Announcement

**Meshelic** · November 16, 2002, 19:45

Re: Global goals of our team?

Pillaging / disturbing another civ:

I reckon that completely destroying another human's city will be just furthering their contempt for us, but then so will capturing the city and using it for our own purposes. Either way, there will be ramifications to what we do. The best way to decide whether we want to destroy or capture is to look at it from a different angle: How would WE feel if another civ captures our city or destroys it?

If a city of ours is captured, then it will remain under their banner and provide us with the end goal of getting that city back under OUR control. I expect that cities will change hands several times until they are permanently held or destroyed.
BUT if a city of ours is sacked and destroyed, then there is not much hope for reclaiming it, in which case I feel that that would piss us off.

I suggest that destroying cities be off-limits except for when a situation is hopeless and it must be done. I expect the same treatment from the other civs.

2. Building

We will of course need to build to improve our nation, there is no doubt to that. I recommend a STRONG economic base, which will provide us with enough gold to support a large military, and help us in trade negotiations, technology purchasing, etc.

This is a must!

Wonders:

Any wonder which supports our cause is necessary. Wonders have the ability to help us in areas that are not our ability in the first place. Colossus for example is good for early trade and accumulating wealth if we are not a commercial civilization. Each wonder is important in it's own way, and we need to decide upon which abilities we want that a Wonder will provide us with.

3. research - gold

I always build libraries as soon as I can possibly do so, the effects on science is staggering, especially when we reach University levels. With more improvements we end up relying less on the taxation of our public for science and more on our cities actual scientific growth.
The science race will be very prevalent in this game, as whoever is more advanced has that advantage over the others. I'm sure we all know this but I felt it good to reiterate on that....

4. Diplo stances

Diplomats are like jugglers who are constantly keeping things in motion. I'm not opposed to using the AI to help us in attacking another human civ, although it's been in my experience that very rarely does an AI ally go all out in battle and send everything it's got to help as much as possible. I would guess that depending on distance from our enemies, the AI would be a long time getting to the battle, and that might not help us in the end, especially if we fight short wars here and there. So I wouldn't rule out using the AI as an ally in war, but they are generally unreliable, and I would rather rely on ourselves to defeat our enemies.

There will be the occasional AI civ that we might want to avoid conflict with, due to their power or etc. But generally the AI in this game will be treated as 'up-for-grabs' in conquest and necessary in defeating the human players.

[quote] How far are we willing to go with espionage, and related to that, do we prioritise embassies? Can we risk a failing espionage action on a friendly Civ? are we going to provoke civs into attacking us? [quote]

I expect us to foresee conflicts, or opportunities, seen or unseen, and exploit them to the most benefit that we can. Embassies I believe are necessary, as I think that in order to arrange trade deals, alliances etc we will need them ino rder to communicate in the first place.

Trades: research trades are going to be rare, but what about giving out loans, trading luxs, trading resources? Of course, map trades are going to be extremely rare as well...

Map trades are definetely off limits. I realized that after NYE and others commented on one of my posts that we really don't want to do that when I brought it up. Good ways to learn quick lessons are to learn from other's...

Trading technology would have to be acknowledged and agreed upon by all the members here, as they are very important details that may seem small at first. What we give/get is strategically crucial, and if we deal with trades carefully we will do well in that area.

5. Risk
Are we always going to make sure that we bring enough forces to one city, instead of taking just what is necessary, and take on another city in the mean time?

I would hope that we always exploit a numerical advantage as well as unit advantage when attacking other cities. We do not want them to reclaim any territory we've fought for. I suggest 'overwhelming' strength as a minimum to any conflicts we run into.

**DeepO** · November 16, 2002, 22:02

Some comments, in order of appearance (sorry, a bit too tired atm to quote them all

):

Pillaging: my main question would be whether we make it a goal to disturb civs, not by taking their cities, but by destroying their infrastructure. It is kind of annoying to the other one, but can have large benefits in the long term, especially if we could enslave some of their workers. The same with bombardment: I don't foresee a lot of naval activity in this game (or we should get a map that needs it), but coastal bombardment can be a b!tch if used right. Normally in SP you don't bother with it, but here... if we ever get that far, it would be the first time ironclads have their uses. Not for warfare, but for harrassment. But do we want to harras people, even if we don't raze cities of them?

Science: so you propose to go squarely for the science, leaving gold saving to a minimum? I like science as well, but, depending on the proximity of AIs, I would only get what you really need first, followed by a period of money saving. After the AIs get too slow, the science rate could pick up again. It's a pity we're only playing this on Monarch, those AIs will be gone far too early

Engaging AIs in combat against someone else: it's not that I expect major help from them, but if we can make it a two front war, the other has to defend two sides of his empire, instead of just one. And he might be tempted to attack the AI on his turf, which further distract troops from our border. The risk is that once the war ends on our side, the AI will have become human territory...

