Builder - Conqueror inequality (is there one?)

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Builder - Conqueror inequality (is there one?)

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Builder - Conqueror inequality (is there one?)

MajiK6pt5 posted 08-01-99 01:16 AM ET
yeah, I know a lot of people might disagree with this...
Alright, everyone has been whining about the builder-conqueror inequality in SMAC. If you think about it, it should be that way. In real life, no peaceful country ever got rich and big living next to warring countries. The US and most of Europe are so well off because there are no warring countries big enough to threaten them, and they were all warring countries at some point.
If you play a builder game (like I try to), you have to get more powerful than the opponents in tech and resources, while keeping them off your back by keeping them happy by giving them some tech, money, etc (not too much). Then you just pick a time to either attack and wipe them out quickly (if you must), or (this is the better solution) just wait until you are a lot more powerful than them, and then you won't even have to worry about them. I think that this is realistic because if you have violent neighbors, it is rather hard for a peaceful nation to exist.
SMACTrek posted 08-01-99 04:23 AM ET
My gripe is that the AI always uses conquerfest and infinite cities tactics. Leave them alone for a while, and they'll come after you. If they don't plant a city off your coast to keep planes in first.
They demand tech, break treaties, provoke wars, etc. instead of simply doing research and building base improvements. The AI gets into suicidal wars, and no matter how far up the power graph you are, they don't quit till they're almost dead.
It makes sense to destroy them before they get really dangerous. This makes for a short game. Armies need support, so you should build one early, crush all enemies, then disband and win.
Usually chaos, fusion, and shard weapons appear by the time the others are knocked out of contention. Much of the tech tree isn't even reached before the AI loses its death struggle.
If the AI were a smarter enemy, it would build base improvements and try to chase you in the tech race. At the very least, the smarter play would make them less susceptible to mass armies with better tech.
It's too easy.
player2 posted 08-01-99 03:09 PM ET
For more info on the builder/conqueror "gripe," check out the TI threads. There are some good arguments for both sides, but everyone seems to universally echo what you just said; builders CAN exist, but only when they are not near any threatening neighbors.
Ambro2000 posted 08-01-99 07:10 PM ET
Actually it is possible for a peaceful nation to get rich and be a "builder" even when they have powerful countries living next door!
Look at Sweden for example. We have had the strongest economical growth this century only Japan have had a better one. And this is with a somewhat weak army and the former Sovjet Union as a close neibour.(only Finland between) No allies, no other country have had the dury too intervene if Sweden would be attacked since we are(were?) neutral etc etc...!
Sorry, I just wanted too point out that it actually is possible for a country to survive as a peaceful builder in the real world.

Ambro2000
Zoetrope posted 08-01-99 08:25 PM ET
Switzerland is perhaps the most striking example of a small, peaceful nation prospering though surrounded by powerful and aggressive neighbors.
That the loosely structured Swiss Confederation has succeeded in maintaining independence and neutrality since the 1200's, while the Austrian empire from which it seceded grew greatly in both strength and territory, and also through many centuries of ideological conflict, is, to the best of my knowledge, without parallel. I'd love to understand how they've achieved it.
Unfortunately, it's hard to see even the most brilliant diplomacy saving a tiny faction in SMAC. Therefore SMAC lacks something that's obviously very fun in the real world, because cold, mountainous, ethnically divided Switzerland is both very peaceful and very rich.
OldWarrior_42 posted 08-01-99 11:06 PM ET
One way to find out about how the Swiss have done it would be to ask Aredhran...He would know ...he's Swiss.
Shining1 posted 08-01-99 11:28 PM ET
Ahem. Every historical example tells that the army with superior technology, and/or the country with superior production, wins the war. Numbers are only relevant when these other aspects are even.
North America is a good example. For the Civil war, the southern generals were, generally speaking, tactically superior, but they didn't have the production abilities that the north did. They lost. Then the same thing happened during WWII, after the japanese attack wiped out a large percentage of the american airforce at pearl harbour, the Yanks were able to rebuild that force, retake the pacific, supply troops and equipment to britain for the invasion of europe, and eventually won the war via superior weapons technology (in this case, VASTLY SUPERIOR weapons technology that should scare a sane person sh*tless).
