Strategy

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by 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.

A client AI civ... this is an AWESOME idea

I definately agree with this, should we have the spare funds (because that's what it's going to take) to pull this off.

[DAVOUT]

I see the AI presence not lasting long, mainly because it will not be possible to give them money or techs without risking to have quickly this money transferred to a human civ. The strongest human civs will decide early that their interest is to simplify the game in eliminating the AI civs. This strategy works in ALL strategic situations. We have to think to our stance in that case.
I don’t believe to the automatic ganging up against the human civ first to conquer an AI civ : another or two will probably be doing the same, a third will not be ready to attack, and you will find yourself with only one human civ available for an alliance against a civ suddenly twice the size you have.
If this starts, the best solution is probably to try to get a share of it.

[Ninot]

Davout, you do make a point, but i disagree on your proposed chain of events.

If Glory of War starts colonizing the AI's, we can either take the option of doing the same, or calling them out on it. If we do the same, we are reducing FUTURE options. If we call them out on it, and get a Human aliance, and possibly an AI one, we can reduce a warmongering civ early. I prefer to reduce a human civ before reducing AI civs.

AI's can be beaten with formula, Humans need thought.

[Arnelos]

I agree with Ninot. If GoW or Gathering Storm (or Lux Invicta, for that matter) are the first ones to go after an AI civ, we call them on it and attempt to line up other human civs (along with the assaulted AI civ) to knock that human civ back and perhaps even keep them down.

I agree, I'd rather be knocking back human civs than AI ones.

THAT SAID, it might be valuable for us to sign a pact with 1-2 other human civs to collectively gobble up an AI civ (example: the division of Poland, anyone?). This would guarantee that the division of the AI civ is at least acceptable to 3 of the 5 human civs (a majority) and the other two can just suffer.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Arnelos

THAT SAID, it might be valuable for us to sign a pact with 1-2 other human civs to collectively gobble up an AI civ (example: the division of Poland, anyone?). This would guarantee that the division of the AI civ is at least acceptable to 3 of the 5 human civs (a majority) and the other two can just suffer.

This is a good idea, but still i think it wise if we state an AI civ is an ally, and we keep their land sacred of enemy troups. I think it will always be a good idea if we set limits for our human opponents, as in "dont touch that AI!" After a division of one AI, we should be strong enough to enforce this.

But then again, if our move to divide an AI sets the other human teams to do the same, we would again be making it a Human only game. I dont like the idea of that. The AI could be our ultimate pawn against a warmongere.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ninot
I prefer to reduce a human civ before reducing AI civs.

I would prefer too, but it will be decided by the strongest, and if, due to chance or talent we were the strongest, our interest would be to kill the AI first.

Being the strongest in the early game can depend of chance such as finding a settler in a hut. BTW you know that you CANNOT get a settler when you enter a hut and at the same time a settler is being built or is not yet settled.

[jdjdjd]

Thats interesting DAVOUT. I did not know that.

It would be good to keep an AI Civ around as long as possible and try to make them our friends. But, we need to be wary of what the others are doing. If all the human civs are looking to grab as big a chunk of the AI civs as soon as possible, then we need to also join in that, so we do not lose out. But, otherwise, we need to concentrate on the Human Civs and then I agree with what Ninot said about the AI alliance rolplay.

As for massing our troops on the border. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that given the members of this team and the perception others should have of us from the Demo Game, that they would not expect us to have a large offensive force. So, in playing with that we need to conceal our offensive force. We can't stop the other human players Advisors from telling if we have a stronger force than them or not, but at least we can keep them from knowing the type of force this is.

[GodKing]

An idea...... never sell our map. Period. Without knowing what the inside of our territory looks like, it will make it much harder for them do devise tactics. It will also make them wonder whether or not we have a particular resourse or not.

Mobilty sound like it will be our major military strategy. Lots of roads and fast units. We will need lots of slaves and workers to build the infrastructure. The slaves we should convert to lookout towers (and later radar towers) as knowing what the enemy is up to is 1/2 the battle.

Don't be afraid to use intimidation to get what we want. for example, a neighborting civ has a city with 3 lux in its radius. If we march 6 knights to the border, along with a couple of pike, and then kindly ask for a good deel on one of the lux items, it might work. They will know that we can just take the city and all the lux. But remember, our actions will be remembered, so expect some retaliation later on. Intimidation is just a tool, abet one with some potentially serious consiquences.