Embassies: You only need them for intelligence, and signing alliances. Trades don't need embassies, so I wouldn't build them in AI capitals unless we need their help. Intelligence will of course be important (like knowing who is at war with who, so we can join when and where we want), but we could wait until they build embassies in our capital. It's a matter of how important we think intelligence and secrecy is going to be, which is one of the global questions I'm interested in: do we build those so that the other only knows our location, or do we let them build them in our city, so he can peek at our defenses, production capacity, gold income, etc.

Risk: of course we won't start a war without feeling we can win it, but how exactly are the feelings in this group when it comes to risk? Are we going to take 6 archers and a spear in an early archer rush, or rather 10 of them? Do we want to protect all our fastmovers (especially MWs), so they can't advance through enemy territory at their normal pace and have to be guarded by spears? Things like that... are we going to play it conservately, or is taking risk what this group wants?

DeepO

**alva** · November 16, 2002, 22:17

DeepO, maybe open a couple of threads for this, you are posing some very interesing questions, wich certainly need to be adressed, but to them all in one go

.

**alva** · November 16, 2002, 22:21

pillaging: IM very HO, wars are going to be a 'who can his breath longest' kind of contest. So pillaging will be a very important part of it. (human-human)
Siege wars are going to be quite common, I feel.

**DeepO** · November 16, 2002, 22:47

sorry duke, posting too long threads is a bad habit of me. And on the CB fora Vel and I have a bit of a race going on as to who can post the longest posts... although I have found my master there, Vel made a 8 page post (80,000 characters) once, I only get to 4 or 5.

I'll split them up a bit... tomorrow. If in the mean time there is someone else that has general remarks (I mean global focusses, not the details), please post! The strategy posters I kind of know, at least to what their style is, but the others... And how all of this is going to be put into one team, beats me. We definately need to define our style of play, so that everyone knows what the goals are.

DeepO

**Meshelic** · November 16, 2002, 23:21

Originally posted by DeepO
Some comments, in order of appearance (sorry, a bit too tired atm to quote them all

):

Pillaging: But do we want to harras people, even if we don't raze cities of them?

I have no qualms about that whatsoever.

Every possible advantage we may enjoy I would suggest we exploit it as often as we can. Disconnecting roads from strategic resources or luxuries will either cause more unhappiness in their home, or prevent them from building certain units. And I see no reason not to do that!

Science: so you propose to go squarely for the science, leaving gold saving to a minimum? I like science as well, but, depending on the proximity of AIs, I would only get what you really need first, followed by a period of money saving.

Well I think science definitely needs to be balanced with our income so we can not only have strong research base but also so we can accumulate plenty of gold in our coffers. Gold is pretty damn important, and having lots of it will make a huge difference in times when we most need it.

I'm no economist though, so any complicated science/economic issues are beyond my expertise. I've always tried to make sure I've got a good income and can research at reasonable speeds in my SP games, but I'm hoping to learn more about this in time.

Engaging AIs in combat against someone else: it's not that I expect major help from them, but if we can make it a two front war, the other has to defend two sides of his empire, instead of just one. And he might be tempted to attack the AI on his turf, which further distract troops from our border. The risk is that once the war ends on our side, the AI will have become human territory...

We will need to be watching this as well. A two-front war can prove to be very helpful (or harmful depending on which end you're on). I would think though that in most cases, a human civ will probably try to focus more on defending against the other attacking human civ rather than the AI, since the AI tends to be treated as less of a threat than a human should be.

Embassies: It's a matter of how important we think intelligence and secrecy is going to be, which is one of the global questions I'm interested in: do we build those so that the other only knows our location, or do we let them build them in our city, so he can peek at our defenses, production capacity, gold income, etc.

I would hope that we are hidden from human view as long as possible, until we have a formidable military to defend our borders. Embassies are sometimes not important when dealing with the AI, but I think they should be established before we communicate with the other human players.....there are TWO types of embassies we can (theoretically) establish in this PTW game: those in the game and those in the threads. I suspect that in order to establish an embassy with another team in their thread (or on the main page) than it should be after we've already established one in the game itself....does that make sense at all?

Not sure if I got that out right....but I think the basic gist is that if we are to engage in diplomatic communications with another human civ, then we should be able to do so in the threads....with the Chief Diplomat from both sides being the only ones who speak to each other in an EMBASSY THREAD or something, and discussing war terms or peace terms or trade or whatever is necessary. The two foreign ministers should be allowed to meet privately (just the two of them in a thread)somewhere without PM'ing each other, but also in a place where the rest of the clans can review what is discussed (and then discuss it in their own private threads)

Risk: of course we won't start a war without feeling we can win it, but how exactly are the feelings in this group when it comes to risk? Are we going to take 6 archers and a spear in an early archer rush, or rather 10 of them? Do we want to protect all our fastmovers (especially MWs), so they can't advance through enemy territory at their normal pace and have to be guarded by spears? Things like that... are we going to play it conservately, or is taking risk what this group wants?

