These are the traditional duties and powers of all ministers:

Post polls and discussions to determine citizen desires for departmental policies, plans and agendas.
Cast a tie-breaking vote in the polls determining their departmental policies, plans and agendas.
Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas based on citizen feedback.
Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas of their own in the absence of citizen feedback (forum outage, low participation, etc).
Convey these policies, plans and agendas to the President for play in the game.

These are the duties assigned to the Minister of Foreign Affairs :

Organize decisions on declarations of war.
Organize decisions on peace treaties.
Organize decisions on construction of embassies.
Organize decisions on rights of passage.
Organize decisions on trade embargoes.
Organize decisions on mutual protection pacts.
Organize decisions on placement of spies.
Organize decisions on intelligence gathering, spying and sabotage.

Please Accept or Decline any nominations you receive.

i nominate immortal for this position and CivGeneral

Accepted..

I wish to accept my nomination

I will second both Immortal and CivGeneral.

A self-nomination here.

I accept, btw. ;)

I'll second Boots. Tough competition here.

I second CG and Boots

I here by nominate the undersigned to the post as Minister of Foreign Affairs

Provolution

and accepts the nomination in full.

Program meeting the expectations of the position of office and the people:

Program of the Provolution Party

Provolution seeks to fulfill the obligations and objectives of the Ministry throught the deliberate handling of documentation, decision processes and throroguh reporting. The Ministry will establish an Intelligence Committee where various intelligence needs will be addressed and sustain these activities with a vigilant and focussed diplomacy. The Ministry will dutifully set the agenda, and caucus the consensus or majority for any given action within our mandate. Nevertheless, Provolution will set up the course for Foreign Affairs with a firm hand, and assure that a productive course will be followed, especially in the absence of qualified feedback.

Since we do not know what the CIV world will be like, I will generically set up the following Policy Memos, short and succinct for effective decisionmaking.

The ten memos, based on your input will be:

1. General vision for the National Interest of Japan
2. Plan for the Future Border and national ambition
3. Principles of Japan for International Agreements
4 Definition of Casus Belli and Sanctions
5. Trade Embargo Cooperation with Minister of Trade
6. National Security Advisory to Minister of Defense
7. Publication : "Japanese Enemy of the Millenium and Century"
8 Joint Memo with President Elect on the International Agenda
9. Final Report on the Provolution Ministry
10. Special Request for a small Foreign Ministry Force

I will support any Presidential alternative that can back up this agenda
So Presidential candidates

contact me at tobetested@hotmail.com

Yours
Provolution

Provolution, I like your preparedness! You've got my vote!

My vote too. That looks like an official campaign there.

Well, what the hell, I have more than enough experiance here to give running a try. If people can run for seven positions at once, I guess I can run for three.

I self nominate and accept.

I have a great deal of experiance in the field of foreign affairs, having attended summer school on the subject (as a...er, punishment), and played numerous forum based geopolitical games. I'm also accustomed to the game (obviously), though not to this particular job. So I have experiance in the field, just not in the job. Probably not nearly as much as Provolution, but then my real field of expertise lies in Domestic Affairs.

Debate Question:

Lets Say the first Civ we run into is the Aztecs, and they are highly antagonistic. They also have nearby cities holding key resources. The Military can attack them and because of the acces to them will be able to defeat them. Would you try to go for Diplomacy or would you encourage "Agressive Expansionism"? Please give specific details on any plans you would have in dealing with a highly hostile neighbour.

Personaly I would go for an agressive expansionism if we have enough military units. Since I am taking this scenario in view like we are still in the ancent ages, Alliance with other civs wont be advalible untill nationalism.

Debate Question:

Lets Say the first Civ we run into is the Aztecs, and they are highly antagonistic. They also have nearby cities holding key resources. The Military can attack them and because of the acces to them will be able to defeat them. Would you try to go for Diplomacy or would you encourage "Agressive Expansionism"? Please give specific details on any plans you would have in dealing with a highly hostile neighbour.

