Welcome to the Commander's post. As you know, this is traditionaly the Military Leader's possition in previous demogames.

Commander of the Armed Forces: CivGeneral
Deputy Commander of the Armed Forces: ali


Military Information As of 175 B.C.E.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/DG6_BC175_MilAdvThumb.jpg (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/DG6_BC175_MilAdv.jpg)
(Click on thumbnail for larger view)

id like to be elected to something in the military branch but im lost on how all that works.. i just joined today

id like to be elected to something in the military branch but im lost on how all that works.. i just joined today
Unfortunately, you missed the elections process :(. The way it works is that you nominate yourself or someone nominates you, then you go through the polls and vote for other people. More information is found in the election office.

well.. crap... but i think im learning the basics of whats goin on.. the next elections wont be until when though? and has the game acually been started yet or not until tomorrow (march 1st)? like i said, im lost cause i just joined earlier today. thnx

we may be developing some sub-departemnts for the defence dept......i have a few ideas civgeneral

what are your plans for early expansion?

Perhaps that question would be better answered in the thread of Director of Expansion Office

Unfortunately, you missed the elections process :(. The way it works is that you nominate yourself or someone nominates you, then you go through the polls and vote for other people. More information is found in the election office.

Just do what I did and make up positions :p

what are your plans for early expansion?
My plans are as follows.

1. Generate cheap units to be used for exploritory and senturies to exstend our POV to minimize any barbarian settelment. (No preferance on ranking)

2. Persuade the Scientific department to make a "B-line" for Bronze Working and Iron Working to obtain spearmen and swordsmen (and also to gain access to iron resources).

3. Ensure that settlers will have an escourt so that they do not fall prey to the barbarians.

4. Defensive units, I do wish to see Vet spearmen to be produced, since the governor(s) have espressed disintrest in building barracks, I would have to persuade them to build them for the porpouse of poping out vet units now and in the future.

5. I plan during the Iron age to build vet warriors in an city that is void of any iron connection and upgrade him in a city with access to both barracks and iron. This plan however is still in the works since we do need Iron and our region fully explored.

Marines Reporting For Duty Sir!!!!

down in the jungle where the green grass grows
an elephant steped on a skeeters nose
the skeeter looked up with tears in his eyes
he said 'i'd kill you motherf*cker but you aint my size

my corps your corps hard core MARINE CORPS!!!!!!!!!

My plans are as follows.

1. Generate cheap units to be used for exploritory and senturies to exstend our POV to minimize any barbarian settelment. (No preferance on ranking)

2. Persuade the Scientific department to make a "B-line" for Bronze Working and Iron Working to obtain spearmen and swordsmen (and also to gain access to iron resources).

3. Ensure that settlers will have an escourt so that they do not fall prey to the barbarians.

4. Defensive units, I do wish to see Vet spearmen to be produced, since the governor(s) have espressed disintrest in building barracks, I would have to persuade them to build them for the porpouse of poping out vet units now and in the future.

5. I plan during the Iron age to build vet warriors in an city that is void of any iron connection and upgrade him in a city with access to both barracks and iron. This plan however is still in the works since we do need Iron and our region fully explored.
Sounds alright. Is there anything I can do to... "encourage" your wishes to be granted?

My plans are as follows.

1. Generate cheap units to be used for exploritory and senturies to exstend our POV to minimize any barbarian settelment. (No preferance on ranking)

2. Persuade the Scientific department to make a "B-line" for Bronze Working and Iron Working to obtain spearmen and swordsmen (and also to gain access to iron resources).

3. Ensure that settlers will have an escourt so that they do not fall prey to the barbarians.

4. Defensive units, I do wish to see Vet spearmen to be produced, since the governor(s) have espressed disintrest in building barracks, I would have to persuade them to build them for the porpouse of poping out vet units now and in the future.

5. I plan during the Iron age to build vet warriors in an city that is void of any iron connection and upgrade him in a city with access to both barracks and iron. This plan however is still in the works since we do need Iron and our region fully explored.

