Dealing with Demands from other nations

[GenMarshall]

I have posted a poll about this subject .

Dealing with Demands from other nations - Poll

 

[Isabelle]

We really shouldn't be at a point where another civ could easily crush us in a monarch game. What I'm saying is it is a matter of principle. Once we start giving in to demands, where do are we going to stop?

What we should or shouldn't be doesn't matter. We should make the decision solely on the basis of what we are, and what they are, and what they can do to us if we don't give into their demands (or vice versa). I'd rather be the strongest than the proudest.

If they are only "demands 10 gold and a world map from us" (Isabelle) then they aren't going to declare war anyways unless our world map has something they really need to know about. If they really need to know about it then we shouldn't give it to them, simple as that.

You have to admit it might be more sensible to give into their demands, even if it is something important, if they could do us some major harm. Maybe they'll never be able to damage us much, but if we say we'll never give into their demands, and make thata general policy, and then a case such as the one I mentioned comes along, and we make a decision which is really, tactically awful, when you consider it rationally, because we decided to treat all of these potentially different cases in the same way, then... that would be pretty dumb, right?

Demands are hostile acts and should viewed as proposals of vassalage from another nation. Case by case basis reasoning sounds well and good but the principle still applies. Case by case is only truly useful for other treaties, like trade agreements, RoP's, and MPP's.

I'd rather be temporarily considered a vassal then be completely assimilated by a larger nation, or have them hinder us in any considerable way. Yes, of course, we probably should be able to deal with them, maybe even easily. But that's still no excuse for causing a war the one time it could hurt us because we decided to treat every single instance of this as exactly the same thing.

Basically:

We got an almost identical question in the elections for FA, and a poll on this makes equally little sense here as there. What we can poll, is the relationship to each Civ. To a superpower, we may give everything away just to survive, to a smaller nation, we would give nothing away, maybe even demand a city in return for the audience.

ps : I'd rather!

 

[blackheart]

What we should or shouldn't be doesn't matter. We should make the decision solely on the basis of what we are, and what they are, and what they can do to us if we don't give into their demands (or vice versa). I'd rather be the strongest than the proudest.

It's national pride. The strongest don't give in to demands. Why should we run away from a fight, especially one that we didn't start? Because that's what the AI does when it demands something.

By your responses I take it you'd give almost everything just to avoid going to war with a stronger nation. Let's look at the previous DGs. The Domino War as an instance, we were outmatched and outnumbered but still didn't suffer defeat. We had fighting spirit and we didn't give in. What if we had made some concessions (give up cities) for peace, what would have happened then?

What they may be able to do and what they can do are two entirely different things. We never know what they can and will do before it has happened. That would be giving up before even trying.

 

[Isabelle]

Right, but volume of demands (from one or numerous civs) is another thing to consider. Sometimes you just have to go to war, if giving in will not better your situation, it's smarter to just bite the bullet (...literally). Sometimes it isn't the best decision. Case by case doesn't mean always give in, and there are plenty of different considerations to be taken into account.

 

[Provolution]

To be honest, both are right and wrong, so am I, right and wrong at the same time.
But I have one point, that is universally valid, here in this virtual cage of mixed agendas, and in the real world, is that we must take this case by case. I assume Blackheart is more militaristic and Isabelle more diplomatic, which is fine.

Yet, our long term doctrine and strategic interests will define our objectives, methodology and militancy as well as our pragmatic docility. For iron, we will kill, torture, raze cities, Japanize occupied cities and in general go very far to maintain our interests for the next 4500 years. Yet, with a stronger neighbor on our door, and here Isabelle has a valid point, we would RATHER make temporary concessions, lose the battle, win the war and live to fight another day. My military campaigns are not yet another Gallipolli, Khalkin Gol or Verdun, my concepts are based on the following doctrinal thinking from Dr. Linda Beckermann, The Asset Group in Pentagon, if you want to read more.... here is a link, the only non-military I could find

http://www.belisarius.com/modern_business_strategy/beckerman/non_linear.htm

She advocates a military doctrine where we win assymmetrically, which means in specialized and hard hitting campaigns with defined outcomes. If we cannot fight a smart war, we wait it out.

Belisarius used non-linearity against the Persian army of Chosroes. He had his scouts spread out and ride up and down the region between his forces and the advancing Persian army scouts so that they would think Belisarius's forces were much larger than they really were (actually they were 1/10th the size of the their adversary). The effect was that the Persians turned around and went home, forfeiting the battle to Belisarius, without him having to engage in any fighting whatsoever. <Note 2> In this case, a very small input caused an enormously disproportional output."

