05-04-2003 16:25									#1
	Warning on Diplomacy Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The time is approaching where we will have to form our diplomatic policy for this game. The way I can see it, we can go one of four paths:

1) "Angel":

Sounds good doesn't it? It's much harder than you'd think. Much much harder. Making sure you never tell anyone anything that they can disprove. That means, if team A knows what you're up to and you're trying to make sure team B doesn't find out, then you can basically rule this policy out from the get-go. Maintaining a perfect record is nearly impossible.

Benefits: Innumerable.
Drawbacks: Nearly impossible to achieve because of sacrifices necessary.

2) "Warmonger":

Let's start bonking heads and taking names. The only team you can depend on is a team that's scared of you or a team already under your boot. I think due to the makeup of our team, this option has already been ruled out by default.

Benefits: You take command of what's going on.
Drawbacks: Aside from possible military defeat, you're going to have a tough time earning trust from equals.

3) "Isolationist":

We don't care what anyone else is doing, we mind our own business and let the world play out and do whatever it wants. International disagreements we'll take no mind to, and we may even shun a trade or two if it's not in our favor. Basically, you keep to your side of the planet and we keep to our side.

Benefits: Impossible to get teams mad at you or be drawn into conflict on technicalities.
Drawbacks: You're just begging someone to attack you. After all, what does anyone have to lose from taking you out?

4) "Opportunistic":

This is usually what ends up happening. Usually somewhere between all of the idealogies. You be honest as much as you can, stretching the truth and exaggerating when you can, even going so far as to lie when you think you can get away with it. Always put a friendly face forward though. Often times a team will start out in one of the other categories, only to be sucked into this one over time.

Benefits: Easiest path for a civ to take.
Drawbacks: No matter what you think of how honorable or trustworthy or fair you appear, there's going to be at least 1 team that is laughing their asses off at you as soon as they catch on to your tricks (and it's easier than one might think), and will be waiting for a chance to pay you back for this.

I'll say it once, I'll say it again: The advantages of being in category 1 are immesurable. Want to try and spark a war between CDG and GCA? Think a few "innocent" words on our part to CDG might help kickstart a war? Well if CDG and GCA are on good terms, then you're gonna start a war alright. And it'll be CDG and GCA vs. us also.

However clever or sly we feel we are diplomatically, mistakes will be made or a team will catch on. People are not stupid. "The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry." Take this to heart. Assume that the team you're dealing with can see straight through what you say into your intentions. Do you want them to see what's behind? Most of the time, probably not.

It's easy to say "well they're not being honest with us why should we be honest with them?" But you forget one thing: half of diplomacy is reputation. If you deal dishonestly or give them laughable deals because you're upset with one team, the word will spread. You could be an angel in diplomacy with every other civ, but your reputation is still tarnished, whether you know it or not. Diplomatic fallout is worse than nukes, and is just as hard to get rid of. Which brings me to my next point: however just or honest you think you've been, it doesn't matter. What matters is what other teams think of you. You could have never told a lie and still be disrespected by other teams by your attitude or general behavior.

Sounds like a lot of work? Well, it is. This is why it's so difficult to keep true to the path of perfection.

We may or may not try to go that route. I hope we do, since it makes things much easier in the long run. If we don't, then we should be willing to face severe diplomatic repercussions one day.

Wars are not won and lost on the battlefield, but in meetings of diplomats, when the alliances are drawn up... long before the first shot is fired...

	05-04-2003 18:34									#2
	Put an end to popups!

This is a little bit over simplified, Trip. I'm more for being the "good Father" to all of the others. They come to us with their problems and trust us not to do anything bad to them. But that's a bit oversimplified, too.

These things are not as cut and dried as everyone would like, we need to be all things to everybody, IMHO.

E_T

	06-04-2003 00:57									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

There's no one approach that will do best. You did a good job of summing up some of the options though, Trip.

