 |
| |
|
|
Cidifer
|
|
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?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Random Passerby
|
|
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
|
|
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CiverDan
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-10-2002 01:20
The way that people react to each other will depend upon who's playing, and their particular styles.
|