So a game that favours a conquer approach over a long period of time isn't the most realistic. Not to mention the fun aspect...
MajiK6pt5 posted 08-02-99 02:41 AM ET
Shining1: Well, if you have superior weapons and tech in SMAC and are relatively powerful, you can usually stop and defeat a conqueror like Miriam or Santiago (at least I can playing on Thinker).
Colon posted 08-02-99 03:31 AM ET
The British Empire didn't became the British Empire because they conquered a lot, the conquests were result of a strong base, a strong and stable economy. The imperialism age was result of the industrial revolution and following economical strenght, followed by a increased military power, followed by territorial expansion.
As far as I can see all empires that lasted were based upon a strong foundation at home. (The Mongol Empire desintegrated quite fast for instance, but Rome lasted for centuries, untill the 15th century in a way)
Jaechdan posted 08-02-99 06:53 AM ET
I'll try and cover everything:-
MajiK6pt5 - The complaint isn't that you have to fight wars to grow/survive. The complaint is that you can win by conquering (half) the world very early on. Not just that, but it's the most efficient way to win. Why bother bribing rivals when the same investment put into the military will give you extra cities, extra money and less competition?
SMACTrek - AI uses conquerfest and ICS strategies? Really? I doubt the AI is capable of "strategy".
The conqueror factions are only scary in the first 50 years or so, then things get too much for the AI and it just builds stacks of crud units and shuffles them aimlessly. The builder factions can be trouble later, but are pushovers early - so your early strike plan is only really needed here. I agree the AI factions would live longer if they tried to build rather than starting suicidal wars, but that would let a human build up a tech/production lead and squash them individually, as in CivII.
plater2 - Dead on for human players. However, AI builder factions present a bigger long-term threat than conquerors - so kill them first.
Zoetrope - Actually, the medieval Swiss were some of the biggest militarists going. So much so that the Austrians/French/Italians preferred to hire them as mercenaries rather than fight them.
Shining1 - Sort of true, at least for the age of mass warfare. Before about 1850, technology was rarely an issue, and manpower was more important than production. And a force of high-morale veterans was worth an awful lot of peasant conscripts.
Jaechdan out
Analyst posted 08-02-99 09:37 AM ET
"Before about 1850, technology was rarely an issue . . . "--Jaechdan
Almost too many counter-examples to cite.
At a certain point in time around the mediterranean, who possessed bronze weapons meant everything in warfare. In fact, the history of warfare is mostly a long history of the success of those who develop, via techno-indutrial means, superior tools of warfare.
At a certain point in time in Europe, who possessed gunpowder was everything in warfare. [One of my favorite anecdotes is from a history professor who was touring a specific region in Germany where all of the old castles were in ruins, except for one, which was in perfect shape. The reason why can be found stored away in the pristine castle: a pair of small cannon--the owner was the first on his block to aquire that tech.]
The techno-industrial advantages of Europeans over native americans in the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries certainly had something to do with the course of history that followed their meeting.
In the history of the world, a civilization with infrastructure has seldom fallen prey to one without.
player2 posted 08-02-99 10:23 AM ET
Quick counterpoint:
Analyst - "In the history of the world, a civilization with infrastructure has seldom fallen to one without."
The Roman Empire? Here's a good example of a conqueror with little infrastructure (Mongols & barbarians) overcoming the infrastructurally rich builder (Romans). Well, I guess Dark-builder would be a more appropriate tag for the Romans. (they did use their infrastructure to conqueror their nearby neighbors when it suited them)
Zorak Zoran posted 08-02-99 11:34 AM ET
Player2, I would add to that the Babylonians, Sumerians, Hittites, Mediterranean Arab states, and three different Chinese dynasties.
Analyst, you might want to add the condition "healthy civilization with infrastructure..."
Jaechdan posted 08-02-99 12:40 PM ET
Clarification of what I meant to say - throughout most of history, technological change was so slow that technology was pretty much constant over the length of an average war; i.e. you couldn't win by out-researching the other side. I chose 1850 as my cutoff because from then on new technologies which gave the possessor a BIG military advantage appeared pretty regularly.
