These are the traditional duties and powers of all councilmembers:

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 of the Military Department:

Organize decisions on troop movements.
Organize decisions on defensive plans.
Organize decisions on offensive plans.
Organize decisions on troop upgrades and terminations.
Call a Mobilization Council Vote to determine if the economy should be mobilized.
When the economy is mobilized for war, becomes the defacto President, superceding the President in the Chain of Command.
Can supercede a provincial build queue with military units or improvements during time of invasion.

I hereby nominate SAREVOK for the position of military Minister

I second that nomination, on the basis that I think he did a good job last time, but have no way of really knowing..

I nominate CivGeneral

I third Sarevok!

I decline my nomination

This is a position I haven't had yet. I self-nominate and of course Accept.

hmm... half tempted to self-nominate, or maybe for another position... but while I'll be able to complete a full term, I'll likely have to leave after that term....

Also, just to clarify (And to clarify to Chieftess). The reason I declined my nominations is because I am already running for another office. I decided to only run for one office only. I am not declining my nomination because Sarevok is running.

I urge Falcon to run! I nuominate Falcon, too!

I nominated myself! I may be new but I'm optimistic and progressive.

Yes, of course I accept my nomination.

I will second RM, Falc, and blackheart.

This is a bit off topic, but the title of the thread brought it up. Military Minister, especailly when you say it, just doesn't come out right. I propose that the name of this office be changed to something that sounds better, like Defense Minister, War Minister, or Military Leader.

I'd vote Defense Minister

I nominate mysel.....*CT glares at me* Oh yea CT thinks I wouldnt be a good Military Minister...Oh well...

I *whatever number* Sarevok....






*I am not running for Military Minister*

In the top of this thread there is a typo/mistake that need to be cleared up before this Nomination process takes place. In the opening blurb for this job description, we list the traditional duties and powers of all Council Members. In the list at the top of this thread are listed duties and powers that are not listed for any of the other Council Members, including the DM and the President. They are:

Call Legislative and Override Council Votes.
Vote in Council Votes of all types.

Now I know these votes are outdated and not defined in any current legislation, but that doesn't mean this situation will not change. Anyway, we need to delete those lines from the list above so that it is more concurrent with the others. Thanks.

I gladly Accept my nomination.

This is a bit off topic, but the title of the thread brought it up. Military Minister, especailly when you say it, just doesn't come out right. I propose that the name of this office be changed to something that sounds better, like Defense Minister, War Minister, or Military Leader.
I like War Minister, but Defense Minister is good too.

After giving the issue much thought I have decided to Accept my nomination to War Minister, Defense Minister, or whatever the official name shall be.

I thin defence minister sounds the best.

Uhhm, I just realised I'll be on holiday soon. If the game starts before I get back, please appoint a stand-in for the time of my absence (If I win this election)...

Anybody got some debate questions?

Anybody got some debate questions?
Here's one: In Term 1, barbarians are going to be our biggest threat. Do you plan on dealing with them by hunting them down, or by simply defending our cities? And how much of our resources would you dedicate to exploration?

Best option would likely be a combination of both Defense and seeking 'em out.

Try to get a spearman (or two) in our main city early on.

Send out ALL settlers with an escort of a spearman.

Have a few Warriors searching the fogged areas for Barbarians, trying to eliminate the problem before it grows too big.

Also leave 1-2 spearmen in the Capital for those barbarian camps we most certainly will miss.

Voters! Registered Citizens! Lurkers! Please hear my call.

My spies have informed me that the lands we are about to settle down in are surrounded by "unpleasant" barbarians (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=91038). And there are a lot of them !!

But still; there will be many un-hostile settlements. I shall refer to them as "Goody Huts". They can give us gold and warriors and technologies. But sometimes they are disguished barbaric encampments. We need to seek them and benefit from them. We are a nation of faith and Power. The holy book and and the holy sword combined. We shall move to meet those barbarians and we shall move to gain those goody huts.

But not at all costs. Our nation needs to be protected and our cities and peoples need to be safe first. In every city or city-group the first priority is defense by warriors. When the cities are safe we go scouting. There is 1 exception; the first-build warrior goes out to scout, but will refrain from popping huts till the homeland is defended.

Workers stay close to home, improving first ring and in between cities first. Settlers are escorted by 1 warrior and later by 2 warriors or 1 spear.

This is my answer to question 1, as posted by Noldodan

Rik... more or less what I said with RPG flare :p

Here is my question that I wish to pop into this debate.

What would you do if we discover an important stratigic resource that is within or close to another civ's borders?

Rik... more or less what I said with RPG flare :pKeep your dirt-throwing to yourself; your campaign nor your ideas are even remotely similar to mine. Do not deceive the voters into believing you and I are alike; because my message is better and better wrapped !!

;)

Assuming we have rather throughly explored our area and found no other tiles with that resource, which I think is rather unlikly.

close - encourage us to expand in that direction to claim it for ourselves before they take it

within - depends, can we settle right next to it and claim that cultural area?
can't do that? build roads and try to initiate Trade.
if it's their only resource and won't trade it, I would see what the public opinion was about taking the resource by force, and act upon that poll.

EDIT: @ Rik - :lol: I was more or less pointing out yours was better wrapped.

Here is my question that I wish to pop into this debate.

What would you do if we discover an important stratigic resource that is within or close to another civ's borders? - Ah the infamous "I want what I can't have" paradox. Thank you very much for putting this on the table.

I will first try to seek other sources of that resource. If there are other (uncontested) sources nearby; we'll go that way.

Some time will pass before we know what Iron is, but we can immediately see where our horses are. Horses are important, but not as important as Iron. For Iron is needed to transform our nation's finest into Samurai-warriors, later on. I will ignore the problem if it concerns horses.

When we learn Iron-working and see the Iron-resource, I'm planning to clear the way to the Iron free from Barbarians, without fighting the nation that holds the Iron. A clear passage for our traderoute and settlers and workers.
When we are on the virge of learning Chivalry, we are on the virge of ultimate glory. We then will need Iron. If the other nation holds the only source within close proximity to the edges of their nation and doesn't want to trade it, it's the swords. A quick, fast war for the soul reason of Iron is what I advise then. In any other case I will not fight.

Any other strategice resources are ignored by me. There are more resources to be located and connected.

A Scenario type question.

War has suddenly been declared on us by another civ from out of the blue. Luckly the FA's Instructions specificly said to halt the chat in the event that happens. We were currently in the middle of building our infrastructure during a time of peace. We currently have around 20 Swords, 6 spears each garrosened in 5 cities (w/ one extra in the capital). The Military Advisor in Civ3 said that the streingth of (ill put in a random civ) the Romans are the same as ours. What would be your plans in this scenario?

Let the 20 swords take on strategic positions on the border to fend of any Roman attacks.
As soon as the peace-time builds are completed, switch to defensive and a few offensive units.
When the defensive units are increasing, send a force out to the Romans to "teach them the Japanese are not to be toyed with".

In response to Nolodan, I would send out a few warriors to destroy their camps, but I would not send any troops to scout for the camps, only to destroy as they are stumbled upon. I would spend most of our resources to rapidly expand in the beginning. Our settlers would be escorted by at least one spearmen, of course they would have to avoid confrontations with barbarians at any cost.

In response to CivGeneral, I would try to get a city there are soon as possible, it just depends on how far. If the civilization is less advanced, I would try to convince them to trade their city for a technology. If they are militarily weaker, I would outright annex that territory for the glory of our nation. This all depends on how important that resource is to us. Blitzing for resources and good territory is the key to our nation's survival.

In response to CivGenerals second question, I would say it depends on how far they are from us. If they are a ways away and there is a nation inbetween us and them, I would say their declartion of war is a low priority and continue as normal, except for reinforcements on our border that faces them. If they are close to us, I would first off, let the buildings be completed, because we need a strong infrastructure for a strong military. I would send out the swordsmen, in groups of 5, to disrupt their infrastructure and capture any of the weaker cities, if any. After the buildings are done, the cities should be switched to full time military units, mostly offensive because our swordsmen are keeping the Romans busy running in circles. I would then shift all of the raiding swordsmen to one end of their territory, while I send in the new units to flank them and capture the other end. This will continue until they plead for mercy and give in to our demands for peace and other things. After all, a prolonged war wastes resources better spent on infrastructure and economy.

Thank you to Cyc for the seconding.

Question for the Candidates: When does the national priority, in you opinion, switch from producing warriors to producing spearmen? Will archers play an important role in your ranks?

In response to Cyc, The priority for spearmen is basically the first unit that any city builds. I emphasize more on spearmen because they can be upgraded through all eras and are a fairly powerful unit. Of course the swordsmen is a powerful offensive unit, but it will become obsolete later on. If we are at peace, the primary objective will be defense and expansion. If a war happens upon us, then an offensive is a must to show the enemy we are capable of fighting. We could send in a few spearmen to a mountain or hill to tie up their troops while we build up our forces. Archers will have less of a priority than swordsmen. They are an OK offensive unit, but they are not strong enough to warrant massive production.

For CG's last question

Poll to see how the citizenry wish to persue the war, aggressively or passively.
If the stance is agressive, encourage governors to build more swordsmen, and a few spearmen in the mix. Keeping the following Passive stance until a sufficient force is gathered to ensure victory.

If Passive, set up the Swordsmen in cities and near resources to launch counter attacks to defend our lands.



In responce to Cyc, Assuming a passive stance by the citizens, as soon as we have the technology to build spearmen. However, once we have enough spearmen for 1-2 in each city I would again switch the priority back to warriors/swordsmen. Once we have enough swordsmen to ensure offensive superiority (ie. same strength - strong vs. our enemies), switch back to spearmen/infrastructure.

Archers will likely not be in my stradegy unless we are unable to aquire Iron.

