Triangle Diplomacy

OP: Excellent guide - I've been doing exactly the mistakes you noted, trying to keep everyone in the middle. Last game however I decided to try and get a couple of solid friends after miserably failing few monarch games in a row. Inland lake, Japanese, monarch: I start between Monty and Genghis. I decide to befriend the mongols, rush Monty but his neighbor Napoleon jumps in to help him.

To make a long story shrt, the war is still going on in 1300BC, Ghengis just arrived to help mop-up the strong French forces, Monty is down to 2 cities. Meanwhile, the third member of our triangle and 3rd overall, Julius Ceasar, with little help from me is in a war with the 1st ranked Huayna Capac (I'm ranked 2nd). I will probably send the Mongols at them too soon, with them beeing low ranked making it really easy to bribe them into any war.

This I hope will slow down the Incans enough for me to finish off the Aztecs and French. I think I'll need to keep the Mongols busy though or they might turn after me eventhough we're at +8 total. So far it has been my best monarch game (w/default settings).

I just started playing Monarch and have definitely come to these realizations that diplomacy is way more important now. Even on Prince, I could just outexpand the other civs and grab most of the important resources, and be way ahead the whole game (especially in military tech). But anyways, I've been wondering about the difference between civs asking for "help" and "tribute." In my current game as the Mongols, I went for Metal Casting fairly early (right after Alphabet) so I could leverage it for trade, and immediately upon finishing it Gandhi asked me nicely for it. What was strange about this is that he was in first place at the time, and was cautious with me. Shouldn't he be asking for tribute instead of help? Needless to say, I told him to shove it because this tech was my ace for a while.

I'm guessing it has a lot to do with the leaders themselves; someone like Monte or Izzy will probably ask tribute at the first sign of a military advantage, whereas Gandhi is such a peacenik that he'd ask nicely even if annoyed. I used to play random personalities, so I'm actually quite new to the default assumptions about leaders that people on this forum seem to throw around. Gives the other leaders more character, so I figured I'd try it.

newbie question: is there any reason this needs to be a triangle? what is specifically better about having 2 friends versus 3, or even 1? i suppose that if you're playing with only 5 civs you wouldn't really need more than 1 ally, but if you're playing with 15 civs 3-4 allies might be a good idea.

The biggest problem with trying to make 3-4 friends is their relationship with each other. You can't be friends with 2 civs that are "worst enemies". You'll get demands to stop trading with their enemy or join them in their war. I think that the strategy is good; pick one or 2 to be your GOOD friends. With more civs around (10+) you can have some that you can waffle on, don't give into their every demand, but attempt the occasional trades with.

From his description of amateur diplomacy, I think polypheus has been spying on me. Great post!

My one question is how do you work out the geography in time? It seems that decisions need to be made very early when I generally have no idea where these civs are. I don't see the point in choosing allies when you could end up without a neighbour to integrate. Paper is discovered too late and all leaders are unwilling to give away their world map anyway.

Is there a particular way to deal with this or do you just need to buy time?

In my current game I have two quality allies - Washington and Genghis Khan. I have tried to foster good relations from day one and things are going well. Caesar is also a good ally. Cyrus, the Incans and the Indians are diplomatically out of favour with the bloc.

This gives rise to a dilemma.

I am playing as Catherine on Monarch, epic speed, standard map. I have been crazy spamming cottages and my science and economy is strong I havea border with Genghis and Wash is close by. They are the 2nd and 3rd place after me. Wash has more land than me and Geng is in third place for land.

I have just got military trad. What do I do, attack my friends (and closest rivals) or plod on for a non military victory. This is the toughest decision I have ever had to make . Suggestions very welcome

First, i wanted to thank the original poster for his very valuable addition to the strategy forum. My friend, you pointed out every single mistake i've ever done so far, and showed me a very interesting and efficient way to survive in the upper levels of difficulty (that is, Noble for me, as i'm a newbie), even more interesting since it implies that military strategies are not the only viable ones.

@Fung3 : It highly depends on your style of play. Some like to bring war, chaos and devastation to the lands, some like to show how much they can be so technologically advanced, some like to show they have people skills.

If you're the warrior kind, destroy them. I'd recommand starting with your enemies, using your allies. It'll weaken your allies, and avoid the backstabbing.

If you're a diplomat kind, prove yourself diplomacy victory can be achieved. Be careful though, your competitor will be your arch-nemesis to the diplomatic victory. Whoever that is better be outside of your friends circle, so that your friends are numerous and neither have a doubt about voting for you.

Why don't you save your game, try one of these paths, and later try the other ? It could be interesting to see which one you're most skilled at, and which one you like most.

Agifem said:

Why don't you save your game, try one of these paths, and later try the other ? It could be interesting to see which one you're most skilled at, and which one you like most.

Click to expand...

Great minds think alike, that is what I decided to do. After work yesterday, after much deliberation, I decided to take the tech route to victory. Launched SS in 1859. My earliest launch date so far.

Tonight I will go back to that crucial save and build a vast army of Cossacks and destroy my rivals.

Any suggestions as to which support units to stack with the cossacks?

