To take or not to take?

[HyJinkx]

Normally I do not concentrate on peaceful games but I have been working more on it the last couple games so I would like to ask for a little advice here. The basics of what is happening is that I have been playing as Pedro today and was trying to keep a mostly peaceful game going. I declared one war early on to take a settler from Vicky that she had just taken from Poland the turn before and left on my doorstep. This ended with me destroying one of her ships she used to take it and then settling for peace a few turns later. Pass another 45 or so turns and Gil and Vicky decide to declare on me again but it was easily stopped again without entering either of their lands. So far I have maintained pretty good relations with everyone other than Vicky who has been at war with almost every civ and finally took Poland's capital. I decided to try a war of liberation since I have never used it before but this is where I am confused and could use help. I have freed the polish capital and proceeded to pillage almost everything Vicky has to tame her down a bit but now she is willing to give me just about everything for peace.

Pedro1

• HyJinkx
• May 14, 2017

Possible to take 1

Pedro2

• HyJinkx
• May 14, 2017

Possible to take 2

First is if I take the cities she will give me in the peace deal will they effect John Curtin's agenda? I am in good standing with him and would like to maintain that as it was one of the reasons I declared the liberation war. She will give me three cities(any mix) of my choosing but none look that good to me so I was curious if it would be worth it?
If it doesn't effect John then could I take them and give them away to another civ just to weaken her a little more and maybe give them something to focus on as I am not sure when things may turn sour. Any suggestions here would be great. They are all pillaged except for Stoke-Upon-Trent which was to far out of the way to visit. I just figure that having to repair them may make it not worth it on Epic speed.
Here's my current happiness if that will help. I already built the Colosseum but I do plan on trying to Pedro's achievement this game.
Just leave her the cities but take all her gold and luxuries and sail back home?

Pedro3

• HyJinkx
• May 14, 2017

Happiness

Any advice on what would be the best way to handle this would be appreciated.

 

[chazzycat]

The wording of Curtin's agenda says he dislikes "civs at war who are occupying enemy cities". You'll be occupying cities, but no longer at war (assuming you made peace with Gilgamesh), so I think you should be fine. But if another civ randomly DOWs you then he could stop liking you. Accepting the deal then selling off the cities ASAP sounds like a great plan to me.

 

[Victoria]

Pillaging her lands is a great start....
Liberating a city is better. It gave you +20 with the civ you liberated and +5 with everyone else.
It also gave you -32 warmonger points with everyone for liberating a city so pretty good.

John's -6 for occupying is mostly counteracted by +5 liberation but it's your call.
I like the idea of selling cities And ending up with +5 with John.

I'm not advising what you do, just pointing out some good choices.

 

[HyJinkx]

Thank you both for the responses. I was just wanting to try and keep it civil but she has been warmongering a lot this game. I will probably go ahead and take a couple cities in the peace deal and then sell them off to Poland to even things out. I really want to keep my allies this game since I haven't been playing that way much in Civ 6.

 

[Kinestic]

If you gain a city you never captured in a peace deal, you will not gain any warmonger penalties from it, including the -18 for occupying on of their citys. if you get them to cead a city you captured in the war, you will still have some warmonger penalties. Exploit this as much as possible by pillaging lands and reducing enemy citys health down to zero, and you can gain half their empire for neligable warmonger penalties.