What if, because of some mistake or sheer bad luck on our part, a enemy Civ takes one of our cities. What would you do to take it back? And would you then attempt to teach them a lesson?

In response to Toaae, I would concentrate all of our forces (without sacrifing defense) on that single city to liberate it. Retritubtion is dependent on how large the possibility of victory is. If we are clearly outgunned, I would sue for peace without loss.

Here's one: In Term 1, barbarians are going to be our biggest threat. Do you plan on dealing with them by hunting them down, or by simply defending our cities? And how much of our resources would you dedicate to exploration?
I will Have a few units garrisoning our main cities (at least 1) while I will early on in the game send large amounts of troops to explore the map. I will however always have reserve units kept in the cities for settler escorts. The beginning of the game does not seem many barbarian offensives, but we still must have a "power projection" in order to get ready for a future barbarian onslaught.

Here is my question that I wish to pop into this debate.

What would you do if we discover an important stratigic resource that is within or close to another civ's borders?
My standard procedure is to have a settler race for the rescource if it is not in their territory but close and we are able to get it. If it is an opposing border, I usually have cities built very near their border to be filled with culture impovements so that eventually we will take the region and the resource.

A Scenario type question.

War has suddenly been declared on us by another civ from out of the blue. Luckly the FA's Instructions specificly said to halt the chat in the event that happens. We were currently in the middle of building our infrastructure during a time of peace. We currently have around 20 Swords, 6 spears each garrosened in 5 cities (w/ one extra in the capital). The Military Advisor in Civ3 said that the streingth of (ill put in a random civ) the Romans are the same as ours. What would be your plans in this scenario?
I would launch a concentrated offensive with our swordsmen into their border cities or to attack their units should they come first. I would keep 5 swordsmen in reserve until we have taken one of their cities. I would make sure that our rear cities have been converted into a war-time economy so that I will be able to utilize reinforcement swordsmen for ffensives and spearmen to garrison the newly conquered cities. Not all cities will though, and I expect at least 1 of theose 5 cities to have domestic issues on their mind. Then I would use terrain if possibe as build up areas near cities to continue eating away at their cities until the nation is either consumed or we make peace. This was the same strategy I used when a much stronger Babylon declared war on us in DG4T3 and it worked with great effect.

Question for the Candidates: When does the national priority, in you opinion, switch from producing warriors to producing spearmen? Will archers play an important role in your ranks?
Spearmen for me are the troops to garrison cities and protect settlers. That is pretty much all they will be used for except possibly going with troop stacks to have them go with a defensive unit should there be an abundance of spearmen. As for archers I dont usually make them, but I do if I get in a offensive war before swordsmen. I have found them decently effective at attacking warriors but not good for much else.

What if, because of some mistake or sheer bad luck on our part, a enemy Civ takes one of our cities. What would you do to take it back? And would you then attempt to teach them a lesson?
By the time that happens, we will have a rather build-up system of infastructure (i dont see us in a war in the 1st term). I would simly march our reserve troops to hit the city from two directions to encircle the city if neccesary. The encirclemtn is to prevent enemy units from getting in to reinforce. If there are artillery unitsI will use them to hit the garrison and then eventually storm the city and use the troops left for a counter-offensive.

If on the other hand this happens early in the game, then I would send forces to re-take the city immediately in a general offensive. Of course if this city is a distant city of no importance i could care less. If is in our core however, I will at least surround the city so that it cannot be reinforced if we cant take it immediately. Such a situation will also possibly create a "Verdun" situation where the enemy throws all of their forces to the area, so we could eventually lure them into a situation where they will lose a ridiculous amount of forces only to lose the objective they are planning to hold.

Question: Would you risk losing Galleys if there seems to be a reasonable chance of reaching another civ by sea/ocean? What is your general naval policy?

Question: Do you think it reasonable to disband troops for the sake of the treasury?

Question: Would you risk losing Galleys if there seems to be a reasonable chance of reaching another civ by sea/ocean? What is your general naval policy?
My Naval strategy consists of using the navy at first to scout, then for operations on other civs ships and shores. I use my navy to hunt enemy ships and kill them while i have others guarding transports heading towards enemy forces. I dont usually build a large navy until the industrial age, but I do keep a good sized navy. Concerning your question, no I would not take the chance. I am rather "Isolationist" in that I often keep away form other civs in the diplomatic area in my games. My exploration is not to find other civs, but to find rescources/land to settle and take over. However, Isolationist is a bad term as that implies I avoid wars, which I do not yet I am not a warmongerer.

Question: Do you think it reasonable to disband troops for the sake of the treasury?

No I dont, unless our treasury is completely wasted and we have too many extra troops. I almost never disband troops unless I am either intentionally reducing the military or am disbanding weak units I cant afford to upgrade. Usually I manage to keep the economy intact as I do not over-produce military units. Only in a war-time economy situation am i mass-producing weapons and troops. I rarely keep enormous peace-time armies unless it is an Elite and Veteran army.

Question for the Candidates: When does the national priority, in you opinion, switch from producing warriors to producing spearmen? Will archers play an important role in your ranks?Spears will only be build in cities with barracks; and only for defense. Warriors are cheaper and upgrade to swords. Horsemen upgrade to the mighty Samurai. Spears are far less useful than for other civs. Japan is to defend actively, not passively. Therefore I'd only squeeze in some spearmen when possible and there are no other burning tasks. The exception is when we are under threat by barbarians or another nation.
Archers are excellent units for nations without horses nor iron. We have the starting tech of "The Wheel" thus we can spot horses immediately. If it turns out there is no Iron and no horses close, and other civilizations near us have it, and we are boxxed in by other nations with no room to grow: Yes I will build archers. In all other situations: no. Archers are a last resort, a backup plan. They can never be more than that since they have a bad-upgrade-path.

What if, because of some mistake or sheer bad luck on our part, a enemy Civ takes one of our cities. What would you do to take it back? And would you then attempt to teach them a lesson?Many offices and ministers must have failed simultaniously to let this happen. I don't believe in bad luck, I believe in planning and preparation. If this happens then all defenses are destroyed, all tactical back ups used and virtually all units wiped out. It would be a signal that we are on the edge to become extinct. Too many things must have gone horribly wrong for this scenario to take place that we'd survive only if that nation decides to let us survive. To summarise: This scenario is so unlikely that if it happens we can't take it back; we'll be clinging to survival for the whole nation by our fingertips.

Question: Would you risk losing Galleys if there seems to be a reasonable chance of reaching another civ by sea/ocean? What is your general naval policy?Not in term 1. I doubt that we'll even get the techs required for galleys, but a la. Galleys will be used for scouting the perimeter of our continent and neighbouring lands. If our lands are so small that all that is explorable by galley is explored, we'd be in too small a country that we'd never have reached the Map Making tech.

Question: Do you think it reasonable to disband troops for the sake of the treasury?No. I will not have our nation's finest be sacrificed for mere pennies. They are to do battle and to die with honor, not as money-makers. However I will allow some of our military forces perform parades and shows in cities, as a way of keeping people happy, but that's as far as I will go.

Three questions I'm going to put in every nomination thread (except FA, as I'm running there):

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?

Bootstoots' questions

1) Yes; the military and the Science department

2) I prefer Military over science.

3) It is my first choice.

In response to Babbler,

No I would not want to use galleys just to reach another civ. Initial contact can wait because civs on islands pose no immediate threat to us. My general naval policy is to not build many naval troops until ironclads and destroyers show up. Before that only a few transport ships for colonizing and exploration.

In response to citizen001,

Generally no, all units are important. I would only disband if the unit is obsolete and we cannot upgrade or we simply do not need it anymore. But that is rarely the circumstance as all units have their uses. If the treasury is running very low, which it shouldn't in the first place, I would be willing to sacrifice some of the older units in order to save our infrastructure from being turned into scrap.

In response to Bootstoot,

1)Yes
2) Military, Domestic, all judges - I would accept any position if elected
3) Because I would try my best in any particular position and a vote casted is a vote not wasted

QUESTION

okay seeing how we have the barbarians on raging, would you leave barbarian camps open to allow training type areas to allow our military units to become vets and elitists quicker, or would you just knock them off quickly take the gold and stop any further attacks on our nation?

BCLG's question
It depends where the camps are located. If they are close to our cities or they are close to near-future cities: they go!
If they are not really close, and located on hills, mountains or other defense-boosting terrain I'd station some troops to engage barbarians coming out of the huts for promotions.
Far away huts go: they are no thread to us, require too many units for promotions and the gold can benefit other nations. And the huts will "respawn", giving us a chance for more promotions and gold.

In response to BCLG100,

I would knock them all off. Having a massive barbarian uprising near one of your newly founded cities is not a good day.

I would hope our military leaders would use barbarians as possible "farms" to breed elite units.

I would hope our military leaders would use barbarians as possible "farms" to breed elite units.

isn't that what they always do?

What if, because of some mistake or sheer bad luck on our part, a enemy Civ takes one of our cities. What would you do to take it back? And would you then attempt to teach them a lesson?

This question has special meaning to me. In DG1 my City, Falcon's Haven, was razed by the Egyptian forces, the only city of ourse to be razed, and the first of two to be taken by the enemy (PDX being the second however wasn't razed and taken back that turn). However, I got New Falcon's Haven later on to honor my fallen city.

If we were to lose a city, I would make sure we take it back without really effecting our over all offensive. This is assuming we still have offensive superiority. Once we take the city, assuming Citizen approval we shall destroy their civilization or reduce them to a small colony FAR away from our borders.

If we are losing a war (which hopefully will never happen), I would refocus our efforts on retaking the city without damaging our Defensive. If we are unable to retake it, we may have to get peace and make it our mission to retake the city later on when our military forces have been rebuilt sufficiently to allow us to retake the city, and destroy their empire, assuming citizen approval.

isn't that what they always do?
Not scattering them, by leaving a barbarian camp around to use as long term unit possibilities.

