Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Managing the World – The Machiavellian Doctrine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Managing the World – The Machiavellian Doctrine

    version 1.2
    --------------------
    version notes
    09/12/03 - Added Section A
    11/13/03 - Added Master Zen's definition of Warmonger and Builder/Pacifist players
    --------------------

    Table of Contents
    • Introduction and Background (on this post)
    • Features of a Machiavellian Player (on this post)
    • Section A - Foreign Policy Map
    • Section B - Policy Discussions (To Be Completed)
    • Section C - Final Notes (To be Completed)



    Introduction
    This isn’t so much a strategy, but a style of play that I think some historically and politically minded players may find more rewarding than purely playing for points or winning the game as early as possible.

    The strategy should be applicable to all difficulty levels, but since I haven’t really delved into Emperor and Diety level games, players who play frequently at these levels are welcome to send me feedback on the matter.

    This doctrine is inspired by an earlier thread on huge map games and a related thread which I started on
    Machiavellian Geopolitiking (I don't think Geopolitiking is a real word).

    Background

    Who is Machiavelli? Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy at a time when the country was in political upheaval. He became an important diplomat at during a brief interruption in the rule of the Medici’s in Florence.

    When the Medici’s regained their power however, Machiavelli was removed from his post. It is at this time that he wrote “The Prince”, a work which describes in plain pragmatism how a monarch, or ruler, ought to behave practically, instead of advancing lofty high-minded moral ideals.

    Machiavelli essentially argues that morality is secondary, but doing things when it suits one’s purpose is the only rule. Being deceitful is fine as long as it suits one’s purpose. Being feared is better than being loved, but one must at all cost avoid being hated. A Prince should exhibit good virtues, but don’t necessarily have to live up to them, only make his subjects believe that he does. “The Prince” is often credited as a key work in modern political thinking.

    This strategy will not follow Machiavelli’s writings point by point. But it follows the spirit of Machiavelli’s ideas and that’s where I got the idea to name it after him.

    The Doctrine

    Historically, Civilization (Civ) players have differentiated themselves through relatively simple labels. Those who engage in war, and domination of their immediate landmass are the warmongers. Those who play defensively, engage in defensive wars are the builders or sometimes known as the pacifists. There is a subtle semantic difference between builders and pacifists but we’ll ignore that for our purposes.

    For definition's sake, intent matters more than method.

    A "warmonger" usually takes advantage of the benefits of war and seeks victory by domination or conquest. Of course, there will be times he will be devoted purely to building, but in the end, sees military might as the road to victory (i.e. the building is to gear up for war)

    A "builder" takes advantage of the benefits of peace and seeks victory by culture, diplomacy, or space race. The builder will of course be forced to go to war, when he is threatened or when he sees no other alternative. However, building is seen as the road to victory (i.e the wars are to allow room for building peacefully)

    The Machiavellians (the Machs), is a new group which I think have always existed in Civ but have always self categorized themselves with other groups, or simply ignored any categorization. The relatively rudimentary diplomacy features of previous Civ games also limited the scope of these players. It is, like warmongers and builders, a style of play and can be inclusive. Machs are supreme pragmatists and employ both the carrot and the stick in its dealings with other Civs.

    Key Features of the Mach Player
    [list=1][*]Machiavellians are pragmatists. They build when it is necessary, appease when it suits them and wage war when opportunities arise.
    [*]Machiavellians are not conquerors. They don’t seek destruction of all of its enemies, only some. “Owning” their starting landmass through conquests is a secondary concern to them. If they can control weak Civs in the periphery of their landmass, that is just as good.
    [*]Machiavellians, in the context of Civ III seek the control of the world’s resources, and engage through war and diplomacy to deny their enemies of these resources. A successful Machiavellian power would have all of the luxuries under its direct or indirect control. When hostilities begin with a civilization, most if not all of the luxuries as well as key strategic resources (where practical) can be embargoed and denied the opponent.

    Emerging Machiavellian powers can do this on a much smaller scale.
    [*]Machiavellians are image conscious. They prefer not to break treaties, even against their most hated enemies and can be generous to allies and even enemies in peace. They do not appear to control the world, but through the machinations of its foreign policy, it in fact control a majority of the world or region and manage alliances in a loose coalition against any existing threat against the Machiavellian power.

