I'm not sure I'm ready to burn my bridges with CivPlayers yet.
There is one big trouble with going for an alliance with a team against another, and that is that it lessens diplomatic flexibility. Just see how us accepting WPC's idea of a 2v1 against the German team has impacted us:
It forced us into a poor agreement with CFC so we could secure our eastern border
It has forced us to come close to betraying a team that was starting to turn around, and was really helpful to us
It forced us into a path for a war on T150, when we could have continued for a while with peaceful expansion (mostly crappy cities, yes) and economic growth
I'm not saying it was a bad decision at the time, or even a wrong decision, but it has had a huge impact on how we've approached the game and forced short- and medium-term decisions that weren't optimal for us, in the hope for a long-term gain.
Sounding off Univers on CFC is a good idea, especially if Univers can get a reasonably modern army in the field on T150, and since we're now in cold war mode with CFC. But we need to be a lot more careful with CivPlayers and CivFr - we need to keep their expectations realistic, that we are trying to keep peace with CivPlayers, and that we would prefer to not go to war with them, if we can avoid it.
But I can see us signing a mutual protection pact with CivFr regarding CivPlayers, and one with WPC and Univers regarding CFC, to be triggered if those teams declare war to the signatories.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
I'm not proposing we send that anytime in the next few days or that it even signals a bridge burning. I want us to have maximum present-day flexibility and leverage. Our hypothetical threat to CivPlayers (if they reject us and we go that harsher route) carries a lot more weight if CivFr is considering joining in.
And of course we wouldn't be able to roll through CivPlayers in 5T. However, given the state of their soldier counts and the fact that their whips are piling into infrastructure right now, they have no real military to speak of. Razing 1-2 cities in 5T would not be a stretch if the German war goes quickly. Yes that's also a big "if," but we need to plan for all possible outcomes rather than just the most likely.
As an aside from the scheming: well done, Scooter! Even if you can't avert the dogpile, knowing with 25 turns warning that it'll be happening and who's involved is a major diplomatic victory. I guarantee it's easier to defend against than a surprise.
I don't have any strong opinions on how hard to push, or when. I can see arguments for starting right away, or for waiting until we have accomplishments to point out.
But... In any event, the brainpower of the team ought to be focused as much as possible on making the current war work out. I'm sure that'll do a lot more for Scooter than giving him suggestions on grammar .
The more conservative way of contacting CivFr would be to say something vaguely like "hey, we've got several mutual neighbors, do you guys have any interest in carving one up at some point?" and see how they respond.
That commits us to nothing (if we are forced into playing full-time defense which seems pretty likely), and it also potentially gets them talking without giving anything away. It lets us segue into "so take CivPlayers for example" if things continue heading that way.
I would be even more conservative dealing with CivFr. For example, we can say that we'd like to work with them and that being far from each other it makes sense for mutual benefit.
That is a bit for aggressive, we don't have to rush this, we have 5 turns with 2 simul-wars going on. Might as well start with something simpler that isn't so heavy on the idioms.
Like I said earlier, making it look like we've partnered up will be a bigger deal with CP. If you can sow the seeds that we and CivFR are on good terms in a visible way then they'll have to reconsider how the world works. I mean, how the crap are they supposed to know our agreements with CivFR unless CivFR tells them? Besides, you want to intimidate them and play with their heads rather than coming back in 5 turns and saying "Hey, we've been talking to CivFR about carving you up because you were floating off to CFC's side, why do you do what's in our best interests and therefore yours and be our friends (with a gun pointed to your head)" right?
And if we can get CivFR to be nice with us rather than knowing we are appealing to them as a mercenary, all the better.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
(June 5th, 2013, 12:54)Mardoc Wrote: But... In any event, the brainpower of the team ought to be focused as much as possible on making the current war work out. I'm sure that'll do a lot more for Scooter than giving him suggestions on grammar .
Hey! I haven't done that in a while!
In all seriousness, I haven't commented a lot because I'm quite pleased with scooter's work.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
CivFR is a contender to win this game and it is not in their interest for CFC/CIVPlayers to carve us out. But they will be interested, if CFC and us fight to a standstill. I think they would be interested in fighting CIVPlayers, if they think both CFC and CP can win a fight against us.
How do we play this; We should say that we can stop CFC on one on one, but we would have issues fighting multiple teams and CFC would become be the ultimate winner....
1) Warm up to CivFR, ask about what they think of CP allying with CFC and prod them to see if they are planning on attacking 'a mutual neighbor'
2) If they remain tight lipped, then reason with them that because both CFC and we are expanding but they are not, they will be left behind.
3) Claim to CP that CivFR is looking to fight a war with them but we'll offer to protect them and intimidate them with a CivFR alliance if they are stubborn.
4) If CP says yes, ally with CP, if they say no, actually go forward with CivFR in planning a CP war.
That actually seems like a good foreign policy but assumes that CivFR won't just ignore us.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
(June 5th, 2013, 13:22)MWIN Wrote: CivFR is a contender to win this game and it is not in their interest for CFC/CIVPlayers to carve us out. But they will be interested, if CFC and us fight to a standstill. I think they would be interested in fighting CIVPlayers, if they think both CFC and CP can win a fight against us.
I would disagree with your first sentence, which is why I don't want to admit we might get 2v1'd. If I was CivFr and I found out the chief threat to win (us) was about to be stuck in a 2 front war, I'd happily let that go while continuing to tech in peace. Geez, I'd probably offer to contribute random 2-movers to CivPlayers for that matter. The reality is we can probably handle a 2v1 just due to our defense bonuses, but it'll slow us down enough to make this game pretty wide open.
A much more likely motivation for them to be on our side is the attractiveness of getting a big chunk of fairly well-developed land from a distracted neighbor.
.