Your governor respondin to some points:

2. We are Commercial and Seafaring. We start with Alphabet and Pottery. This means we are the closest we can be to both Writing, Philosophy, and Map Making, some very important techs based upon our traits. Even though you are not the science (or equivalent department, I'm still learning the names), don't you think it makes more sense to use our traits to our abilities?

4. Barracks early in the game in the expansion phase when there is lots of room can take up precious shields. For 20 shields more, we can build a granary to speed growth for the expansion, and THEN we can focus on military. In my games, I don't not like to take the military path until the expansion phase has been completed, and there is almost no land left. Also, since we don't really face any threat in the beginning of the game (regular warriors and spears should be able to take care of barbarians), barracks aren't high on my priority as governor.

5. This is ok, but in C3C, upgrades take 60 gold per warrior. That's a lot! If you factor in losing money to AI demands, as well as using money in trades, I doubt we will ever have much gold in the ancient age, and there are better ways to spend it (trades, hurrying if we are a Republic) rather than upgrading, unless we NEED war.

Overall though, I'm looking forward to a good term.

i agree with ginger ale but still you do need military early on.... i like to distroy my surrounding nations when the only have like 3 or 4 citys instead of a well laid out empire.. just my opinion

surrounding nations when the only have i meant **they**

@CoolioVonHoolio - No need to double post. You can use the edit button to make corrections to your post ;).

CG, Sir, I would liek to form two sub-departments for the defence dept. they are the Directorate of Engineering Services and Techical Support (DESTS) and the Defence Material Organisation (DMO). DESTS will control the labour pool in the military, which will consist of Foreign workers who should be under our jurisdication as they will be mostly made up of POW's, its aims will be the construction of roads/rails, forts, etc for the needs of the military. This will minismise the economic and domestic impact of the needs of the military to to the civilian government and in turn the people, by not using the work force of the Doemestic office and thus hamper roads, rail, irragation, etc for public use. The DMO will handle the contract management and constructing of the military, working alongside with both the doemestic office and governors in their prospective provinces on production of the military, this will allow stop from "random" units being constructed and allow a better planning to the developemnt of the military without hampering the civilian needs. In turn allowing more inter-cooperation between the various governmental agencies. This depts. I believe will increase the efficency of both the military and the economy as a whole and allow more cooperation between the governemt.

Ali great initiative, but soon the anarcho-syndicalists howl "WOTP" and "Bureaucrat" after you, I support this move, since I like planning to be thight, focussed and well run.

thanks Provolution appreciate it matey :D btw wat does WOTP stand for?? If CG approves of the above i will broaden the aims of the two....uummm and if apporved it would have two positions opening for any1 interested

2. The First Curragh should head westbound and explore the waters west of us.

Sir Knight-Commander,
I would like to humbly suggest that the first curragh should explore to the east. As you know, we are located in the far south of the map in the Western quarter. I we head westbound we will run out of territory quicker than if we head west. Also, if we head east we have a better chance of finding good coast city sites as it appears that the coast starts going towards the south. If we head west, we are more likely to find more tundra instead of good coastal city sites.

The second curragh can explore west shortly before our first settler will be heading out.

@Thank you for bringing that to my attention and I have changed the instructions

@Ali - Ill look into the possibilities of having sub offices in this department :).

I suggest another department of extreme importance.

As you all know there's a discussion in the Foreign Affairs thread about demands. My opinion is that demands are always a tactical decision which must pass through military analysis before met/conflicted.

Thus, there are other international questions which must be worked along both with the Military and Diplomatic commands, so I suggest having a Department of Military Consulting within the Military Command, working with the Foreign Affairs office.

What do you think?

yep the Defence Material Organisation (DMO) will handle such matters as well in its aims...if it gets approved which I strongly advise that it does and would like Civ General to note that I greatly see the importance of the two mentioned sub-deptments to begin operating

Consul CivGeneral:

Having inspected the state of the nation after 800 years of existence I feel I must voice my concern at your lack of action at this time.