Question: Would you risk losing Galleys if there seems to be a reasonable chance of reaching another civ by sea/ocean? What is your general naval policy?


Yes, Using Galley's on "suicide" runs to get contact with other civilizations can be VERY useful...

I tend not to focus on Naval production for the most part, however, I do like having a couple Naval units to patrol our coastline, especially later on.

Galley's and other transport units I will likely not build UNLESS for exploration or for specific Transport goals (ie. colonize this Island, or Military attacks on remote parts of an enemy country)

Question: Do you think it reasonable to disband troops for the sake of the treasury?

Yes, primarily more outdated units, HOWEVER, I steer away from disbanding troops unless needed. Even outdated units can be used to garrison, quelling resisters and producing happy faces (in the right government).

Three questions I'm going to put in every nomination thread (except FA, as I'm running there):

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

Yes.



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?

Military and Governor. I'm not quite sure which I would choose first, however I lean twoards Governor, bit of a change from what I've normally done. I have been Governor once before, however, at the time I had more on my plate then I expected and was overwhelmed by RL responcibilities and forced to resign.



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?

Because of my Experience in DG1, I was military Leader EVERY term that game, except for Term 1, and our Civilization was the Dominate military force in the world ever term I was the Military Leader. Few wars lasted more then a few turns, as it tended to only take about 5 turns to completely conquer their entire civilization, and every civilization that declared war on us, save the Domino war since that was EVERYONE, was left either with only one city (Greece) or totally destroyed (America, Egypt, Iroqouis)

Three questions I'm going to put in every nomination thread (except FA, as I'm running there):

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. No, This is the only position I am Running for

3. First choice. It is in the arena of strategy and warfare that I am at my best.

okay seeing how we have the barbarians on raging, would you leave barbarian camps open to allow training type areas to allow our military units to become vets and elitists quicker, or would you just knock them off quickly take the gold and stop any further attacks on our nation?

Both. I would kill any barbarian teams near our borders right away to remove their threat. The ones further away that will be less of a threat on the other hand will be the such training grounds for creating elite units for our army. My main goal in this is to have both a secure border and a strong,experienced army.

I sense that this will be a very close race...

QUESTION

okay seeing how we have the barbarians on raging, would you leave barbarian camps open to allow training type areas to allow our military units to become vets and elitists quicker, or would you just knock them off quickly take the gold and stop any further attacks on our nation?

I would train a few units this way, however for the most part I would just take them out for the gold and attempt to prevent any barbarian uprisings against us.

I would hope our military leaders would use barbarians as possible "farms" to breed elite units.
This may be a good idea, but it's too risky to leave them laying around, especially with barbarians set on RAGING. Maybe just leave one or two far far away from our borders or near a well defended city.

Here's an interesting question I think is appropriate to pose to all my "opponents" and will likely need some time myself to respond to.

How would you handle a case like in Demogame 1 where Babylon declared war on us (after we refused to give into their demands for our Map). Soon afterwards a large alliance network was formed against us, and soon afterwards we had EVERY nation on our continent at war with us (only England which we didn't contact till early Industrial did not declare war on us). Assuming we were unable to avoid this global alliance against us, how would you handle this (primarily in the age of Swordsmen)?

Here's an interesting question I think is appropriate to pose to all my "opponents" and will likely need some time myself to respond to.

How would you handle a case like in Demogame 1 where Babylon declared war on us (after we refused to give into their demands for our Map). Soon afterwards a large alliance network was formed against us, and soon afterwards we had EVERY nation on our continent at war with us (only England which we didn't contact till early Industrial did not declare war on us). Assuming we were unable to avoid this global alliance against us, how would you handle this (primarily in the age of Swordsmen)?
In such a desperate situation I would need to take advantage of our terrain. For one I would immediately ask for a "Mobilization for Total War" from all of our cities save the wonder cities of course. I would then use our terrain to fight off enemy armies if they come right away. If enemy forces likely will not come soon, Ill launch offensives against our nearest neighbour and start taking their cities out. I will count on destroying the enemy's armies in the field rather than in their cities though, and I would not attack strong garrisons of troops. I would usually try to cut off and surround formations and eat them up rather than take them head on. I probably would even go as far as setting up traps by luring enemies to undefended cities only to devastate all the troops they send. In such a war, my point would be to devastate enemy armies and bleed their elite units to death before launching offensives to take some territory in their zones.

How would you handle a case like in Demogame 1 where Babylon declared war on us (after we refused to give into their demands for our Map). Soon afterwards a large alliance network was formed against us, and soon afterwards we had EVERY nation on our continent at war with us (only England which we didn't contact till early Industrial did not declare war on us). Assuming we were unable to avoid this global alliance against us, how would you handle this (primarily in the age of Swordsmen)?

Okay I think I've got my thoughts together on this now....

if we had a large treasury and good income, and assuming we had Iron, I would try to keep one (or more) city(ies) disconnected from Iron to pump out Warriors to be upgraded at a city with Iron and a barracks, thus quickining Swordsmen production. But in General requesting overall Mobilization, except important wonders.

Make sure All Boarder cities have at least 2 garrison units (more on higher risk cities), keeping several swords near the boarders for counter offensives, probobly garrisoning such forces in cities or on mountains/hills. I would try to use our road system to our advantage if possible. With Horses this could allow us to attack and retreat, however, Horses don't have the same offensive advantage Swordsmen do so their use would be somewhat limited to plains and grasslands.

I would also make an attempt to cripple our neighbors (worked well DG1), but being careful not to weaken our own Defenses too much, and maintaining a good flow of units. If it proves later convenient I would ask for a build up of catapults to help in our offensive operations. This means that the local terrain, in general, is such that Catapults can move semi-freely, we have the units to stack upon them and defend them, and we have a fairly comfortable number of regular troops.

In other words we will do the exact same thing :) As I said before this will be an interesting race...

Another Question, might be more appropriate in FA actually, but I feel it's still applies here since it's still a Military issue.

What would you attempt to do to prevent such a Domino War as mentioned above from DG1?

To me there's only one thing we can do to stop it (destroying the civ that declared war on us quickly isn't neccisarily an option). Once it becomes apparent that Alliances are being stacked against us (after the first or second alliance). I would attempt to get support Embassies and several alliances or Embargos against one or more of those civilizations, with other civilizations on our continent, that might pose a problem if they joined the alliance. (In DG1 we only saw troops from half the civilizations that declared war on us.)

Another Question, might be more appropriate in FA actually, but I feel it's still applies here since it's still a Military issue.

What would you attempt to do to prevent such a Domino War as mentioned above from DG1?

To me there's only one thing we can do to stop it (destroying the civ that declared war on us quickly isn't neccisarily an option). Once it becomes apparent that Alliances are being stacked against us (after the first or second alliance). I would attempt to get support Embassies and several alliances or Embargos against one or more of those civilizations, with other civilizations on our continent, that might pose a problem if they joined the alliance. (In DG1 we only saw troops from half the civilizations that declared war on us.)
Im a bit different on this though. If there were a large number of nations hating us, I would not only go through the creation of a ballance of power to give us allies of our own, but also to build a military force to deter enemy forces from wishing to fight us. If eventuality becomes actuality however, I would immediately get alliances on the first turn of war against the main nation to have some support form the start to prevent that situation that occured in DG1.

The reason I tend to steer away from alliances from the onset is for two reasons

A.) If we intend to launch an offensive against that nation, we would want to potentially preserve as much of it for ourselves as possible

B.) Even if they are far away from us (as Babylon was) we have a strong potential of creating a strong rival against us should they be successful in conquering them, thus potentially giving them a large advantage over us.

Also, Building a large standing army to deter enemy forces is part of my overall stradegy. I always wish to work for Military dominance around the world, however in times of peace, I understand the need for a strong focus on infrastructure, but don't want our military dominance to suffer because of it, or our technological dominance to suffer due to our lack of infrastructure.

The reason I tend to steer away from alliances from the onset is for two reasons

A.) If we intend to launch an offensive against that nation, we would want to potentially preserve as much of it for ourselves as possible

B.) Even if they are far away from us (as Babylon was) we have a strong potential of creating a strong rival against us should they be successful in conquering them, thus potentially giving them a large advantage over us.

Also, Building a large standing army to deter enemy forces is part of my overall stradegy. I always wish to work for Military dominance around the world, however in times of peace, I understand the need for a strong focus on infrastructure, but don't want our military dominance to suffer because of it, or our technological dominance to suffer due to our lack of infrastructure.
A) Naturally, My choice of allies is not usually nations that can gain a large advantage in territory. For the 1st Babylon war in DG4T3 I chose Russia as a key ally, yet they shared very little of a border with Babylon, allowing our forces to not only to the brunt of the fighting, but to take amny of their resources by the wnd of the war while our allies offensive drew away enemy troops while we very nearly stormed into the city of Babylon itself.

B) As I said in the previous statement, I do not choose allies that can conquer significant amounts of the nation, but nations that can draw enemy troops away from our front so we can launch our own offensives.

C) As do I, I keep a military strong enough to fight an opponent immediately should war break out, but also small enough (and skilled enough) that our economy and sciences can work at full speed without overwhelming costs due to mass-military forces.

ATTENTION:

This Term was actually likely to be my last Term in the DG, but now I have recieved a new peice of information that I will likely become an Admin at a new site for scenarios. This will severly cut my time and I very well may pull out of this election if I decide it will be too much. Still, I encourage all to vote for me in this election, but this peice of information should be known.

