Machiavellian Geopolitiking

[dexters]

The strategy of donations to prop up weaker civs work moderately well on standard maps, albeit with less civs and less land, you tend to have few people to support.
And there tends to be more equity between nations who survive through to the modern times.

In anycase, you are absolutely right about huge maps.

I'm growing to like them more and more because of the intrigue level.

[vulture]

One occasional drawback of donating resources to civs that are in the process of losing wars is that occasionally they lose their last remaining harbour, and you get blamed for breaking a 20-turn trade deal, which messes up your ability to buy techs for gpt. Doesn't happen often, but is something to watch out for.

Incidentally, during the AU 302 OCC game, I saw Korea willing to pay 57 gpt for iron in the industrial era, but went up to 71 gpt when at war, and then back down again when the war finished. Presumably the AIs pricing for the human player would follow the same logic, and screw you for more money for the resource when you really needed it. Or perhaps it was a coincidental re-valuation as techs were discovered, new units were buildable, and old iron units became obsolete.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Make sure you donate enough! If you don't, as noted above, you just spent x amount of gold or resources per turn and did not defeat your enemy abroad. The two examples above are good; it's happened to me so many times I can't count, all because I say, "But I can't give 1000 gold to these guys! Just a little saltpeter'll help..."

WRONG idea.

[Arrian]

My worry with doing something like that, Yahweh, is that the civ I just gave 1000 gold to will turn around pay off its opponent. Then, instead of throwing 1000gold "into the fray" which will get burnt up in warfare, I've essentially hooked the AI up with a bunch of gold it will now use for other purposes.

-Arrian

[Ubergeek]

That's a very reasonable worry, Arrian, and I've considered it as well. It's a gamble, of course, but I usually figure it's worth taking. It helps ease my mind when the civ that my client is fighting is Communist -- that way, even if my client does pay him off, at least he won't use the cash to rush units and come after me. But even if my client does use it to pay off the enemy, at least A) my client surives and is potentially useful to me later, and B) my client's cities are not absorbed into the enemy, thus adding their production capacity to the enemy's. I find the tradeoff worth it in many, many cases, but YMMV.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I second Ubergeek's emotion - it's a risky trade and one I rarely take, but one I do consider nonetheless.

[dexters]

Originally posted by Ubergeek
That's a very reasonable worry, Arrian, and I've considered it as well. It's a gamble, of course, but I usually figure it's worth taking. It helps ease my mind when the civ that my client is fighting is Communist -- that way, even if my client does pay him off, at least he won't use the cash to rush units and come after me. But even if my client does use it to pay off the enemy, at least A) my client surives and is potentially useful to me later, and B) my client's cities are not absorbed into the enemy, thus adding their production capacity to the enemy's. I find the tradeoff worth it in many, many cases, but YMMV.

That's a very specific worry and I agree. But more generally, The tide of battle is easily determined usually in the first 3 to 5 turns and you can start hedging your bets and back a potential loser to keep your enemies off balance. My experience on regent has been that AI wars tend to go the full 20 turns, especially if you're the one who got them into it through military alliances. So you can usually time your donations and not worry about a hasty peace. It is also a good reason for you to donate in installments, so that you spread out the payments and the AI may not have enough to statisfy a peace treaty but enogh to rush units or improvements that could make a difference.


In my current game, Korea attacked me, but they were located on the other end of the continent. I got India and Carthage into the fray and both ate up Korea. As the 20 turns were about up, I realized Korea was losing it. It's cities were falling and it would seem like their Capital would fall too, with its 2 sources of wine luxury. Not wanting the Indians or Carthage to get their hands on a demostic source of wine, I ended the alliance after 20 turns, made peace and I backed Korea, donating techs, horses, and money. This help turn the tide into a stalemate. I've gotten what I want. Korea, known as a particularly nasty AI is crippled. India chewed up a bit more than I wanted to so I may have to deal with them in the future, but overall, I got what I wanted. In the end, I donated about 500 gold, and the last 100 was probably used by Korea as reparations when it made peace. But keeping them from losing another city was the point and I achieved that.

