Interesting discussion has been running around the forums as of late, and as we're now given the extra time to plan from President DaveShack, now is the perfect time to poll on one of the more controversial issues.

It has been proposed that we should declare war on India immeadiately, capture Ghandi's two undefended workers right next to our warrior, and have our new 'employees' run back home with the warrior to prepare for the Indian onslaught.

Discussion (with images and links to more relevant discussions) may be found in this thread: Early Warfare (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113888&page=1&pp=20)

This poll will run for three days, and is public.

The question:
Should we delcare WAR on India immeadiately?
YES - and capture the two Indian workers immeadiately.
YES - but don't capture the workers
NO
ABSTAIN

The answers, I hope, are self-explanatory. And, as always, if you spot a flaw in the poll, please tell me so I can post a new one quickly!

No. We'd be annihilated by the superior Indian army (and capacity for cheating).

is this really something that commerce should be heading?

NO!!! Even if we win it will slow our early production too much. If we win, we have crippled one of our enemies, yet we have been slowed down considerably as well. Doesn't that just give an advantage to every other nation.

Wait until the risk is less, and the reward is greater.

I agree with snipelfritz. There are a lot of things we need to do to put our nation on a strong footing early. Wasting our time and resources building units is only going to hurt us, regardless of how the war goes.

we dont have the forces yet. if we do declare on ghandi dammit, we should wait until we have some sort of a military (of course, with technology provided by them and any other neighbors)

Bah humbug! Snag those two free workers and make India the first colony in our new empire. :)

No war, No Blood for workers.

Our army is way to small and our production is insufficant to have a decent military production at the moment. Also, we dont even have a reasonable tech to enable us to build spearmen.

Bah humbug!I have to disagree, Ebenezer.

We've got a whole 1½ warriors in our army. That's not enought to go to war with. So we'd have to build some more warriors at the expense of not building settlers. But this is the game's expansion phase, and there's at least one more civ on this island/continent. If we get involved in a long war with the Indians, that just lets the other civ expand at our expense.

Besides, what's the point of this war? We're grabbing a couple of slave units and hoping the Indians don't get excited enough to smack us down. If we were taking an Indian city, I could see going to war, but we're not strong enough for that. All this war will do is smear our reputation with our immediate neighbor for a miniscule gain.

Wow! Closer than I imagined.

I Voted Yes capture the workers. I have used this tactic many times and have never regretted it IIRC. Of those who voted no, I wonder how many have tried it?

Respect for the AI and Fear of the AI are two different things folks. :)

In my ignorant opinion, we are not equipped to go to war just yet. We need to settle a few cities first.

come on, take a risk, go for the workers!
and who better to start the war than George W. Bush? :lol:

Are we brave English warriors or are we mice? The Indian barbarians are no match for the might of the English! Cheerio and all that.

There is very little risk for a great chance to accelerate our expansion. The 2 slave workers alone are worth slightly more than one English worker without costing us the population point or time to built it.

Someone also speculated that the Indians have already built a settler. This settler could right now be ready to settle next to our Western cow. A war could scare it off for a little while and give us the chance to get our settler in position. Alternatively Greece might even give us the city in exchange for peace!

No

Because the simple question: Why ? can not be answered in such a way that warring is better than expanding in this part of the game.
Every possible argument for war has a side-effect that neutralises that benefit to such extent that we'd be harming ourselves more than we could ever gain by it.

NO
There is to much at risk and not enough to gain, wait until we have a much larger and advanced army

No

Because the simple question: Why ? can not be answered in such a way that warring is better than expanding in this part of the game.
Every possible argument for war has a side-effect that neutralises that benefit to such extent that we'd be harming ourselves more than we could ever gain by it.
I agree with this sentiment. It is foolish to waste a perfectly good ally and trading partner. We can use India for our benefit, with them staying alive.

NO
There is to much at risk and not enough to gain, wait until we have a much larger and advanced army
I would say that we should not declare war with them unless absolutely necessary.

The workers are tempting, but there is no assurance that Ghandi will accept his loss without building a force to come and smack us back. He is likely building a escort unit now, thus probably already has a bigger military. Given our weakness, there would be nothing compelling him to make peace. In turn, we would have to shift to military production.

No one here fears the AI. We are simply looking at the game as it sits now.

