Is it wise to prop up a weak nation fighting a stronger one?

[Daaraa]

Just looking for your opinion.

In my current game, the Aztecs and the Americans are on the same huge continent. They were equal except the americans had horses and saltpeter. The Aztecs were weaker. Monarch difficulty, huge world, medium islands.
I am the Germans and I own a medium sized continent and two smaller islands after wiping out the French, Indians and Romans.
The English on a medium sized island wiped out the Rusians and now they own it.
I was at war with the English and had them on the run.
The American and the Aztecs, my two allies declared war on each other.
I didn't want either to win because then they could be in the number one position. I was in no position to get involved with a rude civ (Americans or Aztecs). I figured if they could stalemate for another 20 turns then I could handle them.
Thankfully the alliance I had was military against England (I didn't have a good navy so I let America and hte Aztec navy fight the English one.)
I noticed after a few turns the americans were really pounding the Aztecs.
So my question is, should I have given them a slight edge in either resources or tech? Or should I let the Americans wipe them out?

I propped up the Aztecs by giving them nationalism and iron along with furs a few turns later. The war has been going on for a long time between them. Both have only 10% science so I am almost a full era ahead of them. Now if either one of them won I could wipe out the riflemen they have with my modern tanks.

 

[joycem10]

keeping a war going between 2 contenders is a great plan.

1. it may push them into communism or monarchy, destroying thier ability to research.

2. they will concentrate on building units instead of improvements, limiting thier cultural, scientific, and commerical growth.

3. cities will change hands destroying existing improvements. some may even be razed - removing one of your competitiors major productions sites.

all good things in my opinion.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I would have done the same thing. Engaging in 'ineffective warfare' is the best thing you can do to the AI. They spend lots of shields on cavalry (for example) that keep getting obliterated by the solid defense of rifleman (and later infantry). The AI experiences war-weariness and will probably go to a form of government that is not as productive (as far as research and economics) as a Democracy is. So as long as you have good infrastructure, you will make huge gains in technology.

I usually get all the other civs in a war, even when on the same continent, because they end up losing most of their army (or most of their army is on the other side of the continent) allowing me to build up my own army and pick off the cities from my neighbors, after dropping from the alliance (usually just 2 defenders in each city).

 

[PaulNAdhe]

In the past I've propped up puny AI civs every game. It makes sense to keep them going until I can get over to help them remake their territory

That was on Regent and below when I had plenty of GP. Playing Monarch now and not much GP laying around. I don't know, I may be the one needing propping up now

 

[Daaraa]

I figured it was a good idea.
The Americans and the Aztecs both eventually switched to Monarchy as they had not discovered Communism.

They also had a lot of anarchy. I don't know when they discovered anything, especially with a science rate of 10%.

I'm just wondering when would be a good idea to not prop an AI civ.

 

[Selous]

the only time i find it is unwise to prop up someone is if u have to give them a teck that there enemy doesnt have and u dont want them to have ... like replacement parts for example ... if they are getting pummled ... because they might make peace by giving the baddies your teck

i usually give the weakling a few luxeries and resorces and any teck that they might need ... but if im the teck leader i dont like to give any of the advanced tecks away to anyone .... now wouldnt it be brillent if we could give that weak civ a few units? rather than having to give them the teck and them having to build the units

 

[Daaraa]

That is pretty much what I did.
I gave the Aztecs nationalism while I was researching Radio.
I only gave them techs that the Americans had. However, I gave the Aztecs the edge on resources. The Americans only had Dyes. The Aztecs had Ivory. and Dyes so I traded stuff I would have given them anyways for Dye and Ivory. I have the magical 8 luxuries and they have 4 luxuries now along with Iron and a couple of old techs.
I'm about to invade the Americans so all aid is off as far as the Aztecs go as soon as the turns expire on the deals.
Right now it is Me, then the Americans and then the Aztecs.
Thanks for the tip on not giving away thech the other party (this example the Americans) doesn't have to get peace.

 

[PaulNAdhe]

I rarely give techs of any kind. GP, luxes and sometimes resources but I'm a stingy SOB with those techs. Maybe if I'm researching Synth Fibers I'll give Monarchy ... maybe

 

[gzollinger]

I think this is one of the funnest things in CIVIII. Using the political game to meet your needs. The last thing you want is your tougest competitor beating up and a weeker opponent. They easily take their cities, only imporving their own possition (and hurting yours). I always provide resources and maybe techs to a weeker opponent if a civ better then me is after them.

 

[Jason Fox]

I completely agree with selous - wouldn't it be better to give the weaker civ a bunch of units rather than the tech to build them? That way you maintain whatever lead you may have and greatly increase their ability to compete with the stronger civ.

I have shared resources to help a civ but I dislike even selling crucial techs, never mind giving them away. I'm always afraid they'll turn around and sell it to other civs (or, as someone suggested, use it to get peace, thus ending a war I was encouraging.)

 

[Daaraa]

In the game in question I knew there would be no peace for quite a while as both civs had leveled a few cities on either side. Thier once great frontier had turned into a wasteland with improvments destroyed everywhere and cities razed.
I also strongly feel that you should not give a major tech (replacement parts for example) to anyone unless you are way a head and in this case I was mid-way through the modern era when they got industrialization. I didn't really give any tech away either I would just agree to cheap prices. I think nationalism went for a world map (which I already had) and 8 gold per turn.
There were only four civs total in this case. One was me and the other was too broke to buy anything.

 

[spork]

My experience with this has been pretty negative. I remember in an earlier Diety level game I was the strongest civ on my continent, and the Germans and French shared the other one. I thought it would be fun if I kept them busy while I was mopping up my contiguous neighbors, so I MPPd with France just as it looked like the Germans would attack one of my island outposts. I thought I was being clever, but it was a bad idea.

Though Germany and France looked equally powerful (France had more wonders), Germany overran them in less than 20 turns. Now, the Germans own an entire continent, giving me no place to land. It made the invasion terribly difficult and costly. In retrospect, it would have been much easier if France would have stayed intact. I had rights of passage there, so I could have landed my entire army in France and attacked poached German troops across the border.

Anyway, the point is, it's not in your interest to have your most powerful rival swallow its neighbor.

 

[Dearmad2]

But you weren't *sending* them help, you were *begging* them for help- that is the exact opposite situation... don't you see that?

And someone above rcommended sending units to the civ- is that POSSIBLE in the latest build? I've never seen that option described in the manual or anywhere in the game- only sending back slaves.

 

[Selous]

no Dearmad2 ... its not possable .... i was just remarking how cool (and realistic) it would be ... and not to mention how much it would have a ballancing effect on the game

on a side note .... sometimes i feel really bad when a nice neighbour gets creamed .... sometimes i goto war against there agresser take there citys back and give them back to my nice neighbours ... probally not a good thing to do ..... but i enjoy doing it .... and sometimes ... in my quest for power and resorces .... i HAVE to take some citys and backstab my old allies for resorces or citys that i have to have .... makes me feel guilty for taking them .... this is why i CANT wait for muliplayer .... a real player would understand your NEED for a resorce ..... u cant threaten the AI ... they wont take it .... like if i had a superpower next to me ... as an ally ... and they didnt have iron ... and i only had 1 sorce of it .... i would be quite happy to give it to him so he doesnt have to take it