Industrial Age "Proxy War" or "Declared" Warfare??

[Vertronix]

My current game as the Celts has presented me with a fun "challenge". I fought Ancient Era wars with first the Germans and then the Romans to take complete control of a large continent. I immediately switched to a Republic after conquering the Romans and have spent the last several centuries consolidating my grip on all this territory while maximizing my Scientific output....Fast forward to 1500 AD. I have made contact with the 4 remaining Civs (Inca, France, Japan, and Carthage) and have been closely monitoring their progress as they fight over the other "main" continent and a few minor islands. France and Carthage are both technologically incompetent are of no immediate threat. Japan is moderately advanced and is in near constant warfare with the Inca. The Inca are my technological equal and are "dismissive" of my culture. However, the Inca have no access to a key strategic resource, saltpeter. (Neither does France, Carthage or Japan).

I am currently debating whether I should trade heavily (technology and strategic resources) with the Japanese and let them fight the Inca on my behalf in a "proxy war" or if I should jealously guard my technology and strategic resources and fight the Inca myself. I have the ability to mass produce Cavalry, Cannon and Riflemen. (I have researched Steam Power and Industrialization). My plan would be to divide the Inca landmass and conquer the "core cities" which house the numerous Wonders which are fueling their Cultural superiority. "Gutting" their empire in this way should allow me to make peace and then dominate the remainder of the game in either a Cultural or Space Race victory. (My preferred Victory conditions).

I would appreciate some advice from the many players of greater experience than I who frequent these boards!

 

[BCLG100]

its a good idea the only problem with not 'finishing' them off is that the cities could flip, if i was you and id capture them core cities then as theyd have nothing left go and destroy them, maybe thats the war mongerer in me. i would then extend my tech lead and start picking of civs with a weak military, e.g. having pikes, spearmen, or muskets when you have cavalry, or riflemen when you have tanks.

 

[Volstag]

I think this largely depends on whether the Japanese are capable of inflicting serious damage on the Incans (w/ your trades). If the answer is "no", or "maybe", then I'd hoard 'n' wait for the opportunity to crush the Incans on your own.

If, however, you believe the Japanese are capable of smiting the Incans, then I would definitely recommend trading and letting the Japanese fight a "proxy" war for you. I've always been a fan of letting others fight my wars for me -- it allows me to concentrate on infrastructure, techs, etc.

The only thing to worry about is, of course, that the Japanese supplant the Incans as your new threat.

-V

 

[JoeCivFan]

What I would do is sign a military alliance with the Japanese agains the Incans. This way you could go in from once side and the Japs from the other and meet in the middle. Then take out the smaller nations by your self. Then the big boom. Take out Japan and control the world.

 

[dresdor]

I agree with joe, but don't capture their cities, burn them to the ground and establish new, "loyal" cities with settlers. That way you reduce the flip chance greatly and don't have to station as many troops in those cities.

This will make everyone hate you, but I never worry about that.

Make sure you take more than the Japanese, and let them wear down the Inca before you even send troops.

 

[Vertronix]

I appreciate the feedback!

I think I'm going to go with the "blitzkreig" approach...hoard and protect my technology and strategic resources while assembling a massive invasion force to destroy the Inca. I do not want to deal with the possibility of cultural flips. My cavalry/cannon/riflemen should be able to overwhelm the Inca as they have only knights/trebuchets/pikemen with which to defend themselves. I'll temporarily lower my science output as far as necessary to support the massive invasion force and move quickly to overwhelm all their territory before the inevitable WW sets in.

I can then "settle in" to the newly acquired Inca territory and "regroup" prior to dealing with the Japanese and French who share the island.

 

[JoeCivFan]

Just make sure you have the settelers ready. This way you can move them in and the Japs or French cant get the land.

 

[smackster]

Declare war and the get the alliance 3-4 turns before you invade, that way when you arrive their forces will have gone to fight the Japanese.

 

[dexters]

It depends on your style of play.

