Tweet
I have very recently witnessed something that made me realize one dangerous relic from my SP times... I believe it may be something I could be sharing with at least some of you - it's one of those "builder" things, you know... part of the builder mindset, I'd say.
In SP, I rarely attack the AI first. I usually wait for the AI to attack me and only then retaliate, usually destroying the offending AI in the revenge process.
Well, let me tell you a little story. Some of you might have read the AAR on the brilliant seaborne invasion Hot_Enamel carried out against Tibi in the DON game (now better known as the 'Doughnut Game'
). If you missed it, have a look at the thread on the utility of marines in the Strat forum. I am currently subbing for Tibi in this game and here is what's happened there very recently (Leo might wish to comment on this, as he was the third player in that game - and the poor victim in this case).
Modern Era, ~1500AD. Arabia (Hot_Enamel), the bad guy. Took out his neighbour, later inflicted a crippling blow to Egypt. An uncontested leader economy- and tech-wise. Carthage (Leo) - decent economy, military on par with Arabia, but lagging behind Arabia in techs and spacerace. Egypt (me/Tibi) - woefully behind economy-wise, struggling to somehow recover from the doughnut blow, rebuilding its crippled empire. Still controlling the largest territory, though, a lot of MIs to defend it with.
All 3 civs control roughly the same territory. Egypt and Carthage have spies planted with Arabia and are able to see the numbers of Arabian units. Arabia has 7/10 spaceship parts built, the other two civs do not have Apollo yet (not even the tech needed to build it, to be precise).
Now, here is what happens: Arabia detours, discovers Fission, and finds out that despite controlling ~1/3 of the landmass, it has NO uranium at all. Means no SS win possible (Fuel Cells need it). Tries to trade for it, but is naturally turned down. Eventually says it will wait and see... resources can deplete and reappear elsewhere, people can crack... H_E says.
All of a sudden, the number of Arabian MAs rises by ~50% over 2-3 turns. 9 settlers appear on the Arabian rooster. Arabian workers flood the jungle along the common border with Egypt & Carthage. Officially, Arabia states it's only to reclaim part of its territory (indeed, the jungle area is Arabian, according to a treaty).
I get a hunch the moment I see a stack of 10 workers... (which was before the settlers and new MAs appeared on the Arabian rooster). I realize it's possible to launch a surprise attack against me using a combat settler. I work out a counter-plan, build my own combat settler, move my own workers into the border jungle (on my side of it) and am ready to counter the Arabian plan.
But the builder/peacenik self in me does not feel easy striking first. There is this treaty in effect. To counter a potential breach of this treaty by Arabia, Egypt would have to break it first. What if Arabia is really just settling the last bit of the unsettled land? Those workers were, after all, unprotected. Those settlers could be just a pop transfer from existing, overpopulated cities, to the new cities to be built in the border jungle... so I check with H_E and ask about whether the border treaty was still in effect. Of course it was! It was just a single settler on his way to that God-forgotten corner of the Arabian lands. Nothing to fear - so I was told.
So a turn or two later, I pull back. Just for sure, I pull all my frontline positions back, boosting the city defenses - just in case Arabia would be less peaceful than officially stating... but what the hell - H_E made it clear he was just resettling...
Next turn, Carthage is lying in dust. I could illustrate this with a picture, but suffice to say that H_E's blow to Leo was totally lethal. H_E got Leo's uranium for the brief moment he needed to switch a prebuild to Fuel Cells. The game is pretty much over now.
Sorry for the lengthy and maybe boring introduction, but I'm slowly getting to my point. I need you to know the background to understand where I am coming from. I'm telling you all this not to warn you against Hot_Enamel - after all, he did what he had to do. He is a good guy - I exchanged a lot of emails with him over the last year and hold no grudges against him. It was my and Leo's fault to ignore what was obvious and inevitable (and... we oversaw one railroaded tile...).
Now, to my point:
Sooner or later, others in this game will have to attack us. This is as certain as death. If they do not attack, we win. As simple as that. We know it, they know it. A war of attrition would be unlikely to achieve the goal - with our shield superiority and lead, we'd probably be able to hold firm and still win. If an invasion of Legos is to succeed, it must be swift, merciless, and devastating. A crippling blow taking us out for good. One or two turns and the thing must be over.
IOW, it will have to be a surprise attack. The element of surprise implies, almost inevitably, a backstab.
And I am finally at the crux of this post/thread.
A moment will come when we will "see" that the attack is coming. But the other party will maintain it means no harm and all those transports are only moving to a new habour... or the battleships are there only to watch our coast... we will have no means to make sure it's a lie or not. It may be it will be a team we will have always had good relations with, helped all the time, stroken great deals with... it'll be a question of whether to risk hitting a friend at a wrong place or to risk being hit by a blow from an unexpected direction.
And then, my fellow Legos, we shall strike first, no matter what. One can afford the luxury of letting the enemy strike first in SP. AI does need this advantage. But humans are deadly.
This is mostly a philosophical issue. Builders are known to be peaceful... we may feel that our reputation would be stained by firing the first shot (and, oh, the horror, if we were wrong and the other party really meant no harm...!). I say: we'll have to choose between winning as not-so-peaceful builders, or losing as peaceful fools.
Precisely because this is a philosophical question, I'd like to spend the time now, where the game is slow, to debate the philosophy of preemptive strikes. We make sure everybody understands what we see as a threat. And wherever a threat appears, we strike. A rule set in stone. We never "wait one more turn to make sure they really do mean harm". We never believe the words. We only believe what we can see. We strike. Immediately.
Better safe than sorry.
How do you feel about this policy? What potential caveats can you see? Let's talk about that now, so that once we actually face the situation, we lose no time and act.
In SP, I rarely attack the AI first. I usually wait for the AI to attack me and only then retaliate, usually destroying the offending AI in the revenge process.
Well, let me tell you a little story. Some of you might have read the AAR on the brilliant seaborne invasion Hot_Enamel carried out against Tibi in the DON game (now better known as the 'Doughnut Game'
). If you missed it, have a look at the thread on the utility of marines in the Strat forum. I am currently subbing for Tibi in this game and here is what's happened there very recently (Leo might wish to comment on this, as he was the third player in that game - and the poor victim in this case).Modern Era, ~1500AD. Arabia (Hot_Enamel), the bad guy. Took out his neighbour, later inflicted a crippling blow to Egypt. An uncontested leader economy- and tech-wise. Carthage (Leo) - decent economy, military on par with Arabia, but lagging behind Arabia in techs and spacerace. Egypt (me/Tibi) - woefully behind economy-wise, struggling to somehow recover from the doughnut blow, rebuilding its crippled empire. Still controlling the largest territory, though, a lot of MIs to defend it with.
All 3 civs control roughly the same territory. Egypt and Carthage have spies planted with Arabia and are able to see the numbers of Arabian units. Arabia has 7/10 spaceship parts built, the other two civs do not have Apollo yet (not even the tech needed to build it, to be precise).
Now, here is what happens: Arabia detours, discovers Fission, and finds out that despite controlling ~1/3 of the landmass, it has NO uranium at all. Means no SS win possible (Fuel Cells need it). Tries to trade for it, but is naturally turned down. Eventually says it will wait and see... resources can deplete and reappear elsewhere, people can crack... H_E says.
All of a sudden, the number of Arabian MAs rises by ~50% over 2-3 turns. 9 settlers appear on the Arabian rooster. Arabian workers flood the jungle along the common border with Egypt & Carthage. Officially, Arabia states it's only to reclaim part of its territory (indeed, the jungle area is Arabian, according to a treaty).
I get a hunch the moment I see a stack of 10 workers... (which was before the settlers and new MAs appeared on the Arabian rooster). I realize it's possible to launch a surprise attack against me using a combat settler. I work out a counter-plan, build my own combat settler, move my own workers into the border jungle (on my side of it) and am ready to counter the Arabian plan.
But the builder/peacenik self in me does not feel easy striking first. There is this treaty in effect. To counter a potential breach of this treaty by Arabia, Egypt would have to break it first. What if Arabia is really just settling the last bit of the unsettled land? Those workers were, after all, unprotected. Those settlers could be just a pop transfer from existing, overpopulated cities, to the new cities to be built in the border jungle... so I check with H_E and ask about whether the border treaty was still in effect. Of course it was! It was just a single settler on his way to that God-forgotten corner of the Arabian lands. Nothing to fear - so I was told.
So a turn or two later, I pull back. Just for sure, I pull all my frontline positions back, boosting the city defenses - just in case Arabia would be less peaceful than officially stating... but what the hell - H_E made it clear he was just resettling...
Next turn, Carthage is lying in dust. I could illustrate this with a picture, but suffice to say that H_E's blow to Leo was totally lethal. H_E got Leo's uranium for the brief moment he needed to switch a prebuild to Fuel Cells. The game is pretty much over now.
Sorry for the lengthy and maybe boring introduction, but I'm slowly getting to my point. I need you to know the background to understand where I am coming from. I'm telling you all this not to warn you against Hot_Enamel - after all, he did what he had to do. He is a good guy - I exchanged a lot of emails with him over the last year and hold no grudges against him. It was my and Leo's fault to ignore what was obvious and inevitable (and... we oversaw one railroaded tile...).
Now, to my point:
Sooner or later, others in this game will have to attack us. This is as certain as death. If they do not attack, we win. As simple as that. We know it, they know it. A war of attrition would be unlikely to achieve the goal - with our shield superiority and lead, we'd probably be able to hold firm and still win. If an invasion of Legos is to succeed, it must be swift, merciless, and devastating. A crippling blow taking us out for good. One or two turns and the thing must be over.
IOW, it will have to be a surprise attack. The element of surprise implies, almost inevitably, a backstab.
And I am finally at the crux of this post/thread.
A moment will come when we will "see" that the attack is coming. But the other party will maintain it means no harm and all those transports are only moving to a new habour... or the battleships are there only to watch our coast... we will have no means to make sure it's a lie or not. It may be it will be a team we will have always had good relations with, helped all the time, stroken great deals with... it'll be a question of whether to risk hitting a friend at a wrong place or to risk being hit by a blow from an unexpected direction.
And then, my fellow Legos, we shall strike first, no matter what. One can afford the luxury of letting the enemy strike first in SP. AI does need this advantage. But humans are deadly.
This is mostly a philosophical issue. Builders are known to be peaceful... we may feel that our reputation would be stained by firing the first shot (and, oh, the horror, if we were wrong and the other party really meant no harm...!). I say: we'll have to choose between winning as not-so-peaceful builders, or losing as peaceful fools.
Precisely because this is a philosophical question, I'd like to spend the time now, where the game is slow, to debate the philosophy of preemptive strikes. We make sure everybody understands what we see as a threat. And wherever a threat appears, we strike. A rule set in stone. We never "wait one more turn to make sure they really do mean harm". We never believe the words. We only believe what we can see. We strike. Immediately.
Better safe than sorry.
How do you feel about this policy? What potential caveats can you see? Let's talk about that now, so that once we actually face the situation, we lose no time and act.
WE also need a plan however for the invasion of Bob, and of Stormia.... and we also need a plan for dealing with Vox..
I feel no guilt over a "pre-emptive strike" on a stack of threatening units. If someone actually needs to transfer 20 transports near our coast, they can do it a few at a time, please.
- but I learnt the lesson). My only hope ATM is that I will be able to strike at a weak point in Hot_Enamel's defense, breaking through. Without a spy, I would be attacking completely blind.
).
...oh yea! 
We must have a multi-skilled military force.
Comment