Just want to know what the public feeling is on the subject.

Do you think we should prepare for an agressive war against one of our weaker neighbors (ie. Egypt, Aztec, or Greece).

Once we get Cavalry, we could use some breathing room. And a chance to exercise our new soldiers. By choosing our targets carefully, we could also slow down the more powerful opponents we might have, and gain some valuable techs and revenue for us!

-- Ravensfire

Don't forget the possibility for a GL to rush those Nice Cultural wonders ;)

It is hard to vote on something like this because it doesn't really state who we would be taking action against. It suggests more of a philisophical dove/hawk choice. I'm all up for sacking Egypt, but I'm not sure I would feel the same right now if we were talking about the Aztecs.

I voted No.

I would like to try our hand at playing the "good guys" once. Of course there may be diplomatic ways to draw Egypt into a war :mischief:, but I wouldn't pursue that until we have some Cavalry(or a huge batch of Knights) ready.

I have also voted no. We spent term three building infrastructure and trying to stay competitive in the tech race. We started one war which proved very unpopular to say the least. Our country does not have the stomach for war.

I voted "Maybe" (abstain). I don't see a problem with annexing some territory here or there, or "trimming the tree" of a big civ once in a while, but it really depends on who, when, the condition of our military, infrastructure, etc.

Well, the "Who" is for another poll. All I want to really know is if the public in general has their eyes on any one in particular that we might want to prepare an agressive war against.

In my mind Egyptians are the most logical choice should this occure, but to others it may be someone else. Basically all I want to know is a "Hawk" or "Dove" long term planning essentially.

and it's just "informational" got get the public opinion, a "Yes" win doesn't mean we must go all out to invade someone, as a "No" win doesn't mean we should stop all spending on Military.

It's just to give me a general idea of how hard I should be promoting the production of Knights/Cavalry over Muskets.

@ Falcon02, maybe you can call me a Dove Hawk :)

I think we need to be the Dove for awhile, but then we could go Hawk on Egypt.

BTW: I have not voted as of yet, because I'm undecided, I think Egypt needs to go (at least so we can use Memphis' FP to it's fullest potential). But right now I'm worried an invasion will cost us much if we don't start an upgrade program or at least in some way replace the Spears with Muskets (ie. build 'em)

Hmmm... I thought the FP was in New Jedina not Memphis...

@donsig, I think it is, but the benefits would be about the same. We do need those cities in that area, as Falcon said. But barring that, I plan on taking the dove stance for the remainder of the game.

Try to maintain peace, but fight vigorously if provoked.

Originally posted by donsig
Hmmm... I thought the FP was in New Jedina not Memphis...

I thought it was the other way around, but I'm probobly wrong, don't have the save up to look at right now though

I am 90% Dove, but would support exactly one more war of agression, in some thirty or so to turns when we are prepared for it, with the goal of claiming the rest of the land near the forbidden palace. Eliminating Egypt, since they already will hate us forever, wouldn't bother me either. Anything beyond that, no, I am not eager to see.

I voted Yes. I am in favor of war when it's on our own terms and we're well prepared for it. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to taking out the entire continent, so long as we win a peaceful victory method in the end. We should certainly take Egypt during this term. Additional infrastructure won't do us that much good as long as we focus on having high production in each possible city, plus some science improvements to boost our tech research.