1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Citizens Group: Brotherhood of Steel

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game III: Citizens' started by Immortal, Apr 26, 2003.

  1. Vander

    Vander Privateering in Idaho

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    396
    Location:
    Moscow, ID
    I want in to this worthy organization.

    My only input right now is that we should strike first and hard at those nations that don't have a UU to start off with (France, US, England, etc...). If we can "subdue" those aforementioned nations, we'll have quite a good leap ahead.
     
  2. Eklektikos

    Eklektikos Eponymous

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,635
    Location:
    London, UK
    I favour maintaining a strong standing army as soon as that becomes feasible. It not only means that we can attack or retaliate at will, but will consistently get us better treatment in negotiations with the AI.

    I think it's worth waiting until we have discovered which Civ we are playing as, since some are far more suited to early aggression than others and I'm not sure we really need to risk trying a warrior rush at this level ;)

    If we do go for early attacks we should choose our victims on a case by case basis, taking both factors into account. If the civ in question is weak because their available terrain is hopeless then we probably have little to gain in the long term by such a move. We also need to be very sure that, if we take on a strong civ whose terrain gives them a powerhouse production base, we will be able to keep the initiative and make substantial long terms gains by the conflict. Unless of course we're going for a cyclic beatdown strategy, but I get the feeling few people are interested in playing that kind of game this time.

    I prefer using large numbers of cheap units where defence is concerned - concentrating on warrior production in the early game then eventually phasing them out to replace them with pikemen for the duration of the medieval era (bypassing musketmen as far as possible). On the offensive, I like to field large forces of cutting edge units - using chariot > horsemen & warrior > swordsman upgrade rushes to achieve this early on at minimum cost.


    As I believe Immortal said above, the existence and increasing size of this group should in itself be a source of pressure upon government. I also suspect that most of our members will naturally tend to vote for domestic & presidential candidates who favour military strength without the issue of bloc voting even coming up.
     
  3. Watergate

    Watergate Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2002
    Messages:
    25
    Who shall protect our beautiful wifes and our keen minded and well educated children from being kidnapped by the heavily armed axis of those who are against us and forced to work in the mines or houses of bad reputation for the sake of our ruthless enemies? Our soldiers. Our brave men in the fields of honour.
    If you want peace, people, be strong. If you want spices, citizens, don't be weak. Without doubt the BoS will have a mighty impact on our civilization#s history and I would be proud to be a member.
     
  4. Panzer

    Panzer Mobile Front

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    55
    Location:
    Gorina
    Count me in as well, this is definitely sounding like the group for me.
     
  5. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    I'm the same way, either militaristic and peaceful, depending on the situation.

    BTW, this is my 200th post. I'm 2/3 of the way to an avatar!
     
  6. ScorpiusAP

    ScorpiusAP Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Messages:
    82
    I'd definantly say a strong standing army. Mostly cheap defensive units, with roaming offensive mixed in.

    I agree with past statements that this judgement should be made both on our civ and the position of our enemies, with a strong mind towards UU's.

    I'm in favor of a large army of varied quality, for reasons listed above.

    If there are enough same minded people we will not have to decide to vote in blocs, it will naturally happen.
     
  7. naervod

    naervod My current user title

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Messages:
    5,327
    Location:
    San Francisco
    1. Standing army of defensive units with some reserve offensive units.

    2. I agree that it depends on our civ and UU as well as other civ's UU's.

    3. Varied quality, definitely.

    4. See Scorpius's answer.
     
  8. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    Thanks for the feedback.
    What I meant about bloc voting was that if we become a large group then we can have an undue influence.
    As a group with common aims we are likely to find it easier to mobilise ourselves to vote for what we want as one body and so overcome the 'individuals' voting against us. I was concerned that this might go against the spirit of the game.
     
  9. Azale

    Azale Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    18,723
    Location:
    Texas
    I would like to be welcomed into the Brotherhood:D
     
  10. alamo

    alamo bang!

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,569
    Location:
    Texas
    Welcomes to Reddwarfian, Vander, Watergate, Panzer, and Azale.

    My take on the strategy is slightly different. Once you have a few core cities with a culture building and a barracks you should crank out the best troops possible until you have enough pre-built to attack the nearest neighbor w/desirable lands. The target can be selectively chosen, but an early UU does not always discourage me. In fact, a pre-emptive strike on the Romans is usually better than waiting around to be hammered w/legionaires.

    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?

    Pre-build an army of the best possible units before the outbreak of war. Ratio of offensive/defensive should be 4/1, with a minor adjustment for stronger/weaker offensive units. If able add some settlers and workers into the offensive force. The force should be large enough to take and hold 3-5 cities w/o reinforcements.

    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?

    Best tiles is better, but the territory should be a natural extension of the empire. Ideally the new territory would be suitable for a FP should a leader become available. In some cases the civ needs to be expelled, like if the Greeks are neighbors and the only sci civ around.

    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.

    Best units, with the exception that a few horsemen are a good compliment to swords in offense and defence.

    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 usual - bribes, propaganda, extortion, media manipulation. :p

    But seriously, there must be a deliberate decision to commit to an expansionist approach early in the game or we will not get sufficient resources (until we're attacked).

