Although this might seem slightly premature, given the fact that our new world has not even come into existence yet, I would like to propose that we use the following strategy at the start of the new game:
[list=1]
Build a warrior to scout out the terrain
Build a second warrior to garrison the capital
Build a settler
Build a barracks in the capital
Build up a force of 5 or 6 archers backed up with at least 1 spearman, using the archers to further scout out the surrounding land.
Once our nearest rival has been located, send the archer/spearman force to attack - preferably taking their capital but making sure not to wipe them out.
After taking the enemy capital, or a significant proportion of their other cities, give peace for as much as we can squeeze out of them.
Whilst the assault is carried out, continue founding more cities and begin preparation for the next phase of aggression.
[/list=1]

I envisage the "next phase of aggression" as being either a horse or sword rush as described in the Strategic Advisory Committee thread, but this will be discussed and polled on later, should this proposal be accepted.

Since this obviously does not come solely under the umbrella of the Military, I hope that the other departments will see fit to offer both their support and their input.

~Eklektikos
Fanatikan War Minister

as acting head of science, i agree with this as long as the science department is not neglected. we need to get the great library so that we can stay current with out weapons, until the mid of the middle ages. if we play our cards right, we may be able to get to calvary by the time others get education.

In the early run, maybe 2 scouting, build a settler. It also depends on where we start. If it's a desert, it might call for 1 strategy (maybe looking for more suitable land). If it's lush grasslands, forest/hills with lots of food, then we have a powerhouse. :)

yes, expansion will be our friend. It will give us more money and more unit support. And, it will increase science. If we land ourself in a grassland, then we could depart from the text and get bigger.

Sounds like a plan, Eklektikos. The barracks might be a little "iffy", but they are certainly a good idea.

I generally like to build a barracks when using an archer rush, since it means the units only need one promotion before being capable of producing a great leader. I'll admit that I'm not certain it gives any other advantage, since in the time it takes to build, the enemy can build up their defences a bit more - probably countering our units' increased HP. That increased chance of getting a really early great leader makes me think it just might be a worthwhile investment, though. Just think of the damage we could do with an army of swordsmen so early on...

Archers starting off with veteran status would be a great advantage over the reqular spearmen we'll likely see. I'd recommend using 2 or more spearmen escorts for the archers, so if we get a great leader, it will have an escort to attempt to make it home.

Overall, however, I would want to wait until we have at least 3 cities before sending out a huge stack of archers, so we can pay for them. It would be even better if we know were we're attacking, so the drain on the treasury will be minimal.

I've found that 2 cities is usually enough to support an assault force of this size, and the longer we wait the lower our chances of success become. Sending in 2 spearmen is a good idea, since one could provide either an escort for a great leader or a garrison for a newly captured city in addition to protecting the archers. I think we could safely start the attack with just the one, though - the 2nd can catch up later.

I like it Eklektikos, gets my thumbs up.

I agree the barracks is iffy. Depends on how productive our capital is. I'm all for being aggressive this game but I still don't like rushing units under despotism. ;)

Great plan, Eklektikos. I think a barracks will serve us well since they are on at half price. It should work, especially if we are surrounded quickly.

I'm only concerned if we have a lot of room to expand. Can this strategy work if our archers have to travel a long way to the nearest enemy city? Meanwhile would we leave open land that could be settled?

We could use that 2nd warrior to explore as well. This would require us another unit to garrison the capital. But in the meantime we can use the entertainment slider to keep the 2nd citizen working.

Alternatives to archer rushes are the chariot->horsemen upgrade rush and the warrior->swordsmen rush (like has been done before). These require resources, money, and more time. So maybe the archer rush is best. I'm all in favour for an early strike.

SAAM - A military strategy should increse science funding as we need to get advanced troops.

However I'm against building any warriors while we can build spearmen as these can be upgraded. Why shouldn't we destroy the enemy though (they will hate us if we let them live).

Cos you get a big reputation hit and EVERYBODY hates you instead!! Plus I think they can re-start (can't remember if we've got this enabled or not)

HEY! Phoenix, you stole my quote!! Stalin was my sig before Asphinxia... took me days to think of that quote.
Oh well.

Originally posted by Phoenix
However I'm against building any warriors while we can build spearmen as these can be upgraded. Why shouldn't we destroy the enemy though (they will hate us if we let them live).
Building spearmen takes twice as long as building warriors, and the effectiveness of an early archer strike is reduced with every turn that passes.

I don't want to eradicate any civs too early on, as it makes no sense to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs. We can go back later and beat on them some more to gain further techs, money and contacts. :mwaha: ;)

Remember, if they're reduced to rubble in the first place, they can't do much more for us.

I would want to wait before preparing an attacking force, again, until we know the location of our future strike. I've said it before, it's possible for us to be stuck by ourselves on a small island.

If a civ DOES close very close to us, we could get lucky if they "go exploring" and leave the city undefended.

but if you destroy a civ and no-one else knows it you get away with it

If we concern ourselves with worrying what the world at large thinks of us this will be a very short game. Strong, early agression and very rapid expansion is a necessity. Has anybody won Emperor without hard, early wars? I sure haven't and as a builder I've tried many a time. It just doesn't work.