But I will say that option #2 WILL be used early by someone; and towards the end of the game it will be used increasingly more by all remaing Civ's, some just will be forced to use by others.

	06-04-2003 02:21									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by E_T This is a little bit over simplified, Trip. I'm more for being the "good Father" to all of the others. They come to us with their problems and trust us not to do anything bad to them. But that's a bit oversimplified, too. These things are not as cut and dried as everyone would like, we need to be all things to everybody, IMHO. E_T

Maybe so, but over time all teams approach type number 4, whether they mean to or not. The second that someone catches you lying or trying to work against its interests or even thinks you are, you fall into category 4 (or #2).

At least early on #1 is the best policy. Much later on when permanent alliances and friends are more defined, then we can start taking more risks diplomatically, but for now it's much better to play nice.

	06-04-2003 08:22									#5
	Increase Your PM Length

Option #5: Flexible diplomacy based on cost-benefit analysis

Life is a trade-off, so is diplomacy. There is no way our actions will not generate some negative reaction. The solution is to reach the point in which the benefits of our actions exceed the costs. Thus, instead of setting up a general guideline of what our diplomacy will be, we must analyze each situation as it presents itself and choose the right path: whether we will be angels or warmongers or opportunistic, it depends on the time and place. If suddenly we have a golden opportunity to take out one of our enemies, we should take it, if the costs in reputation hit for example are far exceeded by the elimination of a potential threat in the future, we must consider that chance.

When we do get to walk down the "dark path", I suggest but always have an ally. Especially if its the same one. Being in a "team" helps you get the upper hand, both militarily and diplomatically. Backstabs and warmongering are not viewed so bad when there are two teams doing it in a coordinated manner. It is for that reason which I have stressed we improve our relations with GCA as much as possible. Find an ally that can tip the scales to your favor, yet not represent a threat either.

In the end, I would like the world to view us in three different ways: feared by our enemies, loved by our friends, and respected by everone else. We won't get to this point by going the extremes: angels or warmongers, for example, but by skillfully knowing what strategy to adopt at what time and the only way is by making an objective cost-benefit analysis of each situation as it presents itself. Think of situations, not guidelines, flexibility goes a long way.

-MZ

	06-04-2003 09:24									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Master Zen couldn't have put it any better.

to Option #5

--Togas

	06-04-2003 09:26									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Double-post.

Last edited by Dominae on 06-04-2003 at 09:34

	06-04-2003 09:33									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Trip, you forgot to mention that one of the drawbacks of the "warmonger" approach is fewer trading opportunities. If we were alone with CDG on this Jungle-infested rock, it would be suicide not to cooperate. The same applies to a lesser degree the more civs are around. With 4 civs in our geographic neighbourhood, there are enough of us that wars need not put any of us behind too far technologically (except the target!). I take it as granted that we do not ever want to be the target. But, in the interests of competitive tech research, we should keep a few friends around, even if it means sacrificing a momentary advantage.

Master Zen, the problem with the cost-benefit analysis approach is that it is impossible to do in practice due to lack of sufficient information (especially regarding the other teams' true intentions or capabilities). Also, I think that by sitting back and reacting to what the other civs do we will invariably lose great diplomatic opportunities. For instance, perhaps CDG and GCA are becoming friendlier and friendlier with every passing turn. If ever we want to create a rift between them, now would be the time. "Letting nature run its course" is safe, but can also be a recipe for disaster. If we know what we want and take concrete steps to get it, I believe we'll be stronger than if simply play opportunistically.

In a chat yesterday, an idea came up concerning the possibility of funding (with gold) an CDG Immortal rush on GCA. If we convince CDG to build Veteran Warriors and give them the gold for upgrades, there is simply no way that GCA could ever survive the rush. I'm still not sure if this plan is the right one for us, but notice that it, if it were to work, it would be a lot more effective (in terms of reaching goals) than the conservative approach we're adopting now.


