Is Arming Weak Nations Surrounding a SuperPower a Bad Idea?

[Hygro]

well, you cant buy cities with the patch 1.29f for civ 3, nor can you in any PTW version.

 

[connor]

That is one of the huge things that I miss from Civ2, being able to actually give military units to the weaker Civ. That is far more realistic and practical than giving techs and resources. I would rather give a Civ tanks and arty when they are technologically still riding around on horses. This is exactly what happens in the real world. I know it is a game, but this would be an awesome, fun feature.
----------------------------------------------------------------
What luck for the rulers that men do not think. Adolf Hitler (good thing for the liberals or who else would support them)

 

[BretP]

I frequently arm the weaker nations so that my rival SP will have to fight difficult battles on at least two different fronts. This usually makes them easlier to kill.

 

[billindenver]

Originally posted by BretP
I frequently arm the weaker nations so that my rival SP will have to fight difficult battles on at least two different fronts. This usually makes them easlier to kill.

Me too. I give them any tech they need that the stronger AI already has, and the materials to build them if possible. I generally only do this if they are both on another continent or far away from me on my continent.

 

[pheezer]

Originally posted by Azik Blaze
The U.S. CIA gave arms to the Mujahadeen to fight off Russia in Afganistan in the '80's, it proved very successful. Also, there are other ways you can profit from these wars, read this post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46626

And it didn't end up backfiring at all...

This example does show the pros and cons. It can be useful in the short term, but it does increase the number of nations in the world with competitive armies. They could band together against you just as well as one of them, and the computer doesn't like you so much...