General Strategy Discussion

[FortyJ]

I think it's safe to say that many civ players can be grouped into either the militaristic player or builder player categories. Of course, I think it's safe to say that to be successful in this game, we will likely need to draw on both styles of play. Coincidentally, our nation is both Industrious (perfect for the builders) and Militaristic (perfect for the conquerors). How shall we use these traits to achieve victory?

I pose this question out of concern with our opponents. These are not the same old AI that we have faced in countless SP conquests. Our opponents will likely respond in unpredictable ways.

We should have a general plan of action that we can use as a guide for making all of our decisions throughout the game. Will we expand peacefully and use our military only for defense? Shall we expand through conquest, using our military threat to accomplish our goals on the diplomatic table?

What say you?

 

[Ehecatl Atzin]

I usually declare war to attain a resourse, so I opt for a strong, up to date military that can achieve quick raids supported by an equally strong defensive front to repel attacks, while having a core group of cities that can build improvements fast so they can continue building/upgrading the military, while the rest of the empire builds improvements and the ocasional units.

EA

 

[FortyJ]

I am concerned with any notion of peaceful expansion in this game and here's why:

I think that to win this game, we are going to have to be one of the largest nations and have some of the most productive cities. I just don't think that being the small guy on the block will afford us much of a chance to win given the fact that our opponents are human beings and not a computer.

We could go for a modified five-city-challenge approach, focusing on culture in hopes of getting one of our cities to 20,000 culture points, but I doubt the tricks (ie. pre-building, etc.) that we use to beat the AI to the punch will work against human opponents. Although, it would be a good sneak attack type victory.... They'd never expect it.

However, since neither of our civ traits make it likely to achieve a cultural victory, I think we need to take a different approach. In this game, I think that being small means being slow in production, slow in research, and dependent on treaties to stay in the game. Our rivals surely understand this as well and will likely use the warrior-swordsmen rush tactic to field relatively large numbers of swordsmen early on. We must be prepared to deal with this threat.

I also feel that certain techs are going to be unavailable for trade. We must be one of the first to reach those techs or suffer the consequences of being faced with technologically superior units. First off will be Iron Working. We must either get this ASAP or get the Great Library so that we can get it automatically from the others.

Either way, I believe we should expand early on through military might and then settle down to a more peaceful, building period after we have established/captured a healthy number of cities from which to lead the tech race.

 

[Goonie]

I completely agree you 40J!

 

[Cheetah]

Originally posted by FortyJ
Either way, I believe we should expand early on through military might and then settle down to a more peaceful, building period after we have established/captured a healthy number of cities from which to lead the tech race.

I believe that was how the demogame also where to go, except that we continue to be warmongering

Anyway, I too feel we will need to be strong militaristic to protect ourself and our interests in the start. And then later be a builder.

Small, consentrated, strong and advanced forces to attack our enemies will most likely be a wise thing. Though I believe we should stress the importance of DEFENCE. As you said this is not the computer, but human players who probably will use all the (allowed) dirty tricks in the book.

You mentioned that they won't trade us some techs, for instance Iron Working. Another thing I think we should know is that treaties wont mean much without forces to back them up! Since we don't have computers in the game, reputation does not mean anything, as human players will sign treaties with opponents, regardless if they have broken other treaties earlier.

 

[Vander]

I say that there are other civs that are scientific. We'll need to do our best to stay up with them (or force them down.). If we bee- line for the Great Library, we could cut science funding and use it to make a rockin' military and crush the infidels. Buy the time it expires, we'll have an economic lead among our neighbors. We could extort techs out of the weaker nations (Read: all of them) or force them to submit.

 

[Goonie]

Building the Great Library would make us a target for an attack. Whenever we go to war, we need to find other nations that have something to gain from the war, and get them to help us.

 

[WildFire]

Probably building any wonder that some other team wanted would make us a target for an attack.

 

[croxis]

I dodn't know what the world stats were, but we also need to plan incase we are alsone on an island.

 

[Ehecatl Atzin]

if we are on an island we should build the lighthouse as soon as it becomes available to us.

EA

 

[Cheetah]

Agreed!

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

We are millitaristic and industrious ,not scientific ,i think we better use the pro's we got.Going all out unit building and war monegering is my cup of tea ,though combined with an oportunistic foreign policy.We should try to get the most out of every situation withought isolating ourself's.

A strong millitary power is one important thing ,a cunning foreign policy an other.Personaly i believe that any team that goes in this game ,not as a warmongerer but a nation builder ,will probably be crushed pretty early on.I even expect this game to end with total victory for one team well before the modern age.

