Please choose from the following options for Secretary of War:

UnitQ
Chieftess
Scalefang
Donovan Zoi
Abstain

This poll is open for three days.
Link to the Nomination Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149619)

Should they choose to make them, their platforms will go below:

Chieftess' Platform
My platform will be to make sure we have a ready defense, and promotions that will best fit the surrounding situation. (Rather difficult to see what it's like without even playing the first turn. :) ). If we do not have bronze, horses, or iron, I will try to push for construction (catapults). Catapults are deadly in Civ4. Very deadly.

UnitQ's Platform
As you all know a nation’s military is the base for its survival. If you don't have a strong military you won’t have a strong civ. Wile having a strong military you need to put your troops in certain parts of the nation for them to be effective. For example when Germany tried to bomb England, the RAF was stationed close to the channel instead of being in Scotland. It does not take a person who will just make millions of troops, it will take a person (like me) who will use his head and put the troops to use. As Secretary of War I will make sure our military is put to the right use and not far off in the distance wile an enemy civ eats out or heartland

So please VOTE UNITQ

Scalefang's Platform
There can be no solid strategy without knowing what our UU is and what the territory is, knowledge is most important in any strategy. For example, should we recieve the Immortal, I would push for Animal Husbandry and early barracks to strike down our enemies. A far off UU, such as the Panzer would mean that we should look to Bronze and Iron Working to form the basis for our military. Axemen and Spearmen are for more imtimidating than Warriors and Archers huddled in cities. A defensive stance protecting our cities while our enemies pillage our improvements will get us nothing. Not only must we defend our cities, but we must also protect the surrounding countryside.

We must also not be divided, there will be no instances of our great empire cut in half by our neighbors, that ain't right. We must strive to be whole and complete.

I will also be on the lookout for wars of opportunity, for if we can grab all the iron or all the spice in our vicinity we will have a mighty advantage and will be able to reap very nice rewards because of it. (increased trade opportunties or military advantages)

Under me, I can assure the people that we will fight wars of opportunity, wars of expansion and will defend our lands. No civilization will take that which is truely ours.

Good luck to all participants because in the end, it is all of us who will prosper.


-the Wolf

UnitQ

xclxcl

I have yet to vote and would like to see some debate here.

-the Wolf

Scalefang, you used the phrase "wars of opportunity" several times in your campaign.

As you know, starting an early war can have late-game consequences. Increased military production causes a decrease in production of workers, settlers, and improvement buildings, as well as an increase in upkeep. This in turn stifles population growth, tile improvements, culture and city expansion, and research. We may severely cripple (or wipe out) a civilization, but it may also put us behind everyone else in the long term. We may eliminate a nation who would contest our borders, but that nation could also become a potential ally, and would be one of the few nations that we could trade with (until we research Astronomy). We may win many battles, but we will also lose men that could be defending our civilization at home.

There are many other factors as well. How do you define a "war of opportunity"? How would you determine whether or not we should go to war? What factors would push you towards war, and what factors would push you towards peace?

Although this question was directed to Scalefang, the other candidates may answer if they wish.

Scalefang, you used the phrase "wars of opportunity" several times in your campaign.

As you know, starting an early war can have late-game consequences. Increased military production causes a decrease in production of workers, settlers, and improvement buildings, as well as an increase in upkeep. This in turn stifles population growth, tile improvements, culture and city expansion, and research. We may severely cripple (or wipe out) a civilization, but it may also put us behind everyone else in the long term. We may eliminate a nation who would contest our borders, but that nation could also become a potential ally, and would be one of the few nations that we could trade with (until we research Astronomy). We may win many battles, but we will also lose men that could be defending our civilization at home.

There are many other factors as well. How do you define a "war of opportunity"? How would you determine whether or not we should go to war? What factors would push you towards war, and what factors would push you towards peace?

Although this question was directed to Scalefang, the other candidates may answer if they wish.

Thanks for the question, I'll answer it to the best of my ability.