Before then, technology (yup, even gunpowder) seems to have had surprisingly little geo-political effect. Most wars were between sides with equivalent technology, and the larger, better organised or more experienced side usually won. When technological advances occurred, they tended to spread across the whole region before they came into widespread use.
The successful nations were the ones which could field trained, disciplined soldiers in large numbers (and pay them!), not the ones with the latest gadget.
The exception (as Analyst pointed out) was the Spanish conquest of Central & South America, when they met people 2000 years behind them in military technology (the decisive factor was neither gunpowder nor horses, but metal armour, which made the Spanish virtually unkillable). In North America, European numbers, European organisation & European diseases had a much greater effect than technological differences.
I agree with Analyst's main point - infrastructure (including social and economic structures) was the dominating feature. But infrastructure is not another word for technology.
Jaechdan
Zorak Zoran posted 08-02-99 01:47 PM ET
I agree that technology was generally the same between warring nations (with New World exceptions granted). However, there are examples of a relatively minor technological advancement having great "geo-political effect".
Longbow: Agincourt, Crecy and Poitiers are all documented examples of the effectiveness of this technology. If these victories had been accompanied by proper management, the English might have retained their lands in France, but that's not the longbow's fault.
Stirup: The geo-political effect of this invention was simply that the nomadic people that possessed it generally wiped out those that did not.
Railroad: Although both the Union and Confederate armies made use of railroad to support their logistical efforts, the Union's destruction of this vital resource in the South was key to their eventual victory. This is a case of one side denying the use of a technology to their enemy, which I would argue is the same as not possessing the technology at all.
Speaking of anecdotal evidence, I recall reading a bit of research on the first Portugese warships that reached the Indian Ocean. These three ships managed to bring the local Arab governments to their knees simply because they could blow any Arab ship out of the water.
MajiK6pt5 posted 08-02-99 03:15 PM ET
Jaechdan: Well, SMAC doesn't last for millenia, and the Romans and Greeks (and many others) had huge empires for several centuries, so basically you could compare them to any of the three (Yang, Miriam, Santiago) conqueror factions in SMAC because Yang uses industry to build huge amounts of troops (like the ancients), Santiago uses morale (like them too), and Miriam is just crazy and gets that believing bonus and she just builds military for the fun of it.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Builder - Conqueror inequality (is there one?)
MajiK6pt5	posted 08-01-99 01:16 AM ET yeah, I know a lot of people might disagree with this... Alright, everyone has been whining about the builder-conqueror inequality in SMAC. If you think about it, it should be that way. In real life, no peaceful country ever got rich and big living next to warring countries. The US and most of Europe are so well off because there are no warring countries big enough to threaten them, and they were all warring countries at some point. If you play a builder game (like I try to), you have to get more powerful than the opponents in tech and resources, while keeping them off your back by keeping them happy by giving them some tech, money, etc (not too much). Then you just pick a time to either attack and wipe them out quickly (if you must), or (this is the better solution) just wait until you are a lot more powerful than them, and then you won't even have to worry about them. I think that this is realistic because if you have violent neighbors, it is rather hard for a peaceful nation to exist.
SMACTrek	posted 08-01-99 04:23 AM ET My gripe is that the AI always uses conquerfest and infinite cities tactics. Leave them alone for a while, and they'll come after you. If they don't plant a city off your coast to keep planes in first. They demand tech, break treaties, provoke wars, etc. instead of simply doing research and building base improvements. The AI gets into suicidal wars, and no matter how far up the power graph you are, they don't quit till they're almost dead. It makes sense to destroy them before they get really dangerous. This makes for a short game. Armies need support, so you should build one early, crush all enemies, then disband and win. Usually chaos, fusion, and shard weapons appear by the time the others are knocked out of contention. Much of the tech tree isn't even reached before the AI loses its death struggle. If the AI were a smarter enemy, it would build base improvements and try to chase you in the tech race. At the very least, the smarter play would make them less susceptible to mass armies with better tech. It's too easy.
player2	posted 08-01-99 03:09 PM ET For more info on the builder/conqueror "gripe," check out the TI threads. There are some good arguments for both sides, but everyone seems to universally echo what you just said; builders CAN exist, but only when they are not near any threatening neighbors.
