Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game IV: Citizens' started by GenMarshall, Dec 6, 2003.
I will join
Ill join this fun. time for military conquest!
I wish to join, even though I don't think of myself as a warmonger. I'm not out for victory by domination, just the largest, grandest nation possible which doesn't have to depend on trading with other nations for its most vital resources. I am more of a believer in Manifest Destiny, and being a "child of peace" would get in the way of that. We should acquire the largest contiguous section of our continent possible, be it by cultural, diplomatic, or military means. I am a supporter of any expedient war that helps us take over our own continent or secures vital resources abroad.
The one issue I have with our group's statement of beliefs is that we should maintain a strong military in peacetime. It seems like a waste of resources unless we can support the troops at little cost during peace. Offensive troops shouldn't be built unless the intention to go to war is likely to be made by our democracy. Why have an army other than defensive forces unless you intend to use them?
With the elections comming around. I am planning to run for Military Leader. I have many plans for the early phase of the game. First I plan to raise warriors to lead exploration missions around our territory. I then plan to push forward for research for iron working to build 10 Swordsmen. I plan on creating a warrior factory and sending them to a city connected to iron with a barrack to create cheap swords.
what will our desired government path look like i.e,
despo--->republic [war=monarch]--->commun [war=commun]--->demo [war= republic]
something like that, showing the desired path, and at eac govern what govern we switch to in the evnt of a war
edit: i personaly say despo--->monarch[war=monarch]--->commun[war=republic]
I beleve that Despot-->Monarch path should be good.
Though by the time we hit Communism, the game is already set to victory.
I believe it should be despo ----> republic
Repub will allow us to have a decent army and be scientifically superior. Our wars will have to be short and victorious though, and that means meticulously planned wars prepared in advance.
Repub should be alright though, as the WW is rather low.
I would like to see Despotism to republic. It encourages us to fight precise wars and gives us technologies with stronger units. Plus, if we can manage to build a wonder such as the Great Library, we don't have to worry about science for a while and can focus more on our military prowess and city improvements.
well i say, since we're not playing a religous civ (unless cleo gets an amazing uprising of suport, and we re-poll) despo--->monarch works best because in the ancient age, alll those 1 movement point units will prevent out wars from bieng that quick. monarch will probably be best if we are in as much war as we think we are going to be in, the war weariness will eventually be a problem, if we know we aren't going to war for a while we can switch to a peacetime government, but i really think we should go w/ a strictly wartime path
1. Since Conquest/Domination is the most fun way to win, I'll join this group.
2. Desptotism-Monarchy is the right choice if we want to conquer lesser civs, but we should switch to Republic if it ever looks like we have a long period of peace ahead of us.
EDIT: 3. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1478535#post1478535 All who support Conquest or Domination victory types, show support on this thread.
count me in,
I believe CivGeneral that another one of our issues should be the building of a navy, if we can control the seas, we can control trade, expansion, and landing anywheres we want!
Count me in. I'm in favor of wars to (listed in my personal order of priority):
acquire strategic ressources (no need to argue, at least for me)
acquire luxury resources (let our people be happy)
round up our territory (strategic importance)
expand our territory (size is power)
create Great Leaders (best way to get wonders)
slow down research of other nations (they shall pay for our techs)
make slaves (not this important, since we are industrious)
[/list=1] And once at war, I take every possible precaution
to not loose one of our cities
to loose as few units as possible
to create and protect elite units
to soften the enemy's defences with bombardment
to pillage enemy resources
to break enemy trade routes
[/list=1]And I always keep my deals!
can I join. war is my favourite way to beat the game.
Fellow warmongers, in this thread I advocate to got to war against the Egyptian intruders.
I ask for your support in this righteous crusade!
i argee wit your views on how our glorious nation must be preserved and defended and wish to join your society
i'm in, although this is my first demogame, as long as the war that we fight is quick
I will join.
That being said, I am more aligned with CivGeneral's personal view rather than the ubiquitous "wage war to beat up the other players!" outlook. War should not be waged for wars sake, nor for conquering or even expansion. War is waged for defense and security reasons only, never to an extreme degree (each war should have a modest goal; for instance, to capture a city or two). War must be quick and as painless as possible (least amount of casualties to our own soldiers, all civilians and even the enemies units if at all possible).
Lastly, when I say for defense or security reasons, I just mean to protect our cities/improvements from an attacking enemy and (in the case of security) to deal with rogue nations that are a clear and immediate threat to either of the two aforementioned things. We should also not go out of our way to avoid angering potentially war-waging countries, as we should not be bullied. Whenever possible, however, these issues and all issues around possible or actual war should be handled with a good deal of diplomacy.
kato can i just say u dont really know what your talking about
for example to quote u
(least amount of casualties to our own soldiers, all civilians and even the enemies units if at all possible) !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!?!
i understand the first bit about OUR soldiers, but prey tell me kato why we shud give a duck about enemy soldiers?
See the thing is about killing civilians is that we reduce the foreign seed that enters nation when we take their cities and this also helps OUR culture, happiness and industry take off quicker.
(i love to see the pop up "some of babylons citizens have been killed")
personally i see u has a bleeding heart liberal who thinks he has an stomach for war but wud cave to our enemies demands give half a chance.
Hrm. Well whatever terminology you would like to apply. In person I'm sort of apolitical, to be honest.
Separate names with a comma.