Strategy

[ruby_maser]

I'm looking forward to armies going heads up, and I don't mean Civ3 concept of an "army"; I'm could be talking about such a thing as two opposing stacks meeting on the field of battle... will be interesting

[Ninot]

Call me old, call me dumb, but i disagree to alot of what has been said recently.

First....

I think we should keep our military size as secretive as we possibly can. And, NEVER along our borders, unless we admitt hostility to a nation.

If we put units on the verge of crossing a border, we will make that civ antsy... and put them in position to not trust us. We cant have that.

In my opinion, we should keep the units where they are still in good position for whatever we need them for (lets not amass them all on one mountain at the center of the empire)... but keep them where they cant be seen. What the enemy doesnt know, can hurt him worse.

As for what Arnelos said...i agree with most of it, except....

Picture this.

We go invade a civ. This makes us twice the size of our closest neighbor civ. What is he to think of our recent acquisition? It certainly doesnt benefit HIM. And this human civ might figure... if we are allowed to much time to build up the conquered teritory, he may be next.

While taking AI land can benefit us, and we should probably consider it early... we cant go overboard. The more we appear to be ambitious for land, the less reason humans would have to restrain attacking us with.

And if we are expanding, we are thinning, presenting a perfect opportunity for a sneak attack on us.

The AI should be seen JUST like the Humans as far as diplomacy goes. If we take out an AI, the humans will feel we are ambitious, and better to take us out earlier, before we take ANOTHER AI, and become unstoppable.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by astrologix


And I fully agree

There is a lot of agreeance going on...

[ruby_maser]

I in no way meant to insinuate that we leave our troops stationed on or borders. It may, however, serve a purpose in the future to perform these 'military exercises' briefly. I would suspect that we not start out doing it on day 1, but whether we want to or not, relations with at least a few of our neighbors are going to deteriorate eventually.

If we want something from them or simply wish to give them something to think about, this could be a tool at our disposal. I would discard it, too, though as a way of dealing with friends. But enemies may need to see patrols to know that we are patroling. I don't mean we lay everything we've got on the table nor do I suggest we keep them there.

I don't think hiding our forces is going to keep them from know our relative military strength in comparison to theirs; they can get that from their military advisor.

Anyway, I'm only suggesting options for deterance. I'd rather not have them march across our border at all than to assume our military is preoccupied, attack, and find out otherwise.

[GeneralTacticus]

About lining troops up on the border - it may have 1 of 2 effects:

1) Making the Civ paranoid about us, causing them to rush troops to their side of the border as soon as they see one of our units nearby, and potentially deciding to attack pre-emptively.

2) Lulling them into thinking that we're just trying to screw with their minds, to the extent that we can amass a large force on their border for an invasion without them caring.

Or anywhere between those two extremes.

[Ninot]

I still think that if the enemy thinks we have less troups, or doesnt have a clue, its better.

[GeneralTacticus]

I'm just noting the possible consequences, not making any statements about the advisability or otherwise of doing it.

[ruby_maser]

well, one thing is for sure, with the way diplomacy is handled in MP, we will be dealing with people who are potentially completely in the dark concerning which techs we are lacking our what resources we have.

All I am saying is that there is a time for subterfuge and a time for clarity. Hiding everything all the time is probably as bad as hiding nothing. I hope we keep our options open when the time comes and not fall into paradigms that lead to us not seeing alternative options available to us less black and white than war or peace, secretive and forthcoming.

[Arnelos]

Ninot,

I actually AGREE when it comes to being SO AGGRESSIVE with taking over AI land that we become the destabilizing factor to the balance of power ourselves. This will make us the paraiah and likely the one taken out by a coalition of other human teams.

Rather, we can do so in partnership with at least one (or preferably two) human teams. We could work it in much the same manner as the European colonial powers worked colonization in the period from 1880 through around 1908 until the Great War (anyone ever play the boardgame Pax Britanica? horribly complicated, amazingly fascinating). Basically, in order to prevent direct warfare between the competing European powers, they agreed that each of them would be entitled to take a certain amount of land from various colonizable areas and to make it their own. More importantly, they each constrained themselves to respecting each others' spheres of influence in the colonizable areas and didn't, for instance, go marching troops into an area of Africa where another European power owned the rail roads w/o working out some form of agreement.

