PTW wartime strategies

Cidifer · October 25, 2002, 16:20

How will you act during the game to win\ aviod\ end\ or help an ally in a war? Particularly in ways that you wouldn't try in single player or, single player strategies that wouldn't work in multiplayer.

For example what kind of diplomacy would you use if another player was at war with an ally? would you help or ally by fighting him? would you try to negotiate a peace? or would you just hang him out to dry and hope the time never comes when you need his help?

Also if it seemed you were about to go to war with a stronger enemy what would you do to get support? would you give all your money or techs? would you give workers? cities? or just promise them something else?

Also how would you try to stay out of a war you didn't want any part of but you were dragged into through a MPP? would you honor it? or just send enough troops and excuses to make your friend think your trying to help?

I'm just wonering what kind of strategies you think you'd use against human players during a war or potential war. Also what other kinds of situations can you think of that you'd maybe do something different from the normal game? would you use priveteers for example?

statusperfect · October 25, 2002, 16:45

I would send everything i got at the enemy. If the enemy is attacking then might spread his defenses to thin.

And i would NEVER EVER allow someone ROP in multiplayer.

Inverse Icarus · October 25, 2002, 16:45

first off, i'm a warmonger, so i'd probably be the one people use these strategies against.

anyway, i can see some "peaceful" players paying people to fight wars for them outright, like mercenaries.

a builder could give a warmonger techs and money in exchange for defense, or even a cut of the conquered cities.

i could also see people forming barricades to protect allies.

example, I, China, want to attack Rome. Persia is allied with rome, but not at war with me. Persia could make a line of calvary on the roman borders and FORCE me to declare war on them if i wanted to move in.

bleh.

Inverse Icarus · October 25, 2002, 16:46

all in all, mutliplayer is going to take more units to fight wars.

i could see myself putting 5 spearmen on my border towns to be safe.

Jon Shafer · October 25, 2002, 17:14

Diplomacy, along with better strategy and tactics, will be the best new part of PtW.

The way that people react to each other will depend upon who's playing, and their particular styles.

I can easily see some situations like what UK described happening, which is quite exciting.

Inverse Icarus · October 25, 2002, 18:53

alright, all my classes are over and i ate dinner so i have time to discuss some more

lesse, fortresses will actually be used. i can imagine some of the people i play with building a fotress every other square along a border to allow peaceful units to go through, but to take free shots at enemy units trying to pass.

artillery should prove more useful in MP. i'd say fighters and bombers too, but i'm not sure how many games will go that far.

wars of attrition wil happen more than wars of total destruction. artillery strikes, pillaging, will all make slow, draging wars of weakening eachother.

but humans don't forgive and forget as easily (sadly). if i take 5 cities from a guy in the early BCs, he's going to still be pissed off when he starts getting tanks, should i let him live.

it will probably be better to to outright kill him.

Random Passerby · October 25, 2002, 19:20

I disagree with you on that point; humans won't forgive and forget, sure, but that doesn't mean they'll blindly rage for vengeance. First off, if everybody's pissing everybody else off, or even most of the players are pissing off most of the other players, there's gonna be too many grudges to take them all on at once.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly to the issue as a whole, HUMANS UNDERSTAND BALANCE OF POWER. This is probably going to be the number one difference from a military-diplomacy standpoint between singleplayer and multiplayer. If a major power declares war on a neighboring weaker power in singleplayer, the AIs will either be indifferent or else will side with the bigger, more powerful civ. But the original aggressor will still walk off with the most gains by far. In essence, the allies just helped their biggest threat get bigger. This sort of thing is going to be very rare in multiplayer, and probably will generally only happen when one player is greedy to the point of stupidity; I'm betting most players will be more inclined to see a window of opportunity for attacking a superior foe while they're distracted, rather than seeing an opportunity for a cheap dogpile that will help their rivals more than it will help themselves.

On that note, any time a game stays competitive for very long, players will be quite loathe to see the balance of power upset in a way that does not directly favor them. If someone sees you conquering more territory than they like, they have two options: scramble to conquer the rest of your victim's territory, or declare war on you. The first option probably isn't going to be practical unless they were already planning an invasion prior to your declaration of war... hence, past the early medieval era or so, if you're not already dominating you'll have to tread carefully--rival strong powers aren't likely to appreciate each other annexing weak powers wholesale.

Of course, another interesting facet is that, should you conquer a chunk of territory from a weak neighbor and then make peace, they are then weakened and vulnerable to your rivals; moreover, since you're not actively conquering them, your rivals have time to organize and prepare for a full-scale conquest. Thus, as soon as the ink on the peace treaty is dry, you have a very direct stake in the well-being of the defeated civ. I wouldn't quite be willing to sign an MPP, but I'd probably make it very clear that I'm going to act more or less as if I had one.

Cidifer · October 26, 2002, 09:53

I'd say I'd always try to make friends with another civ after a war that I've one unless I can relitivly quickly defeat him completely. For example if I'm say... Germany and I take 4 of Romes 15 cities, I'll probably not go for the other 11 unless I clearly outnumber them and have no other wars to be concerned about. Basically I'd take enough cities to get a resource or teach them a lesson if they attacked me 1st then let them live an try to make them an ally instead of letting the war drag on.

I'd say, for example, "I don't want war with you any more, here let's trade techs\maps\resources etc." then I'd offer to help them if they had any problems with opportunists who like to go after civs justs after they've lost or started losing a war.

As for the guy who said he'd never sign a ROP, I agree with that, that's something I would simply let someone do or convince someone to let me do with out having it in writing so that he could stock pile troops in my territory and I would have to declare war to get them out.