Ambro2000	posted 08-01-99 07:10 PM ET Actually it is possible for a peaceful nation to get rich and be a "builder" even when they have powerful countries living next door! Look at Sweden for example. We have had the strongest economical growth this century only Japan have had a better one. And this is with a somewhat weak army and the former Sovjet Union as a close neibour.(only Finland between) No allies, no other country have had the dury too intervene if Sweden would be attacked since we are(were?) neutral etc etc...! Sorry, I just wanted too point out that it actually is possible for a country to survive as a peaceful builder in the real world. Ambro2000
Zoetrope	posted 08-01-99 08:25 PM ET Switzerland is perhaps the most striking example of a small, peaceful nation prospering though surrounded by powerful and aggressive neighbors. That the loosely structured Swiss Confederation has succeeded in maintaining independence and neutrality since the 1200's, while the Austrian empire from which it seceded grew greatly in both strength and territory, and also through many centuries of ideological conflict, is, to the best of my knowledge, without parallel. I'd love to understand how they've achieved it. Unfortunately, it's hard to see even the most brilliant diplomacy saving a tiny faction in SMAC. Therefore SMAC lacks something that's obviously very fun in the real world, because cold, mountainous, ethnically divided Switzerland is both very peaceful and very rich.
OldWarrior_42	posted 08-01-99 11:06 PM ET One way to find out about how the Swiss have done it would be to ask Aredhran...He would know ...he's Swiss.
Shining1	posted 08-01-99 11:28 PM ET Ahem. Every historical example tells that the army with superior technology, and/or the country with superior production, wins the war. Numbers are only relevant when these other aspects are even. North America is a good example. For the Civil war, the southern generals were, generally speaking, tactically superior, but they didn't have the production abilities that the north did. They lost. Then the same thing happened during WWII, after the japanese attack wiped out a large percentage of the american airforce at pearl harbour, the Yanks were able to rebuild that force, retake the pacific, supply troops and equipment to britain for the invasion of europe, and eventually won the war via superior weapons technology (in this case, VASTLY SUPERIOR weapons technology that should scare a sane person sh*tless). So a game that favours a conquer approach over a long period of time isn't the most realistic. Not to mention the fun aspect...
MajiK6pt5	posted 08-02-99 02:41 AM ET Shining1: Well, if you have superior weapons and tech in SMAC and are relatively powerful, you can usually stop and defeat a conqueror like Miriam or Santiago (at least I can playing on Thinker).
Colon	posted 08-02-99 03:31 AM ET The British Empire didn't became the British Empire because they conquered a lot, the conquests were result of a strong base, a strong and stable economy. The imperialism age was result of the industrial revolution and following economical strenght, followed by a increased military power, followed by territorial expansion. As far as I can see all empires that lasted were based upon a strong foundation at home. (The Mongol Empire desintegrated quite fast for instance, but Rome lasted for centuries, untill the 15th century in a way)
Jaechdan	posted 08-02-99 06:53 AM ET I'll try and cover everything:- MajiK6pt5 - The complaint isn't that you have to fight wars to grow/survive. The complaint is that you can win by conquering (half) the world very early on. Not just that, but it's the most efficient way to win. Why bother bribing rivals when the same investment put into the military will give you extra cities, extra money and less competition? SMACTrek - AI uses conquerfest and ICS strategies? Really? I doubt the AI is capable of "strategy". The conqueror factions are only scary in the first 50 years or so, then things get too much for the AI and it just builds stacks of crud units and shuffles them aimlessly. The builder factions can be trouble later, but are pushovers early - so your early strike plan is only really needed here. I agree the AI factions would live longer if they tried to build rather than starting suicidal wars, but that would let a human build up a tech/production lead and squash them individually, as in CivII. plater2 - Dead on for human players. However, AI builder factions present a bigger long-term threat than conquerors - so kill them first. Zoetrope - Actually, the medieval Swiss were some of the biggest militarists going. So much so that the Austrians/French/Italians preferred to hire them as mercenaries rather than fight them. Shining1 - Sort of true, at least for the age of mass warfare. Before about 1850, technology was rarely an issue, and manpower was more important than production. And a force of high-morale veterans was worth an awful lot of peasant conscripts. Jaechdan out
Analyst	posted 08-02-99 09:37 AM ET "Before about 1850, technology was rarely an issue . . . "--Jaechdan Almost too many counter-examples to cite. At a certain point in time around the mediterranean, who possessed bronze weapons meant everything in warfare. In fact, the history of warfare is mostly a long history of the success of those who develop, via techno-indutrial means, superior tools of warfare. At a certain point in time in Europe, who possessed gunpowder was everything in warfare. [One of my favorite anecdotes is from a history professor who was touring a specific region in Germany where all of the old castles were in ruins, except for one, which was in perfect shape. The reason why can be found stored away in the pristine castle: a pair of small cannon--the owner was the first on his block to aquire that tech.] The techno-industrial advantages of Europeans over native americans in the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries certainly had something to do with the course of history that followed their meeting. In the history of the world, a civilization with infrastructure has seldom fallen prey to one without.