First off, I'll admit that ANY war puts infrastructure on the backburner. Workers cannot improve border cities over the risk of losing them, and Libraries and the like cannot be built, slowing research and increasing upkeep. There is also the problem of score increasing faster than the military to defend it, which creates a juicy target for aggressive opponents.

War is a tool, and it's best uses are when knowledge is also applied. You are surrounded by three other civs: Spain, Aztec and America. You and Spain have different religions. In an optimal situation, one would try to cultivate a continuous friendship with America, watching the Aztecs and the Spanish. For the Aztecs are a civ that will war with you if it sees an "opportunity," as in it's military is greater than yours or a nice juicy city with cottages. An "opportunity" for you is if/when the Aztecs go to war with Spain or America. Joining a side in this instance can apply the up to +4 military campaign bonus in diplomacy, which could be enough to make Spain or America like you more and be more generous in trading. However, let us say that the Aztecs are annhilating America, razing their cities and pillaging their land, in that instance, I would vote that we go to war with America and take what we can, especially if they have a wonder or a resource that we need/want. It is better in our hands than the Aztecs, long-term trading partners can and will turn on you in this game if they feel they have a chance or the upper hand, particularily the more aggresive civs; China, Japan and Greece as other examples.

For me, wars of opportunity are defined by the moment and the global situation. On the other hand, if our infrastructure cannot handle it, I will not advocate the war, libraries should be built and cottages planted, if there is constant war, none of these would be accomplished and we would loose, for we were not balanced enough. All the Axemen in the world mean squat against an opponent with Infantry.

I would like a statement from the other candidates before I make my decision.

-the Wolf

Scalefang, you used the phrase "wars of opportunity" several times in your campaign.

As you know, starting an early war can have late-game consequences. Increased military production causes a decrease in production of workers, settlers, and improvement buildings, as well as an increase in upkeep. This in turn stifles population growth, tile improvements, culture and city expansion, and research. We may severely cripple (or wipe out) a civilization, but it may also put us behind everyone else in the long term. We may eliminate a nation who would contest our borders, but that nation could also become a potential ally, and would be one of the few nations that we could trade with (until we research Astronomy). We may win many battles, but we will also lose men that could be defending our civilization at home.

There are many other factors as well. How do you define a "war of opportunity"? How would you determine whether or not we should go to war? What factors would push you towards war, and what factors would push you towards peace?

Although this question was directed to Scalefang, the other candidates may answer if they wish.

I also don't like "Wars of Opputunity" in Civ4. In Civ4, you can easily get bogged down if you don't prepare, and that means both militarily, and economically. There's nothing like sending a stack of 25 swords 1 tile out of your territory and having your economy plummet to -5gpt, and having a "Units on Strike" ruin your whole day. Furthermore, Civ4 is a game of metropolises. Gone are the days of 150 cities, or even 15 cities to start off with. You only get 1-3 cities from the start before the first war is typically fought, and that means a lot more management.

Also, lots of short, little wars will hurt our reputation with other civs, and inhibit trading. Unlike Civ3, they may simply choose not to trade for the rest of the game.

I do not see why SoW candidates are discussing "wars of opportunity." The objective of this position is not to determine the feasibility of war under any circumstance, but to make darned certain that we are fully prepared should the Secretary of State convince the populace that war is necessary.

You can rest assured that I will be fully engaged in all State discussions, and that I will take a proactive approach to our miltary so we are not left with our pants down. On the flipside, I will not put any hawkish tendencies above our need for infrastructure.

DZ, I am a huge fan of you and have a great deal of respect for you, but how can you have the time to do this office well when you haven't had the time to play one turn in the Cage Match in almost two months?

Scalefang, you used the phrase "wars of opportunity" several times in your campaign.

