 |
|  |
 |
|
Tillur
|
|
1. Is it really good to start a war at the beginning when the opponents aren't ready and all army's are weak?I normally hold of until 750 BC - 500 AD. And sometimes I hold off until a computer builds a city near my city boundries. I just destroy that city and a few others and then I get a peace treaty if possible. But most of the time when I want to elimanate another player I build up a huge army and march them in at around 1500 AD. If I go to war earlier it's just to weaken them or to destroy nearby cities.
2. Is it better to keep your city borders conected or seperated and spread out?I always keep them connected unless I get a settler or city from the barbarian tribe things. It's easier to move with them all connected because you can build roads, mines and irragate.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
#1 It all depends. Consider both of your UUs, the Golden Ages they'll cause, and the strength, advancement, etc. of both of your Empires. Also, consider if you'll get anything out of it--sure, it's enough to weaken an enemy early on, but it simply kicks ass when you weaken them and then beat two or three techs out of them at the peace negotiating table.
#2 Agree with vmxa--best to connect if possible. (There are a few rare situations where you won't want that, but they will make themselves obvoius as you play more.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ShadowPresident
|
|
If another civ encroaches on mine, I take a risk and build a city nearby in hopes that my culture will impress the other into flipping over to my side. I once took over an entire civ that way. Sure, it was a small civ and I did have to invade the capital since it can't flip, but it was as close as it comes to a bloodless coup.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|