Hit hard. Hit fast. Hit often.

check the sci queue. i put iron first. monarchy soon follows after lit.

Most often in a Very large world. I often have the cities first produce military units and then build settlers to fill up the unclamed land.

i disagree with all the current posters.
a. an early attack will be an unnecessary drain on the economy
b. production time will be diverted from city improvements, wonders, and perhaps most importantly, settlers
c. we cannot risk damaging our reputation this early

neutral leader is a good, responsible provincial governor

Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

As a member of the FANATIKAN ORDER, i totally support this moovement!
All knights will stand behind an early agression.

Originally posted by neutral leader
i disagree with all the current posters.
a. an early attack will be an unnecessary drain on the economy
Au contraire, an early attack can often more than pay for itself in terms of cities captured, reducing the strength of our immediate rival plus all the tech and gold we can extort from them when the time comes to negotiate peace.
b. production time will be diverted from city improvements, wonders, and perhaps most importantly, settlers
It will be many, many turns before we have the technology to build any improvements beyond a barracks, and expending shields on ancient great wonders at emperor level rarely pays off. It's far more effective to either rush them with great leaders or simply allow the AI to build them and then capture them.
c. we cannot risk damaging our reputation this early
I'm not proposing a sneak attack here, simply a declaration of war followed by a swift assault. This should cause little if any damage to our reputation, as I understand it. To be honest, we will only need to be meticulous about our reputation if we don't play this game aggressively, since we will likely end up weaker than our neighbours and have to suck up to them to ensure our survival. I don't know about you, but this is not the future I wish for Fanatika.

to c):
as long as our rival does not have contact with other civs, these other civs will NEVER get to hear from our attack. If we manage to destroy our rival completely, our reputation will take to harm at all.
This also brings me up to supporting an early "assimilation" of our nearest rival.

Maybe a general strategy poll would be necessary to get the citizenries opinion on that topic.

Originally posted by disorganizer
to c):
as long as our rival does not have contact with other civs, these other civs will NEVER get to hear from our attack. If we manage to destroy our rival completely, our reputation will take to harm at all.
This also brings me up to supporting an early "assimilation" of our nearest rival.

Maybe a general strategy poll would be necessary to get the citizenries opinion on that topic.
I definitely do not support fully conquering any civ until quite a lot later in the game. The only time I normally consider doing so in the ancient era is if they have sufficient culture to flip the cities that I've captured from them. Otherwise I keep them around and milk them for tech, gold, cities and maps with regular declarations of war, city captures and then extremely one-sided peace negotiations. Weakened rivals are simply too valuable to eradicate. :scan:

Well, then the reputation impact will be there ;-)
They will tell the others of our attack.

Originally posted by neutral leader

neutral leader is a good, responsible provincial governor


:confused:
Almightyjosh is good, responsible, ACTUAL provincial governor!!
Are you campaigning for the next election or what?

I second AJ here ;-)

I've not seen a reputation hit while the declaration of war is honourable (i.e. no units in enemy territory). So I am unclear where the reputation factor comes into play here.

If it comes to a choice of Civs, I think we should be wary of assaulting ones with an early UU (Zulu, Greece) or maybe militaristic civs (harder to beat with promotions).

I agree with Shaitan. I say screw world opinion (at least at the beginning), we have to cut down on our opposition as soon as possible, when as few civs will know about it. However, @ Shaitan, I think the quote should be "Hit hard. Hit fast. Hit first." Oh, and to continue my daily rant, one more thing. As the Germans, we have to take advantage of our immediate possession of bronze working. We must research iron working first (saw post above) and soon thereafter start stockpile a massive army of swordsmen. Just a suggestion: research iron, build warrior, build barracks, then build lots of swordsmen. Ok, just had to say that.

With early aggression I normally destroy my early targets. I also play with respawning civs so this is part of my strategy. When you destroy the civ you get peace, 2 workers and 100g from the newly spawned AI. That also gives you a contact somewhere randomly placed on the continent which can greatly increase the speed of contact with the other civs. Since we're playing without respawning civs Eklektikos' bully approach is going to be better than a complete wipe of our neighbors.

I actually prefer to give early UU civs an early kicking, with the exception of Greece (archers v hoplites = 1 sniggering Alex) whose UU isn't much of an offensive threat. A nearby civ with an early UU is likely to try to use it on us at some point in the none too distant future (particularly the Zulus), unless we significantly weaken them before they've got many of that unit in the field. Even if we lose an archer or two to their UU in the process, all they're getting from it is a ridiculously early GA which we should have rendered ineffectual before they can use it to their advantage.

Shaitan: well, i for example would consider your method cheating ;-)

Once again, agreed. Just one question: once we cut our opponent down to a pile of rubble, will we leave a residual force within or just outside his borders? I'm assuming the answer is yes, but in case it isn't I'm gonna outline the advantges of this. Ok, so we get them down to the city. That city is probably gonna be on the lower end of average in size, culture, and developement, but it could be better. Ok, we achieve peace and withdraw most of our units from the area, back to garrison towns. But how about this: we leave enough units in place to encircle the city. Effectively a land blockade, we stop all settlers from going out (preventing regrowth), all workers from going out (preventing terrain developement), and its damned unlikely that after losing a war their gonna try to muscle their way out. If you mix in a couple of catapults, we can use or ground forces to pillage all the terrain around the city (which the workers can't repair), use catapults to get the terrain outside the ring, and in the case that we go back to war, we can quickly bombard the city and then move in without having to mobilize. Plus, we can do a quick bombard and then request peace to put pressure on them for tribute. Its worked for me before, anyway.

