The Rogue State Strategy

[Proteus_MST]

Re: Additional use of the rogue state

Originally posted by jabberwockysr
After the first 20 turns of the military alliance against my rogue state the aztecs, everyone paid me for renewing the military alliance. After 20 turns of providing them with free luxuries at no "real" cost to me, they paid me both to continue the war against the aztecs (which they'd started really) in addition to paying me for the luxuries that they were now relying on me for.

I don't know if it always works, but it sure is nice to be paid for an alliance that I'd asked for in the first place.

Yep,
I also use Luxuries as Incentive for the other Civilizations to join my Military Alliance against Russia.

It does a great job, as long as you have enough Luxuries to give away (in my current game i have plenty of them).

[Gastric ReFlux]

The Rogue State strategy can be quite powerful. I was reminded of it this last weekend when reading Sirian's (posts at CivFanatics and the Realms Beyond forum) account of a Deity level game. It seems with the way the AI is programmed to handle war, a prolonged one will eventually force it into a situation that causes destruction from all insides, and destruction within.

When an AI is at war, it seem to produce, almost exclusively, military. Infrastructure like marketplaces, temples, et al, disappear from the build queues. Some of the best evidence of what the AI does when at war is from those who have played the Always War variant, with declaration of war at first contact and no peace ever made. I played a game of that recently and it was incredible to see the AI cities lacking for any basic infrastructure.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Lucarse
A rogue state ignores the international communty and does what ever it like conducts wars, hostile trade leveraging etc. on its own terms, operating 'unilaterally' usually by proxy! (sound familiar to our US posters)

Actually, no it does not. To act contrary to ones own best interest is foolish and could be fatal. The majority are not alway acting in my best interest. But again, why bring politics into the board?

[Lucarse]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Actually, no it does not. To act contrary to ones own best interest is foolish and could be fatal. The majority are not alway acting in my best interest. But again, why bring politics into the board?

I Apologise, I just wanted to enrich the forum with the correct terminology :-).
Vmxa1 I withdraw the comment about the US, with the caveat that I have an MA in Policitcal Science and Strategic Studies so i do know where of i speak, honest.

Which (toget back on topic) is why I like Civ, i get to put into practice everything i learnt,
The funny thing is i still get my ass kicked above prince level and i'm eternally impressed with people who blithely play at emperor/deity level.

I have played the puppet state strat before and it works very well as long as the chosen state is not the strongest AI. I find the AI doesn't usually like to pick on stronger AI's and getting them to do so can often be too costly to be worth the trouble (most of your treasury, a few techs) other wise i have usually helped other civs by way of sitting a few carriers of the coast bombing untis that may hold the 'allied' army up, and softening the cities, so much so you can almost dictate the path of the attack, of course this would be all but impossible on large continents.

Any idea what this would do for your rep? since you are not landing troops or occupying cities?

[vmxa1]

No problem.
The best method of getting the AI to do something is luxs. When I was attacked by the largest nation (Japan) and most of their cities where far away, I got everyone to go to war with them. I did it by offering them wines/furs/gem etc. Next best is tech, I do not use cash as a primary means, only sweetener. This works in mid game or later, because the AI is having its share of unhappines and the luxs will make some happy citizens. I did not expect much from them, but it at least kept them from joining in on the other side. To me the rep is not of much use. If you are in Industrial or later phase, the land is claimed and wars are coming, unless you are far stronger than they are. I try to not start the wars late in the game and let then start them to avoid some of the ar weariness, which is important.

[Lucarse]

I agree, in the later game it is usually a good idea and substantially cheaper (size of military needed etc) to cause such schisms between nations so they basically knock themselves about, normally their science suffers and you gain a military and tech advantage.

All you need to do is pick your target! .

(I almost always wait till the post industrial era to start major wars, .. its more fun wirth more toys to play with)

[Killerdaffy]

Originally posted by Arrian
As a side note, I find my post in this thread hilarious: "I often build up a huge tech lead on the AI without sparking a world war - provided no one attacks me in the ancient era. If that happens, I'm usually toast." How times have changed, 8 months and several patches later Now I'm the mean SOB in the ancient era (though the tech lead is still a major goal).

-Arrian

I've been absent from the forums and the game for a couple of weeks (I dabbled in Medieval: Total War for a while but found it ultimately unsatisfying). I read your post and about fell off my chair!! I seriously thought you had crossed back from the dark side for about 30 seconds - until I saw the date...

[SanPellegrino]

well, I thought this thread was buried long ago... But I still use this strategy, after the "tech-whoring" patch it became even more powerful.

But Styles develop (as Arrian mentioned before ) and now I like "Coalitions", because one rogue state can be quite weak, at least if I fight the war myself, so I like 2 or more states as "Axis of Evil".

[SanPellegrino]

Originally posted by Lucarse
Using the correct deffinition YOU are the rogue state pitting everyone against each other as the 'puppetmaster' as you put it.

A rogue state ignores the international communty and does what ever it like conducts wars, hostile trade leveraging etc. on its own terms, operating 'unilaterally' usually by proxy! (sound familiar to our US posters)

You should probably call it 'Scape Goat' or 'Scape State'.

OK, I agree with you, in civ3 the players' nation is the real Rogue State, but otherwise it wouldn't be much fun

and, like in real life, if a nation is a Scapegoat or a Rogue State just depends on your point of view...
So I came up with this name, because my Allies won't fight against a poor scapegoat