Dominae

	06-04-2003 10:15									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen Option #5: Flexible diplomacy based on cost-benefit analysis Life is a trade-off, so is diplomacy. There is no way our actions will not generate some negative reaction. The solution is to reach the point in which the benefits of our actions exceed the costs. Thus, instead of setting up a general guideline of what our diplomacy will be, we must analyze each situation as it presents itself and choose the right path: whether we will be angels or warmongers or opportunistic, it depends on the time and place. If suddenly we have a golden opportunity to take out one of our enemies, we should take it, if the costs in reputation hit for example are far exceeded by the elimination of a potential threat in the future, we must consider that chance. When we do get to walk down the "dark path", I suggest but always have an ally. Especially if its the same one. Being in a "team" helps you get the upper hand, both militarily and diplomatically. Backstabs and warmongering are not viewed so bad when there are two teams doing it in a coordinated manner. It is for that reason which I have stressed we improve our relations with GCA as much as possible. Find an ally that can tip the scales to your favor, yet not represent a threat either. In the end, I would like the world to view us in three different ways: feared by our enemies, loved by our friends, and respected by everone else. We won't get to this point by going the extremes: angels or warmongers, for example, but by skillfully knowing what strategy to adopt at what time and the only way is by making an objective cost-benefit analysis of each situation as it presents itself. Think of situations, not guidelines, flexibility goes a long way. -MZ

My #4 and your #5 are basically the same. I just focus on the negative aspects of the policy, and you focus on the positive ones.

We obviously shouldn't rule out the possibility of attacking a neighbor if it will give us a large advantage.

On the same note, our neighbors will do the same to us. "Finding an ally to tip the scales in your favor" is much easier said than done. All teams will do what's in their bests interests. If feigning an alliance with you and stabbing you in the back is a way to do so, then that's what will happen.

It's easy to say "let's be flexible yadda yadda," but you have to look at the long-term consequences as well. Depending on what you do, you can avoid a negative reaction. However, rumors of your actions will quickly spread across the world, so you have to be very on top of the FR department making sure no unnecessary repercussions occur. If you do something to make a team suspicious of you at one point, then later on they will be more likely to believe propaganda from other teams about you.

The second the firsts seeds of mistrust are planted, you go down a very dark road...

	06-04-2003 10:22									#10
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Trip, you forgot to mention that one of the drawbacks of the "warmonger" approach is fewer trading opportunities. If we were alone with CDG on this Jungle-infested rock, it would be suicide not to cooperate. The same applies to a lesser degree the more civs are around. With 4 civs in our geographic neighbourhood, there are enough of us that wars need not put any of us behind too far technologically (except the target!). I take it as granted that we do not ever want to be the target. But, in the interests of competitive tech research, we should keep a few friends around, even if it means sacrificing a momentary advantage.

If any of us do go to war, then the propaganda machine must be turning 24/7. Always announce your actions, or at least explain them to all the other teams not involved in the best and most friendly manner possible. If they hear nothing from you, they will assume you're not considering your actions well, and attacked on a whim. Likewise, if a team attacks you and floats around propaganda that tries to frame you for causing the war, you need to be able to counter that. The longer you let ideas simmer untended in other teams, the more they will be weary of you.

quote: Master Zen, the problem with the cost-benefit analysis approach is that it is impossible to do in practice due to lack of sufficient information (especially regarding the other teams' true intentions or capabilities). Also, I think that by sitting back and reacting to what the other civs do we will invariably lose great diplomatic opportunities. For instance, perhaps CDG and GCA are becoming friendlier and friendlier with every passing turn. If ever we want to create a rift between them, now would be the time. "Letting nature run its course" is safe, but can also be a recipe for disaster. If we know what we want and take concrete steps to get it, I believe we'll be stronger than if simply play opportunistically.

