Eliminating a civ?

[enanneman]

So after the dishonorable Huns attacked me with no provocation and razed my glorious city of Chicago, I was able to beat back the horde, take one of his cities and finally capture its capital, Atilla's Court.

My question: Now that I've captured the capital, is there any benefit to capturing his remaining two cities to eliminate him completely? That is, is it worth it to incur additional warmongering and unhappiness penalties to destroy him?

I should add that the remaining two cities are only sized 7 and 8 and are on ice with only a couple of enhancements and one resource (of which I already have plenty).

 

[Browd]

Sounds like he's no longer a threat, and the cities don't appear to be valuable, so further warmonger penalties probably aren't worth the price. Also, the cost of incremental unhappiness is, IMO, the tie-breaker.

 

[George Abitbol]

Don't eliminate him, you'll get a heavy warmonger penalty. Usually, when I conquer a civ I always leave a city in a crappy location or landlocked, whithout much possibilities of development. It's quite funny because the civ is like a city-state...

 

[enanneman]

Sounds like he's no longer a threat, and the cities don't appear to be valuable, so further warmonger penalties probably aren't worth the price. Also, the cost of incremental unhappiness is, IMO, the tie-breaker.

So, there's no additional points or bonuses to destroying a civ?

 

[Mr. Grieves]

No, everybody will hate you. On the other hand, someone will probably swoop in and do it themselves though. Even the nicest AI will turn into a huge warmonger if they have a very weak neighbour.

 

[joncnunn]

So, there's no additional points or bonuses to destroying a civ?

Taking very last city is full war monger penalty.

The way the formula works in BNW is that taking the last city is almost as bad as
taking the fourth from last + the third from last + the second from last combined.

( The formula is 1 / N; N being number of cities they had at the time you took that one)

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

It's situational. There is one circumstance where it might be advantageous to commit genocide, and another where it definitely is:

1.) (the maybe) if you're planning on achieving a domination win and are well on your way to doing so, it's a nice insurance policy to remove a civilization entirely, and thereby avoiding the hassle of having a "defeated" civ recapture their capital while your army is halfway around the world picking off the last one or two remaining capitals.

2,) (the definite) if you're gunning for a culture victory and face the ever-so-common scenario where 1 civ is miles ahead of the other 5 or 6 in cultural defense, you'll probably surpass the other civs many turns before the runaway, something like being influential with 6 out of 7 by turn 250 but not winning until turn 330. If you eradicate the runaway civ, you win the game at turn 250, 80 turns earlier.

 

[redwings1340]

In risk, you get the enemy's cards.

In civ, you get everyone else on the map to hate you.

Eliminating a civ completely is not worth it. The Huns will always hate you, but if you can get the rest of the world to hate them too (bribe civs to declare war on them), then you can get bonuses for denouncing them or even declaring war on them (but not taking cities).

 

[Fabio1701]

It's situational. There is one circumstance where it might be advantageous to commit genocide, and another where it definitely is:

1.) (the maybe) if you're planning on achieving a domination win and are well on your way to doing so, it's a nice insurance policy to remove a civilization entirely, and thereby avoiding the hassle of having a "defeated" civ recapture their capital while your army is halfway around the world picking off the last one or two remaining capitals.

2,) (the definite) if you're gunning for a culture victory and face the ever-so-common scenario where 1 civ is miles ahead of the other 5 or 6 in cultural defense, you'll probably surpass the other civs many turns before the runaway, something like being influential with 6 out of 7 by turn 250 but not winning until turn 330. If you eradicate the runaway civ, you win the game at turn 250, 80 turns earlier.

I would add a third: if you are playing with a large number of CS and plan to win a dip victory through their support, not caring what the other civs think of you and that last civ city is blocking your election by one or two votes.

But in general, yeah let one city live. to avoid the warmongering.

 

[layelaye]

stayy in permanent war, and never take his last city. staying in war means that he wont denounce you every so often and you will be able to snatch workers/ settlers all game long.