@Grandmaster: Rather than leaving a residual force lurking around their borders, I'd prefer to just keep watch over whatever land lies between ours and theirs in order to spot any forthcoming attacks.
In fact as opposed to keeping them down to one city, I would actually want them to start attempting to expand again! This would mean that when we came around to declaring war on them again, we would hopefully gain a few nice new cities and not run a high risk of accidentally wiping them out by overestimating their defences. Also, it often serves to make peace negotiations more profitable since they're more likely to have more tech and gold if they've still got a few cities. Ideally our "vassals" should be kept weak but comparatively wealthy, otherwise my very un-Jimmy Stewart "bully" approach will be far weaker than it could be.

Agreed, but their is something to be said about having troops close at hand to intercept or force back oncoming enemies of settlers/workers and quickly attack or besiege an enemy city when needed. Maybe leave a couple of units (2 swordsmen and 1 catapult?) on a piece of well-defendable land just outside their city borders? Sort of like a forward operating base, plus it would be a nice little show of power and maybe help us leverage a few more gold or a new tech from them? Or we could provide an "escort" for their moving settlers? Allow us to pick off their settlers or workers as they move (we'd need enough power to destroy the real escort) or take the city as soon as its founded? If played right, an escort service would also allow us to at will change the direction of a settler, discouraging the settlement of areas we want.

Normally I wouldn't see much need for such an "escort service", although it could well prove useful for herding settlers away from any resources we've not yet grabbed for ourselves. Definitely something I'll be bearing in mind a bit later on :)

Anyway, I think we're beginning to drift away from the issue at hand. I'll be posting a poll on this proposal at about this time tomorrow. I'll post the proposed poll in this thread shortly.

This poll has been superceded by another later in the thread

Poll Options:

Do you accept the proposal outlined in the 1st post?
Yes
No
Abstain

First Post:

Poll Duration: 48 hours from posting or until quorum is met, whichever is the later

The discussion leading to this poll can be found in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31100).

Proposal:
I would like to propose that we use the following strategy at the start of the new game:
[list=1]
Build a warrior to scout out the terrain
Build a second warrior to garrison the capital
Build a settler
Build a barracks in the capital
Build up a force of 5 or 6 archers backed up with at least 1 spearman, using the archers to further scout out the surrounding land.
Once our nearest rival has been located, send the archer/spearman force to attack - preferably taking their capital but making sure not to wipe them out.
After taking the enemy capital, or a significant proportion of their other cities, give peace for as much as we can squeeze out of them.
Whilst the assault is carried out, continue founding more cities and begin preparation for the next phase of aggression.
[/list=1]

I envisage the "next phase of aggression" as being either a horse or sword rush as described in the Strategic Advisory Committee thread, but this will be discussed and polled on later, should this proposal be accepted.

Hmmm. This poll should be settled by the governor of the province or the domestic department, as this falls under their reign ;-)
Maybe some alternatives in the poll would be nice, as i dont like yes/no polls (no can come out if only a few points are not liked).

Originally posted by disorganizer
Hmmm. This poll should be settled by the governor of the province or the domestic department, as this falls under their reign ;-)
Maybe some alternatives in the poll would be nice, as i dont like yes/no polls (no can come out if only a few points are not liked).
I hope they'll support the poll and suggest any changes to it they'd like to see made. :)

I like y/n polls, because the action that they mandate is always clear. However I might mark the barracks issue down to be the subject of further discussion to prevent it alone stopping this proposal. Any thoughts on this?

I think it sounds like a great plan. I hope it is endorsed by our governor. I'm not sure why we wouldn't want a barracks.

Also needed is input and support from the Science department to facilitate the "future rush".

I'd like to support the proposal by reserving a fund for the upgrade of troops.

Shall we vote on the proposed vote? ;) (this is getting ridiculous! :lol: )

Anyway, I like having options. Having a "yes/no" for poll and having 'no' win, means back to the drawing board. We need several option such as this: (note, I'm making these up. ;))

Which proposal should we use?

Ekletikos's Proposal
Disorganizer's Proposal
Cyc's Proposal

----------

Ekletikos's Proposal: warrior (scout), warrior (scout), settler.....
Disorganizer's Proposal: warrior (scout), warrior (fortify), settler
Cyc's Proposal: scout with setter/worker, settle, warrior, warrior, settler

Hey, in fact i like my proposal. Even if i didnt knew it before you told me :-P

Originally posted by Chieftess
Ekletikos's Proposal: warrior (scout), warrior (scout), settler.....
Disorganizer's Proposal: warrior (scout), warrior (fortify), settler
Cyc's Proposal: scout with setter/worker, settle, warrior, warrior, settler
Not sure I remember ever suggesting using the second warrior as a scout... check the proposal which clearly states that it's to be used as a garrison. ;)

Also I think you'll find Eklektikos contains three "k"s :p

EDIT: Not sure I can read, either... didn't notice CT saying she was just making the proposals up. Check my head which clearly states "danger: flammable gases within".

