I would like to hear you opinion on a play

[MrMulan]

Im bordered to the north by the Americans who are in second place, and are annoyed at me, even though I chuck 1gold/turn at them. They have about 14 cities-same as me. The Iriqouis are to the SW of me on the continent have 8 cities and are polite. Who should I go for first?

I I go after the Americans, Ill take care of the 2nd most powerful civ, but Ill be overextending myself a bit, and the war looks risky.

If I go for the Iriquois Ill have a smaller area to conquer, but there be a chance that America will surpass me and since they are already annoyed, might attack.

Im leaning towards the Iriquis and sending pike to my northern borders. What do you guys think?

 

[Fierro1816]

Take the Iriquis..... I don´t like them.

Then prepare the ofensive against the americans.... Is there any way to force peace with the americans while you are fighting?? Other civs?? Embassies?? Right of Passage?

You need a safety net.

 

[levasseur227]

IMHO, I think that it should partly depend on the resources available...

If the Iriquios have better stuff, or stuff you need (though you already seem to have iron) then go for them.

Is there anyone on the other side of the Americans or the Iriquios? If so, that may make a diff. If you can go south and then own a full peninsula with the sea at your back on 2 or 3 sides, that is a good strategic move.

Not knowing any of that, I think that if you have 3 pikemen in all of your frontier cities, throw a free tech at the americans and keep offering them gold, you should be fully able to attack, destroy and then consolidate the Iriquois nation and then you will have a full 22 cities to counter the "pulling ahead" that the Americans have done while you were in your righteous and just war agains the evil Iriquois.

Have fun, good luck. Let us know how it went.

PS: A note about over extending yourself: Be sure you don't start a war you can't finish because of losses (i.e. americans) Civs that you attack have a very long memory and have a way of coming back to bite at the worst moment if you don't finish them off.

(Though I should take this advice. I am about to start a war with the greeks to destroy 2 cities (one of them is close enough so that I lost my iron) and capture one. This will give me the ability to upgrade all of my horsemen to knights and spearmen to Pikemen.)

 

[MrMulan]

Thanks for reaffirming my leanings. And yes, taking out the Iriqouis, will leave the sea at my back and then it will be Americans, Aztecs, Germans, and me. The English, Zulu, and Persians are on another island, but thats to worry about another day.

One more question, I have aharbor, so does the English. Why o why, are the luxury box greyed out?

 

[Fierro1816]

Do you hav an embassy? Maybe is that. Or... you don´t hav a map of a route to their harbour....

 

[BillChin]

What I often do in similar game situations is move a bunch of troops to the border, maybe even inside the enemy territory. Then I make harsh demands for techs and/or resources and see what they have to say. Often times this diplomacy at gunpoint yields a nice deal. If they give me something at good price, I move the troops to the other border and bribe the first civ to stay neutral. If the first civ refuses to give me anything of value, I let loose the dogs of war and bribe the second civ to stay neutral.

A war on two fronts is to be avoided at all costs, so bribe generously when you do attack. Maybe 1 free gold per turn before the attack and an additional 2 free gold when you attack, maybe add a luxury if you can spare it. A peaceful border is well worth this price, when you are the aggressor.

As for harbors and trade routes, they have to be on the same "sea," meaning a coastal route to go from harbor to harbor. I believe sea or ocean squares are not allowed for a sea trade route until Magnetism and Navigation are discovered.

 

[rdomarat]

Another thing to consider when choosing which civ to slap around is the proximty of that civilization's cities to your Palace/Forbidden Palace. If the Iroquois cities that you will capture will end up closer to your Palace, they will be much more productive right off the bat than the American cities.

This point is secondary compared to the resources that exist in each territory though. If there's a luxury/resource you don't have in either area, that should be the deciding factor.

 

[MrMulan]

Thanks for the explanation of the harbors and seas. This game is GREAT. So many variables!!!

 

[ripcord_tx]

I don't agree with the strategies posted so far. The idea is to be #1, right? So why all this boost to your number 1 competitor? These ideas give him free techs / gold / luxuries will only strengthen your biggest competitor, while you weaken yourself against a weaker competitor.

Whatever your strategy is, it should involve getting the Americans to fight. If the Iriquois and the Americans are fighting, they both weaken. You get marginally stronger by comparison, but I don't think it's all that helpful since you have no option in this case to take new cities.

I'd suggest giving gifts to the Iriquios instead. They will be hesitant to form an alliance if the Americans are so much stronger, but should go for a mutual protection pact. Give them Right of Passage, attack the Americans with Iriquois as backup. Eventually, the Iriquois will make peace with the Americans which is just fine with you as they should have taken the worst of the attacks. The American cities are now yours for the taking. You eliminate your #1 foe, and by taking the cities you pull ahead and leave the now #2 Iriquois far behind.

