Term 5 - Election for Military Advisor

[Chieftess]

Provolution,
Epimethius

[Black_Hole]

My vote definetly goes to Provolution

[CivGeneral]

Provo wins my vote hands down .

[blackheart]

Even though I support both candidates, I've gotta contemplate of legalizing marijuana

[Provolution]

Originally Posted by ravensfire
1. In another thread, Provo stated that the game is going in "the wrong direction as it is." As an elected official, you have some ability to direct the course of the game. What actions would you take to change the course of the game?

I would expand the democratic options of the public, by telling them what is the limit of our military capabilities. The best way to do so is by example, proposing certain pro-active operations, but generally discuss primarily defense plans. In fact, my last term actually democratized war goals by polling everything from the Zulu and Babylonian defense doctrines to purely defending against the French, to the closure of the inherited Iroqi war.
I have not abused any military power at any stage, as I always dicussed and caucassed rules of engagement and war objectives, then polled these.
These have been adviory polls, and I have avoided to swing to either of the extremes, and partitioned the wars into segments, where we renegotiate peace at certain increments, allowing the enemy more lenient peace terms.

One of the reasons I do not want blind expansion is the limited membership of the Demogame, as we already have problems filling in governorships, and that
the lack of a serious threat has reduced the interest of hawks in the game severely. The doves have little worth without hawks and vice versa, as these define each others as political movements. This means, we only need to handle small strategic wars, either as retaliatory actions to another party's war declarations, as deep strike strategic missions or as defensive wars on the part of a minor ally. My vision is small, strategic, decisive and economically very low cost wars concluded in 1-2 turnchats.

One example of such a resulting war was the fair question to give back Salamanca or to go forward, where I specified that a situational deadlock in the voting would lead to a razing of Salamanca in order to create an orderly border. The reason why, was that I knew Forbidden Palace should be placed in Veii/Yatta at this juncture, corruption was sky high, and we might have risked troops in case of a deposement in Salamanca. However, by pointing out that only staying in Salamanca was not an option, and allowing the choice of a withdrawal or an advance would be fair to both sides. The key achievement in this was to silence troublemakers by denying them the option to sabotage the decision at hand, and only let the two more viable alternatives be compared.

I will divide war objectives and war plans into two groups. War objectives are what is defined as "national interest", which could be all from respecting the border in case of war to go in and seize cities. Since nations in the real world can have the same claims for centuries, as you all can read in the CIA factbook, the war objectives for which cities we want on a normative level are discussed and polled per term. The reasoning behind is, that I can assess what military we need, so I can plan a minimum military to achieve these ends simultaneously, and allow domestic and governors to build up finances and their cities with a minimum of friction from MSAV.

The military has indeed a major effect on the game, even in peacetime. A greedy military would overburden the economy and harm technology, happiness and so on. If you assess our economy and science, you see that the military requests are relatively light. The lack of a clear cut foreign policy from FA on which nations to befriend and not, and the aggressive bargaining from TA on various deals, we are not that popular. One cannot blame the military for doing its job and ending up declared wars, but one can have blamed previous military administrations from not moderating wargoals.
Also, without a potent and well organized military, it is harder for civilian ministries and governors to work effectively and productively in building the nation. The military will be there, but more as a stable pillar, and not as a volatile and disorganized entity requiring crisis management all the time.

The reasoning from pre-empting war objectives early, and poll these advisory, is to let the most dove-like approaches to be tried first, then the more assertive options. If these were not polled early, we would have a situation where wars influenced the localization of Forbidden Palace, not the other way around. With preset war-objectives, a charter on how to conduct the war would allow major builds to be more predictable and waste-less.

I also democratized MSAV by involving more people dedicated and interested in miitary affairs, as well as openly discussing and polling all war plans into a cohesive doctrine that allowed us to plan defense budgets ahead of needs.
Ahead of a war, I will discuss and potentially approve war plans, depending on the outcome of discussions and polls. However, I count individual poll votes, higher than the person make the loudest impacts in thread discussions. This means that the vote from a doctrinal poll is preserved as a war objective policy, and can withstand individual political pressure to overturn the system for political reason. Yet, do I see sufficient interest in another plan, I discuss it and poll it.

2. How aggressive would you like our military to be?

I plan to run military campaigns, purely defensive retaliatory strikes to hold the line. With retaliatory strike, I mean the conquest of 1-3 cities. For example, present policy with the French is a defense only first Turnchat, then we will rediscuss and repoll, based on other options. with the Babylonians, people want to go straight for Ur, Uruk and Elippi, with the Iroqi, we want them to stay alone, and with the Zulus, we have polled jointly taking out Tugela first, then a follow up with Mpondo and Izandhlwana in case they do not budge.

