NukeAJS
King
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 850
Denouncing is usually fine most of the time; however, there are some very strange instances where I've been denounced and have found absolutely no reason why.
Outside of the seemingly alien instances I've been denounced, I like the system. Most people I've talked to about it don't like it either because they don't understand how to capitalize on it, or they ignore diplomacy/passively play with diplomacy. That being said, diplomacy is a very delicate balancing act and things can go sour really, really quickly. If there's one major critique of the current system I have, it's that once a relationship goes south, it's almost impossible to repair it. In other words, bad diplomatic relationships never heal except for the very occasional exception of war -- but chances are denouncing happened either before or during war so it doesn't matter.
Here's my strategy when I want to play nice or just use diplomacy to my advantage in general.
First, don't play nice with everyone! This is the quickest way to get denounced by everyone because one of them will betray you. This will lead to another betraying you then another, then everybody. You have to pick one to three solid allies and keep them until you don't care about them anymore. Furthermore, you have to grant ALL their requests. So, don't make more allies than you can afford.
When choosing allies, I typically go for the civs that have a reputation for being aggressive as a priority. Next, I choose civs that have resources that I don't. Lastly, location can be very important. Especially if you want to really press the civs you aren't allied with. I choose aggressive civs first for two reasons -- I want Monte to smack other people, not me, and I want to conquer "builder" civs because their cities are generally more valuable (more improvements, bigger pop). Resources I don't have is obvious. Location is tricky. Typically, you don't want your ally(ies) to all be bordering civs with you because you'll probably want to smack at least one of them around in the early game. At the same time, allying with distant civs minimizes any military strategic advantage you have from the alliance. If Elizabeth is across an ocean, her involvement in a war will mean nothing.
About backstabbing -- Avoiding getting a knife in the back is usually simple, but this is where the AI does wierd, completely illogical things sometimes. However, as a rule -- grant all your allies requests unless you want to get knived and keep a decent sized military. If your military is small, your allies will leave you or even do a complete 180 and backstab you. Also, if your military is unnecessarily large, you'll get knived (probably because they think you'll backstab them first). Lastly, get your allies to declare war on a particular civ BEFORE you declare. This will soften the negatives from warring too much/often. However, if your wars are successful (and they should be -- why else would you declare?) they'll be jealous of your success anyways, but you will be able to cap more cities otherwise.
That brings us to neutral civs. Generally, I try to keep neutral status with a civ unless my ally(ies) denounce that civ or I am going to steam roll them soon. If just one denounces that civ, I immediately denounce them too (unless they have a lot of resources I want or I can sell them a lot of mine). This will usually start a chain-reaction of all the civs in your camp denouncing them as well. Knowing this little factoid is VERY VALUABLE for not getting yourself denounced all over the place. Even a single ally backstabbing you can result in all your allies backstabbing you especially if your military power is low (do you see the link between military and diplomacy now? =-)
If a neutral civ becomes a target of yours, denounce them a couple of turns before declaring. If you can get one ally to follow suit, often times the others will follow. This will strengthen you alliance even more since you all hate the same civ(s). On the flip side, if an ally asks you to denounce a civ, do it (unless you have a good reason -- like they are vastly superior militarily/technologically)
Now angry civs -- there's not really much you can do with a civ you've denounced or that has denounced you. They'll ask for ridiculous trades, will hate everything you do, and will regularly taunt you. The only useful piece you can do with an angry civ is avoid war with them. The easiest way to do this is to pay attention to what they are taunting you with. If they say your military is weak, build more. If they hear your people wailing in sorrow -- bump up happiness. BUT, this will only delay the inevitable. They will declare war eventually. Here's the kicker though -- the AI will often stupidly declare war. You could have a military twice the size that is much more advanced, and they'll sometimes do it anyways. Fighting a defensive war gets less "warmongering" negatives. So, you can use this to your advantage.
So how to use all this information? For starters, I always try to get weak civs to declare on me, and I always try to declare on strong civs. The reasons are as much diplomatic as they are military. If a weak civ declares, I can capture more cities and get less warmongering. Furthermore, rope-a-dope tactics work well when you don't have four pieces of artillery firing away at you. Strong civs are the opposite but with the added caveat that you should form a coalition before you invade to avoid/mitigate the too many cities/warmongering negatives. Militarily, it's best to initiate the war because you get those free cheap-shots with your ranged units.
Lastly, there are some things that are just plain unavoidable. The most obvious and toxic to friendly relations is the "They believe you are trying to win the game in a similar manner as them!" This is probably one of the worst besides the trifecta of warmonger, coveted land, and too many citites or backstabbing people. On the positive side, it's smart of the AI to try to foil your plans to win, because that's what any player would do. Luckily, by the time you see "win similar" message, your alliance shouldn't matter that much anymore anyways.
