Does the Hive still want a pact with the drones?

Kody · July 16, 2003, 04:30

There have been concerns on whether the drones are trust worthy enough to pact with. This post will give you a summary of what has occurred between the hive and the drones, and what can occur.

There were two polls in the past on this. The first poll when we initally met had 100% of 7 votes wanting a pact. The second poll had 75% of 4 votes wanting a permanent pact and one vote saying not to trust them.

Drone Attitude
At first glance the drones appear to be aggressive towards us. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=89276

When you look carefully only MT144 and Main_brain were involved. These are two lesser members in the drone faction. Furthermore, MT144 withdraws from the arguments raising the question. Did he originally mean it as only a joke? Main_brain continues to insult the hive for quite a while. When main_brain's other posts are searched you'll notice that he is rather rude to most people. Obviously it is not a grudge against the hive, but against people that he doesn't know.

In the negotiations the drones have given us the following promises.
- They will withdraw the scout back to their boat.
- They are willing to accept a treaty.

They have also given us the following information.
- They are near the north pole region
- They will finish information networks in 2126
- They have Industrial Base and Industrial Economics
- They wish to trade techs, but are not in a hurry yet.

They have also brought up the following requests.
- They wish for information networks.
- They would like some of the land on our continent. (They believed we had a lot of spare land)

Drone Honour
Googlie has vounched for the honour of the 4 main leaders of the drones in PBEM games. While it does not directly translate to an ACDG it is possible the drone leadership will not wish to sully their reputation. Furthermore I did a search of some of the posts of some of their leadership and it seems they are not the kind of people that would enter a pact with the intention of betrayal. Of course there is no guarantee, but it does bode well if we do enter a pact.

If negotiations go badly
- The outcome of early war would be messy.
- The drone’s continent is only across the 1 sea square channel to the east.
- It is unlikely that either of us will be able to get a real foot hold in the opponent’s land for many years.
- The war would put reduce our power putting us far behind other factions that did not war.
- Without a pact, war will be inevitable since are lands are only 1 square apart.
- The drones may be able to out-tech us with free market and “merchant exchange” that they have been building for 20 turns. It looks like they are aiming for a SCC city.
- The drones are most vulnerable early in the game.

If we end up pact mates
- While the drones are currently 1 tech behind us. They are already researching faster than us. (see negotiation thread for details)
- Together we can use leap frogging, which is accepted as the fastest method to get tech (according to googlie), we may be able to keep up with the research factions.
- Since are lands are close together we can easily send reinforcements to help each other.
- With the drones as pact mates we will not have to worry as much about an invasion from our east.
- We have someone to assist us in joint invasions.
- There is a chance we will be betrayed (the predicted chance varies depending on who you talk to). I believe it is small, but I do not dismiss it as insignificant.
- This pact may damage relations to the CyCon. Although we are uncertain if the CyCon will want to ally yet.

Kody · July 16, 2003, 04:48

I should probably post the opposing arguments of members that don't agree with me.

__________________________________________
Argument 1
The drones are very good players and none of the hive players are PBEM players. Consequently, they'll see us as easy pickings and a good target to extend their power. Also being the very good players they are, they will likely want to finish the game alone and without a pact mate.
__________________________________________

I cannot say if the above argument is right or wrong. I suspect that those players have had team victories before though. So they may be willing to share a joint victory with us.

__________________________________________
Argument 2
The drones hate us. This can be seen in the way they insulted us.
While it was the only two lower members of the drones that publicly insulted us, they are simply repeating the ideas and dislike of their senior members.

It is also believed they have something to hide as they were against letting Tassadar into their forum even if Tassadar was elected a demi-god and had the blessing of Googlie.
__________________________________________

The first part of this argument I have already addressed in my first post. I admit that my arguments against are based on what I believe is most likely. However, this argument is also based on what that team member thought was most likely.

The second part of the argument, I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole. However, I will say I disagree with it.

Kody

Nubclear · July 16, 2003, 05:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Kody
The second part of the argument, I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole. However, I will say I disagree with it.

Kody

Googliegod said that the factions said they would not recognize me at all. Because the factions are controlled by the leaders, it is logical to say the leaders said "No". I don't know why the Hive would as I have no quarrel with the leaders of the Hive (though those two pesky members you mentioned are a bit...tiresome) unless they were trying to hide something that they believe would be leaked to the Hive.
Archaic.....is an ass. Period.