- Sarevok

How would you handle a case like in Demogame 1 where Babylon declared war on us (after we refused to give into their demands for our Map). Soon afterwards a large alliance network was formed against us, and soon afterwards we had EVERY nation on our continent at war with us (only England which we didn't contact till early Industrial did not declare war on us). Assuming we were unable to avoid this global alliance against us, how would you handle this (primarily in the age of Swordsmen)?3 words: catapults, barracks and walls. We dig in; let them come for us and we'll be piling the enemy bodies on our doors. I also urge the FA-department to make peace with some nations quickly and then build embassies and sign an alliance with them. Strategy: keep the fighting away from us, Tactic: make us unconquerable and befriend nations to fight the world for us.

What would you attempt to do to prevent such a Domino War as mentioned above from DG1? I urge the voters to vote for candidates who answered my question for the FA-candidates (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2034112&postcount=23) the best. Give in to small demands, but don't harm our nation in giving away too much. In-game I make sure to have sufficient units and sufficient power to minimise the demands. Buildqueues are the corner-stone for that, hence my question to the candidates for Governor (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2034129&postcount=28). It's all linked !

There are by now four nominated contestants for the Ministry of Defense

Blackheart
Falcon02
Rik Meleet
Sarevok

Each of them bring personal skills, experiences and opinions to the table, and all of them are probably competent and qualified in their own right. In order for me to back any candidate of these, which may work closely with the Foreign Minister, of which I am one of the five candidates, I need to know the answer on ten questions that enabnles me, and many of us to compare their different program platforms, and actually give us a real choice.

So I pose the following 10 directing questions to each candidate in general, and three direct questions for each candidate.(next post)

1. Do you believe in that the development of a firm foreign policy rooted in a sort of doctrine makes sense, or do you prefer ad hoc polls?

2. How would you structure your public feedback, reporting, answering in the forums, make a final report and in general have good writing and organization skills for us to document your term. ?
I saw Ehecatl Atzin had a very different performance from Chiefpaco in DG1, in that regard, that is why I ask.

3. To what extent would you run the Ministry of Defense, would you seek to strongarm other departments in order to get through a military solution at all costs, or are you wiling to adopt a more coherent strategic vision.
And if there is a vision, please tell us about it.?

4. What type of military structure, selection of units would you recommend for the first term, and what type of operatins do you think these units could conduct, and at what cost for the other departments.?

5. How would you respond to criticism, would it be destructive criticism back, or constructive criticism, would you go for a defamation of a disagreeing person in order to get your opinion through, or would you simply develop a thoroughly crafted policy memo with pros and cons and policy options.?

6. Would you focus more on legalities and formalities, on the military strategy, the political relationships with other players or would you advocate the role of being a bridge builder across the various departments. ?

7. What is your criteria for a casus belli, and would you seek to fight a war at any rate, or would you go for wars with defined outcomes only.?

8- How would you amplify the Japanese military advantage based on unique condiition, Civ traits and resources and future invasion plans?

9 How do you perceive the military advantage of being a religious CIV.?

10, How do you consider my candidacy for the post as a Foreign Minister , and please answer your true opinion.?

Blackheart

1. Should we seek to turn other nations into satellite nations, should we avoid them, deal with them as equals or jsut seek to annex all of them?

2. What type of victories do you see as plausible outcomes in DG5?

3. What type of diplomacy would you like to see be conducted in the game?

Falcon02

1. What is your opinion on my analysis of the Domino War in DG1 ?

2. How do you see the cooperation between the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be conducted, based on your experiences?

3. Do you believe in total wars or in controlled smaller wars?

Rik Meleet


1. Would you support the plan for a smaller professional army using barbarian training and technology lead and only fight controlled wars we decide on fighting time and place?

2. Are you satisfied with the answers I have made in the Foreign Affairs thread, and the necessary adjustments in the Order of the Imperial Shadow?

3. How would you handle a war room situation with other departments?

Sarevok

1. What is your joint military and diplomatic doctrine?

2. Would you commit to the office, now that you got other pressing engagements, yes or no, or if so , what alternative would you prefer?

3. Are you interested in developing a strategic military vision through all periods?

In response to Falcon02,

I was not here for DG1, but I assume that there were other contacts on other continents. I would sign military alliances with them against one of the enemy nations, then watch it go into chaos from there. If there aren't any other nations to make an alliance with, I would fortify in places where they are certain to attack from and launch small raiding parties into neighboring territories. Depending on the amount of troops we have and the strength of the enemy bordering us, I would try to cap the weaker neighbors. This being the Ancient Age though, there really wouldn't be a large scale mobilization against us at first, so, after taking a few cities from any one of the neighbors, we could sue for peace with them, with the terms of a military alliance against one of our other enemies, and then watch the dominoes fall in place. Basically, make peace and make a buffer zone with the countries that border us and get the other guys to invade them first.

In response to Provolution,

1) I believe in some sort of a doctrine, but it should be flexible and listen to the will of the people. Think of the doctrine as a general guideline.

2) A very smooth and fast acting structure. I try to answer all questions that I see quickly as possible. Information and feedback is key to efficiency and a working government. I'd have discussion threads and a short poll. I would then review the poll result with other ministers to decide action.

3) Cohesion is key in government. I dislike infighting and petty bickering. I believe compromise and consenus are important for the government to function. My vision is to make Japan the most powerful nation.

4) Massive workers and settlers, get our infrastructure up and running. An aggressive expansion policy followed by a military buildup.

5) I'd just list the truth of the pros and cons.

6) Military strategy

7) I'd only fight wars for necessity and if we have an advantage. As for casus belli, that'd be up to the citizens.

8) I plan to secure resources and territory as quickly as possible. Work towards a buildup of samurai and launch a massive assault against one of our weaker neighbors. I would focus all of our forces against a single city or unit stack.

9) We can quickly switch governments if need be for those unexpect and long wars.

10) Go for it :cool:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) It just depends on their position and ours. But eventually we should annex as much as we can. I suggest starting with the weaker nations. Satellite nations are only useful as a buffer zone for so long, but if we annex them we add their production capabilities to ours.

2) All of the victories are possible.

3) Aggressive diplomatics. I believe we shouldn't give into threats, but on the other hand we shouldn't constantly bully other nations to a point when they declare a war that we don't need.

1. Do you believe in that the development of a firm foreign policy rooted in a sort of doctrine makes sense, or do you prefer ad hoc polls?

I agree with what you said about not overwhelming the citizenry with polls which have little meaning (such as those I believe you are refering to). Flooding citizens with 10 polls about all the civilizations we have contacts with will likely deter citizens from voting in all of 'em, and even drive way some citizens seeing all the polls as rather spammish. So I'd say a general laid out stradegy, and then polling important issues, keeping the citizenry active with both polls and discussions but not flooding them either.

2. How would you structure your public feedback, reporting, answering in the forums, make a final report and in general have good writing and organization skills for us to document your term. ?
I saw Ehecatl Atzin had a very different performance from Chiefpaco in DG1, in that regard, that is why I ask.

This is one of the areas I found my self doing better "in the good olde days" If you see my t/c reports from Term 1 (as Military Chat rep), they are creative and detailed. slowly over time they "lost their spark" of creativity and only occured during declaration of wars. I attempted many times to try to keep a post in the Military thread which showed in detail our military stance twoards everyone, but found it hard to keep upto date. I will once again try to revive the crativeness in my reports, and once again post a report after EVERY t/c, and probobly designate the Military statistics making to my Deputy.

3. To what extent would you run the Ministry of Defense, would you seek to strongarm other departments in order to get through a military solution at all costs, or are you wiling to adopt a more coherent strategic vision.
And if there is a vision, please tell us about it.?

I've never "strong armed" any department for a military solution to anything. In fact, I do not like starting wars, and wish to avoid them unless absolutely neccisary for our success. However, whenever a civilization declares war on us, assuming we have the forces, I've always supported launching a massive offensive until we can secure a profitable peace agreement or eliminate their civilization from our borders. Hopefully detering others from declaring war against us as they watch their neighbors fall.

I have always appreciated all that the Domestic department (including Governors) did to ensure our dominance in DG1, and feel that without their cooperation and skill I would not have had the units with which to wage war as effectively as we did.

4. What type of military structure, selection of units would you recommend for the first term, and what type of operatins do you think these units could conduct, and at what cost for the other departments.?

Start out building Warriors, once we get Spearmen switch over to them, until we have at least 1 in every city, then switch back to Warriors/Swordsmen and Horsemen if we have the technology. So simply put at least enough Defensive units for all our cities. Warrirors, and later Spearmen could provide escorts for our settlers, to ensure the raging barbarians will not take the innocent lives of those looking for a brighter future.

5. How would you respond to criticism, would it be destructive criticism back, or constructive criticism, would you go for a defamation of a disagreeing person in order to get your opinion through, or would you simply develop a thoroughly crafted policy memo with pros and cons and policy options.?

Constructive Criticism is expected and encouraged, I take it into concideration, likely post a discussion thread about it, potentially poll it, and then use it in my stradegy if either I feel it's a good idea using the discussion thread and poll.

If a single person criticizes me in a "destructive" manner as you described it, I would likely talk it over in the chat room to make sure I'm not simply taking it too personally (which probobly won't happen). Counter their statement defending myself against their acusations. However, if they were able to gather more support for themselves I would have to reconsider my stance on the matter, and open a discussion thread (assuming they haven't already).

6. Would you focus more on legalities and formalities, on the military strategy, the political relationships with other players or would you advocate the role of being a bridge builder across the various departments. ?

Not 100% sure what you're asking, I'll try to respond best to my ability.
Departments should work together. Military relies on Domestic/Governors for units. All rely on Military for survival. Science relies on Domestic for the economic support for research. Military relies on Science for a Technological advantage.

