Machiavelli Institute: Who should be our First Ally?

[Robber Baron]

Various ideas have been floating around in various threads, proposing various candidates for alliance.

Which AI civ(s) do you favor cultivating and/or setting up alliances with?

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that we've gone to war with America, sued for peace on favorable terms, and staked out a position to the north of our current position, centered on Washington (where we're forcefeeding the restive American populace bananas to grow trustworthy Apolytonians).

A lot depends, of course, on precisely how the war has gone, how costly it has been, what kinds of gains (if any) we have reaped. And on how and in what directions other civs have expanded.

Still, it's not too early to plan ahead, project scenarios....

[Spiffor]

It all depends where we want to expand to. If we want to conquer France after America, our allies will be different than if we go for Germany or Persia (but attacking Persia would be utterly stupid, since they'll have iron pretty soon)

Should we conquer France or Germany, I think our first ally should be Persia. It would also probably be our only ally, because of the price of alliances.
By securing an alliance with Persians, we get rid of the worst threat to us, and they might send a group of immortals, which will be a real nuisance to the enemy. If we ally with the Persians against the French, we should make a better road netork, so that their troops arrive before they make peace in our back.

[civman2000]

hmmm...i wouldn't say a group of immortals, but rather a horde! I agree though that Persia would be a very good ally to get.

[Harovan]

Geez, wimps!

I don't think Xerxes is a good ally. He tends to be backstabbing, worse than Liz. I have been sneak attacked by him 1 or 2 turns after an alliance with him expired. It's fallacious safety. Better let's not ally with anyone and be strong ourselves.

[Sheik]

Sir Ralph you are always thinking. However not allying with anyone however might put us at risk. The last thing we need is the Americans becoming buddies with everyone (Do the americans have our world map?). This has happened to me before. I never allied and then all of a sudden everyone declared war on me.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Sheik
...not allying with anyone however might put us at risk. The last thing we need is the Americans becoming buddies with everyone (Do the americans have our world map?). This has happened to me before. I never allied and then all of a sudden everyone declared war on me.

Ah ha. Here's something definitely worth considering. What circumstances lead to pariah status (or, as the Civfanatics demogame labeled it, the "domino war" effect)? (This has happened to me, too, though I don't have enough experience to figure out why it happens, exactly.) When are AI civs more likely to isolate and gang up on a player?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
When are AI civs more likely to isolate and gang up on a player?

Certainly not in that early state. The AIs are lazy to open embassies so early. They seldom have spare money for this. Plus, they absolutely HATE prolongued early wars.

[Epistax]

If we ally with the Germans, we might find ourselves ripped to pieces by Aztecs. If we ally with Aztecs, they might get too powerful taking out Germany (and yes, persia eventually). I do think we could use an ally in the lower part of Abananaba.

I don't know how, but whenever I play, the Zulu are technologically advanced. Since we probably will ally with either the Zulu, Chinese, or Janapese, I'd rather the Zulu.

[Harovan]

People, please, quit fearing far away civs like the Aztecs or Persians. They are no threat, not at all. They need very long to get to Apolytonia, you can early estimate their war path and hit them from the side. And if they come in sight to our borders, they are already willing to make peace. At the latest!

[BigFurryMonster]

Let's ally with someone and then attack a city. The AI doesn't realize when the last defender of a city is slain, so we might grab the opportunity to get a few cities from it, although we leave most of the work to the AI ally.

[Epistax]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
People, please, quit fearing far away civs like the Aztecs or Persians. They are no threat, not at all. They need very long to get to Apolytonia, you can early estimate their war path and hit them from the side. And if they come in sight to our borders, they are already willing to make peace. At the latest!

Sir ralph, the ally we choose at 1000 BC will probably be our ally at 1000 AD. We aren't talking about long military routes, we are talking about the general expansion of all the empires (of which we are doing the slowest besides Babylon).

The Aztecs MIGHT get preempted by the Germans, and that would be pretty cool. If not, they will soon own much of the upper continent. The persians have no choice but to expand towards us, so they are a future threat as well.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Epistax
Sir ralph, the ally we choose at 1000 BC will probably be our ally at 1000 AD. We aren't talking about long military routes, we are talking about the general expansion of all the empires (of which we are doing the slowest besides Babylon).

This is impossible. What you are talking about, are MPPs, which are available only with Nationalism. In the ancient times, you can make only war alliances, which expire, when the particular war is over, at the latest, and they can be cancelled after 20 turns too.

[Epistax]

Sir ralph, you are then questioning the basis of this thread--- 'who shall we ally with' until the technology dictates.

