 |
|
wervdon
|
|
The wild card in that scenario is will CGN and CFC vote for another team to win. And remember a lot can change in the amount of time your talking about. If GWT is behind in tech, especially if we invade and do some serious damage to them too, then CFC may look at the situation as more them vs. Poly for who is going to win the game.
Right now at least I think everyone is focused on keeping GWT from winning, which is the uniting factor, if they become less of a threat then I don't know that our alliance will hold.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
 |
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
Possible? Yes, but that's a very loaded possible.
And there are a lot of problems, both practical and moral.
- Problem A: The Problem of Research
We do have a tech lead over GWT right now. A slight tech lead, of a couple technologies. Frankly, this may or may not hold, depending on what GWT does, which is something we cannot control.
GWT's economy is stronger than our own right now, and if they wanted to put the cash into it, they could catch up with us.
Previously when I believed we could maintain a strong tech lead on GWT, this was based on a couple assumptions which are no longer true... first, I assumed CGN would still be researching, at least in some capacity. Second, I assumed we'd have our 920g sent to CGN... which is now gone and never coming back.
So the stage is now set for a contest between Apolyton's research capacity, a couple techs ahead, and GWT's research capacity, stronger than ours right now. CFC is a nonfactor, as they are currently doing 40-turn techs off the main path. CGN will also be useless for a research capacity, and will only be useful for their free Industrial and Modern techs. But 2 techs at times we cannot be sure of is not much help. On the other hand, GWT has GCA... once CGN goes down, GCA will be able to resettle all of that land... and eventually be able to research again. They'll be able to research better than CFC and CGN will combined... which means, eventually we (as in, our alliance) will have inferior research capacity.
With all those factors, do you really want to trust a 2-tech lead into the Modern Age?
- Problem B: The Problem of Initiative
In Civ 3, often more than in real life, he who has the initiative controls the game.
I have noticed in all of my time observing and collecting facts about various MPDGs that this is especially true. Teams tend to be more cautious for attacking when they themselves are on defense. This held true for the Vox-GS war, for the ND/GOW-GS/RP war, and others that I have heard about or come across.
In the Vox-GS war, GS did not launch their great counteroffensive until Vox's initial Immortal Army was stalled, and then crippled. Part of this is due to logistics, but even though nothing major happened, GS did not tend to launch any sort of offensives until Vox's initial advance had been contained and a new "balance of initiative" had been established.
In the ND/GOW-GS/RP war, GOW struck in the east while ND struck in the west. In the east, GS managed to muster a rather large number of Knights, which could have stopped GOW's stack, but they did not attack for fear of suffering losses and thus took a more conservative defensive pattern. In the west, ND struck hard, meaning that RP was unable to launch their own counterattack until the front had stabalized after ND had taken Saragossa and Leon. That pause was the rebalancing of initiative that allowed the RP attack.
The point is that when the initative is balanced, anyone can sieze it for themselves and run with it. When someone has it, then that makes it just about impossible for someone else to hold it.
So why does that matter?
Because if we take that path, if GWT wants to invade they will have no trouble doing so. And all we'll be able to do is fend them off. Having and holding initiative is even more important in overseas invasions than in regular conflicts. Once the enemy lands, THAT is your main concern. That is the only thing that matters to them, because if that army has too much success, all is doomed.
The same goes for us. If GWT lands, we MUST crush their invasion unless we want to lose or die. If we have a single Agincourt, then we'll go the way of Netatolia. And there won't be another Apolyton to save us. We are the last bastion in this game.
Being forced into this position is a very precarious one. If we invade, then we hold the initiative, and can force GWT into that desperate position. Using the next 50+ turns to prepare our military machine for the ultimate battle all we need to do is make landfall and we can assure our victory.
- Problem C: The Problem of Morality
As Vondrack pointed out, I think that going the entire game only to win by UN victory is pretty cheesy. Even now we know that all we have to do is last until the early Modern Age and we know we win. GWT could be 1 turn away from building the SS, technologically and industrially far more advanced than us, and boom, we win anyways.
GWT has fought this entire game, and has achieved world supremacy that way. I believe if we wish to win a "legitimate" victory, then we must usurp that position from them. To win via UN is not a way to exemplify the talent and ability that Apolyton posseses.
We can fight one more war and achieve world dominance once and for all.
- Problem D: The Problem of Fun
I don't know about you guys, but I'm not excited about building Libraries, Aquaducts and Banks for another 8 months until we build the UN and win like that.
