Who to attack: stronger or weaker?

[kring]

I would check out MPP, RoP in existence for both civs before deciding since you usually don't want to attack a civ that is MPP ed with the rest of the world. Then, after that, it would depend on relative location of each civ to my borders. It is one of those questions that fits in the : it depends on each individual circumstance.

 

[Redbled]

First civ I want to fight will be the one closest to me to expand my borders quite nicely. Playing on deity, it seems you can't catch up on techs till sometime between tanks and modern armor. And keeping any one civ from running away seems to work pretty well. So I usually will attack the civ with the most advanced technology. Never hurts to form MPP's either. Took out some tough Frenchies tonight in a matter of turns while 5 civs ganged up on em, enabling me to grab the 2 cities they owned on my border.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by BCLG100
it was an example not something that is going to happen

heh heh....no. not at all....heh heh heh...

 

[Archer 007]

civ2, it was just an example. it's doesn't have to be realisic.

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by Maple
I attack not based on power of the civ but based on what I would get from it. If I am going for domination, weaker civ. If I am going for conquest, stronger civ. If I need resources, which ever civ has em closest.

Best post

I don't have to say nothing but this: seconded.

 

[Hades]

Definitely weaklings, just to keep my troops in good shape. Also, the fewer AI civs they have to trade with, the slower their tech advancement it is going to be. However, nothing is more satisfying than defeating the strongest.

 

[JonFitt]

I just had the the situation come up where there were two civs on a continent split North-South. The North Babylonians were highly advanced, and the South Zulus were much less so.
I chose to attack the Zulus, and use their land as a staging post to attack the Babylonians.
Doing it the other way round would have made no sense, it would have been harder to take the Babylonians, and would have given the Zulus time to catch up.
But, it does depend on the situation so there is no hard and fast rule.

 

[WillJ]

I think it usually makes more sense to kill weakling civs until you reach and surpass the size and power of the strong guy, then kill him. :die:

 

[KDan]

Kill everyone, with no favoritism... *drool*

Hehe if England conquered all of europe we'd have that lousy NHS everywhere... they wouldn't be able to hold europe for any time before it did a massive culture flip to get away from the NHS. Not to mention the weather... I bet they'd manage to export the weather too...

Daniel

 

[Mephisto]

it's like eating. you want a nice meal, but you may not be able to eat a whole cow in a night. it really depends on one's appetite.

 

[Gundam]

offtopic--It's simply not going to happen"(I'm refering at that post with England -I don't think Englang could take on France not to say Germany P- bad example)
Now back to the topic I would say that U atack whoever is closer( only for logistical reasons only) and if u atack someone farway from u make it with a good reason' like capturing a wonder (spaceship or U.N building) or taking a Vital resource for your empire.ALWAYS atack in order to expand...no matter the strenght of your neigbour( exception of this rule is of course Persia -is not that wise to atack them couse they'll level the ground with you until late medival age -that 4.2 Imortals rules couse he can kill even a knight )

 

[Gundam]

offtopic--It's simply not going to happen"(I'm refering at that post with England -I don't think England could take on France not to say Germany P- bad example)