Brotherhood of Steel

For the continuation of the proud tradition of militarism of The War Church and others, the Brotherhood of Steel is now founded.
Welcome to the Brotherhood, a collection of like minded citizens concerned with the goings-on in our empire.

What We Are
As a group of citizens, we are concerned about our military and our ability to wage defensive and offensive wars with hostile nations. Our group seeks to inform the government of our military needs, including unit production, upgrading, and militaristic improvements. We Do not seek to be a voting bloc, we instead are a group of concerned citizens sharing goals of glory on the battlefield and sharing stories of our nations victories.

Aims and Beliefs

War is a legitimate form of foreign policy, aggressive and defensive.
Strike first, strike fast, strike hard. Wage sucessful campaigns.
The maintenance of a strong army, in peacetime and in conflict.
A Home for militarists within the empire to have reasonable debate.
Our aims may evolve over time, depending on our sucesses.


Who We Are
Immortal
Plexus
CivGeneral
Bootstoots (Volunteer Ambassador To The Children of Peace)
Peri
Amirsan
Zarn
Naervod
ScorpiusAP
Falcon02
Stuck_As_a_Mac
Grandmaster
Shaitan
Eklektikos
alamo
Reddwarfian
Vander
Watergate
Panzer
Azale
maples45
America444
Cpt Kaos
Isaac_Newton


Who Supports Us

Been playing a bit too much Fallout, Immortal? ;)

I'll join.

bah! Its the best name I could think of, it was either that or copy Knight_dragons (i mean XIII's) war church.

I would like to Join. :)

Welcome welcome my friends, let us unite to build a world under our flag! Which as yet has not been contructed!
:mwaha:

Here's a good smilely for you to use:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/CT_despot.gif


EDIT: It could be used for an RPG cult though...

whatever would we use that for? we have no official leader.

I would love to join this citizen group. I favor long build ups and short, decisive wars.

Originally posted by Chieftess
Here's a good smilely for you to use:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/CT_despot.gif


EDIT: It could be used for an RPG cult though...

That is a freaky Smilie... The next one would be all the purple guys dead, and the guy on the throne running with all their life savings...

I would also like to join the Brotherhood please

I wanna join. Please sign me up. :) :)

Count me in, brothers.

I'm in. :)

Brothers. I have learnt of a new organisation called the Children of Peace who oppose our goals. It is a sad day.

Originally posted by Peri
Brothers. I have learnt of a new organisation called the Children of Peace who oppose our goals. It is a sad day.

The children of peace have not yet defined its position in regard to the BOS. We will only answer officialy to this when the points defined in the first post of the COP are completed.

as long as the relationship between our groups says civil (that goes for both sides) I see no problem with a dove group to counteract our hawkish tendencies.

This competition may even be the solution to the problem that plagued all the citizen groups that were created during the DG2.

and which prolbem was that?

it too early to discuss policy, we dont even know what starting techs we have. Hopefully we will get a nation with a good iron age UU or one to replace knights or cavalry. It would assist us well, as it seems the playing style of the last demogame focused on these units.

Which problem? The problem that made all citizen groups of DG2 die after one week. In fact, DG2 citizen groups were only sign in and forget things.

This is why competition can be realy benefic.

I am a member of both the Brotherhood of Steel and the Children of Peace. May I be the official diplomat?

if you want to.

Originally posted by Immortal
as long as the relationship between our groups says civil (that goes for both sides)
I'll make sure it stays civil. BTW, I think we should set up a leadership, and we should have a method of holding votes.

nah we're communist! :evil:

I would like to join your fine institution.

Not a member, just browsing. I must ask, Mr. Scorpius, what has made you turn from The Community? Also- If you see McNulty, tell him RPG posts now have a value.

I'm in... and...

Communists!!! where are they!?!?

Need to round them up along with with CY.

Ya know, for the sake of membership, count me in as a Peace Hawk.

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
Ya know, for the sake of membership, count me in as a Peace Hawk.

That's what the Children of Peace are for....

I have not turned away from The Community, I am still quite active their. However, The Community tends to move sort of slowly do to the way the turns are played. I see the creation of a brand new CivFanatics Nations as a good chance to start fresh with a quicker pace.

On a partially related note, I'd like my charater in the DG3 RPG to remain completely separate from the Community Scorpius.

I will join. May we wage many a successful campaign against the poor SOB's that were unfortunate enough not to be born as Randomanians. :)

I agree with this group's principles and will happily join up. Note that I tend to be a middle roader - agressively militaristic or just as agressively a builder when the situation warrants.

