Machiavellian Geopolitiking

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Question:

what is 4X?

Spank you kindly,
L'idiot d'apolyton

[Ubergeek]

Xplore, Xpand, Xploit, Xterminate -- it's the generic label for grand strategy games like the Civ series, MOO, GalCiv, etc.

[Arrian]

eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate, I believe.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Jeeziz, that's a bloodthristy acronym.

[dexters]

As Ubergeek noted, the block strategy is fairly limited and isn't really very practical even when dealing moderate sized maps pre-RR.

Unless you're lucky and your objectives as Arrian noted is simply to protect the Capital or a tiny border.

The issue of backing allys can be complicated. It is often that I want them to keep more than one city, and more often than not, I want them to regain lost territory. Sometimes, as with Carthage, it's just making sure they don't fold faster than witless hack when attacked. And sometimes, it is simply to keep one civ from gaining a domestic source of a luxury or a strategic resource.

I think flexibility is key here. Arrian's blocking strategy will certainly be filed away in my brain as a potential strategy

[Ubergeek]

When the blocking strategy works, it works wonders. In a recent game, my northern neighbors, the perpetually hapless Romans (man, I have NEVER played a game where the Romans were a factor after the end of the Ancient Age) were being clobbered by THEIR northern neighbors, the Carthaginians. Now, Rome hated me but was a harmless neighbor, while Carthage liked me but would have been nothing but trouble if they got to my borders. So I got a ROP from Rome and shook out a cordon sanitaire across a relatively narrow portion of the continent, thus preserving a Roman rump state on my border and keeping everything up that way nice and quiet until the end of the game.

Now, keep in mind it was relatively narrow -- on a huge map, that meant it took 30 units to block the Carthaginians. Had the Romans been anything other than adjacent, I never would have been able to pull it off.

[dexters]

OT: ROMANS

Ubergeek, you're right. I can't help but cringe whenever I see the Roman AI perform so poorly.

The Germans and Zulus aren't much better either.

[Ubergeek]

OT: In my last game, the Germans were the 800-lb gorilla of the other continent, smashing everything that got in their way. That is the one and only time I've ever seen them perform even adequately. The Zulus, on the other hand, are a lost cause.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Blocking runs both ways. In my current game, I've got a few elephants blocking my way into Babylon, which has JS Bach's. ARRGH! I've got to move across 2 mountains with my cavalry to pour into Babylon before it gets properly defended. I'm in for a long, long war and the elephants of my allies on the mountains make it worse.

OT: Agreed with the Romans, Zulus et Germans... but when they do become powerful, they tend to be super-tough and major pains! Never let them make it to the industrial age, especially not the Zulu or Germans!

[Arrian]

I've only seen a strong AI Rome once. It made the mistake of declaring war on me, and ceased to be strong shortly thereafter.

The trait combo just isn't that strong. One of the traits, militaristic, is just wasted on the AI. It doesn't know how to use it (whereas commercial doesn't require any sort of strategy, it's just there). The unit, while not terrible, isn't all that great, and of course the AI isn't going to horde vet warriors & cash and then do a mass upgrade.

-Arrian

[Jog]

reminds me...

Machiavellian politicking has actually taken a step backwards in Civ3.

In Civ2 we had those wonderful puppetmaster options of supplying military hardware to nations as well as the option of paying them off to declare war on an enemy.

How many times have you wanted to aid some poor bastard who was being smoked by an aggressive superpower halfway across the globe. I know I've lost many a resource because of this restriction on diplomacy in Civ3...

[dexters]

Well, the AI in Civ2 is far inferior to the AI in Civ3. And while the puppet master thing may be less obvious in Civ3, strategic /luxury resources and careful management of who has access to it more than makes up for it.

[Ubergeek]

I think Civ 3 was a big step forward in this regard from Civ 2, but actually a significant step backwards in some regards from SMAC. We sorely miss the ability to make peace between third party belligerents and a truly useful world council/UN.

[Jog]

Originally posted by dexters
Well, the AI in Civ2 is far inferior to the AI in Civ3. And while the puppet master thing may be less obvious in Civ3, strategic /luxury resources and careful management of who has access to it more than makes up for it.

but I think we'll all agree that this type of global domineering (controlling the flow of resources) more often than not requires direct military intervention by the player, especially when you're dealing with military superpower rival vs. poor weakling trading partner.

I should be able to supply other nations with units because:
1) I have no desire or ability to get sidetracked by attempting to restrict the global flow of resources (a monster of a task even on smaller maps)
2) I have no desire to supply anyone (even my allies) with the required technology so they can build units similar to mine.

Feel me?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Jog
Feel me?

Yes, but to the extent that civ is modeled on reality, there are a two problems with your reasoning:

1. Once a nation is supplied with a piece of military hardware, it is quite easy for them to figure out how to produce that hardware themselves. Whether or not they have the resources and capital availible is another question, of course.

2. Anyone can tell where specific items of warfare are produced. Similarly, even with small arms, it's easy to tell who's backing insurgencies, etc. Just slapping paint on the hardware involved doesn't do the trick.