Originally posted by disorganizer
Hmmm. This poll should be settled by the governor of the province or the domestic department, as this falls under their reign ;-)
Maybe some alternatives in the poll would be nice, as i dont like yes/no polls (no can come out if only a few points are not liked).

I think I understand what you're saying dis but the way you're saying it can be misconstrued. Such a plan certainly requires the cooperation of the governor and domestic leader but the War Minister is within his jurisdiction to post such a poll. That said, I do think the proposed poll is too in depth. I understand that if we decide to use this strategy it would be best to go full tilt. I'm just not so sure we have enough support to go that way.

Well, as we are not at war, the build queues are in full reign of those 2. If we get into a war-state, i believe the military takes over those? The others only have override possibilities.

Well, after reding this paragraph i must say finally its the choice of the governor what to build. All others only have override functionality.

I am a bit concerned with the proposal only if it must be followed. While I think it is a great proposal, it is not necessarily the best for every situation. If we'd like to call it "Plan A", I'd be a bit happier.

For instance, in 20 turns or so (about the time the next settler is ready), we may find that our nearest rival is perhaps too far to get to with archers. Or we may be stuck all by ourselves. Or it may turn out to be more advantageous to build settlers?

I think we could use the 2nd warrior as a close-range scout if there doesn't seem to be a threat and there is a luxury nearby to make a citizen happy or we use the entertainment slider a bit.

Basically, we rely on josh to build the warriors/settlers. After he takes action, the respective departments may do what they want. We will need lots of cooperation between all of them, though. However, if Josh goes off into his own little world, the council may still override him with a majority vote.

BTW: The only time Eklektikos would have the ability to override ability on his own is in time of invasion, when hostile units are acutally in the province's territory.

The doughnut venerator is correct - I can only override if we are invaded, and even then I would hope not to have to do so. I have no desire to try to dictate policy to any of the other branches of government at any time, but wish them to lend their voluntary support to this and future military proposals should they agree with them, and offer their constructive criticism or outright opposition if they do not.

So back to the matter in hand

@CP: I would be happy to adjust the proposal to allow a "get out" if it turns out that there's no one within remotely effective striking distance.

@Donsig: How would you suggest altering the proposal to make it less in-depth without significantly emasculating it? (note: this is not a sarcastic or rhetorical question! :))

Originally posted by Eklektikos
@Donsig: How would you suggest altering the proposal to make it less in-depth without significantly emasculating it? (note: this is not a sarcastic or rhetorical question! :))

By polling only the first stages of the plan. This would not lock us into anything long term (addressing CP's concerns) while at the same time being more likely to pass the poll since there is less to object to (adressing disorganizer's earlier concerns).

By polling only they early stage of the plan you do not have to stop all long term planning or lobbying. By all means keep the long term goals in front of us. I'm just suggesting you spoon feed us since we've just been born. Less for us to spit back at you if we don't like it. ;)

Originally posted by Octavian X
Basically, we rely on josh to build the warriors/settlers. After he takes action, the respective departments may do what they want. We will need lots of cooperation between all of them, though. However, if Josh goes off into his own little world, the council may still override him with a majority vote.

Excuse me, but his All Mightyness is supposed to be implementing the will of the people. We did not elect a governor to make all the decisions about what to build so that we could then do what needs to be done with what he gives us. We should be deciding what we want to happen and then see to it that our governor and department leaders cooperate as need be to carry out our plans.

Fair enough. I think you're right, Donsig. I shall post a revised poll, scaling back the future commitments a bit. I shall also be buying you a bib, sounds like you might need one :p

Poll Options:

Do you accept the proposal outlined in the 1st post?
Yes
No
Abstain

First Post:

Poll Duration: 48 hours from posting or until quorum is met, whichever is the later

The discussion leading to this poll can be found in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31100).

Proposal:
I would like to propose that we use the following strategy at the start of the new game:
[list=1]
Build a warrior to scout out the terrain
Build a second warrior to garrison the capital
Build a settler
Build a barracks in the capital
Begin building archers, initially to scout out the land and increase the AIs perception of our military strength.
[/list=1]

That looking a bit more palatable?

@Dis. I can see this poll as a grasp for a first Military strategy. We don't yet know the surrounding territory or our neighbors, so a basic generic strategy is all that's possible right now. As far as this poll being "settled" by someone else, Eklektikos is not proposing a build queue, but a Military Department stance to be considered by the DP, the Governor, and the citizens. I see nothing wrong with this poll. We will have a good 3-4 turn chats to review this strategy and adjust if necessary. I think this makes more sense than a 15 tech Science queue.

Especially a 15 tech science queue made on the fly during a turn chat...

I like the poll Mr. War Minister. Not sure if I'd vote yes on it though. The barracks thing seems iffy. I have to check on the produciton potential of our capital before deciding.

