Advisory War Objective Poll - 1360 German War

Advisory War Objective Poll - 1360 German War

Now that we have eliminated the previous poll, we are trying again.

Time is short, turnchat is upcoming friday, and we should have some democracy among all the legalities.

So I post an ADVISORY poll, not a binding poll, but I will comply to the main message the people give me. This will count for the next (Friday) turnchat, and I go on with this due to limited feedback in the discussions.
Lack of catapults force us to choose between unwalled cities here.

This is a 2 day, public poll, as Mongols decide eyes to eyes, not behind each others backs.

I added abstain for those who are voting for peace in the run-off poll.

Poll Options are

1. Purely Defensive War within our own borders
2. Wilderness Campaign, with scouting, pillaging, raiding and ambushing
3. Conquer Cologne
4. Conquer Dortmund
5. Conquer Cologne and Dortmund
6. Conquer Cologne and Dortmund and Gamble for Stuttgart (newly found)
7. Other options
8 Abstain

I'm voting to go after Cologne, but not Dortmund yet, Dortmund is far to the north meaning it will have very high maintenance costs, but it isn't in a good position to repay those any time soon, also troops sent there will be out of the way and will require a long march to be used against the Germans again. It makes more sense to me to eliminate Dortmund later in the war, if the war progresses that far.

just curious - has razing some of those cities ever been considered? I don't know if that would be wise, but if Dortmund for example is not good enough to warrant taking it...

I voted for Cologne,

I still do not think there is enough benefit in Dortmund at this time. Particularly since I do not wish to start a war against Rome in the immediate future.

Even with a war against Rome, it is still fairly isolated and not going to provide much of a reinforcement point (at least any better then Berlin).

Though, denying Iron to Germany would help with the current war, or future war against Germany.

However, I'm with Ori, if we go for Dortmund to take out the Iron either pillage the mine and prevent them from rebuilding it, or raze the city.

That city is NOT a keeper.

Dortmund is a staging ground for taking on Rome, before they connect the Hamburg Iron. So Dortmund plays a role at staging the Roman War, as well as breaking the direct contact of the two nations.

I can surely make the Dortmund Campaign a light recon and pillage mission, and if the city is poorly defended, we can raze it.

ori said:

just curious - has razing some of those cities ever been considered? I don't know if that would be wise, but if Dortmund for example is not good enough to warrant taking it...

Click to expand...

If Dortmund is decided a target, and we take it, we can of course raze it. We are free to do anything. We just don't need to poll that yet.

About polls, this is an interesting poll, because nothing is a given, and thee different options may win (triple-3 tie lock). So I think polls with some dramatic interest should also live, not only the boring correct poll. That said, I recommend officials to run more "advisory polls", if they want to get citizens opinion (not all citizens want to research or write long posts) and at the same time limit the impact of the Judiciary and the most rabid citizens. Some things are of course to be polled in the legal sense, but advisory is a good supplement.

Citizen rights is not only the right to complain and filibuster, but also the right to be entertained by unpredictable polls and intellectual cliffhangers.

One thing I find puzzling is that this is called an advisory poll, but yet you say you plan to follow it. Please do not make the mistake that a result in an advisory poll gives you permission to proceed without further discussion or polling. People approach binding polls differently.

The best that can be said about the current results is that none of the options have strong support.

With the length of time it will take to pursue this war, if we do pursue it, another approach to planning might be preferred. Instead of asking for the ultimate goal, ask what we want to do this turnset. We can only effectively attack one city this turnset, if even that, or the whole 11 turns might be logistics.

DS

Well, this would be the base for decisions on Friday, and we are not stalling that TC over some dubious technicality. These decisions are within the mandate of the Warlord, I happen to open for citizen input in this manner as well.

It had never been the intention that the Warlord had no say in detailed tactical moves, and I think that debate is well aired.

Yet, I am all open to citizen input, and the end outcome may well be I decide to raze Dortmund and Stuttgart and conquer Cologne, based on inputs here.
The advantage of an advisory poll is the structuring of options, which is harder to visualize in a discussion thread.