As you know, starting an early war can have late-game consequences. Increased military production causes a decrease in production of workers, settlers, and improvement buildings, as well as an increase in upkeep. This in turn stifles population growth, tile improvements, culture and city expansion, and research. We may severely cripple (or wipe out) a civilization, but it may also put us behind everyone else in the long term. We may eliminate a nation who would contest our borders, but that nation could also become a potential ally, and would be one of the few nations that we could trade with (until we research Astronomy). We may win many battles, but we will also lose men that could be defending our civilization at home.

There are many other factors as well. How do you define a "war of opportunity"? How would you determine whether or not we should go to war? What factors would push you towards war, and what factors would push you towards peace?

Although this question was directed to Scalefang, the other candidates may answer if they wish.

My gole in office is not to make millions of units and strain or nation, my gole is to make sure we have enoughf troops in the right possitions to be able to deffend or nation until the need for us to mass produce is needed. For example doring peace time there is no need for a huge military when are neighbers might be the weekest civ on the planet. If we are next to a "super civ" then I will have a enughf amount of troops always stationed at the border so if we get attacked at does cities, they could hold out untill we could switch production from domestic to military. The civs in this game no longer send huge waves of units like human players do. they will send about no more then 10-15 units every 10 or more turns. My gole is to have a good number of units in or bordered cities to deffend against atleast 2 waves of unit stackes untill production can be switched and by planning we could make a strike back at the enomie.

A "war of opportunity" to me is when a civ has attacked us and they are a week adverseary, then witch we could eseally take over. Im not going to push to invade a civ, im going to push to deffend our civ. I make sure that we never start wars but we finish them. A true 'war of opportunity' is not declearing war on a civ you think is week, but is take what you need from a civ that has already assulted you on the feild.

Whether or not we go to war is determined by one thing, if that civ attacks us. As I said before I will finish wars, not start them. There is no need to start a war with a civ when that civ has not physicully harmed us. We should not harm or domestic production, science, and wealth just becoulse "the lovely grassland next to spain look cute and is flourishing with cow". Ill only go to war with a civ that had attacked us first. Like I said millions of times I will insure this civs surviviel by strenghening its deffence not feul the war matean to take over the world. I will always acceped peace from a civ if we have inacted equall damage to that civ as it has done to us. PEOPLE im not going to be a pushover. If a civ takes a city or two of ours I will not make peace untill I get does cities back or we get two of there cities.

All in all I would make sure are civ and its citizens have a happy time doing what they want without haveing to worry if the "mongolieans" will burn there house down tonight.

I voted for DZ, hands down. As long as he stays in Office for a full Term ;)

Oh, and please make sure our Settlers are protected. :lol:

Oh, and please make sure our Settlers are protected. :lol:

:lol: :rotfl:

Oh, and please make sure our Settlers are protected. :lol:

If I hadn't spent all the time in the archives when writing the Code of Laws, I wouldn't have got that. :lol:

All in all I like Warm Tummy Fuzzies, Go DZ! :rotfl:

-the Wolf

I think that Chieftess knows her stuff and is obviously the person to vote for.

Ill only go to war with a civ that had attacked us first. UnitQ is the only candidate expressing really pro-peace opinions. So he has my vote.

Very close and although i did nominate Donovan i will vote for Chieftess, because donovan might quit (:P Just kidding but i had to make up some reason)

Question for the candidates – What is your position on nuclear weapons?

Well, it's kind of early to be on that topic, as we'll probably only get to the Classical Age (Middle Ages if we're lucky and research the right techs), but I'd never use them. True, you'd only need 2 nukes (on average per city) to completely clean out a city of its', but the global warming effects in Civ4 is really stingy.


------------

Wow, nice tie going on here. Even the 3rd and 4th place canidates are tied! :eek:

Question for the candidates – What is your position on nuclear weapons?

The only way I would ever recommend the use of nuclear weapons is in retaliation to a first strike. However, I must agree with Chieftess that doing so would jeopardize the very life we, um, aren't even leading yet. :confused: :D

Question for the candidates – What is your position on nuclear weapons?