As the Aztecs have an early UU, I would suggest diplomatic relations with them in the early period. However, if victory is ensured I would suggest aggression. I would of course poll the citizenry on their opinions of the Aztecs, then base my suggestions around this. Before my suggestions are given in the instructions thread I would hold a formal poll ensuring the majority of the citizens agree with my proposal and WOTP is upheld.

The Aztecs have an early UU, and are highly agressive. Unless these resources are essential (we don't have horses but they do, or something) I would suggest we not attack until a later time. Even if they were essential, I would suggest that we use diplomacy to try and gain these resources (which would, of course, take a while) or, more likely, continue exploration in hope that we could find unclaimed sources of the resources. If none existed, I'd declare war, but only until the resources are gained. Before doing so I would hold a public poll to make sure the public agreed with this decision.

Debate Question:

Lets Say the first Civ we run into is the Aztecs, and they are highly antagonistic. They also have nearby cities holding key resources. The Military can attack them and because of the acces to them will be able to defeat them. Would you try to go for Diplomacy or would you encourage "Agressive Expansionism"? Please give specific details on any plans you would have in dealing with a highly hostile neighbour.
I would most definitely go for "aggressive expansionism," if it looked like victory was certain. They'd be a real pain for us in the future if we didn't, and knocking them out early and taking their resources would be a great help in the long run. Granted, they do have an early UU, but if as you said we will be able to defeat them regardless, there's no good reason not to go for war. I don't really see what diplomacy can gain that war can't in this case.

Of course, I'd leave the decision up to the people by posting a discussion and a poll, but I'd strongly push war in this case.

Sarevok

I would operate in full on the basis of trying out less costly means, if we can trade their goods for an afforable price (cheaper than a military campaign), I do, if we can pressurize their border with new bordercities in order to grab the resource effectively without war. If either of these operations are untenable, we shold attack at aour time and choosing and get the resource.

However, if the same resource is way behind their border, and a prolonged war is the only way to get it, it is not worth the trouble. Yet , do not forget that we do not know the game world in detail, lay of the land and so on.
Furthermore, we also have ravaging barbarians at the Monarch level, so we may as well take it easy with the Aztecs if we have these to deal with.

What I learnt from the military education I possess, is that you never solve incomplete case studies without serious reservation. So when posing us trick questions, I would like to see more complete scenarios and risk environments.
Which other civs have we met, what is the situation, barbarian levels, more unexlored land, procimity of coast, defense positions in mountains, volcanoes,
distance to strategic resource and so on.

As we are not allowed to form political platforms for some strange reason, I could have put up a program explaining how I envision a CIV game to unfold with a particular CIV in a particular environment, but the sanctioning of such a freedom of organization (very undemocratic however), reduces the political interaction to become an ad hoc squabble of individuals.

Program platforms would be easier for newbees like me to find a ground in this game, without stretching widely into all directions. In fact, I would like to amend the bylaws in order to assure the right to organize program platforms in a regulated manner, now that they spend energy on legalities.

But I thank you for that question, and as a candidate for a military minister, in which I bet you would do fine, I think we could coperate quite well.

Yours
Provolution

Debate Question:

Lets Say the first Civ we run into is the Aztecs, and they are highly antagonistic. They also have nearby cities holding key resources. The Military can attack them and because of the acces to them will be able to defeat them. Would you try to go for Diplomacy or would you encourage "Agressive Expansionism"? Please give specific details on any plans you would have in dealing with a highly hostile neighbour.

Good answers people :)

Next questions:

2. We are doing well in our settler expansion, and we have explored much of the map. We are currently on a continent that at this point looks similar to Africa's shape (except we arent in the south yet). We have met the Persians, Indians, and Russians. The persians are dominating the west coasts, India is just south of them, Russia is in the north, and we are in the East. All of these nations share a common border except Russia and India. By strength, we are stronger than India, as strong as Russia, and weaker than Persia. We are rich in Horses and Iron resources along our Persian Border, while only India has the other Iron source seen on the map. Persia and Russia have large amounts of luxuries and Horses. Persia threatens us over Iron, What would you do?

