FA discussion: Still want to win by diplomacy

[DaveShack]

Greetings fellow citizens, the title says it all. Do we still want to win by diplomacy? Should we take extraordinary diplomatic means to win, or should we try to go the totally honorable way and let the votes fall where they may?

My position is to go for diplomacy using sufficient means to win on the 1st ballot, but keeping to the most honorable and least manipulative tactics we can.

Given 1/9/2005 as the next scheduled play session, the timeline for this decision is up to 3 days discussion, 3 days poll, and one day to formulate instructions and coordinate with other departments.

 

[Provolution]

We should go extraordinary. Honorable means no strategy.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Yes, still go for diplomacy. In fact, if we beeline for Fission, have a prebuild, and keep good relations (but don't bribe them), this game can be over quick.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Please please please just finish this game. (Not to mention make my departmentsjob a heck of a lot easier)

go UN

 

[WeaponX]

Yes, still go for diplomacy. In fact, if we beeline for Fission, have a prebuild, and keep good relations (but don't bribe them), this game can be over quick.

What he said.

 

[mhcarver]

Diplo ASAP, lets get this game finished

 

[Sir Donald III]

I think that Daveshack's question could be better phrased in 2 parts:

1. Do we go for Diplo? (this one is being answered)

2. Do we Conquer Russia, Iroquois, and Zulu if Necessary in order to "silence" these opponents?

I think we should focus on question #2 as well as #1.

I say that we should finish what we started in Russia and Iroq. Eliminate these two so they can't vote against us.

Zulu... Oh yeah. They have some of our Workers. But they also have an MPP with France. Hm... tough call. We can toss 1 vote in addition to China's, no prob.

I just hope that this French Babylonian War doesn't spoil our hopes...

 

[blackheart]

I think that Daveshack's question could be better phrased in 2 parts:

1. Do we go for Diplo? (this one is being answered)

2. Do we Conquer Russia, Iroquois, and Zulu if Necessary in order to "silence" these opponents?

I think we should focus on question #2 as well as #1.

We need to conquer the Iroquois. They're a sure vote against us. Remember, we need a majority, not a plurality. We could start a conquest and have everyone sign a MA against that nation.

 

[Sir Donald III]

OR... we could just Blitz with Caverly and take all 3 cities in 1 turn. They're still in Middle Ages, so no Rifles.

 

[Civanator]

Sorry, the 1/9 was a typo. I'm afraid you'll only have 2 days discussion, 2 polling.

A UN victory would prove most challenging, so that's what I would like to see.

I say finish off the Iroqi's so they can't vote against us, but dont sign any alliances because 20 turns is a long time.

 

[DaveShack]

The current state of affairs is now updated in the FA thread. Also this post has a summary. We have 4 sure votes and one leaner (Babylon). There are definitely 3 against us, Iroqouis, Zulu, China.

For an elimination of enemies strategy to work we must eliminate two.

We still have a MPP with France, and can trigger it by leaving something undefended, in our territory, and in range of the Zulu. That would neutralize the MPP between Zulu and France, so that we don't poison France's vote. The only problem is, we have 8 turns of peace left with the Zulu and only 2 turns of MPP with France. Not 100% positive, but I think that breaking peace with turns left will downgrade our relations with everyone else.

A better time to eliminate votes against us is right before the actual vote. The important thing is to get out of all MPPs as soon as possible so we don't get dragged into an unwanted war.

 

[Provolution]

I think we can turn Zulu and Babylon to our side, but exterminate Iroq.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

If we are to annihilate one nation for the sake of "diplomacy" then we may as well remove them all.

I wish everyone would quit thinking in terms of game mechanics and instead focus on our role-playing as the world's only superpower(for now). If we are going to declare war on someone, why not just declare war on everyone?? It would at least be more interesting, and somewhat of a challenge.

But seriously, since it seems like there a strong movement for an overhaul of the DG system, why don't we use our Histograph Victory as a test model for the next game? This is better than the instant gratification displayed here that is so prevalent in today's culture, where we whine and complain that we want something now(a new game) and then gripe even more when the premature product fall short of our expectations.

Whatta bunch of Paris Hiltons!

Hats off to Minister Dave for wanting to take the high road. If we go Diplo, then I choose the as/is method as well.

 

[Black_Hole]

ill have to agree with DZ, if we are gonna do this we are gonna be nice and do it with a smile
No leaving territory unguarded to start a war, no mass gifting, if we want to win by diplomacy it should be done diplomatically and if you want to start picking on the poor people choose a different victory

 

[Provolution]

We can still exterminate Iroq, we are militaristic after all. I think political correctness can wait for DG6. I promise to play a rabid liberal in that one.

 

[blackheart]

We can still exterminate Iroq, we are militaristic after all. I think political correctness can wait for DG6. I promise to play a rabid liberal in that one.

This isn't about flinging names like liberal or conservative. Having a militaristic trait doesn't necessarily mean we have to go and conquer all of our neighbors. We're also religious, yet I don't see any suicide bombers going off (joke ) or see a department of theology.

 

[Provolution]

We can indeed conquer Iroq, makes perfect sense.

 

[Black_Hole]

sorry but I havent picked up on all of our naming, which country is Iroq?

 

[Provolution]

Iroquois for short.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

We can still exterminate Iroq, we are militaristic after all. I think political correctness can wait for DG6. I promise to play a rabid liberal in that one.

I still find it laughably pathetic that those who aspire to a higher political ideal of respect and responsibility to the world and its people continue to be casually dismissed as "liberal." Doing the right thing has nothing to do with name-calling, as blackheart stated.