slaze
Deity
Teams that don't have to watch their backs. CDZ/AMAZON on us and Sirius/Quatronia on Mav. Not looking good. The only way out, if there is one, may be to pick a fight.
The Global Foyer
- Thread starter Indiansmoke
- Start date
Teams that don't have to watch their backs. CDZ/AMAZON on us and Sirius/Quatronia on Mav. Not looking good. The only way out, if there is one, may be to pick a fight.
Indiansmoke
Deity
I was trying to get a chat going with Sommerswerd the captain of Amazon for a few days now and we seem to have been missing each other on msn. So i send him a PM today asking if he is still interested in talking and he replied that it is crusial that we talk urgently and maybe exchange PM's as msn is difficult due to our time zones...so I send him this
lets see what he says..
lets see what he says..
Ronnie1
Deity
TEAMS...YES....that is what I meant to say, trapped between 2 teams.
Lets hope it goes well!
Indiansmoke
Deity
This is the answer from Amazon, the alliance is confirmed....
Spoiler :
Cataphract887
Prince
I suspect this whole message is BS then...is this player really willing to go behind his teams (democratic) back and tell us this kind of thing, presumably with the intention of currying favour as illustrated by quote below
Caledorn
Emperor
Based on the fact that you and Sommer have had dealings in previous games, Your Majesty, would you say that his message to you is genuine and honest? I'm not totally in agreement with Cataphract on the BS-calling part, because his message seems genuine to me - but the only person who can really judge that is you, Your Majesty, since you've played games with Sommer before.. Obviously, Sommer would not want us to start harassing the Amazons, as he knows that will mean they are not going to win the MTDG - so his statement where he advises us to focus on CDZ is sort of obligatory in my humble opinion.
The question now is - what do we reply to Team CDZ? Are we still on track for making a friendly reply to them? I have been collaborating with Sir Snaker8 on a response to them, that I have in my files here, but I'm not sure it's relevant any more after this message from the Amazons..
What is the current strategy on Diplomacy? Get in touch with the Mavericks asap? After that?
Sommers statement here seems kind of awkward though:
How does he expect us to one-man CDZ when there is a 4-team alliance in place? Does he mean we should go to an all out war with them, so they are kicked off the alliance as "irrelevant"? If that's what he means, he also means that the Amazons will accept going into an alliance with us at that point, because the alliance they are in will be irrelevant by the time CDZ is eliminated. So, by leaving the 4-way alliance at that point, and allying with us, we are more or less going to be the underdogs of Amazons - and we're also going to be a damn good security of victory for them, since we will more or less be at their mercy techwise, while we will have a strong offensive military capability (veteran units etc)..... Promising prospects here - we can either look forward to likelyhood of being crushed by a joined CDZ/Amazon military operation, or we can become Kingmakers (pardon the pun) ...
I'd say being the Kingmakers is at least a bit better than being crushed though?
The question now is - what do we reply to Team CDZ? Are we still on track for making a friendly reply to them? I have been collaborating with Sir Snaker8 on a response to them, that I have in my files here, but I'm not sure it's relevant any more after this message from the Amazons..
What is the current strategy on Diplomacy? Get in touch with the Mavericks asap? After that?
Sommers statement here seems kind of awkward though:
How does he expect us to one-man CDZ when there is a 4-team alliance in place? Does he mean we should go to an all out war with them, so they are kicked off the alliance as "irrelevant"? If that's what he means, he also means that the Amazons will accept going into an alliance with us at that point, because the alliance they are in will be irrelevant by the time CDZ is eliminated. So, by leaving the 4-way alliance at that point, and allying with us, we are more or less going to be the underdogs of Amazons - and we're also going to be a damn good security of victory for them, since we will more or less be at their mercy techwise, while we will have a strong offensive military capability (veteran units etc)..... Promising prospects here - we can either look forward to likelyhood of being crushed by a joined CDZ/Amazon military operation, or we can become Kingmakers (pardon the pun) ...
I'd say being the Kingmakers is at least a bit better than being crushed though?I wouldn't expect a player to burn up personal capital to BS on behalf of his team. However, as he admits, they are a democracy, so his personal good feelings towards Indiansmoke mean very little because he can be outvoted at any time.
