1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The War Council

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by classical_hero, Feb 3, 2013.

  1. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,262
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    As time goes in any game, the time gets closer for the need for war grows larger. We have come to a point where it is beneficial for us to start preliminary discussion with the goal of world domination.
     
  2. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Very good idea, Classical. We already have quite a few talks/ideas about conquest. It will be good if we have them in one place for further reference/discussion.
     
  3. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Well, a summary as I see it:

    RB: Nuh-uh. No war. They're our long-term competitor, methinks, the one we have to annex others to outgrow.
    WPC: Maybe, if they don't get their affairs in order. But on the whole, they're friendly, wanna keep them around.
    The Germans: Much the same as WPC, though I don't think we're gonna be sharing a border.
    UCiv: Annoy the heck out of us, and have ORG/Rathaus synergy that we'll want to preemptively counter. A threat mostly because they seem like slightly loose cannons. Tempting target. Would be cathartic to eliminate them.
    SpAp: The other tempting targets, mostly due to (it seems) poor management. They seem generally more reliable than UCiv, but the difference is slight and neither is particularly great.
    Apolyton, CP, and CivFr: Unknown entities.
     
  4. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Very good summary, Talons! And I agree with all.
     
  5. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    IMO, SpAp would be the best first target. Here is my reasoning why:
    1. Their reluctance to have a NAP is a serious risk if we are to go to war against UCiv. Though they seem to be weak, we still have to leave significant portion of our army for defence.
    2. We do not have NAP with them, which gives us a good opportunity take them by surprise. (True we may not have NAP with UCiv soon either.)
    3. They are weak.
    4. They are a bit closer to us than UCiv is AFAIK.

    That being said, UCiv would also be a good target if we would have a war ally. And of course Talons has a point. Dealing with UCiv before they can become a problem would be an excellent idea. They have strong UU and UB that they'll get rather soon.
     
  6. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    SpAp would be our easiest target, true. But "easiest" does not equals automatically "best". Dont mix things.

    Not to repeat myself and for reference I'll post with some parts omitted here my thoughts on our preferred strategy about war with SpAp and possible conquest:

    Spoiler :


     
  7. 1889

    1889 Mayor of H-Marker Lake

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devil's Punchbowl
    Don't think we should go it alone against anyone, we just saw how that worked out with WPC and the Germans. We should get a solid alliance first preferably with WPC and/or Germans.
     
  8. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    :) Allies and their pros/cons we discussed a bit earlier too, but actually it belongs in here. Not talking about taking on a runaway top civ (there we MUST have allies to rely on success), but normal neighbors.

    Here is what my thoughts on this are:

    Now I can add one more thing: When a coalition is formed, even if she is the most successful, what the other teams would think? "Gee, those 2 teams teamed up and crushed the poor xxxx in no time. What is my guarantee that we would not be the next team to fall to this obviously strong alliance? I better run to my other neighbors and talk them to ally with me while we still have time and prepare to attack those guys when we still have a chance." And the other teams will listen and agree. There is nothing like seeing others unite to make you look for a group to join to make yourself feel safe or strong.
     
  9. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    As for comparing with WPC/Germans war, we wont do anything like that.

    Where WPC mistake was in your opinion and why everything ended bad for them? In my opinion, WPC did not choose the right moment for war from the very beginning. They choose time to go to war where everyone (their victim included) have equal technology/units (axes, spears, chariots and archers) and almost equal production capabilities, mainly trough the whip. But why? How you expect to win a war if you have equal army as your neighbor and the defender have the advantage of defensive terrain and faster movement in his own culture? Are you so good at tactics? Will your attack be so surprising with those big distances between borders and no roads to speed up troops movement and graphs already visible? Nor they could rely on strike for the core (capitol), as many cities and border pop-ups were present. Do you believe your gods are stronger than the other one's and will give you always favorable outcome from nearly 50% fights? None of those WPC should had to rely on and there was no other factors to rely on as it showed from the outcome. Neither Germans were lame enough to not be able to defend themselves properly, neither other nation joined the war to tilt the balance in WPC favor.

    Where if/when we decide to go to war, we will be prepared. Sun Tzu teaches that the good general first wins and then go to war, where the bad general first go to war and then seeks way to win it.
     
  10. SilentConfusion

    SilentConfusion Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,617
    Location:
    Wherever
    Now I am still reading threads to catch up on the general styles and peculiarities of our opponents, I can speak to this concept from a purely strategic perspective.

    Situation 1A: CFC teams up with another team or multiple teams to crush a rival.
    Situation 1B: CFC teams up with another team or multiple teams and fails to crush a rival.
    Situation 2A: CFC strikes out at a rival and steamrolls them.
    Situation 2B: CFC strikes out at a rival and steamrolls them.

    By being prepared for war and being informed about the rivals movements, we can limit the chances that 1B or 2B happens. This is obviously something we have to think about, but it is clearly better to be prepared than unprepared for war. It is not as clear however whether it is better to fight with another team or by ourselves. Lets analyze the two situations (2metraninja has already offered some analysis which I will draw from).

