Legoland intel

[alva]

Humans are opportunistic, nobody isn't going to trust anyone anyway.
Attack them and they will be pissed off, but when they see a good deal 20 or 30 turns later, they will go for it.

It's all about personal gain, and increasing you're own chance to win. Nothing more , nothing less

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
nbarclay, I posted in another thread concerning "game ethics", so I will try not to repeat myself here.

I think the fear of having a bad rep with human opponents is largely unsubstantiated. Are we never to attack anyone, and if so, on what terms? I hope that most of the other teams (that is, the members that comprise them) will not start holding grudges for no good reason. I don't consider an early attack to be a good reason to be permanently pissed off, because it is clearly a part of the game. Of course, I wouldn't expect them to give us all their techs anytime in the near future, but you're making it sound like anyone we attack we will be on bad terms with forever. If that is really how MP works (my experience being negligible), then I much prefer the SP experience where you can attack someone yet still have diplomatic agreements with them in the future.

Grudges are only part of the equation. The other part is that if we attack someone, they'll almost inevitably view us as a bigger threat to them than they would otherwise. A lot depends on the personalities involved, but some amount of damage to the long-term relationship is almost inevitable (although a good bit of the damage could potentially be repaired if a common enemy happens to show up).

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither
There is an early scrap over a choice piece of land. We take the land and offer terms. Fair terms. Sure, they will not like it, and won't forget it, but if we behave honourably and reasonably they may come to accept us as neighbours again. Especially if the borders become crowded, and they feel they can trust our word that we will not harass them further.

That's a good thought. A minor border skirmish over a resource (especially a luxury or strategic resource the attacker doesn't have another source of, and even more especially if the defender does have another source) likely wouldn't be viewed the same way as a more arbitrary form of attack. That could even provide a guise for triggering a neighbor's GA without being too obvious that that was the real motive involved, although I wouldn't count on the neighbor's not being smart enough to figure it out. Similarly, taking a city founded on "our side" of where the eventual borders end up would likely be viewed at least a bit less negatively. Of course there's still the risk that what was intended to be a minor border skirmish could escalate into something a lot bigger and more expensive.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Ok, I simply have to ask: what is wrong with attacking someone in order to trigger their GA prematurely? I mean, it's annoying to be sure, but is there something inherently unfair/cross about it? If someone did it to me, I would regard them as opportunistic, but that's it. I wouldn't hold a grudge, but I would probably watch my back in the future. Come to think of it, I watch my back against every civ, even those with a good rep, and I expect others to do the same. Am I thinking about MP in the wrong way?

Or how about this scenario: our lone regular Warrior meets up with a fearsome elite (why not) Merc. We make demands: don't settle this, this and this areas of the continent, give us Monarchy right away, etc. If they don't comply, we blow their GA. Obviously we do everything in the nicest, most diplomatic sort of way (because politics thrives on appearing to be the nice guy). What, if anything, is wrong with this scenario?


Dominae

[notyoueither]

Nothing Dominae. You just have to be prepared for that team to have a hate on for us for a long while... unless we do it perfectly.

There will be many twists and turns on this road. Human nature in ourselves and our opponents will determine many of the curves.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
Ok, I simply have to ask: what is wrong with attacking someone in order to trigger their GA prematurely? I mean, it's annoying to be sure, but is there something inherently unfair/cross about it? If someone did it to me, I would regard them as opportunistic, but that's it. I wouldn't hold a grudge, but I would probably watch my back in the future. Come to think of it, I watch my back against every civ, even those with a good rep, and I expect others to do the same. Am I thinking about MP in the wrong way?

I think you are. You view attacking opponents as part of the game, but you fail to recognize that enmity toward those who attack you (note: enmity in the game, not in real life) is equally part of the game. Such enmity is one of the key defense mechanisms players have, since it means that even a militarily successful war may have a significant long-term cost.