Absoulutley not. like everyone said the war would waste time, slow our expansion and risk us losing the game this early. also, it would hurt our exploration. the warrior in position to capture the slave workers who btw would work a hell of a lot slower then normal ones would have to escort them all the back, and risk being killed by any of the 5 or more enemy warriors. they could be right behind the workers right now. so while the warrior is escorting them to camelot, it can't explore up north. as i said in Early War, we wait for swordsmen and then destroy them.

Well it's moot now as the poll is decided already. Our war with India may well be archers V Elephants or Longbows V Cavalry and rifles. Its a pretty big assumption to expect to get iron.

I'm not unhappy at the result, since due process was followed, and that's democracy. It's also why companies are not democracies.

I am a little disappointed that the the anti-war proponents put forward no argument to counter those put forward by the pro movement. Still, I tried.

Well it's moot now as the poll is decided already. Our war with India may well be archers V Elephants or Longbows V Cavalry and rifles. Its a pretty big assumption to expect to get iron.

I'm not unhappy at the result, since due process was followed, and that's democracy. It's also why companies are not democracies.

I am a little disappointed that the the anti-war proponents put forward no argument to counter those put forward by the pro movement. Still, I tried.

There were arguments put forth. Read the thread again, the pro-war side has not responded to the fact that the Indians have more units than us, and that we only have 1 warrior to fight them with, or the fact that there may be others lurking on the island

There were arguments put forth. Read the thread again, the pro-war side has not responded to the fact that the Indians have more units than us, and that we only have 1 warrior to fight them with, or the fact that there may be others lurking on the island

I suggest you read the thread too. The hawks have clearly stated that we know that India has more warriors and we expect to see 4-6 of them come knocking and get defeated by our defense.

The arguements by the anti-war movement were either basically either:
I don't like early war
or
We are too weak with only 1 warrior.

The pro-war knows all this and still argued that the risk is small because we know how the AI will react.

Its a moot point now anyways. We will just have to cross our fingers that we are the lucky ones in the resource lottery. Of course if we were to build the 4-turn settler pump as our second city we will purchase just a few more lots in the drawing.

I am a little disappointed that the the anti-war proponents put forward no argument to counter those put forward by the pro movement.I'm a little disappointed that your reading comprehension appears to be poor.
There were arguments put forth. Read the thread again, the pro-war side has not responded to the fact that the Indians have more units than us, and that we only have 1 warrior to fight them with, or the fact that there may be others lurking on the island.
Absoulutley not. like everyone said the war would waste time, slow our expansion and risk us losing the game this early. also, it would hurt our exploration. the warrior in position to capture the slave workers who btw would work a hell of a lot slower then normal ones would have to escort them all the back, and risk being killed by any of the 5 or more enemy warriors. they could be right behind the workers right now. so while the warrior is escorting them to camelot, it can't explore up north.
The workers are tempting, but there is no assurance that Ghandi will accept his loss without building a force to come and smack us back. He is likely building a escort unit now, thus probably already has a bigger military. Given our weakness, there would be nothing compelling him to make peace. In turn, we would have to shift to military production.
It is foolish to waste a perfectly good ally and trading partner. We can use India for our benefit, with them staying alive.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
You may whine because your desires were rejected by the majority, but please don't whine that your arguments went unanswered. 'Cause that ain't true.

If this were Monarch or lower, then it would be a good idea to swipe a worker (and even then, they'd only have one worker), but as it stands now (and we don't even know half their terrain), they build at a much quicker rate than us. Let's build as many cities as we can, then attack them. (They're really close to us anyway, which cuts off some good land).

I'm a little disappointed that your reading comprehension appears to be poor.


You may whine because your desires were rejected by the majority, but please don't whine that your arguments went unanswered. 'Cause that ain't true.

Hi YNCS.

I'm playing a game dear citizen. I looked at the save, and thought "wouldn't it be fun to see if they have the balls?" Then I set out to find out - which I did. I inflated the case for a war and I minimised the case against - though I itched to quantify a defence of the peaceful option I couldn't - because that is not the game. I can see both sides of the argument and have no axe to grind whichever path we follow.
Playing the politics is part of the game. It is a new facet to the game for me and I find it interesting, and will continue to play like this for the duration of the game - unless you find out where I live of course.

I don't recall slighting you personally, and I don't expect abuse unless I deserve it, and I don't think I did.

Without Militaristic, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every turn counts, especially at the start of the growth curve, so grab land.

I suggest you read the thread too. The hawks have clearly stated that we know that India has more warriors and we expect to see 4-6 of them come knocking and get defeated by our defense.


