Foreign Affairs Proposal and Long Term Planning Discussion
- Thread starter eyrei
- Start date
Falcon02
General
I'm personally against launching an offensive after the Aztecs, that war already occured too early, IMHO. I still think we should work primarily on infrastructure, including defenses.
Plexus
Architeuthidae puericomedentis
After point one, I suggest delaying pt. 2 until we turn out a few temples (and maybe a wonder or two 
).
).
We did not attack too early. In fact, it was almost too late. The only way we are going to be able to keep up with the AI is by having about 4 times as much territory than anyone else. And the only way we are going to get to that point is by waging a lot of wars in succession, and do it quickly before we fall too far behind. There is no reason to allow our veteran army sit stagnant so that we can build libraries in corrupt and rebellious cities. The libraries will come, but they will do us little good if we don't have 4 times as many as everyone else. We need to eliminate the Japanese before they get their Samuari, because if we don't, we will never be able to populate the lands to the NW, and we will have a very warlike neighbor fuming on our back porch.
Believe me, I am not against building up our infrastructure, but it must wait until we have achieved military supremacy over our nearest neighbors. As I have said before, cultural improvements are not going to do us any good if we are all dead. Once we have achieved security, we can afford to focus on these building projects, but we need our cities devoted to training troops to achieve this.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
We will not receive security from attacking either American or Japan! We will only show a weakness for the other to attack! We can not defend ourselves from attacks on opposite sides. We Must have peace and build up both are defensive army and are offensive.
Shaitan
der Besucher
I agree that the attack on Azteca was far too late. We had planned and agreed on an archer assault and this was delayed and him-hawed, archers sent all over creation and no real attempt was made to organize the assault until swordsmen were ready. We missed the chance for our archer assault completely, we are now in the sword rush assault. We will need another major assault with horsemen rushed to knights in order to even get where we originally planned to be.
Peace is a wonderful goal and I fully support it as something to do in the future. Now is a time of conquest.
Peace is a wonderful goal and I fully support it as something to do in the future. Now is a time of conquest.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
I'm inclined to agree with Falc and Strider. However, it is too late. We should turn our eyes from the past to the future. We need to begin planning an attack on either Japan or America, preferably the latter.
Shaitan
der Besucher
We have an army now that is close to America. It has several swords to back up and horsemen are coming on line. We have several swords near Japan. We're still at war with Azteca but they are finished and we'll likely be making peace for everything they have (5 techs and a city).
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
I would propose:
1) end the aztec war in preturn at the next TC
2) change science queue as we get some things from the azis
3) extort all techs and all other things they have
4) prepare war against america while securing the lower valey+ the landbridge with new cities.
1) end the aztec war in preturn at the next TC
2) change science queue as we get some things from the azis
3) extort all techs and all other things they have
4) prepare war against america while securing the lower valey+ the landbridge with new cities.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Can we come up with rankings for the nations similar to what we did in the first demo game? We may be able to do so through discussion rather than actual polling. I think Japan and American are definately Rouge States. India had been a good tech trading partner to date and the English don't seem so bad. A ranking would help us to decide who to maintain good relationships with should we need an ally against America. England may be a good country to pal around with in this respect. 
Eklektikos
Eponymous
Not to seem like a bitter and paranoid individual, but I don't think that any nation can be considered remotely trustworthy at this level of play. On the sliding scale that Donsig is referring to I would be inclined to rank every last one of our rivals as rogue states, merely classing the ones we with whom we currently appear to have good relations as sneaky rogues who are biding their time. I think the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" approach would be more applicable and useful here. 
Originally posted by donsig
Can we come up with rankings for the nations similar to what we did in the first demo game? We may be able to do so through discussion rather than actual polling. I think Japan and American are definately Rouge States. India had been a good tech trading partner to date and the English don't seem so bad. A ranking would help us to decide who to maintain good relationships with should we need an ally against America. England may be a good country to pal around with in this respect.
Considering we know nothing about all but 3 civs, I am not ready to do this yet. Any information gleaned from polls on this subject would be completely arbitrary and the decisions uninformed.
And, I agree with Eklektikos. None of them should be trusted.
We do need culture, but we dare not let our troops stagnate. Peace and war can be a delicate balancing act, especially at this level.
I am for building culture where we can, but still preparing our troops for the next offensive, be it America (my choice) or Japan.
I am for building culture where we can, but still preparing our troops for the next offensive, be it America (my choice) or Japan.
