It`s possible to destroy a Civ with little penalty from others.

[Socratatus]

Well, I`m afraid the United States is no more and no one seems to mind.

They declared war on me twice, and (after a hard fight) I reduced them to one city and pretty much kept them that way, stuck on a tiny bit of land. All the while they were belligerent, denouncing me and all that. I ignored it while getting on with other Civs and making friends.

Then 2 Civs (for separate reasons) declared war on me, Attila and the Vikings. Wahington decided as weak as he was to use this moment to get revenge as well. It was not a bad plan actually, since as long as I was around, I wasn`t going to allow him any kind of expansion since my territory pretty much totally cut him off. This was his only real chance.

"It`s obvious we will never get along!" the writing said, which impressed me since it actually made sense in context of the game. We`d done nothing but been at eachother almost all Campaign.

Maria of Austria and sweden joined me on my side.

Eventually, we all made peace and everyone was more or less friends or guarded- Except for Washington who was still at war with me, even though he basically had almost nothing to fight with. All he really did was allow the Vikings free passage to me.For a while ignored him and continued peaceful diplomacy. Then nearly every Civ denounced Washington, a couple even declared war and I decided it was time to finish him. I didn`t want a Civ to take Washington and be on my doorstep either.

I sent all my free troops to his lands, sieged his only city, Washington, and began the bombardment. It took a while sieging it. Eventually, he could fight no more and the United States was gone.

What I found interesting, was that through the whole war, while others had asked for peace or agreed to it, Washington REFUSED peace. he never once asked for it even when it was obvious he would lose.

I found that pretty smart programming since it felt like Washington so hated me he was willing to be destroyed rather than surrender.

I also noticed that I seemed to suffer NO penalty at all for destroying an entire CIV, everyone was still pretty ok with me. I guess if you make enough friends so they denounce your enemy you can get away with it.

 

[mintcandy]

I know you didn't really ask, but the most efficient way to finish off a civilization without the diplomatic penalty of finishing them off is to wipe out all cities except for the last one.

Then, you bribe a civilization or City State adjacent to that last city to go to war.

Do everything in your power to weaken the defenses of that last city, but do not conquer that last city under any circumstances. Instead, let the other Civilization/City State conquer that last city.

 

[Socratatus]

That would work. The only problem with that is you never see the end bit where the enemy leader has to eat humble pie and admit defeat!

 

[mintcandy]

That would work. The only problem with that is you never see the end bit where the enemy leader has to eat humble pie and admit defeat!

I can live without having to see them eat crow, if it means I can still trade surplus resources to other civilizations at full price.

 

[Socratatus]

I can live without having to see them eat crow, if it means I can still trade surplus resources to other civilizations at full price.

Well all my allies are still my allies and even joined me denouncing the Huns. I haven`t seen any appreciable negative effect at all.

The trick really is to get everyone on your side and denouncing the enemy if you want to negate any real penalty you`d normally get.

And I like seeing the loser Civ leader suffer.

 

[mintcandy]

Well all my allies are still my allies and even joined me denouncing the Huns. I haven`t seen any appreciable negative effect at all.

The trick really is to get everyone on your side and denouncing the enemy if you want to negate any real penalty you`d normally get.

And I like seeing the loser Civ leader suffer.

:: shrugs ::

If I'm going to the effort of finishing off a civilization, there's a good chance that I want to do that to everyone else.

Which means that alliances would be a waste of effort. Other civilizations are just there to raise funds for me to bribe City States.

Perhaps if the AI wasn't so prone to being two-faced about friendship, I might feel differently. Or perhaps if the AI didn't interpret friendship with me as being "You will do your utmost to avoid pursuing ANY victory condition, right?"

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

i think the reasoning is that when the civ that gets removed from existence is already denounced by everyone and/or at war with them there is no diplomacy hit for it. in general taking a civ completely out gives the diplo hit but i think he just showed a situation where it doesnt.

personally i like to think that Washington had contracted syphilis and was slowly losing his mind and taking his country with him.

 

[Socratatus]

i think the reasoning is that when the civ that gets removed from existence is already denounced by everyone and/or at war with them there is no diplomacy hit for it. in general taking a civ completely out gives the diplo hit but i think he just showed a situation where it doesnt.
.

That`s what I mean. Get enough friends on your side denouncing your enemy and they don`t seem to mind much if you destroy the Civ. By the time I`d wiped out Washington, even Attila (whom by this time I`d made peace with) was denouncing him.

Also, I very rarely destroy Civs. I don`t avoid it due to the penalty; I just naturally don`t like wiping out one kind of people- even in a game. However, when a Civ 3 times declares war on me for no good reason and then spends most of its time simply being belligerent waiting to just attack me again, that usually is the last straw for me. I did try to keep him isolated and quiet without destroying his last city for quite a while.

But it was interesting seeing how he acted (during our 3rd war) as he never asked for peace, like he knew there was no point. Washington may simply have gained such a massive negative modifier against me that he didn`t care if he was destroyed in his anger for me. If that`s the case it`s not that unrealistic. Some nations in the past have so hated an enemy they`ve fought to their destruction. I know that I tend to fight to my destruction rather than surrender, too!

 

[Halcyan2]

I also noticed that I seemed to suffer NO penalty at all for destroying an entire CIV, everyone was still pretty ok with me. I guess if you make enough friends so they denounce your enemy you can get away with it.

I wouldn't say there is "NO" penalty at all.

However eliminating one civilization is often within the tolerance range of most civs, especially if you are on good terms with them. If things go sour though, they might take issue with your past genocidal actions....