Machiavelli Institute: Who should be our First Ally?

[Harovan]

Papa Chubby:

In this stage of the game, I would attack the French with archers/spears even if I knew, that they have iron hooked up and can build swordsmen. The difference is, by my experience, that they do not build them that early. All they build in the REX phase is settler-spearman-settler-spearman and so on. They may throw 1-2 swordsmen in, but that was it. No threat. In a recent game I pruned Persia, who had iron, with archers. Their immortals were impressive... all 2 of them! After this, I cut their access to iron and, bye bye immortals.

Robber Baron:

Call me a whore, but I trade with whom I can make most money at the moment. I do not believe in geopolitical alliances, at least not in this game. EU2 might be another cup of tea.

[DAVOUT]

This discussion makes really things clearer.
We probably not need an ally against the French ; we would need one against the Greeks, but it is probably not wise to attract a strong civ in this area, so we will have to do the job alone. After that we will make alliances dictated by the circumstances, alliances which will be easier if we have a good reputation and if we have made the other civs happy with the trading.
The last word is for Sir Ralph : we have to be strong by ourselves.
... That's the basis for a good diplomacy.

[Spiffor]

In Civ3, you can have a good diplomacy even if you're weak (I won my first diplo victory with only 7 Indian cities). But being strong helps
Even if we shouldn't talk about "allies" for now, we should think of whom we'd like to see being happier with us, for future alliances if needed.

But for this, we should agree on whom we should conquer first. And othe Machiavelli institute (or the Military academy) can't take this decision alone. Once we conquer America, we'll have to discuss a long time about this, and then poll.

Once we know our expansion plans, the question about allies or permanent friends will be much more important.

[DAVOUT]

Only recommendations are made by academies and institutes ; it is obvious, but it does not hurt to state it again.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
we have to be strong by ourselves.... That's the basis for a good diplomacy.

The best!

And I think we should keep good relationships with everyone, except France and America, who settle unrightful on our god-given territory. I hope, nobody disagrees on this.

Especially with Greece. Until we have Knights, that is!

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Call me a whore, but I trade with whom I can make most money at the moment. I do not believe in geopolitical alliances, at least not in this game. EU2 might be another cup of tea.

Hmm. Let me give you a scenario to illustrate what I have in mind here by "alliances" and geopolitics. Say we establish ourselves in what is now American territory, take on France, obtain iron, and settle in to build for awhile. Then say the Aztecs are getting huge, dominating the northeastern part of the continent, and they declare war on the Germans, and the Germans don't have either iron horses. In that scenario, I could envision providing iron and/or horses to the Germans, if it looked as though they were going to be able to put up a fight, just to check Aztec expansion. Maybe not sign a formal alliance (wouldn't necessarily want to piss off swarms of jaguar warriors). Just help the Germans out on the side a little.
At the very least, it would be worth investigating the situation carefully, to weigh the merits of "cashing in" for the most money, versus serving a long term interest.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Robber Baron


Hmm. Let me give you a scenario to illustrate what I have in mind here by "alliances" and geopolitics. Say we establish ourselves in what is now American territory, take on France, obtain iron, and settle in to build for awhile. Then say the Aztecs are getting huge, dominating the northeastern part of the continent, and they declare war on the Germans, and the Germans don't have either iron horses. In that scenario, I could envision providing iron and/or horses to the Germans, if it looked as though they were going to be able to put up a fight, just to check Aztec expansion. Maybe not sign a formal alliance (wouldn't necessarily want to piss off swarms of jaguar warriors). Just help the Germans out on the side a little.
At the very least, it would be worth investigating the situation carefully, to weigh the merits of "cashing in" for the most money, versus serving a long term interest.

Don't you think the Germans would not pay for that ? So you would be cashing in the most money in serving your long term interest. Worst than a whore a machiavelic one !

Exactly the kind of reasoning we expect from the Machiavel Institute !

[Inverse Icarus]

We don't need any alliances as of yet.

America will be subjigated with ease.

France would be a pushover if our government gave us the tools to fight them with.

if we got alliances agaist either of them, the AI might take key cities, and might extermiate them before we can sue for peace. Remember, we have to wait our the 20 turn period before making peace IF we sign an alliance.

Anything beyond that cannot be forcasted.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by UberKruX
We don't need any alliances as of yet.
.... Anything beyond that cannot be forcasted.

Fair enough. Certainly I agree we don't want to get entangled in binding alliances now -- we want to keep the spoils of victory to ourselves.
I do think, however, we want to keep our eye on other civs, and be maneuvering for position among them. If one gets too big, we might have to resort to diplomacy to check their growth. We need to be alert, that's all.
And in the meantime, it's always fun to scheme.

[Kuciwalker]

Germany.

Germany will act as a buffer between us and the Aztecs. Even if we end up declaring war on the Aztecs, they will attack Germany, because it's between them and us.

[Timeline]

I'm glad Ralph isn't our Foreign Affairs Minister

[Harovan]

Any why? Because I consider alliances in that early state to be useless?

[Captain]

Obvious I know, but I just wanted to point out that the game mechanics are set up in such a way that alliances are against someone, not for anyone.

In this case, I agree. Everyone is a rival. We should not seek to help any rival, except where helping that rival diminishes a more dangerous rival. We must be choosing the lesser of two evils. If we do not need to, then if anyone is expanding at the expense of a rival, it should be us. The basis for alliances should be who can best help us achieve our goals against this other more dangerous rival, while also not creating a more dangerous future threat. In general, I espouse the view that we should ally with weak rivals against strong ones with the singular goal of empowering ourselves in relative standing. I would not advocate ever allying with a more powerful rival against a weaker one, except to avoid having that rival declare against us.

So I'd rather our Institute look at it from this perspective. Not who do we help, but who is our target. Which threat shall we counter by use of an alliance?

I would encourage our Institute to develop a file for each nation and a relative THREAT rating, along with up-to-date plans for countering such threats -including possible alliances. Such a rating might be something like this:

America !!!
Minor, decreasing, immediate, bordering, long-term
Case Teal, Plan Eagle (current)

Aztecs !!!
Moderate, increasing, non-immediate, distant, long term
Size & expansion
None, possible alliance with germans

Germans !!!
Moderate, increasing, non-immediate, close, long term
Proximity to Incense Valley

Greeks !!
Nuisance, stable/increasing, non-immediate, bordering, long term
Hoplites, proximity
None

France !
Nuisance, stable, non-immediate, bordering, long-term
Case Pink (obsolete)

Persian !
Moderate, stable, non-immediate, very far, long term
Immortals
None

Chinese (?)
Unknown
None


The above are just examples...

... and I've completely forgotten what I was even talking about. I fel like I've threadjacked my own post ... must be the weather...

[Epistax]

Captain, could you offer a key to go with those descriptions? I got a little lost

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Captain
Everyone is a rival. We should not seek to help any rival, except where helping that rival diminishes a more dangerous rival. We must be choosing the lesser of two evils. If we do not need to, then if anyone is expanding at the expense of a rival, it should be us. The basis for alliances should be who can best help us achieve our goals against this other more dangerous rival, while also not creating a more dangerous future threat.

... So I'd rather our Institute look at it from this perspective. Not who do we help, but who is our target. Which threat shall we counter by use of an alliance?

Well put, Captain!