Allthogh I know I have lost the election ill still answer your question. To me nuclear weapons are a unit of last resort. I would never be the first persion to use a nuclear weapon, but the last persion to us them ;). But since the rest of the world will build them, I would also build them in deffence.

I know for a fact I wount win, but if I do I know that my term in office wount last that long :(

Question for the candidates – What is your position on nuclear weapons?

I'm pretty much anti-nuke, the costs of using them are too high. On the other hand, if the AI are building them...they'll probably end up being a necessary evil.

--------------
Also, I'll have to agree with Chieftess on how interesting this race, duel ties...no clear winners. Have to say that I like it. Win or loose it's been interesting.

Well, it's kind of early to be on that topic,

Yeah I know that it's miles away but it does give an indication of the general disposition of the candidates, eg. passive, aggressive etc.

Still a tight race. Let's see... some last minute campaigning.

Well, besides the obvious "Vote for me!"...

One thing I'm going to do is make a check sheet of units, and promotions that they should strive for. Since we can get up to 10 XP by fighting barbs, I will send units out on barb patrol (provided we have that option checked).

I'll also have units as sentries to check out what the AI is doing.

Vote for CT so DZ will have time to play the Cage Match. :mischief:

One more thing -- sticking a mixture of axemen, defenders (archer, longbow, crossbow), etc. in an AI's territory (hilled grassland) will always trip them up. Good tactic to slow them down a bit, and get more XP.

One more thing -- sticking a mixture of axemen, defenders (archer, longbow, crossbow), etc. in an AI's territory (hilled grassland) will always trip them up. Good tactic to slow them down a bit, and get more XP.

Such specific instructions - simply amazing. Considering you're a non-public beta-tester, shouldn't we consider things like this cheating? :D

One thing I'm going to do is make a check sheet of units, and promotions that they should strive for. Since we can get up to 10 XP by fighting barbs, I will send units out on barb patrol (provided we have that option checked).

These are great ideas, CT. I am going to wait until we get a look at our terrain and resources to do such a thing, just in case anything other than Combat I, II etc (ie Woodsman promo) is beneficial to us.

We should take the offensive on Animals as well, as we can earn up to 5 XP.

One more thing -- sticking a mixture of axemen, defenders (archer, longbow, crossbow), etc. in an AI's territory (hilled grassland) will always trip them up. Good tactic to slow them down a bit, and get more XP.

I too am familiar with the Choke strategy, and will exploit it against any neighbors deemed hostile by the Secretary of State. That said, I will also lobby for strategic city locations when those discussions arise.

Another nice thing (especially if we're agressive and have a free promotion), is Axemen with Combat II + 25% vs. Catapults. Those are good when the AI gets desperate and starts tossing cats at us.

At any rate, 2 hours left, and looks like you're gonna win. Congrats. I'll be your deputy if you want.

(Just protect those settlers this time. ;) )

A thrilling election with candidates of very high quality has finally ended.

:cry: :cry: :cry: The election is over and I lost :cry:. How come I lost:cry:

I would like to know why I lost, so people who did not vote for me can you tell me why so next time I could be a better candidate:) .

:cry: :cry: :cry: The election is over and I lost :cry:. How come I lost:cry:

I would like to know why I lost, so people who did not vote for me can you tell me why so next time I could be a better candidate:) .

That's what usually happens in a demogame. Vets usually win.


Hopefully, since the importance of governors isn't as great (fewer cities, less warfare than Civ3 in the early-mid game), there'll be term limits, even if honorary.

Official action by the Censor: Donovan Zoi wins Secretary of War; welcome to the Triumvirate.

-the Wolf

At any rate, 2 hours left, and looks like you're gonna win. Congrats. I'll be your deputy if you want.

(Just protect those settlers this time. ;) )

Chieftess,

Thank you for providing a well run campaign on the issues. Unfortunately, members of the Triumvirate cannot have a deputy, so I cannot offer you such a position. Please feel free to drop into the office anyitme if you feel that there is a matter I am not addressing properly. There is no question that your input will be vital to our success.


Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Secretary of War

People of our nation,

My heartfelt thanks to all who supported my campaign. I pledge to do my utmost to keep our nation safe and strong.

To all of my fellow candidates, I congratulate you on a job well done. You all contributed some meaningful information in your campaigns, and you are welcome to continue this by stopping by any time to my soon-to-be-open office. For Scalefang and Unit Q, please note that staying active in discussions will also ensure that you "get your name out there" for future elections. That said, I look forward to ideas from both of you in the coming term.


Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Secretary of War

Running as a complete unknown to the Demogame, I think I ran a good race. I want to thank my supporters and congratulate Donovan Zoi on his victory.

So are we going to be needing a run-off election now? Also who posts it the previous censor or the new one or a mod?

So are we going to be needing a run-off election now? Also who posts it the previous censor or the new one or a mod?The result of this election is:

* Who do you want to be Secretary of War: Chieftess & Donovan Zoi (TIE - Corrected)

What to do in case of a tie ?
I propose to wait till all turmoil in this Civ 4 Demogame is over and decide after that. BTW, what does the law say about ties ?

So are we going to be needing a run-off election now? Also who posts it the previous censor or the new one or a mod?

A run-off will be needed, and should be posted by AlphaWolf (term 0 censor).

-- Ravensfire

Alphawolf hasn't been online for some time now. In his absence; who is to post it ?

Alphawolf hasn't been online for some time now. In his absence; who is to post it ?

I'm not sure - Alphawolf was the term 0 Censor. Best option would be for Octavian (term 1 Censor) to post it.

-- Ravensfire

Alphawolf hasn't been online for some time now. In his absence; who is to post it ?

In Alphawolf's absense, Octavian X seems to be the best choice, as he is the elected (and confirmed) new Censor.

Alphawolf hasn't been online for some time now.

Woa, woa, woa, wait a minute. The whole situation is getting me paranoid. Don't tell me Alphawolf is one of the persons "fleeding from the situation"... :confused:

Woa, woa, woa, wait a minute. The whole situation is getting me paranoid. Don't tell me Alphawolf is one of the persons "fleeding from the situation"... :confused:

Well he did say he would be away, not sure when he's getting back though

The absentee thread says he should have been back this Monday (yesterday)....

In Alphawolf's absense, Octavian X seems to be the best choice, as he is the elected (and confirmed) new Censor.

Blkbird is correct. It is Octavian's duty to post this election.

I wish Chieftess the best of luck in the coming election. It looks like we get to do this all over again! :D

Woa, woa, woa, wait a minute. The whole situation is getting me paranoid. Don't tell me Alphawolf is one of the persons "fleeding from the situation"... :confused:

Alphawolf seemed to be working so hard as the Term 0 Censor and doing a good job; I sure hope that he wasn't involved in the scandal.

I'm thinking this runoff will need to be on hold until the remainder of the investigation is completed.

Let's not speculate on any individual names please.

In the interest of moving on, I've posted a runoff poll. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151960) Unfortunately, for the moment, it's in the polls subforum, since I can't post it in the main forum for some reason.

I do understand that my actions seem a little unilateral, by the way - the moderators should feel free to delete the thread if they feel this occuring is too soon. I just happen to think, for the sake of actually preserving the game, we should move forward before the controversy has a good chace to truly strangle us.

Shouldn't we post the new poll some place where only the Demogame Group Members can vote, so the manipulation won't happen *again*?

Oct: the runoff poll will have to take place anyway. Better to do it while we wait than afterwards.
There is only 1 person on CFC who can see "who voted what" in non-public polls; Thunderfall. I will ask him to check the poll for illegal votes. I don't expect any illegal votes though. With the membership-group thingy I don't think any illegal votes can be cast, but I'm not 100% sure that is the case and I don't want to waste my time and energy on that right now.