Post by pathdoc on Oct 20, 2017 10:54:12 GMT
a) in the context of campaign missions.
b) in the context of conquests where you are rushing for princesses.
c) in the context of conquests that you are playing just for fun.
For me, the answer to (c) is clearly "not much at all". In fact, even turning them hostile doesn't matter so long as you have a large enough army already to crush them before the number of turns runs out (I primarily play on a 99 turn platform, so I still have to worry about this).
The answer to (a) and (b) I am not so sure of. In the case of (a), is a power you have turned neutral less likely to attack your enemies at a critical point in the battle? In the case of (b), Antonio Luna warns against letting the Indians turn neutral when rushing for Sakurako or Lan as GB in 1812, so that implies to me that some negative consequences must accrue, but he did not detail what these were.
b) in the context of conquests where you are rushing for princesses.
c) in the context of conquests that you are playing just for fun.
For me, the answer to (c) is clearly "not much at all". In fact, even turning them hostile doesn't matter so long as you have a large enough army already to crush them before the number of turns runs out (I primarily play on a 99 turn platform, so I still have to worry about this).
The answer to (a) and (b) I am not so sure of. In the case of (a), is a power you have turned neutral less likely to attack your enemies at a critical point in the battle? In the case of (b), Antonio Luna warns against letting the Indians turn neutral when rushing for Sakurako or Lan as GB in 1812, so that implies to me that some negative consequences must accrue, but he did not detail what these were.
