Conquest strategy: Are diplomats/spies overpowered?

[db105]

I'm hoping to learn something about conquest from the infinitely more accomplished players here, so please, bear with me.

Let's see:

My conquest strategy relies heavily on bribing enemy cities. Sometimes that feels to me like cheating: sure, you need to generate the money, but I like power democracies (or as close to that ideal as I can make my democracy, because the concept of power democracy can be taken far beyond anything I have ever done with the game:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=87937), and democracies are good at generating money. Perhaps the problem is that the AIs rarely bribe my cities. Of course, once I'm in democracy they can't, but even before that they usually don't.

To sum up, conquest by bribing feels "too easy" to me, like cheating the AIs. Do you think, then, that diplomats and spies are overpowered, because of being able to bribe cities? Or is military conquest actually as efficient?

Let's compare with other conquering methods:

When I'm in total war, I combine bribing with military conquest, but I like to wait till the howitzer is available, because throwing units against a city wall just feels too wasteful. With howitzers, conquering is cheap, because you don't need to lose many units. If there are railroads, in particular, you often don't even need to expose your units to counterattacks. This is probably much more efficient than bribing, especially since by this stage enemy cities are usually developed and expensive to bribe.

If I need to conquer militarily before howitzers (which is something I really try to avoid), I prefer to send lots of diplomats to sabotage the city till they destroy the city walls. Of course, that's probably as wasteful as sending loads of military units against the walls and overwhelm the defenders by sheer numerical superiority, because you waste a lot of diplomats, and because the city you conquer has lost most improvements and you have to start from the beginning there. But at least I don't have to leave my stacks of military units as exposed to counterattacks. And if you are unlucky, the army you have prepared may prove insufficient against a city wall.

Obviously, if you are not yet ready for total war, sending a lone diplomat to subvert the city is much easier than starting a big army. And even if you are ready for total war, sending diplomats is still much easier, since you don't have to deal with discontents (in democracy or republic), and because it's just easier to move your diplomats to conquer than your military units, since diplomats (or spies) have 2 (or 3) movement points, and you only need to get one of them there to bribe the city.

So, what do you think? Are diplomats/spies overpowered for being able to bribe cities, or is military conquest just as (or even more) efficient? (perhaps the reason bribing feels like cheating is because it's much easier in terms of micromanaging an army?). And if you conquer differently than me, how do you do it, and why?

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I have seen the AI bribe my units and cities away but it does indeed happen rarely.

Bribing is, as you say, a very powerful technique. The fact that it feels like cheating to you is, in my opinion, unjustified. This is not an unintended exploit that some clever person discovered but a built in feature of the game.

As for other powerful conquest methods, here is my opinion:

- In early game use crusaders, they can easily overpower phalanxes. Vet crusaders have a decent chance against phalanxes behind city walls as well but you need quite a few of them to succeed.

- once a rival has musketeers you need modern units such as tanks. Musketeers behind city walls need vet tanks or howitzers.

- before a rival gets coastal fortress, naval bombardment is quite effective against coastal cities. You need cruisers or better.

- before SAM fighters are fairly effective.

- if a rival city has all the defensive infrastructure: city walls, coastal fortress, and SAM, then the best method is using howitzers which ignore city walls. In that howitzers are unique. No other unit can ignore its associated defensive infrastructure.

Having said all this, the best way to learn is to join the GOTMs. There is nothing like reading about how others play the same game as yours. GOTMs 138 and 139 are both active.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Perhaps the problem is that the AIs rarely bribe my cities. Of course, once I'm in democracy they can't, but even before that they usually don't.

I once played a game under communism, without trade and with limited conquest. I then found that the AI will try to bribe small border cities (and, perhaps, other cities if given the chance).

So, what do you think? Are diplomats/spies overpowered for being able to bribe cities, or is military conquest just as (or even more) efficient?

I have sometimes wondered about the logic of getting all the units in and around the city when you bribe it, especially when the city is small and therefore cheap to bribe. In that context bribery seems like an overpowered ability, or at least the cost calculation might be improved. The Play by Email community tends to have house rules against bribery in the scenarios they play, so you might infer from that that bribery does have "too much" power (at least in some circumstances).

On the other hand, you can simply regard bribery as an expression of a civilization's power and influence, especially when you consider the timescale of a standard game. On a large scale, if anything in the game is overpowered it is not bribery but caravan delivery bonuses (which, when properly used, vastly overshadow any other economic activity a civilization can pursue). Without trade income, bribery would be naturally limited.

Bribery and military conquest both have their place. Conquest is probably cheaper if you want to capture lots of cities in an area, because the units can be used to take multiple cities if they survive.

 

[db105]

Yes, the AI does bribe from time to time, but it's unusual. I find it a bit surprising that it doesn't use that technique more often, because programming the AI to use bribes effectively must be much easier than programming it to have a good tactical understanding of a fight.