I will also join up. Even when playing a peaceful game a strong military is always necessary to ensure that perfidious neighbours "choose" to respect one's desire for amity.

:tank:

I will enlist.

It is imperative to build, deploy and effectively use an armed force in a timely manner. Only in this way can territory and resources be redeemed into the manifest destiny.

So now that we have a sizeable membership: should we define a firm, cohesive idea for the empire, or should we stick with what we each feel works best?

Yes we need to have a joint declaration of strategy to which we all agree. It is important that all the citizens know our objectives and methods. By having a clear manifesto many citizens will come to realise that we share the same goals and join our cause.

Go on Peri, I'd love to hear some of your ideas. This is a group of the people, so make it your own.

You have my sword.

Well, once we get Iron, It'll be a Sword. :D

Originally posted by Immortal
Go on Peri, I'd love to hear some of your ideas. This is a group of the people, so make it your own.

Thankyou. I dont expect that I have any unique ideas nor unbeatable strategies but I think that we should start to 'kick around' some basic principles.

1). Are we in favour of a strong standing army or should we build as required?
If we want a standing army what should be in it?
How big should it be?

2). Are we in favour of early campaigns to eliminate immediate opposition.
If so. Do we aim for the weakest civs or the ones with the best tiles?

3). Are we in favour of a small number of the best units or can we achieve as much with an army of varied quality.

4). How do we ensure that the army gets a fair bite of the budget and producrion allocation without becoming a bloc vote in debates?


If we can achieve a consensus on some of these things then we can focus more easily on winning. So lets get debating.

To victory, Brothers.

1) I beleive that we should have a standing army, like 2 or 3 of the biggest offensive unitswe can get per providence and at least one bombardment peice per providence. If we do this, we should have a plan for slow or speedy unit building programs incase we declare war, or are the targets of war, respectively.

2) I think we should go for the ones with the best tiles, ones that would reap immediate or future benefits.

3) I beleive that we should have a army of the biggest units that we can get. We may want to keep a few ancient units as "Museum Peices." ;)

4) Easy: Get more people involved ;) :) :D

It will be very simple to define policy once we start the game, for instance if we start without the ability to build spearmen, I would suggest this be the first tchnology to attempt to acquire.

1). Are we in favour of a strong standing army or should we build as required?
If we want a standing army what should be in it?
How big should it be?
In despotism, we have the luxury of the maintainence of a truly large army. It will allow a good blend of units, many defensive located in cities, but I would like to have roaming units within our territory patrolling our borders. Then when they are needed to be upgraded, they return to the nearest border town.

2). Are we in favour of early campaigns to eliminate immediate opposition.
If so. Do we aim for the weakest civs or the ones with the best tiles?
Hopefully we will encounter a weak civ with great tiles, however I would take out the "insignificants" first, then move on to larger, wealthier nations.

3). Are we in favour of a small number of the best units or can we achieve as much with an army of varied quality.
Varied quality I would have to say

4). How do we ensure that the army gets a fair bite of the budget and producrion allocation without becoming a bloc vote in debates?
The existence of the group will indicate to our govern,ment officials that indeed the military is an integral part of our empire, which our citizens value greatly. For positions other then domestic, I voted this term for those persons whom I know share my beliefs in military and offensive campaigns. Luckily with a large number of BoS members in government this term, we will find the government probably will be having an ample military for this term. if its cut in the future, I will definitely have to reevaluate my support for certain candidates

I want in to this worthy organization.

My only input right now is that we should strike first and hard at those nations that don't have a UU to start off with (France, US, England, etc...). If we can "subdue" those aforementioned nations, we'll have quite a good leap ahead.

Originally posted by Peri


Thankyou. I dont expect that I have any unique ideas nor unbeatable strategies but I think that we should start to 'kick around' some basic principles.

1). Are we in favour of a strong standing army or should we build as required?
If we want a standing army what should be in it?
How big should it be?
I favour maintaining a strong standing army as soon as that becomes feasible. It not only means that we can attack or retaliate at will, but will consistently get us better treatment in negotiations with the AI.

