Machiavelli Institute: Foreign Policy Debate

[Togas]

Gentlemen,

I have constructed my initial Foreign Policy outline and posted it below. Please review and advise on it you feel any part of this needs to be changed.

The following information will be updated as changes occur in foreign policy. The following is only general policy, not situation specific. Not all situations will follow these policy guidelines.

Attitude
Polite: Greece, England, Aztecs, Iriquios, Babylon.
Cautious: Rome, Persia, Germany, Russia, America.
Annoyed:
Hostile: France

Demands
Give in: Rome, Germany, Russia, Iriquios, Babylon
Refuse: Greece, England, Persia, France, Aztecs, America

Right of Passage
Current: Persia (do not renew)
Agree/Seek after: none
Agree if money is right: Russia, Iriquios
Do not agree: Greece, England, Rome, France, Germany, Aztecs, Babylon, America

Alliances
Accept: Persia, France (future), Iriquiois, Babylon, America (future)
Accept if money/enemy is right: England, Germany, Aztecs, Russia.
Do not accept: Greece, Rome.

GPT agreements
Agree to: England, Rome, Aztecs, Russia, Iriquios, Babylon,
Do not: Greece, Persia, France, Germany, America.

Charities
Civs we don't mind giving good deals to in tech or trade
Iriquios, Aztecs.

Do not make trades of Tech or maps that do not earn a decent profit.
Do not trade maps from the period where Uber Island is explored until it is securely settled.
Do not extend the RoP pact with Persia.
Do not agree to any RoPs, Alliances, or other Signifigant Pacts without Togas's approval.
All trades should be discussed with the Ministry.

Discuss any part you feel ought to be reconsidered and why.

--Togas

[DAVOUT]

Impressive and coherent expression of a foreign policy ; I would just suggest to add, in the Clausewitz style : Do not declare war without prior discussion with the Ministry.

[Togas]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Do not declare war without prior discussion with the Ministry.

Ah yes. That does follow. I'll add that but I'll include that the Ministry's policy will be to do an official poll before going to war.

--Togas

[Shiber]

Personally I don't see why we shouldn't sign a RoP with America if they offer us money for it, unless we plan to attack them in less than 20 turns. I don't see why we need to refuse to sign RoPs with Abananaba civs like Babylon either; it's not like they're going to attack us now or settle in our territory. Besides, if they do the latter we can take it by culture (would be easy since it'll be very far from their capital).

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Shiber
Personally I don't see why we shouldn't sign a RoP with America if they offer us money for it, unless we plan to attack them in less than 20 turns. I don't see why we need to refuse to sign RoPs with Abananaba civs like Babylon either; it's not like they're going to attack us now or settle in our territory. Besides, if they do the latter we can take it by culture (would be easy since it'll be very far from their capital).

Main question to consider (which I will do later when I can open the game up if no one else has):

What would such an RoP gain for us?

On America, there is a good chance that we'll be attacking them before too long, and, if we do decide to, then an RoP would probably get in the way. Also, I doubt they'd want to sign an RoP with us.

I have no personal objections about signing RoPs with Abananaba civs (though I haven't asked for good reasons against it either), but only if we get something out of it -- no reason to sign one for nothing. Of course, if one civ was willing to give us something for signing one, then that'd be different .

-- adaMada

[Epistax]

Why no ROP with Babylon or Rome? Both are in positions so they wouldn't benefit from us. I think if we can make anyone money off of it, then we should take the free boost to 'polite' if offered.

[Apocalypse]

Do not make trades of Tech or maps that do not earn a decent profit.

If the civ is going to get that tech in a couple turns anyway, we might as well profit from their gaining of it. If we don't trade it, someone else might and get the money.

[Togas]

Originally posted by Epistax
Why no ROP with Babylon or Rome? Both are in positions so they wouldn't benefit from us. I think if we can make anyone money off of it, then we should take the free boost to 'polite' if offered.

I originally didn't want to RoP Babylon because they have such little land, they'd rush to settle on whatever backwater patch of swamp we didn't yet control (just like the Persians are doing), and their culture-happy ways would make it difficult to culture flip them.