But you are right on the main polling strategy for this war, would be to have a series of realistic war goals priorities we could achieve in 8-12 turns, then leave the practical implementation to the Warlord, as an entire stack require some due diligence in organization. However, I may "oursource" polls regarding Wilderness Campaign units, such as scouts, pillagers and so on, but would like to have a firm grip on the main campaign army. After all, I am accountable for it. I may seek to repoll two options of these in this advisory poll with 2 days notice, as I already prepared instructions.

Another way could be to poll 2-3 of alternative instructions, but then that would have to be for Governors as well, to make it fair.

I will also follow this poll, of course

I have very strong principles in the DG. Making a poll "advisory" to avoid legal challenge is one of the things that we can't allow on a regular basis.

It will not be possible to meet the objectives of the poll in one play session.

I think "legal challenge" can get too far, but then again, I clearly see that some people play the demogame mainly for the legal challenge. Advisory polls would be some breathing space for those who feel suffocated and persecuted in the very harsh and arbitrary polling regime we have. Of course I will poll what is needed, to keep the wolves at bay, but Advisory polls are needed as we see too little participation in the discussion threads.

The amount of posts in strategy discussions compared to legal discussions is very indicative to where the main interest goes. It can seem like some are more worried by doing a legal mistake than by doing an in-game mistake, as the conflict levels are higher in these forum courts than they are in the real war in the real game.

You have people who barely opens the save, but looks for the last juicy remarks in the legal log. It is a problem when someone are more keen on posting in the legal thread, than participating in the strategy discussion, then aggressively haunts each other for a principle, a misspelling or bad timing of a poll.

We will have to live with poll zealotry, but some breathing space for non-contentious strategy discussion exchange in poll mode will always be needed. I know there are legal gaming simulators out there, which cover legalities satisfactorily in this regard. These could be commended to would be lawyers, in place of making some of us guinea pigs for pseudo-legal experiments.

Provolution said:

That said, I recommend officials to run more "advisory polls", if they want to get citizens opinion (not all citizens want to research or write long posts) and at the same time limit the impact of the Judiciary and the most rabid citizens. Some things are of course to be polled in the legal sense, but advisory is a good supplement.

Click to expand...

Assume the only polls which should be challenged are the unfair ones. Advocating the use of advisory polls as a way to avoid legal challenge is advocating unfair polls. It also advocates the right of officials to ignore the citizens input, since the poll is not binding.

Returning to the substance of this poll, in my opinion the right question to ask is which city we want to attack first, and do we want to keep it or raze it. That second question is the more important one, because we must get it right or live forever with the consequences. If we want to keep it but the cost is too high, then we have to wait.

My position is Cologne first, keep it, and it's too early to take it now. After 10 turns when most of the current courthouses finish, we will be able to afford keeping Cologne. I urgently request consideration of this specific strategic proposal. I don't think we should proceed willy-nilly with a blanket "fire at will" strategy.

I am intending to continue the war, per "War/Peace Poll", but you are free to ask for a "cease/fire" and a delay of 10 turns.

I will before I drink beer with my military academy buddy, I will post the official poll, including your delayed attack for Cologne. I am certain we can conquer it in 7 turns.

Assume the only polls which should be challenged are the unfair ones. Advocating the use of advisory polls as a way to avoid legal challenge is advocating unfair polls. It also advocates the right of officials to ignore the citizens input, since the poll is not binding.

Click to expand...

This is that assumption, another assumption is that the challenger himself, or herself for that matter, is the unfair protagonist. Yet another assumption could be that said citizen is a rabid troublemaker who knows to push the limits within forum rules, game rules, poll rules and so on, in order to prove a point, or to in despondent way, put the official at his, or her, mercy (for the sake of public humiliation) - in order to prove a principle, a political point, or simply show force. It could be that the fairness, or the legality is not the core, it could simply be a political process, more bordering Catch 22 or "Brazil" (Movie), or some Kafkaesque universe - and have nothing to do with what several here see as a fair and transparent legal process.

Returning to the substance of this poll, in my opinion the right question to ask is which city we want to attack first, and do we want to keep it or raze it. That second question is the more important one, because we must get it right or live forever with the consequences. If we want to keep it but the cost is too high, then we have to wait.

Click to expand...

