28-02-2003 06:17									#1
	Should We Attack The First.... Suffering from ads?

I don't like spies!

Should we atack the first scout (a non-military unit) or unprotected settler we come accross?

I attack them like there's no tomorrow!

I try to put a damper on Civ's who try to expand to fast by either building lots of scouts to start (popping huts for tech or settler prospects) with or settlers instead of military units. They are taking a calculated risk in order to expand faster and I think we should make them pay for taking that chance.

I especially like picking off lone settlers or sometimes even unprotected workers along a rivals borders. Sure they learn no to do that again (though some don't surprisingly ), but we'll knock them back down a notch as far as they're growth and development is concerned. It is in the early game that you have to worry most about your neighbors having any sort of lead on you. Leads can grow exponentially if left unchecked.

	28-02-2003 06:38									#2
	Support Apolyton

Encountering an undefended settler is tempting, but there is no harm is seeing what that civ is prepared to offer for it. (it would mean gaining a very good friend too).

Of course if there is only other team on the same landmass, then toast it is... (loosing a settler while the other one gains 2 slaves = defeat)

	28-02-2003 07:59									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

No.

Diplomacy is important in this game, completely ignoring the risks of an early war against a civ we know nothing about...

	28-02-2003 08:10									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I agree with both Alva and Trip. The PTW DG has taught us that dipolmacy is the most important aspect to this game. If we take out an early settler, we get two slaves and put the team we attacked very far behind us, but if we are one a continent with more than us and them, then it would probably be in our best intrests to not attack.

If it is just us and them, they are dead.

In the end, as with every choice we make, it will depend on the situation.

	28-02-2003 14:26									#5
	Support Apolyton

I agree too. But still, an interesting point is raised. In another thread, it is discussed how we can build warriors without leaving the capital undefended. Of course, anyone would walk into an undefended capital early, if they should spot one.

Now - look at the reverse situation - let's say we come across a nation's borders. Do we cross it to see if the capital is undefended? Lux was in a similar situation in the DemoGame, but did not do this. We never found out that we had GoW messed.

	28-02-2003 15:34									#6
	Remove this text

Sure we cross the border, getting a look at a city (removing the FoW) is very valuable.

	28-02-2003 18:11									#7
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by BigFurryMonster Now - look at the reverse situation - let's say we come across a nation's borders. Do we cross it to see if the capital is undefended? Lux was in a similar situation in the DemoGame, but did not do this. We never found out that we had GoW messed.

Yep, had lux decided to take a couple more steps further, GOW would of been finished.

However, the tactic is one of the reasons for Lux's downfall. Aggresive play like that is not appreciated by human players. It is too risky, and reputation is everything in a demo game. Dont give any other team ammunition which can be used to discredit us.

We need allies not enemies.

	28-02-2003 19:23									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by alva Sure we cross the border, getting a look at a city (removing the FoW) is very valuable.

This is the best way of picking a fight early on. Never ever go into someone else's borders, even if "just for a turn". Most players will not tolerate you beside their borders, or on Hill or Mountain lookout spots. I tend to agree.


Dominae

	28-02-2003 21:34									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I think that if a team is foolish enough to send out settlers unprotected, they shall be punished... But we must be careful with this and have a detailed discussion if the situation arises...

--Kon--

	28-02-2003 23:35									#10
	Put an end to popups!

All we are saying is give peace a chance.

	01-03-2003 01:12									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

(mr mayor shoots at the hipy)
lets do what the germans tryied in ww2 and take over the world. build up a huge military machine and attack all our neighbors! we can also secure an alliance with the other strongest nation then after that have a deul to the death for dominace!

or we could give peace a chance......

	01-03-2003 02:43									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Personally, I am against actions that will tend to make us enemies very early in the game before we have a handle on the land. The more civs actually on our continent the more risky it is. If we can determine that there is only one other civ on our continent, then tactics like scouting in their territory may be acceptable if we feel we can get get an advantage on our continent by doing so. But I do not think we should engage is this solely to get general information early on in the game. It is just too risky for us diplomatically.

	01-03-2003 03:01									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

I agree with the sentiment that we should respect our neighbors borders. Especially as our start isn't the best, and diplomacy is going to be very important to us. If we are going to attack, it should be planned for, specifically building up for the war.

If we do run into an unprotected Settler (I doubt any teams will be so unbalanced as to give this opportunity), we would probably be better served by extortion of some type than by the two workers and a weakened neighbor who won't have the capacity or inclination to help our tech rate.

	01-03-2003 03:36									#14
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I agree with the sentiments of most of you on this matter. What we need to decide is what our general "approach" will be to foreign units ... most likely a scout and later warriors. Very few players are going to send off a settler alone unless it's a very short distance and within their area of control.

