war weariness or warmonger? Seems you're saying the former, but the latter would make more sense... although logic doesn't always fit in to the rules of the game.
The eternal dilemma... when to stop taking cities....
- Thread starter Sherlock
- Start date
Photi
Governor
Unspeakable things happen when the enemy pillages, war weariness makes total sense.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
War weariness
right, when I pillage another civ, it makes sense for that civ to suffer war weariness. The original post seems to indicate that when I pillage another civ's terrain, I get war weariness, which makes less sense.
I like to keep going until they're in an unrecoverable position, down to 1-2 cities that look like they'd make good trading posts. This game was basically already decided by turn ~200 but it was just snowballing so exponentially I had to see it in full bloom, so I opted to play another ~400 pointless turns while watching Better Call Saul. Originally, I wanted to see 100k GPT but it didn't look like it'll go much past 85k once all the side hubs got finished, and every turn was taking like 8 minutes to process, so I quit. This game was current patch, vanilla, only Aztec DLC, 20 civs 24 city states huge inland sea deity
Last edited:
Disgustipated
Deity
Holy cow. I thought I was insane for conquering every civilization city on a large (can't really go larger than that) Greatest Earth map (with no barbs, which means more cities). Even that took dedication. Looking at the above picture has me flabbergasted. I'm not sure what else to say.
I think I had around 70 trade routes at the end, nothing like that picture.
I think I had around 70 trade routes at the end, nothing like that picture.
Similar threads
