Department of General Musings

[Whomp]

I think this would be a good idea Dagh. I'm not 100% sure we're prepared for a war against MIA. As Grahamiam has pointed out we probably need to adjust our cities and build overwhelming force. I'm not sure how soon that can be developed.

-What I do believe is MIA has not been on the up and up with us by trading without approval.
-We do not have a legitimate peace agreement after our philo sling failed.
-How the free MA tech would be exchanged is also a very large question without answers.
-Lastly, I don't think it matters whether the other teams know we are trading republic to MIA at this point. They have the most to offer so how can they question us trading with MIA. This hiding stuff can be explained to the other teams as a simple tech for techs deal.

 

[Kickbooti]

Going to war sounds fun (I'm loving the Secret Military Planning thread). But before I vote I have to ask what our long term objectives in a war with MIA are.

Is it
Complete elimination.
Complete conquest.
Simple Smackdown and Resource Denial creating a 'rump state' to our 'head.'

If asked, I'm leaning toward elimination. I fear that even a 'rump state' bent on revenge could create problems down the road. If we leave a trunkated MIA we should plan on a pretty stout buffer zone with scouts and a large enough quick reaciton force to deal with incursions.

Elimination is a major commitment. I don't recomend it lightly and am willing to be pushed off the position. I just didn't know if our stratigic goal was set before our tactics firm up.

This long term strategy will effect our short-term goals.

Remember, soldiers win battles - Diplomats/Politicians win wars.

Before we go toe to toe with MIA we had better clearify our disposition with Nuts and TNT and a stratigic vision for our conflict.

 

[Kickbooti]

Let me follow up...

Aside from fun and revenge (worthy goals, both) I don't see an advantage to war with MIA at the time.

I think we should PREPARE for war (I like the GS build). The preparation, if nothing else would give us operational flexibilty to conduct a conflict on the other continent if that became desirable.

Aside from Ivory (which can be had on the other continent) I am unaware of an lux we would attain and I don't know that Ivory on our land mass is worth a war.

I don't get the impression that we could threaten techs from MIA in a manner timely enough to be prudent (though I could be wrong on this).

I don't know of any stratigic terrain they hold that we need.

If they recognize their relatively weak position and go for a peaceful strategy that would allow them to focus on reasearch and become a tech broker or ring leader of a anti-KISS dog-pile, that WOULD be reason enough to eliminate them and to do it sooner rather than later. But I'm not certain at this point.

Again, aside from fun and revenge, I don't know of any other reasons for war with MIA in the near future.

I am willing (even eager ) to be talked into war, I just want to explore these stratigic issues.

 

[Daghdha]

I'm, to no ones surprise, lining up with Bootsy in asking these q's but i'm not that eager to be convinced a soon to be war vs MIA is a good idea. Having said that I'm not totally against it if some good reasons can be presented. That is reasons beside they have made some trades overseas (remember I've already said fe mentioned something about that to me and I failed to report that here). I would also like to have the long term goals with an attack lined out. If what Whomper says, that we have no peace deal with MIA, then I'm backing out of that one. I just don't like to break deals.
Whatever team decides on I will do my best to contribute, but if it involves backstabbing my contribution may be less. If not....Gung-Ho everyone .

 

[Whomp]

Daghie I think a lot depends on the next few turns on whether they will come through. In the meantime, I think we should send them the two pictures of the other capitals and our while it's in settler mode. Can someone do this?

 

[Beorn-eL-Feared]

They traded overseas, no treaty holds. And because we are a power to be reckoned with, we should act as such here. Make sure everyone knows you don't play stupid with the idiots, for we won't be fooled.

Longer term plans should be something along the lines of: spam our continent with towns, race the tech tree, establish an overseas channel, land knights (and/or cavs ) overboard, kick ass. I honestly doubt that they'll be in any position to race with us to cavs, unless they play gentle kitten over there. Unlikely to me.

 

[Daghdha]

The MIA treaty:

Spoiler :

4a. Deals which goes beyond simple technology trade at the monopoly beaker cost for, must be agreed to by the other party.

6. Techs are to be shared between both teams when writing and republic are discovered.

7. MIA and KISS are at peace. Since both of us can't really know what new dvelopments will be in the future, our peacedeal is basically unlimited, and can only be terminated at least 10 turns beforehand. This shall not be done, before at least 10 turns have past after the discovery of Republic.

They traded overseas, no treaty holds.

I can't find in our agreement anything that prohibits that. Possibly it was a violation of 4a, but when did we announce "You broke 4a, make it up to us or our agreement falls"? We never did from what I know.

And because we are a power to be reckoned with, we should act as such here. Make sure everyone knows you don't play stupid with the idiots, for we won't be fooled.

I do not agree on that definition of a power to be reconed with. It's just not in my book that a great and powerful nation must annihilate others as soon as it senses a smell of lesser obediance. That's a result of too much arrogance and/or to weak diplomacy.

If they recognize their relatively weak position

They surely have which is a good thing that must not be changed.

and go for a peaceful strategy that would allow them to focus on reasearch

They cannot go completly un-military because we have/had an invasion plan for overseas. They will build units enough to cover their part of that mission (and their back on home turf). How many for shipping should be negotiated and decided upon mutually. Thing is, we will have more troops back home.

and become a tech broker or ring leader of a anti-KISS dog-pile

They cannot be brokers if we stick to the agreement that tech trading ocerseas stops after the Big Deal. Then Nuts and TNT will have to do all research themselves (if they don't start co-op). No anti-KISS dogpile is possible if we and MIA stick to the alliance.

