Diplomacy and keeping relations up

[kublikhan3]

Sounds like keeping the peace might require much, much money spent on it.

That's the way it works in the real world! At least CA nailed the realism on this point. Thanks for finding that link, Kobal2fr, I missed that thread in all the others.

I am finding it cheaper to be at constant war on all fronts rather than be at peace on any front. With constant war, you don't have to maintain any large garrisons at all, only enough to counter unrest. Put all your muscle in your armies. Then sack any city you conquer.

Where as if you wanted peace on a front, you must make sure all cities on that front have adequate garrisons less you look like a tempting target to your neighbor. Plus you must then send constant tribute to your neighbor less your relations deteriorate to abysmal.

Sacking of cities more than offsets the higher army cost vs. maintaining large garrisons. For those recently conquered huge cities that rebel with small garrisons, just sack em 2-3 times in a row, they soon learn not to rebel anymore.

Doesn't seem very realistic to me, having war cheaper than peace. Nor encouraging empires to wage multifront battles instead of concentrating on 1 or 2 enemies at a time.