Effectiveness of pillaging?

[Unclescam777]

I've decided that the Republic government is by far the best choice for me but one downfall is war weariness. So I'd like to end wars ASAP and thought about pillaging since it only takes a fraction of the time as conquering.

If I go to an enemy's territory and pillage every single improvement the AI has (never attacking a city) just how far will it set him back? Will it crush him economically long enough for me to leave him in the stone age? I play on Regent.

 

[MAS]

It may hurt the enemy, but it will not gain you.

If you conquer, you gain land area, cities, lux and strategic resources...

All well worth a little bit of WW in my opinion.

 

[thetrooper]

Pillaging strategic resources (and to a certain degree luxury resources) is an excellent way to hurt your enemy.

I would rather do as MAS said though unless you're up to conquering metros.

 

[Unclescam777]

What if the country in question is far away? In my current game I'm at war with Germany but they are halfway around the world. If I take their cities wouldn't corruption be too high? I guess I could always switch to communism but I think I'd prefer to stay republic.

 

[dgfred]

If the jerks start a unnecessary war with me, I will pillage their land without
mercy while smacking them for attacking me in the first place. Buying workers
and pillaging will slow the AI's growth somewhat, besides it is very fun destroying what they spent many turns building.

 

[MAS]

What if the country in question is far away? In my current game I'm at war with Germany but they are halfway around the world. If I take their cities wouldn't corruption be too high? I guess I could always switch to communism but I think I'd prefer to stay republic.

But if the nation is far away, then they can't hurt you in return either, the AI is absolutely terrible at D-day invasions, so you won't build up WW from them.

You don't get WW just from being at war, you only get WW from:
# losing units when you attack (winning the attack does not give WW)
# being attacked (even if your defender wins)
# losing units when being attacked.
# having units in enemy territory for a whole turn. (the amount doesn't matter)
# having enemy units in your territory for a whole turn. (the amount doesn't matter)
# Losing cities (this will cause a very big hit, but you shouldn't lose cities vs the AI though, if you know what you are doing.)

If the enemy declares war on you, either because you refuse a demand, or because some civ buys them in an alliance, or because they do something plain crazy and random. (they sometimes do) you get negative WW. meaning, you get happiness! (except if this is a result from a failed espionage mission by you)
So if a far away civ declares, they basically give you a nice gift!

The corruption of far away cities doesn't bother me, every city adds something to you empire, you can always irrigate everything and hire specialist (the output of specialist can not be modified by any factor, including corruption) you just have to make sure there are no structures in the city that cost gpt upkeep, because they don't add anything in return in corrupt cities.
An empty city doesn't cost you any upkeep, like in civ4, only city improvements do.

I always fight my direct neighbors first, but not because I like to avoid corruption, just because it makes for shorter supply lines, and thus faster results. I won't start fighting far away civ until the civ in between us have been conquered, then the far away civ will become my new neighbor, thus my next target.

You could send a few units to hurt the far away enemy his economy, but doing so is extra work and extra planning, it also adds WW for being in enemy territory (negating some of the War happiness), and it makes your unit susceptible to being attacked and being killed. (adding more WW) Though these should be only small amounts.

 

[garyg]

Back to pillaging...
The AI will build towns sometimes far apart in the early game.
At least their cultural influence has gaps. My exploring warriors will always pillage the roads in no mans land connecting these towns. It doesn't cause war, or even an attitude hit that I've noticed, and it at least inconveniences the AI by disconnecting his luxs or resources for a few turns.

 

[dgfred]

Back to pillaging...
The AI will build towns sometimes far apart in the early game.
At least their cultural influence has gaps. My exploring warriors will always pillage the roads in no mans land connecting these towns. It doesn't cause war, or even an attitude hit that I've noticed, and it at least inconveniences the AI by disconnecting his luxs or resources for a few turns.

Yes for sure , and it also prevents the AI from expanding in some
cases for a few turns .

 

[Ringo Kid]

If you pillage all the enemies luxuries and resources, you may even hurt other ai civs that are trading with the target civ.

 

[Ringo Kid]

I like the Explorer for pillaging.

He is like a little 20 shield guided missile with a 5 square range. Great to build in those corrupt towns with only 2 or three shields.

Use your crappy towns to ruin the enemies strong ones.

 

[metamike]

I dont disconnect roads like that - its exploitation in my opinion.

I mean, if you do something that hinders their economy but has NO other effect of them towards you by a flaw through game design - its just unfair.

I mean, Id understand if at least their attitude towards you went down, but thats just pointless hurting of their cities.