Rokossovky · July 16, 2003, 09:03

IF they will go for a permanent pact, I say we go for it. Two builder factions can easily win the game, our only real threat would be a cycon-uni alliance (*feeling of dread*).

- Rokossovky

Snowflake · July 16, 2003, 11:16

Ok here's my comments:

The benefit from a permanent pact with Drones:
1. Perhaps most importantly, they are extremely good players.
2. Also very important, we would be able to leapfrog tech research.
3. As Marshal put it, two builder factions can easily win a game.

Arguement against permanent pact with Drones:
1. They are extremely good so they will betray us becase they want a solo win.
2. They hate us so they will milk us then backstab us.
3. Perm pact with Drones may mean we'll not be able to perm pact with others, eg. CyCon.

Looks to me if the argument against a permanent pact is the fear of betrayal, we should defenitely go for a perm pact, just be prepared of betrayal.

The third point related to our attitude toward CyCon. Will a perm pact with CyCon be better than a perm pact with Drones? The tech aspect may favor CyCon. However we have not met CyCon and don't know when we will. Would we lose a lot if we meet them really late in the game? We could still treaty and trade tech with them. Or, we could treaty and trade tech with Drones in favor of a perm pact with CyCon. So the real difference is do we want leapfrogging tech reseach with a not so great tech faction early in the game, or do we want leapfrogging tech research with a better tech faction later in the game. This is a strategic desicion that we have to make.

Other options: treaty/truce with tech trading.
Major argument against it: lack of leapfrogging tech reseach, afraid of early war.
The first point I have already addressed. The second point, since Drones is a builder faction, adding on their impression of our power, I do not suppose they will be really aggresive toward us very early. Also I do believe we have the ability to defend ourselves with maybe some upgrades.

Another comment on Drone's tech ability. Drones starts with 20% research penalty. That's why they wanted information networks and ME SP. With free market and the SP they could get a decent tech ability, but I will say that they will unlikely to have superior tech ability. The fact that they appear to be researching faster than us maybe because they are 1 tech behind us. We all know that your tech cost is higher when you have more techs. Also I have to say at this moment our tech ability is not that impressive either. Also, their super science city is volunarable to PB attacks. While buster is know to use empty base techniques to avoid PB attack but I head that this technique could be defeated since you can self detonate PB. In other words they could be doomed if the SSC is attacked and we'll end up with doing essentially all the research ourselves. I hope this will not happen but I have to bring up this possibility.

A final comment. There's no point to second guess their attitude toward us. We'll know if they want a pact with us when they respond. While they have not indicated their willingness we have to do all the precautions assuming that they will not pact with us. Assuming otherwise will only bring disadvantages to us.

Kody · July 16, 2003, 21:38

So far one useful post has been added, which hasn't been covered in my first 2 posts to this thread.

* The drones have many good players in their ranks.

The rest of HongHu discussions and my reply back are just guesswork or elaborating the original points from the first 2 posts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denoation doesn't make the PB go off. It only damages nearby units from what I heard.

Your arguements 1 and 2 for not pacting are guesswork, I think their probability is low some others think they're high. Personally I think I'm making the more informed decision as I've spent time reading through the turn updates of the civgaming PBEMs and watching how the players treat each other.

The third point is valid. However, I have already covered that in my first post. I will do so again in more detail.

A CyCon pact is not certain as we don't know if they will want a pact. We also don't know when we will meet them. A early pact with the drones builds up a turn advantage. When we get planned a industrial automation fast our units will build faster and cities growth faster too.

You assume that we'll be able to get industrial automation easily if we don't pact. Here are my predictive figures for tech research in the next few years.
* If the drones pact, industrial automation in 7 years.
* If the drones don't pact, but also go out of their way to assist us in tech industrial automation is in 16 years.
* If the drones just trade industrial economics 18 years.
* If the drones refuse to trade industrial economics with us, but give us industrial base for our information networks, more than 25 years.
* If the drones refuse to trade it looks like 30 years before we can get industrial automation.

Don't say our tech rate will increase, because I'm already guessing it will and have adjusted the figures accordingly. For the last one possibility I would guess 50 years if our tech rate stays the same.

Also I honestly don't think that -20% research will be a huge disadvantage to the drones. They'll just crawler more energy with their +2 industry.

The main reason I want to ally with the drones is because I honestly think together we can compete and maybe outstrip the science factions. However, this is predictions.