I have an incomplete paper on the Machiavellian style of play on Apolyton's strategy forums but the site is down currently so I will have to rework it for Civfanatics.

But as a player, I have no issues with saving my time and concentrating on infrastructure and letting the little nations squabble over their territorial claims. Historically, this is how great powers operate anyways. It's the combination of their strength and the weakness of everyone else that makes them so great.

It can be argued, convincingly by the warmonger that given strength, you should go around fighting everyone. And people take pride in these sort of conquests, but it's just not my style of play.

Wars are fun, but they are always in the context of playing out a war in a theatre with other AI players and manipulating these players to serve my ends.

I'd say is that try out the diplomacy options for more than what the designers intended. You can create 'implicit' realities (that is, its something the game doesn't recognize but the human player can see) by using the reputation system to your advantage. I've created vassals in many of my Pangea games by basically keeping a neighbour small. Usually, this is a protectorate Civ that I had rescued from imminent collapse in the early game. Instead of conquering them, I left them be, and by making sure I don't break any 20 turn deals with anyone, coupled with a squeaky clean repuation vis-a-vis the Civ, I can keep them pretty docile.

Consider these advantages for keeping vassals

#1 They are powerful enough for me to call on when I need their units. Their contributions won't be significant, but it could at least distract another AI if need be. If Its a coaster Civ, I've effectively save myself from fortressing coastal cities on one side of my coast. An ROP allows me to move and fortify troops into their territories -- basically an extension of my military power. These forces can be used either defensively for myself and or to protect my vassal.


These civs are usually in such good terms with me that it is rarely an issue that they will have an MMP with my chief rival, or be bought off in a military alliance against me(see point 3)

#2 given Civ3's punishing corruption system, why have cities that are 50 or 60% corrupt when you can have an independent civ with little corruptionn generating lots of gold per turn. That gold goes in part to fund that civ's infrastructue, but i also get a lot of it. (see next point)

#3 Because these civs are never truly large enough to be technological superpowers, they usually rely on me, the human player to sell technology to them. Keeping them around = a ready customer for my resources, luxuries and 2nd run technologies and I can usually collect a good amount of gold. I'll sell several technologies over a period of time, and the gold coming in can easily amount in 100-200 gold depending on the size of your vassal. Free gold.
It's not uncommon for my economy to run in deficit with the shortfall funded entirely by my vassals and other clients.

Also, by their very nature, these small vassals will not have the land mass required to have access to a variety of resources and luxuries. They can then become dependent entirely on you for these goods. The exchange becomes mutually beneficial. You have ready markets for your goods, and this market will be relatively safe as the Civ is not big enought to declare war on you, and the attitude towards you is usually good enough that even the random factor that they may declare war on you is essentially nil.

This two way trade also means the AI values the trading relationship at some very high amount, making it expensive for a rival AI who may want to sign them up for a military alliance against you. And agian, you can be fairly secure.

There's a lot more to discuss. Like selectively signing up certain vassals in Military Alliances against another Civ you're at war with to build their mutual emnity (I do believe Civs keep a score on who they have been at war with). This makes it even less likely these two civs will co-operate in the future and done well, you can create an alliance of countries that have poor or weak relations with your AI rivals.

This is a very brief overview of how I like to play my games. I'll try to find that word file I wrote on the Machieavellian Doctrine and post it here this weekend.

That said, take an opportunity if you see one. If a Civ is about to collapse and it has good synergy with your current empire layout, conquer it. It will yeild a lot of high producing cities for you.

Also Size of map is key here. On large pangea maps, distance becomes a real issue and it the advantages of being a Machiavellian is much bigger. Playing small maps tend to negate a lot of these epic geopolitical poloticking as most civs will be relatively small and the scale is different.

 

[MightyMac]

Guard your techs to protect the advantage you already have.

 

[Khift]

I prefer to fund the weaker of the two nations. Give them all the resources they need and boost their tech up to parity with their enemy. Then, when peace is made, I declare war on both and take the entire area.

Works for me.