TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
AFTER THE PATCH I am not purrfectly sure if A.Is buy cities anymore...in my latest game when I monstered the Chinese once again and in the peace treaty managed to squeeze them for money and a small city.
I went to war with the Zulus which meant that city was very vulnerable and I was not prepared to go to a grand effort to defend it (it had one non-jungle square...I demanded it because I could ) and I tried to sell it. No way, not f or 1 gold even So I gave it to them as I figured it would be better that way.
DIRECTLY CONCERNING THIS STRATEGY...I can see how it can be cost effective BUT I find that being at war with a powerful enemy (I'm playing at Monarch level) which has something to offer people can mean they bring in more nations to fight. In my first game on a world map my war with Babylon which never saw Babylonian and my English troops meeting, yet saw fighting for 9 civilisation as I paid for nations to join me in the fight as the Babylonians had bought other civs to fight me!
Thus if you plan to pursue this "endless raid" strategy I'd expect a flaring up of other states versus your civilisation! A stable world is not encouraged by you being at war with another civilisation.
So far in the wars I engage in I have found the A.I to do enough to require me to take an active part...I have had to actively defend my territories and have had to usually bring about some settlement by force of arms or treaty. Not always have I been the one receiving tribute after a peace treaty! This paragraph sums up to me much of the civ2/civ3 difference...in civ2 I rarely had to increase my military to win wars, I made do with whatever I had knocking round...in civ3 I actively have to prepare for war and execute it should it be declared
I went to war with the Zulus which meant that city was very vulnerable and I was not prepared to go to a grand effort to defend it (it had one non-jungle square...I demanded it because I could ) and I tried to sell it. No way, not f or 1 gold even So I gave it to them as I figured it would be better that way.
DIRECTLY CONCERNING THIS STRATEGY...I can see how it can be cost effective BUT I find that being at war with a powerful enemy (I'm playing at Monarch level) which has something to offer people can mean they bring in more nations to fight. In my first game on a world map my war with Babylon which never saw Babylonian and my English troops meeting, yet saw fighting for 9 civilisation as I paid for nations to join me in the fight as the Babylonians had bought other civs to fight me!
Thus if you plan to pursue this "endless raid" strategy I'd expect a flaring up of other states versus your civilisation! A stable world is not encouraged by you being at war with another civilisation.
So far in the wars I engage in I have found the A.I to do enough to require me to take an active part...I have had to actively defend my territories and have had to usually bring about some settlement by force of arms or treaty. Not always have I been the one receiving tribute after a peace treaty! This paragraph sums up to me much of the civ2/civ3 difference...in civ2 I rarely had to increase my military to win wars, I made do with whatever I had knocking round...in civ3 I actively have to prepare for war and execute it should it be declared