In an ideal world, the FA would have policies for each nation, beyond pure neutrality as it is right now. I open the wars with the limited defense/offense doctrines, which will marginally harm the enemy, and then escalate this iof the public calls for a more extensive war. The limited size of our military is perfectly suited to reach present war objectives, but with new military technologies (remember, Term IV saw NO new military technologies but ironclad, and the neighboring countries have more or less same troop types), new resources on the map and new political balances, I would certainly rediscuss and repoll war-objectives. Another reason for me not repolling doctrinal planning of regional operational war objectives, is the short term we had in chat turns. Only 6 turnchats averaging 5 turns each, has left us slightly above 30 turns game time. However, as soon as we reach Nationalism as a technology, MSAV will rediscuss and repoll war-objectives based on the new military reality.

I would also remind people that Foreign Affairs decide in peace time and MSAV in wartime. The reason why, is that we have 125 units of men and women in uniform that has to be fed, clothed and bankrolled, where FA has more a role in defining relations in peacetime. MSAV will however, ask for FA to renegotiate peace following each turnchat, and democratically abide by that result. Since war objectives impact military planning, we need to calculate needed units, assessed losses and so on.

Yet, with the present structure, of using elites or wonder-related units first, we increase our chances of gains. These gains are massive, when you consider that we may not take a city at all, but we can use our superior elites to kill of a maximum of enemies (a favor , as we reduce their military budgets on obsolete forces and then leave them alone), and then see great leaders aspire.

One example of my military campaign skills has been seen in closing up the Iroqi war. I sent in the Elite Cavalry Army in order to win an easy victory first, assuring us the access to heroic epic, military academy, pentagon, intelligence agency and battle hospital. Needless to say, the military campaign had no losses following the initiation of my term.

I also play the WW2 Leyte PBEM game. where I play Japan, on the CFC forum, and you are free to compare this to other Pacific WW2 pbems, and see this as relevant to Term V, where we become a mechanized military.
A few people in the forums has questioned my warfaring capabilities for personal ends, and this PBEM could serve as a fair counter-message killing off the validity of such hollow accusations.

The final word here is, I believe MSAV should be democratized and accessible by the people by proposal and polls, and not by vocal influence alone, but by participation, organization and joint planning.

[blackheart]

Here's a question: Given the current situation with the Zulu, how far do you think we should go into their territory (capturing cities)? Exclude the WOTP, just your thoughts

And BTW Provo, you didn't provide us with intelligence agency or battlefield medicine, they came with tech or hospitals.

[Provolution]

Blackheart

Fair enough, Heroic Epic, Military Academy and Pentagon, that is true.

I would go for Tugela alone, secure the diamond monopoly and get a neat defensible border with optimal defensive terrain and a diamond monopoly for the Trade Ministry.
After that, I would discuss and poll peace treaty (conducted by FA), and poll this against an extension of the war to Isandhlwana and Mpondo. If it is a poor treaty, more conquest, and if it is wanted for a peace, Tugela would settle it.
However, FA is free to poll to give it back.

My thoughts is based on the fact that the military technology is about the same as last time we discussed and polled it and that we still have the same national interest in war objectives. Of course, all of this will be revised after 1. december.

[Epimethius]

Unfortunately, I would only have the power to legalize marijuana while at sea or in forts. The rest is up to domestic.

And I think Provo's above post summarized quite well the choice: bureaucracy v. minimalizism. Provolution will write you a book on how to attack someone we'll never cross paths with. He'll have you approve plans on issues that will never happen. He'll appoint fifty officials to do his job, or just have fancy titles. He'll come up with the craziest ideas you've ever heard of to solve problems you've never heard of. He'll run anything and anything that moves and carried a Japanatican flag, if not appoint someone to run it for him. He'll work day in and out on things that are completely unnecessary, filling post after post and thread after thread with bureaucratic spam.

I won't do deleted until we get a war. Okay, maybe I'll put up some defensive measures, and upgrade every once in a while, but you get the point.

And when we do, I'm going to leave it up to the people and Foreign Affairs to decide what to do. You tell me to attack. All I'll do is tell what to attack where.

Oh, and I ran a count on Provo's post: 1436 words.



Moderator Action: Automatic 3 day ban for editing out moderator action tags.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=updated_rules_2011

[Epimethius]

Originally Posted by blackheart

Here's a question: Given the current situation with the Zulu, how far do you think we should go into their territory (capturing cities)? Exclude the WOTP, just your thoughts.

I would wipe out the invasion force, first of all. If we remain at war, I would go after Tugela and Imtombe. If we're still at war, the two forces would then work their way to Zimbabwe via Mpondo, Illandiswanda, Ulundi. If we're still at war, I'd take Zimbabwe. If we keep on going after that, I say take Bapedi, Ngome, and Umtata. At all times I would urge peace at the first possible instant.

Also, in the case of wars I would muster troops through the constitutional but never used National Plan system, where the public approves a quota that the governors devide up.

And I would give up Provolution's joke, which lost all humor ages ago, and call the department by its proper name (which is the Ministry of Defense, for anyone who wasn't here first term).

