The Abananaba Minor Gambit

[Robber Baron]

GoodFella (and others) have proposed a bold and ambitious diplomatic move that merits discussions in its own thread:

Originally posted by GoodFella
I'd like to discuss an idea that has been going around that several people, including myself, have been advocating.

We create a war against the two strongest nations in Abananaba MInor: Russia and Rome. We create military aliances with France and Greece against the two Abananaba Minor targets.

This accomplishes the following:
-Diverts the attentions of Greece and France away from where we'd like to expand into.
-Weakens our strongest rivals on Abananaba Minor.
-Hopefully turns Abananaba Minor into a backwater patchwork of harmless nations.

I've also been wondering for this war if it might not also be within our interest to create an ally in Babylonia. We sign a military alliance against Russia with them and a Right of Protection. We send over some troops via galley to Babylonia, weakening Russia for Babylonia and establishing a token presence for our other allies.

Reactions?
Some issues for analysis:
Would such a move be feasible, given our position (now, and in the wake of the war with America)?
When would the plan best be sprung?
Would it be worth our while to stir the pot and (very possibly) upset the balance of power in Abananaba Minor?
How much do these kinds of moves cost (in gold, and in resources to join the war)?
Would this kind of move in fact distract or divert Greece and/or France from northern expansion?

[Inverse Icarus]

Re: Machiavelli Institute: The Abananaba Minor Gambit

im going to number them for ease.

Originally posted by Robber Baron
GoodFella (and others) have proposed a bold and ambitious diplomatic move that merits discussions in its own thread:

1. Would such a move be feasible, given our position (now, and in the wake of the war with America)?
2. When would the plan best be sprung?
3. Would it be worth our while to stir the pot and (very possibly) upset the balance of power in Abananaba Minor?
4. How much do these kinds of moves cost (in gold, and in resources to join the war)?
5. Would this kind of move in fact distract or divert Greece and/or France from northern expansion?

1. No. Frist off, theres no way we could participate in the war, we'd just be playing puppeteer. Plus, the AIs might not be too happy to sign our allaince if we're weakened by the American war. I also cannot fathom the costs of the alliances.

-- assuming we have a decent military buildup post america --

2. I'd say after we kill France (if we do soon, and they couldnt be an ally i suppose), that way we sort of have a presence in the war. If we are all roaded up we might actually be able to annot some of them. We could also charge AIs for a ROP.

3. No. If Russia and Rome do a bunch of military alliances, they'll be able to take over the whole sub continent, if not more.

4. a lot probably.

5. it might, but ont to an extent to justify the money / resources we put into it.

[Harovan]

While it's well thought diplomatically , I doubt that it works long enough to take advantage from it. First off, I doubt, that they will make alliances for nil, and we have nothing valuable to give, not even a luxury. And second, the AIs avoid prolongued wars in the ancient age. Worst case is, that they take what ever we give them, and make peace just a few turns later.

I think we'll have enough opportunities for such clever diplomatic moves later in the game.

[Shiber]

If we're going to sign a military alliance with France then it might delay our later invasion to their territory. We wouldn't want to invade France while we're in an alliance with them, that would hurt our diplomatic image.
Other than that, I support this proposition. Let the AIs waste their efforts and resources in war while we expand.

I suggest that a committee be established to evaluate the cost of carrying out this plan.

[Robber Baron]

My reaction to the Gambit, at this stage in the game, falls more-or-less in line iwth Shiber's. It seems to me that we want to keep the civs in Ab. Minor in rough balance -- while we may well expand in this direction eventually, we need to be significantly stronger. And we don't want to help create a situation in which one civ down there grows dominant in the meantime.

Now, well down the road, assuming we manage to establish a strong presence in the central part of Abananaba, then I could see something like this. Set up an alliance, then move in with a two-pronged assualt, by land from the north, and by sea from our starting penninsula ( ). But that scenario assumes wresting effective control of what is now French territory, and building up military infrastructure (barracks, roads) there.

Before we are in a position to do that, let those civs deplete their resources competing against each other. So long as no one civ gains the upper hand (a situation that will bear careful monitoring) this might be one part of the map in which we don't need particularly Machiavellian diplomacy.

[Sheik]

This all looks good on paper but doing it is something else. I agree with Robber Baron, maybe later.