    EDIT: I just read this from the Children of Peace group.
    They go on to say that war should be purely defensive and ended ASAP.

    Gee, we just need to play nice and the AI will just give us all the land, luxuries and stategic resouces that we need to be competitive.
    :crazyeye:
     
  11. Grandmaster

    Grandmaster Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2002
    Messages:
    3,058
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    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?

    The true measure of a nation's strength is its standing army. We mjst be ready at all times to quickly and decisively counter any foreign threat with overwhelming force. Likewise, we must be constantly prepared to go on the offensive. We should build the biggest military we can; my general rule of thumb is to build as many units as you can support free (Despotism, Monarchy, Communism) and then some. The army should consist of a mixture of offensive and defensive units (plus artillery when useful units become available.) We should build the best defenders we can in large enough numbers to hold back any enemy advances for at least a turn or two, and enough of the best offensive units to then move in and smash the enemy army with a counterattack. I personally prefer counterstrikes and counterinvading enemy land to simply sitting back and defending.

    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?

    We must hit early and hit hard. It is best to destroy the enemy before they can grow into a threat. I do not think we should concentrate on one or the other. We should simply aim to conquer everyone around us. I believe we are playing with Continents(?) If so, our aim should be to unite the continent with constant warfare early on, and then hold it from outsiders. We should be constantly at war from the discovery of Iron Working to the developement of Gunpowder. By that time we should have enough land, and should concentrate on creating a Fortress Randomania, an impenetrable continent fortified so heavilly that no force on earth could take it. The Roman Empire (real life) was built and held together by the glue of constant expansion, always pushing forward and redrawing the borders. We must do the same.

    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.

    We should build the best units possible. Throught the RL Cold War, the United States concentrated on building quality units, while the Soviet Union built them in quantity. An American tank could kill 5 Russian ones; so as long as the Russians didn't have 6 tanks, the Americans would win. Now, imagine if we had large numbers of quality units. If we do not let the damned foolish Doves get in the way of our military building (which must be the main priority of our indsutry) then we can build the best units in great amounts. That is how we will win wars; an army that overwhelms the enemy with power and numbers,

    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?

    What's wrong with bloc votes? :mischief: Honestly, we must simply press the issue. We must get Hawks elected as President, Military Leader, Domestic Leader, and as Governors. We must simply try to convince everyone (or at least a majority) of taking our view. If you are elected Governor, you must put large numbers of units in your queues. If you are Domestic, you must authorize military spending, and order unit building in all Domestic-controlled cities. If we press the thing, we will be able to force it upon the Doves. The other option, of course, is to start a war. Even the peace-lovers :)rolleyes:) will order units to be built when they see Randomania in trouble.
     
  12. amirsan

    amirsan King of all Kings

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    6,530
    Location:
    NYC to Connectcut...
    :eek: How does that work together???? Your for peace and war???
     
  13. amirsan

    amirsan King of all Kings

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    6,530
    Location:
    NYC to Connectcut...
    Whoa!!! I didn't notice all the posts for our military strategies (I thought we were going to use another thread?). BTW, is'nt it a little too early to disscuss this yet??
     
  14. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    I only posted my questions as an icebreaker so we could get an idea on the views that each member holds. You are right that it is too early for concrete planning but I thought we could kick around a few ideas while we waited for the game to start. Sort of like a prematch drink in the pub arguing about the line up:)
     
  15. Immortal

    Immortal Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,950
    these are general things, not really based around the specifics of the game but find out individual philosophies of our membership. This is an excellent exercise and I hope others will post their feelings as well.

    :)
     
  16. Azale

    Azale Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    18,723
    Location:
    Texas
    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?

    Strong standing. Don't want that AI tryin to sneak atatck and capture a few of our cities. Plus, mobilzation would be made much simpler.

    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?

    I don't support very early camaigns. I'm shooting for Medieval Age or a little before for our first annexetion war.

    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.

    I say, stockpile the units!!! It fits with my strong standing army agenda.:D

    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?

    See what alamo said:p
     
  17. maples45

    maples45 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    30
    I'ld like to Join! Rule with an Iron Fist! My blade is sharp and my will is strong.
     
  18. Shaitan

    Shaitan der Besucher

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    6,546
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    At a minimum I want at least as many units as we can have for free.

    We should have as many campaigns as needed to secure our continent. Our manifest destiny should be coast to coast.

    Unit mix is going to depend on too many factors to decide before we're into the game.

    The best way to get our view supported without forming a voting block is to discuss and promote strong arm ...er... strong army viewpoints. Get the word out and argue the group's points intelligently and they'll get good support across the board.
     
  19. GenMarshall

    GenMarshall Blood Elven Ghost Agent

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    43,135
    Location:
    New Suramar City, Vekta, United Terran Systems
    I have an adnouncement to make. I have Won the Military Leadership possition. Once we have gotten the Game going after the Creation day. I would be laying out the plans for our early expantion :).
     
  20. Azale

    Azale Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    18,723
    Location:
    Texas
    Good job General! Now our plans can be initiated!:goodjob:
     

Share This Page