3. Going off the previous questions description of the situation, Persia decides instead to threaten and invade India over their Iron. India is now offering you Iron and a decent amount of gold if you join the war in an alliance with them. Russia is staying out, more interested in barbarians and exploration. What would you do?

2. I would ask the Military Department to build up an armed force so that we have a ranking that we are stronger than the Persians. Then I would ask the citizens if we should go to war to protect our iron interests in the region. If they desire for peace, I would then ask the culture department and the govenors to consider building culture related building to ensure that the Persian borders to remain away from us.

3. If the Iron is engulfed by the Persian culture border. I would ask the trade advisor to see if it is alright to go ahead to go along with getting the iron and gold with the alliance vs the Persians.

Good answers people :)

Next questions:

2. We are doing well in our settler expansion, and we have explored much of the map. We are currently on a continent that at this point looks similar to Africa's shape (except we arent in the south yet). We have met the Persians, Indians, and Russians. The persians are dominating the west coasts, India is just south of them, Russia is in the north, and we are in the East. All of these nations share a common border except Russia and India. By strength, we are stronger than India, as strong as Russia, and weaker than Persia. We are rich in Horses and Iron resources along our Persian Border, while only India has the other Iron source seen on the map. Persia and Russia have large amounts of luxuries and Horses. Persia threatens us over Iron, What would you do?

3. Going off the previous questions description of the situation, Persia decides instead to threaten and invade India over their Iron. India is now offering you Iron and a decent amount of gold if you join the war in an alliance with them. Russia is staying out, more interested in barbarians and exploration. What would you do?

Good question

Initially, there is something wrong with q 3, India would not offer us iron if we already got it, and it would only last 20 turns anyway. the Japanese strategy would always be to control strategic resources domestically at all times.

2. In the knowledge that the Persians would develop Immortals with that iron, and that their present army only contains spearmen and archers at best, maybe some cheap cavalry, I would know that we are militarily superior as long as we can monopolize the iron. Yet, the answer would be to develop a proper deterrence of swordsmen, archers and spearmen, later pikemen on the border, with some culture to sustain the border cities. The strategy to win the war, would be to develop a shuttle between the Barbarian frontier, sharpening the troops there from regular to elite, and shuttle them to the Persian border, so we qualitatively achieve strategic supremacy on both military professionalism and weapons technology. The savage frontier would ensure us a steady source of reliable elite troopers, maybe even the occasional military or scientific leader evolving in these battles.

So we basically make the barbarian threat in the game a strategic resource.

A fortress on a mountain connected with a road on the savage frontier would maybe serve as a token real life military academy. Yet, like the Roman Empire, we would leave the Russians to take the brunt from the exploration attempt, as the Barbarians are on the rampage and sustain a strong border..

When the elite border army reaches critical mass, we could even dare to seize 2-3 strategically placed border cities in order to screen the iron/horses even more AND assert enough luxuries for the Japanese people. Yet, when the Japanese develop the samurai warrior, we have the liberty to wage war on the Persians at will, dragging the Indian Elephants with us. A mutual protection act would serve that purpose. However, the main problem is long term, the Russian Cossacks specialist unit, and in order to sustain a viable future border when that technlogy is in place, we need to develop a defensible future border with Russia with that in mind. So we will only venture as far South as we need to develop a defensible border, which means, a number of hills and mountains in which we can dig in for the future Russian storm in the renaissance period. The crux to this, is that we only fight defined wars, with defined objectives, defined outcomes and sustainable strategies where we maintain control and temperance. An Indian - Japanese war should be avoided, as it would develop to become a slugfeast. Samurais and Elephants are equally cheap, but the Elephant does not need iron/horse.

Another point is, Japan must decide time and place of choosing for any war, so if India declares war on Persia, let them sink, develop or barbarian hardened elites into a formidable, small but powerful, coherent and multifunctional warmachine with a diversity of weapons to solve special tasks.

Trade agreements should be conducted on luxuries alone, never iron.


Yet I would need to know the following:

How much time would Persians spend in realizing their luxuries by building roads?

How many wonders do each side possess?

How long and dense is the Persian border?

How long can India suruve Persian onslaught before they invent elephant?

How do we convince the sprawled democrats on this complex, yet I believe highly functional strategy without allowing "democratic" holes in it. ?

There may be many ways to handle this, but I believe that this is the one that will cut costs and get the job done with a minimum of risk.

Oh great, Im boned :wow: - Bender the Robot

Question for the candidates. A nation we've met a few warriors from, but we haven't pinpointed yet, has 7 cities, while we have 3. They are up on us tech-wise by 2 techs. Our military advisor considers them strong, compared to us. We do know they share our continent.
That nation demands tribute from us. Would you give in to the demand if they demanded:
1) our Territory Map
2) our World Map
3) 10 gold or less
4) between 10 and 25 gold
5) our entiry treasury
6) a tech
7) a city

1) Nope, this would be used against us since they would know what we have and what we dont have.
2) Nope
3) Yes
4) Yes, if authorized by the Domestic Department
5) I dont think so
6) Nope
7) I dont think so

Question for the candidates. A nation we've met a few warriors from, but we haven't pinpointed yet, has 7 cities, while we have 3. They are up on us tech-wise by 2 techs. Our military advisor considers them strong, compared to us. We do know they share our continent.
That nation demands tribute from us. Would you give in to the demand if they demanded:
1) our Territory Map
2) our World Map
3) 10 gold or less
4) between 10 and 25 gold
5) our entiry treasury
6) a tech
7) a city


It would be very important to have more info on scenario questions.

It is crucial to know which CIv we are facing, what natural resources are in place and where, do we have a defensible border, where can we expand uninterrupted and so on. But in general, only owning three cities does not allow us to surrender a third in a concession type Munich 1938. Besides, as I consider this a trick question, the diplomacy screen tells us if the deal is going to fly or not. So we know that fact from the window, so there is no real guesswork if they are going to accept or not. It is also important to know how the gold reserves are shaping up, do we need them to cover in budget deficits so we don't lose buildings, critical tech development and so on.

Therefore I will put these concessions in prioritized order on what is acceptable based on the very sparse info given in this scenario.

10 gold or less
25 gold or less
territory map
world map
Our entire treasure (how big is the treasury in this scenario?)
a tech (unless it is critical to getting a vital wonder built first, show strategic resource on the map we need to get first or give them military advantage)
finally I would surrender a city as the absolute last resort, but may consider a war to beat their morale into a peace. Finland vs. Soviet style.


Yet, the scenario needs more "meat" on details, and we could always offer luxuries, workers and other things, as there are more diplomacy options.

2. We are doing well in our settler expansion, and we have explored much of the map. We are currently on a continent that at this point looks similar to Africa's shape (except we arent in the south yet). We have met the Persians, Indians, and Russians. The persians are dominating the west coasts, India is just south of them, Russia is in the north, and we are in the East. All of these nations share a common border except Russia and India. By strength, we are stronger than India, as strong as Russia, and weaker than Persia. We are rich in Horses and Iron resources along our Persian Border, while only India has the other Iron source seen on the map. Persia and Russia have large amounts of luxuries and Horses. Persia threatens us over Iron, What would you do?I would probably give in to the iron demand. Yes, it is true that Persia would be then able to build Immortals, but if we didn't give in, they'd probably capture our cities and get iron for an indefinite amount of time anyway. I would then advocate that we build up our military during the 20 turns we are giving away iron. If we make it large enough, we could defend against attacks and be prepared to deny them iron in the future.

3. Going off the previous questions description of the situation, Persia decides instead to threaten and invade India over their Iron. India is now offering you Iron and a decent amount of gold if you join the war in an alliance with them. Russia is staying out, more interested in barbarians and exploration. What would you do?India would not be able to offer us Iron because we already had some. The gold wouldn't really sway my decision unless we really needed it.

As for participating in the war, I would probably be against it. Assuming that Persia is going to go for Iron from somewhere at all costs, a two-front war with Persia would likely result in them getting Iron regardless, and it's better that they get India's Iron than ours. We should, of course, build up our military as Persia and India are fighting, so that in the event Persia decides to fight us with their new Immortals, we'd be ready to face them.