2). Are we in favour of early campaigns to eliminate immediate opposition.
If so. Do we aim for the weakest civs or the ones with the best tiles?
I think it's worth waiting until we have discovered which Civ we are playing as, since some are far more suited to early aggression than others and I'm not sure we really need to risk trying a warrior rush at this level ;)

If we do go for early attacks we should choose our victims on a case by case basis, taking both factors into account. If the civ in question is weak because their available terrain is hopeless then we probably have little to gain in the long term by such a move. We also need to be very sure that, if we take on a strong civ whose terrain gives them a powerhouse production base, we will be able to keep the initiative and make substantial long terms gains by the conflict. Unless of course we're going for a cyclic beatdown strategy, but I get the feeling few people are interested in playing that kind of game this time.

3). Are we in favour of a small number of the best units or can we achieve as much with an army of varied quality.
I prefer using large numbers of cheap units where defence is concerned - concentrating on warrior production in the early game then eventually phasing them out to replace them with pikemen for the duration of the medieval era (bypassing musketmen as far as possible). On the offensive, I like to field large forces of cutting edge units - using chariot > horsemen & warrior > swordsman upgrade rushes to achieve this early on at minimum cost.

4). How do we ensure that the army gets a fair bite of the budget and producrion allocation without becoming a bloc vote in debates?
As I believe Immortal said above, the existence and increasing size of this group should in itself be a source of pressure upon government. I also suspect that most of our members will naturally tend to vote for domestic & presidential candidates who favour military strength without the issue of bloc voting even coming up.

Who shall protect our beautiful wifes and our keen minded and well educated children from being kidnapped by the heavily armed axis of those who are against us and forced to work in the mines or houses of bad reputation for the sake of our ruthless enemies? Our soldiers. Our brave men in the fields of honour.
If you want peace, people, be strong. If you want spices, citizens, don't be weak. Without doubt the BoS will have a mighty impact on our civilization#s history and I would be proud to be a member.

Count me in as well, this is definitely sounding like the group for me.

Originally posted by Shaitan
I agree with this group's principles and will happily join up. Note that I tend to be a middle roader - agressively militaristic or just as agressively a builder when the situation warrants.
I'm the same way, either militaristic and peaceful, depending on the situation.

BTW, this is my 200th post. I'm 2/3 of the way to an avatar!

1). Are we in favour of a strong standing army or should we build as required?

I'd definantly say a strong standing army. Mostly cheap defensive units, with roaming offensive mixed in.

2). Are we in favour of early campaigns to eliminate immediate opposition. If so. Do we aim for the weakest civs or the ones with the best tiles?

I agree with past statements that this judgement should be made both on our civ and the position of our enemies, with a strong mind towards UU's.

3). Are we in favour of a small number of the best units or can we achieve as much with an army of varied quality?

I'm in favor of a large army of varied quality, for reasons listed above.

4). How do we ensure that the army gets a fair bite of the budget and producrion allocation without becoming a bloc vote in debates?

If there are enough same minded people we will not have to decide to vote in blocs, it will naturally happen.

1. Standing army of defensive units with some reserve offensive units.

2. I agree that it depends on our civ and UU as well as other civ's UU's.

3. Varied quality, definitely.

4. See Scorpius's answer.

Thanks for the feedback.
What I meant about bloc voting was that if we become a large group then we can have an undue influence.
As a group with common aims we are likely to find it easier to mobilise ourselves to vote for what we want as one body and so overcome the 'individuals' voting against us. I was concerned that this might go against the spirit of the game.

I would like to be welcomed into the Brotherhood:D

Welcomes to Reddwarfian, Vander, Watergate, Panzer, and Azale.

My take on the strategy is slightly different. Once you have a few core cities with a culture building and a barracks you should crank out the best troops possible until you have enough pre-built to attack the nearest neighbor w/desirable lands. The target can be selectively chosen, but an early UU does not always discourage me. In fact, a pre-emptive strike on the Romans is usually better than waiting around to be hammered w/legionaires.

1). Are we in favour of a strong standing army or should we build as required? If we want a standing army what should be in it? How big should it be?

Pre-build an army of the best possible units before the outbreak of war. Ratio of offensive/defensive should be 4/1, with a minor adjustment for stronger/weaker offensive units. If able add some settlers and workers into the offensive force. The force should be large enough to take and hold 3-5 cities w/o reinforcements.

2). Are we in favour of early campaigns to eliminate immediate opposition. If so. Do we aim for the weakest civs or the ones with the best tiles?

Best tiles is better, but the territory should be a natural extension of the empire. Ideally the new territory would be suitable for a FP should a leader become available. In some cases the civ needs to be expelled, like if the Greeks are neighbors and the only sci civ around.