I'm not a big person for legalities, I tend not to participate in legal discussions during my administration, in fact, helping to finalize the consitution was the first time I really "dived" into the legal stuff. But all in all, it tends not to effect how I work, and do not find it as interesting as the game itself.

7. What is your criteria for a casus belli, and would you seek to fight a war at any rate, or would you go for wars with defined outcomes only.?

Fight wars only if war is declared on us, or the Citizenry deem it as required. If we have the advantage take 'em out, if not take a defensive stance until we get peace or the ability to attack.

8- How would you amplify the Japanese military advantage based on unique condiition, Civ traits and resources and future invasion plans?

If the Citizenry do wish to pursue any wars of our own choosing, then I would encourage doing that while we have our UU. Also, as stated earlier with Warriors -> Swordsmen, I would also build up Horsemen and upgrade them to Samurai when we get the tech. (I need to verify what upgrades to Samurai though, been a while since I've played the Japanese myself). This also eliminates the need for Horses in the age of Knights, assuming we can't aquire any, however, that would prevent the Horseman build up plan.

9 How do you perceive the military advantage of being a religious CIV.?

It's quite obvious, if war warriness becomes a problem it isn't as big a deal to switch governments to eliminate it.

10, How do you consider my candidacy for the post as a Foreign Minister , and please answer your true opinion.?

I agree with pretty much all your policy. (my primary criticism with your responce in the FA thread was that much of it seemed unrelated to the question I posed.)

1. What is your opinion on my analysis of the Domino War in DG1 ?

Much of it did not seem to apply to the Domino war (ie. extortion being a much later issue and public relation policy). However some which did not apply to DG1's Domino war applies to preventing a Domino war in the future (ie. foster positive relations with other nations, discouraging them from allying against us and the extortion). However, I belive these policies were in place with the Iroqouis shortly before they launched a surprise offensive (I forget if we extorted them or not), and as such is not a garentee, however the best we can do.

2. How do you see the cooperation between the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be conducted, based on your experiences?

Discussion within threads and chat rooms, most of my interactions with other departments in the past has been on a friend to friend basis, causual discussions in chat and threads. If there's something I notice which I disagree with proposed by the FA department I will post my reservations about the proposal in the FA's government thread or any discussion thread posted by FA.
The biggest exception to the imformality (or at least how I see it) of such discussions is Rush requests, and requests for the support of the governors for a specific plan.

3. Do you believe in total wars or in controlled smaller wars?

Define Total vs. controlled smaller wars?

When war comes upon us, assuming military superiority, I encourage waging the war until we can accept at least get a profitable peace. I do not like "nipping" at our neighbors little by little, just for the heck of it.

Looking back on DG1 there was one Roman city which we had surrounded by cities for over 1000 years, if there was any single city I wish I coulda just taking at will it was that one, but I never advocated taking it by force, we launched a cultural assault program against it... however as Cultural assaults are never garenteed, the City never flipped until AFTER I played past the victory saved.

Here's a question for all running for military minister. Two of our neighbors, Rome and Egypt, are at war with each other. Egypt is being beat and in a couple of turns they will exist no more. When Rome wins, they will be the only country to border you on land. Would you invade Egypt before Rome conquers it all?

In response to myself,

I would definitely invade.

In response to Falcon02,

I was not here for DG1, but I assume that there were other contacts on other continents. I would sign military alliances with them against one of the enemy nations, then watch it go into chaos from there. If there aren't any other nations to make an alliance with, I would fortify in places where they are certain to attack from and launch small raiding parties into neighboring territories. Depending on the amount of troops we have and the strength of the enemy bordering us, I would try to cap the weaker neighbors. This being the Ancient Age though, there really wouldn't be a large scale mobilization against us at first, so, after taking a few cities from any one of the neighbors, we could sue for peace with them, with the terms of a military alliance against one of our other enemies, and then watch the dominoes fall in place. Basically, make peace and make a buffer zone with the countries that border us and get the other guys to invade them first.


In the case of DG1 it was in the era of Swords (which is why we only saw units from half of 'em or less).

Babylon demanded our territory Map. Following policy at the time the President refused, and Babylon declared war. We saw this as no big deal, Babylon was half way around the world (never did see units from them at all). So for the most part we ignored them (probobly a mistake)... Alliances begain poping up. We realized what was happening and worked on alliances. There were a few civilizations remaining at peace... we attempted to establish embassies and negotiate alliances however, the demands they made (specifically the Egyptians) weren't acceptable, it would have hurt us too much. However we did establish a per turn trade agreement with the Egyptians to discourage them from declaring war and breaking the deal. As a result it eventually was the ENTIRE world against us, ever single civilization we had contact with, only exception was England, and they had no contacts with anyone.

Luckily at the time we had been preparing for a war against the Americans, and had a large military force with a large military production base behind it already, which allowed us to use our Immortals to their fullest.... in fact later on one of these veterans actually managed to defeat a Rifleman... surprisingly enough...

Anyway that production base meant we were well prepared for a war, and ended up taking a mostly offensive stance... whipping out the Americans to our north, and then taking vengence against the Egyptians for breaking our trade agreement for the sake of a Military Alliance... not to mention for the Razing of Falcon's Haven.... :cry:

It also took quite a while to get any peace agreements, most demanded too much of us, though I think some peace agreements we agreed to for a bad lose.

Also, keep in mind whenever declaring a Military Alliance, we devote ourselves to 20 turns of war unless they are destroyed or we take the rep. hit. Obviously preferable in a Domino war situation, but needs to be taken into concideration.

Here's a question for all running for military minister. Two of our neighbors, Rome and Egypt, are at war with each other. Egypt is being beat and in a couple of turns they will exist no more. When Rome wins, they will be the only country to border you on land. Would you invade Egypt before Rome conquers it all?

This is something I would most definately poll.
My own position of the matter would depend on what Egypt has.. and where it is relative to our civilization? Will it only serve to needlessly expand our border and add cities to defend on those borders without much production or other benefits from our conquests. How much is the Culture flip risk of such takings. How much will such holdings help Rome? What resources are there? Do we need them? Do the Romans need them? How much production and commerce will the Romans gain from it? how much will we gain from it? How Powerful are the Romans right now?

If there is something to gain from it, or something to prevent the Romans from getting (even if it's just production and commerce). I might support it, however my general policy is no war unless war is declared on us, but in certain cases we sometimes must break policy for the sake of our success.

1. Do you believe in that the development of a firm foreign policy rooted in a sort of doctrine makes sense, or do you prefer ad hoc polls?

I generally keep a strong foreign policy that can go either way. I make strong allies among nations of power that I can befreind while Isolating opposing nations or nations I want to conquer. Strange in my personal games, I do not go on mass wars of conquest until the late modern age but rather sit back and build up while staging wars between other nations to weaken them while i feed off them and get stronger. In other words, I try to have a strong power base in diplomacy so that should war come I can draw up a large amount of alliances, while if the opponents break them... I can always kill them next with the justification of their betrayal ;)

2. How would you structure your public feedback, reporting, answering in the forums, make a final report and in general have good writing and organization skills for us to document your term. ?
I saw Ehecatl Atzin had a very different performance from Chiefpaco in DG1, in that regard, that is why I ask.

For one, I hold general briefs in the government thread for people to see that go through the term, but also large amounts of discussions on dealing with not only active situations but contingencies as well. I had threads discussing ways to fight a war with babylon in DG4T2 before that war started early in T3. Since this is the first term and I can (and need) thourough instructions for the TC, I will give the same level of detail that was seen in DG4T2 where I gave very specific instructions for each unit as well as units to be made. The throuroghness of those instructions are one of the reasons that when the DG4T3 instructions came along, I did not have an opponent in the election in a time before participation plummeted and such events became common. That is a testament to how I did in that term and I intend to repeat it as I have much more time that i did last time despite the admin situation.

3. To what extent would you run the Ministry of Defense, would you seek to strongarm other departments in order to get through a military solution at all costs, or are you wiling to adopt a more coherent strategic vision.
And if there is a vision, please tell us about it.?

I am willing to negotiate as I value a strong infastructure, especially to use it for my strategy of war along with strong technology and economy. I am however, insistent if I need certain things. I will demand units be created but only if they are absolutely neccesary. I will not needlessly order units and improvements to be created just to have them. My vision is a Strong state in all things: Science, Economy, Military. They go hand-in-hand. When the economy is ready to have a large military then they will have it, until them it will be only as big as we need it.

4. What type of military structure, selection of units would you recommend for the first term, and what type of operatins do you think these units could conduct, and at what cost for the other departments.?

I primarily choose static defenders and mobile offensive units: meaning Spearmen and horsemen while swordsmen are more heavily included. In my ideal army, I would have 30% Spear, 20% horse, 40% Sword, and 10% Catapult. My main goal is large-scale exploration at first, but then to use our units to train on barbarian camps. As i said above though, I will not go off on expeditions that are a severe risk to the economy, but I will make sure that we can handle it. The only time I do not care for the economy is when we need a total mobilization, and even then i will not override wonder instructions.

5. How would you respond to criticism, would it be destructive criticism back, or constructive criticism, would you go for a defamation of a disagreeing person in order to get your opinion through, or would you simply develop a thoroughly crafted policy memo with pros and cons and policy options.?

Funny, Im not sure of the answer to that question. I never got any criticism while I was in office. It would most likely be sconstructive as i am decently open-minded though I do know that some issues I am more capable to handle just as I am weak on others. I try to make sure that whatever occurs, it is for the good of the nation. I care absolutely nothing for personal glory or respect, its about fun for me.

6. Would you focus more on legalities and formalities, on the military strategy, the political relationships with other players or would you advocate the role of being a bridge builder across the various departments. ?