Question for the candidates. A nation we've met a few warriors from, but we haven't pinpointed yet, has 7 cities, while we have 3. They are up on us tech-wise by 2 techs. Our military advisor considers them strong, compared to us. We do know they share our continent.
That nation demands tribute from us. Would you give in to the demand if they demanded:
1) our Territory Map
2) our World Map
3) 10 gold or less
4) between 10 and 25 gold
5) our entiry treasury
6) a tech
7) a city
It would be important to know what civ it is demanding tribute from us, so that we would get an idea of their aggressiveness. Depending on where they are on the map, we could perhaps continue the war without major combat until they seek peace. However, I'll assume the civ is within striking range.

I think we should definitely give in to demands 1 through 4. 5 depends on the size of the treasury, but most likely we should give in. For demand 6, it depends on the tech, but most likely it would be prudent to give in to their demand. Demand 7 is the only one I'd definitely reject, I'd rather take our chances in war with them than give up one of our only three cities. However, I don't believe I've ever seen the AI demand a city for tribute, so this point may be moot. Even if that is possible, it would be quite unlikely that the AI would demand a city from us, even if we're weaker.

Overall, I don't have any qualms about giving in to tribute demands from stronger civs, as long as it doesn't put us at a sizeable disadvantage that we would be better off trying to fight to prevent. Even with Sarevok's Persian question, it would still be best to give in to an Iron demand despite it putting us at a significant disadvantage, as they would almost certainly get it by force anyway, and we'd be at even more of a disadvantage if the war didn't go our way.

nevermind...

and also revealing our world , map would also reveal any territory we have.

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

1. Yes, The judiciary, FA, Culture, and Science.

2. I have no "order" of preference, I have no idea which elections I stand a chance of being elected in, when I have a better idea of that, then I'll pick a preference. Ive been busy organizing the constitution, I simply am running in the positions I know myself to be the best at.

3. See above. Until Election night I am open to all options.

Here's a Question I posed in the Military Minister Thread, but I think while it applies there it applies more so in this Thread.

In DG1 Babylon declared war on us (we refused their demands) soon afterwards we found ourself facing a complex net of alliances against us, where Every civilization (except the one we would not contact for another few thousand years) was at war against us. What would you do in order to prevent such an all engulfing alliance being formed against us?

Here's a Question I posed in the Military Minister Thread, but I think while it applies there it applies more so in this Thread.

In DG1 Babylon declared war on us (we refused their demands) soon afterwards we found ourself facing a complex net of alliances against us, where Every civilization (except the one we would not contact for another few thousand years) was at war against us. What would you do in order to prevent such an all engulfing alliance being formed against us?


Falcon02

I read all the critical postings on the so-called "Domino War" and the events leading up to it. I think I side with your analysis on what went wrong, and beyond that, link two criticisms they did not see at that time. Being the first game in this series, many tactical and diplomatic blunders were conducted in my opinion, primarily by Saitan, the FA of 1 and 2 terms, and President Grey Fox. However, Grey Fox and General charis redeemed the situation, also thanks to qualifed feedback from the voice of the people.

However, blindly allowing Japan to become a transit road for all nationalities as a cheap aklternative to other concessions in diplomatic agreements spells disaster. It does not matter to keep the territorial map a secret, when the same nations can seeour lands and our movements, as well as development with their own eyes. Right of Passage, should IMHO, only be used for dedicated satellite nations we trust and strategic alliances in wars where we badly need reinforcements, not as a tourist, settlement, walkabout espionage and discount concession solution. And we should definitively not poll how we nationally rank MFN down to Rogue Nations (USA changed this to "Nations of concern" back in the nineties, so it is a dated term"). The open allowing of Rights of Passage, combined with extortionate policy of diplomatic demands in trades and agreements, and extreme secrecy of territory and world maps (allowing the happy "tourists" to map it themselves). This lead to the very opposite type of war environment than Provolution seeks, where the enemy decides on the alliance structure, timing of war and choice of casus belli.