I can't speak for the others, but risk is necessary I believe. If we play it conservatively the whole time then we should expect to get beaten. By taking risks I know you don't mean being reckless , but leaving things to chance could be dangerous as well. I suggest we be smart in everything we do (cautious is a fine word for that) and try to make sure that everything we set out to do will be accomplished, which could include taking a risk on attacking a city with only a handful of units that we believe could do it, or using overwhelming force.

That's MY opinion anyways, I would like us to be smart about things, and include risks when the time calls and be conservative when that time calls as well.

**Arrian** · November 18, 2002, 10:50

I'm all for disrupting other civs, provided we are prepared for the possibility of all-out war. If somebody came over, broke some of my roads and grabbed some of my workers, I'd make it my mission in life to remove him from the game or die trying.

If we have the option of "bopping" a warrior/settler team (one reason I want BW right away is to protect our settlers with spearmen), I'd be fine with taking a shot at it (if we can bring 2 warriors to bear, thereby ensuring good odds).

I would like to build some wonders, but some of that depends on our starting situation. If we start out alone, or with 1 AI neighbor, we can go into "builder mode." If we start with lots of neighbors, it's probably best to drop wonder building in favor of army building so we can take over the continent.

As for the embassy question, if we have enough gold, I'd say we should establish so we can see their city, not vice-versa.

-Arrian

**Randolph** · November 18, 2002, 12:46

General Notes:
1. I think the only things we can really rely on from SP experience are the foundations of the game (i.e. the rules); everything else needs to be reconsidered. Thus I’m very glad to see this thread.
2. Our SP experience can be a disadvantage as well as an advantage. Many SP strategies that seem incredibly solid may very well be coffin nails against humans. The more I consider hypotheticals the more unsure I am about proper strategy.

I. Pillaging

I see no reason why we should deny ourselves any effective tactic; I see no reason why there should be any taboo tactics. If scorched earth tactics are the most effective tactic in a particular circumstance I see no reason why we shouldn’t use them. Yes we should then expect them to be used against us, but we should anyway (this is a game, it’s not like there’s going to be innocent bystanders being killed). Certainly there are times where this type of strategy isn’t best (for many reasons, including the degree which it will piss people off), but I certainly don’t think it should be categorically dismissed.

II. Science/Economic issues

This is a prime area where everything needs to be reconsidered. I’m scared to make any firm comments about this because I can see just how wrong any strategy could be. What if we focused on tax/infrastructure only to be crushed by knights before we have pikemen? I could certainly see much larger science differentials than you will ever see (between civs that are “in the running”) in SP. Falling more than a few techs behind the leaders could be certain death. Allies are likely to be key in scientific research; the importance of diplomacy comes up again

.

**DeepO** · November 18, 2002, 14:56

Meshelic, I agree in most parts with you. As to the diplomatic thread: I would only brings this into the open for very specific reasons (selling our services is one of them), but everything else should be as secret as possible. I think that PMing between the 2 diplo heads, after which those messages get posted on the private forum is most likely the best solution: most of the things will need some discussing, and because of the pace of this game (5 days / turn) we should have enough time to discuss a point. I'm not saying that the diplo head can't respond on his own, but he could only do so when the whole group has set a certain diplo goal (like offering a certain bonus for a civ willing to ally with us), and he doesn't cross the maximum here.

As to the risk question: I can imagine that the builders will be very conservative, while the GoW will be quite risk taking (as this suits their styles of play). Of course situation dictates what we should do, but I wondered what our stance on this is... I'm kind of a calculated risk player myself (so don't do anything foolish, but go for it anyway), however this is in SP... MP will be a lot trickier.
This also relates to how we will defend our cities: if we have a long term ally, will we risk undermanning our border with him, or not? Are we going to protect every resource we have with a spear, or not? Things like that...

Arrian: Those are my views exactly. Disturbing can be very effective, but you know that once you go out of your way disturbing a civ, he will remember, and will try to do the same to you. There is a difference here, resources are considered normal to disrupt, so in a war no-one will mind if you try to disrupt those.

Randolph, the science is going to be very different indeed, an dwill change considerably from SP. I'm unsure myself here, however I don't think that going for a science lead is really possible, nor needed. After all, people will trade techs over if this means those 20 horsies don't attack their pike defended city... Of course, we can't afford falling behind too hard without a plan to recuperate (like extorting it), and having the lead would be better then falling behind at all.

DeepO

Announcement

Global goals of our team?

Global goals of our team?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment