Strategy

[Ninot]

lol, Jdjdjd... what did you just say?

first and foremost. i ask you to NOT think of me as a builder. I took that stance in the C3DG. i wont take that stance here.

you said we have alot of builders, or builder-orientated people on this team

then you said we should completely ignore that to start and go on a huge offensive to start the game? That isnt exactly the popular opinion, IF those many people are builders. but i digress

the ONLY reason im so opposed to war now in the C3DG is cuz its execively glutonous, considering how well ahead of all the AI's we are. In the C3DG, we have what should be a sure win, and running over helpless AI's doesnt prove anything.

But in this game, we will have to outwitt humans, which could prove full of value untill the bitter end.


but as for your plan...

i dont really agree with it. First strike not only puts us in a diplomatically bad light (where as we ALREADY cant trust 2 and a half teams, considering the warmongerers on those teams)... but it is also not the most advantageous thing to do.

What I would more favor is a more machiavellian approach, as Togas has said.

Wait untill one of our neighbors does have their back turned to us, and then strike at it.

What I am picturing is a buildup of defense, wait untill a neighbor begins a war with someone else, and while their troops are away for war, knock at their back door.

but... please, DONT refer to me as a builder again. thats a stance for another game.

[Arnelos]

I agree on establishing a more so-called "Machiavellian" approach.

We align with those that are most willing to align with us and we brutally attack those who would assault or betray us.

We establish whatever level of fear we can in others that we will respond, and brutually as well as effectively, to any attack or transgression upon us.

However, that we are not wholly committed to defeating ANY given team or even other teams in general - rather that we are perfectly willing to cooperate with them.

As long as they maintain the fear that we will still be perfectly warlike and brutal in the event we are crossed or we see another as a clear threat, we are using both CARROT and STICK to motivate them to do what we want (at least to the extent that we actually have the power to make those carrots and sticks meaningful ).

[Arnelos]

As for me being anti-war... I play a far more aggressive game style in single-player games than I've been advocating in the Democracy Game... and for very similar reasons to Ninot:

The Hawks want to fight everyone, everywhere, all the time. Anyone who disagrees with that sheerly mad way of looking at war ends up leaning the other direction.

The principle difference between the Hawks and the DIA is not (from what I've observed) over whether to fight wars so much as WHY to fight wars:

Hawks: We fight wars because wars are fun - we fight war for the sake of war itself.
DIA: We fight wars only for our own self-interest, only when the risks and the expense are justified by some tangible gain that could not otherwise be obtained or surpassed through peaceful means.

It's really that simple.

[Ninot]

Well, my problem with the Hawks and the C3DG was a little different

also why i left the DIA

the game just became one big war engine. I joined up for a challenge, not to think of how to win the next war with the least ammount of units lost. Once we beat out Persia... there WAS no challenge in war... but the same guys kept wanting to go to it.

but this will be different, i would hope

[GodKing]

Originally posted by Arnelos
I agree on establishing a more so-called "Machiavellian" approach.

Ok. I have seen this before. What is Togas famious for in the cd3g? All those tech trades that kept us in the game.

Arnelos & adamada.... helped togas.

jdjdjd, radical, judicial member, generally opposed to war.

thud, dia prez who is now running for SMC

me, gk, the CP for two terms, the guy who shoved provinces down the demo games throat, the guy who first said "persia declaired war on us... cool, they don't have iron yet, lets take them out, and grab the pyramids while we are at it"....

We are all known for being kinda sneaky if ya know what I mean. (sorry for leaving several people out, just felt there were enough examples...) I have looked in and seen references to how to deal with us.... they expect us to be sneaky. If we are to go this route, we must do so in totally new ways....

be honest to a couple of teams. Builders sound OK. But what about the war mongers. As long as they realize they stand no chance against us, and as long as they are dependant on us for something, even if that is just to watch their back....

Trips team probably will not start any trouble until they get their UU. Until then, how can we use that, and at the same time make is so we are not their target. Remember, they are watching us and expecting us to stab them in the back...

Look. What I am proposing is for us to do some radical things. Build 20 warriors, upgrade them ASAP, and then march on someone. Or even an archer rush may be appropriate. They will not be expecting that from us.

We must be radical and unpredictable. That is to our benifit. Humans determin when to make war and when to make peace. We can prune off 1-3 cities, then ask for peace without having to wait the 6 turns. We know the viewing radii of units and cities. we can march out of sight through another civs territory and attack from the rear. Or pirate ships carry no insignia... if we have lots of water, who would suspect us of destroying so much...

Just a couple of thoughts here at 11:45 pm when I have to go to work at 5am.....

GK

[Ninot]

Hrm... Godking left me out

apparently the first FAM was of no importance to us keeping technologically-to-pace in the ancient age

lol, just joshin

but as for strategy

i dont like the idea of an early ancient age rush.

what i WOULD prefer is to keep a deceptively large force in case we are attacked... so we can launch a formidable counter-attack

and as for the "expected back-stab"... if we can survive long enough for the opportunity for a back stab, it wont matter if they are expecting it or not.

Take for example..
Trash Trip's Ass (so sue me, i cant remember the new names...) outright declares war on Trip's team. They send the bigger part of their army over to Trips land to wage war.

At this point, their homeland is relatively unguarded. Whether that team is expecting it or not, a backstab is nothing they can effectively guard agaisnt.

As long as we are in waiting, no other civ can openly start a war without having the chance of us coming threw their back door.

Now, maybe they will eliminate us because they realise that, but I think they wont view us as the bunch of Machiavellians as you might think. But, what if they did?

Well, there in lies the key to always keeping a large home force during peace time. If any of them decides to attack, they get a rude awakening, and then we can march in on their land.


Our enemies CAN prepare for an attack on their land. What they cant prepare for is a deceptive counter-attack, or attack from a third party.



And should we not have the opportunity to steal land away before a certain ammount of time, then we should be more than capable of rolling over another civ, provided that our infrastructure is then built up from cocooning.

Rushing units (20 fast warriors) will leave us weak for exactly what I am talking about, strikes from third parties. I say we should take advantage of the weakness your plan proposes.

no offense about the weakness line.

[Arnelos]

I agree with GodKing on the following item:

There are two elements to fear that another will attack you:

1. That they have the physical strength and forces to attempt such a thing and perhaps even succeed.

But, more importantly...

2. That they have the WILL to attack and mercilessly slaughter you.

However, contrary to what GK is arguing, this element of fear is only effective when they are given a route to AVOID the slaughter that is beneficial to us. Otherwise, we back people into a corner and they get REALLY dangerous on us (this is why the Glory of War's idea is simply inane...).

We must establish BOTH that we have:

1. The willingness to utterly stomp someone into the ground

AND

2. The ability to be pleased enough to NOT stomp someone into the ground.

--------------------------------------

We must create clear expectations... that if they perform actions we don't like, we'll stomp on them. But that if they don't do things we don't like, we will refrain from stomping on them. To do otherwise is to remove the connection between doing things we like and not being stomped on... which removes their incentive to do things we like.

That said, the fear of being stomped on is only so effective as they believe we're willing to actually do it. So picking someone to stomp on and beating the snot out of them very early on COULD create that fear in others... I would humbly, suggest, however, either an AI team or a team we already know we can't live with in the longrun (Glory of War or the Gathering Storm).

[Arnelos]

Ninot's idea of assaulting the home area of a team which ATTACKS ANOTHER TEAM is workable... because then we can spin this to teams such as Legoland or another that they have nothing to fear from us as long as they don't attack anyone. That we felt compelled to attack Gathering Storm (Trash Trip's Ass) because their conquest of Team Lux Invicta would have made them too powerful and we couldn't accept that.

