Should we pursue a peace treaty with the Babylonians when our alliances have run their course? Or should we continue punishing them?
Informational Poll: Peace with the Babs?
- Thread starter eyrei
- Start date
Donovan Zoi
The Return
When our alliances are over against Babylon, we should make peace. We should still keep plenty of units in the area and consider fortifications on their border as well as the Iroquois border.
Fier Canadien
Citizen
I think that 7 turns will be enough to take what we want from Babylon. make peace in 7 turns.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I say we make peace any time after the alliances run out and Hammurabi gives us the secrets of steam power.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
We should wait those 7 turns, and see what Hammurabi is willing to for over for us to spare him the humiliation of destruction,,,
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
I say 7 turns. We cannot take a rep hit, but we can't just go war happy right now.
FortyJ
Deity
I say we keep them under the fire until they are ready to part with something we would like and until we get at least one more Great Leader out of them.
Let the alliances run out if our so-called friends don't have the stomach for the fight, but we should take advantage of our situation and torch the Babylonian countryside right good while we have the chance. The more damage we do, the more chance we have of getting another Great Leader (which, by the way, is feasable as we have several Elite units heading to that area now...) and the more harm we do to Babylon's chances of posing a threat to us in the future.
We have them under our heel at the moment. Don't let them up while they still have a chance to stab us in the back.
Let the alliances run out if our so-called friends don't have the stomach for the fight, but we should take advantage of our situation and torch the Babylonian countryside right good while we have the chance. The more damage we do, the more chance we have of getting another Great Leader (which, by the way, is feasable as we have several Elite units heading to that area now...) and the more harm we do to Babylon's chances of posing a threat to us in the future.
We have them under our heel at the moment. Don't let them up while they still have a chance to stab us in the back.
(listening to Colin Powell..)Feodor Ardent
Grizzled 'ol Civ Veteran
A good idea, as long as it does not divert resources from our building program. Without their saltpeter and iron the Babs are no longer a threat to us. We should either conquer them or pull back and not waste any more energy on them.
7 turns seems a good enough delay.
Feodor
FortyJ
Deity
With all due respect, Feodor.... Seven turns may well prove to be the perfect number of turns, but how can we simply assign a number of turns to this issue?
We should establish quantitative goals in this conflict and continue to pursue them until they have been met. Stating that we'll end this war in 7 turns is almost as ludicrous as ending a war because 100 hours had passed since hostilities began.
We have the production capacity to maintain sufficient forces in Babylonian territory without sacrificing any "building" program back in the homeland, unless you're proposing the cessation of all military unit production for a period of time (which, I might point out is likely directly responsible for India and Babylon attacking us in the first place).
We should use the Babylonian wasteland (as it hopefully will become soon) as a Great Leader breeding farm. We will need another Great Leader to rush completion of Mr. Darwin's project one day and then eventually to complete that monstrous Dam that was proposed by my former aide, Mr. Hoover. Unless we are at war with someone, we will not be able to produce these much-needed leaders. I would rather be using Babylon in their current state to produce these leaders than take on a new foe in hopes of producing them.
Furthermore, we should take this opportunity to completely destroy Babylon's capacity to trade. Not only will this significantly affect their relationship with the other nations, it will significantly delay their ability to cover their countryside with railroads - a delay which will set them behind us in every way for many, many turns to come.
I do not think it wise to establish a set deadline to terminate hostilities. We should press our advantage until we have achieved all of our goals.
We should establish quantitative goals in this conflict and continue to pursue them until they have been met. Stating that we'll end this war in 7 turns is almost as ludicrous as ending a war because 100 hours had passed since hostilities began.
We have the production capacity to maintain sufficient forces in Babylonian territory without sacrificing any "building" program back in the homeland, unless you're proposing the cessation of all military unit production for a period of time (which, I might point out is likely directly responsible for India and Babylon attacking us in the first place).