For further posts just state facts and clearly say which points you're making that are predictions or guessing.

Quote:

While they have not indicated their willingness

Actually they have, but it was unoffical. I removed it from the email before posting the email to the forums. Mongoose said unoffically it looks like they will be willing to pact, but I decided to avoid putting it in. It was unoffical and would just add more confusion to the whole issue of whether we want to trust them.

Kody

Snowflake · July 17, 2003, 11:04

I have agreed with you before and I'll repeat again that I agree with you that there's no point to second guess their attitude toward us. Let me clarify that what I did in my last post was to summerize the arguments I'm aware from all people, not myself, for or against the pact. I have indicated in my post that the first two arguments against the pact does not hold, in my opinion. Just want to make sure you understand that I'm with you here.

Looks to me we are in agreement largely with regard to the CyCon issue also (about the uncertainty and late timing of possible pact). I tend to agree with you that the early turn advantage is important. The only issue I see we may be still a little apart is how good drones' research is but this may not be that important in the final decision when we hear from them. Oh, also, I have not assumed that we'll get IA easily by ownselves, where did you get that idea? I was merely pointing out there's another possibility since they have already indicated they would like to trade tech. I'm fully aware that tech trading is not as beneficially as coorperative leapfrogging tech research and have stated so in my post.

It's kind of amazing that two people who are in agreement largely can still talk endlessly, isn't it?

Anyway I hope you would let us know all information that you get from the drones, official or unofficial, I believe the PAC and CCC would appreciate full knowledge of the entire affair.

Kody · July 17, 2003, 23:29

So far I've only held back when mongoose said he thinks they would be likely to pact.

The words had little meaning at that stage since it was just an opinion, and they seemed to be missing most of their members.

However, they have withdrawn their scout and I think they have moved their transport in the direction that was agreed on. They do appear to be cooperating. So we can breath a little easier, as our colony pod cannot be threatened anymore even if they decide to turn on us next turn.

Kody

Snowflake · July 18, 2003, 10:24

Oh and in case anybody has been wondering about the empty base tactic against PB, here's something posted by Buster.

Quote:

If the opponent is not close enough to send over land troops and prevented by aerospaces to drop in instabuilding choppers to fight off incoming units (kill off attackers with instabuilt choppers as they come and leaving base empty at end of turn) can at times seriously slow or even halt an invasion and go a long to nullify the pb threat. (Just remember that hovering choppers - as opposed to jets - are pb targets so dont leave one hanging mid air near a base unless you can cover it with a jet that wont be shot down).

If pbs can selfdetonate (and by doing so actually makes a hole not just kills defenders as selfdestruct usually does) that pretty much makes this defense worthless though. Having several games getting to the PBs shortly available stage it would be nice to know - though I will check it out myself if noone have the data offhand.

Usually I have relied very little on PBs myself and generally preferred to rely on gas & empty base defense if the game got nasty - but screens being usually impractical and just needing one hole punched, if above is true (pbs can be detonated without a target) it would mean that instead one would need to try get pbs in position first so that one could target enemy cities into which the opponent moved his pbs or some such.

Annoying as I generally have taken great pleasure in seeing players with great expectation move pbs into position to find nothing to hit worth the price of the pb and finally either being able to take it out or see them fire at two crawlers or whatever they can find.

Key to empty base defense btw is:

a) leave the base empty of defenders (if needed disband them)

b) have an aerospace to prevent drops

c) ensure crawlers, formers and whatever else is moved away so hitting them witth a pb will not get the city. (if needed disband them)

d) No roads leading in enabling drop and move with rovers to reach the city. Tear them up if needed - preferably also forest or other "slow go" terrain leading up to city - meaning attacking units will be "in the open" for a while before being able to take the city. Fungus is good too as long as they dont have the "fast move in fungus SP" (worms cannot be dropped)

e) bases just out of pb reach that can contain sam air units to pick off air cover given to units being moved in.

f) instabuilding units that will then be available to help kill off units being moved in

g) maintaining a fair distance to the opponent - sometimes one need to resort to burned ground and selfdestruct of unviable positions. sometimes maintaining in themselves rather worthless bases in strategic positions.

h) keep track of locusts if used / available (only air units that can take a city until very late)

I have seen several conflicts start as "I am going to be PB you" only to pbs pretty quickly to dropped as a real weapon (can be useful to force the opponent to empty basers deeper into his territory) and the real combat performed being "the dance of the airial gas kamikazes and their counter-measures". Something that can go almost chesslike in depth until tech advantage, numbers or lack of skill finally stips the scale one way or the other and the heartland lies open.

