Three Questions

[Some guy]

1) So let's say I wanted to kill everybody with military. Should I just destroy all cities except for the capital and focus on building my own cities when it's convenient? Or are captured cities worth it?

2) Is building a big empire a viable strategy? I want to exploit the "Order" Social Policies tree and spam military units or possibly convert it to a market/ science output juggernaut.

3) What would you say should be your first game play steps up until you have your first three cities built?

Thanks.

 

[The_Quasar]

1) So let's say I wanted to kill everybody with military. Should I just destroy all cities except for the capital and focus on building my own cities when it's convenient? Or are captured cities worth it?

it depends on the city... but mostly yes... you'll need quite a buffer of happiness, as when you initially raze a city, it causes a lot of unhappiness, especially big cities, and they take a long time to raze too... worst I've ever had was +30 unhappiness.

2) Is building a big empire a viable strategy? I want to exploit the "Order" Social Policies tree and spam military units or possibly convert it to a market/ science output juggernaut.

big is beautiful, unless you want to use culture, or go for a culture win. but make sure your cities are viable, as too many poorly located cities can badly affect the overall situation.

3) What would you say should be your first game play steps up until you have your first three cities built?

Thanks.

That depends on where you've been planted, and the civ you're playing... I tend to go for a worker, a monument, a scout and a settler initially, not necessarily in that order. However, circumstances can change that. You need to play what you see, and bear in mind what you cannot see. I will tend to go for luxuries immediately, and try to get three cities up and running as soon as I can. Then I often pause a little to develop them, then expand again, sometimes quite quickly. Don't expand quicker than your happiness or gold will allow, or you'll run into trouble. This is where the plant is important, sometimes it's easy to expand very quickly (plenty of luxuries around), and sometimes it's hard, as there are few, and lots of desert! Winning from a bad plant is more satisfying, but can be a real task on the higher levels.

Good luck!

 

[wcbarney]

1) So let's say I wanted to kill everybody with military. Should I just destroy all cities except for the capital and focus on building my own cities when it's convenient? Or are captured cities worth it?

I am your classic warmonger and have won dozens of domination victories at the Emperor level. I don't just go for the "easy" domination victory by conquering the capitols; I conquer each & every city & little burg on the map. I almost never raze captured cities. Because my goal is to beat my own highest score (currently 10,077), keeping the cities as puppets adds to my score. Once in awhile I will raze a little conquered city (pop 1 - 3), one which offers absolutely nothing -- no happiness buildings, no luxuries.

As far as your quetion "... are captured cities worth it?" YES! All your puppet cities have a gold focus, so you can cease worrying about gold and just concentrate on building your military in your core cities. I usually have only 3 or 4 core cities, along with dozens of puppets. I annex cites once in awhile -- those that are very productive. Then I buy a factory, all the happiness buildings, etc., and put them to work producing bombers or such. Plus, the increased population of your puppet cities increases your science beakers a lot -- especially because the larger puppet cities will have all the science buildings. Plus, after conquering about half the world you will find that you are raking in 1000g to 2000g or more every single turn. So you can buy alliances with every single CS on the map -- thereby increasing your happiness + your culture + your science. So, bottom line: Puppet cities are totally a win-win.!

it depends on the city... but mostly yes... you'll need quite a buffer of happiness, as when you initially raze a city, it causes a lot of unhappiness, especially big cities, and they take a long time to raze too... worst I've ever had was +30 unhappiness.

I've never had overwhelming problems with happiness when conquering the entire world (Emperor level, standard size, standard maps, standard speed). I go for all the happiness policies (except the Piety tree, which I avoid because I like the Rationalism tree better). There are almost enough happiness buildings in the captured cities to counter the increased unhappiness from higher population & more cities, but every so often I might have to annex a large city just to buy happiness buildings.

-- Cliff in Virginia

 

[Some guy]

Wait, wait, wait... so razing gives you PERMANENT unhappiness?? That's lame... I've had the impression that it was the only option with all of the complaining on this site about conquering cities and merely invading for the sake of resources.

I go for all the happiness policies

I'm guessing you don't go for AUTOCRACY then, even though you're a warmongerer?

Don't expand quicker than your happiness or gold will allow, or you'll run into trouble

How do I know when there's enough to expand?

 

[Save_Ferris]

1) So let's say I wanted to kill everybody with military. Should I just destroy all cities except for the capital and focus on building my own cities when it's convenient? Or are captured cities worth it?

Depends. Once, I wanted to destroy a city but it had some great resources nearby. So, I razed it (didn't need the ) and founded a city there using a settler. If you don't have a settler on hand, destroy it unless luxuries in its borders make up for the

 

[Strategist83]

Razing cities does not give you permanent unhappiness.

As for Autocracy, it really isn't necessary because the AI is so bad at waging war. You can easily beat the AI without either Autocracy or Honor. The best social policies as a warmonger in single player are in Piety. Theocracy from Piety will allow you to put off annexing cities to build happiness buildings for quite a while.

If you go on multiplayer, however, (which is where the real challenge of Civ5 is - the AI is such a joke single player can't really be taken seriously), Autocracy will prove extremely helpful if you're going for domination. Indeed, having Autocracy in multiplayer may very well spell the difference between victory and defeat for the warmonger.

 

[squadbroken]

Wait, wait, wait... so razing gives you PERMANENT unhappiness?? That's lame... I've had the impression that it was the only option with all of the complaining on this site about conquering cities and merely invading for the sake of resources.

No, it gives temporary unhappiness. However, depending on your current happiness and the size of the city being razed, it might be enough to push you below -10 for a number of turns, which can be very bad.

So to be safe, have enough happiness to absorb the hit.

 

[Some guy]

Are military XP buildings worth it?

 

[squadbroken]

Are military XP buildings worth it?

If you're playing a warmonger, and you can afford the hammers and maintenance, there's no reason not to.

 

[Unhappy Ood]

Im a warmonger and usually build bararcks, Heoric Epic and Amoury in capital and at least barracks in annexed cities (although keep most captured cities as puppets) close to where my next war will be