Prune or Genocide?

Inverse Icarus · July 6, 2002, 15:11

PLEASE READ ALL POSTS BEFORE VOTING. THANK YOU.

Without picking a target yet (there are various debates / polls on that), should our first target be "pruned" or completely wiped off the map?

they both have their Advantages, so i'll briefly go over them.

GENOCIDE

PROS
one benefit of Genocide is obvious, the Civ just flat out wont be there anymore. it would give us a direction to expand towards with less opposition.

we may get 2 or 3 cities by conquering. we may get more from pruning.

genocide means more attacks, more chances for a GL.

with a civ wiped out, there will be less competition for resoures near the area.

we would get many workers from genocide.

CONS
more attacks means more randomness. chances at losing units will be greater, so we must be as careful as possible.

PRUNING

PROS
pruning a civ (ie taking a few cities but letting them live) often yields more cities than genocide (after we conquer a few, we get more for a peace treaty).

we would probably get a few techs if we prune, as well as some gold, maybe workers.

the AI would be in "subjigated" mode for a while, and will probably be prone to demands / fair trades. They may be "subjigated" for quite a long time if the AI decides to "shun" them.

CONS
an AI could finish them off and gain cities / techs whatever, and we lose the trade partner.

we could make an enemy for the rest of the game, and leave him standing on our doorstep.

after pruning, the AI may get better weapons and it will become harder to fight them again.

if you have any pros or cons, please post them. people should read the entire thread before voting, and i may not have covered it all.

thank you.

this post brought to you by supreme military commander UberKruX, your friendly neighborhood genocidial maniac... i mean nice guy. not genocidial i swear. i love pink. yea... Heil Apolyton.

Inverse Icarus · July 6, 2002, 15:14

oh, and you have 2 days.

GePap · July 6, 2002, 15:27

Uber:

I don't think that choice numbe 1 is really genocide, that implies not only taking all the cities of the other civ, but also razing all the cities we took. If we keep any, then its just a brutal conquest, but not genocide.

Inverse Icarus · July 6, 2002, 15:32

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Uber:

I don't think that choice numbe 1 is really genocide, that implies not only taking all the cities of the other civ, but also razing all the cities we took. If we keep any, then its just a brutal conquest, but not genocide.

yes, technically you are right. genocide really isnt the term, it would be like "unconditional defeat"

Sheik · July 6, 2002, 15:44

I am in the DIA and I say we should destroy them.

rendelnep · July 6, 2002, 15:49

same here

Jon Shafer · July 6, 2002, 17:47

If America is our first target, then wipe them out.

Harovan · July 6, 2002, 19:30

Pruning, of course. Wiping them out so early is nonsense. Better let them build a few more cities and research a few more techs for us. We can wipe them out soon enough.

Jon Shafer · July 6, 2002, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Pruning, of course. Wiping them out so early is nonsense. Better let them build a few more cities and research a few more techs for us. We can wipe them out soon enough.

While the Banana God is merciful, I doubt our legions of Banana warriors will be successful for very long.

OPD · July 6, 2002, 20:21

Any city near enough to our capital should be taken, if it wipes them out then its there own fault for building cities in territory thats rightfully ours.

JSeeds · July 6, 2002, 23:22

Assuming we hit the states first, it should be genocide.

UnOrthOdOx · July 6, 2002, 23:25

Pruning will indeed prove more profitable. Destruction can come later. If we trim them properly, we can keep them from resources, therefore our troops will remain effective.

Jon Shafer · July 6, 2002, 23:26

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Pruning will indeed prove more profitable. Destruction can come later. If we trim them properly, we can keep them from resources, therefore our troops will remain effective.

And where are we to expand to?

Verto · July 6, 2002, 23:50

Quote:

And where are we to expand to?

That is indeed the question...Peace through war! Progress through conquest!

So sayeth this citizen...

UnOrthOdOx · July 7, 2002, 00:23

Quote:

And where are we to expand to?

Well, we sue for peace with Lincoln, gaining whatever possible, then find a second target. Oscillating wars. During the 20 years of 'peace' with America, the will likely not have many cities by the end, having pop rushed everything for troops during the war, they will be ripe for the picking, and have nothing left of value to us.