    If no such threat exists, Machiavellians are actively using its allies to help it win the game, not conquering them, although limited wars of conquests against an unruly ally are always possible. This is especially important if the war yields increased control over particular resources. However, as noted earlier, Machiavellians much prefer the use diplomacy to control its rival’s access to resources, especially if securing a resource requires a major war that would alienate it from key allies.
    [*]Machiavellians prefer to use its foreign policy to control the world/region (depending on the stage of development). A distinguishing feature between a Machiavellian foreign policy and a standard foreign policy is that Machiavellians will almost always have good relations with every Civilization (in the world or region), except a select few that are its enemies but sometimes, the Mach’s enemies may not be aware they have a target painted on their heads and remain friendly with the Mach power while they slowly lose control over their own destiny. This state of good relations is managed, and is not accidental.

    While most Civ players do use alliances in times of war to outnumber their enemies, Machiavellians plan out who these allies will be ahead of time, and know more or less who to call when war in a certain region arises. The key difference here is the lack of guesswork, and last minute preparations.

    Furthermore, Machiavellians, as part of its larger foreign policy, where possible, keep key allies in a constant state of dependence, whether it be luxury, resource or technological. This ensures that their support can be bought at any time. The existing good relations often ensure that support can be enlisted at low cost.

    Machiavellians, through its foreign policy, manage rivalries between its key allies and its key threats. Ensuring persisting animosity between rival AI Civs, further lowering the cost of enlisting help in times of war and opening opportunities for the player when key allies take the initiative and declare war on the threat.[/list=1]

    Notes:

    The doctrine isn’t anything new. I don’t claim exclusive ownership to any of the individual ideas discussed here, but taken as a whole, I’ve yet to see people discuss this style of play in much depth so I will claim ownership of the sum of ideas. If you’ve been playing this way or some variant of this doctrine, then feel free to contact me and I’m more than welcome to discuss ideas, add your feedback and give share the credit with you.

    Writing the parts of the doctrine may take some time. I am still thinking about how best to present the material. I am also testing the waters with the community with this overview and hopefully collecting suggestions from other players

    Please direct all lengthy corresponce regarding this doctrine to teamreavers@yahoo.com You are also welcome to post your thoughts in the responses.
    AI:C3C Debug Game Report (Part1) :C3C Debug Game Report (Part2)
    Strategy:The Machiavellian Doctrine
    Visit my WebsiteMonkey Dew

  • #2
    Excellent.
    It reminds me a bit of my PUP thread and a bit of T.S. Elliot ('Jellicoe cats are...').
    Go ahead and expand your thoughts, you might even get a chapter in the 'Guidebook'.
    The Mountain Sage of the Swiss Alps

    Comment


    • #3
      Section A - General Foreign Policy Map

      In the Machiavellian doctrine, diplomacy is a key component of the player’s game. Power through diplomacy sets out several diplomatic arrangements a player can pursue to leverage their own power at relatively low cost to them. We will briefly discuss two points of the Machiavellian Foreign Policy Map and its implications.

      1) Control. Control in this context is managed control. There is an aversion to outright uneccessary conquest in this style of play. Emerging Machiavellian powers may pick a needy civilization in its sphere of influence and engage in trade, technological exchange and maintain a good relationship. This pattern is expanded globally as the civilization grows and may grow to include a variety of civilizations of varying power. Good relations, and interdependent trading relations will bring AI civilizations into our sphere of influence.

      A key game mechanic to understand here is AI civs value the cost of going to war based on the existing trading relationship (in luxuries and any gold per turn income) it must give up with the target civ when war is declared, plus a profit margin. There is no evidence that loss of reputation for breaking deals is a factor in the calculations as AI Civs are not penalized in the same way as humans are for breaking deals.

      By monopolizing as much trade as possible with key civilizations-- this include exporting your goods to fill their need and importing their goods to fill your needs—players can quickly form a coalition of civilizations that is inextricably tied to the player. More will be said about this and some problems with this strategy under policy discussions (Section B)


      2) Strategic Alliances. The way luxury resources are spread out often determines trading relationships for much of the game. Long term luxury trades are not uncommon, but there often an underutilization of these existing relationships. In this sense, players automatically form strategic alliances in many games. The next step is to broaden this view to include other things, including intangibles such as the positioning of the civilization and how it may benefit the player’s long term strategy, balance of power, containment, and relative cost and benefit of taking over Civ A vs. Civ B.