I very much agree with taking concrete steps to do anything diplomatically, though things must be weighed carefully. If CDG and GCA are growing closer and closer, what do we do about it?

quote: In a chat yesterday, an idea came up concerning the possibility of funding (with gold) an CDG Immortal rush on GCA. If we convince CDG to build Veteran Warriors and give them the gold for upgrades, there is simply no way that GCA could ever survive the rush. I'm still not sure if this plan is the right one for us, but notice that it, if it were to work, it would be a lot more effective (in terms of reaching goals) than the conservative approach we're adopting now.

They could also tip GCA off to it, take our money, ally with GCA and use our own resources to help destroy us. If they're as friendly as we fear they might be, then this is more likely than CDG attacking GCA.

We must be very careful who we court with our intentions.

	06-04-2003 10:38									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Trip They could also tip GCA off to it, take our money, ally with GCA and use our own resources to help destroy us. If they're as friendly as we fear they might be, then this is more likely than CDG attacking GCA.

This is exactly why this course of action is highly debatable at this point. But notice that this plan (and its great benefits) is impossible to put into action if we play reactively.

What we would need is an indication that CDG is willing to at least consider the plan without blabbing to GCA, or, alternatively, make the deal appear so good that they could not refuse. At the same time, we would need some sort of insurance from CDG to discourage them from backstabbing us (perhaps a city-gift for the duration of the campaign).


Dominae

	06-04-2003 11:46									#12
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Master Zen, the problem with the cost-benefit analysis approach is that it is impossible to do in practice due to lack of sufficient information (especially regarding the other teams' true intentions or capabilities). Also, I think that by sitting back and reacting to what the other civs do we will invariably lose great diplomatic opportunities. For instance, perhaps CDG and GCA are becoming friendlier and friendlier with every passing turn. If ever we want to create a rift between them, now would be the time. "Letting nature run its course" is safe, but can also be a recipe for disaster. If we know what we want and take concrete steps to get it, I believe we'll be stronger than if simply play opportunistically.

Taking advantage of situations is not being "reactive". When you turn a situation into something favorable you are also turning a series of future events which although can be considered independently are direct results of this behavior. Think of how WW1 led to WW2. A good diplomat has to see how these decisions affect in the long-term and how it may force you to change your "guideline".

From this PoV its easy to see how it may become necessary not to be labeled "opportunistic" (which sounds like being a scoundrel) but rather a right decision-maker. Opportunistic does imply reactiveness but what I'm arguing for is something much deeper than that. It is assesing the geo-strategic situation, and looking for the best solution for the future.

I do agree with you Dominae in that we must start creating rifts between them. I have said it countless times before that we must start telling GCA about CDG's little lies and what not. We would not be lying as these things did occur. I'm also quite certain that CDG's dealings with GCA have not been done in a professional way as we have done perhaps, at least not considering how CDG dealt with us.

When I mentioned "cost-benefit" I did not intend it to sound mathematical or precise as diplomacy is by nature and ambiguous thing (well, we could use game theory... ). I guess it is my instinct as an economist to try and find the most objective manner in solving problems. Cost-benefit is simply making as best an assessment as possible of the problems and advantages of our foreign policy decisions and choosing the best one, no matter if it sounds extreme. We should not be afraid of taking the extremes from time to time if we find them to be better than a more "conventional" approach to things.

quote: In a chat yesterday, an idea came up concerning the possibility of funding (with gold) an CDG Immortal rush on GCA. If we convince CDG to build Veteran Warriors and give them the gold for upgrades, there is simply no way that GCA could ever survive the rush. I'm still not sure if this plan is the right one for us, but notice that it, if it were to work, it would be a lot more effective (in terms of reaching goals) than the conservative approach we're adopting now. Dominae

Financing CDG against GCA is opportunistic. But it is not wise and represents a longer term threat. Cost=financing a war machine which can be turned against us, Benefit=wiping out GCA, a potential long-term ally against not only CDG but CFC if they exist. Not worth it IMO.

