Foreign Affairs

[TimBentley]

I couldn't get much more open-ended than that, I suppose. Some of the ideas mentioned here perhaps would be more suited for a different thread at some point. Anyways, there are several issues related to foreign affairs. We would like to be proactive regarding potential trades, rather than stop the chat every time we meet somebody. What should are trading policy be? What constitutes a favorable trade? Although this may not be an issue for some time, we must have a policy regarding demands. I feel we should give in to minor demands and refuse major demands. But what is the line between the two? There may be some tactical issues discussed here (the last question seems so in particular), but that's okay.

 

[ravensfire]

Demands - we're playing at Emperor, so we'll be getting those. If giving into the demand is less likely to harm us than a conflict with that nation - give them what they want.

Matters that affect this decision on their ability to harm us, our ability to defend ourselves, what's being demanded, opportunity cost.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Ashburnham]

We also need to put an emphasis on acquiring Techs from other nations. That should be the main goal of all trades for the first part of the game. We'll need to work fairly hard to maintain technical parity with the other civilizations.

 

[Bianezzi]

Well I'd say each situation calls a different approach on demands.

As the Consul said, there are important tactical issues to worry with when meeting/conflicting demands, which make this task more than just opportunity cost.

We need to work together with the Commander of the Armed Forces in order to plan the policy in each case.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I would propose that we give in to gold demands unless the military feels we are in a position to handle the resulting war. In most cases, I would oppose tech demands.

 

[blackheart]

Explore more first. If we're relatively secure with our navy, to hell with their demands . Also, we should focus more on buying tech rather than researching it, because we are bound to lag behind.

 

[TimBentley]

I certainly agree that at this point, we should give in to all gold demands to any nations on our landmass. It will also be some time before we can determine whether any nations are on a different landmass, so this policy would be for all met nations. Also, since we basically have no military, we should give in to technology demands at this time until a military can be built (I don't generally have demands that early in my games, so hopefully this will not be applicable yet).

Obviously, we need to trade plentifully with other nations to maintain tech parity, to pick up the techs we don't want to research ourselves. However, there may be times we may not trade a tech to someone. An example that is not yet applicable would be trading a tech to someone we're planning to invade that would give them a new military unit. A more applicable example would be to prevent them from getting the free tech. On emperor I do not fear losing the race to philosophy (I would fear it if we were researching CoL first). If the barb setting indeed is "no barbarians" (as it so far appears to be), I do not think hoarding alphabet or writing (assuming there are good deals for them) would be necessary.

 

[Bertie]

During the Ancient Age I'd give in on all demands. We'll get our payback later in the game.

 

[YNCS]

Yes to gold demands, no to any other demands. However, we must remember that we don't have an army, just one exploring warrior.

 

[DaveShack]

Normally, India wouldn't be a threat for demands, since they're either a 1 or a 2 on the aggression scale. However, we're playing with the "more aggressive" setting, so if I understand this right we jack up everyone's base aggression level by 1. Run into Germany and you can bet they'll start rattling sabers right from the start, given they're already a "5" on the aggression scale.

 

[mad-bax]

There is little to be gained by not caving to demands. You can do it, but it reduces your rate of expansion if the extortionist declares war. Giving in cost you a few gold or a map or a tech.

Offshore demands can be declined with lower negative impact, but still you end up in a war with the attitude of at least one AI worsened. For offshore Civs I would then give in to demands for gold and TMap, but otherwise no.

Demands for resources, whether luxury or strategic should never be met IMO. It both removes a trading opportunity and (which is much worse) stengthens the AI civ concerned in a disproportionate manner.

 

[MOTH]

Consul Tim,
I would like to point out that one of our citizen's is proposing a war with India. I happen to agree with him that this war is worth the risk. We would cripple India by capturing its 2 workers. We would then need to defend against a warrior rush of 4-6 warriors.

Is this the correct thread to discuss the Foreign Policy strategic implications of this idea?

 

[classical_hero]

Consul Tim,
I would like to point out that one of our citizen's is proposing a war with India. I happen to agree with him that this war is worth the risk. We would cripple India by capturing its 2 workers. We would then need to defend against a warrior rush of 4-6 warriors.

Is this the correct thread to discuss the Foreign Policy strategic implications of this idea?

War at this early stage is not good. We should try and build up relations with India.

 

[MOTH]

War at this early stage is not good. We should try and build up relations with India.

Could you expand on your thoughts on why this isn't good?


The benefits of a war at this point are:
1. We immediately capture 2 slaves.
2. We cripple India's ability to build infrastructure.
3. We have a decent chance to get either a tech or a new Indian city in the peace deal.
4. We will have reduced the number of Indian starting troops.

The risk is:
We will face a warrior rush of between 4 and 6 warriors that will reach Camelot in about 6-12 turns (depending on where they are now). We will be defending with possibly a spear and 1 or 2 warriors.