That way we give them a specific means (that's in our interests) to avoid getting stomped on by us in their perspective... and thus they might actually "be good" for us

What we shouldn't do is just go stomping on people without providing clear expectations afterwards on what people can do to avoid being stomped on.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Ninot
you said we have alot of builders, or builder-orientated people on this team

then you said we should completely ignore that to start and go on a huge offensive to start the game? That isnt exactly the popular opinion, IF those many people are builders. but i digress

I Don't know if the majority of people here are builders or not. But is this was the case, it would be an error to take an strategy different of what the team knows best.

Anyway, the name of the group don't imply any strategy. So don't expect others to classify us under one label.

i dont really agree with it. First strike not only puts us in a diplomatically bad light (where as we ALREADY cant trust 2 and a half teams, considering the warmongerers on those teams)... but it is also not the most advantageous thing to do.

I agree with that. The other teams would have a very bad opinion about us.

What I would more favor is a more machiavellian approach, as Togas has said.

Wait untill one of our neighbors does have their back turned to us, and then strike at it.

What I am picturing is a buildup of defense, wait untill a neighbor begins a war with someone else, and while their troops are away for war, knock at their back door.

That is a nice plan. And really machiavellian

[Arnelos]

oliverfa,

What he (and others) were getting at in terms of other people being able to anticipate our strategy is that they've been playing the single-player democracy game with us for months... and we've been posting on the forums for months with each others' different personal tastes for strategy... so a lot of people on different teams have a pretty good picture how people who are other teams tend to play.

As such, GodKings suggestion that we play differently just to trip people up has merit, though I personally don't feel it would work as well

[mrmitchell]

I havent been able to completely go over all the suggestions in this thread, but this should be our strategy:

-Legoland is used to building.
-Glory of War is used to fighting.
-Gathering Storm is used to kicking Trip's rear end.
-Lux Invicta is used to, well, winning.

We must send each of the teams something they are not used to, to confuse them or something. For example how can we get Glory of War to try to build? It seems like a stupid question, but if we can master human diplomacy we've got the game made.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
I havent been able to completely go over all the suggestions in this thread, but this should be our strategy:

-Legoland is used to building.
-Glory of War is used to fighting.
-Gathering Storm is used to kicking Trip's rear end.
-Lux Invicta is used to, well, winning.

We must send each of the teams something they are not used to, to confuse them or something. For example how can we get Glory of War to try to build? It seems like a stupid question, but if we can master human diplomacy we've got the game made.

So, in other words, our objectives should be....

Get Legoland to demolish things, Glory of War to to make love not war, Gathering Storm to kiss Trip's ass, and Lux Invicta to, well, lose!

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Arnelos


So, in other words, our objectives should be....

Get Legoland to demolish things, Glory of War to to make love not war, Gathering Storm to kiss Trip's ass, and Lux Invicta to, well, lose!

And I thought this place wouldn't be very active until the week leading into Dec.

Actually, I believe you're onto something here Arnelos. Human vs. Human strategy often comes down to wit and deception. If, in our relations, we can convince our opponents to do the unexpected, it works to our advantage. The other teams have no idea how we'll behave. We could use diplomacy to our advantage. If we convince the others of the tactical merits of behaving other than they would be expected to, we can potentially reap rewards from this knowledge. (In trades, surprise attacks, alliances, etc)

[Arnelos]

I do not wish to steal another's idea as my own... it was mrmitchell's idea.

As for the stuff I WROTE earlier in the thread, thanks. With human diplomacy, the most critical factor is generally the expectation game... you want your opponent to EXPECT you to do whatever it is that will get them to do what you want... learning what to get them to expect and then getting them to expect it is the problem

[F-PRO]

Originally posted by dejon
Human vs. Human strategy often comes down to wit and deception.

That's true, but that also means the other teams will try to deceive us, especially teams with no clear strategy like Lux Invicta or Gathering Storm. We must be extremely wary that we are not being deceived ourselves; that the opponent backstabs us before we backstab him.