      Machiavellians thus focus their foreign policy with an eye on long-term strategic alliances that prove beneficial to both parties, but mostly to the Machiavellian. This means that Machiavellians prefer not to invade and destroy partners, unless necessary or other imperatives override the decision. The key idea to take out of this is that unlike the accepted logic of a player centered game where AI civs are disposable tools that can be thrown away, strategic alliances seek mutually beneficial exchange and relationships that lasts for many more turns than a 20 turn war, or the destruction of a common enemy. It is in essence the creation and maintenance of stable alliances.

      As strategic realities change, and the behavior of AI civs change, realignment of partners is always possible. But as a general rule, a good Machiavellian can usually accumulate several long-term strategic partners dispersed around the world or in its immediate sphere of influence, depending on the civilization’s stage of development.

      A strategic alliance serves several purposes.
      • § Global reach at a low cost. A willing strategic ally who provides ROP and other advantages (such as strategic positioning of armies) can be much more cost effective than a costly 40 turn war, and allows for long-term containment of threats long before and long after a war.
      • §Flexibility. Builder type Machiavellians will appreciate the dimensions of this strategy in its efficiency at allowing players access to territory, and indirectly influence other AI civs’ access to resources, without a lot of disruption of civic building projects at home. Warmongers are not necessarily contrained by this, and may use strategic alliances to take down enemies, while guaranteeing border stability and leveraging its power through joint declarations of war, embargoes and the use of ROPs to access enemy territories. Players who prefer a little of both may form unique plans where war and peace is managed in the context of these alliances.
      • §Convenience and Security. Long term relationships secure vital resources for players and it’s convenient to have a friendly supplier when the rest of the supply may be monopolized by a hostile force. Near monopoly situations will imply global projection of power in cases where the strategic partner and its sources of luxuries and strategic resources is threatened by another civilization.
      AI:C3C Debug Game Report (Part1) :C3C Debug Game Report (Part2)
      Strategy:The Machiavellian Doctrine
      Visit my WebsiteMonkey Dew

      Comment


      • #4
        There are more recognized playing styles than simply Warmongers and Builders. There are also WarBuilders (who go through alternating cycles of Warmongering and Building) and SuperPowers who only fight when and opponent starts to become a threat and once potential threats are eliminated concentrates on rebuilding a military and infrastructure.

        I'm sure there are others I can't think of off the top of my head. Honestly, I think Warmongers and Builders are the smaller catagories and the others are more prominent.

        Comment


        • #5
          No great warmonger is a poor builder. You gotta build before you can destroy!

          Nice work dexters however, you'll be amazed at how much more fun being a Machiavellian player is in PBEMs or demo games
          A true ally stabs you in the front.

          Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)

          Comment


          • #6
            you'll be amazed at how much more fun being a Machiavellian player is in PBEMs or demo games
            Oh the tangled webs we weave!

            -Arrian
            grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

            The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

            Comment


            • #7
              Good point GhengisFarb. I have sort of accept the term of warmonger, but never really figured it was great fit.
              To me a warmonger is one that basically makes troops endlessly and conquers as much as they can. They ar enot making temples in the very early game. That is not what I do. I felt it was ok, becasue I would be likely to attack settlers when the chance arose and accept the war. I would really prefer to have maybe three wars at my time table and build lots of improvements. But some games are played differently, it all depends.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks for the feedback. Good to see some respected regulars weigh in on my thread.

                Although I'm a little puzzled why people are so caught up with my definition of warmonger, which I didn't really go into detail defining anyways.

                I'm simply pointing out most discussions fall on either warmongering or pacifist building. I'm sure players have their unique styles, and people who come to help often reveal their styles (ie: playing on certain type of maps with certain number of civs only). So I'm sure if we want to be thorough, we can come up with about 100 definitions for each type of player.