Possible approaches:

1) Extreme: Destroy anything we find. not recommended.
2) Threatening: Threaten to destroy unless offending unit leaves or tribute is given. Only effective if we KNOW we have the upper hand, and don't mind the negative image consequences.
3) Reasoning: "Look we, COULD have destroyed you. We decided not to. Will you please consider giving us (insert unbalanced trade) as a sign of friendship and gratitude?" recommended in most situations.
4) Friendship: Greet them, offer good deals, ensure them that their unit is welcome. recommended when we really want to cury favor with other nation.

--Togas

	01-03-2003 04:36									#15
	Suffering from ads?

Attacking unprotected settlers is mean. I wish we could attack scouts in some sneaky manner, such as having them be killed by [insert local dangerous wild animal], which is why I voted for it, even though it’s impractical.

The wisest thing is to be nice.

	01-03-2003 05:11									#16
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Togas I agree with the sentiments of most of you on this matter. What we need to decide is what our general "approach" will be to foreign units ... most likely a scout and later warriors. Very few players are going to send off a settler alone unless it's a very short distance and within their area of control. Possible approaches: 1) Extreme: Destroy anything we find. not recommended. 2) Threatening: Threaten to destroy unless offending unit leaves or tribute is given. Only effective if we KNOW we have the upper hand, and don't mind the negative image consequences. 3) Reasoning: "Look we, COULD have destroyed you. We decided not to. Will you please consider giving us (insert unbalanced trade) as a sign of friendship and gratitude?" recommended in most situations. 4) Friendship: Greet them, offer good deals, ensure them that their unit is welcome. recommended when we really want to cury favor with other nation. --Togas

I'm of the midset that this is a game about domination through whatever means is available. Be it Militarily (the easiest to achieve), Diplomaticaly (not so easy), or Culturaly (the hardest in an MP game).

We know , that we'll have a war like conflict with every Civ if we plan to win; that's just the way the game pans out. In the later game if you win a small skirmish it may or may not turn the tide in our favor. In the early game however, this is not the case.

WE can establish a stranglehold on a Civ simply by beating them to the punch. Why do we need to wait until each Civ is somewhat established and searching to expand their empires, aquiring resources, and otherwise looking to get the edge on each of the other Civ's and especialy their closest neighbors before we treat them as a threat?

Do you think other Civ's would not trade techs with us if we were to try to take out an opposing Civ early in the game? I don' t think so; because it is not only something that we might want or need but in keeping a fair trade avenue open to us their needs are met as well.

An early attack by us can be viewed by others as either a bold move or a blunder, wholly determined by the outcome, not by whether or not it's the 'moral' or right thing to do. If we destroy anothe Civ are all of the others going to say "we can't have that, lets take out Apolyton!" Not likely, IMNSHO.

How much harm can it cause us in the long run? Well very early we will not have any contact with other Civs other than those on our Continent. We simply pick one (the first we come accross that we access as vulnerable) and make them our enemy. If we start to really hurt them, they will beg for another Civ to come to their aid; and they might, we don't know. But how many Civ's are going to help another Civ if they can tell that they are already doomed? Heck the Civ may just want to join our side and split the proceeds of war (land and resources).

All of this is dependent on some things that are only happening in the early game; such as certain things not being available to the Civ we attack. Such as Map Making, Diplomatic agreements (especialy ROP agreements), resources or tech needed to use certain resources are just not there to help the Civ that was attacked early and was caught off guard.

Land will be at a premium; make no mistakes there will be land grabbing like there's no tomorrow! If we hamper another Civ's ability to expand, if only slightly; that is more land that may be available to us.

I say we strike early and try to establish some sort of control on our Continent while the parameters of the game are such as they are now. If soon after attacking this Civ they come to us and declare that they want peace, sure, give to them, but at a high price only!

Suing for peace can work very well in our favor even after we take out a settler/scout/worker or two. It may take more turns to get something from them, but it is turns that they lost on population and prodution that they can never get back

Our 'image' may be tarnished as far as one Civ is concerned; but we can use any excuse we like to say that we selectivley targeted that Civ for reason that could be specified/made up. For instance; we could say we felt we had a crappy start position and we're likely not to become a major player in the world had we not taken the initiative and saught better ground for our Empire. Or; there were a serious lack of resources (iron, horses, ect..) that caused us to lash out in order for our Civ to survive. There's really a lot of reasons we could give and other Civ's are more likely to forgive an early attack of another Civ (especially when no alliances are active) than later on when each Civ is more established in the World community.

Do we want to be known as 'nice guys'?

OR

Do we want to be known as a World Power?

It's hardly the case when you can be both!

	01-03-2003 05:18									#17
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

We cant decide now to jump at the throat of anyone.

let the game develop, develop relations, and decide on an opponent due to their actions, not our own.