In many ways, the Domino War was a textbook example on how to lose the strategic initiative as a Dept of Foreign Affairs, and took away the prospect of developing cleverly planned surprise wars from our side. Besides, the extreme polling of numerous issues created participatory fatigue, even in reality people would not feel like dealing in some 100 polls. When democracy feels like a pop-up, and you look for ways to remove the adware, no good.

I also disagree on the way they ranked MFN down to rogue nations through polls, polls should be trimmed down to some grander, not piecemeal strategic decisions, allowing the people to join a strategic debate, not a popularity contest on who likes which nation and how much should we demand in deals.

I would also say that Chieftess and Chiefpaco redeemed the situation in the midgame and the endgame to an extent that we assured a cultural victory.
Yet, the early mistakes made a space and cultural victory the most likely victories we could get. Ethecatl Atzin did not publish any reports, which is disgraceful for a foreign minister.

What I would do in order to avoid such massive alliances against us could therefore be summarized as such:

Only poll major strategic choices on foreign policy, and assure participation
Never give mixed messages to other nations (ROP vs extortion)
Never confuse the intelligence value of maps and ROP (rarely use ROP)
Avoid splitting the responsibillity of international deals, including science, trade, agreements and guaranteees in the same basket.
Assure clear cut and effective reporting everybody understands
Open and end the term with a press conference in chat mode (MSN)
Publish the necessary agendas and plans in order to craft good strategy
Balance the need of open democracy with a sound strategy.
Decide time, place and paricipants of any future war before the target nation is aware of it, and win a stunning victory with defined outcomes, Japan should win through well planned surprise operations, not attrition wars.
This also means that we must be more diplomatic, aggressive and assertive at the same time, but not thugs, and be very smooth in reaching our end.
A diplomatic victory would not be out of the question if I am elected, but domination and conquest victory is fine too.

Finally, investigate my "The Order of the Imperial Shadow" thread, and assess the foreign policy doctrine firmly based on the Japanese uniqueness, and in many opinions a prudent, assertive and victory oriented strategic manifest.

I'm impressed by your detail responce, however, in my opinion the majority of that deals with more unrelated aspects of your overall policy.

The only Criticism I know about Grey Fox was one person who jumped around saying that GF had "undermined the will of the people" by disagreeing to give into Babylon's Demands. However, public opinion was well in favor of NEVER giving into demands, regardless of it was a 10 gold, territory map or all the way up to one of our cities, as he is the only dissenting voice I remember. He soon disappeared as it appeared he was unable to get any support for his view of GF's "disregard for public opinion."

ROP's IIRC we did not initiate any ROP agreements until later in the game, and in general I was never a fan of these. The only ROP agreement I remember specifically was the Iroqouis ROP. Though that stands out, since while it was universally accepted the Iroqouis were a strong Ally they backstabbed us, using the ROP to take our Production Center city for 1 turn. Though I do remember at least talks of ROP's with other civilizations, however I forget how many of those actually were enacted and what nations those were with.
Also, whenever I noticed a unit inside our territory which was not supposed to be there, I asked them to leave.

The ROP vs. extorsion point, is applicable. However, in the case of DG1 I don't believe we started extorting civilizations until AFTER the Domino war, due to our military supremeacy following the war. And thus a "Domino war" was less likely since it was harder for the AI to find allies.

Also, while encouraging Participation by not flooding them with rather meaningless polls (which I agree with) it once again doesn't quite apply to the situation of the DG1 war

Avoid splitting the responsibillity of international deals, including science, trade, agreements and guaranteees in the same basket.
Please elaborate, do you see the Trade and Science (in respect to tech trades) Departments as undermining your athority? I could also say for Military "Avoiding splitting the responcibility for the Military Units including production of units, production of barracks."
The Trade Dept. engulfs quite alot of work. Posting and discussioning various trade options with other nations, maximizing our revenue, etc. Do we want the version where we trade this additional Tech or is it not worth it. Would we rather pay gpt for this item instead? or Receive gpt instead of a tech or luxary.