 

[MrMulan]

Originally posted by ripcord_tx
I'd suggest giving gifts to the Iriquios instead. They will be hesitant to form an alliance if the Americans are so much stronger, but should go for a mutual protection pact. Give them Right of Passage, attack the Americans with Iriquois as backup. Eventually, the Iriquois will make peace with the Americans which is just fine with you as they should have taken the worst of the attacks. The American cities are now yours for the taking. You eliminate your #1 foe, and by taking the cities you pull ahead and leave the now #2 Iriquois far behind.

Ahh, but I am the meat between the two buns. Even with the Iriquois as back up, its my border the Americans will be spilling over. But your reasons are why Im hesitant about going after the Iriquois. In any case I will save the game and try out both ways. Ill let you know how it turns out.

 

[BillChin]

A few points: when I am ready for war, I do not become weaker as the war goes on. I become stronger. I believe in attacking hard, attacking fast, with overwhelming force. For a standard size map, eight players, I suggest an offensive force of 20+ units for the first war after build out is completed. Piecemeal, one or two city offensives are not for me and a poor way to play any game. Do not depend on your allies to do the fighting. They are often hapless and sometimes can not do anything. Be prepared to do all the fighting. Be pleasantly surprised if an AI ally does any good.

Again, a war on two fronts is to be avoided at all costs. If this cost me 60 gold or whatever, it is well worth it. This is the price of convenience and only helps a computer player on the margin and for a few turns. I often let the AI players decide who will be my friend and who will be my enemy. This is often an indication of their tendencies and how much I can count on them. With my tactics and style of play, the strength of the opponent matters little in an Ancient Age war. The enemy is going down.

It is hard to predict what happens in the world when the war rages. Other wars may break out and you never know who your allies may be later on. It may turn out that a competitor becomes an ally after some distant civ declares war in sympathy with the victim of aggression.

Originally posted by ripcord_tx
I don't agree with the strategies posted so far. The idea is to be #1, right? So why all this boost to your number 1 competitor? These ideas give him free techs / gold / luxuries will only strengthen your biggest competitor, while you weaken yourself against a weaker competitor.

Whatever your strategy is, it should involve getting the Americans to fight. If the Iriquois and the Americans are fighting, they both weaken. You get marginally stronger by comparison, but I don't think it's all that helpful since you have no option in this case to take new cities.

I'd suggest giving gifts to the Iriquios instead. They will be hesitant to form an alliance if the Americans are so much stronger, but should go for a mutual protection pact. Give them Right of Passage, attack the Americans with Iriquois as backup. Eventually, the Iriquois will make peace with the Americans which is just fine with you as they should have taken the worst of the attacks. The American cities are now yours for the taking. You eliminate your #1 foe, and by taking the cities you pull ahead and leave the now #2 Iriquois far behind.

 

[Moulton]

No, no, no, not meat between the two--- take the war to the Americans, let their land be decimated. Iroquois will send troops through your land, but if you keep the front moving toward the americans, your cities should suffer no harm.
One important thing::::: Attack in strength.

 

[Allemand]

I love this kind of situation. Your choice is hit the weaker foe or the stronger one. In either case, you should get the other one as an ally until your first opponent goes down. Then turn and go after the second one.

In my latest game, I invited the Greeks to join my war against the Romans, but didn't give the Greeks right of passage. It took them a long time to get their horsemen through my territory and by the time they got through, the Romans were dead. Then the Greeks had to get home but I denied them access through my lands. Then I massed my troops on the Greek border and attacked.

Never saw those Greek horsemen again. Maybe they were disbanded.

 

[levasseur227]

I don't know why, I know it is a computer game and noone is watching, but I have a difficult time "turning" on an ally.

This could be why I will never win at Diety, but I have a sense of honor that I can't forego, even in a game. If I want to kill both, I just make nice, but never make allys...

Dave

 

[Moulton]

I also play with a sense of honor. However, I think if you wait long enough you don't have to turn on your allies... they do it for you.
I have decided that AI is not happy unless ithas a war somewhere. Doesnt have to be against my, but just war.

 

[Fierro1816]

There is no place in Diplomacy for honor. I try to keep my promises but loyalty it´s out of the question.

THEY SCREW YOU IF THEY CAN!

 

[levasseur227]

They may screw me, or try, but that is on them.

I speak quietly and honestly and carry a really big army.

 

[MrMulan]

Well I finally finished this game. I declared war on the Iriquois, paid everyone else off to join the war, even the civs on the other continent, and took the south. Then I went after America, Germany, and the Aztecs.

On the other continent, Persia finished the zulus, peace reigned, I built tons of tanks and settlers. I got a right of passage with Persia(the 2nd biggest civ)parked 5 tanks around all their cities, 10 on cities with pop12, ambushed them and in one turn plopped settlers down-voila domination victory!

 

[Allemand]

Now, that's dishonorable. Turning on an ally after the war is over is one thing, but using a right of passage for that kind of ambush is absolutely bad.

 

[Black Waltz]

But it can't damage your repuation if you have no one to look down on you. *g*