As for overseas trade, the concern with breaking trades through the loss of seaports is a legitimate one. But in my particular example, Carthage was at peace and I was simply hedging my bets to make sure that if the Babylonians decided to try something funny, they'd meet stiff resistance. I think it is better to be proactive rather than reactive, especially if you have a tech lead and can control what units the client AI can build through the techs you give it.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

One thing I've noticed - and correct me if I'm wrong, anyone - is that the AI will pay through the nose to procure a cutting-edge military tech even if it lacks the resources to utilize that tech. Perhaps they're assuming that, having that tech, they can procure the resource through war or trade?

Later in the game that would be a logical assumption, but in my current game as Persia I found that auctioning off Chivalry to everyone in exchange for a MA resulted in few knights or UUs built.

I was worried I'd have Riders, Ansar Warriors, and Knights up the wazoo, but it would be worth the price. However, the Arabs never had horses, the Chinese never connected their iron and horses (!) and indeed, of the six civs I involved in this deal, only two got around to building their UUs.

I might feel differently about trading MT for nothing short of a grotesque amount of money... at that point in the game, they'll have a way of getting the resources needed, most likely. But the Chivalry trade was a masterstroke that unfortunately must be ascribed to luck more than innovation.

A trick worth repeating someday...

[Arrian]

When I want to prevent the slaughter of one AI by another, I find that the most effective method is to get a RoP and physically block the winning side with my units. I did that in an AU game once to prevent the destruction of a civ I was trading with (Russia) by a civ I eventually invaded (America). I didn't hold off the Amis forever, as I didn't have enough units in Russia to totally block them. But by sitting on strategic bits of land, I forced them to attack Russian cities across rivers, etc, helping Russia survive just long enough to get out of my trade obligations.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

The reverse situation - blocked in your path by enemy units - is one of the most irritating occurences in the game and part of the reason why a Persian player allied with the Zulus is bound to be irritated - those worthless Impis move twice as fast as the Immortals!

[Ubergeek]

That's an effective tactic on smaller maps, but impractical on Huge maps except in rare circumstances. The borders between even "small" civs are just too long to be practically blocked, especially if they're on another continent.

[Arrian]

Good point, Ubergeek, but then again, all I need to do is protect a port city and the capitol, not the entire empire. If my goal is simply to avoid the sullying of my reputation, that is.

If I really don't want one civ wrecking another, I'll probably drop a can of whoopass on one of them. More often than not, the weaker one, because I can often toast 'em in a short period of time, grab their luxuries, and get paid by the larger civ for an alliance

-Arrian

[Ubergeek]

That also works, Arrian. A lot of the tactics one uses simply depend on the sort of game one enjoys. I know you like fighting a lot more than I do, but for me there comes a breaking point where I just don't wanna fight any more damned wars, especially ones where I have to move transport after transport full of units across a major ocean just to replace my losses. It just doesn't fit in with the kind of game I enjoy. Incidentally, that's exactly why I don't play on levels higher than Monarch -- at higher levels, it's nothing but a wargame, and if I want to play a wargame I'll fire up Combat Mission. But if you like warring, then just killing 'em all and letting Sid sort 'em out is a viable option.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Ubergeek
at higher levels, it's nothing but a wargame, and if I want to play a wargame I'll fire up Combat Mission. But if you like warring, then just killing 'em all and letting Sid sort 'em out is a viable option.

That's why the diplomatic victory should be more complex and easier to track, and why domination should perhaps be easier to attain (at least on a huge map!)

[Ubergeek]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth


That's why the diplomatic victory should be more complex and easier to track, and why domination should perhaps be easier to attain (at least on a huge map!)

Just like everyone else, I find the Diplomatic Victory highly unsatisfying. The UN needs to be more like the Council of SMAC...but then I'm not saying anything others haven't said better before. But enriching diplomatic options is always a good thing for a 4X game, as long as the options are balanced and fun.