We should use the Babylonian wasteland (as it hopefully will become soon) as a Great Leader breeding farm. We will need another Great Leader to rush completion of Mr. Darwin's project one day and then eventually to complete that monstrous Dam that was proposed by my former aide, Mr. Hoover. Unless we are at war with someone, we will not be able to produce these much-needed leaders. I would rather be using Babylon in their current state to produce these leaders than take on a new foe in hopes of producing them.
Furthermore, we should take this opportunity to completely destroy Babylon's capacity to trade. Not only will this significantly affect their relationship with the other nations, it will significantly delay their ability to cover their countryside with railroads - a delay which will set them behind us in every way for many, many turns to come.
I do not think it wise to establish a set deadline to terminate hostilities. We should press our advantage until we have achieved all of our goals.
Feodor Ardent
Grizzled 'ol Civ Veteran
I will point out, 40, that I quoted the time period of 7 years -- and I did not state it as an absolute -- because it was already posted in a number of e-mails, it represents the earliest legitimate terminal date that would not cost us a rep hit, and it approximates the amount of time necessary to achieve the goals you describe.
Other than that, I would expect to pursue the war with the same rationales and objectives covered in your letter.
I do not believe in setting a fixed length of time for a campaign, but I also think that allowing wars to drag on indefinitely is bad policy. Unless there is consensus for a domination victory as our goal, let us get this war over with and switch to Republic or Democracy. We can build up our infantry strength to an appropriate level and work on an economic and scientific infrastructure that will be competitive with the Persians and Chinese.
To that end, possibly CivGeneral can tell us what he things can be done in 7, 10, 12, or 20 turns. And how much it will cost us.
Other than that, I would expect to pursue the war with the same rationales and objectives covered in your letter.
I do not believe in setting a fixed length of time for a campaign, but I also think that allowing wars to drag on indefinitely is bad policy. Unless there is consensus for a domination victory as our goal, let us get this war over with and switch to Republic or Democracy. We can build up our infantry strength to an appropriate level and work on an economic and scientific infrastructure that will be competitive with the Persians and Chinese.
To that end, possibly CivGeneral can tell us what he things can be done in 7, 10, 12, or 20 turns. And how much it will cost us.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
Forty, hopefully we can get a GL within the next seven turns. That is the only reason to consider keeping this war going. The cavalry we are using to pillage Babylonian infrastructure have a good chance of getting picked off by Bab cavalry, and I don't think we should sacrifice them that way. Replacing units that shouldn't have expired in the first place should not be our goal at this time. The only military units we should be producing right now is riflemen, maybe cannons.
When this is over, I do think we should keep those cavalry near the Babylonian border in case Hammy tries something ill-advised.
When this is over, I do think we should keep those cavalry near the Babylonian border in case Hammy tries something ill-advised.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I voted the 7 turns, but I think it should say "at least until our alliances are over".
I have included in my turn chat instructions that the alliances should be cancelled, and the turn chat stopped after 7 turns. Therefore, we can further discuss peace with the Babs.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
eyrei, if we are going to stop the chat for more discussion, shouldn't we just wait to cancel the alliances as well? We may need to keep them if the ensuing discussion beckons us to press on....
It will be impossible to see what the Babylonians are actually willing to offer for peace while we still have those alliances. To avoid a rep hit, we need to cancel the alliances before we sign a peace treaty.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
Good point. I guess if Hammy doesn't offer enough we would have to sign on with our allies for another 20 turns?
I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. We seem to have public approval to end the war, though.
I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. We seem to have public approval to end the war, though.
Grandmaster
Deity
Peace now? We ain't gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent. At this juncture. We already have proof of Hammurabi's weapons of mass destruction... I would show them to you, but then the enemy would know we have them. I say we continue fighting our righteous crusade for world peace by disarming the Babs and ending the war when the Coalition is over. (7 turns... plenty of time to make Hammi sorry he ever went to war with the World's Only Superpower. 
)
)Similar threads
- Poll
