Ministry of War: Babylon

[Sarevok]

They are!, but I really meant the barbs, theyre stuff is even worse!

 

[ali]

We ,must attack now! we cannot allow them to build an infracstructure which will allow them to build an army that may defeat or inflict heavy losses.

regards ali

 

[Immortal]

babylon is among the most dangerous civs to border (second only to Persians, in my experience) they do not require an immediate declaration of war. However, we should be prepared to destroy them at any point.

 

[Civanator]

We are in no position to declare war on them right now, but prepping for a war at the Samurai age is a must.

 

[Sarevok]

We are in no position to declare war on them right now, but prepping for a war at the Samurai age is a must.

This is our goal, we must be ready to knock them out when the warriors of Bushido are in mass numbers or at least good enough for victory.

 

[Epimethius]

*sits back, remembering how close the vote was to making agression illegal*

Now, would I be right to say that they're only really dangerous if we're at war with them? So what if they have culture, so do we. And soon their UU will be obsolete. What you're saying is that we should wait until the middle of the game, when everyone is established, and then wipe them out. If they are a real threat, we will get a war with them before that, when they have a UU and not us. If we manage to get to Samurai without any war with them, then they aren't much of a threat. And if they're only a serious threat in war, and we make it all the way to the middle ages without any war, then way start then? Last game we conquered the ENTIRE WORLD. This game I'd like it if we conquer anything we don't have to. And we do not have to conquer the Babylonians.

 

[Provolution]

Right now I am for a containment policy of building a defensible border that is economic to hold. Natural resources will dictate our military capabilities. Until Iron working is researched, it is futile to discuss more practical scenarios.

 

[Black_Hole]

*sits back, remembering how close the vote was to making agression illegal*

Now, would I be right to say that they're only really dangerous if we're at war with them? So what if they have culture, so do we. And soon their UU will be obsolete. What you're saying is that we should wait until the middle of the game, when everyone is established, and then wipe them out. If they are a real threat, we will get a war with them before that, when they have a UU and not us. If we manage to get to Samurai without any war with them, then they aren't much of a threat. And if they're only a serious threat in war, and we make it all the way to the middle ages without any war, then way start then? Last game we conquered the ENTIRE WORLD. This game I'd like it if we conquer anything we don't have to. And we do not have to conquer the Babylonians.

we do have to destroy them, last game they were a pain early on with their culture, a LARGE pain.
plus war is fun
also they are basically are archrivals

 

[classical_hero]

we do have to destroy them, last game they were a pain early on with their culture, a LARGE pain.
plus war is fun
also they are basically are archrivals

Yes war is fun, unless you are losing. Lets wait to see were the Iron is to see how sucessful we could be in defeating Babylon. Whoever we declare war on we should try and bring a second party in to help with our efforts.

 

[blackheart]

*sits back, remembering how close the vote was to making agression illegal*

Now, would I be right to say that they're only really dangerous if we're at war with them? So what if they have culture, so do we. And soon their UU will be obsolete. What you're saying is that we should wait until the middle of the game, when everyone is established, and then wipe them out. If they are a real threat, we will get a war with them before that, when they have a UU and not us. If we manage to get to Samurai without any war with them, then they aren't much of a threat. And if they're only a serious threat in war, and we make it all the way to the middle ages without any war, then way start then? Last game we conquered the ENTIRE WORLD. This game I'd like it if we conquer anything we don't have to. And we do not have to conquer the Babylonians.

And yet aggression isn't illegal. The point in culture flips is that they have more culture, even if we still had some culture, our cities could still potentially flip.

What are you talking about if we get samurai they won't be a threat? Anyone is a possible threat at any time. Allies can turn into enemies and vice versa. We really can't decide who we have and don't have to conquer at the moment.

Your wording is kind of messed up but I'm guessing that's what you meant.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Epimethius is speaking of an informational poll that was held just beofre DG5 started, where a majority agreed that we should try to win the game by noble means. Since I was a part of that majority, what that meant to me was that we do not engage in any unprovoked wars.

