Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Managing the World The Machiavellian Doctrine

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

  • dexters
    replied
    Having played 2 full games of C3C, I can say with some relief that I don't have to rewrite the book on this strategy. It still works.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uber Warrior
    replied
    Okay Im glad somebody finally pointed out that there are other ways to win. It was a real piss off that Nobody noticed this till now.


    I would like to say you missed a good Mach civ. I currently have a massive game with 30 civs on a real world map with America. I control what the US has now and am a giant Mach type.

    I have RoP pacts with all nations except for two, and MPP with all my RoP countries as well. Largest Military on the Planet and military bases everywere, I have Airbases in the Pacific Islands and Military bases in Africa, Asia, and Europe. I have not killed a single civillization off but I have control over the entire planet without conquest and I rarely have to actually use my military to do anything.

    I think you should consider the USA a Mach civ, they are one with ease, expecially on a global scale because of how powerfull America is late in the Modern era.

    Leave a comment:


  • dexters
    replied
    Sorry for my slow progress. I got distracted with school. With finals and semesters coming up, and C3C coming (well, in a few hours) I will hopefully be able to devote more time to Civ again.

    Work will continue, rest assured.

    Since C3C will most definately have AI changes, I may have to resort to testing the game on two different machines, one with PTW only and one with C3C to see how it goes. I'm not exactly sure if I can acess PTW from C3C even though it's included.

    Thank you scott for your additions. I'll definately add it to the final draft of the strategy.

    I really do appreciate the positive feedback. And Theseus, your recommendation that I do an AUSG game from this is noted. I'll consider that going forward.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rhothaerill
    replied
    Wow! For some reason I kept missing this thread (probably since I was setting up AUSG101). Now I've finally had a chance to read through it. Nice work so far dexters. I can't wait to read the rest of it. I'm itching to try out a machiavellian gamestyle. Maybe I'll replay AU209 with this in mind.

    And nice addition infoscott. I've always liked France too, though I hadn't ever quantified them as a machiavellian civ. BTW, scientific/commercial civs are Greece from vanilla civ and Korea from PTW.

    Leave a comment:


  • infoscott
    replied
    Count me in as one of those ardent Machs, although I didn't realize it until the last month when I got around to reading "The Prince". My favorite civ (to be revealed below) betrays my Mach tendencies.

    Strengths
    Machs want strengths that make their economies more powerful, not necessarily their nation-states. Strengths that fade over time are less preferable, as are strengths that make you do "real work". Thus, militaristic and expansionist are the least desirable strengths, while commercial is hands down the best and industrious not far behind. Based on strength preferences the first and second tier Mach civs are:

    Best: France!?!
    Commercial and Industrious
    (Everybody's patsy, but a most excellent Mach. My absolute first choice.)

    India
    Commercial and Religious
    (Another common punching bag, but has great Mach tendencies when played well.)
    [Anybody?]
    Commercial and Scientific
    (I can't find this combination in vanilla Civ3, but perhaps PTW has one?)
    Egypt
    Industrious and Religious
    (Tends to be more of a warmonger, but can be played as an overbearing Mach.)
    Persians
    Industrious and Scientific
    (The Immortals almost preclude Mach play, but possible to do discretely with a bit more bloodshed.)

    Worst: Zululand
    Expansionist and Militaristic
    (Keep out of their way and point them to a chosen enemy; a Mach's leashed pit bull.)

    Why I Love To Mach and Roll With Joan
    Because of her zealotry, nobody suspects Joan of having graduated from the Nicolo School of Influence. The poor child is just trying to save her country, all in the name of the Dauphin? Au contraire, mon ami, Joan can be a most conniving Princess.

    If REXed and Ralphed early to take full advantage of Commercial, she tends to have an amemic military and draws the attention of the more agressive civs. Joan lays a Mach trap by garrisoning her better troops (created by ralphed cities with barracks) on the borders with would-be marauders, and let them dash their lives on her fortifications. REXing and Ralphing also puts her behind in tech and sets her up for continuous extortions. Let those bully civs have their way, as payback will be a b**** later on!

    Joan starts catching up in the early Renaissance. Her economy will catch up with a vengence as the population on all those major cities increase, and her Industrious civs will be mining and irrigating like crazy. Buildings will be popping up as soon as available on the tech tree, using barracks to pre-build the commercial, scientific, and religious buildings. Pyramid and Colossus are probably the better Ancient wonders to try for. Even the Great Lighthouse smacks too much of effort.

    And here is the part I absolutely love, the poor despised musketeer. Nobody attacks with these puffed up arquebussers, right? Wrong! With the excellent road network Joan's been building and with a good complement of catapults, these boys can be the scourge of the Renaissance until Riflemen arrive. The trick is just not to use them as the main assault, but to use attack combinations of catapult+knight for softening, musketeer for mop up, and then more musketeers for fortification. The catapults used for attack will also fire in defense when the musketeer fortified stack is counterattacked. But in true Mach fashion, when Joan fully deploys her Musketeers, their attack strength will add considerably to her military strength thus making Machy negotiations sooooo much easier. And let's not forget a win with her UU pops the Golden Age at an optimal time.

    When Joans cities start hitting pop 7, both the extra shields from Industrious and extra coin from Commercial start rolling in. Joan should stick to the tech tree that gives buildings and wonders, and only create more units when a city is maxed out on structures and for whatever reason shouldn't prebuild. Naturally when extra units do start accumulating, she'll want to prosecute a small war to bleed off the excess and bring her budget back into balance. The extra cities and coin from commercial, along with all those improved terrain squares, will help her keep up in tech with the scientific civs and gain a tech lead some time in the middle-later Renaissance.

    Without Militaristic, she is more inclined to let other civs fight her wars, and without Expansionist she won't neglect her building projects. If she can survive the early bullying years she can grow to be a force to be reckoned with! When railroads become available her worker population will knock out rails in a jiffy.

    In sum, Joan can play the weakling early on and appease, appease, appease, while gathering up real estate. In the middle game she can build like crazy, attack a little for the GA and to bleed off excess units. In the end game she can be based on a very solid empire and have her way with the other civs.

    Joan, you're my Saint for a reason!!!!

    Scott

    Leave a comment:


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

    Or, even, better, start a new one based on Machiavellian play?

    Leave a comment:


  • dexters
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arrian
    replied
    Yeah, that is a good one. MZ.

    -Arrian

    Leave a comment:


  • vondrack
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • eris
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • dexters
    replied
    Good points MZ. Although we are now officing OT.

    Someone ban you!

    Leave a comment:


  • Master Zen
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • dexters
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • vmxa1
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arrian
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X