Our newly met adversary by the name of Ghandi had but a single established settlement. He is therefore still building, or has just completed and is now building a spearman escort for his first settler. His armed forces consist of only 6 warriors therefore. Our brave warrior George is located next to Ghandis only two workers and is 10 turns from our own great capital. Ghandi has learned pottery and bronze working. Therefore he has probably met another civilisation with expansionist trait which in turn would mean that we should be able to trade for BW soon.

Such an opportunity is too great to allow to slip through our fingers whilst you trouble yourself with the (albeit onerous) task of establishing your beaurocracy.

Please consider declaration of war with Ghandi before the start of the next turn, capturing the workers in the process. Retreat George to Camelot and lead Ghandis foolish warriors to suicide on our prospective spear. After several of his warriors are dead he will accept peace with us and will likely turn over the newly founded town he will build in the meantime. By turn 25 you have the opportunity to win this game, and yet you discuss ordering paper clips and envelopes.

Having inspected the save for a second time I must ammend a mistake in my previous communication with the consul. It appears that the Indians do not in fact know Bronze working, which would increase the level of risk in my proposed strategy. I would certainly still implement it, but there may now be a case for caution.

I apologise for my error.

How sure can we be that the Indians will give in their newly established city?

I'm not sure. I only know from experience that a Civ will give up a size 1 cultureless city fairly easily to get out of a war. Since Ghandi will keep at least 2 defenders in Delhi we can expect to defend against 4, maybe 5 warriors. If we have a spear and a warrior in Camelot then the spear wins two battles and auto-promotes. Depending on the HP's left then the remaining warriors will either attack, fortify or pillage. However, having captured 2 workers, and destroyed at least a third and maybe half the Indian armed forces - plus the fact that it is our first war with them, they will talk. Workerless they are dead anyway. If we take a city, then happy days - but it is not the point of the war, just the spoils.

The risk is that without BW we will need 3 warriors minimum and we probably won't get the auto-promote for two wins in a turn. The likelihood of all 5 warriors attacking the city and sacking it are increased. My judgement is that there is an expansionist civ that we will meet in the ten turns it will take Ghandi to get to Camelot, and that in that time we may even meet other civs. We have enough gold and gpt to buy BW straight up. We will get BW in time therefore. We probably need to change the current warrior build to a spear pre-build however.

I don't want to be the cause of the quickest ever DG defeat. But I really don't want to be stuck with playing the percentages either.

I support the idea of a quick war against India.

It's really a great responsability, mad-bax.

And a risk I'd avoid right now. You all have good points, but there's a considerable chance Camelot might be sacked. On the other hand, this is a push we'll regret losing in the near future.

Let the generals decide.

The AI has the amazing ability of springing 2358623962938 warriors to life the moment we declare war. So unless we surprise attack them, or declare war while George W. Bush is right next to their city (both of which will hurt us a LOT diplomatically), there's no chance we would win with one warrior.

The AI has the amazing ability of springing 2358623962938 warriors to life the moment we declare war. So unless we surprise attack them, or declare war while George W. Bush is right next to their city (both of which will hurt us a LOT diplomatically), there's no chance we would win with one warrior.

We are currently outside of their borders and adjacent to two workers. We can declare war and immediately capture the workers. So, there is no diplomatic hit. We are not going to actually try and capture their city. We are going to run back to Camelot with our new workforce and wait for the warrior rush.

We are currently outside of their borders and adjacent to two workers. We can declare war and immediately capture the workers. So, there is no diplomatic hit. We are not going to actually try and capture their city. We are going to run back to Camelot with our new workforce and wait for the warrior rush.

At this difficulty level the AI gets bonuses to their starting units, so they have more troops than us. Unless we can pump out a lot more warriors this war is going to be ugly.

