Machiavellian Geopolitiking

[dexters]

I've been reading a fascinating thread on Strategy for Huge Maps and on a few occasions people have mentioned their strategies of managing the world through shrewd diplomacy.

Let's hear some of those strategis here. How would you start a war without going to war yourself? How would you manage 2 Civs who are nipping at your heels?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

It's very difficult to do so... much more difficult than it seems to be in real life. The best way that I've found to do so is to give civ A the resources/tech they need to build their UU (or just a great offensive unit), and see what happens. Obviously, this is easier with agressive civs than with milder ones. Also, it's easier with civs who are "boxed in," i.e., they have nowhere to build new cities.

But you can't pull any Iran-Contra in Civ I'm afraid.

[kmad]

Every 4 turns or so, I auction off my World and Territory maps to each country, usually over 10 countries on a huge map, usually they can give up to 10 gold for them.. sometimes they'll give maps of their own. That's a nice source of income.

[Catt]

I don't know of any good ways to consistently spark wars among foes, but playing the shrewd diplomat once you are involved in a conflict is pretty fun and relatively easy once you get the hang of it. Particularly effective is diplomacy relating to those wars occasioned by an overseas civ declaring war on you after you reject a demand for tribute -- military alliances can then be freely entered without ever worrying about war weariness during the first 20 turns (after which you can cancel the MA and make peace), and, should such an opportunity present itself after Nationalism, the cascade of triggered MPPs just adds to the fun.

Catt

[Master Zen]

Machiavellian Geopolitiking is no fun in SP Once you do it in MP diplomacy in SP is a true joke.

Anyways, only under the most extreme cases do I actually care about reputation in SP so I usually don't go to great lengths on provoking wars although it is always fun to start a world war and you on the sidelines watching the rest of the world kill each other off.

[dexters]

It's more than just starting wars IMO.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

The only drawback to Machivellan Geopolitiking in SP mode is your potential creation of superpowers.

If you involve too many allies in wars simply to weaken a target, you must remember that there's a good possibility that your ally will become more powerful, and from that point forth an enemy!

This happened to me as Rome... I thought, "What chance do the Babylonians have? I'll constantly engage them in far-off wars on my behalf to weaken their culture!"

Well, Babylon took Greece, the Iroquois, and much of America, leaving it the sole superpower other than myself against whom I waged 3 very expensive wars.

This has happened many a time to me... it's happening now, as Persia (me) faces off against formerly weak ally China, now empowered and coming upon Chivalry... and there's always my (still ally, still powerful, wanted to conquer them by now) neighbor Zululand...

So just be careful!

[dexters]

I'd argue it's not just a problem in SP, it's a problem in real life as well.

The unintended consequences issue.

Part of the trick is not relying on one lackey, but several. And if possible, pit them against each other through alliances at different points in time.

I can't say I've actually pulled the latter off, but part of the fun of Civ3, with its ability to involve so many civs, is the manipulaiton potential.

The AI is pretty shrewd too. They can play you against other AIs and against each other. In my recent huge map game, it looks like Korea is about to take advantage of my ill concieved and ill planned attempt to take out the Romas by attacking me. They have troops in my borders and I am almost sure they will declare war when i ask them to leave.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

The Koreans are among the craftier AIs, and tend to do very well keeping up in tech and trading. I don't know why... another Civ flaw, when Korea consistently out trades and REXs China...

[dexters]

China is a solid civ, and looks to dominate in my current game since it is on a different continent (not yet found by my grouping of nations) -- I am playing 16 civs on a huge map. 160X160

I expect an interesting game later on when all civs are discovered and we will more than likely have a face-off between multiple (at least 2) superpowers.

As for Korea getting the tech edge, it is scientific and gets bonus techs at the beginning of each era. I was genuinely puzzled when I saw them having Monetheism and another tech at the beginning of the middle ages. My first instinct was to suspect an AI cheat, or that they had somehow made contact with another Civ, but somehow kept it secret in the diplo screen. Then it struck me that I have two scientific civs on my continent and they likely went for 2 different middle age techs and traded. The sum result was that Korea, Baboylon, England and India very quickly pulled a TWO tech lead. Just like that.