If we do take on a human civ, we must do so ruthlessly. Pillage cities that we cannot hold, or even if we are not sure of. Send in raders to cut off supplies and lux. Be a brute. We better be able to hit them hard also. no rinky dink stuff. As once we committ, the other human civs will know where our offence is and look at our back side as well (I know that is what we are going to do.)

Ahhh..... so I am the old man here......thanks Arnelos by reminding me of that.

[ThePlagueRat]

I think you are right about mobility. That could be one of our nice formless military tactics. On defense, at least...

On offense... When attacking the enemy outside cities,
it would be very effective with fast attack-units too.
IMO, I like slower units as well. If they are flanking the fast attack-units some tiles away, and taking hits there, we can cover a larger front, without risking to expose our strenght.
An effective (but well know) cavalry tactic, is to support the infantry who gets in battle.

Or the opposite flanking. (when the fast unit is not a maximum value attacker, but just scouting on the flanks)

Sticking units together on border would be nice to show a muscle, but it would not maintain formlessness of our attack force.
We could use it for harassment, when we do not plan a real formless attack.

But the most exciting thing, is to remain formless on in our international relations.
How can we look predictable, while being unpredictable?

[mrmitchell]

Good ideas GodKing

My addition to the boiling pot of strategy:

Kind of related to a disinformation campaign, but each regime changes its ideas, i.e. the Togas despotic state sez it is a peacenik. However, GodKing despotic state sez it wishes to blow up the world in a fire of destruction.

Just examples, guys. (Or, I'm pretty sure we're all actually guys. This was brought up in the chat a few weeks back, remember?)

Please put your input in the circular file holder really tho, keep it coming

[Ninot]

I have a few comments on things said

Don't be afraid to use intimidation to get what we want. for example, a neighborting civ has a city with 3 lux in its radius. If we march 6 knights to the border, along with a couple of pike, and then kindly ask for a good deel on one of the lux items, it might work. They will know that we can just take the city and all the lux. But remember, our actions will be remembered, so expect some retaliation later on. Intimidation is just a tool, abet one with some potentially serious consiquences.

As you say, we might expect retaliation afterwards. A move like this will be good for us for MAYBE 20 turns, but we would damage relations, and risk a war. While we may hide units, its possible the enemy will hide just as many. An unnesescary war and needless bad diplomatic relations arent worth it in my eye.

I would prefer to keep friendly relations all around untill we KNOW we can crush the entire civ, not just one city.

As for what Davout and jd*3, you make points, but i see one flaw, cackle.

Davout makes an excellent point. The civ that leads in the begining will set the pace, most definately, and probably decide when the first declaration of war happens. But the first breakout civ could probably still be stopped by an aliance of other civs.

And now to a point to make about something jd*3 said. If a rival civ starts taking over an AI, the natural reaction doesnt have to be to do the same... we can attack the human instead. They will be less defended than a preparred AI.

However, yes, if all the other civs get the knee-jerk reaction of invading AI's, i agree, its the only way.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ninot

If a rival civ starts taking over an AI, the natural reaction doesnt have to be to do the same... we can attack the human instead. They will be less defended than a preparred AI.

This is a reason why only the most daring warmongers teams will make early wars : Glory of war ?

[ThePlagueRat]

Glory of War recently misunderstood my humble and friendly statement to them. Now they PMed me to tell'em if I wished to join their group!? What shall I say to them? Of course I will tell them that I can't since I'm a Roleplayer.
Perhaps some other Roleplayers would like me to tell something else too?

[Togas]

Plague,

Keep us informed about if they make any other offers to you. My first inclination was to ask you to serve as a spy for us, but then my conscious flared up and whacked me on the head and made me think otherwise.

You have already been admitted to our inner circle and know our secret thoughts and discussions, so it would be completely unfair to us if you left to join another team. But if you can forge a good relationship with them outside this game, perhaps you could end up serving as an ambassador to them.

--Togas

[ruby_maser]

Tell them you are interested but that it, if you were to leave this team to join theirs, it would seem suspicious... almost like they were deliberately trying to pull membership from other teams and gain insight into how the other teams operated, and you certainly would not want to damage their rep by blatantly switching to their side.

See if they shoot back with an alternative solution. I would like to know how far they would be willing to go to glean info about us or our strategy by having someone defect.