That is if your aim to to conquer. Sometimes genocidal tendencies are for bases that just compete with the resource allocation of your own, such as if your base borders another faction's nearby. Killing off the one base for another one's growth.
Plus it could be simply for killing off a faction.
There is also no atrocity versus alien factions. You do not get the population from taking over even a nice alien base, anyways.
While that does make sense sometimes, I would think that those would be a fairly small portion of conflicts until the late game.
While that does make sense sometimes, I would think that those would be a fairly small portion of conflicts until the late game.
It's quite common early game actually, especially in the first era when everyone is expanding. If you start near an AI, territory is conflicted and it becomes a settler rush.
The smaller the map, the more frequent this issue. I have experienced it on larger maps too, but to a lesser extent.
If you start near an AI, you might want to destroy a few bases so there's room to expand (unless you like to play momentum, where lots of small bases is usually better), but most of them you'll want to take rather than destroy.If they are in good locations perhaps. But often, in the mad settler rush, if you start near an AI you want to eradicate them or they will close off your growth and stagnate you. If your playing a momentum faction (My style is more of an industrial strongman, sort of a attrition inducing builder if you will.) then perhaps taking the bases would be better as you can snatch technologies and points of operation for your territory. But if these cities are just conflicting in resource consumption (as in they are too close to your own cities) its best to just destroy them so your original city, which won't be rioting and what not (unlike a conquered city), to expand and grow.
I'd expect the opposite: With a smaller map, more of your targets are close enough to not lose much to inefficiency, so are worth capturing intact instead of wrecking?
If your playing a momentum faction (My style is more of an industrial strongman, sort of a attrition inducing builder if you will.) then perhaps taking the bases would be better as you can snatch technologies and points of operation for your territory.
But if these cities are just conflicting in resource consumption (as in they are too close to your own cities) its best to just destroy them so your original city, which won't be rioting and what not (unlike a conquered city), to expand and grow.
On a smaller map you typically start near an AI more. And often times your pushing borders like a pair of rams butt heads. And in my experience at least, the enemy typically places cities near it's borders or outside them, and these may be close to your own cities and then you have two cities in the same vicinity trying to grab resources from each other, the borders cutting a resource off from your city as well.
In those cases, you just want to burn the thing to the ground.
Is this for multiplayer, or something you commonly do in single player? (I've never used nerve gas, or seen AI's use nerve gas, although this is in single player only.)
I'm asking about multiplayer. Single player tends to be somewhat different, as it's less competitive and atrocities are more significant.
Why not take it and have it just only use the squares that your original city isn't?
Because the original city may need the square said city is on, and those around it.
which would cause problems with minerals early game, unless your pirates.
but I'd rather just get rid of an excessive base that isn't doing me any good and is just a parasite to another. Its like having a 5th wheel. Its redundant to have and it's just going to cost more to make/maintain.
Yeah, but how often does an enemy build that close to your bases?
Although for much of the game, minerals are actually the pirates' weak point, as sea squares tend to be light on minerals even with their boost.Yes, but what I meant by that is that compared to most factions pirates don't have this expansion problem as factions don't take to the sea extensively until a later date, and by then the pirates could've expanded a large empire. And yes, minerals in water are less then on land, which is exactly the reason why this situation can occur more often then you'd think.
Definitely; the question is whether that's really the majority of captured bases.Depends on map size. Typically on smaller maps, the first faction you encounter that is right next to you, typically 1-3 cities are just parasitic. The rest are usually fine to just take over and integrate into your empire.
On smaller maps, often as factions are more often pressed together right from the start.
Yes, but what I meant by that is that compared to most factions pirates don't have this expansion problem as factions don't take to the sea extensively until a later date, and by then the pirates could've expanded a large empire.
Depends on map size. Typically on smaller maps, the first faction you encounter that is right next to you, typically 1-3 cities are just parasitic. The rest are usually fine to just take over and integrate into your empire.
Another reason for the use of nerve gas: Some people just like committing atrocities. Yes, there is some people who like to roleplay ruthless monsters.
Another reason for the use of nerve gas: Some people just like committing atrocities. Yes, there is some people who like to roleplay ruthless monsters.
I presume they usually play as Yang?