                Just for clarity, I think I'll explain that the intent of the blurb was to essentially say that political intrigue has never been a big part of the Civ franchise, especially with the AI ganging up effect in Civ 2. With Civ III and its XPs, there's more to work with, and players who traditionally engaged mostly in conquest (warmongers) and those who traditionally engaged in peaceful building (pacifist/builders) have a diplomatic avenue to achieve their aims and play a different kind of game, while at the same time, not denying any of the existing playstyles that tend to ignore diplomacy and intrigue, which is perfectly workable in CivIII as well.

                For me personally, I like playing with diplomacy hence my work in this play guide.
                AI:C3C Debug Game Report (Part1) :C3C Debug Game Report (Part2)
                Strategy:The Machiavellian Doctrine
                Visit my WebsiteMonkey Dew

                Comment


                • #9
                  For definition's sake, I think intent matters more than method.

                  A "warmonger" usually takes advantage of the benefits of war and seeks victory by domination or conquest. Of course, there will be times he will be devoted purely to building, but in the end, sees military might as the road to victory (i.e. the building is to gear up for war)

                  A "builder" takes advantage of the benefits of peace and seeks victory by culture, diplomacy, or space race. The builder will of course be forced to warmonger, when he is threatened or when he sees no other alternative. However, he sees building as the road to victory (i.e the wars are to allow room for building peacefully)
                  A true ally stabs you in the front.

                  Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Good points MZ. Although we are now officing OT.

                    Someone ban you!
                    AI:C3C Debug Game Report (Part1) :C3C Debug Game Report (Part2)
                    Strategy:The Machiavellian Doctrine
                    Visit my WebsiteMonkey Dew

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good stuff!

                      In section A you discuss the power available through trade and treaty agreements. Those are all very well, but the point I see missing in that discussion is preparation for someone backstabbing you on one or more of these deals, which can be a crippling surprise. I have found that the AI is indeed ready to do so if it percieves an advantage. Any Machiavellian Doctrine must include the assumption that the opposition is as clever and manipulative as you are, and if they are not as clever, they may just be desperate, which is twice as dangerous in some ways.

                      So, what do tou do if they are not cooperating with your grand schemes? They never seem to cooperate with mine. That's for sure.
                      If you aren't confused,
                      You don't understand.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Master Zen
                        A "warmonger" usually takes advantage of the benefits of war and seeks victory by domination or conquest. Of course, there will be times he will be devoted purely to building, but in the end, sees military might as the road to victory (i.e. the building is to gear up for war)

                        A "builder" takes advantage of the benefits of peace and seeks victory by culture, diplomacy, or space race. The builder will of course be forced to warmonger, when he is threatened or when he sees no other alternative. However, he sees building as the road to victory (i.e the wars are to allow room for building peacefully)
                        This is probably the best definition of warmongers/builders I have ever read.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yeah, that is a good one. MZ.

                          -Arrian
                          grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                          The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by eris
                            Good stuff!

                            In section A you discuss the power available through trade and treaty agreements. Those are all very well, but the point I see missing in that discussion is preparation for someone backstabbing you on one or more of these deals, which can be a crippling surprise. I have found that the AI is indeed ready to do so if it percieves an advantage. Any Machiavellian Doctrine must include the assumption that the opposition is as clever and manipulative as you are, and if they are not as clever, they may just be desperate, which is twice as dangerous in some ways.

                            So, what do tou do if they are not cooperating with your grand schemes? They never seem to cooperate with mine. That's for sure.
                            Thanks for the feedback. I'm currently organizing the stuff I need to put in Section B, which will be more specific policy discussions about general types of agreements. Some issues regarding to "If this plan fails" will be disccused there.

                            I will probably be writing an addendum on backstabbing, but my experience has generally been that if the other aspects are managed properly, like establishing a strong trading relationship, and especially managing conflicts, AI will usually have someone else on their hitlist and backstabbing is less of an issue.
                            AI:C3C Debug Game Report (Part1) :C3C Debug Game Report (Part2)
                            Strategy:The Machiavellian Doctrine
                            Visit my WebsiteMonkey Dew

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hey dex, why don't you join one of the AUSG games?

                              Or, even, better, start a new one based on Machiavellian play?
                              The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

                              Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X