I go the lead back though, thanks to the Great Library. But alas, that Wonder won't help me the next time around.

An interesting sidenote. A lot of people have bemoaned how AI to AI trades are somehow unfair (well, it is unfair with the defualt 110 trade rate) but I think it is a small handicap to encourage AIs to trade amognst themselves and not become too dependent on the human player. I've also seen on successive games that AI civs trade fairly and only trade to civs that can afford it. Rome is 8 techs behind me, and Carthage, is a little slow on the tech curve, although right now, it has pulled about even with the other civs.

[Arrian]

Sometimes I will be deliberately un-Machiavellian in my diplomacy.

If I'm in a very strong position and doing some warmongering, but would like to get into republic or demo to do some serious building & researching, what is the best thing that can happen? My next target declares war on me, probably via alliance with the current target! Then I have the best of both worlds: republic for a government, while continuing my warmongering without war weariness (not much anyway).

-Arrian

[Ubergeek]

The only real "Machiavellian" politicking I've ever been able to do concerns the rather blunt instrument of war. My standard tactic when attacked in the early (up to middle Middle Ages) part of the game is to get every other Civ on the continent to monkey-pile the offender so that he'll either A) Leave me alone, or B) Be so distracted that he won't be able to keep me from picking off a vulnerable city or three.

I have had much less success in trying to construct alliances around my wars of aggression; usually, there are one or two holdouts that wind up coming in on the other side when I try to make alliances after I've attacked another country. Does the AI take into account who declared war on whom in figuring out which side to come in on? It certainly seems that way to me.

The other thing I routinely do (that I'm sure everyone else does as well) is to outright donate excess resources, money and techs to civs that are getting beaten up on by AI superpowers. My theory is that the longer I can keep the weaker civs fighting my enemies, the more effort it will take my enemies to wipe out those civs and therefore the less fire they'll be able to direct at me, or the longer I can put such fire off. I'd rather have a minor civ continue to distract the enemy superpower for an additional 20 turns with the use of the iron or saltpeter that I gave them than get the 10 or 20 gpt that such things get in the late game. I've even given minor civs thousands of gold to allow them to rush units when they were getting whomped on.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Giving them the resource alone never seems to do the trick for me - if a civ is going to die, it's going to die. UNLESS you give it gold AS WELL. Yes, it's expensive, but if you've got the money and nothign else is pending it's a worthwhile investment, especially if you're slowing down a "superpower".

Plus, don't you always cheer the underdog?

[dexters]

Giving aid should be considered part of the intrigue and backstabbing that occurs. And hence, very much part of the Machiavellian Geopolitiking aspect of the game.

I've donated 1,000 lump sum gold when I can afford it.

Industrial age + Golden Age for an industrious civ (like the Americans) can make you rich very very fast.

Anyways, In the mid game, when you have espionage and have planted a spy in the recepient's capital you can watch as they rush build or mass upgrade their units.

In a recent game where I was worried the surging Babylonians, which was at this point a continental power owning a good 2/3 of the continents it shared with Carthage and the now dead Egypt would turn on Carthage and wipe them out.

I was in my estimation, somewhat successful in helping Carthage develop a defensive army. Up to this point, they were still relying on Numidian Warriors with a sprinkling of riflemen. Having no source of rubber, I gave them the resource and replacable parts. After about five -eight turns, they had only ONE infantry unit to show. Impatient, I dug into my treasury and donated 2,000+ gold spread over 2 or 3 turns.

In successive turns after the donation, I saw the ranks of their Numidian mercinaries shrink and their Infantry units surge from 1 to 20. Not overwhelming by any means, but a sufficient defensive army given the territory and # of cities they need to defend.

[Ubergeek]

In a recent game, the other continent had India being overrun by the Koreans in the late Industrial age. Over a period of three turns I donated 10,000 gold to Gandhi, in addition to rubber, horses, saltpeter and iron, and I watched as the Indians actually turned the tide on the Koreans and drove them back long enough to earn a peace treaty.

