This is an unoficial poll, just to get a general idea of what do you think, right now and taking into acount all we have done, is our best bet for winning. Is it via diplomacy, culture, war, etc. Feel free to post as well, since these are the holidays (and some of us are on vacation) the poll will remain open for some time. Thank you all.

Ehecatl Atzin

Frankly, I think we are in danger of losing.

I agree with Bill.

I'm afraid I must join the Sunshine Boys above in saying that we shouldn't count our chickens before they've hatched. I know that I'd quite like to achieve one of the more militaristic victory conditions - particularly given the kind of map we are on - but as yet we are far from guaranteed any of them and beggars can't be choosers, so my vote is for "any that we can get".

It is true that we are in some incertitude as to where our nation is going. But it is clear that we aren't directed to any cultural or diplomatic achievement.

Our only way to win over the other nations of the world is millitaristic.

There are Doomsayers among us! Oh ye of little faith, we have gotten over the hump and destiny lies within our grasp. we must only be wary not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One day Fanatika shall dominate this planet!!!

I must also say we're in danger of losing. This is a hard difficulty map, and not every player here is experienced at playing emperor level.

Infidels! You dare suggest that Fanatika, Greatest of Empires, First Among Nations could possibly lose this game!? :p

Honestly, I think we can win, and being the big bright ray of sunshine I am, I'm gonna be optimistic and say we're gonna KILL THEM ALL!!!!! MWAHAHA!

hmmmm.... I forgot that option, the losing one that is. So would you guys sudgest we are somewhat stuck on our development as a nation or do we just stink at the game? If we are stuck, where are we stuck? what is stoping us from moving forward? what do you guys think is missing from the game in order to achieve a victory (let alone choose what victory we want) Now, does losing include being second place or just the last of the list?

EA

I beleve what is stopping us is the low funding in the Science rate and agressive AI Civs.

Would you sacrifice other financial aspects in order to improve science funding? like what?

EA

I think it's also the map size and number of civs. :) 16 civs and a huge pangaea (it could be 2 coninents connected by a land bridge), which is a lot of land to cover in just 540 turns.

I think the trouble is that we've started on a course of conquest but our government (I mean our DG government not monarchy versus republic) hinders the building of our military. Governors want universities in their provinces even though we have the science rate set at zero. Yes, we need markets but we need muskets, too! We've also managed our treasury poorly with very little going to our military. We are also on the verge of making a strategic mistake. We secured the land bridge and rather than use it as a compact border to guard our rear while we secure the west we are about to turn our backs on the likes of Russia and Babylon while we attack America. Chieftess is correct that this may be two continents connected by a land bridge. If that land bridge weren't there we would never think of attacking the other continent until our own was conquered.
We can probably survive an eastern war but we may need a stroke of luck similar to the one that gave us the Great Library. I just wonder if we can expect to be that lucky twice in one game...

So what your saying is, there is a conflict of interest in our government? while we have chosen war-time economy our governors want a peace-time one? Can the treasury stand a 50-50 split? can Fanatikans?

EA

I say if it is anything, it will be histographic.

Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
So what your saying is, there is a conflict of interest in our government? while we have chosen war-time economy our governors want a peace-time one? Can the treasury stand a 50-50 split? can Fanatikans?

EA

I think the local/provincial interests are over riding the national (i.e., military) interest. We would probably do well with a 50-50 split in both shields and gold but we haven't had that. I think only one third or our cities are currently working on military projects. If we looked at the build queues and tallied the shields we'd find that far less than one third of our shields are scheduled for military production. I also think that far less than one half of our gold has been going to the military.

Originally posted by donsig
I just wonder if we can expect to be that lucky twice in one game...

I think you make excellent points, and there is a crying need for a national referendum on our direction to victory.

However, you make the quote above, yet consider me to be a doomsayer? :lol:

I agree with Plexus. We will develop into a strong Nation and win by Histograph. Hopefully, we will not lose to Babylon culturally.

One sure way to make sure we don't lose to Babylon culturally is to take them out right now. As donsig said, the land bridge is an excellent defense. Just a few troops can hold that against America. We have a far western Forbidden Palace so lets get some more cities under its jurisdiction.

I think that the analysis on production is also spot on. "I can build my university because somebody else can do the military stuff." From this point, in a game like this, I would typically be at war for the rest of the game and would remain a Monarchy right to the end. I would put a minimum of 50% of the industry into the military. I'd probably be using 65%-75% of the economy for prosecuting wars as well.

One thing we are definitely not doing well is to cycle our opponents. Let's say I'm civ F. To my East are Civ A and Civ E across a land bridge. A is a more attractive target and lies basically between me and E. To my West are Civ B, Civ I, Civ R and Civ I2. The biggest threat to me is B. My main concern is not to allow a domino to catch me as I whack people. I declare war on E. I make war alliances against E with A (critical), R, I and I2. Then I declare war on my true target, B. I take several cities from B and sue for peace. I also get an alliance with B against E. B probably made some alliances against me with far off civs while we were at war but I couldn't care less because I'm in Monarchy. I move my troops to my next target, I. As soon as my alliance with I against E is up, I declare war on I. I take several of I's cities, make peace and a new alliance with I against E and then move troops over near I2. I end our military alliance with I2 against E and then declare war on I2. Take a few cities, sue, move troops, etc...

E is my scapegoat, the "resource" I'm using to keep people on my side and their troops away from me as I ravage each of them in turn.

Note that in the cycle war program above I never make an alliance with anybody against my true target. I always want to be able to end that war at my own discretion.

And why haven't we done that?

EA

I definately agree that we should continue our single front efforts to the south. Babalyon and Russia both offer great opportunities to take advantage of our FP location.

The Americans make a great buffer state between us and the other side of the world.

Originally posted by Ehecatl Atzin
And why haven't we done that?

EA
It's too complicated and single system oriented to work with our crowd. It requires fairly precise coordination and the war stops/starts need to be fluid. We're anything but fluid.

So we are more mechanical in our movements. What type of scheme of development would you make for a group like that (us)?

EA

An easier but less effective system is to rotate through each civ in turn, allying with all other civs against them until they are destroyed. As soon as the civ is destroyed you declare on the next one and get alliances from everybody against them. When they are totally destroyed, go to the next one...

Isn't that what we tried to do and then other civs broke their alliance with us? Is there a way to utilize this plan but not depend that much on the military support other nations can give us?

EA

We're not attacking anybody right now so we're not following this plan. When alliances are broken, it's necessary to reforge them.