Thoughts On Alliances Please.

[moof]

Civ II SP, AI, Deity, Rageing Hoardes , Seven Civs

1. Generally what are the Pros & Cons of having alliances.

We get the feeling from what we have read here over the past few weeks that most
people prefer to rid a sizable amount of land if not the entire continent of any other
civs and try to keep the civs that are still alive from intruding past frontier outposts.
We also have read that the weaker your Civ is the more alliances you are allowed
to have. It looks like if alliances have much advantage to them and more is better,
you should be making them as you soon as you meet the other Civs before your
power increases and precludes you from having as many alliances...
or is this another of those style of play type deals ?

2. Put simply , What good does an alliance do for our Civ ?

Alliances seem to us always to be more of an excuse for the AI to loiter around
all over our city squares and basically make an annoyance of themselves that
we just have to put up with it.

------------------
TTFNFm & MTFBWY moof

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

and I'm not sure about the former. " - Albert Einstein



[This message has been edited by moof (edited July 26, 2001).]

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Alliances are good for a couple of things.

First, it it is a game where you are simply not strong enough to take care of things yourself, a good ally will back you up and can keep you alive (See a discussion in the GOTM about how the Vikings protected a player in the game). This would also be good for OCC games where they will trade tech and maps with you.

The other way I would ally is if they are going to be my 'pet' city. I build a city very close to them and grab most of thier land, and have troops set so they can't go far from (or even out of) their city. I do this because it is the only way you can demand tribute when you are at a republic or democracy.

You can get them to accept the alliance by getting them to like you, which you can do by gifting them Tech, which they won't be able to use anyway since they will have very little growth or production.

Other than that, no I would not go for an alliance. It only gives them time to get troops near your cities and once they find one that isn't covered too good, they will break it anyway. Plus even if you do get an alliance early, once you get stronger, they will most likely end up breaking it anyway.

 

[Vrylakas]

moof -

My thoughts on alliances in Civ II:

1. Don't.
2. Just don't.

In the early years there are some advantages to swapping technologies, but your "allies" will always betray you. Whatever techs you give them will always be disseminated throughout the world, to your friends and foes alike. They will always attack you. In the real world, multilateral cooperation among allies is desirable and key to survival - although a certain president in a certain Washington D.C. hasn't figured this out yet - but in Civ II you should trust NO ONE. It's like the old addage - It's good to keep your friends close - but keep your enemies closer...





------------------
*************************
"...über den Bergen sind auch Leute..."

 

[GeneralHotRod]

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It's a lot easier to grow if you can cancel out 1 enemy at least for a few years. They can be a pain in the ass but they can be exploited as well, i.e. fight your wars for you.

 

[Mothman]

I usually dont ally for one reason, the AI's are dicks. they expect everything from you and then Break treaties when they dont get there way. they act like children.

 

[greenie]

We should all treat alliances the same way the AI does - just use them for our own greedy purposes and discard the allies like a snotty hankerchief when finished.

Only in OCC and real struggling games are they a wise move.

------------------
- Greenie

" Let us take by
cunning what we would
take by force"

 

[Tommo]

Use alliances in a completely selfish manner. Pressure your allied AI into giving you everything of value then break the alliance and butcher him

Cheers,
Tommo

 

[spycatcher34]

Allinces are ok for somethings like help in a war but never trust an ally

------------------
The Spy has Spoken

 

[Smash]

pro:
Techs thru gifts or trading.
Gold thru gifts
Maps
Caravan safety
No ZoC

con:
Cities in my radius.
Units in my radius maybe stacked diplomats.Often an ai caravan will block a road for eons.
Might get dragged into unwanted wars.
Mainly one sided affairs.

Major con:
Having my units sent home when the alliance dissolves.The game has a strange way of deciding what is closer to whose territory.



[This message has been edited by Smash (edited July 31, 2001).]

 

[Goatman]

Alliences are only ever usefull in a OCC, and if you are playing at chieftan level. otherwise you will usually grow far too strong and your ally will only break the alliance. An alliance will allways do more for the AI's favour than yours, and will allways bring you down.

------------------
I know all of the answers, It's the questions that confuse me.

 

[Heffalump]

Alliances aren't critical, but they can be used to your minor advantage at times.