From the ofset of this game ,about every tem will be as "weak" as an other ,granted that 8 team's are playing this game.Even if a team has a large army ,it won't stand against a coalition of 3 or 4 human team's.The key challange is to atleast expand as much as the other largest team on the map withough isolating ourself's ,meaning that diplomacy will be the most important factor to this game.

So what do we do? if we encounter a weak civ nearby ,withought having contact's to most other nation's ,then we should try to smash them down quickly.However ,once most nations are settle'd and their territory secured ,well need to isolate our neighboring country's and form coalition's with other country's ,so that we can attack them in group while assuring ourself's that every allied team get's the change to get a piece of the cake ,therefore ensuring us of their loyalty for the time the war lasts.Plus ensuring that we don't get to big initinaly in comparison to the other team's ,as being to powerfull with still a big number of team's in the game would be dngerous for isolation to.Maintaining a sort of Status qou where we ourselfs are part of the mighty'st country's would be best ,untill most team's are beaten and the final fight can begin.
We have to make sure that we ourself's don't come in a isolated position though.
Al in all ,this won't be easy that all.Afterall ,we are in this game with 7 other civ's that got about equal chance to win the whole game ,and much of the succes will depend on some luck.

In any case ,don't be fooled to go the peacenik path.We are among the wolves ,weakness will be used against us ,and powerfull'ness will be used against us to.
I can not stress enough that smart diplomacy will be crucial to win ,uberhaupt survive this game.

 

[Cheetah]

I agree. We will need to have a stong military over the entire nation. And even if we are allied with someone, we must not let our guard down. I personaly do not trust anyone of the other teams.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

And remember not to get ourselves into traps - like when the AI offers a tech for a GPT deal, then declares war on you.

The enemy will be a bunch of backstabbing, knifetwisting, warmongers. And so should we. Anyone that isn't a backstabbing, knifetwisting, warmonger will be one of our targets, because their morals will be our weapon.

Also, I would like to hear from others who play lots of PBEM. Maybe Lt Killer M or Wildfire444, or anyone here. They would know how people play dirty, and how we should, also.

That said, when I say play dirty, I dont mean cheat, but take advantage of every opportunity. Be like a capatilist - any and every method of bringing ourselves closer to victory is a good method.

 

[Plux]

My experience with MP and PBEM's is that peaceful and fair play is much more common in this sort of game than playing against AI. Being at war with a competitive nation results more in grudges against one compared with a normal game, and experiences in the past will always be remembered. Breaking treaties is definately a no-no, or maybe only permitted when it results in definite victory..

 

[ravensfire]

I think this will be a bit different. Remember that groups often lack the morals that individuals have. Many of these teams will have groups used to playing in a cutt-throat style. Toss into that the "honor of our site" thing, where honor is defined by "We kicked yer tail!" only, I think this is going to be a wildy political and military bloodbath. If there is any other win besides conquer or domination - I'll start using mac's!

We've got to plan on building up a nice military force, capable of defending our lands and projecting force. I think we need to plan on a military that is capable of either defending against two attackers with limited raids, or defending against one enemy while attacking a second. Look at our traits - war is our profession!

 

[Plux]

Originally posted by ravensfire
[..]

Look at our traits - war is our profession!

That is true. We should take every opportunity for a honorful war that we can get with both hands, and hopefully them GL's come pouring in

 

[FortyJ]

Originally posted by Plux
My experience with MP and PBEM's is that peaceful and fair play is much more common in this sort of game than playing against AI. Being at war with a competitive nation results more in grudges against one compared with a normal game, and experiences in the past will always be remembered. Breaking treaties is definately a no-no, or maybe only permitted when it results in definite victory..

This brings up a good point. An individual's reputation for backstabbing and treaty-breaking may be as difficult to shed as pocket lint (or that thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is...), but we're not playing as individuals in this game.

We're playing as teams of individuals, which offers a great deal of latitude in playing styles. After all, these are supposedly democracy games in which the will of the majority determines the actions of the team. This lends a great deal of deniability to the individuals taking part, allowing for far "dirtier" play than one might normally take part in.

No, I think we should act honorably, but be prepared at all costs for treachery (read as "having a strong military in key places within our empire and around the world"). Furthermore, we should be prepared to act treacherously if the situation demands it . However, such action should be taken sparingly and with great care. If we are tagged as a deal-breaker, then we will be making it too easy for our enemies to form a coalition against us.

To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, I think we need to speak softly, but carry a very, very big stick in this game. And, to win, we must be willing to use that stick when the time is appropriate.