As said above, I like cooperation. I would make sure that all departments had their own agendas in some form fufilled while I requested forces I would make sure they could prosper as well. I myself am a military strategist though, and I specialize in war planning. I know what troops I need, where i will use them, and what I need them for. My ultimate point is to create a strong state in all aspects.

7. What is your criteria for a casus belli, and would you seek to fight a war at any rate, or would you go for wars with defined outcomes only.?

A casus belli for me is one of the following:

1. A threat for demands
2. A large enemy incursion
3. strategic recourses on a common border that we do not have.

on the last option though, I am more likely to try to get them by culture than by force. If its in the interior, then it is always force unless I can get it by trade. I remember nations that threaten us, and I almost immediately add them to the list of nations to be isolated when we are the stronger and they the weaker. Usually when I get in a war, it is usually to wreck the nation, and prevent them from ever being powerful again or at least not as strong as us. Wether it is taking key recources or destroying 3/4ths of their cities, its whatever gets the job done.

8- How would you amplify the Japanese military advantage based on unique condiition, Civ traits and resources and future invasion plans?

I fight as Germany alot, so militaristic is very known for me. I use the advantage to use barbarians as trianing camps for an elite army to be used on enemy forces. I also use the improvement bonuses to gain a general advantage so our forces are always of high-quality and ready to weather any storm.

9 How do you perceive the military advantage of being a religious CIV.?

As stated above, I use culture to expand our borders and take resources. I do fight "culture wars" more often that actual wars, and I know it to be highly effective. I will use temples and libraries on our border to expand our culture so that we can avoid some minor wars for recources on the borders and istead take them with mass-culture.

10, How do you consider my candidacy for the post as a Foreign Minister , and please answer your true opinion.?

I think that you can do a very good job due to the large detail I have seen in your posts. Very good detail is always good and most of the time essential if we are to do very well in jobs. Personally due to that detail I would rather see you as Domestic minister, but foreign is good enough.

Sarevok

1. What is your joint military and diplomatic doctrine?

Keeping a strong military to fend off the threats of other nations, while using diplomacy against the agressive nations so that should war break out they will have to face a hostile encirlement that will buy enough time for our forces to do the most to the opponent while they are in static fighting against the other nations.

2. Would you commit to the office, now that you got other pressing engagements, yes or no, or if so , what alternative would you prefer?

I have always managed to squeeze time in when it seems to not exist. My speed of working makes sure of this. If I could not see myself being able to manage it at any time in the next month, then I would pull out of this election.

3. Are you interested in developing a strategic military vision through all periods?

I am willing to do that, and once I get a general idea of the map will I be able to completely create such a plan for eventual conquest. I thrive in "The age of Total war" (late industrial) but I will almost certainly not be a minister during that time if active at all. Ill be sure to have a large plan ready form the future by the end of this term.

Here's a question for all running for military minister. Two of our neighbors, Rome and Egypt, are at war with each other. Egypt is being beat and in a couple of turns they will exist no more. When Rome wins, they will be the only country to border you on land. Would you invade Egypt before Rome conquers it all?

In response to myself,

I would definitely invade.
How strong are we compared to Rome? If equal or stronger I would attack Rome from behind. If weaker I would maul Egypt, build up, then kill Rome off.

Luckily at the time we had been preparing for a war against the Americans, and had a large military force with a large military production base behind it already, which allowed us to use our Immortals to their fullest.... in fact later on one of these veterans actually managed to defeat a Rifleman... surprisingly enough...


IIRC, it was an elite immortal that attacked an infantry in an embattled Chinese city (in which the entire Chinese stack was trapped in), and spawned a Great Leader.

BTW, a question for canidates...

Providing you have read on the history of the demogames, what failures/successes have you seen/read/experienced and learned from?

Providing you have read on the history of the demogames, what failures/successes have you seen/read/experienced and learned from?

Well, the time leading up to the Domino war was a failure, a diplomatic failure mainly. The responce to it was a success. I learned from that the stradegy of turning Gold into production by having cities build outdated units and then upgrade them nearby, thus producing units much faster.

I learned from the Iroqouis, that even trusting a close friend with an ROP in the age of Railroads can be a mistake, due to the power of Railraods.

From the Vast supply of Military Units in DG1 I learned that Cooperation with the Domestic Department is ESSENTIAL. Without Domestic support Military can't do it's job.

Here is another question.

An enemy that we have captured several key production cities from is on the verge of liberating their cities. These cities also hold key strategic resources (iron,saltpeter,etc.) Whoever controls these cities would win the war. There is no time to bring up reinforcements to defend the cities. Both militaries are equally matched and reclaiming the cities would prove quite difficult. Would you raze the cities to keep them from enemy hands, would you sell off the improvements, what would you do?

In response to myself,

I'd take a poll. This would be too critical a decision to decide by myself.

In response in Chieftess,

I'm new here, so I have no clue. Is there an archive somewhere with a summary of the previous DGs?

This may be a good idea, but it's too risky to leave them laying around, especially with barbarians set on RAGING. Maybe just leave one or two far far away from our borders or near a well defended city.

Oh of course, I mean a single barbarian camp, nearby our land but not too close. So Simply be bent to our will, their units slaughtered for our own military gain. Like cattle.

1. Do you believe in that the development of a firm foreign policy rooted in a sort of doctrine makes sense, or do you prefer ad hoc polls?I prefer polls and citizen involvement. But that doesn't exclude a doctrine. The Military leader starts discussions and the doctrine will make clear why those specific options are there and what is advised by the Military.

2. How would you structure your public feedback, reporting, answering in the forums, make a final report and in general have good writing and organization skills for us to document your term. ?
I saw Ehecatl Atzin had a very different performance from Chiefpaco in DG1, in that regard, that is why I ask.When the Turnchat has been played I analyse the situation. I will present the situation to the people in the citizen's section; including options, requests and plans. I will explain the advantages and disadvantages of each plan and describe why I prefer a certain path to follow.

3. To what extent would you run the Ministry of Defense, would you seek to strongarm other departments in order to get through a military solution at all costs, or are you wiling to adopt a more coherent strategic vision.
And if there is a vision, please tell us about it.?No department is on his own. For instance foreign affairs can make big plans to meet people; if the military forbids units to scout, there won't be much meeting other civs. If the military plans to hae a strong army, but the Governor(s) do not build units, there won't be a strong army. If the science minister wants to research quickly, but workers are not building roads (thus not increase commerce) research will be slow.

4. What type of military structure, selection of units would you recommend for the first term, and what type of operatins do you think these units could conduct, and at what cost for the other departments.?The very first thing I want to be build is a warrior for scouting. 2nd: a warrior for defense (which stays home). Then some non-military build. When it is time for our first settler I want another warrior first for protection of that settler and after the settler another warrior for scouting. The first build in the 2nd city I want to be a warrior as well, which stays close to home. We then have 2 cities, protected by 2 warriors in the city and 1 close; and 2 warriors out scouting and barb-hunting.

5. How would you respond to criticism, would it be destructive criticism back, or constructive criticism, would you go for a defamation of a disagreeing person in order to get your opinion through, or would you simply develop a thoroughly crafted policy memo with pros and cons and policy options.?Critisism is free advise. And I also see critisism as a voice of being involved. I will use the critisism in my reports and plans when I lay them before the citizens to discuss and vote on. I am a servant to the nation.

6. Would you focus more on legalities and formalities, on the military strategy, the political relationships with other players or would you advocate the role of being a bridge builder across the various departments. ?No legalities or formalities for me. When I am military leader I have 1 goal: to improve and build up the military. In-game I role-play for the task I'm given. <Even if I as a civ-player know other things should have priority I will still play my role as Military leader and focussing only on the goals of the military. Even if I would never do that in a single-player game. A role is a role and should be played with determination.>

7. What is your criteria for a casus belli, and would you seek to fight a war at any rate, or would you go for wars with defined outcomes only.?I ask the people for a Yes or No to war. I let the people decide if we go to war or not. In my question I will state my preference.

8- How would you amplify the Japanese military advantage based on unique condiition, Civ traits and resources and future invasion plans?The Samurai is a strange unique unit. It upgrades from horsemen, but doesn't need horses. It does require Iron. This makes an early horsemen rush interesting, even buying horses for only 20 turns. But we absolutely require Iron for it. I would fight a war with horsemen to get Iron, but I will not fight a war with swords to get horses.
The main 2 benefits for the Samurai are it's speed and it's defensive value (higher than Pike, equal to musket!!). This makes it a terrific unit for fast en-masse conquesting, but also for a quick-mobile homefront attack and defense unit. And it retreats, giving it the ability to storm strongly defended cities, while still having a good chance to survive. Since our goal is Diplomatic, and nations who we have been at war with will likely not vote for us; I'd use the Samurai also for conquering nations who we have terrible, unrepairable relations with. Less votes against us. Having the speed of 2 allows it to stay out of opponent's cultural borders, while still attacking that nation's cities. That means reduced RoP-rape risk. And the unit is great against barabrian horses. The horses can't retreat and can't outrun the unit.

9 How do you perceive the military advantage of being a religious CIV.?The nation can pray for the troops :lol:
- Warring makes the citizens unhappy. A religious trait allows rapid government changes to counter the War-weariness or even prevent it. Cheap temples help to minimise unhappyness and give quick culture to captured cities.

10, How do you consider my candidacy for the post as a Foreign Minister , and please answer your true opinion.?You are completely unknown in this environment, yet you have already shown great enthousiasm. The order of the Imperial Shadow (despite having a false start) shows this as well as your 10 qell-thought of questions. It shows that you know the game and know the tactics. It's yet unclear to me whether you can perform in a cooperation-form which is required for a Democracy Game. But I'm willing to let you prove yourself.

1. Would you support the plan for a smaller professional army using barbarian training and technology lead and only fight controlled wars we decide on fighting time and place?Yes - our win goal is Diplomatic and a lot of warring and conquesting doesn't help to get that goal. However the army needs to be big and strong enough to stop other nations declaring war on us.

