Do all attacks warrant destruction?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In scanning the guides and game commentaries under each, I note the tendency of many players to respond to any attack from another faction (not just cases where the faction repeatedly hammers your territory) by destroying the attacking faction root and branch -- even if this takes them beyond readily defensible borders or even if it alters their chosen strategic direction of development.

Is this simply appropriate opportunism or is it an emotional reaction to being attacked? Is the only appropriate response to attack annihilation? If this was occuring in a workable MP strategy game, it would strike me that such reactions could be very self-defeating.

Thoughts?

SF

[Siris]

Well in my Greek campaign, I'm viewing it as basically, if you are not Greek, then you are our enemies, or have to be converted to the Faith!

So, all who stand against the Faith, will be killed without mercy, burned to death if possible, i.e.: enemy soliders.

However, when an enemy city falls, I'll choose to either exterminate the mass majority, claiming them as the ones who could not be converted to the Faith, & the survivors were the ones who embrached it as their own.

Or, I'll choose to enslave them, claiming them as all embraced the Faith as their own, & went on pilgramige to the other cities to live in their luxury while their previous settlement gets an overhaul in construction.

At the start, I slaughtered them all, but the increaseing need for soliders (Huge unit settings) has required, that I enslave them, but to me, enslaving is just having them all accept the Greek Faith as their own & going to the other luxury cities.

My population is soaring nearly over 300,000 now, I surpassed Egypt's 250,000 in one turn with over 30,000 new belivers, mostly Romans from their three major Julii cities I just caputured.

Its a little role playing, but its fun as heck. Kind of like "The Chronicales of Riddick" movie reinactment, but its very fun!

So, in answering your question, all who arent Greeks, will be converted, or conquered.

[Red Harvest]

Once a faction attacks you, it seems impossible to get any real peace from them. Best to mop them up expeditiously.

[CBR]

In my RTR campaign I got rid of the Greeks and Carthaginians in Italy and Sicily and managed to get a peace with them. But the northern barbarians just want to fight to the last it seems.

I have so far gone for limited goals as I dont want to get too far away from Rome as well as I want to see how other factions are doing in battles. One city acts as buffer against Gauls and Germans and another city against Sarmatians and Illyrians.


CBR

[Oaty]

Once a faction attacks you, it seems impossible to get any real peace from them. Best to mop them up expeditiously.

True sieze fires can be quite annoying, considering quite often they won't last more than a few turns and sometimes not even a full turn.

But the A.I. can be exploited into peaceful terms, especially if your a non-roman. And this does not involve the save/reload bug.

Take a province or 2 and request a ceasefire. If you take more than 2 it is quite unlikely you can get the A.I. to peaceful terms. Of course if you were looking at the factions destruction then keep trucking along.

[Conqueror]

The only way you'll have lasting peace other than by going for total destruction is by forcing the neighbouring factions to become protectorates.

[Colovion]

the diplomacy doesn't allow relations to improve much, if at all. Best to just fight where you're forced to.

[magnum]

In short? Yes. Any act of aggression results in the extermination of the people (faction) initiating the aggression. On VH any peace you might obtain will be at best very temporary. Better to eliminate them and not have to worry about it than make/accept a peace that will break simply because a butterfly flapped its wings in China.

[Ciaran]

Is this simply appropriate opportunism or is it an emotional reaction to being attacked? Is the only appropriate response to attack annihilation? If this was occuring in a workable MP strategy game, it would strike me that such reactions could be very self-defeating.

Thoughts?

SF

As the AI is very reluctant to make peace, as has already been mentioned, destruction is usually the best way to stop any attacks, if they don´t accept protectorate status.
I would prefer if the AI chose to become protectorate more often than it does, because it makes no sense to me to fight to the death.
In multiplayer, now that might be hard to answer. In the interest of a long-going game, making peace would make sense, but when real people are involved things can get really nasty - I know from experience. There´s always the chance that one feels the need to show his superiority. There´s a reason for pride being one of of the Seven Cardinal Sins

[Papewaio]

I will tend to wipe out someone who has started a war.

As the AI does rarely make peace I will accept it if my borders are minimised... no odd lone provinces sticking out that are hard to defend ...althought it is not such a big thing in RTW... I still find it easier to defend using other cities for support and depth of armies to slow down a rapid advancement and give myself time to redeploy.

To build up my main cities I will occasionaly enslave enemy ones. If a city rebels once and not because of my stupidity... then I will enslave it on the recapture... if it rebels twice, I will then exterminate it, remove all military buildings and make it a place of learning.

[Deus ret.]

