Take Or Leave The Capital

[SPARTAN-117]

When I am attacking an enemy civ, I normally just pillage the roads around their capital so their resources will be cut off. As I read through some of these strategies, some people say that they actually capture the capital. Which has the bigger and better effect?

1) pillage road around the capital
2) capture the capital

 

[Bamspeedy]

Depends on the situation. Taking the capital won't put the other cities into disorder from lack of luxuries, because the capital is automatically relocated. However, taking the capital does take away one very productive city away from the AI, and the new capital 'might' be placed in an ineffective place (not in the center of the empire, thus resulting in several corrupt cities). Usually I go for the capital, anyways (along with cities that have resources). To me it doesn't make sense to spend at least 8 units to pillage all the roads from the capital (assuming the terrain of the capital is well developed), plus the cities that do have the resources in their territory still can use them when not connected to the capital. I would probably send units to all the resources and pillage them, rather than pillage the capital's roads.

 

[BillChin]

3) capture all or most of the enemy cities

I vote for #3. Pillaging is good when you lack enough force to take cities (e.g. Calvary vs. Infantry). Otherwise plan to attack with a large force and take several cities in a few turns. Piecemeal wars are generally not worth the effort. Cutting off the actual resource squares (iron, horses, coal, rubber, aluminum) may be easier and more effective than cutting all roads to the capital.

 

[CivMonger]

why pillage the roads to the capital to cut off flow of luxuries and resources when you can just take the luxuries and resources for yourself Thats the way I hit enemy civs. Go for the balls I say. Current game, fighting japanese, thy have no more horses, salt peter, or iron. They are screwed bigtime. hehe.