This is poll to determane the best minumum amount of units we should go for before attacking.

The Poll will last for 7 days

The choices goes as follows

10
15
25
30
Other (Please insert number that is not listed in the poll)
Abstain


Note: This is an informal poll

CG: how about a discussion thread as well?
I cannot express an opinion on this matter right now

I assume by attacking that you refer to the Russians?

:hmm:
*Paalikles goes to see the FA moron...

Originally posted by Paalikles
CG: how about a discussion thread as well?
I cannot express an opinion on this matter right now

Military Discussion: Attack Russia or no? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75904)

Here is the link to the relevent thread

I suggest not building too much warriors, and going for better units first.

No wars until Iron!

10 at max. For some exploration and blockade operations.

Spearmen and other defenders are far more useful. The time to fight hasn't come yet, so why waste our precious gold on unit-support cost ?

10 at most. Warriors are useful for exploring, but that's about it.

Long term structure of forces is a different discussion and
probably should be based on the number of cities we have, the type of forces and how modern those forces are.

For example:
* 1 defensive unit per city, outlying cities kept modern, inner cities upgraded at leisure
* 1 additional defensive unit per outlying city, upgraded at some priority
* .5 Offensive unit per city, split into multiple forces based on potential threats from other nations
* 3-5 fast offensive units to be used by DP at their discretion

-- Ravensfire

I voted other as I believe we only need enough Warriors created from this point on to escort Settlers. We may not even need to match Settlers as a Warrior can escort one Settler and then escort a different Settler later. Let's just fill this map with cities.

It would be folly to start a war with warriors regardless of number.

Gotta go with the Abstains on this one. Much too early to tell.

I also abstained. It might be a good idea to post a poll like this in two or three weeks, when we have a better idea of our surroundings.

I also abstained, and feel our resources should be spent elsewhere for now, but of course we shouldnt neglect our armed forces...wouldnt want to be bullied ;)

One minor concern is to build just enough military of all kinds so we're not very weak compared to the AIs.

Originally posted by Cyc
I voted other as I believe we only need enough Warriors created from this point on to escort Settlers. We may not even need to match Settlers as a Warrior can escort one Settler and then escort a different Settler later. Let's just fill this map with cities.

I abstained but agree with Cyc's idea.

The FA Moron abstains and wonders why the Military Leader even posted this. Public Opinion was extreemly pro no war yet, but you go ahead to try to commit us to a war anyway. Gotta abstain at times like this.

20 is a good chance to win.