Proposal for strategy of early aggression

[Phoenix]

Good plan. But here are my thoughts; first (when we are about to declare war) tell them to give us their gold and/or technology - if they refuse we declare war (this should show them that we are serious about our "offers for elongating their life span" (declaring war if they dont give us what we want). If they accept and give us our tribute we will have another vote on weather to declare war (possibly in the turn chat to speed things up (possibly before making the threats). Then after crushing them into submission making them pay us gpt for 20 turns and then making more demands with similar consequences to before if they refuse. Then we surround their territory with ours so that cannot expand (also naval blockade if necessary). Eventualy we crush them.

 

[Zur]

I know I'm gonna take a lot of flak for this...

Can't we play this demogame like a decent race of human beings would?

What happened to our principles in early Demogame 1?

 

[Shaitan]

Sorry, Zur. You can't remain alive on Emperor level if you play with principles. If you can kick serious butt in the ancient and early medieval ages you can usher in a kinder gentler later game but you have to be ruthless to stay alive in the beginning.

 

[Danke]

I agree with Shaitan. I have played on the Regent and lower levels the way you suggest, Zur, with no problems. Emporer is a different story. I'm sure there is a way to win with a kinder gentler approach on Emporer, but I haven't found it yet. I do know you can at least compete if you get aggressive early. And even then, it isn't easy.

 

[Zur]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Sorry, Zur. You can't remain alive on Emperor level if you play with principles. If you can kick serious butt in the ancient and early medieval ages you can usher in a kinder gentler later game but you have to be ruthless to stay alive in the beginning.

I beg to differ. Others have shown that it's possible to survive...and thrive on DIETY in GOTM without fighting hard in the beginning (see GOTM7). With our level of micromanagement, I doubt we need to resort to unprincipled tactics to survive.

 

[Shaitan]

The only workable strategy for playing high levels without agression (that I've heard of) is a max cluster build to artificially inflate the relative strength rating of your civ. I haven't tried this strategy because it didn't seem like it would be very fun to play.

My normal strategy for emperor is two early rushes to destroy (or relocate) the two closest civs. Then I fill in all of the developable territory borders as quickly as possible. Then backfill the holes with a medium to tight build. I generally end up with about 2 civs worth of territory. From there I use manipulation to play civs against each other and team up on whatever neighbor has territory that I want/need. I'm very successful with this strategy on emperor and my only diety wins have come with it.

In any case, we aren't talking about unprincipled tactics. We'll be sure to properly declare war before invading enemy space.

 

[Zur]

Originally posted by Shaitan
The only workable strategy for playing high levels without agression (that I've heard of) is a max cluster build to artificially inflate the relative strength rating of your civ. I haven't tried this strategy because it didn't seem like it would be very fun to play.

In any case, we aren't talking about unprincipled tactics. We'll be sure to properly declare war before invading enemy space.

By making consistently better strategic decisions on city placement and builds, it's possible to keep up with the AI even on emperor. See Cartouche Bee's & Zachriel's posts. If OCC wins are possible on diety, why the necessity to expand at others' expense, and at the expense of our own principles?

Honourable, yes, principled, no. Because it is dignified doesn't necessarily mean that it's not wrong.

 

[Shaitan]

I think it's just a matter of symantics. Look at game 1. We had invasions planned twice. The only reason we never declared war was that the AI beat us to the punch on the first one and we manipulated them into declaring against us the second time. In each of our wars we agressively assaulted our foes, taking over their lands and extinguishing civilizations.

What's the real difference between declaring war honestly and manipulating the AI to do so?

 

[Eklektikos]

Originally posted by Zur


By making consistently better strategic decisions on city placement and builds, it's possible to keep up with the AI even on emperor. See Cartouche Bee's & Zachriel's posts. If OCC wins are possible on diety, why the necessity to expand at others' expense, and at the expense of our own principles?

Honourable, yes, principled, no. Because it is dignified doesn't necessarily mean that it's not wrong.

Zur, I don't disbelieve you that it is possible to succeed in the way you describe. However I doubt that it's a viable approach for this demogame, since it sounds like it leaves little or no margin for error. Given our system of government and the comings and goings of citizens, unity and continuity of purpose can never be guaranteed within Fanatika, so a strategy which will result in early dominance and give us room to make the occasional decision of doubtful wisdom later in the game seems advantageous.

I also do not feel that "aggressive" is synonymous with "unprincipled" or "wrong".