When it does bribe one of my cities is frustrating, though. Tasting my own medicine and all that.

Note: I have to admit that I like playing at a level I can win, so I usually have the upper hand. When the AI is ahead the situation might be different, and it may bribe more often.

This is not an unintended exploit that some clever person discovered but a built in feature of the game.

I know. And it doesn't come cheap, at least not for the enemy core cities. I say it feels like cheating not because is cheating, but because a regular invasion is a lot of work for the player. Bribing is faster and a lot less messier.

- In early game use crusaders, they can easily overpower phalanxes.

Interesting. I don't really use crusaders. I try to avoid serious fighting at that stage. I just defend myself and bribe the odd city. If I have to, I send a few phalanx-catapult pairs, but only if there are no city walls. For city walls, I prefer a wave of sabotaging diplomats, although I'm not sure if simply throwing more attackers against the city walls would be more efficient than diplomats.

- if a rival city has all the defensive infrastructure: city walls, coastal fortress, and SAM, then the best method is using howitzers which ignore city walls. In that howitzers are unique. No other unit can ignore its associated defensive infrastructure.

Yes! Howitzers are the best. When I get armors, I always prefer to wait a bit more till I have howitzers, before serious conquest.

Having said all this, the best way to learn is to join the GOTMs. There is nothing like reading about how others play the same game as yours. GOTMs 138 and 139 are both active.

I should probably do that, although the GOTM is a bit intimidating, since everybody seems to be able to beat deity with their hands tied. I have learned a bit these last few days, and to test myself I have just played my first serious deity game, and I did better than I expected. I managed to launch my spaceship first, but was beaten by a faster rival spaceship. Still, the game has left me with a bittersweet sensation. I did better than I expected but I was was clearly surpassed in production capacity. I was simply murdered when the time for spaceship approached and the AIs got blood crazy.

 

[db105]

In that context bribery seems like an overpowered ability, or at least the cost calculation might be improved. The Play by Email community tends to have house rules against bribery in the scenarios they play, so you might infer from that that bribery does have "too much" power (at least in some circumstances).

Yes, that's exactly my feeling. Although regarding PBEM rules, it may just be that it's no fun, being on the receiving end. You prepare your city, with lots of strong veteran defenders, all the right advances, and then suddenly a diplomat gets there and all is over...

Thinking about it some more, it's probably not as overpowered as it seems. Sometimes it's a bargain, but often, later in the game, you need to produce a lot of money to make it work as an strategy, and if you are able to do that then you deserve to get results for your money.

Still, it would be nice if "defending" spies in the city made it more difficult for enemies to bribe the city or steal technology. You are just defenseless against it.

On a large scale, if anything in the game is overpowered it is not bribery but caravan delivery bonuses (which, when properly used, vastly overshadow any other economic activity a civilization can pursue). Without trade income, bribery would be naturally limited.

Yes, trade. This (along with the SSC) is the most important thing I have learned in a few days of reading around on civ2 strategy. Can you believe that I never used trade? Seriously, I never ever built caravans or freights. Trade is so good in this game that I can't understand how I didn't use it (not to mention how great caravans as a "shield bank" to store production for critical wonders... or for spaceships, although the freaking AI outplayed me on that in my deity game).

 

[Peaster]

Nice thread!

I first learned about conquest strategy from a great player in the GOTMs here, LaFayette. He felt, as you do, that using diplomats was "cheating" and he refused to do it in his games. A few other players (grigor) would join him in that style occasionally, but I think this was always a minority point of view.

The most efficient conquest strategy is to take out the AI capitols with crusaders (or similar units) and then use dips to bribe the rest of the cities. Then they are half price, with no capitol. With good technique, you can usually do this long before Democracy / Espionage, and either end the game, or play on against "pet" AIs for fun / score.

The AI very rarely bribe my cities. I usually try to get lots of tribute from them and keep their treasuries depleted. I also try not to build cities near their road networks, and to crush them as soon as possible once we have cities near each other. But I am not 100% sure which of these factors deter bribery the best. Anyway, if they DO bribe a city, it is annoying, but you can bribe it back at a very reduced rate, and probably collect some supported AI units to offset your losses.

 

[db105]

He felt, as you do, that using diplomats was "cheating" and he refused to do it in his games.

Well, I don't refuse to do it. It's not like there's something wrong with cheating, is it?

No, seriously, when I said cheating I did not mean it literally. I just meant that sometimes it seems too easy/overpowered.

The most efficient conquest strategy is to take out the AI capitols with crusaders (or similar units) and then use dips to bribe the rest of the cities. Then they are half price, with no capitol.

I agree. I try to use that technique when I want to conquer an enemy civ, as opposed to a single city.

