let them keep their last city if it's too far away, and risky strategically to move my army that far away from my core. But I prefer to take all their cities. Unlike past civ games, the civ is pretty much useless to me when they're down to 1 city or so. They denounce me the rest of the game (I'm certain this is a bug), even if the cities are ceded to me. If they fix this issue, then I will allow them to keep their last city.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Hmm... No option for me. For me it depends on how much they annoyed me. Did they learn the lesson when I just captured a city or two? Do I want to cover the continent or do I have enough cities for my purposes and maybe will just pillage their stuff until they make peace?

 

[Tech Osen]

Really depends on the game but it reminds me of one game where I was going for a domination victory but just mainly for the capitals. As I casually glanced at the victory screen I suddenly noticed that Japan, my next door neighbor, was one civ away from a religious victory. He just needed Persia and Persia only had one city left... So I turned my entire army and fleet around and burned Japan to the ground, keeping some ships in front of Persian waters to guard for apostles.

 

[Victoria]

Just taking names so the next time one of you murderering scum pontificates about optimum play I can call you a hypocrite

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

If I'm forced to annex or raze one of their cities then might as well wipe them out, they'll never stop denouncing and will pillage all my districts if I pull my army away to do anything else.

Hey guys, long time no see

 

[gettingfat]

If a civ is the suzerain of a CS which I really like, I will wipe it out instead of trying to outbid with excessive envoys. For instance, playing TSL earth map most of the time I want to have complete control of Carthage, so I tend to eliminate the civ in Africa.

 

[cazaderonus]

Unless i am very pissed at a specific AI or they dont have any crappy city or two to leave them, i dont wipe them out. Not necessarily because of the hate but because having them still around can create good opportunities. Like in my current game, leaving a weakened brazil made it a good target for other civs that weakened their armies conquering the rest of it. Egypt was the one who finished brazil off and i then crushed egypt, that i kept alive for the sake of the bonus gpt i get sending trade routes to her cities.

Basically, i stop when i feel like the AI wont recover. Then whatever happens is either a good opportunity or just merely annoying.

 

[Cedbird77]

Just taking names so the next time one of you murderering scum pontificates about optimum play I can call you a hypocrite

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

I only take caps, or if an expansion has a particularly good wonder, maybe. Also, if their non capital city is in or near my empire, I'll keep it around. Basically I cripple them, once they are irrelevant to the game, there's really no reason to defend more territory

 

[Jarhead60]

It really depends on the game circumstances and what my victory type is. In ancient times I will often take out my nearest neighbor. More cities for me, one less hassle later. As the game progresses unless I am doing domination I try to remain peaceful and only fight defensively. UNTIL the same civ declares a war on me a second time. Since he didn't learn his lesson from the first go round I just take him off the map and thank him for his cities and the work he did building districts.