Think about it. If people know they can waste your golden age and you'll shrug it off, they're likely to do it if they get the chance. But if they know such an attack will hurt their trading relationship with you for the rest of the game, they'll think twice about whether the benefits outweigh the cost. After all, you're just one of their opponents, so even if they gain power relative to you, that may not be worth the resulting loss relative to other players. Thus, a player who shrugs off attacks on him as just part of the game is giving up a key defensive tool, right?

That's not to say that the other civ is likely to go so far out of its way to avoid trading with you that it will seriously undermine its own interests (although some players might be that vindictive). But all else being anywhere near equal, they'd be a lot better off finding someone friendlier to do business with any time they have a choice.

Or how about this scenario: our lone regular Warrior meets up with a fearsome elite (why not) Merc. We make demands: don't settle this, this and this areas of the continent, give us Monarchy right away, etc. If they don't comply, we blow their GA. Obviously we do everything in the nicest, most diplomatic sort of way (because politics thrives on appearing to be the nice guy). What, if anything, is wrong with this scenario?

How do you nicely and diplomatically demand something for nothing? Remember, politics thrives not only on appearing to be the nice guy but also on being able to see through the other side's "nice guy" acts. And I seriously doubt that our opponents are total fools.

Going to war over rejection of a somewhat reasonable demand probably wouldn't cause the same level of resentment that going to war just for the sake of going to war would. But to whatever extent the other side viewed the demand as unreasonable, there would certainly be resentment and repercussions.

[Meshelic]

Suppose we get into a war with Glory of War (just pretend, although we know it'll probably happen sometime) . We both have basically equal resources, military strength and land mass. We slug it out turn after turn, and both our armies crush each other. In the mean time we both watch as Roleplay team spans half the globe because we were all too busy deciding where to attack next....

What I'm trying to say is that there is a natural balance to regions, most of the time. In the above theoretical position it would be a perfectly reasonable and necessary for both sides to agree to stalemate and either team up against the 3rd bigger team or simply maintain a cease-fire until a better time.

I suspect something similar to the above will happen to at least a few of the teams, maybe not all but definetely one or two.

[Meshelic]

I think people will be able to weigh the consequences of war, whether it's beneficial or not at the moment.

I also think there will be most surely negotiations for land (you settle here, and I'll settle there-type of thing).

[DeepO]

Back to legoland intel: Exaclty those comments are appearing here, a I would have hoped for when I once propposed to be the Greeks (actually, the Cartaghenians seem even a better choice, but I didn't know them at that time). The problem is that with such a defender, people are likely to leave them alone, making them a much greater threat later on. Nobody wants to risk a war with them, so they have all the time of the world to buid up an army, and the initiative of the attack is entirely theirs. This is a very bad situation: we should at all points keep the initiative, whenever you get forced into a role, you are bound to be less prepared for it.

If the legos start out next to us, and we would have 4 cities each, I would consider starting a war with the objective to take 1 of their cities immediately. Not only would it trigger their GA, but at least they aren't in a position to take initiative anymore, we should allways keep that advantage to ourselves. And what our GA is concerned: it would be cool to have it well timed, but I'd be damned if we are going to leave an opportunity sitting there just because later on we might be better off. If those WCs can take 1 of legos cities (meaning 25% less for them, more for us), we won't need a GA anyway.

DeepO

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DeepO
If the legos start out next to us, and we would have 4 cities each, I would consider starting a war with the objective to take 1 of their cities immediately. Not only would it trigger their GA, but at least they aren't in a position to take initiative anymore, we should allways keep that advantage to ourselves. And what our GA is concerned: it would be cool to have it well timed, but I'd be damned if we are going to leave an opportunity sitting there just because later on we might be better off. If those WCs can take 1 of legos cities (meaning 25% less for them, more for us), we won't need a GA anyway.