At this difficulty level the AI gets bonuses to their starting units, so they have more troops than us. Unless we can pump out a lot more warriors this war is going to be ugly.
I would agree with blackheart on this one. Another thing is that we should do is to scout their territory first before we jump into a war that we cannot win.

Elsewhere I have set out my reasoning and the risks involved. To date the only counters to my proposal have been emotionally based and best characterised by "I'm scared of the AI"

At emperor level the AI gets 4 attackers and 2 defenders. For India this means 6 warriors. India cannot have more, since it has not built a second city yet and therefore is yet to finish its first build which is always a settler, or has just finished this build.

The AI will not leave its cities undefended, and its capital will have 2 defenders. We will be unlikely to see more than 4 or 5 warriors attack Camelot. If we have a spear in the city the spear will autopromote after 2 wins. Depending on the number of HP left it is therefore unlikely that India will attack with its third warrior and certainly not with its fourth. Therefore our actual risk is almost zero.

Elsewhere I have set out my reasoning and the risks involved. To date the only counters to my proposal have been emotionally based and best characterised by "I'm scared of the AI"
My objections to a war with the Indians are:
Right now we have 1½ warriors. That's not the overwhelming force I'd like to have fighting a war.
Our build queue is pretty well set for the next 30 or so turns. No more attackers or defenders are scheduled to be built until after we finish the grainary.
We don't have Bronze Working so we can't build any spearmen.
Let's get some more cities built before we start beating our hairy chests at the neighbors.
Nope, nothing there about "I'm scared of the AI."

My objections to a war with the Indians are:
Right now we have 1½ warriors. That's not the overwhelming force I'd like to have fighting a war.
Our build queue is pretty well set for the next 30 or so turns. No more attackers or defenders are scheduled to be built until after we finish the grainary.
We don't have Bronze Working so we can't build any spearmen.
Let's get some more cities built before we start beating our hairy chests at the neighbors.
Nope, nothing there about "I'm scared of the AI."
YNCS has hit the nail (or shall I say, nails) on the head on why I feel that we should not go to war against the Indians at this time.

If we declare war on India I don’t think we have to change our build queue at all. We can grab India’s workers, retreat towards Camelot, and I believe before India threatens Camelot we’ll be able to sue for a (hopefully profitable) peace. Only if India actually threatens Camelot – a remote possibility, I believe – will we have to change our build queue to produce a defender. In that case we’ll have plenty of time to take action. (And given good tides and a favorable wind for our curragh, by that time we should have discovered a civ that has learned Bronze Working and is willing to trade it to us.)

As I said in TimBentley’s “Early Warfare” thread, I prefer to avoid early warfare and instead build my civilization. But mad-bax has made an extremely good case for why war with India should be considered. I think we should declare war on Gandhi.

II believe before India threatens Camelot we’ll be able to sue for a (hopefully profitable) peace. Only if India actually threatens Camelot – a remote possibility, I believe – will we have to change our build queue to produce a defender. In that case we’ll have plenty of time to take action.We'll also not build any more cities.

i support this war it would help the domestics and economy etc

I said "Let the generals decide".


Wll, the Commander of the Armed Forces has spoken. I'm with him.


PS.: I'm also scared of the AI.

We'll also not build any more cities.

YNCS, I agree this would be a disturbing outcome, and you’ve spotted the second-worst case possible outcome of declaring war (worst case, of course, would be if India captured our capital and eliminated us from the game). Frankly it’s a question I wrestled with before I decided a limited war was a risk worth taking. We know India has a larger army than us and we don’t know the location of their troops; but we’re (at least I am) fairly confident that they’re a good ten tiles or so away from Camelot. I think the chances that we can make peace before Indian troops reach Camelot are excellent. Or if we can’t, we should be able to produce enough of a defense to defeat them (although we’d have to delay a settler). This is a gamble, I realize.

