Why is nerve gas used so often?

[Yitzi]

As the title says.  Because it can destroy a base fairly quickly if you try to conquer it and the base is at all well-defended, and people apparently want to conquer bases rather than destroy them, it's not really necessary against non-base units, it seems it would not be used that often even without considering its nature as an atrocity.

[JarlWolf]

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. Say you have forces that you flung out and taking a base in said territory would be too far to support with reinforcements from your other bases, and trying to hold the base with what you have is out of the question. Sometimes hit and run guerrilla sabotage is what your aiming for.

[Green1]

There is also no atrocity versus alien factions. You do not get the population from taking over even a nice alien base, anyways.

[Yitzi]

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.

While that does make sense sometimes, I would think that those would be a fairly small portion of conflicts until the late game.

There is also no atrocity versus alien factions. You do not get the population from taking over even a nice alien base, anyways.

Against aliens I get.

[JarlWolf]

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. And sometimes you just have to eradicate a faction early on in order to not stagnate.

The smaller the map, the more frequent this issue. I have experienced it on larger maps too, but to a lesser extent.

[Yitzi]

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.

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.

The smaller the map, the more frequent this issue. I have experienced it on larger maps too, but to a lesser extent.

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?

[JarlWolf]

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?

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.

Mind you, im not saying to slaughter every city, but those close to your own cities will just cause problems. Its sort of like having two apex predators in the same stretch of forest. One of them is going to out compete the other and one will die.

[Yitzi]

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.

Yes, I am primarily talking about momentum factions, as they're the ones most likely to be engaging in heavy warfare before the late game.

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.

Or just conquer them and have them only use squares that your original city isn't.
And the extra drones aren't that bad; even when first conquered, they're roughly comparable to the extra drones that Zak gets.  Annoying, but manageable, especially since it's only temporary.

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.

Why not take it and have it just only use the squares that your original city isn't?

[Pickly]

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.)

[Yitzi]

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.

[JarlWolf]

I'm asking about multiplayer.  Single player tends to be somewhat different, as it's less competitive and atrocities are more significant.

The vast majority of my experience is singleplayer, only played online once. So take my knowledge as you will.

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. Especially if the squares surrounding the bases are inhospitable, like arid desert or fungus, or even an outright lack of land (which would cause problems with minerals early game, unless your pirates. Then again if your pirates you rarely have to worry of constricted territory.). This thing is situational of course, 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.

[Yitzi]

Because the original city may need the square said city is on, and those around it.

Yeah, but how often does an enemy build that close to your bases?

which would cause problems with minerals early game, unless your pirates.

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.

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.

Definitely; the question is whether that's really the majority of captured bases.

[JarlWolf]

Yeah, but how often does an enemy build that close to your bases?

On smaller maps, often as factions are more often pressed together right from the start.

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.

[Yitzi]

On smaller maps, often as factions are more often pressed together right from the start.

Of course, on smaller maps there's a good chance that you'll do a substantial portion of your conquering before you even get HEC.

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.

Definitely.  It's probably a good thing that pirates pay so much for colony pods, as otherwise they'd expand like crazy (even more than they already do) and be even more overpowered than they already are.

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.

1-3 cities don't really justify getting nerve gas units in the way I've seen it discussed...

[JarlWolf]

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.