Forming alliances

[samson]

Does anyone know under what conditions the AI will ally with you?
If this has been discussed before point me to the right thread, thank you.

Here is what I think I've noticed:

1) A civ will ally with you only if you are more powerful than them but not Supreme.

2) If you are Supreme, a civ will never ally with you.

3) An exception to #2 is that early in the game, one specific civ (but only one) will ally with you while you are Supreme.

4) You usually need to give gifts to get them Enthusiastic before they will ally.
Again the exception is first contact, then some times it only requires Receptive.

5) They will ally for war.

In some OCC games I've managed to ally with all 6 civs. But several of them refused for a long time.

If you've seen counter examples to the above or have more info on forming alliances,
please let me know. Thanks.

samson

[Juggler]

You're wright but I don't like forming alliances generally because:

1) Your allies will have to attack you later in the game, you can't be in alliance with a civ forever

2) Allies walk around your territory, disturbing your engineers and other units

3) They aren't directly envolved in the war when you're fighting so don't expect them to send their units to help you

4) They'll usually break the alliance when they're strong enough to fight you

[solo]

samson,

Sometimes an early war does the trick. After ten turns or so, when they want peace, they are also often in the mood for an alliance. Even in MGE, I once got an alliance with EVERY other civ, each one coming after an early war. It seems to happen a lot in 2.42 too. All civs except for one, (who I betrayed) formed alliances after early wars in one of my OCC games. Best civs to pick are those far away, making it just a war of words!

Being pathetic also works, as in the last OCC game. Stay at size 4 long enough and they all will accept you as a protege!

[EOL]

Reputation seems to make a difference too. I've been able to get an alliance with an 'icy' civ within the first few turns with a spotless reputation but have been rebuffed from 'receptive' civs after sneak attacking someone else first (both at first contact).

[samson]

Thanks for the info, solo & EOL.

Juggler -

Some good things about having allies:

1) They give you money.

2) They can't sneak attack you; they must first cancel the alliance and withdraw all their troops.

3) You can walk around in their territory.

4) They can repair your wounded units for you.

5) They can be made to fight diversionary wars with your enemies.

6) They will always share their maps with you.

7) They tell you of new advances they receive.

samson

[Edward]

Since I don't play OCC, I tend to eschew alliances like Juggler. The single reason is that I want to be able to hem in the AI's expansion with a few strategically placed warriors. When I have an alliance, Juggler's #2 objection raises it's head - the AI can waltz right by my border guards and expand. I don't mind so much if their military units run about*, but I want to stop their settlers from expanding their empire.

When I first bought Civ2, I was excited to try out alliances. I had some experiences that ran counter to Juggler's #3 objection. My allies actually send real troops (elephants in the one memorable case) to attack my new enemy. I'll have to agree that, while they're quick to jump to your defense, their military help is generally minimal.

samson raises some good points. You can knock them up for money even if you're a representative government. The AI has no concept of the money's value and will sometimes give you hundreds of coins depending on their treasury. This has made me take DaveV's view that demanding tribute (in a non-OCC game) makes it almost too easy. Also this doesn't bode well for Civ3 where you and the AI can place varying items "on the table" and negotiate a trade of tech/coins/units. ("There's a sucker born every minute ... if you enable restarting civs.")

I use alliances so rarely I didn't realize some of the benefits samson pointed out. It's great that they can't sneak attack you. And always being willing to trade maps would be wonderful.

My lust for Marco Polo's Embassy (and natural ones) makes samson's #7 point somewhat less powerful for me.

As for when the AI will form alliances, it looks like you have it down pat, samson - especially about being supreme. If I only had a coin for every time I've been denounced as "Machiavellian" or "decadent".


* In a recent game some military units that escaped my fence actually did cause problems. After getting MPE, I traded maps will all civs except my neighbor the Spanish because I had already contained him so of course I knew where all his cities were. Wouldn't you know some unit of his had slipped out at the dawn of history and had uncovered two advanced tribes on lush rivers far outside my prescribed Spanish "reservation".

