Citizens Group: Brotherhood of Steel
- Thread starter Immortal
- Start date
I'll make sure it stays civil. BTW, I think we should set up a leadership, and we should have a method of holding votes.
Plexus
Architeuthidae puericomedentis
nah we're communist! 
ScorpiusAP
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2002
- Messages
- 82
I would like to join your fine institution.
Stuck_as_a_Mac
Aptenodytes forsteri
Not a member, just browsing. I must ask, Mr. Scorpius, what has made you turn from The Community? Also- If you see McNulty, tell him RPG posts now have a value.
Falcon02
General
I'm in... and...
Communists!!! where are they!?!?
Need to round them up along with with CY.
Communists!!! where are they!?!?
Need to round them up along with with CY.
Stuck_as_a_Mac
Aptenodytes forsteri
Ya know, for the sake of membership, count me in as a Peace Hawk.
Falcon02
General
That's what the Children of Peace are for....
ScorpiusAP
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2002
- Messages
- 82
I have not turned away from The Community, I am still quite active their. However, The Community tends to move sort of slowly do to the way the turns are played. I see the creation of a brand new CivFanatics Nations as a good chance to start fresh with a quicker pace.
On a partially related note, I'd like my charater in the DG3 RPG to remain completely separate from the Community Scorpius.
On a partially related note, I'd like my charater in the DG3 RPG to remain completely separate from the Community Scorpius.
Grandmaster
Deity
I will join. May we wage many a successful campaign against the poor SOB's that were unfortunate enough not to be born as Randomanians. 
Shaitan
der Besucher
I agree with this group's principles and will happily join up. Note that I tend to be a middle roader - agressively militaristic or just as agressively a builder when the situation warrants.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
I will also join up. Even when playing a peaceful game a strong military is always necessary to ensure that perfidious neighbours "choose" to respect one's desire for amity.
:tank:
:tank:
Peri
Vote early and vote often
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,261
Yes we need to have a joint declaration of strategy to which we all agree. It is important that all the citizens know our objectives and methods. By having a clear manifesto many citizens will come to realise that we share the same goals and join our cause.
Reddwarfian
E're now! Whats all this?
You have my sword.
Well, once we get Iron, It'll be a Sword.
Well, once we get Iron, It'll be a Sword.
Peri
Vote early and vote often
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,261
Thankyou. I dont expect that I have any unique ideas nor unbeatable strategies but I think that we should start to 'kick around' some basic principles.
1). Are we in favour of a strong standing army or should we build as required?
If we want a standing army what should be in it?
How big should it be?
2). Are we in favour of early campaigns to eliminate immediate opposition.
If so. Do we aim for the weakest civs or the ones with the best tiles?
3). Are we in favour of a small number of the best units or can we achieve as much with an army of varied quality.
4). How do we ensure that the army gets a fair bite of the budget and producrion allocation without becoming a bloc vote in debates?
If we can achieve a consensus on some of these things then we can focus more easily on winning. So lets get debating.
To victory, Brothers.
Reddwarfian
E're now! Whats all this?
1) I beleive that we should have a standing army, like 2 or 3 of the biggest offensive unitswe can get per providence and at least one bombardment peice per providence. If we do this, we should have a plan for slow or speedy unit building programs incase we declare war, or are the targets of war, respectively.
2) I think we should go for the ones with the best tiles, ones that would reap immediate or future benefits.
3) I beleive that we should have a army of the biggest units that we can get. We may want to keep a few ancient units as "Museum Peices."
4) Easy: Get more people involved
2) I think we should go for the ones with the best tiles, ones that would reap immediate or future benefits.
3) I beleive that we should have a army of the biggest units that we can get. We may want to keep a few ancient units as "Museum Peices."
4) Easy: Get more people involved
Immortal
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,950
It will be very simple to define policy once we start the game, for instance if we start without the ability to build spearmen, I would suggest this be the first tchnology to attempt to acquire.
1). Are we in favour of a strong standing army or should we build as required?
If we want a standing army what should be in it?
How big should it be?
In despotism, we have the luxury of the maintainence of a truly large army. It will allow a good blend of units, many defensive located in cities, but I would like to have roaming units within our territory patrolling our borders. Then when they are needed to be upgraded, they return to the nearest border town.
2). Are we in favour of early campaigns to eliminate immediate opposition.
If so. Do we aim for the weakest civs or the ones with the best tiles?
Hopefully we will encounter a weak civ with great tiles, however I would take out the "insignificants" first, then move on to larger, wealthier nations.
3). Are we in favour of a small number of the best units or can we achieve as much with an army of varied quality.
Varied quality I would have to say
4). How do we ensure that the army gets a fair bite of the budget and producrion allocation without becoming a bloc vote in debates?
The existence of the group will indicate to our govern,ment officials that indeed the military is an integral part of our empire, which our citizens value greatly. For positions other then domestic, I voted this term for those persons whom I know share my beliefs in military and offensive campaigns. Luckily with a large number of BoS members in government this term, we will find the government probably will be having an ample military for this term. if its cut in the future, I will definitely have to reevaluate my support for certain candidates
1). Are we in favour of a strong standing army or should we build as required?
If we want a standing army what should be in it?
How big should it be?
In despotism, we have the luxury of the maintainence of a truly large army. It will allow a good blend of units, many defensive located in cities, but I would like to have roaming units within our territory patrolling our borders. Then when they are needed to be upgraded, they return to the nearest border town.
2). Are we in favour of early campaigns to eliminate immediate opposition.
If so. Do we aim for the weakest civs or the ones with the best tiles?
Hopefully we will encounter a weak civ with great tiles, however I would take out the "insignificants" first, then move on to larger, wealthier nations.
3). Are we in favour of a small number of the best units or can we achieve as much with an army of varied quality.
Varied quality I would have to say
4). How do we ensure that the army gets a fair bite of the budget and producrion allocation without becoming a bloc vote in debates?
The existence of the group will indicate to our govern,ment officials that indeed the military is an integral part of our empire, which our citizens value greatly. For positions other then domestic, I voted this term for those persons whom I know share my beliefs in military and offensive campaigns. Luckily with a large number of BoS members in government this term, we will find the government probably will be having an ample military for this term. if its cut in the future, I will definitely have to reevaluate my support for certain candidates
Similar threads