He does suggest that if we are assertive against CDZ, they might not be rushing to CDZ's aid. That sounds like mutual defence is not part of the agreement. CDZ might feel the same way. So if we expand into one team's territory, the other neighbour looks unlikely to support them in declaring war on us.
There are options:
1. If we think CDZ will become stronger later, we could leave them unmolested -- let them be the threat everyone is afraid of. Sommers is already nervous.
2. Sommers vaguely suggested harrying CDZ, in which case they might ditch CDZ. This might imply Amazon would like us to let them grow so they can then backstab their current allies with us as their junior partner.
I don't think we have time to explore the south before we start expanding. We need to get those settlers out and building now; by the time our explorers have gone south, I think the southern team will already have their own copper covered. We might already be committed north.
The grumpy person in me also thinks "Fine, if you want to turn this into Survivor voting rather than a Civ game, then stuff 'em -- let's ruin the game for the rest by helping the potentially strongest team (CDZ) run rampant." I mean, games where there's an alliance of a majority of teams involve no skill at all. What next -- a 5v1 alliance, followed by a 4v1 alliance among the survivors, etc... what's the point of any of the teams logging into the server and shuffling pieces about for weeks on end if that's the way it's going to be played when we could just make the survivor-votes on the forum and have the whole game done and dusted tomorrow.
Rant over. Consider that a vote that future games should outlaw alliances from including more than half the teams in the game.
Anyway, it is a shame our early reticence caused the issue. I think there's a lesson for future games here. Early on there isn't much point hiding information -- it'll all get discovered very quickly anyway and just comes across a bit stand-offish.
Actually, it's kinda tempting to make mischief ... send a message on the lines of
Hi Sommers. Thanks for your response. The team has got together and had a discussion. We've decided that as obviously we can't defeat an alliance of 4 teams, we're going to turn the game into a protest vote against alliances of more than half the teams in the game. I'm sorry but you lost the coin toss. Accordingly, once we've grown our empire and built a production base we will be gifting it wholesale to CDZ. We think that makes the final result a foregone conclusion.
Ok, rant really over this time.
Hi Sommers. Thanks for your response. The team has got together and had a discussion. We've decided that as obviously we can't defeat an alliance of 4 teams, we're going to turn the game into a protest vote against alliances of more than half the teams in the game. I'm sorry but you lost the coin toss. Accordingly, once we've grown our empire and built a production base we will be gifting it wholesale to CDZ. We think that makes the final result a foregone conclusion.
Ok, rant really over this time.
Cataphract887
Prince
The natural effects of a 4v2 alliance would seem to result in a 3v1 after the 2 are dead, then a 2v1, then finally ending in a 1v1...what im hoping is someone wakes up and realizes they may face the alliance next and make a new alliance, which includes us.
Well, i would just consider it shocking behavior if someone joined a team, was dedicated to that teams ideals and was an active member, even became a team leader\diplomat\turnplayer, then reveal this kind of internal info. Its not quite treason per say but still...
Then again its possible im reading this totally wrong and it was perfectly normal and acceptable thing to say, and i just have my paranoid mafia-playing cap on
Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that there is a lot of distrust in this so called "alliance"? Both of our neighbours are trying to get ust to move against the other and both talk about what happens after the end of the alliance though it is only a few turns old. It looks almost as if the alliance is a very loose one or that they are expecting it to fall apart any moment or the alliance is a fixed term only.
I don't believe that we should send a message like Sir Whb suggested. That is just asking for trouble. We should make our intentions of wreacking havoc (if that is what we are going to do) clear only after we can also implement them. Now is not time for that.
However, the messages we got from our neighbours got me thinking another kind of possible mischief. What if we forward the message we got from Sommerswerd to CDZ or vice versa? Obvious risk here is that if they are really tightly allied, our mischief will be let known and we might lose the diplomatic contact completely. If not though, this could seed the distrust quite a bit.
I don't believe that we should send a message like Sir Whb suggested. That is just asking for trouble. We should make our intentions of wreacking havoc (if that is what we are going to do) clear only after we can also implement them. Now is not time for that.
However, the messages we got from our neighbours got me thinking another kind of possible mischief. What if we forward the message we got from Sommerswerd to CDZ or vice versa? Obvious risk here is that if they are really tightly allied, our mischief will be let known and we might lose the diplomatic contact completely. If not though, this could seed the distrust quite a bit.
It wasn't a serious suggestion.