	01-03-2003 05:22									#18
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

bigfree1, unless you can somehow gain the same advantage by sueing for peace than by trading techs peacefully, your argument fails.

The fact is, in PBEM MP, you're looking for parity relative to the rest of the world, and not just your closest neighbor. After a sucessful attack on your weak neighbor, even if you have the land area of the two next most powerful civs combined, you're behind because 1) they're ahead in tech, 2) they suffer less Corruption, thus produce things faster, and 3) they can trade for Luxuries. This makes them a lot more powerful than you. Thus their alliance against you will certainly prevail. As a side note, for this very reason the Aztecs just are not that great in PBEM MP; the availability of Jags almost forces your to rush your neighbor.

It is therefore a game of diplomacy we need to be playing here, above all. Until we're secure in our position relative to the rest of the world, peace is the best option. Which is why I'm glad we've chosen Carthage as our civ: if we can survive until the real fighting begins (through diplomacy), we've got a good chance at the title


Dominae

	01-03-2003 05:47									#19
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Bigfree, as sharp as your wit is, some of your conclusions show that you haven't been in the PTW DG. Contrary to what might seem obvious, Multi-Player Democracy Games are won with diplomacy, not on the battlefield.

	01-03-2003 05:53									#20
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Dominae bigfree1, unless you can somehow gain the same advantage by sueing for peace than by trading techs peacefully, your argument fails. Dominae

In most cases you can and then some; at least in my experience in MP games.

You see, most of the time you get his techs without having to give him any, and you slow his growth.


Ninot: Why should we play the 'wait and see' game? Is it not the best advantage a General can have to be able to fight a war of his own choosing (the when and where)?

BTW, I'm not talking about a full-out war against another Civ, just a move to limit his abilities at this early stage (growth is somewhat exponential).

We could sit back and see what happens, sure, but given our start location we should think about limiting another Civ's growth. This will in no way hamper our own since we've decided to protect our Settlers. If the other Civ wants to drag this out to a full-out war then they will be the ones to suffer from a loss of tech and growth due to war preparations. It is, however, unlikely that another Civ will want to do this to us this early because of our UU. He knows he has a way too tough of a battle ahead (though he may save some revenge for later!)

Again, I'm only talking about taking out an un-protected Settler/worker/scout with one unit of ours; not of a protractive invasion of their homeland. The unit could stick around to harass that Civ for a while, accumulating knowledge of the terrain within their borders that we couldn't otherwise obtain unless they were willing to give us their map (I NEVER give my map away!) We will not be sacraficing anything since there are NO WAR Weariness penalties in MP (also in terms of a drain to our resources; gold and shields) but maybe one unit and possible future reprocussions from that Civ (of which we'll be at war with at some time in the future anyways, right?).

	01-03-2003 05:57									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Trip Bigfree, as sharp as your wit is, some of your conclusions show that you haven't been in the PTW DG. Contrary to what might seem obvious, Multi-Player Democracy Games are won with diplomacy, not on the battlefield.

Yes, I agree that there is a time and place for Democracy in this game, especially as the game progresses in becomes crucial unless you happen to have most of the resources well within your control.


But I'm saying that in the early game it isn't as important since relationships haven't been formed as of yet. No one has any reason to trust another. Early skirmishes can be forgotten much easier than ones later in the game.

	01-03-2003 06:07									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I disagree. A minor quarrel between Lux and ND in 3600 BC turned to war over a month and a half (real time) later. Teams don't forget those who attack them, and remember them well when they need justification for an attack on a neighbor...

	01-03-2003 06:09									#23
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 In most cases you can and then some; at least in my experience in MP games. You see, most of the time you get his techs without having to give him any, and you slow his growth.

You get two other things: 1) a civ with a grudge against you, and 2) a lost trading partner. Those are not things we want early on. Notice that you can get around 3 "free" techs this way, but by trading you can cut the duration of the Ancient age in half. That puts you ahead relative to all the other teams, not just our unlucky neighbor.

If you could guarantee me that the team who we abuse early on (by capturing one of their Settlers or such) is going to forgive us and still continue trading with us as if nothing happened, I might agree with you. But that's not going to happen; the team will fight, to both our disadvtange. And even if we could sue for "peace", our neighbor is weakened, making them an inferior trading partner.

Unless our continent is really small, we will always benefit from peaceful trading. If the other teams decide to fight it out, good, we'll run them down with Knights when they're still inching toward the Medieval age.


Dominae

	01-03-2003 06:11									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

By the way, I'm glad the Minister of War is with me on this one; it will make things a lot...simpler (at least while we're both appointed as Ministers).