I should note that I play on huge maps with continents and 16 civs, so there's a lot of land and a lot of civs running around on it. I never even take over my own continent in entirety, and that's certainly beyond the AI's capacity as well. So there's always several minors I can support with donations in the later game, even in the face of huge AI empires. I don't know how well this strategy would work on smaller maps, though, or in games with fewer starting civs.

[dexters]

The strategy of donations to prop up weaker civs work moderately well on standard maps, albeit with less civs and less land, you tend to have few people to support.
And there tends to be more equity between nations who survive through to the modern times.

In anycase, you are absolutely right about huge maps.

I'm growing to like them more and more because of the intrigue level.

[vulture]

One occasional drawback of donating resources to civs that are in the process of losing wars is that occasionally they lose their last remaining harbour, and you get blamed for breaking a 20-turn trade deal, which messes up your ability to buy techs for gpt. Doesn't happen often, but is something to watch out for.

Incidentally, during the AU 302 OCC game, I saw Korea willing to pay 57 gpt for iron in the industrial era, but went up to 71 gpt when at war, and then back down again when the war finished. Presumably the AIs pricing for the human player would follow the same logic, and screw you for more money for the resource when you really needed it. Or perhaps it was a coincidental re-valuation as techs were discovered, new units were buildable, and old iron units became obsolete.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Make sure you donate enough! If you don't, as noted above, you just spent x amount of gold or resources per turn and did not defeat your enemy abroad. The two examples above are good; it's happened to me so many times I can't count, all because I say, "But I can't give 1000 gold to these guys! Just a little saltpeter'll help..."

WRONG idea.

[Arrian]

My worry with doing something like that, Yahweh, is that the civ I just gave 1000 gold to will turn around pay off its opponent. Then, instead of throwing 1000gold "into the fray" which will get burnt up in warfare, I've essentially hooked the AI up with a bunch of gold it will now use for other purposes.

-Arrian

[Ubergeek]

That's a very reasonable worry, Arrian, and I've considered it as well. It's a gamble, of course, but I usually figure it's worth taking. It helps ease my mind when the civ that my client is fighting is Communist -- that way, even if my client does pay him off, at least he won't use the cash to rush units and come after me. But even if my client does use it to pay off the enemy, at least A) my client surives and is potentially useful to me later, and B) my client's cities are not absorbed into the enemy, thus adding their production capacity to the enemy's. I find the tradeoff worth it in many, many cases, but YMMV.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I second Ubergeek's emotion - it's a risky trade and one I rarely take, but one I do consider nonetheless.

[dexters]

Originally posted by Ubergeek
That's a very reasonable worry, Arrian, and I've considered it as well. It's a gamble, of course, but I usually figure it's worth taking. It helps ease my mind when the civ that my client is fighting is Communist -- that way, even if my client does pay him off, at least he won't use the cash to rush units and come after me. But even if my client does use it to pay off the enemy, at least A) my client surives and is potentially useful to me later, and B) my client's cities are not absorbed into the enemy, thus adding their production capacity to the enemy's. I find the tradeoff worth it in many, many cases, but YMMV.

That's a very specific worry and I agree. But more generally, The tide of battle is easily determined usually in the first 3 to 5 turns and you can start hedging your bets and back a potential loser to keep your enemies off balance. My experience on regent has been that AI wars tend to go the full 20 turns, especially if you're the one who got them into it through military alliances. So you can usually time your donations and not worry about a hasty peace. It is also a good reason for you to donate in installments, so that you spread out the payments and the AI may not have enough to statisfy a peace treaty but enogh to rush units or improvements that could make a difference.


In my current game, Korea attacked me, but they were located on the other end of the continent. I got India and Carthage into the fray and both ate up Korea. As the 20 turns were about up, I realized Korea was losing it. It's cities were falling and it would seem like their Capital would fall too, with its 2 sources of wine luxury. Not wanting the Indians or Carthage to get their hands on a demostic source of wine, I ended the alliance after 20 turns, made peace and I backed Korea, donating techs, horses, and money. This help turn the tide into a stalemate. I've gotten what I want. Korea, known as a particularly nasty AI is crippled. India chewed up a bit more than I wanted to so I may have to deal with them in the future, but overall, I got what I wanted. In the end, I donated about 500 gold, and the last 100 was probably used by Korea as reparations when it made peace. But keeping them from losing another city was the point and I achieved that.