Caledorn
Emperor
It could also be a sign of friendship and trust towards Indiansmoke, since they've played other games together.
That is at least what I am hoping for! He didn't really give away too much information in his message - but he giving away as he can to make sure Indiansmoke and we believe that his intentions have been and still are good. At least this is what I view it as, until properly instructed otherwise of course. 
Actually, it's kinda tempting to make mischief ... send a message on the lines of
Hi Sommers. Thanks for your response. The team has got together and had a discussion. We've decided that as obviously we can't defeat an alliance of 4 teams, we're going to turn the game into a protest vote against alliances of more than half the teams in the game. I'm sorry but you lost the coin toss. Accordingly, once we've grown our empire and built a production base we will be gifting it wholesale to CDZ. We think that makes the final result a foregone conclusion.
Ok, rant really over this time.
Hahahah! That's hilarious!
There is obviously, if not distrust, then at least an accepted fact within this alliance that "This won't and can't last". So even with their current newly forged alliance, all the members of it are aware of the fact that they need to make contingencies. I am a bit puzzled that the alliance includes both the Dutch and the Vikings to be honest, since the two other alliance-members know that these two teams have a massive advantage on this map, and that by being allied to these two they are more or less sealing their own fate unless they get some vastly superior cities and locations. Still - even if they manage to get into such a position, these two civilizations are still in a superior position to them on this map. Maybe that's also something Sommers is aware of, and this is one of the reasons for his message to His Majesty?
It would have to be vice versa I believe - since, if I'm not mistaken, it would be breaking all the principles His Majesty stands for if we actually forwarded Sommers message to CDZ... Sommers message to His Majesty seems to me as a rather personal message, which implies some trust between the two. The CDZ one, however, is an official diplomatic channel message. It is certainly an idea to consider - I'm looking forward to see what others have to chime in here. The CDZ message would obviously not have the same diplomatic impact as the message from Sommers in such a scenario - but there may be a glimmer of hope in there..
Ronnie1
Deity
Well we need to settle strong and keep playing. Keep to our word, try to make friends when/where we can. On that note, I think we need to send our Holkan due west to try and locate Mavericks.
Good idea.
--
Well this message is exactly what I was looking forward to. Maybe it's too good to be true, but even so, one cannot pass up such a fine example of a flawed alliance!
Although I probably should remain skeptical, I do believe the sincerity of the letter from Amazon. This puts us in a much better position and there are several things we can learn from this.
1 - Internal struggle: At least one individual is not satisfied with the alliance.
2 - External struggle: At least one individual (if not the majority) favours an attack or aggressive stance towards a known ally of the same team.
With this in mind, we should maybe seek out individuals from Amazon who may feel more sympathetic to our cause. Alternatively, we can vaguely state to CDZ that "another team in their alliance" has asked us for aggressive action. I don't really think talking behind their backs is a good idea though, since they are in a 4-way alliance. One mandatory and one optional point can be drawn from all this.
-We need to decide who we want to align with, and stick with it. Going around to everybody and attempting to be allies obviously won't work, so while we remain friendly with all, we must realistically choose a nation to ally with, and soon.
(Optional):
-We need to try to heavily (and hopefully secretly) support all dissidents of other nations. Not really obviously, of course. Help coordinate pro-Merlot members of any individuals of the teams willing. When able, try to organize them to get enough support from their own members to get into power of the nation. This all is of course very risky, and and we have to be very careful about communication. Keep them in check with various ways of persuasion. This is the beauty of having an enlightened Emperor such as Indiansmoke - we don't have to worry about such petty squabbles. Long live the King!
ash88
Hail to the King Baby -DN
Your Majesty,
As I understand you have a degree of trust in this communication from Sommer and that is shaping our conversation. It would be useful is to know the character of the other Kingdoms, based on your past experiences. Not only the relationships they have had with you, historically, but also the relationships they have had with each other.
For those of us who were not involved previously with these people a short synopsis would be an invaluable tool. Perhaps if others here have preexisting opinions about other kingdoms then that would be useful as well.
As for a way to handle a large alliance potentially stacked against us I have two thoughts:
1) Defense is better than aggression. This is one of the very few cases in Civ4 where I would lean to a mainly defensive stance.
2) Expansion trumps everything. Peaceful expansion should be our mindset. The window to do it is short. Not only will it give us an edge if we have a bigger war machine then any indvidual in the alliance - but expanding into resources and areas where it makes sense for individual members of an alliance to consider us a better ally.