 

[Comnenus]

Belisarius used non-linearity against the Persian army of Chosroes. He had his scouts spread out and ride up and down the region between his forces and the advancing Persian army scouts so that they would think Belisarius's forces were much larger than they really were (actually they were 1/10th the size of the their adversary). The effect was that the Persians turned around and went home, forfeiting the battle to Belisarius, without him having to engage in any fighting whatsoever. <Note 2> In this case, a very small input caused an enormously disproportional output."

Unfortunately, we can't trick the AI this way. How do you propose to adopt this tactic to Civ3?

 

[Provolution]

We need t find iron, we fortify strategic hills with vantage points near venues of approach, we keep a barbarian settlemen alive at one spot in order to bring our forces from regular to elite and shuttle them to the border (read my percentages in the MA thread on the % gain of iron and barabarian battle experience). We will use combined arms as mentioned in Sarevoks example, we also know that having archers and catapults add defensive bonuses, we use rivers, hills and mountaints as well as fortifying for bonuses, we build purely military roads to the future front - in general, we trim our country ti handle all potential military conflicts with grace.

Talk to Sarevok about these doctrinal issues, he is the DGs expert minister.

 

[GenMarshall]

Also to note, Ive updated the link to the poll in my post above .

 

[Bobby Lee]

To be honest, both are right and wrong, so am I, right and wrong at the same time.
But I have one point, that is universally valid, here in this virtual cage of mixed agendas, and in the real world, is that we must take this case by case. I assume Blackheart is more militaristic and Isabelle more diplomatic, which is fine.

Yet, our long term doctrine and strategic interests will define our objectives, methodology and militancy as well as our pragmatic docility. For iron, we will kill, torture, raze cities, Japanize occupied cities and in general go very far to maintain our interests for the next 4500 years. Yet, with a stronger neighbor on our door, and here Isabelle has a valid point, we would RATHER make temporary concessions, lose the battle, win the war and live to fight another day. My military campaigns are not yet another Gallipolli, Khalkin Gol or Verdun, my concepts are based on the following doctrinal thinking from Dr. Linda Beckermann, The Asset Group in Pentagon, if you want to read more.... here is a link, the only non-military I could find

http://www.belisarius.com/modern_business_strategy/beckerman/non_linear.htm

She advocates a military doctrine where we win assymmetrically, which means in specialized and hard hitting campaigns with defined outcomes. If we cannot fight a smart war, we wait it out.

Belisarius used non-linearity against the Persian army of Chosroes. He had his scouts spread out and ride up and down the region between his forces and the advancing Persian army scouts so that they would think Belisarius's forces were much larger than they really were (actually they were 1/10th the size of the their adversary). The effect was that the Persians turned around and went home, forfeiting the battle to Belisarius, without him having to engage in any fighting whatsoever. <Note 2> In this case, a very small input caused an enormously disproportional output."

Let me just point out that you just used military fact to back up diplomatic practice. Yes this is true. But let me also point out that if you are giving things away, even in small increments you will never have enough to fight your "smart war". I know, i just played a game today special for you just to find out if there was any real logic to your theory as applied in game. Let me just say that there is a reason why I played it JUST today, it didn't last any longer. I used your strategy and the AI did exactly what I thought it did. It regarded me as a vassal, continued to demand things, I never could get anything off the ground as I was giving in your "case by case basis", eventually the computer just gets tired of demanding and takes.

It is this simple folks. Once you give in you settle down the path to not just vassalage but also to subjegation.

 

[Provolution]

You judge me too hard too early bobby, take it easy, I can be as lethal killer as you can dream of, but I know how to build smart alliances in order to win long term. Have faith.
Plus, my strategy is not concessions, but I like to choose wars, not to be chosen.

 

[Bobby Lee]

Next point...

Military principles as applied in real life, excepting that of economy of force, mass, friction, and a few others...DO NOT APPLY IN CIV...

In civ there is no simulation for flanks, none for supply lines, none for your ruse tactics, none of that is able to be used. In fact the civ military system itself when looked at under a critical eye bears little resemblance to real life. I know this, I may not have been in the military (yet) but I have studied various points in military history far more extensively than probably 95 to 99 pct of the people on the globe. I have definately read more on military tactics and strategy than 99 pct of the people on the globe and probably hold a far better understanding of tactics and strategy than the same numbers. I don't use an identity with an allusion to probably the greatest American General ever for nothing, not that I think I'm something special in the military field. You don't have to be something special to see the inconsistancys though.

 

[Bobby Lee]

You judge me too hard too early bobby, take it easy, I can be as lethal killer as you can dream of, but I know how to build smart alliances in order to win long term. Have faith.
Plus, my strategy is not concessions, but I like to choose wars, not to be chosen.

I appologize if I seem like I'm trying to demolish you. I do fight my points hard when challenged (especially by a good arguement and debater).