    Situation 1A: "Allied Assault"
    Likeliness of implementation: Good, but not guaranteed.
    Simplicity of implementation: More complex.
    Advantages:
    • Increased attacking resources (This one is straightforward; more attacking resources increases the chances of attack success)
    • Distributed blame and global reputation (This is probably an advantage, although this is a continuum. Even with an allied assault, we might still be seen as the instigator. At worst, we are seen as the ringleader who roped the other teams into helping us. At best, we are seen as coming to the aid of an ally who has been ruthlessly attacked by an aggressive civ. This is a wide range of values and the highest values probably rely on the rival seeming aggressive. If the other civ cannot be made to seem the aggressor (i.e. our attack cannot be seen as a move for safety), then we can advertise our strength or weakness to other civilizations. If we are looking for people to see us as strong, it might benefit us to look like the organizer of the joint attack. Other ways we might appear to other teams include: loyal ally to an aggressor, opportunistic civilization)
    Disadvantages:
    • Information leaks ("Two people can only keep a secret if one of them is dead." Probably no one on our team would think they would benefit from revealing information to the potential target unless it was misinformation that we really didn't plan to follow through on. If we introduce another team into the assault, we must believe that they will not benefit by revealing our intentions to the target. It is hard to trust another team, unless we can make it definitely in their best interest to keep quiet about the impending attack. There are various ploys we might enact that would increase their chances of choosing to keep silent, but without careful planning we might lose the opportunity to strike our target if our allies betray our trust. It may be possible to make is so that the ally implicates themselves by revealing our plans. For example, we make it clear that we have an agreement with the ally of cooperating in military endeavors. If the ally knows we have told the target this, they will feel that revealing our plans will also implicate themselves. There may be other ways around this issue as well.)
    • Distributed gains (While the blame is distributed in a joint offensive so are the gains. The stronger party should still be able to get larger gains, but then must consider the consequences of this not only on their ally as well as the other informed civilizations. There is no way around this. It must be weighed against the benefits of having allied resources. It is important that the ally either feels that their effort was adequately rewarded or that we are not threatened if they immediately turn upon us.)
    • Incentive to slack (2metraninja mentions this problem and it is a serious problem and fighting in any war that requires cooperation we will face this problem. One potential way around this might be to tie gains to actual effort. For example, these three cities are yours to take. These three are ours to take. If they do not expend energy they gain no cities, regardless of the effort we put in.

    Situation 2A: "Solo Attack"
    Likeliness of implementation: Very good.
    Simplicity of implementation: More simple.
    Advantages:
    • Less chance of information leaks (Reverse of above. Easier to keep a secret if only we know about it. This means a higher chance of surprise. Although military buildup can still be seen by our opponents, they should not know what we will do with those troops.)
    • Non-sharing of gains (No concessions must be made to allies from the spoils of victory. This should be directly compared to the amount of extra resources necessary to capture extra cities.)
    • Less dependent upon other players (Our strategy is less likely to suffer from communication failure from the other team. We can still fail to communicate within the team, but external communication is not necessary to strategy decisions.)

    Disadvantages:
    • More resources required (This is the most straightforward and heaviest of the disadvantages. This should be weighed by the higher potential gains of conquering alone.
    • Non-shared blame (This could be less or more of a disadvantage based on how we wish other teams to perceive us. If we come off as a big warmonger and threat, even the higher gains from this combat may not be enough if it polarizes the world against us.

    Personal Opinion: Without knowing much about the nature of our opponents yet, I would say that the simpler plan is to do a solo attack, but it may be the worse option if we can manage the ally and the allied assault correctly. The resources saved and the time gained by choosing an allied assault probably outweigh the reduced gain. A valuable gain from attacking Realms Beyond (that is who we're thinking of attacking, right?) would be their reduced power, which would result in both the case where we took all the gains or where gains were shared. The fact that RB is so far out in the lead in terms of score will help our image in any war between us. We are likely to be seen as helping the rest of the teams (including us) have more of a chance of winning if we spin it like that. As a target RB is both tempting and a difficult target due to their skill and their success in the early game. However, if we can successfully defeat them we would be the only strong power on our side of the map, which would help us in the future. I have seen plans to consolidate the middle triangle by taking out two teams in the middle. That would probably end up with two strong civs on either side of us. I like this plan much better.
     
  11. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,608
    First war- Solo effort against UCiv or Spanish Poly.

    2nd War- Allied attack against RB. Allies could be WPC and Germans (we should seriously court both of these teams to be kingmakers for us since neither of them now has a chance) and possibly Civ Players.
     
  12. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Unless we think we have time for solo wars against each of SpAp and UCiv, I concur with the plan. UCiv, being larger, is the more tempting target.
     
  13. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    Agree. Though, we obviously should be very crafty and careful about how we do the courting. I don't supopse we'd get a postive response if we go and say: "Since you guys are obviously out of running already, how about helping us to beat RB and win the game?"
     
  14. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    BTW, if our main aim is to take RB out in our second war, then I think our decision on who to attack in the first one should be based solely on two factors:
    1. Which war will give us best cost benefit ratio (spoils per lost resources).
    2. Which team is more likely to attack us while we are going at it with RB.
    As far as I understand, our more experienced generals seem to think that we can benefit more from attacking UCiv than from attacking SpAp. Unfortunately, to me it seems either team could actually attack us while we are at war with RB. Though, with current power ratios, SpAP would not be that much of a threat at the time.

    If however, we aim to first conquer both UCiv and SpAp, and then move against RB, I still think taking the easy pick first would probably be a good idea.
     
  15. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Very interesting analyze from SC. Had desire to comment on it, but had no time. Will try doing so tomorrow with Cav's, Talons ans Aivo's posts.
     
  16. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    So, here are my comments (in blue) on this excellent attempt from SC on the con's and pro's of fighting alone/with allies:

    We have still to meet 3 of the major powers in this game. Their attitude and constitution will influence our politics a lot too.
     

Share This Page