Foreign Policy: UniversCiv

[2metraninja]

Hmm, I though that we have the same 10 tiles from our capitol to Uciv's capitol just as we have to Spaniards, WPC and RB? At least the "Halfway to WPC" sign had always suggested to me.

And I am not by any means insisting on going to war with Uciv, at least not that early, God forbid. I am just looking at the geopolitics and making my estimation. That the first war we are gonna do is about good 50-60 turns from now when we had settled all our land and have our economy set-up and we have the cutting edge lead in military technology/production over our immediate neighbors beside RB (which RB I think is special case, which needs addressing some 100+ turns from now and not earlier). This advantage can means mass maces+catapults vs axes or knights vs spears. All this is subject to easy and quick change.

And as for our first target, I believe it must not be SpAp, despite it is the easiest.

 

[talonschild]

Anyone have any qualms about sending 2metra's message?

 

[2metraninja]

Send it Talons, it was hanging around for like week before I shorten it even more. Lets get our diplomacy moving. This is Multi-team game. It will be won or lost on the negotiations table.

 

[YossarianLives]

Agree, let's send it

 

[Caledorn]

Indeed, let's get it sent.

 

[talonschild]

Sent.

 

[2metraninja]

GOod job all.

 

[Sommerswerd]

And as for our first target, I believe it must not be SpAp, despite it is the easiest.

I wish I had read this before my comment in the turn thread. I need to get better caught up on the discussion. 2metra do you mind giving a quick re-cap of why you are against attacking SpAp first? I agree that they seem to be the easiest target, and since they are the closest they seem to be the natural choice... So what is the hesitation?

 

[2metraninja]

Sun Tsu's wisdom again. Remember he teaches that if there are two big and a small kingdom, none of the big ones must attack the small one. If someone is to be attacked, it must be the other big kingdom. If we attack SpAp, Uciv will interfere. While if we attack Uciv, SpAp will be either afraid or simply not able to change the power ratios much.

 

[2metraninja]

Also, how we will be perceived? We have a saying: "Draws a knife to a dead dog" Means not much heroism one is willing to show.

Of course all those considerations can change in future. Or we can make it change by diplomacy.

 

[talonschild]

For one, we want to preempt UCiv's two strengths, the Rathaus and the Landsknecht. UCiv is also larger and more developed, which makes them a more atractive target.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Is SpAp small, or is it just that they are backward with small military?

Do we know for sure that UCiv are allied with SpAp or is it just that we think they will intervene to save SpAp?

 

[2metraninja]

SpAp are small and underdeveloped.

And we dont know at all anything sure about any relations between Uciv and SpAp. This was only wild speculation by someone made with unclear and non-unidirectional clues as a ground.

 

[Aivoturso]

Even if SpAp and UCiv don't have an alliance, it is common sense to expect UCiv to interfere if we attacked SpAp. I mean, that's what we'll do if UCiv would attack SpAp, right? Of course, interfering can mean also just attacking the SpAp as well to prevent the assailant from assimilating full SpAp territory.

 

[2metraninja]

You are right, Aivo. Any of the 2 strong kingdoms will interfere if the other attacks the weak SpAp. And most probably to try and help them. Why divide candy with the other and then have to worry about the same other strong kingdom, when it takes only to attack the attacker and then consume the weaker kingdom for desert, but consume it alone when the other strong kingdom is no longer around?

 

[Aivoturso]

Why divide candy with the other and then have to worry about the same other strong kingdom, when it takes only to attack the attacker and then consume the weaker kingdom for desert, but consume it alone when the other strong kingdom is no longer around?

The reason in this case would be that there are more than 3 kingdoms altogether. Sun Tzu's analysis applies as is only in closed world where there are 3 kingdoms. In other cases the same principles apply but they must be extended upon. For example in this situation, if UCiv would attack SpAp we should attack UCiv but only if we can be sure that there will be no interference on our campaign from RB and WPC (which we BTW can). If on the other hand we would attack SpAp, UCiv shouldn't attack us if they cannot be sure that WPC or their eastern neighbours won't interfere. Now if a big kingdom cannot trust there's no furhter outside interference appropriate response to another big kingdom attacking the small one would be to attack small one as well.

 

[2metraninja]

Everything in this world is complex. So you try to break it down to manageable chunks. Of course we will look for a NAP with WPC and RB to isolate them from the equation if we are to attack Uciv. To this whole doctrine I think we work from some time on. In the best case scenario, with dates, that would be: turn 150- we attack Uciv, turn 160 Uciv is gone or at least not a real threat anymore, we attack SpAp immediately after and at turn 170 we have tripled our land. Some 40-50 turns after we are have production/food/espionage hegemony and stable diplomatic relations with at least half the nations left in the game and then we convert this advantage in to unstoppable roll-over machine.

 

[Aivoturso]

Well, if you are confident that you can pull off an attack against UCiv in that timeframe that's good enough for me. Then the only small detail we need to take care of is that we won't frighten our rivals so much too early that they decide to pile up on us.

 

[YossarianLives]

This came in earlier today.

Hi Talonschild,

Just a few words to tell you we are still processing your message. We don't forget you

Bye

 

[RegentMan]

I love the "Bye."