 

[Cyc]

Mmmm...you nailed a shepard with that can of green beans, Eklektikos. Well said. I think Zur's approach was definately applicable to the 1st demogame, but I would file it along side the Pacifist Group in this game. We are gonna to have to be aggressive, take what we need when we need it, and not look back. There is an honorable way of doing that, yes, but it's not necessarily the honorable way of playing. Let's stay alive long enough to consider whether we are to be considered honorable or not.

 

[Grandmaster]

Placed the 1,000 lber right on top of the factory with that post, Eklektikos..... my sentiments exactly. We have to decide right here and and now: are we going to play through this game as an honorable, peaceful civ, or a fierce, war-oriented civ. Both have their advantages: peace often builds close relationships and allows production to be concentrated on expansion and culture. However, militarism allows us to quickly expand and gain the culture that OTHER PEOPLE built for us. The only problem with the first scenario is that if one of our neighbor's decides that they're gonna go with Door #2, we're screwed and won't be able to stop 'em when they decided to roll tanks over Bavaria (and I doubt they'll stop and go around any cultural objects or pacifists who are in their way.) The way I see it, there's plenty of time to be peaceful and honorable later in the game, when we've eliminated and annexed most of the world and ensured that even in a demilitarized state no force on earth can stand against us. The Reich MUST expand!

 

[Zur]

Originally posted by Shaitan
I think it's just a matter of symantics. Look at game 1. We had invasions planned twice. The only reason we never declared war was that the AI beat us to the punch on the first one and we manipulated them into declaring against us the second time. In each of our wars we agressively assaulted our foes, taking over their lands and extinguishing civilizations.

What's the real difference between declaring war honestly and manipulating the AI to do so?

I never really supported unjustified military campaigns in the past. The first dominoes, however, were unavoidable.

Eklek: I also do not feel that "aggressive" is synonymous with "unprincipled" or "wrong".

Neither do I.

I'd like to make sure everyone understands that if we expand at our selfish interests, it is because of necessity. This was not clear from the beginning of this thread. Everyone assumed we had the right to take what "we deserve".

GM: honorable, peaceful civ, or a fierce, war-oriented civ.

Or an honourable, war-oriented civ (read Klingons)

The only problem with the first scenario is that if one of our neighbor's decides that they're gonna go with Door #2, we're screwed and won't be able to stop 'em when they decided to roll tanks over Bavaria

See Zachriel's & Cartouche Bee's games.

The way I see it, there's plenty of time to be peaceful and honorable later in the game, when we've eliminated and annexed most of the world and ensured that even in a demilitarized state no force on earth can stand against us.

This does not justify our earlier unprincipled tactics.

 

[Octavian X]

I think, for once, petty ideals should stand aside. I realize now that it would be exetremely difficult to go on without warmongering, minus an aggresive settler push. I place my support behind an agressive startegy.

 

[Grandmaster]

Oh the joys of politics: one post gets cut up into 3 quotes and torn to shreads. Anyway, I still stand by my policy of early aggression. We can fight honorably, but we do need to fight.

 

[Zur]

No offense, but no offense, Grandmaster.

 

[Eklektikos]

Well, since our archers are now in production it seems about time to poll on stage two

Poll proposal to be posted shortly.

 

[Eklektikos]

Poll Options:

Do you accept the proposal outlined in the 1st post?
Yes
No
Abstain

First Post:

Poll Duration: 48 hours from posting or until quorum is met, whichever is the later

The discussion leading to this poll can be found in this thread.

Proposal:
I would like to propose that we use the following strategy:

1. As we build our archers we use them to further explore the edges of our territory, but ensure that they do not stray too far from Aztec territory
2. Once our Archer/Spearmen force has been completed we send them to launch an assault on the Aztecs - preferably taking their capital but making sure not to wipe them out.
3. After taking the Aztec capital, or a significant proportion of their other cities, give peace for as much as we can squeeze out of them.
   [/list=1]

 

[Shaitan]

Looks good to me. I prefer wiping them out but this is also a good strategy and will have better overall support.

 

[Chieftess]

Sounds like a plan. Although, we will have to watch out for their culture.

 

[Eklektikos]

Originally posted by Chieftess
Sounds like a plan. Although, we will have to watch out for their culture.

Agreed. This is another good reason for swiping their capital early, as it should still be possible keep it from culture flipping using only a temple. Amusingly, they themselves would be supplying the tech that allows us to do that - whether they want to or not