I agree with your plans to improve relations with the Citizenry, such as the chat's and the "easy to understand reports" however once again, I see as not so much directly addressing my question, but more a statment of general policy, which while folstering particpation (I say again a VERY GOOD thing), doesn't prevent such a domino war.

Balance the need of open democracy with a sound strategy.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, I hold the Will of the People Supreme, so even if the citizenry makes a poor decision we must follow the people.

Decide time, place and paricipants of any future war before the target nation is aware of it, and win a stunning victory with defined outcomes, Japan should win through well planned surprise operations, not attrition wars.
This also means that we must be more diplomatic, aggressive and assertive at the same time, but not thugs, and be very smooth in reaching our end.

I can agree with this, however I do not think we conducted any "wars of attrition" as we only attacked if war was declared on us. Only one war was planned ahead of time and that was the American War which was interupted by the Domino War. Every following war, the enemy declared war on us, even the Greek war, we had gotten plenty of offers to ally against them, however we remained Neutral until the Greeks themselves declared war on us. However, every nation which did declare war on us was quickly destroyed or reduced to one city (Greece). But I'm not sure that makes it a war of attition but more so a war of deterance/vengence.

A diplomatic victory would not be out of the question if I am elected, but domination and conquest victory is fine too.
I wouldn't be surprised if we could have been able to secure a Diplomatic victory by the tried and true, Ally EVERYONE against one foe, practically garenteeing they will vote for us.

Alot of what you said I can agree with, and I'm impressed by the depth you looked into it, however, alot of it, while applicable to the elections, by stating your policies, I do not see as applicable to my question.

Everyone is at war with Greece, would you declare war on Greece just to get the popular support of the other countries?

To add onto that question - Would you sign alliances with the risk that, if other civs destroy Greece, we'll take the rep hit too?

That would depend on our goals in the game. Since we have already done a domination victory that would be out of the question. I would not declare war on the Greeks just to get popular support from 3rd party civs.

I would not sign alliances that would risk us getting us a reputation hit. If we are in alliance with a civ that is fighting against the Greeks. Just before they take the last city and that the alliance has matured to at least 20 turns old will be to cancel the alliance deal so that we wont be hammered with the reputation hit.

Falcs question requires proactive treatment, not retroactive treatment. Steps must be taken at the start of the term to determine public sentiment on whether to give into demands or not, once this is determined it will be followed to the letter. If the people decide against giving into any demands then the rules will be as such and I will not change them for any reason unless repolled and sentiment changes.

Blackhearts question: no, personally, I would declare war on my own terms and for the seizure of lands. That being said it runs secondary to if the people wish to declare war or not.

Chieftes' question: I dont know why anyone would support making themselves a rogue nation for any nother reason then total war.

Falcon02

Basically, I would have a general assertive policy of containment, building alliances against the civs directly threating our strategic interests. We cannot be everybodys friend and everybodys enemy. The same applies to the polling and the broadest understanding of the "people", we cannot satisfy the entire people at any time, but we can always meet the interest of the majority at any given stage, given the chance we can argue properly for our policy standpoint. However, I did not participate in the DG1, and can only emphathize with the plight of your largest DEMOgame experience, Falcon02, and I believe the Dominion War to play the same background as WW2, in IRL elections for Earth as it is. Yet, I do not have that experience from that particular computer simulation, but I can say with honesty, I would not generate a situation that would make everyone ally against us.

Blackheart and Chieftess

About banding up against Greece, I would not do so, since the main principle I represent, is that Japan selects the time, place, conditions and military force at its choosing, and does not jump on the bandwaggon. Reputation hits may be ugly for any civ,and we would not spend this ethical capital on this unstrategic investment unless it directly meets our strategic goals. Of course this will be the will of the people that decides, but I would advocate strongly against a policy without a strategy.

Japan should follow a doctrine of fighting wars with defined outcomes. We win.

I am withdrawing my cadidacy from this position as I intend to focus on being elected to the judiciary or to the position of science minister. I urge those who wished to support me to elect Provolution to this position

Therefore I have Declined this position.