BTW - make sure my bib says 'I survived PI#6 (I think)' or I won't wear it. :)

I like the barracks whether we follow through with the rest of my plans afterwards or not. :)

If (the Other One forbid!) we end up reverting to settler construction in our capital after building just one or two archers, then the barracks will mean our pitifully small military will at least be fielding the most powerful units it can possibly build.

If we choose to go forth to subjugate our rivals as I suggest, then the extra hit point and all that it implies (tougher units, one step away from being potential Great Leader producers) would stand us in very good stead.

Athough a newbie citizen I would go with Grandmaster's idea: in the time we are researching Iron Working (40 turns) we can build two or three warriors, depending on when a settler can be build. After the settler I would indeed recommend some barracks to produce more veteran soldiers. But in stead of building archers I think it's better to produce more warriors to upgrade them to swordsmen. Of course this is only a good idea if after 40 turns we find out if we have some iron nearby, but if so, I think warriors/swordsmen are better, especially playing the Germans. Swordsmen have a higher likekihood to win battles, and, playing militaristic, to promote after battles, thus more promotions to elites/leaders.

With Science slider on 1 science/turn for 40 turn research we generate the gold for the big swordsmen upgrade.

Basically it all comes down to where the iron is after 40 turns. And of course where our closest neighbour is.

From the surrounding terrain we can pretty much guess whether or not we'll get iron. If we're in a mountainous area, we'll most likely get some iron and should go ahead with a sword rush. With hills we still have an ok chance. Othewise, we'd have to go for archers. But lets remember that even the extra time needed to develope sword capability won't hurt us, as when we're done other civs will most likely still be working on bronze or will be just starting iron (because of our bronze advantage.) Just something to keep in mind.

Plux, I'm hoping we'll get round to that (or the horseman equivalent depending on which, if either, the people decide is the best choice) a little later on. I'm advocating the archers first since they're relatively quick to build and aren't resource-reliant, thus guaranteeing us a fairly effective early strike force. As I say, hopefully we'll be raising a much larger force of horse/swords using the the mass-upgrade method once this early strike force has gone off to war.

i also like the proposal, i just would prefer the governor being involved into this discussion before it comes to a poll. did someone post this thread in the province thread?

@Dis: Yep, I posted a link ovr there earlier today

Once again beating a dead horse and trying to advocate swords.... I've just analyzed our starting location, and my guess is that with the hills and mountains around us and to the northeast we have a good chance of iron. Off topic, looks like we'll have a nice defensible capital too.

k' i would propose to wait till tomorrow till we post the poll (or leave him 24h to respond here before posting a poll).

Gotta leave the poll proposal up for 24h anyway, otherwise the poll won't be anything more than informational. You should know that, Dis ;)

Damn. I hoped you would fall into this pit *rofl*
No, i just didnt think of it (again). You know me!

A poll for early military strat should be informational, so the the military dept. can better follow the will of the people.

On the subject of further units, it is very likely we have horses and iron in the area, because of the presence of grasslands/hills/mountians. I woundn't bet on them being to close to one another, though.

YES! attack em right away!

Originally posted by chiefpaco
I've not seen a reputation hit while the declaration of war is honourable (i.e. no units in enemy territory). So I am unclear where the reputation factor comes into play here.


Even further to this point, not only will your rep not be hurt if you execute correctly, but in my experience, and early successful raid on your neighbor reaps benefits into the middle ages, and long term too, as the other Civ's fear you.

Once we become strong, then the other civ's will not be our friends, but they will trade and deal as long as we are honorable.

Bill

If a rival is close by then we must strike fast and hard. I think that if not destroy the enemy we should cripple them. This could be achieved by building cities around their last few cities (or city) and making them pay us GPT.

Making the enemy pay in GPT will only result in a re-declaration of a war. I did this once, and the AI couldn't pay his dues. The only way to break the deal was to declare war, one I wasn't ready for.

Right. No response from Josh yet so up it goes. Informational only :cry:

Now that we have located what appears to be our nearest rival (the Aztecs), I am rewording and reproposing the second half of this strategy.

[list=1]
As we build our archers we use them to further explore the edges of our territory, but ensure that they do not stray too far from Aztec territory
Once our Archer/Spearmen force has been completed we send them to launch an assault on the Aztecs - preferably taking their capital but making sure not to wipe them out.
After taking the Aztec capital, or a significant proportion of their other cities, give peace for as much as we can squeeze out of them.
[/list=1]

Please post your thoughts and suggestions regarding this more specific draft of the original proposal.

I am still all for the proposal on build Q: warrior/barracks/warriors and upgrading them to swordsmen after discovering Iron. The first warrior could do some exploration. I think the archers will have tough time against lots of JW's (Aztec's GA), and swordsmen will do better..

Plux, the problem with using that strategy is that it could well fail due to lack of nearby iron. I'm hoping that the mountains near Bavaria will yield that resource, but we can't count on it. I've had this problem in the past when attempting that strategy for a first strike, and have come to the conclusion that the archer assault is the far more reliable method. I'd rather save an upgrade-rush of that kind for the creation of a much larger force a little later on.

I agree. Hopefully that beautiful grassland will hold some horses too, enabling a horse rush as well.

i would propose fanning out those archers to the south, and then continue to explore the north with the warrior.

we could use the archers to explore while putting them on hold near aztec territory to gather together to a strikeforce.