I would disagree in the long run as we would be financing a continental superpower who could just as easily turn against us, and has in fact a greater incentive to do so than to attack GCA. If anything CDG will probably try and get GCA against us.

I think GCA is the deciding factor here, we MUST get them on our side if things with CDG start getting ugly. Financing CDG's war machine is very similar to what the USSR did with the Nazi-Soviet pact and look where it got them... never hope for peace, or ally too long with madmen.

	06-04-2003 12:32									#13
	Inflate your Upload Space

Zen: I agree with your conclusions. I think we are basically advocating the same things, just in different ways.

I feel we must make sure we appear to be as honest as we can. I've found that from either blabbermouthing or just good guessing from past experience, teams will usually either figure out what you're doing, or have strong suspicious that you're up to no good even if you're not. If we go and tell GCA that CDG is lying to us, and GCA tells CDG about this, then what does that do to our short (and long) term relationship with CDG? What if CDG then secretly rushes GCA with Immortals, and takes them out? Now we have a very angry neighbor to our south, flushed with victory and nothing for their Immortals to do but pick their noses or pound on us.

	06-04-2003 23:47									#14
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Dominae In a chat yesterday, an idea came up concerning the possibility of funding (with gold) an CDG Immortal rush on GCA. If we convince CDG to build Veteran Warriors and give them the gold for upgrades, there is simply no way that GCA could ever survive the rush.

That sounds like George Bush funding Osama against the Russian invasion, IMHO.

	07-04-2003 02:10									#15
	Got spare money?

Dang, double-post.

Last edited by Dominae on 07-04-2003 at 02:16

	07-04-2003 02:15									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Why would they be more likely to turn on us if we give them gold for upgrades? We could do the gold transfer in two stages: one to give them enough gold for upgrades of, say, 3-5 Immortals, the second enough gold to upgrade sufficient Immortals to finish the job. The catch would be that they would have to declare war (on GCA!) between stage 1 and stage 2. If they're really interested in expanding their power on our continent, they would be better off completing both stages. On our side, we would be under no commitment to participate in the war, meaning we could focus on economic matters while other teams are fighting it out.


Dominae

	07-04-2003 02:24									#17
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Why would they be more likely to turn on us if we give them gold for upgrades? We could do the gold transfer in two stages: one to give them enough gold for upgrades of, say, 3-5 Immortals, the second enough gold to upgrade sufficient Immortals to finish the job. The catch would be that they would have to declare war (on GCA!) between stage 1 and stage 2. If they're really interested in expanding their power on our continent, they would be better off completing both stages. On our side, we would be under no commitment to participate in the war, meaning we could focus on economic matters while other teams are fighting it out. Dominae

They'd still be left with a pretty large immortal army which could be used against us later. Consider that such a war would also trigger their GA which would beef them up even more (whereas GCA would not have that advantage). Our GA would be triggered too during war against them but who knows if it would give us enough time to build an adequate defense depending on the size of their immortal army.

Assuming that CDG does not strike us, we still lose out because they just gobbled up GCA's land leaving us with no way of expanding. That, in the long term is not ideal IMO.

If I were CDG the first thing I'd try is is to get GCA allied against us. If they feel GCA is reluctant, they'll probably strike at them first.

	07-04-2003 02:30									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'm with Zen here.

Even if we do convince CDG to go after GCA, meaning we won't have to be directly involved, giving CDG a free hand to the south will greatly upset the balance of power on the continent. GCA will be nullified or destroyed, CDG will become much stronger (and have that Immortal army, and a GA as Zen pointed out), while all that Apolyton gains is the prevention of someone attacking us.

	07-04-2003 02:38									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

If historical precedence serves to makes this clear, imagine that this is Europe during the two world wars. We are obviously playing Britain, trying to secure the balance of power. CDG is Germany and GCA is France.