As for me, I also think crushing the opposition usually is the best way to restore order to your border regions (except maybe in case of factions like the Greeks who have cities scattered all over the map) because if you don't make peace after you have just begun to hurt the enemy (i.e. rather at the beginning of the war), you won't get one until they or you are vanquished.

Basically the whole game is one grand state of war, as AI allies are very prone to (idiotically) break the alliance with a player even while in an unfavorable strategic position. However allies can be kept nevertheless:
1) by staying far away from them and
2) by maintaining decently-sized border armies. ....which is as good as being at war with them.

Thus, wiping enemies off the map is usually the best thing to do peace-wise. Of course strategic considerations may change this attitude in some cases.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As the AI is very reluctant to make peace, as has already been mentioned, destruction is usually the best way to stop any attacks, if they don´t accept protectorate status.
I would prefer if the AI chose to become protectorate more often than it does, because it makes no sense to me to fight to the death.
In multiplayer, now that might be hard to answer. In the interest of a long-going game, making peace would make sense, but when real people are involved things can get really nasty - I know from experience. There´s always the chance that one feels the need to show his superiority. There´s a reason for pride being one of of the Seven Cardinal Sins

I've gotten some great feedback on part "A," but you're the first to really tackle part "B."

My bet is that MP strategy would be a LOT hairier.

If you, Cia', are expanding solidly with Macedonia -- say you've crunched Thrace and are well on your way to consolidating Greece -- and then my Pontics sense a local advantage and take Bythnia from you, how much incentive do you have not only to retake Bythnia but to leap after me across the top of Asia Minor? You'd probably take me, since you've more battlefield time than I and Macedon has a slightly better army balance than Pontus, right? But I bet you'd think twice about extending yourself past Bythnia if Pez' was the one running Dacia at the time my Pontics tried this.

Probably too slow an AI to set it up that way though, alas -- I think it would be a hoot.

SF

[pezhetairoi]

Not true, Seamus... the way I play is one army, one theatre. Or more than one army, perhaps. So the only reason I'd be in Asia Minor, with a crap barbarian navy, would be because I had a grand army there. So if I was attacked there by Pontus I would have no qualms about extending past Bithynia, since it isn't defensible at all. I would, rather, take Ancyra to consolidate, and the fortify the river fords west of Sinope and Mazaka. That's more my idea of a defensible frontier. Or if I felt like it, I might even extend my conquests to Sinope and Mazaka, giving me the Armenian mountian passes as a defence system.

That's assuming, of course, the Seleucids were not hostile. That's also assuming, of course, that Pontus did not send a fullstack at me that somehow managed to take out more than 30% of my army (a rare occurrence by any non-human-opponent standards). These assumptions holding, I wouldn't think twice about extending myself past Bithynia. Especially not since I have the Awesome! Power! of! Diplomats!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not true, Seamus... the way I play is one army, one theatre. Or more than one army, perhaps. So the only reason I'd be in Asia Minor, with a crap barbarian navy, would be because I had a grand army there. So if I was attacked there by Pontus I would have no qualms about extending past Bithynia, since it isn't defensible at all. I would, rather, take Ancyra to consolidate, and the fortify the river fords west of Sinope and Mazaka. That's more my idea of a defensible frontier. Or if I felt like it, I might even extend my conquests to Sinope and Mazaka, giving me the Armenian mountian passes as a defence system.

That's assuming, of course, the Seleucids were not hostile. That's also assuming, of course, that Pontus did not send a fullstack at me that somehow managed to take out more than 30% of my army (a rare occurrence by any non-human-opponent standards). These assumptions holding, I wouldn't think twice about extending myself past Bithynia. Especially not since I have the Awesome! Power! of! Diplomats!

Understood. I was really just trying to highlight that, against multiple human opponents, crushing an opponent utterly may risk overextension and someone else taking advantage. Against the computer, you just aren't running the same risk.

[Feanaro]

The only peace I have for an attacker is the peace of grave, the only reconciliation I give comes from the tip of a sword. My truce is the accord between conqueror and conquered, my union is that of master and slave, the only repose I offer is death. If someone dares to destroy, or attempt to destory, that which is mine I will destroy them unto the last man. I will burn their houses, sow their fields with salt, and make music from the lamentations of their women.

All "in character" waxings aside(), I generally outright destory an attacking faction, if it is practical. When you are fighting a war already it is often in your best interest to bloody them a little and then try to make peace. Unfortunately peace is hard to keep. The slippery barbarians are dishonest and dishonorable, they will start the war anew if allowed the opportunity. So you simply deny them the ability by having such a nasty garrison that they cannot take, or would not want to try to take, your cities.