Eklektikos, I am with you, though I prefer the swordsman/iron rush when possible. I agree though, that betting the farm on getting Iron in the mountains makes no sense. I am firmly behind the spearman/archer/early hit on the aztecs plan. This needs a name though. How about "Operation Jaguar Hunt"?

I liked the Bully Plan from a couple pages ago.

Good plan. But here are my thoughts; first (when we are about to declare war) tell them to give us their gold and/or technology - if they refuse we declare war (this should show them that we are serious about our "offers for elongating their life span" (declaring war if they dont give us what we want). If they accept and give us our tribute we will have another vote on weather to declare war (possibly in the turn chat to speed things up (possibly before making the threats). Then after crushing them into submission making them pay us gpt for 20 turns and then making more demands with similar consequences to before if they refuse. Then we surround their territory with ours so that cannot expand (also naval blockade if necessary). Eventualy we crush them.

I know I'm gonna take a lot of flak for this...

Can't we play this demogame like a decent race of human beings would? :(

What happened to our principles in early Demogame 1?

Sorry, Zur. You can't remain alive on Emperor level if you play with principles. If you can kick serious butt in the ancient and early medieval ages you can usher in a kinder gentler later game but you have to be ruthless to stay alive in the beginning.

I agree with Shaitan. I have played on the Regent and lower levels the way you suggest, Zur, with no problems. Emporer is a different story. I'm sure there is a way to win with a kinder gentler approach on Emporer, but I haven't found it yet. I do know you can at least compete if you get aggressive early. And even then, it isn't easy.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Sorry, Zur. You can't remain alive on Emperor level if you play with principles. If you can kick serious butt in the ancient and early medieval ages you can usher in a kinder gentler later game but you have to be ruthless to stay alive in the beginning.

I beg to differ. Others have shown that it's possible to survive...and thrive on DIETY in GOTM without fighting hard in the beginning (see GOTM7). With our level of micromanagement, I doubt we need to resort to unprincipled tactics to survive.

The only workable strategy for playing high levels without agression (that I've heard of) is a max cluster build to artificially inflate the relative strength rating of your civ. I haven't tried this strategy because it didn't seem like it would be very fun to play.

My normal strategy for emperor is two early rushes to destroy (or relocate) the two closest civs. Then I fill in all of the developable territory borders as quickly as possible. Then backfill the holes with a medium to tight build. I generally end up with about 2 civs worth of territory. From there I use manipulation to play civs against each other and team up on whatever neighbor has territory that I want/need. I'm very successful with this strategy on emperor and my only diety wins have come with it.

In any case, we aren't talking about unprincipled tactics. We'll be sure to properly declare war before invading enemy space.

Originally posted by Shaitan
The only workable strategy for playing high levels without agression (that I've heard of) is a max cluster build to artificially inflate the relative strength rating of your civ. I haven't tried this strategy because it didn't seem like it would be very fun to play.

In any case, we aren't talking about unprincipled tactics. We'll be sure to properly declare war before invading enemy space.

By making consistently better strategic decisions on city placement and builds, it's possible to keep up with the AI even on emperor. See Cartouche Bee's & Zachriel's posts. If OCC wins are possible on diety, why the necessity to expand at others' expense, and at the expense of our own principles?

Honourable, yes, principled, no. Because it is dignified doesn't necessarily mean that it's not wrong.

I think it's just a matter of symantics. Look at game 1. We had invasions planned twice. The only reason we never declared war was that the AI beat us to the punch on the first one and we manipulated them into declaring against us the second time. In each of our wars we agressively assaulted our foes, taking over their lands and extinguishing civilizations.

What's the real difference between declaring war honestly and manipulating the AI to do so?

Originally posted by Zur


By making consistently better strategic decisions on city placement and builds, it's possible to keep up with the AI even on emperor. See Cartouche Bee's & Zachriel's posts. If OCC wins are possible on diety, why the necessity to expand at others' expense, and at the expense of our own principles?

Honourable, yes, principled, no. Because it is dignified doesn't necessarily mean that it's not wrong.
Zur, I don't disbelieve you that it is possible to succeed in the way you describe. However I doubt that it's a viable approach for this demogame, since it sounds like it leaves little or no margin for error. Given our system of government and the comings and goings of citizens, unity and continuity of purpose can never be guaranteed within Fanatika, so a strategy which will result in early dominance and give us room to make the occasional decision of doubtful wisdom later in the game seems advantageous.

I also do not feel that "aggressive" is synonymous with "unprincipled" or "wrong".

Mmmm...you nailed a shepard with that can of green beans, Eklektikos. Well said. I think Zur's approach was definately applicable to the 1st demogame, but I would file it along side the Pacifist Group in this game. We are gonna to have to be aggressive, take what we need when we need it, and not look back. There is an honorable way of doing that, yes, but it's not necessarily the honorable way of playing. Let's stay alive long enough to consider whether we are to be considered honorable or not.