Reading through the treaty I cannot find how to interprete Whompers statement that we have no peace deal. Treaty says it's unlimited and how can we just cancel it without even telling MIA the reason for it and thereby giving them the opportunity to explain and redeem the alledged violence?

So far I have not seen one solid reason for attacking MIA. The only thing that constantly pops up is some feeling of being fooled and that no one should get away with fooling us (if they have....have they?). It seem all the cool dudes have turned into hot-heads that smells the blood from overseas and wants a piece of it. Are we bored with just soaring in score and growing uncontested?
What's wrong with sticking to our initial plan? No that we have a military advantage vs MIA we're in the drivers seat.

 

[Whomp]

Daghie I'm not sure we ever agreed to that particular agreement. We should check with the admins what is actually on file in the U.N.

With that said I don't think we are ready for war either and TNT may be the better target anyhow. For example, Donut wants us to sign a mutual protection because they don't want MIA hitting them but they don't want us the join the fight against TNT. Interesting.

 

[Daghdha]

Daghie I'm not sure we ever agreed to that particular agreement. We should check with the admins what is actually on file in the U.N.

Maybe not, but we put our seal on it...?

 

[Whomp]

You may be right Dagh. Was the seal from the first agreement? I thought the seal was on the first agreement which was based on the philo sling which was unsuccessful. Hence, no agreement would be binding.

I can't see the gmail till Sunday so maybe someone can clarify and post in the stupid decisions thread.

 

[Daghdha]

Post #5 in stupid decicions contains the agreement. I'll attach 'em here for clarity. The revised version of page 3 is also attached. No agreements or corrections of this one has been signed since. If MIA holds that agreement states techs to be excanged after discovery of Republic I fully understand them coz that's what it says .

 

[Sir Bugsy]

I do not agree on that definition of a power to be reconed with. It's just not in my book that a great and powerful nation must annihilate others as soon as it senses a smell of lesser obediance. That's a result of too much arrogance and/or to weak diplomacy.

They surely have which is a good thing that must not be changed.
They cannot go completly un-military because we have/had an invasion plan for overseas. They will build units enough to cover their part of that mission (and their back on home turf). How many for shipping should be negotiated and decided upon mutually. Thing is, we will have more troops back home.
They cannot be brokers if we stick to the agreement that tech trading ocerseas stops after the Big Deal. Then Nuts and TNT will have to do all research themselves (if they don't start co-op). No anti-KISS dogpile is possible if we and MIA stick to the alliance.

So far I have not seen one solid reason for attacking MIA. The only thing that constantly pops up is some feeling of being fooled and that no one should get away with fooling us (if they have....have they?). It seem all the cool dudes have turned into hot-heads that smells the blood from overseas and wants a piece of it. Are we bored with just soaring in score and growing uncontested?
What's wrong with sticking to our initial plan? No that we have a military advantage vs MIA we're in the drivers seat.

Daghie - I wholeheartedly agree. I think Clauswitz had it right.

"War an extension of politics"

It is the entire reason the military should be subserviant to the civilian government. The reason we are making war plans in the Top Secret War Room is because POTKISS directed us to. Making preparations is not the same as going to war. In fact it may be a valuable tool in negotiations. You drop a hint that you have a bunch of grumpy old AW'ers that are begging for a chance to visit the Parthenon.

Once again, planning does not equal war.

 

[Beorn-eL-Feared]

Let's explore this new proposal of planning, preparing, but not warring. Or just keeping our minds open for stuff. Shouldn't we keep 1 and a half pump, say Simpleton on GS, Igno on settlers/workers every 6 and Dunderhead on settlers every 4?

I assume here that we'll be prepping semi-seriously for war, meaning we don't mean to push the machine THAT hard on GS. Right now we're at the bottom of the longest we planned to cut the settlers off. The settler spreeing has been our greatest asset in growing this powerful so far, why stall it?

Right now we're strong, they will play gentle kitten, we may or may not want to take advantage of that - and I'm perfectly fine with either way. I'm just saying that if we're not 100% clear and positive about a full spread of GS production, we should keep expanding - we know they will, they would be stupid not to. And if we're not declaring war, so would we.

 

[Daghdha]

Second that! Assuming MIA will be nice for as long as we're strong vs them there is no reason not to spam settlers for a while.

 

[Tubby Rower]

Simpleton is back on settlers full time. Dunderhead needed to grow one before 4-turn settlers were feasible due to waste. After this catapult is built, I was planning on getting a settler out then seeing where things were at the time. By building settlers from 5-6 in Dunderhead, it wouldn't take much to get it to pop 7 for unit support if need be.

Simpleton and D-Head are the only two core cities that DON'T have a barracks. So if anything is built besides non-military and catapults, then that particular city needs a barracks.

 

[Own]

Another thing to muse on, catapults. Why is Dunderhead building catapults and not a rax and then GS? Catapults can't keep up with our GS assault team, making their speed obselete, and with a huge stack of GS on MIA's doorstep, I doubt they'll send any attack force whatsoever to our homeland, at least not anything that requires a catapult stack to kill.

 

[Beorn-eL-Feared]

I second that. Dunderhead has a huge shield potential and several chops ahead of it. Even with Simpleton being the capital, Dunder is my bet on which towns should go out making GS.

 

[Daghdha]

Maybe D-head should do some settlers, 3-4, the we chop out a rax. By then we should have luxes enough to keep the growing pop happy.

 

[Own]

I don't think so, Simpleton is producing settlers fast enough. This decision does depend on whether we're gonna war with MIA or not. If we will warmonger, we must have a ton of GS to execute it, and we'll need every city producing GS we can.

 

[Pentium]

One settler factory is enough IMIO. And we're going to need a lot of GS's against Hoplites.