Discuss as an exploit: buying allies for war

[occam]

Newbie here, so if this has already been hashed out -- forgive me and just post me the thread link. (Couldn't find it on search.)

======

I want to discuss the following tactic: starting a war and buying allies to come in and fight it for you. Let me call this the Coalition of the Unwilling (CoU). CoU is a useful tactic, since your ally will pour into their new enemy to the extent of severely weakening both. Many strong attempts at quick conquest seem to involve this tactic, so I consider it relevant.

I view CoU as an exploit although many do not seem to. What makes an exploit for me is when the benefits are unexpectedly much higher than the costs paid in. CoU is certainly more powerful than say, teleporting a unit home by gifting a city if that is any baseline.

Is it much more useful than buying a generic tech from that AI? YES. Is it much more expensive than a generic tech from that AI? Not usually. --> Exploit?

Also, this exploit/tactic means that instead of opposing the AI and exploiting its weaknesses -- you can make a living supplementing instead. AI fails by a small handful to bring enough units to bust through a key city? No prob, you are there to remorra those tidbits up! And don't tell me that doesn't happen at least once a game when using the CoU.

One additional layer to this is: the ally is willing to work harder than you. They will use tons of forces even if you fight defensively. And perhaps longer if you settle peace early. Doesn't that break immersion for anyone else?

=========

I am a Civ purist I guess -- I want it to be about geographical strategy and of course the micromanagement baby!

This has been an attempt at a flame-free post... please contact me if you disagree so I can tidy up any offending text. Thank you for reading!

 

[MeteorPunch]

The AI does this too, with other AI's vs. you.
The AI sometimes makes decent gains by joining in your effort.
Sometimes the AI will break of the MA you just signed with them 5 turns later.

We should've banned artillary and armies "because the AI doesn't use them" argument, but that would be stupid.

my 2 cents.

 

[Renata]

The ally works harder than you? Not if it's an overseas situation.

This is not at all exploitive, IMO. It's just good strategy. The whole point of the game is to outplay the AIs, strategically as well as tactically, IMO. You appear to wish to limit the game to the tactical -- correct me if I'm wrong.

Also: alliances *are* expensive, especially in harder games where you are playing from behind. Just because they may be a better use of your money than buying an equivalently-priced tech doesn't make them exploitive: IMO, spending 60 shields on two swordsmen is vastly more powerful than spending the same on a temple -- does that make swordsmen exploitive?

Alliances can also backfire if you're not careful -- again, more often on the higher level. I'd rather deal with five medium-sized AI civs than accidentally create a single killer one, but it happens all the time. And AI-AI alliances with every civ on the map, even the puny or distant ones -- the classic 'dogpile' -- will always be the fastest way for a player in a fairly decent position to lose horribly, so it isn't even as if the AI doesn't do this as well.

But my main objection remains the first one. To take out such a variable and tricky piece of strategy just reduces the fun of the game, IMO.

Renata

 

[Own]

This isn't an exploit, it's how skilled players win.

 

[PaperBeetle]

This may not be banned as an exploit, but you can still rule it out of your own play as a dishonorable tactic.
I guess most players have some personal code of conduct by which they play, although competitive games can change one's opinion of what is proper behaviour. These days I find myself pillaging my own trade routes and raping ROPs and all sorts. I'm horrified at how ruthless I have become...

 

[solenoozerec]

I guess most players have some personal code of conduct by which they play,

O, yes. I guess that some players believe that it is immoral to kill AI units. Also it is bad for the environment to chop forests, jungles and irrigate deserts.
Do not even think about factories and do not touch barbs.

In some way even SirPleb is one of such players. I remember that he confessed that when he has a lot of workers before the end of the game he use them to plant forests in tundra.

My personal conduct is to kill everyone as earlier as possible to finish this pain ASAP. This way I at least rarely pollute my planets.

 

[Megalou]

Rather than an exploit, it's a reason to increase the average difficulty level.

 

[PaperBeetle]

O, yes. I guess that some players believe that it is immoral to kill AI units.

In a way, yes. The Realms Beyond Civ credo teaches that it is dishonourable to do all sorts of things that most GOTMers wouldn't bat an eyelid at, including merely starting a war of aggression.
Suicide galleys are also out, as are starving cities of their foreign nationals, and pillaging improvements and forming blockades in neutral territory.

 

[occam]

Thank you all for the replies! I fear that I have miscommunicated the 'exploit' I fear... it is the "lather/rinse/repeat" part of the Coalition of the Unwilling. You beat one AI with a second AI ally, then attack that one with a 3rd AI ally, then attack..... etc.

That 3rd AI would NOT join in any non-broken diplomacy situation. [Think about say, Bush invading Syria... how well that would get allies after Iraq no matter how many techs we offered?!]

Please note: many items on the exploit list have this character.... allowable once as a tactic, but the repeated abuse would be banned. Right? To add workers to a city that can't support them seems somewhat analogous to adding wars to an empire that can't support them -- sure you can fool around and make it work and get a lot of benefit...

This is not at all exploitive, IMO. It's just good strategy. The whole point of the game is to outplay the AIs, strategically as well as tactically, IMO. You appear to wish to limit the game to the tactical -- correct me if I'm wrong.

See above, my fault for miscommunicating.

To take out such a variable and tricky piece of strategy just reduces the fun of the game, IMO.

I am all in favor of variety and trickiness. However, I have this thought expiriment in my head of interviewing all the people on the leader boards, hearing the interesting story of each game they submitted. I am fascinated by the write-ups in general, love to hear details like: "no iron so I had to use bowmen" or "easy access to horses meant I could attack early" or "all the luxuries were on an island" ... etc. I think you know what I mean. Here is my prediction: the LEAST varied part of all those stories and write-ups will be the (repeated) use of AI allainces.

And it's not really variety then is it?

-- Thanks for reading!
Occam

 

[solenoozerec]

Thank you all for the replies! I fear that I have miscommunicated the 'exploit' I fear... it is the "lather/rinse/repeat" part of the Coalition of the Unwilling.

It is simply succesful (dishonest and nasty, of course, but still succesfull) diplomacy.
There are examples in History. This is exactly how communists managed to elemenate all opponents in former Soviet Union. It is a simple algorithm.

Allie with everyone against one and repeat untill none left.

[Think about say, Bush invading Syria... how well that would get allies after Iraq no matter how many techs we offered?!]

Agree. But it is not because of the war on Iraq, it is because Bush is not a good diplomat... fortunatly.