Aiding CDG would be akin to Britain having financed Germany's war effort against France hoping that it would have given them a respite from being attacked. It doesn't sound too wise looking at it this way since Germany would have attacked them anyway and would have become a huge contiental power. Instead, Britain played it wise, knowing that it would end up fighting a war, but securing the balance of power and thus aided France, the weaker power and lesser long-term threat.

	07-04-2003 02:39									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Consider that one of the alternatives (the main one at this point) is that CDG just attacks us, and I think you'll see why I'm pushing for this idea. Sure, there's a risk that we're "creating a monster", but we'll be monsters too if we 1) stay out of the war (less need for Shields spend on military units), 2) focus on expansion (more Workers = more Jungle cleared = Grasslands = sweetness) and 3) keep our GA for a later date.

I'm not saying this plan is foolproof. But it is the only concrete plan presented thus far that (IMO) has good chances at avoiding a war with CDG. Faint whispers in the ears of CDG and GCA will not cut it, especially given that they're probably already sleeping together (figuratively).


Dominae

	07-04-2003 02:43									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen If historical precedence serves to makes this clear, imagine that this is Europe during the two world wars. We are obviously playing Britain, trying to secure the balance of power. CDG is Germany and GCA is France.

For many reasons, foremost being geographical positioning, France was clearly going to be the first target. But if France and Germany had become friends (as CDG and GCA are probably doing), then the only target (to them) would be England. Which goes to show that this example is not all that applicable in our game.


Dominae

	07-04-2003 02:59									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I didn't put the europe scenario because it is a 100% representation of our own situation, but rather just as a general "idea" on how our alliances can affect us.

If Germany and France had been allied, yes, they would have gone after Britain (which is our own "worst case scenario") , but after that what? Would a triumphant Germany, obviously more powerful than the French, stopped at that or would it have gone against the French right after? If this happened then that is a major reason why France would not want to ally itself with Germany in the first place. Considering each country had terrotorial claims (Alscace-Lorraine, colonies) it was even more unlikely these two countries would get too close. No matter how friendly these two teams are to each other, I cannot help but imagine how foolish GCA would be if they don't consider CGA a threat.

The only reason you ally yourself with a more powerful country is if you are sure they will not stab you in the back. That's what happened to Russia in WW2 and that's what we have to make GCA realize before it's too late for all of us.

	07-04-2003 03:10									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen The only reason you ally yourself with a more powerful country is if you are sure they will not stab you in the back.

As much as you can be sure about anything in diplomacy, I believe the two-stage plan I outlined above would be sweet enough for CDG not to stab us in the back, if they go along with it in the first place.

Clarification: we would, of course, expect to get something back for all the gold we give them. They would have to give us some techs, for example. So its not like we're just creating a monster without helping ourselves out too.

Further note: it's not like CDG would be all-powerful after their conquest of GCA. War, even when one side has Immortals, is expensive. I believe we would end up on top (figuratively speaking) after CDG takes care of GCA, just because we would stay out of it (apart from the cash advance). It's amazing what you can do when all the Shields you would normally spend on military are going somewhere else.


Dominae

	07-04-2003 04:55									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Funding a war for CDG to take GCA's land and make them even more of a threat doesn't sound like a great idea. If we should support any team in a GCA-CDG war it should be GCA. That would more likely keep the teams(GCA & CDG) 'even' with each other, but battered and bruised enough for us to have an advantage over them both.

	07-04-2003 14:19									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Sure, there's a risk that we're "creating a monster", but we'll be monsters too if we 1) stay out of the war ...

No racial pun intended, I hope ..? ;-)

	07-04-2003 23:48									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dominae Clarification: we would, of course, expect to get something back for all the gold we give them. They would have to give us some techs, for example. So its not like we're just creating a monster without helping ourselves out too.

i think gold for tech is a bad idea. Humans despise it when they withhold trading techs for techs. Assuming we are at the same level science wise, ideal trade would be tech for tech, not gold for tech. Unless they specifically ask for gold for their tech, I dont think we should trade tech for gold.