player2	posted 08-02-99 10:23 AM ET Quick counterpoint: Analyst - "In the history of the world, a civilization with infrastructure has seldom fallen to one without." The Roman Empire? Here's a good example of a conqueror with little infrastructure (Mongols & barbarians) overcoming the infrastructurally rich builder (Romans). Well, I guess Dark-builder would be a more appropriate tag for the Romans. (they did use their infrastructure to conqueror their nearby neighbors when it suited them)
Zorak Zoran	posted 08-02-99 11:34 AM ET Player2, I would add to that the Babylonians, Sumerians, Hittites, Mediterranean Arab states, and three different Chinese dynasties. Analyst, you might want to add the condition "healthy civilization with infrastructure..."
Jaechdan	posted 08-02-99 12:40 PM ET Clarification of what I meant to say - throughout most of history, technological change was so slow that technology was pretty much constant over the length of an average war; i.e. you couldn't win by out-researching the other side. I chose 1850 as my cutoff because from then on new technologies which gave the possessor a BIG military advantage appeared pretty regularly. Before then, technology (yup, even gunpowder) seems to have had surprisingly little geo-political effect. Most wars were between sides with equivalent technology, and the larger, better organised or more experienced side usually won. When technological advances occurred, they tended to spread across the whole region before they came into widespread use. The successful nations were the ones which could field trained, disciplined soldiers in large numbers (and pay them!), not the ones with the latest gadget. The exception (as Analyst pointed out) was the Spanish conquest of Central & South America, when they met people 2000 years behind them in military technology (the decisive factor was neither gunpowder nor horses, but metal armour, which made the Spanish virtually unkillable). In North America, European numbers, European organisation & European diseases had a much greater effect than technological differences. I agree with Analyst's main point - infrastructure (including social and economic structures) was the dominating feature. But infrastructure is not another word for technology. Jaechdan
Zorak Zoran	posted 08-02-99 01:47 PM ET I agree that technology was generally the same between warring nations (with New World exceptions granted). However, there are examples of a relatively minor technological advancement having great "geo-political effect". Longbow: Agincourt, Crecy and Poitiers are all documented examples of the effectiveness of this technology. If these victories had been accompanied by proper management, the English might have retained their lands in France, but that's not the longbow's fault. Stirup: The geo-political effect of this invention was simply that the nomadic people that possessed it generally wiped out those that did not. Railroad: Although both the Union and Confederate armies made use of railroad to support their logistical efforts, the Union's destruction of this vital resource in the South was key to their eventual victory. This is a case of one side denying the use of a technology to their enemy, which I would argue is the same as not possessing the technology at all. Speaking of anecdotal evidence, I recall reading a bit of research on the first Portugese warships that reached the Indian Ocean. These three ships managed to bring the local Arab governments to their knees simply because they could blow any Arab ship out of the water.
MajiK6pt5	posted 08-02-99 03:15 PM ET Jaechdan: Well, SMAC doesn't last for millenia, and the Romans and Greeks (and many others) had huge empires for several centuries, so basically you could compare them to any of the three (Yang, Miriam, Santiago) conqueror factions in SMAC because Yang uses industry to build huge amounts of troops (like the ancients), Santiago uses morale (like them too), and Miriam is just crazy and gets that believing bonus and she just builds military for the fun of it.