The reason I do diplomacy in the 'haphazard' way is that it is impossible to compile all the relevant information to a diplomatic situation once it has popped up on the screen. How do I know if I want to 'cancel all deals' with Cleopatra unless I know what the deals are and what she thinks about me and what she thinks about my friends? Tracking that over the game and over multiple sessions requires making tons of notes and visiting dozens of screens every 5-10 turns. No way.

jpowers said:

The reason I do diplomacy in the 'haphazard' way is that it is impossible to compile all the relevant information to a diplomatic situation once it has popped up on the screen. How do I know if I want to 'cancel all deals' with Cleopatra unless I know what the deals are and what she thinks about me and what she thinks about my friends? Tracking that over the game and over multiple sessions requires making tons of notes and visiting dozens of screens every 5-10 turns. No way.

Click to expand...

Took me a while to figure out, but you can check your advisors while another leader has popped up to chat.

joethreeblah said:

Took me a while to figure out, but you can check your advisors while another leader has popped up to chat.

Click to expand...

Could you share that with us, please!

The inability to check on the current trading/diplomacy situation prior to accepting or denying a proposal has been a source of great frustration to me. I wanted to be able to click something like 'I shall return in a few moments after consulting with my advisors', enabling me to take a look at'F4' and then return to the table to continue negotiations with the rival leader.

bitterguy said:

newbie question: is there any reason this needs to be a triangle? what is specifically better about having 2 friends versus 3, or even 1? i suppose that if you're playing with only 5 civs you wouldn't really need more than 1 ally, but if you're playing with 15 civs 3-4 allies might be a good idea.

Click to expand...

With 2 allies, there are only 3 relationships you need to manage - your relationship with each of the allies, and their relationship with each other.

Add just 1 more (a diplomacy square), and you double the amount of relationships to 6 that need to be kept on good terms. This is usually unfeasible based on the cause-and-effect-looping nature of the diplomacy system.

fung3 said:

I wanted to be able to click something like 'I shall return in a few moments after consulting with my advisors', enabling me to take a look at'F4' and then return to the table to continue negotiations with the rival leader.

Click to expand...

dude, just hit F4 without answering the request. when you're done looking at the state of the world and exit the diplomacy screen your counterpart will still be waiting patiently for your answer.

bitterguy said:

dude, just hit F4 without answering the request. when you're done looking at the state of the world and exit the diplomacy screen your counterpart will still be waiting patiently for your answer.

Click to expand...

Thanks buddy !

JerichoHill said:

On a monarch game recently, I started next to Monty.

For that very reason, I rushed him

Click to expand...

Hhahaha I love doing that.

Anyone ever get started inbetween the incas and the aztecs... it sucks.

I'm hearing a paradox here. Don't make one of your allies someone on your borders, but do spread religion to your allys to cement the relationship.

I generally Use one Aggro civ on my borders by spreading the religion to them, then I hope or send a dif religion to the other guy on my continent insuring the controlled war later down the road.

There's no paradox! Spreading religion and making allies are two different things.

If you spread religion to them, you have a couple of things going for you, especially if that religion is your state religion: you get to see what's in their cities militarily and they are more kindly disposed towards you. Not to mention, with the appropriate shrine built by a great prophet, you can reap money in off them. Double bonus, that. Anything that gives you clues and a diplo bonus is a plus. At least you'll be able to see what's coming if they decide to whomp you.

DeafDolphin said:

There's no paradox! Spreading religion and making allies are two different things.

If you spread religion to them, you have a couple of things going for you, especially if that religion is your state religion: you get to see what's in their cities militarily and they are more kindly disposed towards you. Not to mention, with the appropriate shrine built by a great prophet, you can reap money in off them. Double bonus, that. Anything that gives you clues and a diplo bonus is a plus. At least you'll be able to see what's coming if they decide to whomp you.

Click to expand...

I'm not ******ed but you might be.
I definitely WANT a war with one of my neighbors. When I spread religion I do it fast and drop it right in their capital. If their state religion is your state religion and you war with them you're in for one hell of a problem. diplomatically and with unhappiness in your own civ.

I'm talking about making civs without a religion adopt your state religion.

patrickkrebs said:

I'm not ******ed but you might be.
I definitely WANT a war with one of my neighbors. When I spread religion I do it fast and drop it right in their capital. If their state religion is your state religion and you war with them you're in for one hell of a problem. diplomatically and with unhappiness in your own civ.

I'm talking about making civs without a religion adopt your state religion.

Click to expand...

You did not point that out in your post, friend. No need to become insulting when someone is trying to answer your post.

As for "making them", you can demand they do so if your religion is present in their cities. Having religion present in each of their cities gives you a line of sight so you know what forces to present against them; just dropping a missionary into their capital isn't going to tell you what's in every city. Otherwise, you can't really force the issue.

DeafDolphin said:

You did not point that out in your post, friend. No need to become insulting when someone is trying to answer your post.

As for "making them", you can demand they do so if your religion is present in their cities. Having religion present in each of their cities gives you a line of sight so you know what forces to present against them; just dropping a missionary into their capital isn't going to tell you what's in every city. Otherwise, you can't really force the issue.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that. Long week.

If you drop a missionary in another civs capital it spreads to all of their trade connected cities in only a matter of turns.

patrickkrebs said:

Sorry about that. Long week.

If you drop a missionary in another civs capital it spreads to all of their trade connected cities in only a matter of turns.

Click to expand...

Np.

I've tried that and it doesn't seem to work for me. I wonder why. Anyhow, this ain't the proper place for that. It's about Triangle Diplo, not religion. ^_^