The opposite approach where our focus is on aggression and internal building causes us to solidify the alliance against us. As our enemy attacks we would serve to boast the moral of the alliance - as any victory or defeat they experience is together.
Our diplomacy should be open, honest, and compassionate. For example - in a situation where Sommer says that he regrets he can't be in an alliance right now we should claim that we fully understand, would do the same thing in his position, and look forward to a time when it makes more sense to work together. Being open with our communication will further exasperate any division in the alliance.
That said. we need to be sure that our praise is lavish without appearing to suck up.
I would not be surprised if one of the reasons we have been left out of the early alliance is the way that the initial recruitment was done - very high-and-mighty-your-democracy-is-wrong. I'm sure "proving" that a monarchy doesn't work would be a feather in some peoples cap. With that in mind we need to appear humble without appearing to be a walk-over.
In my experience, it would be easier to thwart an early game alliance such as this one then a later game alliance. People would be more inclined to dismiss this alliance as "premature" if we overwhelming appear like a better candidate. Not only that but we really only need 1 defector. After 1 team defects the moral and "success" of the alliance is considerably damaged to the point where a second team is more likely to have issue more easily. To that end I would rather have 4 teams against me then 3 -- as both situations are eventually losing ones the 4 team alliance gives us more opportunity.
My final thought is this: as these teams are democracies when we write these teams we need to keep in mind that the message is being read and evaluated by everyone. Without appearing to suck up (which is important) we should gear our diplomacy to swaying "the mob." If we always appear open, charismatic and honest, and even a little witty (and as long as we have an equal or greater capability as an ally) then that helps us seed discontent.
I for one would not forward any trusted communications as this will immediately disqualify that team from trusting us in the future. It will also give other teams reason to pause when passing out information. We should strive to be the most trustful team in the game - right down to our last city.
If we appear to take a "high road" even as the enemies are knocking on our city gates it will be more difficult for them to stay united against us.
Of course, I am a lowly subject who tempers my opinions on his Majesty's good wisdom.
As I understand you have a degree of trust in this communication from Sommer and that is shaping our conversation. It would be useful is to know the character of the other Kingdoms, based on your past experiences. Not only the relationships they have had with you, historically, but also the relationships they have had with each other.
For those of us who were not involved previously with these people a short synopsis would be an invaluable tool. Perhaps if others here have preexisting opinions about other kingdoms then that would be useful as well.
As for a way to handle a large alliance potentially stacked against us I have two thoughts:
1) Defense is better than aggression. This is one of the very few cases in Civ4 where I would lean to a mainly defensive stance.
2) Expansion trumps everything. Peaceful expansion should be our mindset. The window to do it is short. Not only will it give us an edge if we have a bigger war machine then any indvidual in the alliance - but expanding into resources and areas where it makes sense for individual members of an alliance to consider us a better ally.
The opposite approach where our focus is on aggression and internal building causes us to solidify the alliance against us. As our enemy attacks we would serve to boast the moral of the alliance - as any victory or defeat they experience is together.
Our diplomacy should be open, honest, and compassionate. For example - in a situation where Sommer says that he regrets he can't be in an alliance right now we should claim that we fully understand, would do the same thing in his position, and look forward to a time when it makes more sense to work together. Being open with our communication will further exasperate any division in the alliance.
That said. we need to be sure that our praise is lavish without appearing to suck up.
I would not be surprised if one of the reasons we have been left out of the early alliance is the way that the initial recruitment was done - very high-and-mighty-your-democracy-is-wrong. I'm sure "proving" that a monarchy doesn't work would be a feather in some peoples cap. With that in mind we need to appear humble without appearing to be a walk-over.
In my experience, it would be easier to thwart an early game alliance such as this one then a later game alliance. People would be more inclined to dismiss this alliance as "premature" if we overwhelming appear like a better candidate. Not only that but we really only need 1 defector. After 1 team defects the moral and "success" of the alliance is considerably damaged to the point where a second team is more likely to have issue more easily. To that end I would rather have 4 teams against me then 3 -- as both situations are eventually losing ones the 4 team alliance gives us more opportunity.