[EdwardTKing]

Samson,

In my experience a lot depends upon what difficulty setting you are playing at. At chieftain; AIs can be very friendly, but at deity; it may be impossible to maintain peace let alone ally.

[shade]

forming alliances?i never even succeeded at that,probably because i always am supreme .And it looks to me that this is the only way to survive.Those AI-players always create alliances against me not against an other AI-player,and my diplomats then forget those alliances so if i attack A he activates his alliances with B and C and they activate their alliances with D,E,F and the rest of the alfabet

This computer-strategy isn't actually reallife=> weak nations will want to ally with the strongest ones,to defend them.
nor will small coutries attack the very big ones
eg:a 2 city big empire telling me (with over 100 cities) to withdraw troops or their mighty armies will drive me out(and they only have 4 units)


btw the only time i got alliances (2,and that in an chieftan game) the one demanded me to declare war at the other one(and viseversa)ever seen that happen with AI-players??
shade

[Bohlen]

Alliances are sometimes fun, but if the end result is to win the game, they are worthless. You don't need any allies, but you might want them just for fun. I rarely make alliances in SP (usually play SP MGE) basically because the AI stabs you in the back later anyway, no matter how good you've held up your end of the bargain. I'd rather prepare for the inevitable AI "all-out, all-sides" attack.

I might make an alliance every now and then just for a change of pace, but rarely.

[samson]

Alliances are sometimes fun, but if the end result is to win the game, they are worthless.

That's not exactly true.
First, you can win the game by building a spaceship that your allies paid for with their generous gifts.

Second, alliances with your neighbors means you don't need to build up a military force early on.
You can defend your cities via diplomacy. This allows time to concentrate on research,
getting way ahead of the AI. Then in 1200AD you roll out the armor and howies,
the bombers and battleships, cancel your alliances and overrun the planet.

If your allies are stabbing you in the back all the time, perhaps you aren't managing them well enough.

EdwardTKing - I always at play Deity (or above). Alliances are quite valuable there.



samson

[Bohlen]

sampson:
It sounds like we play a different type of game. The way a manage my alliances is simple: I don't have any. I don't really mind alliances in 2.42 (we are talking about AI alliances, right?; MP play is entirely different), but with MGE it takes too much effort (for me) to make an alliance one turn only to have the AI break it the next because of whatever reason.

I'd rather just bash heads now than to play Mr. Nice Guy now and bash heads later.

I can only speak for myself: I don't need alliances to win.

[samson]

Bohlen,

Yes, it's a style thing. Alliances (with AI) in themselves are not worthless, they are merely an aspect of the game. They can be incorporated in a strategy to help you advance toward your goal, or not. Goals, as well as strategy and tactics, vary from player to player and game to game. I always avoided alliances before I tried OCC -- there I saw their value. Now I employ them (and other OCC-derived tactics) in games with other goals as well.

samson

[Bohlen]

Good point about strategy. Sometimes a particular one works and sometimes it doesn't. Ahhh...OCC! Now that is a great example of having to use alliances to reach your game goal. I just read your record AC landing thread. WOW! Now that is taking some OCC/Trade strategies to the max. OCC ruined me for a while. I was playing every game like an expanded OCC, very well, but realized I have more fun when I just sit down and let things happen.

[samson]

Bohlen,

I know what you mean about OCC. It requires such a completely counter-intuitive approach to the game -- become intentionally Pathetic, give away all your techs, rush out to meet intruders and embrace them. It's kind of a Zen approach to Civ2.

And yet, I've found I can use some of the core elements of its strategy in other style games -- early AC landing using multiple cities, and world conquest games, too. You can get an enormous jump on the other civs by staying small early, focusing on research (protected by alliances), giving away a lot of techs (but not crucial military ones) and setting up trade. Then, when you're two or three ages ahead of them, switch to conquest.

[East Street Trader]

I have always valued alliances with distant civs for the reasons given but primarily because of being able to ask for money and getting information about advances. If they are puny and isolated, early on you can also be generous about gifting tech so as to maximise tech picked up from them by exchange or gift.