As for overseas trade, the concern with breaking trades through the loss of seaports is a legitimate one. But in my particular example, Carthage was at peace and I was simply hedging my bets to make sure that if the Babylonians decided to try something funny, they'd meet stiff resistance. I think it is better to be proactive rather than reactive, especially if you have a tech lead and can control what units the client AI can build through the techs you give it.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

One thing I've noticed - and correct me if I'm wrong, anyone - is that the AI will pay through the nose to procure a cutting-edge military tech even if it lacks the resources to utilize that tech. Perhaps they're assuming that, having that tech, they can procure the resource through war or trade?

Later in the game that would be a logical assumption, but in my current game as Persia I found that auctioning off Chivalry to everyone in exchange for a MA resulted in few knights or UUs built.

I was worried I'd have Riders, Ansar Warriors, and Knights up the wazoo, but it would be worth the price. However, the Arabs never had horses, the Chinese never connected their iron and horses (!) and indeed, of the six civs I involved in this deal, only two got around to building their UUs.

I might feel differently about trading MT for nothing short of a grotesque amount of money... at that point in the game, they'll have a way of getting the resources needed, most likely. But the Chivalry trade was a masterstroke that unfortunately must be ascribed to luck more than innovation.

A trick worth repeating someday...

[Arrian]

When I want to prevent the slaughter of one AI by another, I find that the most effective method is to get a RoP and physically block the winning side with my units. I did that in an AU game once to prevent the destruction of a civ I was trading with (Russia) by a civ I eventually invaded (America). I didn't hold off the Amis forever, as I didn't have enough units in Russia to totally block them. But by sitting on strategic bits of land, I forced them to attack Russian cities across rivers, etc, helping Russia survive just long enough to get out of my trade obligations.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

The reverse situation - blocked in your path by enemy units - is one of the most irritating occurences in the game and part of the reason why a Persian player allied with the Zulus is bound to be irritated - those worthless Impis move twice as fast as the Immortals!

[Ubergeek]

That's an effective tactic on smaller maps, but impractical on Huge maps except in rare circumstances. The borders between even "small" civs are just too long to be practically blocked, especially if they're on another continent.

[Arrian]

Good point, Ubergeek, but then again, all I need to do is protect a port city and the capitol, not the entire empire. If my goal is simply to avoid the sullying of my reputation, that is.

If I really don't want one civ wrecking another, I'll probably drop a can of whoopass on one of them. More often than not, the weaker one, because I can often toast 'em in a short period of time, grab their luxuries, and get paid by the larger civ for an alliance

-Arrian

[Ubergeek]

That also works, Arrian. A lot of the tactics one uses simply depend on the sort of game one enjoys. I know you like fighting a lot more than I do, but for me there comes a breaking point where I just don't wanna fight any more damned wars, especially ones where I have to move transport after transport full of units across a major ocean just to replace my losses. It just doesn't fit in with the kind of game I enjoy. Incidentally, that's exactly why I don't play on levels higher than Monarch -- at higher levels, it's nothing but a wargame, and if I want to play a wargame I'll fire up Combat Mission. But if you like warring, then just killing 'em all and letting Sid sort 'em out is a viable option.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Ubergeek
at higher levels, it's nothing but a wargame, and if I want to play a wargame I'll fire up Combat Mission. But if you like warring, then just killing 'em all and letting Sid sort 'em out is a viable option.

That's why the diplomatic victory should be more complex and easier to track, and why domination should perhaps be easier to attain (at least on a huge map!)

[Ubergeek]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth


That's why the diplomatic victory should be more complex and easier to track, and why domination should perhaps be easier to attain (at least on a huge map!)

Just like everyone else, I find the Diplomatic Victory highly unsatisfying. The UN needs to be more like the Council of SMAC...but then I'm not saying anything others haven't said better before. But enriching diplomatic options is always a good thing for a 4X game, as long as the options are balanced and fun.