Outside of the seemingly alien instances I've been denounced, I like the system. Most people I've talked to about it don't like it either because they don't understand how to capitalize on it, or they ignore diplomacy/passively play with diplomacy. That being said, diplomacy is a very delicate balancing act and things can go sour really, really quickly. If there's one major critique of the current system I have, it's that once a relationship goes south, it's almost impossible to repair it. In other words, bad diplomatic relationships never heal except for the very occasional exception of war -- but chances are denouncing happened either before or during war so it doesn't matter.
Here's my strategy when I want to play nice or just use diplomacy to my advantage in general.
First, don't play nice with everyone! This is the quickest way to get denounced by everyone because one of them will betray you. This will lead to another betraying you then another, then everybody. You have to pick one to three solid allies and keep them until you don't care about them anymore. Furthermore, you have to grant ALL their requests. So, don't make more allies than you can afford.
When choosing allies, I typically go for the civs that have a reputation for being aggressive as a priority. Next, I choose civs that have resources that I don't. Lastly, location can be very important. Especially if you want to really press the civs you aren't allied with. I choose aggressive civs first for two reasons -- I want Monte to smack other people, not me, and I want to conquer "builder" civs because their cities are generally more valuable (more improvements, bigger pop). Resources I don't have is obvious. Location is tricky. Typically, you don't want your ally(ies) to all be bordering civs with you because you'll probably want to smack at least one of them around in the early game. At the same time, allying with distant civs minimizes any military strategic advantage you have from the alliance. If Elizabeth is across an ocean, her involvement in a war will mean nothing.
About backstabbing -- Avoiding getting a knife in the back is usually simple, but this is where the AI does wierd, completely illogical things sometimes. However, as a rule -- grant all your allies requests unless you want to get knived and keep a decent sized military. If your military is small, your allies will leave you or even do a complete 180 and backstab you. Also, if your military is unnecessarily large, you'll get knived (probably because they think you'll backstab them first). Lastly, get your allies to declare war on a particular civ BEFORE you declare. This will soften the negatives from warring too much/often. However, if your wars are successful (and they should be -- why else would you declare?) they'll be jealous of your success anyways, but you will be able to cap more cities otherwise.
That brings us to neutral civs. Generally, I try to keep neutral status with a civ unless my ally(ies) denounce that civ or I am going to steam roll them soon. If just one denounces that civ, I immediately denounce them too (unless they have a lot of resources I want or I can sell them a lot of mine). This will usually start a chain-reaction of all the civs in your camp denouncing them as well. Knowing this little factoid is VERY VALUABLE for not getting yourself denounced all over the place. Even a single ally backstabbing you can result in all your allies backstabbing you especially if your military power is low (do you see the link between military and diplomacy now? =-)
If a neutral civ becomes a target of yours, denounce them a couple of turns before declaring. If you can get one ally to follow suit, often times the others will follow. This will strengthen you alliance even more since you all hate the same civ(s). On the flip side, if an ally asks you to denounce a civ, do it (unless you have a good reason -- like they are vastly superior militarily/technologically)
Now angry civs -- there's not really much you can do with a civ you've denounced or that has denounced you. They'll ask for ridiculous trades, will hate everything you do, and will regularly taunt you. The only useful piece you can do with an angry civ is avoid war with them. The easiest way to do this is to pay attention to what they are taunting you with. If they say your military is weak, build more. If they hear your people wailing in sorrow -- bump up happiness. BUT, this will only delay the inevitable. They will declare war eventually. Here's the kicker though -- the AI will often stupidly declare war. You could have a military twice the size that is much more advanced, and they'll sometimes do it anyways. Fighting a defensive war gets less "warmongering" negatives. So, you can use this to your advantage.
So how to use all this information? For starters, I always try to get weak civs to declare on me, and I always try to declare on strong civs. The reasons are as much diplomatic as they are military. If a weak civ declares, I can capture more cities and get less warmongering. Furthermore, rope-a-dope tactics work well when you don't have four pieces of artillery firing away at you. Strong civs are the opposite but with the added caveat that you should form a coalition before you invade to avoid/mitigate the too many cities/warmongering negatives. Militarily, it's best to initiate the war because you get those free cheap-shots with your ranged units.
Lastly, there are some things that are just plain unavoidable. The most obvious and toxic to friendly relations is the "They believe you are trying to win the game in a similar manner as them!" This is probably one of the worst besides the trifecta of warmonger, coveted land, and too many citites or backstabbing people. On the positive side, it's smart of the AI to try to foil your plans to win, because that's what any player would do. Luckily, by the time you see "win similar" message, your alliance shouldn't matter that much anymore anyways.