If we hurt both Legoland and ourselves fighting an early war, the real winners might well end up being the rest of the world. Even if we started on a continent alone with Legoland, I would want to look carefully at whether we need to take them out to have adequate territory or whether there's enough land available that we can work together as trading partners to gain a major technological advantage over the rest of the world. And if we aren't alone together, attacking Legoland could produce an excellent opening for someone else to attack us unless we can form an anti-Legoland alliance. (And then what happens if our prospective allies have a better idea and tell Legoland about our proposal and suggest an alliance against us instead?)

There are civs we'll almost certainly have to cripple or destroy in order to win, but I have a hard time seeing Legoland as one of them. Unless they've completely lied about their nature, they won't be going for a military victory. And as long as we can pick wars where the cost/benefit ratio is in our favor, we should be able to catch up with any lead they might develop while we're fighting someone else long before any peaceful victory conditions become available.

Nathan

[DeepO]

Nathan, that's exactly the problem with those guys: they are peaceful, sure, but if you let them do their thing they will start running away in science. I don't say we should attack them at all cost, I only say we should consider that if we leave the initiative to them, we are in the disadvantage. If an early war (and I mean at the point where they only have a few UUs defending, preferably regulars) can prevent that, we should go for it. Of course, without damaging ourselves, but we can't simply stay back and build up our cities and let others take advantage of us. Early warfare is a given, and if the legos are close, they will make for fine target practice.

DeepO

[Dominae]

The running idea of lifelong, mutually beneficial trading partners is whishful thinking, IMO. Yes, it may be a good idea not to attack some civs because 1) the war would be difficult, 2) we can benefit from trading with them. But these are only short-term considerations. Unless we're playing a different game here, war is still king in Civ3 (even if you can't successfully demand techs from human opponents...which I think you can), netting more land and weaker neighbours. There are enough civs that we'll always have a trading partner available, unless of course our rep is so bad everyone just gangs up on us. Declaring early war with one neighbour will not cause a rep hit on the world scene (I hope!). Thus, once we obtain all contacts, we can still trade profitably (just not with Legoland!).

I also want to point out that Builders beat Warmongers every time if they're given time to build. This sounds like common sense, but it's easy to forget that the only counter to mass-building is warfare (the earlier and more often, the better). I'm not saying that we should attack Legoland at all costs, just that this is something to consider in our overall strategy. DeepO is quite right in saying that any team picking either the Greeks or the Carthaginians is trying to ensure their way into a strong mid-game. I don't think we should necessarily give them that gift.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

DeepO, I see four big problems with your reasoning.

(1) The whole concept of viewing a human opponent as "target practice" is exceedingly dangerous. Practice targets don't shoot back, they don't enlist allies against those shooting at them, and they don't keep shooting back after the person who shot at them is ready to call it a day. Human opponents can and quite possibly will do all of those things.

(2) It is highly unrealistic to expect not to have certain civs have advantages over us in certain areas from time to time. As such advantages go, I view a tech lead held by a peaceful builder civ that we're on friendly terms with as relatively harmless as long as we're careful not to fall so far behind that we can't catch up. Fighting to take away that advantage could easily give other, more dangerous civs other, more dangerous types of advantaes.

(3) Early warfare is only a probability, not a given. If we start on a continent with a warmonger, avoiding early warfare may well be impossible. But if we're on a continent with builders and have plenty of room to grow ourselves, there would be enormous advantages to keeping things peaceful and cooperative so that our continent can build up a major technological advantage over other continents. Imagine the possibilities if we can invade with knights against other continents armed only with spearmen and swordsmen, and if we can clean up on a good bit more than our share of wonders along the way.

(4) Even if early warfare were a given, that wouldn't make extra, unnecessary early warfare harmless. On the contrary, if we are going to be fighting somone else early, pushing Legoland into supporting them against us could easily cause us problems.

I'm not saying that there are no circumstances in which crippling or absorbing Legoland would make sense. I just think you seem way too triggerhappy about it, as if we could count on quick wars with few significant long-term consequences against humans the way we do against AIs in SP.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
I also want to point out that Builders beat Warmongers every time if they're given time to build.

