Tweet
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
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.
--------------------
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.
however, you'll be amazed at how much more fun being a Machiavellian player is in PBEMs or demo games
Comment