Actually I think the two biggest negatives of declaring war are we lose several turns of exploration by our warrior; and because India is likely to be antagonistic towards us for the foreseeable future, we’ll have to produce more troops than we might otherwise want to in order to defend our cities (though they can also serve as military police). But because of India;s geographic proximity, I’m sure we’ll eventually need to fight and defeat it, and the opportunity to stunt and cripple its early growth is worth the sacrifice.

This is a really interesting gambit and it may well be folly. In fact, the “textbook” would say that it’s folly. Sigh, sometimes I just can’t resist folly . . .

I oppose war with India... right now. Later, sure.

Yes, we will grab two slow speed workers, and maybe get to keep them. But there is no reason for Ghandi to sue for peace before coming to get them back, and at Emp level we aren't going to out produce him this early.

We have a (currently unnamed) warrior lollygagging around Camelot, sharpening his weapon and girding his loins. He claims he’s there to keep the peace and escort our soon-to-be-produced settler to his new home. Actually I think his main occupation is leering at our fair female Fanatannian citizens.

I think this warrior could be better employed. We Fanatannians are a curious sort, and are wondering about those dark spaces beyond our western and northeastern borders. We have a healthy income and could well afford the extra gold piece or two necessary for maintaining happiness should our warrior abandon his military police duties to do a little exploring. Barb activity appears virtually nonexistent at present so I’m not sure if a settler escort is absolutely necessary (did we poll this to determine if the people are asking for settler escorts?). However, if we decide an escort is needed, our warrior can still leave Camelot now, reveal a few squares of darkness, and still be in a position to escort the settler (and perhaps protect the settler by scouting a square or two ahead).

@Bertie - It would be a very short exploration since the settler in our capital city would be compleated by the upcomming turnchat. I would rather have the warrior escourt the settler since we dont know if a barbarian would pop out of the FOW. I rather play it safe and have a settler escourt than to lose our efforts in producing the settler lost to a barbarian. Beleve me when I say this, its not fun hearing people cry out blood for the persion whom did not set an escourt for the settler and suddenly the unescourted is lost to the barbarian.

My Lord Commander,

The honor of determining our our troops shall be named currently belongs to you. As we have another citizen ardently trying to determine how this will happen, I thought I would direct that very question to you.

Commander CivGeneral, what procedures will you follow in naming our military units?

-- Ravensfire

I think the citizenship Article A mention that in detail. But I have seen no moves to look at that list.

I have been thinking about going by whomever signed up the citizen registery first. There should be a clear definition for that article since naming cities only goes by the hierarchy of the elected possitions.

I agree Civgeneral, but they will stop us if we try to fix the legislation to save their faces.

I agree Civgeneral, but they will stop us if we try to fix the legislation to save their faces.
What legislation is there to fix?

CG - come up with your process and go with it. It's entirely up to you.

-- Ravensfire

Is there preference between skirting the Dutch positions to the East vs. to the West? If it matters please update the instructions.

Commander,

We currently have a warrior lazing in Donsignia. There doesn’t seem to be a need for a MP in the city at this point. Could this warrior perhaps explore the small unknown area south of Donsignia? Or ifyou prefer the warrior be more available for potential action, perhaps sending the warrior north to project power might be more useful. The mountain NW of the horse would be an excellent perch for a lookout.

@Bertie - I thought I gave orders to that unit. :hmm:. I certanly I know I gave it a name and orders to explore.

First Post Updated.

Please consider these changes to the instruction thread for Mar 29:

GWB to Provolutia (4 turns)
Warrior being built in Provolutia (in 3) to Camelot (total 5 turns)

GWB would presently take 6 turns to reach Camelot, the above alternative plan improves by 1 turn. :D

Comander,
I would like to point out that your instructions name "my" warrior incorrectly. You have it listed as iger-MOTH when it should be Tiger-MOTH

Thanks

Did you forget the HMS Inquisitor ?

I wish we had militia
|
<---------|

All instructions have been corrected.

New survey has been posted
Citizen's Pulse: War Support Survey (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=115499)

wat are your battle plans for the invasion of the Dutch my General?