I used to eschew alliance with nearby civs because it gives them a licence to send their settlers through your territory and to build irksome cities.

But laterly I've been much more willing to ally with close neighbours. You are right that first contact is an excellent time to achieve an alliance and a boost from a couple of good exchanges early is a boost which comes at a very good time.

Early on I'm red hot keen to get Writing for the protection of a diplo, Pottery so I can build HG, MapMaking and SeaFaring so I can get my explorer team up and out, Literacy, Mysticism and Republic so I have the option of early republican gov.t and of course all this after the Monarchy imperative has had its due attention.

Help with this crowded set of priorities is welcome indeed.

So the plan of actiuon is: first outexplore your near neighbour; next get cities down with his containment given such priority as proper early use of specials will allow; next be willing to tie up a hut unit or two in the containment exercise. On the occasions when these methods offer a good shot at maintaining the containment in alliance, go for it.

An ally, I have discovered will put a city down when you have a unit right next to it (non allies don't) but he will not put a city down anywhere where your cities sufficiently surround the area. His settler will wander about in such a case in a pretty aimless and repetitive fashion. Eventually whatever random process governs its movements will get it through but it is a long process so if he's well cornered the continuing containment effect of of your own expansion will often keep him at bay for an age.

In my current game I have allied with the Babylonians and managed to keep them to just their capital for a very long time. Finally they got just one more city down right in the middle of my territory. But I have been able to co-exist and there are lots of benefits too. I get to buy up some cheap NONE units (they are now way behind and have antique units). I can create NONE settlers very close to home. I got a small trade advantage for a short time (my own cities rapidly became better partners).

So my iritation about the odd random city is fading.

From what you say I'd not be surprised if there is not a further correlation between the powergraph rating and the number of civs with whom the game will allow you to maintain an alliance. Maybe it is simple, one more per place on the scale, i.e. none when Supreme, one when Mighty, two when next rung down and so on.

Recommend trying alliances to those who haven't bothered. There's nothing quite like getting into a wonder race with the Egyptians; getting the message that you've lost; not finding the the couple of hundred gold that would let you rush buy; and then discovering, when you ask, that the said Egyptians are willing to help out their gracious ally with a munificent gift of 250 gold!

[Bohlen]

Well, I tried some alliance strategy last night and I can see how it could have its benefits at times. I was really flying through turns, but it seemed to work fairly well on MGE. I'll have to load 2.42 on my new PC and get back to some nice diplomacy. I really have just given up in that aspect of the game in MGE due to the AI being totally unreasonable about attitudes and alliances.

"The AI is your friend."

[samson]

From what you say I'd not be surprised if there is not a further correlation between the powergraph rating and the number of civs with whom the game will allow you to maintain an alliance. Maybe it is simple, one more per place on the scale, i.e. none when Supreme, one when Mighty, two when next rung down and so on.

Makes sense to me. I'll check in future games to see if it holds.

Letting a nearby ally found a city next to your Colossus city (if you have one) may be very desirable. You can build roads and railroads up to it easily and run in caravans for higher ongoing trade routes than you can get anywhere else on the map. Railroad doubles the ongoing trade.

[East Street Trader]

Thinking about this I suppose you could actually give the damned city a leg up with some sensible land improvement.

One hassle about allies is if they do get their mits on a good shared square you can't shift them by putting a martial unit on the square.

I'll brood further on this trading partner aspect. Clearly you quick landing guys know what you're talking about on this in view of the recent extraordinary date achieved (and said to owe something to this sort of thing).

[samson]

Improving their city is smart, especially with roads to increase their trade. While you're at it, give them Republic or Democracy as soon as you can, another trade booster if they switch to it.

In my 396 game my Egyptian ally's city did overlap my SSC's radius on one square, which pinned my worker down to it all game long. I lost a little flexibility in micromanagement, but it wasn't too bad.

Doubled trade routes with railroads, you gotta love it.