3). Are we in favour of a small number of the best units or can we achieve as much with an army of varied quality.

Best units, with the exception that a few horsemen are a good compliment to swords in offense and defence.

4). How do we ensure that the army gets a fair bite of the budget and producrion allocation without becoming a bloc vote in debates?

The usual - bribes, propaganda, extortion, media manipulation. :p

But seriously, there must be a deliberate decision to commit to an expansionist approach early in the game or we will not get sufficient resources (until we're attacked).

EDIT: I just read this from the Children of Peace group.
No aggressive war is legitimate, may it be for tiles, cities or ressources.

They go on to say that war should be purely defensive and ended ASAP.

Gee, we just need to play nice and the AI will just give us all the land, luxuries and stategic resouces that we need to be competitive.
:crazyeye:

1). Are we in favour of a strong standing army or should we build as required? If we want a standing army what should be in it? How big should it be?

The true measure of a nation's strength is its standing army. We mjst be ready at all times to quickly and decisively counter any foreign threat with overwhelming force. Likewise, we must be constantly prepared to go on the offensive. We should build the biggest military we can; my general rule of thumb is to build as many units as you can support free (Despotism, Monarchy, Communism) and then some. The army should consist of a mixture of offensive and defensive units (plus artillery when useful units become available.) We should build the best defenders we can in large enough numbers to hold back any enemy advances for at least a turn or two, and enough of the best offensive units to then move in and smash the enemy army with a counterattack. I personally prefer counterstrikes and counterinvading enemy land to simply sitting back and defending.

2). Are we in favour of early campaigns to eliminate immediate opposition. If so. Do we aim for the weakest civs or the ones with the best tiles?

We must hit early and hit hard. It is best to destroy the enemy before they can grow into a threat. I do not think we should concentrate on one or the other. We should simply aim to conquer everyone around us. I believe we are playing with Continents(?) If so, our aim should be to unite the continent with constant warfare early on, and then hold it from outsiders. We should be constantly at war from the discovery of Iron Working to the developement of Gunpowder. By that time we should have enough land, and should concentrate on creating a Fortress Randomania, an impenetrable continent fortified so heavilly that no force on earth could take it. The Roman Empire (real life) was built and held together by the glue of constant expansion, always pushing forward and redrawing the borders. We must do the same.

3). Are we in favour of a small number of the best units or can we achieve as much with an army of varied quality.

We should build the best units possible. Throught the RL Cold War, the United States concentrated on building quality units, while the Soviet Union built them in quantity. An American tank could kill 5 Russian ones; so as long as the Russians didn't have 6 tanks, the Americans would win. Now, imagine if we had large numbers of quality units. If we do not let the damned foolish Doves get in the way of our military building (which must be the main priority of our indsutry) then we can build the best units in great amounts. That is how we will win wars; an army that overwhelms the enemy with power and numbers,

4). How do we ensure that the army gets a fair bite of the budget and producrion allocation without becoming a bloc vote in debates?

What's wrong with bloc votes? :mischief: Honestly, we must simply press the issue. We must get Hawks elected as President, Military Leader, Domestic Leader, and as Governors. We must simply try to convince everyone (or at least a majority) of taking our view. If you are elected Governor, you must put large numbers of units in your queues. If you are Domestic, you must authorize military spending, and order unit building in all Domestic-controlled cities. If we press the thing, we will be able to force it upon the Doves. The other option, of course, is to start a war. Even the peace-lovers (:rolleyes:) will order units to be built when they see Randomania in trouble.

Originally posted by bootstoots
I am a member of both the Brotherhood of Steel and the Children of Peace. May I be the official diplomat?

:eek: How does that work together???? Your for peace and war???

Whoa!!! I didn't notice all the posts for our military strategies (I thought we were going to use another thread?). BTW, is'nt it a little too early to disscuss this yet??

Originally posted by amirsan
Whoa!!! I didn't notice all the posts for our military strategies (I thought we were going to use another thread?). BTW, is'nt it a little too early to disscuss this yet??

I only posted my questions as an icebreaker so we could get an idea on the views that each member holds. You are right that it is too early for concrete planning but I thought we could kick around a few ideas while we waited for the game to start. Sort of like a prematch drink in the pub arguing about the line up:)

these are general things, not really based around the specifics of the game but find out individual philosophies of our membership. This is an excellent exercise and I hope others will post their feelings as well.

:)

1). Are we in favour of a strong standing army or should we build as required?
If we want a standing army what should be in it?
How big should it be?