Kody · July 18, 2003, 10:42

Buster said he doesn't know, and it's a rumor about self detonating and making holes

I think PBs can't self detonate and make holes when I tried.

Kody

Snowflake · July 18, 2003, 10:58

That's good to know. I myself haven't had the chance of examing it. There was no following up post on that point so I have assumed that it was not likely to be true.

The empty base tactics is really useful I think. And Buster's post was pretty in detail so I think it is a good resouce for everybody who is new to this tactic. I hope I will have a chance to witness it being used here. (Any very likely Buster will for his SSC.)

Haon · July 18, 2003, 11:35

I honestly believe that its our, destiny, to occupy the entire continent, and that means that war with the Drones is inevitable, we can nenefit from tech exchange so that we get an advantage, but I a, opposed to map-exchanges and thus a pact as well. We need to face the reality that we need there territory, if not now, then in the near future.

Kody · July 18, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

I honestly believe that its our, destiny, to occupy the entire continent

Firstly, it would help if you looked at the maps provided in the turn update. Then read the negotiation threads. Then you'll find that we already have the continent.

To summarise why we want to avoid war. It seems to me that the drones will overtake us in reasearch rate as they can run freemarket and will crawler heaps of energy in combination with the merchant exchange. Consequently, they are likely to be more powerful than us in the later stages of the game.

The main problem is if we don't pact and with our two continents so close it'll end up in an early war initiated by us to destory them before they get to powerful. An early war and will definately weaken us. Even if we win we'll be severely weakened and it's likely that we'll end up a target for one of the other factions that was looking on in amusement.

Also we cannot start a war until we research flexibility and then construct transports. The drones already have a unity transport and we don't have any.

Even worse, if the drones meet the university and start getting tech from them. While we don't meet the CyCon (our possible allies). We will definitely get eliminated.

Quite simply I believe if we don't pact, the hive will probably either get eliminated or end up easy pickings after destorying the drones. This is why I've been so busy pursuing a pact with the drones.

Kody

EZRhino · July 18, 2003, 23:00

I think that our strength is best used early. Basically to play the Hive means to expand agressivly. We are almost to impact weapons and thus we will have to make up our minds fairly soon; however I would rather not be the junior member of any potential pact. If we barter our early advantages away, we are destined to become vassal state.

Kody · July 19, 2003, 08:17

Quote:

We are almost to impact weapons and thus we will have to make up our minds before soon

Actually you're wrong. It'll be at least 30 turns before we finish the first covering of cities on our continent. That's 30 turns before we need to start looking for new land to colonise.

It figure it'll be more like 40 turns before we can actually go to war. That is best case scenerio too with available tech choices.
* finish researching planetary networks 6 turns
* researched mobility 9 turns
* researched flexibility 10 turns
* researched non-linear mathematics 10 turns
* built sea transports 5 turns
* built some attack units 5 turns

In 45 turns the drones with their sea transport will have met another faction that we can go to war with.

An early war with the drones will be us guarding our entire coast as the drones send raiding parties until we get flexibility. We won't be able to touch them for a long time.

Now will people please stop saying war is a way to increase our power. At this stage that is very incorrect and completely impractical. Later when we can actually invade then we can consider that.

Kody

Kody · July 19, 2003, 08:45

Maybe you should consider in the long run. Having a joint invasion with the drones helps us play aggressively, and the pact will help us get those sea transports we need to attack other factions.

I'll strangle the person that tells me the drones can't help our research in a pact. As I've already been told this 6 times. The drones are researching at 6 turns for a tech and the hive is researching at 9 turns for each tech. The drones also informed us that they can get their research up to 5 turns per tech. We only have 1 more tech than them so they're definitely researching faster than us already. I figure we'll be the ones leeching techs off the drones sooner rather than later.

Kody

Snowflake · July 19, 2003, 22:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Kody
I'll strangle the person that tells me the drones can't help our research in a pact.
Kody

Now that's talking like a Hiver.

EZRhino · July 20, 2003, 13:27

At this stage, war is usually not primarily about gaining new land. It is about combating threats. Personally I would prefer a perma-pact with the drones, but we should keep our options open.