In a game I played a few months ago I allied myself fairly early on with a distant neighbor on another continent. I made sure to keep them happy, mostly by swapping a few techs, until I came to my big trade push (a phase where I concentrate on getting my trade routes up). From my perspective, alliances are definitely good for ensuring caravan survival. Side note: you're giving your ally an advantage by establishing those trade routes so be careful not to pick an ally who's likely to shape up into a big competitor long-term (i.e. someone too strong).

Anyway, this alliance had lasting benefit: I had no contact with this civ for the remainder of the game (partly by accident, it was so far away, and partly by intention) which meant the ally never cancelled the alliance although their attitude became "icy" and never changed. But they were geographically close to my main competitor and dutifully declared war on them several times when I was sneaked attacked. They didn't exacly crush my enemy but kept them distracted while I dealt with matters on the opposite front. Anyway, I thought it was one of my more productive alliances..

 

[Atreidis_42o]

I like to keep the rival AI's off my back, it seems more liek th agressive civs will break your alliances not the civilized ones. I ally as many AI as possible and peace the rest, then I develope a good civ with little in the way of defences, just enough to survivce sneak attacks and the like. and I concentrate on being the information broker. In other words, I play the swiss. I get dragged into wars, and get wars declared on me sure, but thats usually no problem with AI cis because usally the angry civs are thouse which are further away, so wars don't last long and or I never even get attacked or attacked very little, the closer civ's act as a buffer zone or the sheer distance precludes war.

in MP games I like ot ally everyone and I freely admit it. all I want to do is trade technologies and build a perfectionist society. usually I am most loyal to my allies who are nice to me, who trade with me and work with me. these tend to be the ones closest to me. This is because we can co-operate and build mutual roads and determin boarders. so if a far-flung MP ally has a war I am not goign to help him by joining the war. in all likely hood I couldn't get to the scene in time by the time people ask me for help anyway. any near-by ally would not have this problme though, and I would grant them my units or gold or techs or even help fight if the son of a ***** was particularly aggressive. I wish there was a NON-bloodlust ending. a way to set the game so that you couldn't win by killign everyone off. that would be my Ideal game. ~Q

 

[SlowwHand]

Talking MP with this.

I'll make an alliance, but that doesn't mean I give free passage on my land for cities to be built.

Peace treaties are what I'm even more leery of.
I take a peace treaty to be just as it is defined in the Civ II guide.

"A peace treaty is in theory a permanent arrangement, in which you and your rivalagree not to attack each other or even enter the other's territory with military units".
Here's the rub. Many MP player's offer peace because they're weak, and I've just stumbled upon their civ. They have no intention on keeping the treaty once they build up some.
And that's crap, to me.
Offer a damn cease fire, if that's your intent.
Don't make all suspicious of a peace treaty; and yes, I know I'm not the only one that feels that way.

Another thing.
I will not exchange maps unless I've chosen alliance.
A peace treaty isn't going to cut the muster.
No way, no how. Don't even ask. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

[This message has been edited by SlowwHand (edited August 02, 2001).]

 

[Smash]

One thing in MP that is important to know is allies units will not be sent home when a human/human alliance is broken.

I did this in my first and last gameleague game to Berzerker.I was not impressed with the cutthroat attitude I developed in the competitive timed powergraph game.

Never again....

 

[Dogberry_Old]

Sloww.. I think that you are being too hard on some folks, as they doubtless don't make the fine gradations that you do between a Peace Treaty & a Cease Fire, especially if they are new to MP & the way the screens work.. etc.

You can usually tell when someone means it or not.. & within a very short time. The proof is always in the deeds & sometimes in what they say.. or don't say.

It's funny, but with some people you can have a good fight & laugh about it the next day, others take it so very personally.

I have alliances with other players.. sometimes they are my neighbors..sometimes not. It really depends on the player & the situation. I need to have it benefit me as well as the other player & if I can do it benefit me more than the other player.

If I am strong enough & the situation warrents it.. I attach conditions to all Cease Fires, Peace Treaties & Alliances. Judging that situation & your relative strength correctly is the trick. If you do it well you take in the diplomatic poker winnings..poorly & you lose your shirt.

Realpolitik is the only way to play as far as I am concerned.

Dog