Since that time, I have come to realize that such a thing cannot be mandated by one poll. I still agree that we should spend the last part of our history respecting the holdings of sovereign nations, but until the Middle Ages we are essentially barbarians trying to claim as much land as possible.

That said, I would not oppose early conquest of a neighbor or two, and could be convinced that it would be right for us to start the trouble ourselves. However, once we have a solid base of 20 or so cities, I will fight strongly to see that Japanatica follows a noble course.

As evidenced by the experience of 4 past Demogames, Babylon's culture will always be a might with which to contend . So, I have no problem on setting our sights on them first.

 

[Black_Hole]

Epimethius is speaking of an informational poll that was held just beofre DG5 started, where a majority agreed that we should try to win the game by noble means. Since I was a part of that majority, what that meant to me was that we do not engage in any unprovoked wars.

Since that time, I have come to realize that such a thing cannot be mandated by one poll. I still agree that we should spend the last part of our history respecting the holdings of sovereign nations, but until the Middle Ages we are essentially barbarians trying to claim as much land as possible.

That said, I would not oppose early conquest of a neighbor or two, and could be convinced that it would be right for us to start the trouble ourselves. However, once we have a solid base of 20 or so cities, I will fight strongly to see that Japanatica follows a noble course.

As evidenced by the experience of 4 past Demogames, Babylon's culture will always be a might with which to contend . So, I have no problem on setting our sights on them first.

sorry about the plans for peace guys, but war is always the best option

 

[Sir Donald III]

Is it not said that "he who wishes for Peace, prepares for War"?

Really, our best bet is to do our level best to deny the Babs any extra tools to make War. (i.e. Horses, Iron, and Luxes.) This means aggressice Settlement starting with Option 7 in the Settlement Poll. Using Option 7, as well as the devotion of a few minor military units (Warriors), we could deny the Babylonians the Southern Horses. It won't prevent the Bowmen from marching, if they plan on that, but it should slow them down a bit.

 

[Der Sensenmann]

I wish to express my concurrence with the Minister of War on his plans for war with Babylonia. However, I feel it may be better for our economy if we first seize any resource (strat and lux) cities of theirs plus any strategically important ones and then allow them to live as a satellite, buying our products

 

[Donovan Zoi]

sorry about the plans for peace guys, but war is always the best option

War is a wonderful option if you want a predictable game that will be over in 4 months. I would like to see us for once have to deal with modern day issues, while trying to deny our rivals their victory conditions through espionage and (possibly) pre-emptive strikes. But I am getting far ahead of myself.

This game would be so much more fun if we spent more time running it like a civil government and less like a game to be won at the soonest possible point. It's the journey that matters, not the destination.

 

[Provolution]

DZ I agree

WE should not exterminate all our enemies at once, but feast upon one of them or so per term, so we can have the big feast with a diplomatic victory in the endgame

 

[Donovan Zoi]

DZ I agree

WE should not exterminate all our enemies at once, but feast upon one of them or so per term, so we can have the big feast with a diplomatic victory in the endgame

I am glad we agree on this, Provo.

But just curious.....how would the Victory Feast differ from the termly feasts? groucho

 

[Provolution]

Medium, well done, half dead, half alive

 

[snipelfritz]

Really, our best bet is to do our level best to deny the Babs any extra tools to make War. (i.e. Horses, Iron, and Luxes.) This means aggressice Settlement starting with Option 7 in the Settlement Poll. Using Option 7, as well as the devotion of a few minor military units (Warriors), we could deny the Babylonians the Southern Horses. It won't prevent the Bowmen from marching, if they plan on that, but it should slow them down a bit.

I totally agree. The Babylonians are a very agressive nation, and I don't want to give them any military advantages over us.

 

[blackheart]

We can have peace when we're in modern times. Historically, all of history has been series of wars with peace inbetween.

We should just take down all who oppose us and leave alive those who support us