2. Are you satisfied with the answers I have made in the Foreign Affairs thread, and the necessary adjustments in the Order of the Imperial Shadow?FA-answers: very detailed, usually spot-on, but some bits are just plain untrue. Your answer to my question on demands states that the diplomacy screen tells us if the deal is going to fly or not -> there is no diplomacy screen in a demand; it's straight Yes-or-No.
I will not comment on the Order of the Imperial Shadow.

3. How would you handle a war room situation with other departments?Openly and with arguments. It always gets presented to the people and the people decide. If it is a legal debate I'll leave it to the Judiciary. If I think the representative of the other department has comitted a crime; I'll file a Citizen Complaint (courtcase) and again it's up to the Judiciary.

Here is another question.

An enemy that we have captured several key production cities from is on the verge of liberating their cities. These cities also hold key strategic resources (iron,saltpeter,etc.) Whoever controls these cities would win the war. There is no time to bring up reinforcements to defend the cities. Both militaries are equally matched and reclaiming the cities would prove quite difficult. Would you raze the cities to keep them from enemy hands, would you sell off the improvements, what would you do?

Big decisions like this always require a poll, regardless of my own opinion.

Razing MAY not be the best option under certain cultural conditions (it could give the resources to them or us). Also in general I am opposed to Razing.

I'm not sure what my stance on this would be, I would likely form my opinion after hearing all views, the pros and cons of each option voiced in discussion.

One option not mentioned is getting peace (assuming the "they won't speak to us" period has passed). If we have conquered such important cities, our deal would likely be favorable to us, however our negotiation options would have to be looked over at that time to see is this is practical.

However, I hope my stadegies would prevent this from happening, keeping newly conquered cities well defended and pushing the offensive twoards them, and often launching counter offensives against units in the open field.

IIRC, it was an elite immortal that attacked an infantry in an embattled Chinese city (in which the entire Chinese stack was trapped in), and spawned a Great Leader.

BTW, a question for canidates...

Providing you have read on the history of the demogames, what failures/successes have you seen/read/experienced and learned from?
I read actual history, not DG history ;)

Here is another question.

An enemy that we have captured several key production cities from is on the verge of liberating their cities. These cities also hold key strategic resources (iron,saltpeter,etc.) Whoever controls these cities would win the war. There is no time to bring up reinforcements to defend the cities. Both militaries are equally matched and reclaiming the cities would prove quite difficult. Would you raze the cities to keep them from enemy hands, would you sell off the improvements, what would you do?

In response to myself,

I'd take a poll. This would be too critical a decision to decide by myself.

In response in Chieftess,

I'm new here, so I have no clue. Is there an archive somewhere with a summary of the previous DGs?
I would raze them and get settlers building at home. Im not surrendering anything to the enemy if I can help it or if its not part of the plan. Naturally I would get a poll, but this is what I would want to do.

Here is another question.

An enemy that we have captured several key production cities from is on the verge of liberating their cities. These cities also hold key strategic resources (iron,saltpeter,etc.) Whoever controls these cities would win the war. There is no time to bring up reinforcements to defend the cities. Both militaries are equally matched and reclaiming the cities would prove quite difficult. Would you raze the cities to keep them from enemy hands, would you sell off the improvements, what would you do?

In response to myself,

I'd take a poll. This would be too critical a decision to decide by myself.

In response in Chieftess,

I'm new here, so I have no clue. Is there an archive somewhere with a summary of the previous DGs?


At the bottom of the forum, under "Archives". Enter at your own risk. I hear the ghost of PI#6 lives there. http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/CT_scared2.gif

At the bottom of the forum, under "Archives". Enter at your own risk. I hear the ghost of PI#6 lives there. http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/CT_scared2.gif
:lol: There are much more evil things in those archives than that...

Don't scare the newbies! ;)

Don't scare the newbies! ;)
Somehow ive gotten good at that... :mischief:

BTW, confirmed info: I will be able to run this term and carry out all of my duties, though any term after that is questionable if not impossible.

Ahh my head is gonna explode from the sheer size of the archives.

Ahh my head is gonna explode from the sheer size of the archives.

lol... just reserve about 5 months to read through each Demogame...........

1 month per term.....

okay maybe it could be done quicker then that if you REALLY tried....

Biggest thing is just to try and skim around. Might wanna read up on the Domino war in DG1 Term 1 and Term 2 Military Dept. Threads... see our sucesses and failures...

I have summarized the Defense Minister candidate policy platforms, and even though the answers are answered uniquely and all of them have common sense on the main principles of organization, democracy, civ-game mechanics, in-game value systems, degrees of DG experience, degrees of beliefs in polling and degrees of detail planning and vision for this game.

Yet, there are individual differences from candidate to candidate, and they would certainly fill this role in different ways. Another aspect is their varying emphasis on DG experience and experiences from other places, and the interest in candidates originating in other spheres than the DG community.

First of all, I have tried to sum up their varying policy platforms by comparison, and trying to establish where their focus differs.

1.
Do you believe in that the development of a firm foreign policy rooted in a sort of doctrine makes sense, or do you prefer ad hoc polls?

Blackheart strategy/polls
Falcon02 strategy/polls
Rik Meleet polls/strategy
Sarevok doctrine/demo, Alliance system for future development
2.
How would you structure your public feedback, reporting, answering in the forums, make a final report and in general have good writing and organization skills for us to document your term. ? I saw Ehecatl Atzin had a very different performance from Chiefpaco in DG1, in that regard, that is why I ask.

Blackheart Answer all questions, thread, short poll, reports, joint review
Falcon02 Threads, Creative reportsm delegate military stats to deputy
Rik Meleet Policy Paper, Plans, TC Reports
Sarevok General Briefs, Thread, TC reports

*TC Reports is the report after a chat based on the events of an important turn, in which we still need to know the regularity of, timing, pacing, length and structure of.

3.
To what extent would you run the Ministry of Defense, would you seek to strongarm other departments in order to get through a military solution at all costs, or are you wiling to adopt a more coherent strategic vision.
And if there is a vision, please tell us about it.?

All referred to the need for interdependence and cooperation

Blackheart A strong Japan
Falcon02 Mass Offensives
Rik Meleet No specified vision
Sarevok A Strong infrastructure

4. What type of military structure, selection of units would you recommend for the first term, and what type of operatins do you think these units could conduct, and at what cost for the other departments.?

Blackheart Infrastructure Workers Settlers
Falcon02 Warriors Spearmen Maybe Horsemen
Rik Meleet Warrior Warrior Settler Warrior
Sarevok 30 % Spear 20 % Horse 40 % Sword 10 % Catapult

5.
How would you respond to criticism, would it be destructive criticism back, or constructive criticism, would you go for a defamation of a disagreeing person in order to get your opinion through, or would you simply develop a thoroughly crafted policy memo with pros and cons and policy options.?

Blackheart List Pros/Cons
Falcon02 Constructive criticism, thread and chat
Rik Meleet Criticism is free advice
Sarevok Constructive criticism and fun

6. Would you focus more on legalities and formalities, on the military strategy, the political relationships with other players or would you advocate the role of being a bridge builder across the various departments. ?

Blackheart Military Strategy
Falcon02 Bridge builder from a Military perpective
Rik Meleet Military strategy
Sarevok Military strategy


7. What is your criteria for a casus belli, and would you seek to fight a war at any rate, or would you go for wars with defined outcomes only.?

Blackheart Citizen criteria, the need for war, war based on advantage
Falcon02 Citizen criteria, declared wars, war based on advantage
Rik Meleet Poll War, State Preference
Sarevok Casus Belli, threat of demands, foreign incursion and
strategic resources only achievable by war

8- How would you amplify the Japanese military advantage based on unique condiition, Civ traits and resources and future invasion plans?

Blackheart

"I plan to secure resources and territory as quickly as possible. Work towards a buildup of samurai and launch a massive assault against one of our weaker neighbors. I would focus all of our forces against a single city or unit stack."

Falcon02
"If the Citizenry do wish to pursue any wars of our own choosing, then I would encourage doing that while we have our UU. Also, as stated earlier with Warriors -> Swordsmen, I would also build up Horsemen and upgrade them to Samurai when we get the tech. (I need to verify what upgrades to Samurai though, been a while since I've played the Japanese myself). This also eliminates the need for Horses in the age of Knights, assuming we can't aquire any, however, that would prevent the Horseman build up plan."

Rik Meleet

"The Samurai is a strange unique unit. It upgrades from horsemen, but doesn't need horses. It does require Iron. This makes an early horsemen rush interesting, even buying horses for only 20 turns. But we absolutely require Iron for it. I would fight a war with horsemen to get Iron, but I will not fight a war with swords to get horses.
The main 2 benefits for the Samurai are it's speed and it's defensive value (higher than Pike, equal to musket!!). This makes it a terrific unit for fast en-masse conquesting, but also for a quick-mobile homefront attack and defense unit. And it retreats, giving it the ability to storm strongly defended cities, while still having a good chance to survive. Since our goal is Diplomatic, and nations who we have been at war with will likely not vote for us; I'd use the Samurai also for conquering nations who we have terrible, unrepairable relations with. Less votes against us. Having the speed of 2 allows it to stay out of opponent's cultural borders, while still attacking that nation's cities. That means reduced RoP-rape risk. And the unit is great against barabrian horses. The horses can't retreat and can't outrun the unit."



Sarevok

"I fight as Germany alot, so militaristic is very known for me. I use the advantage to use barbarians as training camps for an elite army to be used on enemy forces. I also use the improvement bonuses to gain a general advantage so our forces are always of high-quality and ready to weather any storm."