Strong standing. Don't want that AI tryin to sneak atatck and capture a few of our cities. Plus, mobilzation would be made much simpler.

2). Are we in favour of early campaigns to eliminate immediate opposition.
If so. Do we aim for the weakest civs or the ones with the best tiles?

I don't support very early camaigns. I'm shooting for Medieval Age or a little before for our first annexetion war.

3). Are we in favour of a small number of the best units or can we achieve as much with an army of varied quality.

I say, stockpile the units!!! It fits with my strong standing army agenda.:D

4). How do we ensure that the army gets a fair bite of the budget and producrion allocation without becoming a bloc vote in debates?

See what alamo said:p

I'ld like to Join! Rule with an Iron Fist! My blade is sharp and my will is strong.

At a minimum I want at least as many units as we can have for free.

We should have as many campaigns as needed to secure our continent. Our manifest destiny should be coast to coast.

Unit mix is going to depend on too many factors to decide before we're into the game.

The best way to get our view supported without forming a voting block is to discuss and promote strong arm ...er... strong army viewpoints. Get the word out and argue the group's points intelligently and they'll get good support across the board.

I have an adnouncement to make. I have Won the Military Leadership possition. Once we have gotten the Game going after the Creation day. I would be laying out the plans for our early expantion :).

Good job General! Now our plans can be initiated!:goodjob:

Hurray!

Congradulations CivGeneral:goodjob:and I wish to join the brotherhood

quick question: do we need to elect a leader or spokesman? or is it unnecessary?

Personally I find it unnecessary.

My own strategy:

I think that we should be in a position where each city can repel an initial attack and hold out long enough to be relieved by our army.
In times of peace while we consolidate we should have a small mobile army of the best offensive units available to achieve the above
When we are at war we should have a larger army of appropriate types with our 'peace time' army forming the backbone.
Our cities should be capable of churning out units as required to achieve full mobilization in shortest time.
Land is the key to success so I believe we should dermine our weakest neighbour and eliminate him asap. Then we can concentrate on building up our infrastructure to allow us to take on the next enemy.

I am concerned that our group might be accused of acting as a political party but since I am new here ignore me :lol:

Wont the Military Leader be representing our views in the government in this case our own CivGen.
As far as this group is concerned surely is up to us as individuals set the agenda for discussion. Everyone should be able to step up to the mike and have his say. However as Immortal is the founder of this group then perhaps he can act as a guide if we lose direction.

Agreed. No official spokesperson is necessary.

Everyone should be able to step up to the mike and have his say. this is definitely the method we should follow, it will take a delicate balance in order to not become a defacto political party. But I think we can do it quite reasonably.

Congratulations to CivGeneral, and a welcome to maples45
and America444.

1 more point:

I don't really favor building a bunch of mixed-quality troops if we cannot use them before they become obsolete. It would be much better to have fewer high-quality troops and spend the extra on tech and infrastructure. That would put us in a better position to mobilize (literally or figuratively) when the inevitable war occurs.

I'd like to join this brotherhood. Too much peace ends up making people complacent and easy to knock over.

okay, now that we know our lands, I think it would be a good idea to start a search for huts, so that we might be able to find some useful technologies and even some really nice units. I also think we should try to get iron working as fast as possible.

Agreed. We need to get Iron Working quickly so that we can overtake our enemies early on. The Legionary is a potent weapon. :)

Agreed, Immortal. If we have spearmen already, we just build a warrior (pretty obvious though)


If we're lucky, maybe we'll get iron in them there hills.;)

It's a helluva start, ain't it?

Originally posted by Reddwarfian
It's a helluva start, ain't it?

It could turn around quickly though if there is iron in those hills.

Then we expand as quickly as possible without exposing ourselves.

Welcome to Cpt Kaos.

We really need a settler factory first. The capital will have stunted growth. Warrior scouts should circle around until local area revealed.

I was just reading the GOTM QSC results. Ribannah took top place by having a lone archer go on the offensive. Archer scouts are something to consider if we trade for Warrior Code.

What if an enemy Scout comes within range?

Personally I suggest that we seek to expand our territory peacefully until all available/worthwhile land has been settled. Then and only then should we turn to war to advance out territories. A large urban base will allow for greater military production in the future. Thus, a large emphasis should initally be placed on settlers and explorative units, as well as defensive units.