Dominae

	01-03-2003 06:17									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'm more of a citizen trying to accomplish what's best for our team than a warmonger trying to attack whatever's within range.

	01-03-2003 06:22									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dominae You get two other things: 1) a civ with a grudge against you, and 2) a lost trading partner. Those are not things we want early on. Notice that you can get around 3 "free" techs this way, but by trading you can cut the duration of the Ancient age in half. That puts you ahead relative to all the other teams, not just our unlucky neighbor. If you could guarantee me that the team who we abuse early on (by capturing one of their Settlers or such) is going to forgive us and still continue trading with us as if nothing happened, I might agree with you. But that's not going to happen; the team will fight, to both our disadvtange. And even if we could sue for "peace", our neighbor is weakened, making them an inferior trading partner. Unless our continent is really small, we will always benefit from peaceful trading. If the other teams decide to fight it out, good, we'll run them down with Knights when they're still inching toward the Medieval age. Dominae

I disagree somewhat with the part I highlighted in that you do not gain an advantage by trading techs, you only possibly keep up with other Civ's in terms of tech advances. It's very hard to leverage an unbalanced trade this early since not a lot of techs are known at this time.

If we use the 'threat' tactic, which is very viable in my opinion, I would reccomend that we take it a step further and kill the settler after we get 'free' techs from them. We have the best of both scenarios then.

How much backstabing goes on in a Demo game?
I've never played in one, just lots and lots of MP.

I'm guessing that there will plenty of it; a lot of behind the back alliances and broken trreaties. Since all teams want to win; what teams will be peaceful and/or truthful throughout?

	01-03-2003 06:37									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 I disagree somewhat with the part I highlighted in that you do not gain an advantage by trading techs, you only possibly keep up with other Civ's in terms of tech advances. It's very hard to leverage an unbalanced trade this early since not a lot of techs are known at this time.

Would you rather retain parity relative to all the other teams, or be ahead of one (possibly two) neighbors but behind compared to the rest of the world? That's the key: the civs who do not trade peacefully will find themselves behind those who choose to. It sure would be fun to to wipe out the Firaxis team early, but I would be equally not fun to lose to CFC, who smartly traded their way ahead early on.

quote: If we use the 'threat' tactic, which is very viable in my opinion, I would reccomend that we take it a step further and kill the settler after we get 'free' techs from them. We have the best of both scenarios then.

This only works against the AI. It could work against a human opponent once, but then they would be so mad that they would definitely never trade with us again, and they would also make sure all the other teams knew of our "evil" deed. Rep. hits are important in MP as well.

quote: How much backstabing goes on in a Demo game? I've never played in one, just lots and lots of MP.

Due to the nature of PBEM (looonnngg games), I cannot say that I have a lot of experience in the matter. But what I do know is that it is a very different beast than MP. In MP, the time limitations encourage a very aggressive playstyle. Who wants to just build for 2 hours, when everyone quits around that time? You're left with nothing more than a nice session of SimCity.

So I'm beginning to understand where your comments originiate. Not that there's anything wrong with them, you or MP, but this is PBEM MP for the title. This is not "how many civs you can destroy in under 80 turns", it's "who, among all the competitors, actually manages to win". This changes things from online MP drastically.

quote: I'm guessing that there will plenty of it; a lot of behind the back alliances and broken trreaties. Since all teams want to win; what teams will be peaceful and/or truthful throughout?

Yes, there will be backstabbing and all that other bad stuff. But through it all we have to ensure a strong position. Backstabbing the first few civs we meet is going to take us down the wrong road.


Dominae

	01-03-2003 07:37									#28
	Suffering from ads?

There is much backstabbing, but only under the guise of something legitimate. Going and destroying someone's settler because it's undefended is hard to cover up. In the PTW DG some teams lost face, even when that team had 'justification' for their actions. A reputation as an honorble dealer will get you far in this kind of game. We have to decide what stance we want to take soon, before we meet with any other teams.

	01-03-2003 10:25									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Who wants to just build for 2 hours, when everyone quits around that time? You're left with nothing more than a nice session of SimCity.

nice debate,

Bigfree, too put more difficult,

you are right, but Dominae and Trip are even more right..

Ad to that, that this isn't a normal PBEM where if things go bad, you go to the forum and invite a couple of people and start up a new one.

This (ISDG) is probably a one off, where no-one wants to loose and fewer risks are taken.
I highly doubt to see an archer rush gambit happening.

This is a different beast altogether..

	01-03-2003 13:14									#30
	Get a bigger avatar today!

It depends on the civ and what uu they have

err wait a minute. We are the carthagians.

we should attack anyone we meet

but seriously. If we cannot find good land and/or our continent is small, we should seriously consider attacking- and conquering our nearest neigbor. It might be our only way to win or at least do well.