We can decide to raze the city following the occupation, or gift it to Rome, in order to spark conflict between Germany and Rome, enough to avert an alliance. There are so many options, and they are to come in strategy discussions,not legal discussions. This is why I would like to see participation in strategy discussions, more than legal discussions.

For the strategy discussion, which I like, above "legal discussions".
If it is polled to continue the war as it is, and the more passive form of war is preferred, then the delay would be natural. (purely defensive or wilderness raiding as opposed to sieges and assaults). I assumed with the War/Peace poll, that the people wants war, which means we make the needed moves.
The vast majority wants conquest, now. I will add a separate "Fate of Cities poll", to make sure we get the opinion on what to do with specific cities, that is gift, raze, keep and ignore.

My position is Cologne first, keep it, and it's too early to take it now. After 10 turns when most of the current courthouses finish, we will be able to afford keeping Cologne. I urgently request consideration of this specific strategic proposal. I don't think we should proceed willy-nilly with a blanket "fire at will" strategy.

Click to expand...

We will poll as originally planned, as I think we can handle 2-3 turns of waiting for the Courthouses to kick in, we only speak of 10 gold here. I will add your option in the poll, but it will be polled for this TC, per Peace/War poll.

I was personally for waiting with Germany for some of the same reasons you pointed out, but we need to move when we got the momentum, their resources disconnected and so on. We also need to make this war fast.

Provolution said:

We can decide to raze the city following the occupation, or gift it to Rome, in order to spark conflict between Germany and Rome, enough to avert an alliance. There are so many options, and they are to come in strategy discussions,not legal discussions. This is why I would like to see participation in strategy discussions, more than legal discussions.

Click to expand...

Cities can't be razed in Civ4 after the initial "keep it" question.
Yes, gifting to Rome and then recapturing later is a possibility, but that just puts more troops at risk.

For the strategy discussion, which I like, above "legal discussions".

Click to expand...

I'd much rather discuss strategy and play the game too. Periods of legal disruption usually originate when an official ignores citizens. There was a specific trigger for the past week, and now those of us who are sensitized to that trigger are on our guard against another one. Prove us wrong and there will be fewer questions.

If it is polled to continue the war as it is, and the more passive form of war is preferred, then the delay would be natural. (purely defensive or wilderness raiding as opposed to sieges and assaults). I assumed with the War/Peace poll, that the people wants war, which means we make the needed moves.
The vast majority wants conquest, now. I will add a separate "Fate of Cities poll", to make sure we get the opinion on what to do with specific cities, that is gift, raze, keep and ignore.

Click to expand...

The separate "fate of" polls sound like a good idea. Thanks. This doesn't necessarily endorse the actual polls, I have not looked at them yet.
The people want war. I'm asking how now is "now".

We will poll as originally planned, as I think we can handle 2-3 turns of waiting for the Courthouses to kick in, we only speak of 10 gold here. I will add your option in the poll, but it will be polled for this TC, per Peace/War poll.

Click to expand...

Your use of poll in this paragraph confuses me. We will proceed as originally planned?

What do we have, 5 cities without courthouses? If we add another, we'll be losing approx 13gpt from that city, and an additional 1-2 per city which doesn't have a courthouse, so probably 20gpt increase. If we wait those 3 turns, our maintenance will go down by 30 from the courthouses and up by 10-13 for the new city, for a net gain of 17-20gpt.

I can't remember the name of the two cities, but I prefer to raze the two cities that have iron near them. I would prefer to remove all possibility of iron or copper falling into their hands.

DS, you are very right about the courthouses, so I will work out a compromise between you and the ones wanting the city this turnchat.

I intend to bring in the catapults anyways, and it will take us 2-3 turns to remove the cultural defense bonus of Cologne. I intend to assault the city upon the completion of Banking, and pave the path for a secondary revolution (For Mercantilism and if the citizens see the same wisdom I do, Vassalage).

If the turnchat lasts, say 9 turns, I would assure that our economy and courthouses enable us to handle another city in our rule. This also would allow us to take the revolution straight after Cologne. So we could call the previous one The Pyramids Revolution and this one the Elephants Revolution (based on bundling the revolutions with anarchy periods and healing troops in occupied cities, which I think was a well thought out strategy).