Placed the 1,000 lber right on top of the factory with that post, Eklektikos..... my sentiments exactly. We have to decide right here and and now: are we going to play through this game as an honorable, peaceful civ, or a fierce, war-oriented civ. Both have their advantages: peace often builds close relationships and allows production to be concentrated on expansion and culture. However, militarism allows us to quickly expand and gain the culture that OTHER PEOPLE built for us. The only problem with the first scenario is that if one of our neighbor's decides that they're gonna go with Door #2, we're screwed and won't be able to stop 'em when they decided to roll tanks over Bavaria (and I doubt they'll stop and go around any cultural objects or pacifists who are in their way.) The way I see it, there's plenty of time to be peaceful and honorable later in the game, when we've eliminated and annexed most of the world and ensured that even in a demilitarized state no force on earth can stand against us. The Reich MUST expand!

Originally posted by Shaitan
I think it's just a matter of symantics. Look at game 1. We had invasions planned twice. The only reason we never declared war was that the AI beat us to the punch on the first one and we manipulated them into declaring against us the second time. In each of our wars we agressively assaulted our foes, taking over their lands and extinguishing civilizations.

What's the real difference between declaring war honestly and manipulating the AI to do so?

I never really supported unjustified military campaigns in the past. The first dominoes, however, were unavoidable.

Eklek: I also do not feel that "aggressive" is synonymous with "unprincipled" or "wrong".

Neither do I.

I'd like to make sure everyone understands that if we expand at our selfish interests, it is because of necessity. This was not clear from the beginning of this thread. Everyone assumed we had the right to take what "we deserve".

GM: honorable, peaceful civ, or a fierce, war-oriented civ.

Or an honourable, war-oriented civ ;) (read Klingons)

The only problem with the first scenario is that if one of our neighbor's decides that they're gonna go with Door #2, we're screwed and won't be able to stop 'em when they decided to roll tanks over Bavaria

See Zachriel's & Cartouche Bee's games.

The way I see it, there's plenty of time to be peaceful and honorable later in the game, when we've eliminated and annexed most of the world and ensured that even in a demilitarized state no force on earth can stand against us.

This does not justify our earlier unprincipled tactics.

I think, for once, petty ideals should stand aside. I realize now that it would be exetremely difficult to go on without warmongering, minus an aggresive settler push. I place my support behind an agressive startegy.

Oh the joys of politics: one post gets cut up into 3 quotes and torn to shreads. Anyway, I still stand by my policy of early aggression. We can fight honorably, but we do need to fight.

No offense, but no offense, Grandmaster.

Well, since our archers are now in production it seems about time to poll on stage two :)

Poll proposal to be posted shortly.

Poll Options:

Do you accept the proposal outlined in the 1st post?
Yes
No
Abstain

First Post:

Poll Duration: 48 hours from posting or until quorum is met, whichever is the later

The discussion leading to this poll can be found in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31100).

Proposal:
I would like to propose that we use the following strategy:
[list=1]
As we build our archers we use them to further explore the edges of our territory, but ensure that they do not stray too far from Aztec territory
Once our Archer/Spearmen force has been completed we send them to launch an assault on the Aztecs - preferably taking their capital but making sure not to wipe them out.
After taking the Aztec capital, or a significant proportion of their other cities, give peace for as much as we can squeeze out of them.
[/list=1]

Looks good to me. I prefer wiping them out but this is also a good strategy and will have better overall support.

Sounds like a plan. Although, we will have to watch out for their culture.

Originally posted by Chieftess
Sounds like a plan. Although, we will have to watch out for their culture.
Agreed. This is another good reason for swiping their capital early, as it should still be possible keep it from culture flipping using only a temple. Amusingly, they themselves would be supplying the tech that allows us to do that - whether they want to or not :evil:

Just keep in mind their capital is built on a hill. Also, iron working is right around the corner. Assuming we can get a supply of this great ore we should not make anymore archers after our first batch is recruited.

And also remember that they possess iron working and we do not know wether they have the ore in their lands. If we decide to attack we should at least have iron working and a decent number of swordsmen, knolledge of the aztec homeland and a defensive front in case they reach one of our cities with their swordsmen.
I like the idea, but let us not forget the bigger picture, a group of swordsmen can, right now, easily take one or both of our cities.

Ehecatl Atzin

Ehecatl, the idea behind this plan is to hit them fast and early before they've had time to produce many (if any) of the more powerful ancient era units. If we wait until we have an effective number of swordsmen I believe that inspite of that unit's greater punch, we will face far stiffer opposition and risk losing the initiative altogether. Remember that they have to connect up a source of iron to start building swordsmen, and in my experience the AI is often quite slow to do that. However once they connect it up they can pour out swordsmen faster than we can possibly hope to at this stage, so it seems to me that the earlier we attack them the better.

Yes, but it will still take time to produce even a small army of archers, look at our numbers:

3 warriors
1 archer
1 spearman

How many archers do you think will be necesary to not only attack, but to take their capital (on a hill). 12 turns is suficient to build an army, but that goes for the aztecs as well.
Yes, they need to conect the ore to their capital, but we do not know since when they have had this knolledge, they could very well be producing them now. Even a small group of jaguar warriors can take down our warrior units, not to mention archers. We must scout their lands...even if it means getting kicked out...Monty is polite, we can take that risk. But diving head first into a war with the aztecs without knolledge of their military might is something I am not willing to support.