The drawbacks are:
1. We need to build a spearman.
2. Exploration will decrease to a solitary curragh.
3. Expansion might slow down (might go faster too)

 

[mad-bax]

War at this early stage is not good. We should try and build up relations with India.

Please explain the reasoning and logic behind this assertion that I might be convinced?

As a flat assertion it carries no weight unfortunately.

 

[classical_hero]

That is my preference early in the game to be as peaceful as possible. I believe that it is not worth the effort to go int an early this early in the game. I believe that we "should give peace a chance." I cannot believe that we are going to be aggresive this early.

First of all, as DS said, they are not naturally aggressive, so they are not too much of threat, unless we make them one.

Secondly, as you have pointed our MOTH, it will hurt our expansion and that is the most important goal in the early stages of and game. taking out this means we are behind the 8 ball and we will not be helping our chances of victory. The risk of capturing any Indian cities in not worth it IMO. Why take a risk that we are not prepared for. Our primary goal should be expansion, not war.

 

[mad-bax]

Now we have a good debate Is this the best place for it?

 

[TimBentley]

This would be the appropriate place for it unless I make a more appropriate thread (or if someone else does, but I'll probably do it when I have more time (ie this afternoon)).

Edit: I guess I have enough time. You can discuss it here.

 

[MOTH]

Secondly, as you have pointed our MOTH, it will hurt our expansion and that is the most important goal in the early stages of and game. taking out this means we are behind the 8 ball and we will not be helping our chances of victory. The risk of capturing any Indian cities in not worth it IMO. Why take a risk that we are not prepared for. Our primary goal should be expansion, not war.

Actually, I said it might slow our expansion and might actually speed up our expansion if we get a size 1 city from India.

Some Analysis:
If we are going to war I would the following:
A. Camelot Build Queue: Either:
a. spear-granary-settler
b. warrior-warrior-warrior-granary-settler
B. Capture the 2 slaves and head home just ahead of the warrior rush.
C. Postpone our first settler by building a Granary first.
D. Work on Mining and Roading all 3 bonus grass in Camelot's radius while we wait for the onslaught.

Building the granary ahead of the settlers will allow Camelot to operate as a 4 or 5 turn settler pump for a few cycles before it drops back to a 6 turn pump. Note that with 3 mined bonus grass we could be a combo pump getting 2 turns of 5 shields for a warrior and then 4 turns of 7 + 2 on growth for a settler. This would actually be a slower start but would catch up and outpace the quicker start within about 50 turns. This doesn't even take into account the long-term benefit from having 2 slaves.

 

[mad-bax]

In that case:-

1. The assertion that India is not aggressive is normally true. However IIRC that aggression levels are turned up a notch. Ghandi will not be as compliant as we would normally expect.

2. It is not clear that expansion will be affected. We are talking about changing the current build from warrior (which already wastes 2 shields) to a settler pre-build for a spearman. In return we get the equivalent of 10 shields an 20 food with no upkeep costs + the use of the slaves for the 30 or more turns it will take to build our next worker. Furthermore, India will be crippled, thus allowing us to expand more easily, and give us more room for expansion and allow us to defend more lightly on the Indian borders.

3. We are more prepared for war now than we will ever be. We know exactly how many units India has and we know exactly what infrastructure it has and we know that it is building a settler - or at least has just completed one. Knowledge is power let us use it.

4. India has a resourceless UU. Trying to take out India from Chivalry onwards could be a nightmare. We need both horses and iron for knights. This is C3C and strategic resource density is MUCH lower. Combine this with being hemmed in by the Indians and our chances of building knights look slim.

5. "Our primary goal is expansion". Agreed! For expansion you need room and/or military strength. We have neither. Condemming ourselves to 150 turns painted into a tundra filled corner with 1 lux and no resources is not my idea of setting out to win a game.

6. The war will be over in around 8 turns. For the sacrifice of a few turns on a settler build and maybe re-improving a pillaged tile or two we get room for expansion and a puppy dog neighbour. We get a lower defence budget because of lower need to defend, or alternately a higher offensive capability. We get faster productivity growth due to the improvements the slaves will make and in turn faster settler factory set-up.
Potentially, we get a new city, more gold, tech parity and the security of the cattle tile to the north west.

7. England are possible the biggest warmongering nation in history. England learned much from the Romans and Vikings and others later. A war now has historical resonance and should please warmongers, traditionalists, and even builders alike.

Because it "feels scary", or because "it isn't what I usually do" or because "I prefer a peaceful strategy" are not arguments against this strategy. This game is a puzzle - we solve the puzzle. The solution is not to do what you "want" it to be, but rather what is needed to provide the bottom line. I would like that to be as impressive as possible.

I move that we take this opportunity in both hands. We are English Lions after all and we should roar!