 

[phillipwyllie]

Eliminators can't be liberators. Having the option of recalling a civ to life IMO is always a good tactic.

 

[Fabio1701]

stayy in permanent war, and never take his last city. staying in war means that he wont denounce you every so often and you will be able to snatch workers/ settlers all game long.

not a bad tactic, but does this not create a problem with unhappiness from War Weariness?

 

[Asklepios]

So, there's no additional points or bonuses to destroying a civ?

Depends what you mean.

If by score you mean points, there may be some advantage in capturing a city as your score is based partly on population ruled and territory. Of course, equally, unwise acquisitions in the early game may cause you problems with happiness and diplomacy, and slow or even prevent your overall victory.

If we're talking tactical benefit, it can sometimes be worthwhile to destroy a civ.
- The diplomacy picture can change for the better with the elimination of a civ, as their city state alliances disappear and often will leave you as the next ally. Also, one less civ means one less voting threat in World Congress, and depending on where the game is this can be important. I have before reduced the game to three civs to make my 2 votes decisive in the early world congress.

If a civ is doing badly and only has its original capital left, its often worth taking that capital, because capitals tend to be great cities and can cause problems just by existing under the control of a foreign power (eg if they have the Forbidden Palace, or are Great Prophet spamming you from a Capital holy city).

If you're on a run towards world conquest, and everyone already hates you, sometimes finishing off a civ is better than leaving another front line to worry about. Re: the OP, I think Atilla is quite prone to declaring wars he has no chance of winning, so its often worth finishing him off just so you don't get hassled by pillaging and worker-stealing Keshiks.

Sometimes you'll want to eliminate a civ to clear the path for internal trade routes.

Sometimes you'll want to eliminate a civ because they're occupying a strategically important bit of land with their last city, such as a key Oil resource.

Of course, these are specific cases. Generally speaking, its better to leave a civ crippled but still existent.

 

[beetle]

The most annoying thing I have found is that the all-but-eliminated civ still gets a number of spies. Stealing tech is no big deal, but they will occasionally flip city states. That might not be a problem with the Huns.

Eliminators can't be liberators. Having the option of recalling a civ to life IMO is always a good tactic.

Very nice, if you can get another civ or city state to kill him off. Might be hard since it sounds like the last two cities are kind of isolated.

not a bad tactic, but does this not create a problem with unhappiness from War Weariness?

What War Weariness? That mechanic, which I kind of miss, is IV not V.

 

[Fabio1701]

What War Weariness? That mechanic, which I kind of miss, is IV not V.

Oh yeah! Silly me. After all these years the civs start to kind of just blur into each other. Sometimes I still panic that too many of my factories will create global warming or some other outdated mechanic.

 

[George Abitbol]

What was the effect of war weariness?

 

[Fabio1701]

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/war_weariness.php



Basically, the longer you are at war with a civ (barbs don't count) the more unhappy your people get over time. The government choice 'police state' cut the effects by 50%. If I recall some wonders helped cut the effect or increase it in your enemies, not sure. I think it applied to the aggressor more than the person being attacked?

It was a cool idea because it was similar to real life and made sure that wars couldn't drag on for millennia, which is not realistic. It also meant that aggressors were forced to back down if they took too long to accomplish their goals. I felt it made wars shorter and more interesting/intense. Also made me consider using nukes more often.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I always found that more realistic, and a better check on warmongering that what we have now. The way it is now, you can stay at war with an AI indefinitely with no consequence. With war weariness, eventually your citizens will tire of it, just like in real life.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Deity Huns, yes, but better to bribe someone else to do it

 

[enanneman]

Well, to bring the conversation back full circle, I did indeed eliminate the Huns and paid dearly for it through the warmonger penalty. 3/4ths of the civs won't trade with me and those that do make me pay for it dearly.

Definitely should have left him with his two small decimated cities.

Live and learn!