Ehecatl Atzin

This early on? I think 5 archers should be capable of taking their capital, even on a hill. I fully agree with the idea of scouting around inside Aztec territory beforehand to get an idea of their strength and perhaps see if there are any good places we could send a warrior to distract their forces prior to our attack (noting that the AI will invariably divert its entire offensive military to deal with a single warrior that's "threatening" one of its important cities :crazyeye: ). I must say, however, that I've rarely seen an AI civ field enough units to effectively counter the strategy that I'm proposing.

Yes, I have yet to experience it also, but I cannot stress enuff the importance of being informed and prepared for anything, especially in an emperor level game.

Ehecatl Atzin

Could you include in your proposal the details of what "completed" means as far as the archer/spearman force? I think a closer look at the number/type of units discussed are always important in a proposal/poll. I know they have been discussed before, but plans change.

Just one other thing, I was going thru our maps and the aztec capital isn't on a hill, it isn't even in our maps! Teotihuacan is not their capital, it's the name of the second city they build. Tenochtitlan is the capital, by the patern of their border i believe it is to the west of Teotihuacan, unless they have built another city, in wich case we still need to find it.

Ehecatl Atzin

We have only seen one city of theirs, and it ain't the capital. We need to recon to area before starting an attack, so we can strike quickly.

For us to use swordsmen, we need iron. Right now, I doubt we will have any unless our next city is placed next to one of the mountain ranges. Otherwise, archers should do unless they have more jaguar warrios then we thing. Rememer, their warriors may easily attack and destroy our archers.

Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
Just one other thing, I was going thru our maps and the aztec capital isn't on a hill, it isn't even in our maps! Teotihuacan is not their capital, it's the name of the second city they build. Tenochtitlan is the capital

How are we supposed to tell the difference? They both start with T and end with N and there's a bunch of letters in between that are juxtaposed in such a way as to be unpronouncable in Fanatikan.

We need a poll to authorize the immediate renaming of any Aztec city we capture!

Originally posted by donsig


How are we supposed to tell the difference? They both start with T and end with N and there's a bunch of letters in between that are juxtaposed in such a way as to be unpronouncable in Fanatikan.


:lol: Maybe I should dig up some Polish names... :D

'Enkephalonkia' all over again...

LOL
I would opose the poll Donsig, but then again that would probably be a one-man no vote, hahahaha. Yes, I agree Octavian X, we need to recon their lands, heck! all lands! especially those surrounding us.

Ehecatl Atzin

theres a way to rename cities!?

Just an idea.....
The Aztecs are the only Civ that are polite to us. Japan, on the other hand, is annoyed (I think.) It won't be too long until Japan gets the samurai (I know, a little ahead of myself, but no matter...) Maybe, instead of the proposed Aztec War, we should instead concentrate on locating the Japanese homeland and then conwuering it. That way, we could destroy a rival that doesn't seem to like us before they can get their UU. Later on, the Samurai could be dangerous. I still support an Aztec campaign, this idea just happened to come to me.

The first civ that would interfere with us would be the Aztecs. They will expand in our way, and if we're not careful, we won't be able to get to the Japanese over land. We need to go for the Aztecs first. Wasting time to look for another civ would be harmful.

I agree with Octavian. The Aztecs are expanding directly towards us.

Full agreement with Octavian & Shaitan. The Aztecs are the immediate threat to our progress and should be dealt with as soon as possible. I'm hoping that we'll still be able to go and hamstring Tokugawa before he gets his Samurai, but that's another issue for another day ;)

I also see that we should try to take their horsie-town asap. maybe in a strike together with their capitol and try to split their empire in 2 seperate paths so they will have to deal with massive unhappyness afterwards :-)

The Aztec's present a clear and present danger to the well-being of all Fanatikans.

I call upon all citizens to support a pre-emptive offensive into the horse rich territories to our south. We will be in an untendable tactical situation if we allow another civilization to control those beasts.

Bill
Chief Justice

The horse city (since I can't pronounce it's actual name) should be our first target. Horsemen could be a serious threat, in addition to those fast jaguar warriors.

OK, clearly the Aztecs are the obvious threat. I like the idea of a two-pronged attack, one at the capital and one at the Horse City. We could then cut them in half and cause massive unhappiness and chaos. Plus, that way if they have a powerful counterforce in one half of the country, we can contain it and still capture the other half before combining our forces to crush the resistance. But lets not forget about Tokugawa, I think it'll be in our best interest to stop the Japanese barbarians before they develope samurai.

Since I've been helping OctavianX put together the official maps, I've also been playing around with other map formats as well. This tactical map map help with the planning and execution of our "exercise" near Azteca.

Full Scale Tactical Map (197kB) (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/tactical-1575bc.jpg)

Full Scale Official Map (199kB) (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/fanatika-1575bc.jpg)

Of course, the locations of two of the their cities are based on reasonable deductions taken from the shape of their cultural borders. Also, it is safe to assume that they have more units than what is shown. However, since the "fog of war" prevents our scouts from seeing them, I cannot include them on the map.

I hope this helps.

The concluding poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33701) for this proposal has now been posted.

I love the maps FortyJ, thanks for producing them!

Bill
Chief Justice
Director of Public Relations