I have faith in you, in fact, I'm pretty sure I voted for you. Don't take anything I say harshly, it is a downfall of me and probably my whole family that when we fight for something we fight hard. Many times this is taken as hostility towards our opponent but in reality it generally isn't. I'll be honest, I enjoy the hell out of debating with you. It is not often I have come across those who can put up a good fight.

With Compliments

 

[blackheart]

The AI cheats ingame anyways. Guerilla warfare is almost impossible. When it comes to fighting a superior enemy, we should just combine our entire force into one single army and concentrate it on one of their cities. The strategy here is use most of our forces on the smallest portion of their forces possible. Even if they outnumber us overall they can't withstand such a strong blow.

 

[Bobby Lee]

The AI cheats ingame anyways. Guerilla warfare is almost impossible. When it comes to fighting a superior enemy, we should just combine our entire force into one single army and concentrate it on one of their cities. The strategy here is use most of our forces on the smallest portion of their forces possible. Even if they outnumber us overall they can't withstand such a strong blow.

what you speak of is called mass.

personally I tend to use the terrain to my advantage and I must say that our current position...I would have a field day with an attacking enemy in.

 

[Isabelle]

Hmm. Maybe I didn't represent myself properly before this, come to think of it. If a civ that is pretty big does demand something from you, then that's a sign that we should have a war with them, to take them out of the picture, threat-wise. But the problem with demands is that the war is on their terms. What if we're just after fighting a war with someone else, and most of our units are on the other side of the continent? Supposing they ask for a tech like Music Theory (not that I've ever had that happen), or a tech that doesn't give them a useful unit/a wonder we want to build. It might be better to give them it, then manoeuvre our troops into a more desireable position before launching/provoking a war on our terms. And if we manage to take many cities from them, then giving them a tech is hardly going to matter, since they'll be rendered more or less impotent militarily and technologically after that. Just because you give into the demand itself, doesn't mean you are going to just continually accept their unfettered inteference. =/

But that's my personal experience, and I've only just started playing on Monarch, so maybe I don't know as well as some of you. Though it still makes sense, as far as I can see. I would never give into a demand for an important tech, or anything at all from weaker civs.

 

[Bobby Lee]

Hmm. Maybe I didn't represent myself properly before this, come to think of it. If a civ that is pretty big does demand something from you, then that's a sign that we should have a war with them, to take them out of the picture, threat-wise. But the problem with demands is that the war is on their terms. What if we're just after fighting a war with someone else, and most of our units are on the other side of the continent? Supposing they ask for a tech like Music Theory (not that I've ever had that happen), or a tech that doesn't give them a useful unit/a wonder we want to build. It might be better to give them it, then manoeuvre our troops into a more desireable position before launching/provoking a war on our terms. And if we manage to take many cities from them, then giving them a tech is hardly going to matter, since they'll be rendered more or less impotent militarily and technologically after that. Just because you give into the demand itself, doesn't mean you are going to just continually accept their unfettered inteference. =/

But that's my personal experience, and I've only just started playing on Monarch, so maybe I don't know as well as some of you. Though it still makes sense, as far as I can see. I would never give into a demand for an important tech, or anything at all from weaker civs.

Here is a practice I can accept. If a civilization were to demand something small and unimportant, then we could give it to them on the condition that we begin makeing plans for thier demise or at least humiliation at our hands. A policy of revenge is not necessarily a bad policy. The AI would never understand it really but we would and in this DemoGame that is what matters.
This I can accept.

 

[ravensfire]

This is a discussion that must be ongoing and current. At least once a week, we should evaluate our current situation, all neighboring civs and make some guesses about possible AI alliances. We should then use this as our basis for decided how to respond on a civ-by-civ basis. The FA leader can then use this for their instructions.

Under Monarchy, what is the earliest citizens can remember having a civ demand tribute from them?

-- Ravensfire

 

[blackheart]

Here is a practice I can accept. If a civilization were to demand something small and unimportant, then we could give it to them on the condition that we begin makeing plans for thier demise or at least humiliation at our hands. A policy of revenge is not necessarily a bad policy. The AI would never understand it really but we would and in this DemoGame that is what matters.
This I can accept.

This follows my concept of beating the crap out of your neighbors early so they can't do anything later one.

 

[snipelfritz]

I think each situation is entirely different. If the opposing civ is asking for something small and unimportant (around 25 gold or maps) we shouldn't go to war for that. Now, if the apposing Civ is asking for something more important (Techs, Resourses, or large sums of gold) then we should defy them, unless our enemy is extremely powerful.

 

[blackheart]

Maps aren't unimportant. If you have explored large sections where the AI has not you could possibly trade the world map for a tech.