The AI very rarely bribe my cities. I usually try to get lots of tribute from them and keep their treasuries depleted.

It's a pity you can't ask for tribute when you're in democracy.

I also try not to build cities near their road networks, and to crush them as soon as possible once we have cities near each other. But I am not 100% sure which of these factors deter bribery the best. Anyway, if they DO bribe a city, it is annoying, but you can bribe it back at a very reduced rate, and probably collect some supported AI units to offset your losses.

Yes, although when they take the city they get a free tech from me.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I should probably do that, although the GOTM is a bit intimidating, since everybody seems to be able to beat deity with their hands tied.

True; but everybody did not start that way. We all came here because we loved the game and thought we know the game pretty well only to discover how much we do not know. Join the GOTM. It will be tough at the beginning and you maybe near the bottom of rankings but with time you will not only improve but have more fun than you have playing alone.

Still, it would be nice if "defending" spies in the city made it more difficult for enemies to bribe the city or steal technology. You are just defenseless against it.

This is indeed the case. Dips/spies in a city reduce the chance of enemy spies doing harm. When our side successfully stops an attempt you get a message "our spy has foiled ... "

I am not sure if dips/spies in a city have any effect on bribery though.

 

[caravaner]

I use lots of diplomats and sometimes it seems to be a bit overpowered.

The diplomats basicly start a civil war in the city. I think it should be about 50 - 50 percent change that it works out. If it fails there should be some population decrease and destruction of units and buildings.

The civil war could perhaps continue a few turns and to defend against it you should be able to move in more units to fight the rebels.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Very interesting idea Caravener. Bribery is indded too powerful and your suggestion would have been an excellent way to temper it.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I have never witnessed an AI bribe anyones city, but I have seen them bribe units - also my units - quite often. And the suckers don't even have to use Diplomats or Spies, they can bribe with any military unit! I'm not sure if civil units such as Settlers and Caravans can bribe.

I remember an unusual civil war in a game I played a long time ago, it was not limited just to a city. Something happened in Persia, they split up and about half of their civilization remained Persian and the rest became English. The English was new, they wasn't in the game before that civil war. The English did not enter the game as a result of someone being wiped out.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I have never witnessed an AI bribe anyones city,

I have seen rivals bribe cities away from one another. I have seen one of my cities being bribed away too but very rarely.

I remember an unusual civil war in a game I played a long time ago, it was not limited just to a city. Something happened in Persia, they split up and about half of their civilization remained Persian and the rest became English. The English was new, they wasn't in the game before that civil war. The English did not enter the game as a result of someone being wiped out.

This is not a fluke. It happens for a reason under known circumstances. Our local expert on the topic is Uruwashi. I have seen him plan to make this phenomenon happen.

 

[caravaner]

If the AI used caravans as spies I always thought they were undercover spies?

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

This is not a fluke. It happens for a reason under known circumstances. Our local expert on the topic is Uruwashi. I have seen him plan to make this phenomenon happen.

I have dug around and found some threads about it, but did not find any material from Uruwashi. The three best threads I've found:
- Does this still happen??? (Thread from 2001.)
- when does a civ split into two? (Thread from 2002, the most informative thread I've found on the issue. The member Lucky posted test results.)
- How do I split a civ in half? (Thread from 2006.)

In my case, I think the Persians were the weakest civ, or maybe they were the second weakest. And I think it was Barbarians that did something terrible to their capital.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I should have elaborated on what I mean by "expert". URUWASHI is a GOTM player who understands the topic perhaps better than any of the rest of us regular GOTM players; I have seen him employing it as an important tactic into his game.

I am glad you found the early research material on this phenomenon. It is a rare event (I think I have seen it two to three times) and fun to watch.

 

[stoferb]

Like you I used to avoid bigger military campaigns before I had howitzers and when I did I ofcourse used spies alot too. But there are earlier alternatives to spies. First out are the elephants, the first units actually capable of taking a walled city without too many losses. Then you get crusaders that are awesome. With frigates all coastal cities can easily be taken, with ironclads they can be taken pretty much without losses - until the enemy has both gunpowder and coastal fortresses it doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I almost never conquer, unless you count taking single cities.
The fact that spies can do their work directly from a boat is not doing them any less overpowered. I like that.

 

[Millman]

Compared to what?

The can't occupy cities and/or improve science except by stealing it. They're very powerful but not the end all be all. Transports, caravans, and the cruiser missile do me wonders sometimes.

 

[Undefeated]

I have only recently joined this forum, and this thread seems to be the most promising for asking whether or not it is possible to win a game at Deity level?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I have only recently joined this forum, and this thread seems to be the most promising for asking whether or not it is possible to win a game at Deity level?

It is absolutely possible. You might find this thread interesting.

In fact, people play (and win) the One City Challenge at Deity level.