Please vote for a candidate to be the foreign minister of Fanatica. The candidates are:

Karl Townsend
croxis
Emp.Napoleon

The poll is private and will remain open for 72 hours. Link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=177478) to the nomination thread. Good luck to the candidates!

I have a question for the candidates: what will be your initial stance towards each of our rivals? (Reference: our rivals are BAT, GCA, CBR, EVG, and GWT) i.e., will you aim for an alliance, put on a smilie face while we gear up for war, etc.?

EDIT - Heh... no one noticed that I forgot COG...

I feel that our initial formal stance which each of our rivals should be that of friendship and encouragement of trade, without compromising any advantage which we have. Alliances should be sought with others when a long term relationship would be mutually beneficial. If we are to take an aggressive stance to secure more land and resources, we should do so when our UU is in power during gameplay.

Of course, as representative, it will be my objective to have policy reflect the will of the people.

Untill we have nukes then I say burn them all!
(j/k j/k)

Emp. Napoleon –

Many ambassador offices in MSDG

5 Time Ambassador to CivBrazil (ISDG II)
- I collected intellegance from Brazil, but it is all in the closed forum L

Former King of Fanatica

Minister of Foreign Affairs for team MIA in the Civ III MTDG

I have a question for the candidates: what will be your initial stance towards each of our rivals? (Reference: our rivals are BAT, GCA, CBR, EVG, and GWT) i.e., will you aim for an alliance, put on a smilie face while we gear up for war, etc.?

That is a really wide question. It depends on their location, their relations with other teams etc. I do believe that a good ally is a great idea to advance to the finals. But I think we do need to avoid silly conflicts over letting one unit (weak and unimportant) into our territory to explore. We need to focus on grander things, and avoid complex treaties. A simple treaty (like that grand Poly-CFC alliance in the MSDG) I think will bring us to the finals.

I would like to avoid backstabbing.

But I would like to destroy GCA :)

Chances are high that in the first term you wont have much to do? so any plans to keep the office active?

Emp would appoint an ambassador at large upon election, to be the first ambassador to the first nation we meet, to be ready for when it happens.

I think the first term should largely focus on a discussion of larger overall direction we will take to victory, how offensive of a position we will take to achieve these goals. Sadly we can think all we want, but like a relationship it is hard to direction the direction of our nation's thought until we establish that first line of communication.

Originally Posted by RegentMan
I have a question for the candidates: what will be your initial stance towards each of our rivals? (Reference: our rivals are BAT, GCA, CBR, EVG, and GWT) i.e., will you aim for an alliance, put on a smilie face while we gear up for war, etc.?

I think we should remain netural to our rivels to see if things esculate
the last thing we want is war
the first thing we want is diplomocy with our fellow leaders
so i would continue good relations with other leaders

O my, 6-6, then 6-7, now 7-8.

Gonna be a close election

Good luck you two.

Has it been 72 hours yet? Sheesh 3 days is a long time.

Vote for me because I'm cute!


Hey, can't say I didn't try =Þ

Elections
*Terms last for 30 turns.
*Nominations begin on the 23rd turn of the term, elections on the 26th, with the new leaders entering office for the 31st turn.
*Election polls must be private and posted neutrally.

So I'm not supposed to make a new poll.

I am happy with a runoff between me and croxis.

Looks like the community loves us equally =P

Runoff poll is totally fine with me too.

Can we do mud slinging campaigning next poll? No?

Awww shucks :mischief:

I guess the president should do it..if he doesnt post a poll I will later.

Question for both of you... Since we may not meet anyone..What will you do to keep yourself busy?
AND
Lets suppose another civ gives us information about a third civ that they are located in a certain area and preparing an attack on us. Would you suggest an attack on the 3rd civ first or would you wait for them to attack first?

/hard to answer by just give me your thought process on the issue.

I'll address the second question first.

There are several factors involved that need to be considered. In general I am an advocate to pursue peaceful solutions with the third nation. The next factor is the current reputation of the two other nations, followed by previous relationships we had with them in previous games. To supplement this I would request evidence from the second civ to support their 'warning' - be it screenshots or chat logs.

I would say in most situations I would argue a case for either actively pursuing a peaceful solution, or prepare for a possible invasion by building up the military at home. Pursuing a pre-emptive strike is an option I would only argue for if the military commanders can assure me and the people that we have a strong chance of victory for the operation (whatever that may be) with an exit strategy just in case, OR if the will of the people and government prompt me to fulfill my civic duty by a poll.

I'll attend to your first question later :)

be it screenshots or chat logs.

screenshot trading isn't allowesd until paper

Oh. Stick figure line drawings then? =P

and who could doubt that ;)

"well, we weren't sure about what you said before, but this drawing of a guy holding an axe really clinches the deal..."

:hmm:

I have started a new poll with just our two tied candidates. So move all discussion there. 178353