As for Rome, I'd like to diplomatically isolate them, I certainly don't want to encourage them to be active in Grand Basin politics.

I will read further debates and consider moving both of these to the "if the money is right" category.

But I should note. There are two schools of thought about RoPs. Some people see them as diplomatic friend-making and money making devices, others see them as allowing enemy units to block our roads, interrupt our workers, and allow for easy sneak attacks. I'm leaning more towards the latter in my policy decisions.

--Togas

[Togas]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
If the civ is going to get that tech in a couple turns anyway, we might as well profit from their gaining of it. If we don't trade it, someone else might and get the money.

We'd be helping them more than they're helping us. So what if we get a gold coin out of it. They're a couple turns AHEAD of where they would be. In a tech race, a couple turns is everything. I'd prefer we get the benefit of the bargain, not them.

We may as well give it to them than charge 1-3 GPs. The attitude adjustment and good relations are worth much more than a triffling sum of gold.

--Togas

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

If the civ is going to get that tech in a couple turns anyway, we might as well profit from their gaining of it. If we don't trade it, someone else might and get the money.

That's a good point -- if we can be totally positive that a civ will be getting a tech soon, we probably really could trade it for less... We'd have to decide how 'soon' is soon and a lot of other stuff like that, and have some steady way of knowing/keeping track of when a civ will get getting whatever tech if we wanted to do it on a regular basis though, so it might not be that simple...

Also, this policy is general, not end all. If there's ever a specific situation where Togas agrees the policy just doesn't make sense, then it can be ignored . In other words, though I do think it might be a good idea to address Apocalypse's point, in general we don't need to worry about every little circumstance.

-- adaMada

[Togas]

Originally posted by adaMada
Also, this policy is general, not end all. If there's ever a specific situation where Togas agrees the policy just doesn't make sense, then it can be ignored . In other words, though I do think it might be a good idea to address Apocalypse's point, in general we don't need to worry about every little circumstance.

adaMada makes a good point here that I hope doesn't get ignored in the coming debates. In the end, every situation will be weighed and situations that do seem an exception to the rule will dealt with accordingly.

--Togas

[Aggie]

[b]Demands
Give in: Rome, Germany, Russia, Iriquios, Babylon
Refuse: Greece, England, Persia, France, Aztecs, America

I have some problems with this list. First my philosiphy. We sound make nations near us happy and ignore threats from those far from us. This list seems to be the opposite. If greece makes a demand I believe currently we have no choice but to accept since we simply can not match them in war and thus could be causing our own defeat. Looking at this from this point the only civs we should give into are persia and greece and maybe france(only because if our war is launched early its odds of success diminish). The other countries can only threaten us if they can ally with our neighbors. Our neighbors can hurt us directly. Just my opinion.
Aggie

[Donal Graeme]

I have to agree, I don't mind ROPs with nations far away, cuz i could always use the money, but I don't like the idea of Immortals or German Knights near any of our cities. Getting more money is a priority right now, so that we can support a larger military while a Republic or Democracy. However, I would rather lose out on some money than risk having the Persians or especially Bismark sneak attack us.

[Togas]

With regards to Demands,

I chose to "give in" to nations that I felt were either a threat or a charity. Babylon and Iriquois fall into the Charity category.

I didn't feel Greece was a threat because they "fear our swordsmen" and their best unit is a horseman. They're not as agressive a Civ as Germany or Persia.

I didn't feel Persia was a threat because they have no immortals yet (and if all goes well, they may never have them), they have a RoP with us, and are still in Rex mode.

My policy towards Demands will change as foreign events changes.

--Togas

[Shiber]

Yes, we should give in to Roman demands. I know there's a very slim chance that they'll actually be sending any military units to our territory (and if they do we'll probably have pikemen by the time they arrive), but if a civ is in war with another civ then it makes the other civs more prune to declare war as well. In addition to that, Rome might form alliances with some of our dangerous neighbors.
I'd rather not take this risk and just give in to any puny demands the Romans make. I believe last time it was 37 gold + WM. Even 50 gold isn't too much if it appeases the Romans for now, until we have based our hold on our territory.