What I want to know now is, would you honor a MPP (and don't say I wouldn't sign one because if you needed to in order to avoid invasion from a much stronger force I think most would) if you had enough spare troops to atleast provide some support?

For example you are on a seperate island\continent or in some other way not directly attached to the enemy. Your ally (who is pretty strong) has just been attacked by another strong nation that is as strong or stronger (militarily), and possibly in a better government for war then he is. So you've been forced to declare war, if you aren't currently at war with anyone else would you help? or let him fight by himself? or would you make him give you something? or what?

alva · October 26, 2002, 10:36

There also the thing that your not just playing this 'current' game.
What I mean is, you can succeed in in scr*wing someone over by breaking all treating, but you do realise that's never gonna work again.
If the same players would decide on let's say a rematch, That's person will be kept an eye on

ChrisiusMaximus · October 26, 2002, 16:41

I would only consider honouring a MPP if the MPP partner was being invaded, but if a MPP partner declared war on another civ and won some territory I would not help them if the victim counter attacked.

I would most likely leave the pact as soon as I saw the partner start a war, however if the 20 yrs had not passed I would try and stay out of the war until I could leave the treaty.

I see no problem in ROP treaties if you and another civ are both at war with a common enemy, but it will always be necessary to keep an eye on all activity of your ally in your territory.

Basically the aim of this game is to win so its not going to be easy to trust anybody in MP but I think being an isolationist will definitely arouse the suspicions of your opponents, and could lead to you facing a multi front invasion.

Inverse Icarus · October 26, 2002, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
I would only consider honouring a MPP if the MPP partner was being invaded, but if a MPP partner declared war on another civ and won some territory I would not help them if the victim counter attacked.

I would most likely leave the pact as soon as I saw the partner start a war, however if the 20 yrs had not passed I would try and stay out of the war until I could leave the treaty.

then why sign the thing in the first place? it almost seems as if you have NO intention of honoring it (except to defend against an agressor). you damn builders.

/me starts nothing who not to sign agreements with.

Quote:

I see no problem in ROP treaties if you and another civ are both at war with a common enemy, but it will always be necessary to keep an eye on all activity of your ally in your territory.

Basically the aim of this game is to win so its not going to be easy to trust anybody in MP but I think being an isolationist will definitely arouse the suspicions of your opponents, and could lead to you facing a multi front invasion.

us warmongers will feed on the isoloationists first i suppose

Cidifer · October 26, 2002, 17:11

I still think that right of passage (like embargo's and a few other things) will become useless in multiplayer, for example if someone suggests a ROP agreement with me, and I feel like letting them in my land, I'll just say "go ahead I wont kick you out" then if they try something I'll tell them to leave or they'll have to declare war on me. Samething with a trade embargo why should my hands be tied for 20 turns when I can just not trade with them unless I need something from them? the only times I would is probably when I need it from someone else or maybe to aviod going to war.

ChrisiusMaximus · October 26, 2002, 17:34

Ah Uberkrux I have not told you if I am a builder or not, you should perhaps be more careful how much of your character you give away. You never know who might be seeing you wearing your heart on your sleeve, the AI doesnt have the advantage of reading these forums.

The reason I would sign a MPP in the first place would be to try and mutually deter the likes of you from attacking me or my allies, but as it is a protection pact I would not want to aid an aggressor in an attempt to take over the world. I do like to build but I am more than prepared to take what I need.

Lastly I suspect that it will be the warmongers who will be the isolationists and I have no problem with them gobbling one another up, plenty of opportunities to nip in and take the spoils from under your noses.

Adm.Naismith · October 26, 2002, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
Ah Uberkrux I have not told you if I am a builder or not, you should perhaps be more careful how much of your character you give away. You never know who might be seeing you wearing your heart on your sleeve, the AI doesnt have the advantage of reading these forums.

AFAIK, Uberkrux IS Civ III AI module that browse the net to find new strategies. He (it) still have some bugs, so his (its) strategy isn't perfect, but Firaxis team have great hope for new version "Uberkrux PTW". If anything else, you can see from its posts how ready to fight a new game it is.

ChrisiusMaximus · October 26, 2002, 18:21

But has the Uberkrux 1.29 patch been installed yet?

statusperfect · October 26, 2002, 18:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Cidifer
I still think that right of passage (like embargo's and a few other things) will become useless in multiplayer, for example if someone suggests a ROP agreement with me, and I feel like letting them in my land, I'll just say "go ahead I wont kick you out" then if they try something I'll tell them to leave or they'll have to declare war on me.

ROP will give the other player movement bonuses for your roads/railroads.

Inverse Icarus · October 26, 2002, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus

But has the Uberkrux 1.29 patch been installed yet?

hardcore baby

CiverDan · October 26, 2002, 19:34

With all this talk of treaties by spoken word only, I was wondering how these would interplay with AI<->Human Treaties. For Example I have an "Real" MPP treaty with an AI which has other allies, and a "verbal" MPP with a human player. What happens if the AI attacks the other human player? This combination of actual and verbal treaties will lead to some interesting situations.

Cidifer · October 26, 2002, 20:16

Well I'd never use a verbal MPP (and usually not use them at all anyway), if I felt like a really needed help, atleast with in game ones it causes him to declare war automatically and it will atleast make your opponent worry about your alley and maybe rethink the war and decide to block another boarder for example.

Also what do I care if someone using my territory has access to my roads or not? like I was saying unless I want the security of a ROP, and use of roads myself, or in this case I want them to have access to my roads (for example to help defend my boarder) I really don't need an in game agreement. Plus use of my roads would just provide them with a quick bypass of my defenses and easy access to my core cities if they wanted to do a sneek attack.