Jon Shafer · July 7, 2002, 00:38

I feel that can only succeed with 100% support. I doubt that most people will desire constant war like that (well, not constant, but close to it), and unless we can effectively impliment oscillating wars with full support, then that plan will fail. The same rings true for the whole "strip them of everything they've got" principle... most won't like it if we constantly pop-rush units, etc. In addition to that, our reputation will be horrible after so many wars, so the citizens who care about that will be upset about such a proposal as well. I just feel with our current political situation, we need to go all or nothing, while support for a war still exists.

UnOrthOdOx · July 7, 2002, 00:44

So many wars?

Two should give us enough room to then procede in many ways. As long as we are not breaking treaties, reputation will be fine. Eliminating hurts reptation as well, you know...

Jon Shafer · July 7, 2002, 01:14

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
So many wars?

Two should give us enough room to then procede in many ways. As long as we are not breaking treaties, reputation will be fine. Eliminating hurts reptation as well, you know...

Even two 'pruning' wars is unlikely to foster much support from the pacifists. And if we can eliminate one civ early on, the reputation hit will be less important than it would be later, when embassies, military alliances, MPPs, etc. exist.

astrologix · July 7, 2002, 07:21

I am with Sir Ralph. To wipe them out so early our cities will be forced to build units for a long time : our culture and economy will suffer. IMHO, we should first build our army (3-4 spearman, 10-12 archers), then attack the Americans, take the two cities near of our lands (Washington, New York), then make peace. This will give us two or three (Boston?) more cities and some techs...

MrWhereItsAt · July 7, 2002, 07:24

Highly dependent.

As for America/France or whatever, take all their good land. No more and no less. If we wipe them out, fine. If we leave some banana-infested hellhole jungle cities, fine. Just get that land!

Harovan · July 7, 2002, 08:15

Yes, oscillating wars. The base of all strategies. This is pretty much how this game works best, and how the history of real mankind looks like. Who played the nice guy in 2000BC, doesn't exist anymore. Period. We'll succeed to be the nice guys, when the land grab phase is over. And about reputation: Don't break treaties. Declare war (or let peace negotiatons fail) in time, before crossing their borders. Wait 20 turns before attack them again. They'll be furious, who cares?, but we won't suffer any diplomatic penalties.

Apart from this, who butchers the cow that gives cities and techs? Prune! Prune the next civ. Prune the first again. Grow this way.

trevor · July 7, 2002, 13:39

I'm with most of you guys here, I say pruning. It also would help our economy at home.

LordImpact · July 7, 2002, 13:47

we need America's fertile lands badly. Wipe them out then we can pimp France for all shes worth.

--Impact

Panag · July 7, 2002, 13:52

hi ,

we should give those species a couple places , in return they shall give us money , .....

have a nice day

Epistax · July 7, 2002, 13:53

heh I'm sorry I didn't exactly understand the options even after reading, so I'll just explain that what I'd support currently is taking as much land from the Americans as is good land. If they settle in the jungle, we can let them clear it themselves then take'm later when it may be less of a bother. They may also be used as aggresion pact victims later to improve relations with a waring faction.

If they settled in a good spot, capture the base, lest ye waist valuable resources. If we can make better use of the land, raze it for the sake of the long term.

I don't think we need to worry about removing any civilizations completely at the moment-- we need to establish ourselves as at least slightly dominant.

Purple · July 7, 2002, 15:08

Expand or die is the only winning strategy. So keep advancing the borders, whatever it takes.

Specific cases depend on circumstances. Make peace only if we get something substantial out of it, either in tangible terms or geopolitically.

So, I vote for flexibility (choice #3).

Darkworld Ark · July 7, 2002, 15:16

Uber, another pro for genocide is that we'd be one step closer to a Conquest victory.

Turambar · July 7, 2002, 15:19

I'm always up for a bit of genocide

.

Panag · July 7, 2002, 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkworld Ark
Uber, another pro for genocide is that we'd be one step closer to a Conquest victory.

hi ,

but in order to keep that army , we need money , so keep from each species one or two cities for trade , ...

have a nice day

punkbass2000 · July 7, 2002, 15:43

I think the pro under genocide 'more leaders' is misleading. IN theory, if we turned a civ into a 'punching bag' to generate leaders rather than destroy them, then we would get more leaders. This should be a pro for pruning, not genocide.