9 How do you perceive the military advantage of being a religious CIV.?

Blackheart Gov Switch
Falcon02 Gov Switch
Rik Meleet Culture Wars, Gov Switch, Temples
Sarevok Culture Wars, Temples

10, How do you consider my candidacy for the post as a Foreign Minister , and please answer your true opinion.?

Blackheart Pro, Go for it
Falcon02 Pro, Agree on policy Critique on Domino wars comment
Rik Meleet Abstain, but "willing to let prove", reservation on new to DG
Sarevok Pro, Good enough, but would prefer domestic minister role


In order to let the candidates themselves have the privilege of descirbing their policy differences from the other candidates, I would like them to make a short statement on where they differ from the others on the following five policy questions. The reason I am posing the questions in this thread above any other thread, is that I consider this a very close race, and need to know.

1. What type of military structure, selection of units would you recommend for the first term, and what type of operatins do you think these units could conduct, and at what cost for the other departments.? Based on this question, where would you differ from the other candidates?

2. How would you respond to criticism, would it be destructive criticism back, or constructive criticism, would you go for a defamation of a disagreeing person in order to get your opinion through, or would you simply develop a thoroughly crafted policy memo with pros and cons and policy options.?
Where would you think you would differ from the other candidates?

3. How would you develop the criteria for actually polling casus belli. Would you poll the criteria themselves one by one, or would you poll a program for casus belli in full versus another alternative? Where do you differ?

4. How would you amplify the Japanese military advantage based on unique condiition, Civ traits and resources and future invasion plans, differently fromt he other candidates?

5. How do you perceive the military advantage of being a religious CIV. differently from the other candidates?

The other questions answered has already provided an idea of full consensus and type of focus, and where they differ, and now we may need to know
where we can present a more clear cut profile of them, through making them
describe where they differ, or if they don't and agree.

This is a reminder to the voters !
I'm in Denmark without Internet Access from July 29th to August 7th.

There is no Creation Day yet set. If the game starts later than August 7th: No problem for me. If it starts earlier; my deputy will have to take responsibility for the first few days.

Great job setting up this game Rik

You really deserve a vacation :) and enjoy some tuborgs and carlsbergs for me.

1. What type of military structure, selection of units would you recommend for the first term, and what type of operatins do you think these units could conduct, and at what cost for the other departments.? Based on this question, where would you differ from the other candidates?

I would use a system of organization to get mass-exploration, suitable defense, and barbarian destruction together. My point is to secure our borders right away and at the same time to allow the other departments to expand those borders rapidly.I will have most units out exploring/barbarian hunting for Term 1 to acheive that aim, but there will need to be noly only a city garrison, but also extra troops on hand to escort settlers and possibly workers to their destinations. How I would differ from the other candidates... is that I beleive I am the only one to say that our military will expand, but that it will expand and function only as much as it needs to rather than over-abundance. I would start the game off with 2 warriors (1 at home) and then a settler which the home warrior would escort it while another warrior was being built. Ill make sure in my system though that while we are strong and powerful, we will not destroy our economy.

2. How would you respond to criticism, would it be destructive criticism back, or constructive criticism, would you go for a defamation of a disagreeing person in order to get your opinion through, or would you simply develop a thoroughly crafted policy memo with pros and cons and policy options.?
Where would you think you would differ from the other candidates?

Not only am I one of the few who beleived in constructive criticism, but also I think that in the end the point is to make the game as enjoyable as possible. There is no need for the hostile debates and CC's to fly when the true point is the game itself. My point is to set up the in-game atmosphere that will allow us to have a fun game but also in some ways to not make it a walkover like DG4 became in T4 and T5. If there is a problem, then I will get it fixed and we can proceed. Though I will also add that sometimes my own methods, however destructive they look get a much better result than the obvious alternative.

3. How would you develop the criteria for actually polling casus belli. Would you poll the criteria themselves one by one, or would you poll a program for casus belli in full versus another alternative? Where do you differ?

I would hold a discussion first listing what I have seen the nation in question do, and in what ways they can threaten us or what things in my opinion give us a casus belli. After some discussion I would put a poll up and then we can see if we will take them out. I personally would not "poll" what things are casus belli's, but instead let the people decide for themselves if the current situation and the threat of the opposing nation is good enough for a casus belli.

4. How would you amplify the Japanese military advantage based on unique condiition, Civ traits and resources and future invasion plans, differently fromt he other candidates?

My point is to use the large advantage of the Samurai in offensive warfare to take territories rapidly, leading to a strong power base for the industrial age. I do not plan to simply go around and eliminate nations like in DG4 but rather to build up and if neccesary we will invade other nations and when we do it will be a walkover. I would mosly use culture wars to take what we need as because we are religious it can be more effective than simple looting and conquest. It is also more diplomatic, and I heard somewhere we are going for a diplomatic victory.

5. How do you perceive the military advantage of being a religious CIV. differently from the other candidates?

As said above, Cluture wars to me are more important that military ones. Though they are slower, they are also completely peaceful and we can gain much through such victories. The main goal in using this advantage is to use it more than the sword. I believe we are going for a diplomatic victory, so thiswill be the thing more essentual to have as our method of conquest. I personally see little advantage in government switching being a military advantage. It is more of a convenience rather than an advantage and while useful is more useful for domestic rather than military objectives unless one is discussing upkeep. It is in that thought that I differ from the others.

1. What type of military structure, selection of units would you recommend for the first term, and what type of operatins do you think these units could conduct, and at what cost for the other departments.? Based on this question, where would you differ from the other candidates?

My stradegy has kinda evolved over this debate, and unless we are forced into an early war I will avoid amassing too many Swordsmen, concentrating on mobile Horsemen, which will upgrade to our UU and hopefully bring on our Golden age. Like I think all the Candidates I agree in ensuring that NO settler goes unescorted. As a lost settler means wasted production, wasted lives, wasted land, and wasted time.

I intend to relegate at least 2 warriors as early as possible to explore, so we can plan our settling, and get early trade partners.

Early on explore/barb hunting units are one in the same, later in the term it is very likely that they will become seperate forces, as our exploring units get farther and farther from their home land... to hunt the barbs out there would essentially be Treasonous as we'd be inadvertantly helping potential adversaries, excluding the 25 gold we'd gain.

2. How would you respond to criticism, would it be destructive criticism back, or constructive criticism, would you go for a defamation of a disagreeing person in order to get your opinion through, or would you simply develop a thoroughly crafted policy memo with pros and cons and policy options.?
Where would you think you would differ from the other candidates?

I have always been open to outside opinions. While I am confident in my skills I am not too egotistical to realize that there may be something I've missed. This is one reason I feel I'm a huge proponent of discussion threads and polls. Whenever war is declared I post a discussion thread about it, and ask for any and all citizen feedback. I more then just look at criticism as a positive and constructive force, but I specifically try to ENCOURAGE citizens to speak up about their concerns, reservations, or down right rejection of my plan. I just ask that such discussion is constructive and not just...

"YOUR PLAN IS HORRIBLE!!!"

With no explination as what parts they feel make the plan bad, and how they feel it could be made better.

3. How would you develop the criteria for actually polling casus belli. Would you poll the criteria themselves one by one, or would you poll a program for casus belli in full versus another alternative? Where do you differ?

I will normally not post casus belli polls, as I said my policy is no war unless THEY declare war against us or the Citizenry ASK for war. If I see alot of support in discussion threads for a war, I will post a poll for it. Even if just a few citizens specifically request a poll, but overall support seems minimal I would still poll it because it was requested and if it's more then just one person there could easily be more out there who unfortunatly haven't spoken up.

Say if England has a warrior in our territory, which refused to leave despite multiple requests (no leave or declare war option yet), I would not specifically post a war poll unless there were obvious citizen support, or that warrior was not just a warrior but a dreaded "Stack of DOOM." (ie. if the offenses of the other civ. amount to a likely prelude to a war).

4. How would you amplify the Japanese military advantage based on unique condiition, Civ traits and resources and future invasion plans, differently fromt he other candidates?

As said earlier, hopefully build up Horsemen so we can upgrade them to Samurai and ensure dominance later on, and still having a respectable force before we get Chivalry. Militarism will help us gain Great Leaders relatively quickly for rushing Great wonders, and Hopefully will allow me to rotate units which are "training themselves on barbarians" seeing as the threat is too big to let too many just sit there.

5. How do you perceive the military advantage of being a religious CIV. differently from the other candidates?

Again, biggest military advantage I see is Government switching for War Warriness... Most of the other candidates agree with this.

The points of Temples and other improvements I find important and as an actual alternative to declaring war when we wish to aquire certain territory on our borders. However, I've mentioned elsewhere, this is not a 100% garentee, but is better then ramming through the civilization as the agressor. Cultural Expansion Programs (I believe this is the sort of thing Cultural wars is refering to) were fairly effective in DG1, and should continue to be used. There were numerous neighbors which we lived peacefully with (after the Domino war) back in DG1 who we took small little nips out of this way, and it proved to help strengthen fairly well, and I encourage it even more then Military expansion...
However, that's the responcibility of Culture and Domestic... I can encourage it as a fellow citizen but do not control policy there.

I will close this series of questions in 1 hour and 45 minutes, so unless the other two candidates have given convincing answers two hours ahead of the election, I cannot recommend or support this in any fashion. All four candidates answered satisfactorily on the first series of questions, but as it stands now, only Sarevok and Falcon02 has made the final and conclusive remarks in this election thriller.

I will add a chronicle in the Informer under the Citizen threads, assessing this debate, and making my last 50 cent bid on what could have been added.
As it stands, I can work fine with either candidate, so only last minute moves may decide the final vote in convincing the wider electorate.

Unless they just like/recognize the nick of course.

Judge not on the words, but the action.

Blackheart

I agree with you :)