The way this might work for us is that it's like that all of the human civs will (in some manner) attempt to lay down some lines in the sand that extend beyond their borders. For instance, that they'd be unhappy if a human civ conquered this region of an AI civ or if this Human Civ was conquered by that human civ, etc. Most of these determinations won't be publicized, but they will exist... points at which one human civ will have done too much for another human civ to peacefully accept.

If we can work with other human civs, especially the ones more likely to be friendly toward us, to not overly step on each others' toes or go conquering AI cities in each others' spheres of influence, we may yet be able to pull off making a decent empire.

Ultimately, it will be a network of mutual defensive pacts (both secret and public) between the human players which will be our largest layer of security (to the extent that we would be able to play that game well). For it is in the interest of NO HUMAN TEAM to see another human team conquered... for any conquest of any team will, by definition, make yet another opponent that much more powerful.

As such, ALL TEAMS jointly have an interest in opposing any team that would seek to conquer another team. Now, some teams will act to disregard this unstated rule of balance of power geopolitics and will likely pay the price if they do so (Glory of War comes to mind...). If Gathering Storm gets too cocky, they very well be next (or they may be first if they're THAT cocky). Because 3-4 civs ganging up on 1 civ will make for a very short war.

However, and here's the irony, it may be the case that he losing civ will be permitted to live on because none of the coalition of civs attacking it can allow for the risk that the other members of the coalition will get more of the prize than they will

It's going to be a fierce and very anarchic balance of power system... Getting ahead can be a self-defeating thing to do, as Ninot suggests. The only way around this is to get ahead WITH OTHERS, so that you minimize the degree to which the balance of power will cause more strength to be against you than at least with you (at any given moment).

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Ninot
I love Machiavellianism... and plotting

what job is that exactly? Is there an evil, non social planning section to our government yet?

I love it too.



Hmm, I think machiavellian plotting style jobs was mainly
done by the aristocracy. ( in their councils and guilds )
Many semi-independant Duchys and Counties had their
homeknitted diplomacy and their feuds down in Italy,
in the Machiavellian period.

One member sometimes arose to become the gray eminence.
Often through rubbing the Regent's back and being his right hand. We got such a position here too, under Togas rulership.



If Togas was an infant Emperor, that other person would the executor of the real imperial power. As shogun, chancellor, etc.
Now, I think he is an adult with a certain amount of judgemental power.
(but it's all up to our roleplay, really)

[Arnelos]

If you take a peek at Togas' profile, you will see that he is, in reality, the ELDER of almost all of us on this team (he's my elder by just under 6 years). The only one I'm sure is older is GodKing.

My avatar, that of a relatively young William Gladstone (most portraits of Gladstone are of him in his 70's and 80's... it was near to impossible to find a sketch of him from his 40's or 50's), I suppose gives a highly deceptive connotation to my age. As was discussed in the "what demo gamers look like thread" on the single-player demo game site, many people develop an impression of posters based on their avatars... this can be extremely deceptive

Though, in some cases, it can be almost a portrait. GodKing, for instance, really does look like his avatar

[ThePlagueRat]

Perhaps I'm the youngest in this group?
Hmm... I've been playing som boardgames and RPGs for a few years.

Well for my roleplay:
Plutiin Plagiatum Perilius will perhaps look like my avatar one day.
He's not a commie though. (neither am I)

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Perhaps I'm the youngest in this group?
Hmm... I've been playing som boardgames and RPGs for a few years.

If your birthday is right in your profile, you are not the youngest. Togas only has about 3 years on you.

Anyway, avatars may be deceptive, that is true. As naval vessels go, I need to be decommissioned

edit: and mothballed

[ThePlagueRat]

Oh, and the other the young lads were born in the eighties then?


Perhaps I should be second in command then?
(the gray eminense, and main target for backstabbers)

[Ninot]

here's the thing about the AI....

we can use them

ALOT

They dont have the same inteligence, drive, and motives as a human would. As far as making deals with them goes, all we need is good relations and deep pockets. We would need something more with a human deal.


IF the game were to get to the point where it was JUST the 5 human civs left (am i counting right?), then all the war and diplomacy will get more complicated

if we can hold onto an AI... and in a roleplay sense, declare them our closest friend... that gives us another reason to declare war. It also gives us another civ to make war pacts with.

I think keeping atleast one AI around is to our advantage.