Foreign Policy and General Diplomacy

[cav scout]

Ah we were going off of different assumptions then.

If the 3X3 was surronded by water it would mean unequal starts right? Some teams would have a greater defensive advantage while others would have a contact advantage.

On the other hand, if there are land bridges that provide routes around multiple inland seas then all the starts would be balanced and equal- everyone would have contact with everyone, at least diagonally.

I was going to write a sentence about who's assumptions make more sense but then I... oh wait, I just did.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So you are assuming that we are on a web-map. So assuming that is true, we should try to either ally or conquer the 8 neighbors so that we have a protected zone in the center.

Regardless of the map shape, hopefully the overall concept is clear.

 

[YossarianLives]

Hey guys, I just created a Map Speculation thread here. Hopefully it'll make it easier for us to refer back to our ideas on the map as we discover more of it. I'll quote these posts over there so we can move the discussion over.

 

[talonschild]

Conquer 8 rivals? That's it? That's so simple!

 

[Sommerswerd]

Conquer 8 rivals? That's it? That's so simple!

OR! Ally with them... dont forget that.

 

[talonschild]

Conquer/ally with everyone is a basic goal no matter what the map looks like. No matter the game.

 

[Caledorn]

So you are assuming that we are on a web-map. So assuming that is true, we should try to either ally or conquer the 8 neighbors so that we have a protected zone in the center.

!!

 

[cav scout]

OR! Ally with them... dont forget that.

OR we could become vassals of the team to our due West, just like two MTDGs ago We've already laid the groundwork afterall

 

[Sommerswerd]

Conquer/ally with everyone is a basic goal no matter what the map looks like. No matter the game.

[tongue-in-check]I know right?!... Soooo...[/tongue-in-cheek]

OR we could become vassals of the team to our due West, just like two MTDGs ago

Which... I remind you, was your (and Kaleb and donsig's) idea, not mine (or Indiansmoke's or Provo's).

Here is a serious question cav... You have been doing alot of naysaying these days. Do you have any plan? What is it? All I hear from you is what won't work. What will work IYNSHO?

 

[tobiasn]

You're so cute when you're flirting.

Anyway,
My plan would be this, short (like, the next hundred turns or so) term:

- Leverage our UU and get settled and developed our land quickly
- Make our strong neighbors allies and our weak neighbors respect us / fear us (choose one or both)
- Do our best to not have to waste hammers on too many units, and at least not units that we lose..
- Basically: Try to get ahead in tech

Without a tech edge, how are we gonna win?
How would you like to win? What's our civ best geared towards?

We should have a Winning Strategy thread. It would be all speculation right now, since it's so early, but I think it would be good to hear what different people think would be the end-game, and adjust to informed, discussed strategies/scenarios underway.

 

[YossarianLives]

Agreed a "Winning Strategy" thread would be good.

For our diplo strategy through turn 100, we should aim to avoid war, make agrrements to peacefully secure enough land to grow into, and foster strong partnerships/alliances with 2/3 or 3/4 of our neighbors.

War should only occur if our Diplo Team fails, and I don't think they will.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Winning Strategy

1. Form a 6 on 3 alliance and wipe out the 3 outsiders before Rifling
2. Form a 4 on 2 alliance and wipe out the 2 outsiders with Rifles and MG's
3. Form a 3 on 1 alliance and wipe out the 1 outsider with Infantries and Artilleries
4. Form a 2 on 1 alliance and wipe out the last outsider with Tanks and Planes
5. Win

 

[talonschild]

Glad someone else wans to go for conquest. I had a similar plan in mind, but without that timetable. It's a good one, to be sure.

EDIT: Upon closer examination, your timetable calls for eliminatting 7 rivals. Is the plan then "Straight-up destroy the last guy"? I'd think that appropriate.

 

[YossarianLives]

Upon closer examination, your timetable calls for eliminatting 7 rivals. Is the plan then "Straight-up destroy the last guy"? I'd think that appropriate.

Plan is we have a tech / Mfg advantage at that point:

Winning Strategy
...
4. Form a 2 on 1 alliance and wipe out the last outsider with Tanks and Planes

Edit: Oh, I read that as the last team with Tanks and Planes, but I guess the last outsider means we still have an alliance with a team at that point. Sorry!

 

[tobiasn]

Winning Strategy
[...]
5. Win

Allright.

How do you feel about one of the first 3 being our neighbor? Should mean more land for us..

Edit:
Yeah glad we're not going peacenik culture or something, that would be rather boring.

 

[2metraninja]

Yeah glad we're not going peacenik culture or something, that would be rather boring.

I've never saw a culture win in a MP. I've heard of 2 though.

 

[YossarianLives]

I know I've been linking to them a lot lately, but a very entertaining and fairly recent culture victory occurred in RB's PitBoss 6 game.

It was a Team game, three civ's per team. The underdogs went for Culture. One of the leading teams (Sullla's, no less!) misunderstood the Culture Victory mechanic, thinking all three legendary cities needed to be in one civ, so did nothing to stop the eventual winners from getting one legendary city per civ. The other leading team invaded but was literally one or two turns too late from razing one of the legendary cities (not enough units to take out all the ancient age trash stored up in the legendary city). The top two teams were focusing on very diverging late-game strategies at this point, for an epic final clash, when the third team won the game without major fireworks.

 

[2metraninja]

LOL, so they did that? I was reading it to some point where Sulla said something like: "Well, those guys must be totally nut to think we will allow them to win via culture"

Too sad we dont have 2 other civs in our team to make 3 legendary cities easily

 

[1889]

We seem to have developed a good working relationship with RB. Still looking forward to a little reciprocity from them but since they lost their early warrior they were a little behind.

Now we are about to contact WPC. If things go well with them this could be a good three-way alliance for us, although chances are they already have contact with some one else.

What is our ultimate goal diplomatically? Is our aim a 3 or 4 alliance to destroy everyone else? If so how does the game proceed after that point?

In another thread some players have warned against permanent alliances. Is there some other way to play this? Just curious because I have very little Diplo game experience.

 

[Caledorn]

I am not entirely sure what cav scout means by what he said, but I would say that what "ruined" the last game was Tech Trading and not alliances.

Alliances are the core of MP games, whether they are multi-team games like this, or just a regular free for all one-player-per-civ mp game. In general alliances are not permanent in mp games, and all participants are aware of that. However, without being entirely sure, what cav scout may be referring to is the very detailed legalese that were put into the last MTDG game's alliance treaty.

The treaty more or less ensured that none of the four participants of the alliance were able to leave the alliance without having a full scale war with the other three participants. The result was that none of the alliance partners ever left the alliance, giving Team Amazon a science victory even though they hadn't really researched much techs. Amazon focused their commerce into espionage while relying on the tech alliance to do the research for them, which was a brilliant move, but also a very devious one.

That being said, there were episodes within the alliance that almost led to war. However, these episodes never escalated, so the peace was kept.