To be frank, peace is boring. When peace occurs later in MPDGs, people start to migrate and lose interest in what's going on. By the end of the game we'll have 2 people celebrating our triumphant victory. We should be playing this game for the glory of Apolyton, not so a couple people can see a screenshot of the victory screen.
Between all of these factors, I don't believe just sitting around and waiting for the UN or the SS is our best option.
But I could be wrong. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
Interesting observations, Trip:
quote:
In the ND/GOW-GS/RP war, GOW struck in the east while ND struck in the west. In the east, GS managed to muster a rather large number of Knights, which could have stopped GOW's stack, but they did not attack for fear of suffering losses and thus took a more conservative defensive pattern. |
Very true. Our conservative approach worked really well against Vox, but screwed us against GoW. Ah, the difference between Immortals (1-move) and Riders and Ansars (3-move). Still, the general approach of avoiding combat when the odds weren't good was sound. If we'd blocked Toledo2... ah, who knows?
Initiative is definitely huge. The thing is, though, defending ourselves vs. intercontinental invasion ought to be fairly simple, at least until marines show up. Even then, with a proper navy we should be fine. My main security concern is CFC. I don't trust them to protect themselves against GWT invasion properly, and thus they could end up being a conduit for invasion.
Anyway, I don't agree that if we choose not to invade GWT, we leave ourselves open to be invaded at will. If we choose not to invade, but still build a strong navy*, we will have the capacity to shift the initiative by crushing their invasion force and then counter-invading. It is not true that once a team has the initiative the opponent cannot recover. Vox had the intiative against a practically defenseless GS, but we scratched and clawed our way out of it and turned the tide. A properly prepared Apolyton (again, NAVY!) could do the same.
As for peace being boring, well, it is for some, I suppose, but I for one really enjoyed the peaceful building GS has done lately, timing our wonder builds, MM-ing our economy, and trying to hang in the game after getting smacked around.
...
I agree that the UN victory has a certain cheesyness to it, but before we all scoff and it and write it off, don't you think we should have that discussion with the other teams? If we all agree it's a BS way to win, great, everyone agrees not to build the UN. But dismissing it now seems like folly to me.
SS appeals to me. Always has, always will. But I recognize that it's a LONG way off, and requires a lot of "boring" building. If the team would rather go for a blaze of glory, so be it. I can roll with that too, but let's be sure to recognize that is not a strategic decision... it's a stylistic choice.
-Arrian
* - A strong navy is a prereq for both invasion or staying put, and thus something I think all of us agree on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OPD
|
 |
Birmingham UK
Jun 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trip
[*]Problem D: The Problem of Fun
I don't know about you guys, but I'm not excited about building Libraries, Aquaducts and Banks for another 8 months until we build the UN and win like that.
To be frank, peace is boring. When peace occurs later in MPDGs, people start to migrate and lose interest in what's going on. By the end of the game we'll have 2 people celebrating our triumphant victory. We should be playing this game for the glory of Apolyton, not so a couple people can see a screenshot of the victory screen.[/list]Between all of these factors, I don't believe just sitting around and waiting for the UN or the SS is our best option.
But I could be wrong. |
I completely agree with this.
Overall I'd say the most important thing is that we fully commit to one course of action, if we are to invade GWT we should do it right and should dedicate absolutely everything to getting as big a millitary as possible at the time when the invasion takes places. Spending half your sheilds on millitary and the rest on infrastructure is not how you win a war it must be all or nothing, GWT are winning their war because they've put everything into getting the superior numbers. If we are serious about invading GWT we should turn the empire into the apolyton war machine.
Then again if we are to go the builder route we should build only the minimum amount of forces, ie mainly naval.
I think the warmongering approach is the best option and the one most likely to win us the game. Not only is it more fun, but preparing for a war focuses a team and gets everyone involved better than anything else
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
I'm not so sure a UN victory would be as easy as some think anyways. I do agree that if its a UN victory which includes a vote from a one city civ though, that its rather hollow.
Off topic: But it would be nice if the UN vote in multiplayer worked more like the High Council Vote in MOO where each civ gets a # of votes based on population. Oh well.
I agree, no UN victory (cept maybe for giggles), if someone wins via the UN we should play it out anyways until someone builds the space ship, or its over by conquest.
Incidently, I would also consider a culture victory kind of lame, but thats me.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-04-2004 13:08
WAR
|