Okay. Here we are. The peace treaty offered by Egypt is the image at the bottom of this post. Basically, its some gold, a WM and a misplaced city to allow us to spend the rest of our GA building Westward and beefing up our infastructure. Poll is opened for 48 hours.

Relevant Discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55623)

I voted no, SAaM, not a good enough deal for what we would be putting at risk. As well as the placement of El-Amarna. All we are really getting is 17 gold, which we could just as easily get from sacking a city.

I don't want to kick myself later. (See thread).

Yes is the way to go.

I voted Yes.

For one we get a port city that is less misplaced than our own Nur Gisnod, so that argument is irrelevant. Also, those who attended the chat know that we lost two Legions trying to take El Amarna from a very determined Spearman.

Ending the war now will allow us to accomplish something with remainder of our Golden Age. Libraries and Temples, perhaps. Completion of our westward expansion. Raising the science rate. All of these things are possible if we end the war now.

Staying in this war will mean devoting most of our resources to our military, expanding west at a much slower rate, falling behind yet again in tech and putting off happiness and culture indicators.

Vote for Peace.

I voted no. We have gambled our Golden Age on this war. Let's press on and get a leader or three. :D

PS - Glad to see you're spending so much time in Gorina these days Mr. President.

I voted no also. Not only should we use this GA to fund our war, but develop to the west simultaniously. One of the main problems with this game is we keep going in 6 different directions at once, over and over, and over again. First we want to build, then we want units, then we want to build again, then we enter a war and start a GA we didin't want yet, 2 turns later we want peace so we can expand....

You people need to drink less coffee.

Egypt is still a major threat. Both in Culture and size (points too!). We can tie up the other tribes with gpt trades to reduce the threat of MA's against us. Our Legionaries will still be effective for some time to come and we can knock down Egypt and still get tech parity from them in the future. Bailing on this war now is not the way to become the world leader. Speaking of leaders....as a Military based tribe, our Great Leaders should come more frequently. IF we seek them as one of our goals, as my colleague donsig has stated.

Vote NO

I voted 'no', but only because I want this war to go on a little longer. We do not have to worry about war weariness and we have the advantage, so I say we simply slow down our production of military units slightly, to take advantage of our golden age, and fight a defensive war after we take El-Armana. At this point we play defense with what we already have until such a point as Egypt is willing to give us everything they have other than cities.

Obviously we have the advantage if Cleo is willing to offer a city, I say we press on, then we get peace after some conquests.

It's nice to see that I have such influence regarding this matter. As an exercise in futility, I will give you several more reasons why I feel continuing on will be a mistake.

1. We will have to backtrack to take El Amarna, when we can have it right now!

2. We will probably not be in position to attack another Egyptian city for 4 more turns!

3. We practically have tech parity with Egypt, as we have 2 techs that they don't and vice-versa.

4. The cities we get from Egypt besides El Amarna will be practically useless due to their distance from our capital.

5. The only Elite unit we have right now is a Warrior in the middle of nowhere. Promotions have been slow going at best.

6. By not being able to raise the science rate now, we will plod along to Polytheism at 35 turns instead of possibly 12, which means even longer until Monarchy.

7. I am surprised that those who have been alarmed by our "wasted" Golden Age would still rather waste it all instead of preserving some of it.

8. We will have to build our Libraries and Temples after our Golden Age, which will take much longer.

9. After we make peace, we can get the rest of Egypt's 77 gold by offering her tech as we should get the techs she offers in our deals with Russia and Greece.

10. Contrary to popular belief, El Amarna is not located that poorly.

11. We don't have any cities close enough to Egypt for them to be a cultural threat, and we have enough units in the area to keep them from expanding south.


Well, that's all I have. If this sways any of you, please say so and we may be able to re-poll this matter. Otherwise, brace yourselves for 4-7 turns of military positioning with no real results.

Originally posted by eyrei
I voted 'no', but only because I want this war to go on a little longer. We do not have to worry about war weariness and we have the advantage, so I say we simply slow down our production of military units slightly, to take advantage of our golden age, and fight a defensive war after we take El-Armana. At this point we play defense with what we already have until such a point as Egypt is willing to give us everything they have other than cities.

This reasoning strikes me as strange. Fight a defensive war after we capture or raze El-amarna? That's worse then being gifted El-Amarna and have peace.

Get everything from Egypt except cities ? I don't care from who we are getting techs as long as we get it.

Originally posted by Rik Meleet


This reasoning strikes me as strange. Fight a defensive war after we capture or raze El-amarna? That's worse then being gifted El-Amarna and have peace.
One very good reason for doing something like that is that the longer the war continues the more chance we have of generating a Leader. I do not believe that the Egyptians have any hope of breaking through against Legions given our defense advantage, so I'm not sure what the real advantage there is in being at peace with them. What I am pretty sure of, however, is that just one single great leader would be far more profitable than the deal you're proposing.

Originally posted by Rik Meleet

This reasoning strikes me as strange. Fight a defensive war after we capture or raze El-amarna? That's worse then being gifted El-Amarna and have peace.


Except if we get a Great Leader; Eklektikos, you are right. We don't have any Elite Legionairs yet though.

It seems the vote will be "NO", currently 4-9. If the Majority wants to continue the war then, although I think "Yes" is better, I will give all my effort to reach those goals.

Cyc is right, we should decide a path to follow and stick to it. But I like to be flexible and adjust the strategy to the new situation. I think a discussion should be started on the long-term goals and the way to reach that. That would stop us from shifting directions so often.

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
I think a discussion should be started on the long-term goals and the way to reach that. That would stop us from shifting directions so often.
Well DZ, what about it? Or am I going to have to scuff those brogues of yours after all? ;)

7. I am surprised that those who have been alarmed by our "wasted" Golden Age would still rather waste it all instead of preserving some of it. Thats your opinion. I think using a golden age for peace with a militaristic civ currently in the age where its UU is most effective to be wasteful.

I voted NO for obvious reasons.

We should continue this war. We should capture some of there cities and we should only consider peace when we can nab more goodies from them via trade.

I voted Yes. Let's end this war, get El-Amarna, and use our GA to build peaceful improvements plus some military units with which we can fight another Egyptian war!