The Random Number Generator is a cruel mistress, I wouldn't depend on one warrior or spearmen to defend against an army.

Well it's moot now as the poll is decided already. Our war with India may well be archers V Elephants or Longbows V Cavalry and rifles. Its a pretty big assumption to expect to get iron.

I'm not unhappy at the result, since due process was followed, and that's democracy. It's also why companies are not democracies.

I am a little disappointed that the the anti-war proponents put forward no argument to counter those put forward by the pro movement. Still, I tried.
Obviously you are mad for not seeing the arguements that the No side has put up. We have put up and effective reasons why we should not do that, and most people voted that way. Would you prefer us to be a dictatorship then? It is a good reason why this is a called Democracy Game VI, because the people have a say in matters. That does not mean we do not need leaders, because their function is to quide us.

That's a bit unfair I think. I play a lot of extreme SG's - currently playing 100K Deity game for instance. In an SG people put all the arguments forward that they can think of and then come to a decision and play it. The decision is based on the facts rather than on emotion, and weight is given to the better players opinions. Here (it is my understanding that) we play a democratic system where equal weight is given to everybody in the General Assembly. In turn it is a numbers game, and the quality of the argument is only important in changing opinion, which is in fact very difficult to do. Even faced with a massive body of evidence most people are not capable of changing their minds. It's called prejudice. As such it is a challenge to me to put forward arguments and to challenge those prejudices and pre-conceptions about the game. I would never advocate something that I didn't believe to be correct of course - I am not here to sabotage the game. But I do intend to try to make people think about the game if I can and offer alternatives that some people might find unthinkable. It is then a challenge for me to win those people over. For this reason I will put forward the views I have in the strongest possible terms I can, without voicing the opposing view.
This is the game. It is up to the opposing camp to provide the counter argument. Whatever you say, I do not believe the counter argument was anywhere near as strong as it could have been - should have been in fact. I think Moth and Bertie put forward the only quantitive evidence and they both voted FOR war. The rest of the case was base on prejudice, pre-conception and fear. This is OK, since in a roundabout way it quantifies the size of the task I have set myself.

Calling me mad is anothor piece of personal abuse. There is no need for it, I don't deserve it, and I will never abuse you in this way.

FWIW my nick was chosen for me 20 odd years ago. I was young then, and it embarrasses me now, but I feel unable to change it.
Don't make the mistake of thinking it describes my character or personality in any way. :)

Calling me mad is anothor piece of personal abuse. There is no need for it, I don't deserve it, and I will never abuse you in this way.

FWIW my nick was chosen for me 20 odd years ago. I was young then, and it embarrasses me now, but I feel unable to change it.
Don't make the mistake of thinking it describes my character or personality in any way. :)
That was just a reference to you UN. Obviously I do not really think you are mad, I just disagree with your logic. It was just a "clever" reference to you UN, that got out of hand. It seems that most of the people who did vote no have not done what you have done in previous games, but there where those are on your level of playing that disagreed with you. Even though I am at a playing level that is lower to yours, I am quickly improving because Of my participation in the Demogames and various PBEMs that I am in. After all, it is just a game. The people have spoken and believed in the no war case.

Let's stop this before it disolves into a flamewar.

Perhaps the use of a smilie after what I had said that would have been appropriate. Such as ;) or :mischief:

This is the game. It is up to the opposing camp to provide the counter argument. Whatever you say, I do not believe the counter argument was anywhere near as strong as it could have been - should have been in fact. I think Moth and Bertie put forward the only quantitive evidence and they both voted FOR war. The rest of the case was base on prejudice, pre-conception and fear. This is OK, since in a roundabout way it quantifies the size of the task I have set myself.


I resent that! We're all human, our prejudices and pre-conceptions make us what are we :rolleyes: .

We're not as highly educated or eloquent as you in matters of speech, but we are not mentally retarded nor are we schoolchildren (no offense to either), we know how to think and how to play the game. Just because we vote in opposite of what you voted does not mean we are "weak" or "fearful". Just because we didn't post a lengthy argument doesn't mean we are prejudiced.

FYI I voted against because I have tried this in my previous games and it has ended in disaster for me.

Here's a quote to end my 2 cents: "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should." :)

This is a bit late but for the record this poll is Good in terms of polling standards. It could be Excellent if it were clarified that war would be declared if the number of votes for the two yes options together exceeded the number of no votes.