By allying right now, we mean "Which AI civ(s) do you favor cultivating and/or setting up alliances with?" (thread start). Who do help for the purpose of hindering others? Favored in trading? As we favor people in trading, they will favor us more. Eventually they might get military alliances, trade embargos, and protection pacts, but at this point those terms are meaningless.

The way our current foreign affairs is, is called whoring. We could do this the whole time and hope no AI sees us as a threat because we're feeding everyone else.

[Papa Chubby]

As we are the weakest of the Civs on the continent, we should also take advantage of these military alliances. As a military we are quickly becoming a force to be reckoned with, but if we intend to capitalise on our armed forces we must move quickly, hence an early war with Americans. We can probably take them out ourselves and should try to do that in order to minimise probability of another Civ being dragged into the power Vacum created by early American exit. After this has been accomplished, assuming everything goes according to plan. We should be looking at the French, but with access to Iron they might be a little to big a bite for us to chew. Therefore we should try to enlist the Greek in our war against them. This way, hopefully spreading any swordsman that they have too thin to do any considerable damage.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

In the ancient times, you can make only war alliances, which expire, when the particular war is over, at the latest, and they can be cancelled after 20 turns too.

Very true. And these I envision making and letting expire in a very flexible fashion. I'll be surprised if a given set of alliances or alliance patterns holds for a long duration. We will likely need to partner with short-term allies from time to time, but I'm guessing our geopolitical position in relation to the AI civs will be highly fluid. We will not be able to afford breaking treaties -- reputation is too important. But we will probably shift our diplomatic overtures as different powers grow stronger here, weaker there. Again, as I've said elsewhere, given our central position on the map we need to try to preserve a rough balance of power on either side of us.

[Harovan]

Papa Chubby:

In this stage of the game, I would attack the French with archers/spears even if I knew, that they have iron hooked up and can build swordsmen. The difference is, by my experience, that they do not build them that early. All they build in the REX phase is settler-spearman-settler-spearman and so on. They may throw 1-2 swordsmen in, but that was it. No threat. In a recent game I pruned Persia, who had iron, with archers. Their immortals were impressive... all 2 of them! After this, I cut their access to iron and, bye bye immortals.

Robber Baron:

Call me a whore, but I trade with whom I can make most money at the moment. I do not believe in geopolitical alliances, at least not in this game. EU2 might be another cup of tea.

[DAVOUT]

This discussion makes really things clearer.
We probably not need an ally against the French ; we would need one against the Greeks, but it is probably not wise to attract a strong civ in this area, so we will have to do the job alone. After that we will make alliances dictated by the circumstances, alliances which will be easier if we have a good reputation and if we have made the other civs happy with the trading.
The last word is for Sir Ralph : we have to be strong by ourselves.
... That's the basis for a good diplomacy.

[Spiffor]

In Civ3, you can have a good diplomacy even if you're weak (I won my first diplo victory with only 7 Indian cities). But being strong helps
Even if we shouldn't talk about "allies" for now, we should think of whom we'd like to see being happier with us, for future alliances if needed.

But for this, we should agree on whom we should conquer first. And othe Machiavelli institute (or the Military academy) can't take this decision alone. Once we conquer America, we'll have to discuss a long time about this, and then poll.

Once we know our expansion plans, the question about allies or permanent friends will be much more important.

[DAVOUT]

Only recommendations are made by academies and institutes ; it is obvious, but it does not hurt to state it again.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
we have to be strong by ourselves.... That's the basis for a good diplomacy.

The best!

And I think we should keep good relationships with everyone, except France and America, who settle unrightful on our god-given territory. I hope, nobody disagrees on this.

Especially with Greece. Until we have Knights, that is!

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Call me a whore, but I trade with whom I can make most money at the moment. I do not believe in geopolitical alliances, at least not in this game. EU2 might be another cup of tea.