If we have warrior scouts roaming around and an expansionist scout comes too close we should consider killing it. There appears to be many huts to pop. Getting a settler could be huge.
:hammer:

With 3 warriors we should already be at parity with the other civs, right? Most likely any war would be short (as long as it's not Shaka or Monty).

We must take full advantage of our Legions when we get them, we should stock up on Legions and go rampaging across the country side to establish an early dominance.

This includes stoccking up on Warriors and money to upgrade them when Iron is connected.

The emphasis needs to be on prebuild so the entire GA is not spend building troops. Building courthouses in the distant cities should get a few turns at least.

Now that we have a target w/o an early UU we need to push this agenda.

I would like to join this greatinstitution of warmongering. We'll show those hippies who really runs this country! Anyway, sign me up.

I think that we need a large army in peacetime. I would say that it needs to be nearly the size of our wartime army. In my opinion, the bigger the army, the better for our nation. If we decide to go to war, we can quickly and decisevely capture cities before the computer goes beyond it's usual stage in the first few turns of sending in scattered units. In peacetime, we need a strong army as a detterent. Besides, when do we plan on having peace anyway?

Speaking of this institution, the now perma-banned founder, Immortal, told me through another forum that anyone who wants the group can have it.

Hehehe...


Oh, BTW Octavian X. Next time you see him, tell him I said HI.

Hey Plexus, Maybe you would be so kind to edit your first post to include an active members list. Just thought it may be nice because your the closest to the top. :)

Also while we're at, lets discuss the Egypt War. OurBrotherhhod should not die just because Imortal is gone.

Personally I think we should plan to completely destoy Egypt. As far as we can tell they do not have a connection to Iron, but we do know they are connected to horses. Our advisors say that the most powerful unit that we know of is the warrior (1.1.1) but it won't be too long before we see War Chariots (2.1.2) coming in to our lands.

We're going to need spearmen in our foward cities and soon, but I beleave that we can push our legionaires (3.3.1) foward and take all of Egypt in 40-55 turns.

ya, I updated the member list.

Good, but puzzeled to see you back Immortal.
I've got to ask, though. How did you get back?

it really doesnt need to be discussed, lets just say I was lucky enough to have people in my corner who wanted to help.

Well, then, welcome back!

*Octavian wonders how many people Immortal had to bribe. :D*

This thread needs a revival, badly. Brothers, we need your opinions on the war with egypt, some seek peace others ( like me) wish to continue the campaign. Express yourselves!

DEATH WITH CLEO.... or at least let's take a few more cities by force before peace ;)

definitely, our golden age was forced upon us at this point. We jumped headlong into the war. In order to achieve anything worthy we must push into egypt, otherwise this conflict has been for naught.

Our legions are the best units on the field at the moment so we should take full advantage of this. We should destroy their cities and salt the earth.
Vote for war in this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=55790)

All members of the Brotherhood must vote. We were created to influence such decisions. Dont let the moment pass by. It must be war.

Vote early and vote often ;)

Aye, we must keep in this war.

I'll join :evil:

Considering our German situation I am surprised to see that no one is commenting... and by the way I wish to Join the Brotherhood if you allow me. :)

I say we kill the damn Germans

Ill join this group, Military power is essential, no matter what we mush have a powerful army.

I will put forth my hand to join this group. The world is truly only ruled by the agressive use of force!

Is this group still active? my name is not on the rosters, and i have not recieved any notices.

Hello?

Don't bother with Citizen Groups, Sarevok. They are generally one-week wonders that get a bunch of people to sign on to and then die. The only citizen group that did anything useful this game was the Polling Standards Commission, though even it died a couple of months ago.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Don't bother with Citizen Groups, Sarevok. They are generally one-week wonders that get a bunch of people to sign on to and then die. The only citizen group that did anything useful this game was the Polling Standards Commission, though even it died a couple of months ago.

Im hoping to revive the Citizens groups in DG4. I do not want to see them die in a few weeks.

oh, ok. i had posted here on my first day in the game... and well that was nearly 2 weeks ago, so i decided to post again to see if someone would respond. but oh well.

Citizen's Groups die because they have no power. Nobody has put forth a strategy for a CitGroup yet that allows that group to actually exert its will on the nation. They are toothless and once people realize this, they lose interest.

Then again, the most logical form of power that a CitGroup can hope to wield would be through elections, and any endoresments of candidates might come dangerously close to violating the rule against political parties.

why arent there political parties anyway? i heard they caused trouble, but i never found out what kind of trouble.