"Passive" Invasions

[Bluemofia]

I don't like plan b at all, I like slave labor.

 

[Crow T Robot]

If I was already at war before settling the outpost city, the settler would be dead.

I declared war, then settled the city. It is a sort of an exploit, but as long as the opponent doesnt object, what the heck. I dont see this as a general use tactic, but given the huge distance, my deparation for the resource and the strength of the opponent it seemed the right thing to do.

As far as ROP rape or other transgressions for which the AI will hold a grudge, I rarely care. I never explicitly ROP rape and always declare war before firing a shot and never use nukes first.

OTOH, I will negotiate better trade deals for myself and turn down peace overtures if an objective is nearby and things like this are also supposed to annoy the AI.

So what? They will dislike you if you are too weak, too powerful, too small, too large, too advanced, too behind, too poor, too rich, too passive, too agressive. Unless you want to win by diplomacy, or need 1 or more opponents for trade, you can't get too wrapped up in making the AI happy - its not the object of the game.

 

[SirPleb]

I agree with Tomoyo. This tactic is ROP rape. And that's an exploit I don't use because it makes the game less fun to me. Which is not to say that I consider it bad for anyone to use it.

 

[Gaian Knight]

Wouldn't one have to consider that using this tactic would kill tile production between cities?

Course, if this tactic was used with above in mind, wouldn't you after taking nearby cities, then up the city into a settler again and boost a captured city?

*Goes to get advil..* ..heck with all that work, might as well just steam roll an extra unit in each city and save a home city from losing a number of production tiles.

 

[SpikeIt]

I wouldn't consider it ROP rape but I do think its an exploit. Doing this gives you an unfair advantage and the AI is unable to perform this tactic. Not to mention you will suffer an rep hit (then again, you may not care.)

Personally, I'm even on the fence about founding a city in AI territory after war is declared. Again, the AI does not and can not do this and it obviously gives us an unfair advantage. Then again, all is fair in love and war. And hey, if I promise not to ROP rape, but the AI can and will, then building military encampments in AI lands doesn't seem so bad in the end afterall.

 

[Crow T Robot]

I see it closer to a bug than an exploit: A settler lands 20 some tiles from his homeland and on a key strategic resource and the AI doesn't object??? True, it doesnt have an offensive value, but it does have an ability well beyond units like workers or explorers.

The AI invades before declaring war all the time, so while it might be ROP rape, its not entirely an exploit unavailable to the AI; though it may be somewhat more sophisticated than the AI is capable of. There are many things the AI cant do (like use naval and arty units effectively), that doesnt mean I am going to hamstring myself and work the same way.

All in all, it was a very desparate situation and was the only way I could secure the resource and get a foothold on the continent.

My general approach to war is to favor the success of the operation and safety of the military over other factors. This was all the more critical here because not only was the bulk of my entire military involved in the invasion, but some were the best, modern units which could no longer be built.

Wringing your hands over ROP rape and rep hits inherently makes the safety of your "people"/military and success of the operation subordinate to what other civs will think of you. This makes me a bit queasy, but it seems situational depending on whether a diplo win is possible or likely.

While I do take such things into consideration, I take greater pride in developing sophisticated battle plans and carrying them out with a minimum of casualties and maximum gains.

Rep hits are A factor but not THE factor, for me.

 

[Dignitas]

I vote for "no exploit but great tactic". If firaxis didn't want us to build cities in enemy territory, that option would not exist.

The only problem is, that this is another strategy the AI will never be able to use on us. But then again, the game would play very mechanical if you only did what the AI can do.

 

[SpikeIt]

I vote for "no exploit but great tactic". If firaxis didn't want us to build cities in enemy territory, that option would not exist.

The only problem is, that this is another strategy the AI will never be able to use on us. But then again, the game would play very mechanical if you only did what the AI can do.

I don't know. If you played only doing what the AI could manage, it could prove interesting. Imagine your hated rival AI on the other side of the continent. You sign up an ROP, send over your impressive force of one archer and then change government to Fascism.

But really, its up to everyone how they play the game. I just think some options available to us weaken the overall game because they actually take strategy out of it. I mean, once you perform this sort of attack once, wouldn't this become your standing strategy going forward? The AI just won't be able to defend against it. Its bad enough that the AI cannot manage a seaborn attack or properly use artillary or even put together a logical attack force. Anyhow, if you are performing a seaborn invasion, shouldn't you lose the initiative and suffer heavy casulties?

Anyways, playing civ is all about the enjoyment it brings. Sometimes ROP raping the AI and taking all its cities at once is just plain fun.