Hmm. Let me give you a scenario to illustrate what I have in mind here by "alliances" and geopolitics. Say we establish ourselves in what is now American territory, take on France, obtain iron, and settle in to build for awhile. Then say the Aztecs are getting huge, dominating the northeastern part of the continent, and they declare war on the Germans, and the Germans don't have either iron horses. In that scenario, I could envision providing iron and/or horses to the Germans, if it looked as though they were going to be able to put up a fight, just to check Aztec expansion. Maybe not sign a formal alliance (wouldn't necessarily want to piss off swarms of jaguar warriors). Just help the Germans out on the side a little.
At the very least, it would be worth investigating the situation carefully, to weigh the merits of "cashing in" for the most money, versus serving a long term interest.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Robber Baron


Hmm. Let me give you a scenario to illustrate what I have in mind here by "alliances" and geopolitics. Say we establish ourselves in what is now American territory, take on France, obtain iron, and settle in to build for awhile. Then say the Aztecs are getting huge, dominating the northeastern part of the continent, and they declare war on the Germans, and the Germans don't have either iron horses. In that scenario, I could envision providing iron and/or horses to the Germans, if it looked as though they were going to be able to put up a fight, just to check Aztec expansion. Maybe not sign a formal alliance (wouldn't necessarily want to piss off swarms of jaguar warriors). Just help the Germans out on the side a little.
At the very least, it would be worth investigating the situation carefully, to weigh the merits of "cashing in" for the most money, versus serving a long term interest.

Don't you think the Germans would not pay for that ? So you would be cashing in the most money in serving your long term interest. Worst than a whore a machiavelic one !

Exactly the kind of reasoning we expect from the Machiavel Institute !

[Inverse Icarus]

We don't need any alliances as of yet.

America will be subjigated with ease.

France would be a pushover if our government gave us the tools to fight them with.

if we got alliances agaist either of them, the AI might take key cities, and might extermiate them before we can sue for peace. Remember, we have to wait our the 20 turn period before making peace IF we sign an alliance.

Anything beyond that cannot be forcasted.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by UberKruX
We don't need any alliances as of yet.
.... Anything beyond that cannot be forcasted.

Fair enough. Certainly I agree we don't want to get entangled in binding alliances now -- we want to keep the spoils of victory to ourselves.
I do think, however, we want to keep our eye on other civs, and be maneuvering for position among them. If one gets too big, we might have to resort to diplomacy to check their growth. We need to be alert, that's all.
And in the meantime, it's always fun to scheme.

[Kuciwalker]

Germany.

Germany will act as a buffer between us and the Aztecs. Even if we end up declaring war on the Aztecs, they will attack Germany, because it's between them and us.

[Timeline]

I'm glad Ralph isn't our Foreign Affairs Minister

[Harovan]

Any why? Because I consider alliances in that early state to be useless?

[Captain]

Obvious I know, but I just wanted to point out that the game mechanics are set up in such a way that alliances are against someone, not for anyone.

In this case, I agree. Everyone is a rival. We should not seek to help any rival, except where helping that rival diminishes a more dangerous rival. We must be choosing the lesser of two evils. If we do not need to, then if anyone is expanding at the expense of a rival, it should be us. The basis for alliances should be who can best help us achieve our goals against this other more dangerous rival, while also not creating a more dangerous future threat. In general, I espouse the view that we should ally with weak rivals against strong ones with the singular goal of empowering ourselves in relative standing. I would not advocate ever allying with a more powerful rival against a weaker one, except to avoid having that rival declare against us.

So I'd rather our Institute look at it from this perspective. Not who do we help, but who is our target. Which threat shall we counter by use of an alliance?

I would encourage our Institute to develop a file for each nation and a relative THREAT rating, along with up-to-date plans for countering such threats -including possible alliances. Such a rating might be something like this:

America !!!
Minor, decreasing, immediate, bordering, long-term
Case Teal, Plan Eagle (current)

Aztecs !!!
Moderate, increasing, non-immediate, distant, long term
Size & expansion
None, possible alliance with germans

Germans !!!
Moderate, increasing, non-immediate, close, long term
Proximity to Incense Valley

Greeks !!
Nuisance, stable/increasing, non-immediate, bordering, long term
Hoplites, proximity
None

France !
Nuisance, stable, non-immediate, bordering, long-term
Case Pink (obsolete)

Persian !
Moderate, stable, non-immediate, very far, long term
Immortals
None

Chinese (?)
Unknown
None


The above are just examples...

... and I've completely forgotten what I was even talking about. I fel like I've threadjacked my own post ... must be the weather...

[Epistax]

Captain, could you offer a key to go with those descriptions? I got a little lost

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Captain
Everyone is a rival. We should not seek to help any rival, except where helping that rival diminishes a more dangerous rival. We must be choosing the lesser of two evils. If we do not need to, then if anyone is expanding at the expense of a rival, it should be us. The basis for alliances should be who can best help us achieve our goals against this other more dangerous rival, while also not creating a more dangerous future threat.

... So I'd rather our Institute look at it from this perspective. Not who do we help, but who is our target. Which threat shall we counter by use of an alliance?

Well put, Captain!