If you need to resort to that, you shouldnt be playing your current level.

I pilliage whenever attacking capitals or largely fortified cities.

Other than that, theres no point in actually pilliaging the whole land.

Because think about it, you pilliage all the surrounding land - Oh no, now he cant make that extra Pikeman in 5 turns, by which time you should already be done with the city.

But those 5 turns to make 1 single defensive unit come back to bite you in the ass when you re-settle his empire and waste both Unit Support, and insane amount of time mining and irrigating land that was already improved FOR you, when you could be using those workers to perfect your homeland.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Targeted pillaging can be very useful, like disconnecting/starving an enemy capital, cutting off resources and just slowing the enemy down, as he will hide his workers while your troops are nearby. It works best in non-representative governments, where WW is not a problem. Even so, the lux slider can ameliorate the effects somewhat, just means you need to hit and run more instead of staying there to harass.

 

[Aabraxan]

Let's not forget the key element of pillaging: it's fun! I harass the enemy every chance I get. I don't pillage "out of territory" roads when I'm at peace with the AI (mainly because I'd never thought of it), but on the first turn of a war, I'll grab workers, kill settlers, pillage resources, just about anything to cause trouble. Nothing quite like sending your cavalry to fact the enemy's muskets and, pretty soon, you're facing the enemy's pikes, then their spears, and finally, they're back to throwing warriors at you.

 

[Sashie VII]

I've decided that the Republic government is by far the best choice for me but one downfall is war weariness. So I'd like to end wars ASAP and thought about pillaging since it only takes a fraction of the time as conquering.

If I go to an enemy's territory and pillage every single improvement the AI has (never attacking a city) just how far will it set him back? Will it crush him economically long enough for me to leave him in the stone age? I play on Regent.

IMO, the answer to that question is how much damage are you willing to inflict?

 

[garyg]

I dont disconnect roads like that - its exploitation in my opinion.

I mean, if you do something that hinders their economy but has NO other effect of them towards you by a flaw through game design - its just unfair.

I mean, Id understand if at least their attitude towards you went down, but thats just pointless hurting of their cities.

If you need to resort to that, you shouldnt be playing your current level.

Do you consider it a flaw that the AI will build a town far from its borders to take away from you some resource that isn't even visible yet? Or some luxury that by normal expansion should belong to your empire? The AI KNOWS where everything is on the map and exactly how many units you have and where they are. If they stretch their empire beyond their cultural boundaries for their own benefit who am I to protect their assets. It's a dangerous world out there. Don't kid yourself the AI wants to kill you. Anyway, It's not really my fault. I don't have the greatest control over my units. I think they get drunk and a little rowdy. Warriors are actually only a little removed from barbarians.

 

[Sashie VII]

But those 5 turns to make 1 single defensive unit come back to bite you in the ass when you re-settle his empire and waste both Unit Support, and insane amount of time mining and irrigating land that was already improved FOR you, when you could be using those workers to perfect your homeland.

Your homeland shouldn't need any more "perfecting", since you should build lots and lots and lots of workers. You can never have enough workers.

 

[SG-17]

I normally use artillery and units to destroy roads around metros and large cities to starve them out.

 

[jb1964]

If you're going to pillage the enemy w/ intent of taking their territory then leave at least a modest framework of roads for your units to use once what theirs is now yours.. One exception is the capitol. Completely disconnecting their capitol is a good way of totally disrupting the target AI. If you’re not interested in taking what is theirs but are eliminating them as a rival of any sorts then go ahead and wreck their economy. An army works well in that case.

Also look at F4 to see who has deals w/ whom. If your target has active deals then disconnecting the capitol will put an end to that. And although it’s not exactly fair, if their 20 turn deals get “terminated” it’s their problem and not yours. Their ability to trade in the future is trashed. That is, except if they want to trade w/ you after some pointy stick negotiations.

 

[metamike]

Your homeland shouldn't need any more "perfecting", since you should build lots and lots and lots of workers. You can never have enough workers.

You're joking right?...You realize every worker you have is 1 gpt of unit support if you go over.

Because an effective war is only fought with a surplus of warriors available currently, and mroe coming in every moment, you need as much unit suport as possible.

This means every worker you have either takes away 1 gpt, or is worth as much as possible Swordsman or Knight that could be fighting in the war.

 

[MAS]

workers pay for themselves, every road they make add commerce you can use to pay the worker upkeep. Having lots and lots of workers is well worth their cost. And I'm talking about Republic even, where they cost 2 gpt over the upkeep limit...

I do agree however, that I prefer to not pillage roads the AI makes for me.