Which is why depending on the situation, joining Legoland as builders could be vastly superior to fighting with them.

Although I don't think time to build by itself is enough for builders to beat warmongers. To do that, builders also must be willing to take their tech advantage and turn it into a military advantage, and to use that military advantage offensively. Otherwise, it's hard for builders to have the land they need to maintain their tech rate through the industrial era. That gives the top warmonger or warmongers time to turn into builders and catch up. Therein lies the flaw of Legoland's stated strategy, and the reason I'm not nearly as afraid of them as I would be of a more balanced group that merely leaned a bit in the builder direction.

Nathan

[DeepO]

Originally posted by nbarclay
(1) The whole concept of viewing a human opponent as "target practice" is exceedingly dangerous. Practice targets don't shoot back, they don't enlist allies against those shooting at them, and they don't keep shooting back after the person who shot at them is ready to call it a day. Human opponents can and quite possibly will do all of those things.

Don't take it the wrong way, I was kind of joking. Indeed, targets usually don't shoot back. But, to a certain point is is true of the legos, they will be focused on defense and building, and likely don't have a large army to take some of our cities... the only thing we would lose in a fight ar our forces, and our reputation.

(2) It is highly unrealistic to expect not to have certain civs have advantages over us in certain areas from time to time. As such advantages go, I view a tech lead held by a peaceful builder civ that we're on friendly terms with as relatively harmless as long as we're careful not to fall so far behind that we can't catch up. Fighting to take away that advantage could easily give other, more dangerous civs other, more dangerous types of advantaes.

Hmm... not sure. Short term: of course. But on the long term? as said before, all depends on the situation, I was only warning that we have to think of the legos, because if we let them be they have the opportunity to be the most dangerous civ later in the game. This is certainly true if we would be warring with aggresive competitors.

(3) Early warfare is only a probability, not a given. If we start on a continent with a warmonger, avoiding early warfare may well be impossible. But if we're on a continent with builders and have plenty of room to grow ourselves, there would be enormous advantages to keeping things peaceful and cooperative so that our continent can build up a major technological advantage over other continents. Imagine the possibilities if we can invade with knights against other continents armed only with spearmen and swordsmen, and if we can clean up on a good bit more than our share of wonders along the way.

I agree here, I stated it a bit too extreme. However, in planning on reaching a more powerful empire then the next in line, early warfare will be extremely powerful. We should take into account that at least a few of the other teams will go for it, and if we have the opportunity we should as well. Of course, there is no need to risk any lead in another area if that is possible, but I seriously doubt that rexing to the point of SP will be the best strat in MP.

As to the knigts: would you rather take 20 WCs to take out 3 or 4 Numedian mercs, or take 40 knights to fight a (long-stretched) war, possibly facing 10 veteran UUs? It certainly is something to discuss...

(4) Even if early warfare were a given, that wouldn't make extra, unnecessary early warfare harmless. On the contrary, if we are going to be fighting somone else early, pushing Legoland into supporting them against us could easily cause us problems.

That's a very good point... and again, it is situation dependent. However, if they won't support us, they become a threat to us later on... leaving the initiative to them again. And if we lose that, and only react instead of act, there is a big chance someone is going to take advantage of our situation...

I'm not saying that there are no circumstances in which crippling or absorbing Legoland would make sense. I just think you seem way too triggerhappy about it, as if we could count on quick wars with few significant long-term consequences against humans the way we do against AIs in SP.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm just exploring possibilities here. I'm not overly trigger happy, and sure, it will differ a lot from SP. I just try to warn against the legos, as their prefered style and UU could make them into the most powerful team. Besides, if the GoW is taking on the legos, by all means avoid any conflict, let them fight it out. As long as someone is hampering their growth, I'm perfectly happy.

DeepO