My final thought is this: as these teams are democracies when we write these teams we need to keep in mind that the message is being read and evaluated by everyone. Without appearing to suck up (which is important) we should gear our diplomacy to swaying "the mob." If we always appear open, charismatic and honest, and even a little witty (and as long as we have an equal or greater capability as an ally) then that helps us seed discontent.
I for one would not forward any trusted communications as this will immediately disqualify that team from trusting us in the future. It will also give other teams reason to pause when passing out information. We should strive to be the most trustful team in the game - right down to our last city.
If we appear to take a "high road" even as the enemies are knocking on our city gates it will be more difficult for them to stay united against us.
Of course, I am a lowly subject who tempers my opinions on his Majesty's good wisdom.
Welcome back Ash! Personally, I'd consider this experiment a huge success even if we end up royally beaten (pun somewhat intended). Even this early in the game it has already been obvious that we have a lot more degrees of freedom than the democratic powers. The king can make dramatic changes in strategy practically overnight if needed. We don't have payload of taking in account everyones opinion about difficult issues (i.e. who to ally to).
Of course much of the succes of the Monarchy depends on the king. He has to be at least either a good player, or a competent leader. Preferably both as we have right now
. But since everyone wants the kingdom to flourish I believe there is but a little risk of having totally inept leader. Anyway, I believe the system has already proven itself and in the next MTDG, I would like to see at least one team going for monarchy. And yes, I'd probably consider joining the team.EDIT: Of course the best would be seeing an MTMG (Multi-Team Monarchy Game), but that probably won't happen anytime soon
Úmarth
Megalomaniac
We are in dire straits :/ We can do our best in spite of it, but as long as four teams are cooperating and leaving us out we're in poor shape.
It seems to me our only option is to destabilise this alliance. That will involve choosing one team to try and woo, and burning bridges with one or more of the others to that end. Since they're our neighbours, and since Sommersword is apparently sympathetic, Amazons would be the obvious choice for the former. How we go about it, I have no idea.
It seems to me our only option is to destabilise this alliance. That will involve choosing one team to try and woo, and burning bridges with one or more of the others to that end. Since they're our neighbours, and since Sommersword is apparently sympathetic, Amazons would be the obvious choice for the former. How we go about it, I have no idea.
The problem now is that we have to start expanding to the mainland ASAP and we only know what lies on the Amazon side. We can get some of the CDZ side scouted soon, but the trouble is that we probably won't know where the strategic resources are. My assumption based on what we've seen of this world is that there would be Iron or Horses or possibly even both. Other than that I agree with you Sir Úmrath. The Amazons would likely be better allies for us. Expanding to the CDZ side would have to be done at least somewhat blindly.
Hercules90
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,557
I strongly support what Ronnie1 says, especially as it is not a 4v2 alliance if we don't strike a deal with Mavericks.
Indiansmoke
Deity
There is nothing hidden behind what Sommer said. He obviously exagerated abit that he regretes not influencing his team, to keep me happy, but everything else he says stands I believe. He knows I keep a deal when I make one, he knows that the dutch and the viking have an advantage and he sure does not want us to mess with Amazon expansion and to mess with cdz instead.
What he did not say is that in fact is happy we are out of the deal because he knows I am a good player while he is not that certain about how good Sirious are.
I agree with both statements by ash
This the way to approach it and give it some time to see if there are any cracks after all. If we se an opportunity for aggression we can see if it is better to take it whenthe oportunity arises.
Now regarding the other teams CDZ are the favorites in this game as they have the most experienced players and the best civ for this map.
I would say quatronia are the least exprienced and that all the other 3 teams are about equal. That will depend though as to how active is Memphus on team Amazon. If he is active then they are second favorites IMO.
In any case the way this map is designed diplomacy will decide the game rather than skill and xperience.
What he did not say is that in fact is happy we are out of the deal because he knows I am a good player while he is not that certain about how good Sirious are.
I agree with both statements by ash
This the way to approach it and give it some time to see if there are any cracks after all. If we se an opportunity for aggression we can see if it is better to take it whenthe oportunity arises.
Now regarding the other teams CDZ are the favorites in this game as they have the most experienced players and the best civ for this map.
I would say quatronia are the least exprienced and that all the other 3 teams are about equal. That will depend though as to how active is Memphus on team Amazon. If he is active then they are second favorites IMO.
In any case the way this map is designed diplomacy will decide the game rather than skill and xperience.
Similar threads
