Rufus' First Strategy Question

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I've been playing Civ3 for a couple of weeks now, just fooling around on chieftan and warlord to get the feel of things. I tend to play "perfectionist" (in Civ2 terms), which I think translates into what's being called "builder" on this forum. In other words, I'm not a warmonger.

Here's the situation: The Egyptians, with whom I shared a ragged border, recently declared war on me (the Greeks). When the dust cleared, they'd lost 4 cities, including their capital. Moreover, their empire had been split in two: they now have 3 cities on a small penninsula south of my lands, and 4 more to the north (my empire stretches from sea to sea east-west). No one else is on the penninsula to the south, and the cities to the north are acting as a buffer between me and everyone else -- most immediately, the relatively powerful Germans.

So the question: In this situation, and given my non-warmonger leanings, is it better to
a) Finish them off (this is an option; I have a fairly large archer/hoplite army),
b) Take the southern penninsula, but leave the northern territory as a buffer between me and Germany, or
c) Keep them around and extort what I can from them.

My inclinations are to go with "c", but I'm not experienced enough with the AI or combat to know what ramifications this would have. What do you think? TIA.

[aaglo]

Kill them. Kill them all. The more land & cities you have, the more productive you will be, and the faster you will research and develop.

[Arrian]

Yeah, take them out. That way, you have zero chance of any of the captured cities flipping back to them, and though I don't know the map, those cities might be somewhat productive.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

I tend to say first b) and later a). I would conquer their southern territory. This makes you strategically less vulnerable, as two front wars are now impossible. The northern part I'd use as punching bag and leader generator, just don't take any cities and don't forget to take all their gold and maps (and techs, if they have), when you make peace, and wait 20 turns before you attack again. When they cease to give you more stuff, and war weariness becomes an issue, well, it's time for a).

[Solver]

Since there's no minimap attached, I say kill them. You say you have Hoplites and Archers, means it's ancient age. Then, it's crucial for you to have as much territory and cities as you can.

[vmxa1]

I prefer Sir Ralph's plan. Understand there are a lbunch of warmongers here. There is no good reason to leave a civ on two sides. You can clear out the south and then try C. The problems with C is that they could make RoP with others and open the door for troops to come in and stage and you could not attack them. Builder style is much harder IMO once you move up the ladder, you at least need to whack civs when they start wars.

[Jon Shafer]

I agree with Ralph also. I'm neither a builder or a warmonger, I just take what opportunities present themselves, and that's the best one. Plus, you get the added bonus of c there also while you keep them alive. The best of 3 worlds.

[Catt]

With the shared caveat as others regarding not seeing the map . . . I would almost certainly go with option b) -- take out the southern cities to secure your flank -- you will then be able to significantly reduce your troop concentration in the south without weakening your overall defense. I'd keep them alive and kicking to the north for the time being -- with only four cities (and I presume a blown GA), I suspect Cleo will be technically stagnant for a long time, which means her empire has become nothing more than a great leader farm. I might consider "renegotiating peace" and letting it fail every 20 turns -- once in a state of war, rather than conquering her, I'd try to generate a great leader by picking off war chariots as they come over the border, but conducting very few incursions and very few attempts to capture or destroy her cities -- you need her to have cities to produce cannon fodder for your troops. An early army (and the Heroic Epic) and maybe a nice ancient age wonder are within reach without much work or risk -- I'd try for it.

Catt

[bbaws]

I agree with Ralph, too. Up to a point. You can fight a war on two fronts if you plan for it, though in this case their doesn't seem to be any need too The buffer is a good idea. Although those gyppos hate you bad, now is the time to trade any luxuries and techs you can with them. Make yourself more attractive than the bully boy germs so that you can fet an RoP with the gyppos and possibly a later alliance with them against the germs. Then let the germs do the seigework and walk in to take the spoils.
Take as many gyp cities as you conveniently can without banging into the germs. Build military as much as you can to put the fear of beelzebub into the germs. Court the germs' other neighbours if you possibly can. Make the germs your whipping bot. Start thinking of that continent as yours.

[Theseus]

While I generally agree with Plan B, as expanded by the above posts... we are seriously missing some info here, beyond just a map.

Where are the luxuries? Who's got what techs?

BTW, how big can a Hoplite / Archer military be?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Thanks everybody! Good thoughtful input, which is no more than what I've come to expect of Apolyton.

Sorry I didn't post a map, btw; I posted the question from a different computer than the on I play on (translation: I was goofing off at work). The other thing I forgot to mention is that right now my northern border with the Egyptians is a choke-point that I control; if I conquer their northern cities, I'll have instead a long, ragged, open border with Germany. But here are some answers:

Originally posted by Theseus
While I generally agree with Plan B, as expanded by the above posts... we are seriously missing some info here, beyond just a map.

Where are the luxuries? Who's got what techs?

BTW, how big can a Hoplite / Archer military be?

1) I'm fairly well ahead in the tech race; not sure if I'm out front, but I'm close. All civs are in the very early medieval period, and the Egyptians have nothing left to offer me -- though I'm sure they'll continue to get techs from other civs, as the AI is wont to do. As for resources, the Egyptians have wine and horses, though none to spare of either, and I have neither. That's the most compelling reason for conquest.

2) Okay, not that big. But big enough for my style of play -- I've always preferred the small, strong strike force to the large army in the field. I'm sure I have enough Vet / Elite archers and hoplites to move swiftly through the southern penninsula with minimal losses; I think most of the Egyptian forces were destroyed when I took Thebes, and without a capital corruption should be hampering their production significantly.

I think I'll try plan B tonight. Thanks again.

[DaveMcW]

Palaces respawn instantly, unlike in Civ2. So at least half the Egyptian towns are corruption-free, and the others might have decent production too.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
Palaces respawn instantly, unlike in Civ2. So at least half the Egyptian towns are corruption-free, and the others might have decent production too.

Now that I did not know -- and I'm a read-the-manual type, too. Say goodnight, Cleo.

[Theseus]

Wine? Horses?!

CHARGE!

[Laertes]

You're going to need them horses - go for it.

ps welcome to Civ3 Rufus

[Catt]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
[. . . ] As for resources, the Egyptians have wine and horses, though none to spare of either, and I have neither. That's the most compelling reason for conquest. [. . . ]

Glad we all "caveat-ed" the advice . I still like Plan B as the approach, but you really should secure thw wine and horses for your benefit. A nice Plan B leaves Egypt with enough cities to produce units (cannon foddder) but without anything else of value to your civ (wine and horses).

Catt