[Provolution]

Unfortunately, I only have the power to legalize marijuana while at sea or in forts. The rest is up to domestic.

And I think Provo's above post summarized quite well the choice: bureaucracy v. minimalizism. Provolution will right you a book on how to attack someone we'll never cross paths with. He'll have you approve plans on issues that will never happen. He'll appoint fifty officials to do his job, or just have fancy titles. He'll work day in and out on things that are completely unnecessary, filling post after post and thread after thread with ideas.

I won't do **** until we get a war.

And when we do, I'm going to leave it up to the people and Foreign Affairs to decide what to do. You tell me to attack. All I'll do is tell what to attack where.

Oh, and I ran a count on Provo's post: 1436 words.

Bureaucracy vs. "minimalizism" is one way to put it LOL

Epimethius is certainly the person that spends less time on planning and ideas, and would probably spend more time belittling his political opponents than anything else. Where I count units, shield costs and running operating expenses and measure that up to our neighbors, he is counting the words of your threads. Besides, pre-empting warplans actually makes the wars run smoothly, no need to stop TCs in the middle. With 6 TCs last term and less than 30, with Epis system we would land at 20 turns.

I also created clear identifiable formations, which makes war plans easier.
We also agree on the length of the potential wars. What Epi does not see, is that I created a system for war that allowed doves a say, and limitations to conquest, and to fit this into the timeframe of TCs.

However, now that we got military formations and orderly numbers of units, there is hardly any bureaucracy to do, but to update these plans. And if people leave them by, they remain.

I also once remember Epi write (not "right") long posts earlier, but these have become shorter and shorter. I think "minimalizism" is good in the warrior and archer period, not in the industrial period.

[Provolution]

I would wipe out the invasion force, first of all. If we remain at war, I would go after Tugela and Imtombe. If we're still at war, the two forces would then work their way to Zimbabwe via Mpondo, Illandiswanda, Ulundi. If we're still at war, I'd take Zimbabwe. If we keep on going after that, I say take Bapedi, Ngome, and Umtata. At all times I would urge peace at the first possible instant.

Also, in the case of wars I would muster troops through the constitutional but never used National Plan system, where the public approves a quota that the governors devide up.

And I would give up Provolution's joke, which lost all humor ages ago, and call the department by its proper name (which is the Ministry of Defense, for anyone who wasn't here first term).

Beyond exterminating the invasion force, I would go for the optimal number of kills, and use the conflict to get a maximum number of elites, as well as upgrade our two regular pikemen to at least veterans. In the front, I would use the elites with the intent to create great leaders. Notice that our elite swords still can handle their impis and so on.

I already have a national plan system, where we polled naval and army sizes as well as other reforms, and I have contacted the governors who has cooperated excellently in this. I would retain MSAV as a title, but hope that the title is less important than the policies in the office.
Besides, MSAV is not a major issue as a topic, like Epis wordcount.

We would need a discussion after Mpondo and Isandhlwana on where to go.

[CivGeneral]

This election is becoming more messy than the Bush vs. Kerry Debates .

[Provolution]

It seems as my opponent has been sent to the construction area of the Forbidden Palace in Yatta, and I expect him to be away until the closure of this election. Also notice how he has edited his posts as he realized he wrote something inappropriate after reading my replies. However, he can speak about national quotas, but not about his mismatch of edits and quotes.

What can I say. Where there is no smoke without a fire, and we really need to weed out the problems in the upcoming term. Or to quote the future Japanatican Second in Command

I won't do (deleted) until we get a war

.

[CivGeneral]

Im glad I backed Provo on this one. At least Provo has a clean mouth (Proof of Moral values) and can do his job (responsibilities) .

As the Governor General of Edo, I urge all citizens to vote for Provo.

[Provolution]

JAPANATICAN POWER, HONOR AND GLORY







VOTE PROVOLUTION FOR V TERM IN DEMOGAME V

PROGRAM FOR TERM V

HERBICIDE DOCTRINE
ANTI-NARCOTICS DOCTRINE
ANTI-ELECTION FRAUD DOCTRINE
ANTI-CONSTRUCTION CORRUPTION DOCTRINE
ANTI-SWEARING DOCTRINE

[Donovan Zoi]

I was thinking of voting for Epimethius, if only to give my tired eyes a rest. But then he went and got himself banned during an election again.

Just kidding, Provo. You sold me on your third and fourth doctrines.

[Longasc]

hrhr... anyways, i want to support provo.

We only need to vote some peacemongers to counterbalance his military skills...

[blackheart]

Originally Posted by CivGeneral

This election is becoming more messy than the Bush vs. Kerry Debates .

When faced with 2 evils, vote for the one you've never tried before.

[Cyc]

Go Provo. Epi talks about his opponent too much, and not enough about himself. Reminds me of Bush. Vote Provo for Chief of Staff.

[Provolution]

When faced with 2 evils, vote for the one you've never tried before.

Thank you for you compliments, Epi-man, I will take this into consideration.