Naval Projection of Force Doctrine

[Provolution]

NAVAL PROJECTION OF FORCE DOCTRINE

For our continent, I suggest the following doctrine to save economic resources and make significant gains during future wars. I consider making a maximum of Three Turnchat Wars. These brief wars would all have defined outcomes, with a casus belli clause, prepared alliance negotiations based on that war and so on.
The vision is to keep these wars short, very effective, economic, tidy and democracy friendly. Blind territorial expansion is not the objective, the objective is to take only key strategic cities and hold them, and then make peace.
Also, we should run an honorable doctrine on our continent, only self defense wars. I also believe in setting up a series of fortifications on the Northern border, as this will be the high risk area. The plan is to have 4 naval city ports on the west side and two naval ports on the East. Furthermore, we should look for an island or so Southeast of the Iroquois, make a port and use this naval post to target Grand River and Salamanca in case of war. All These targeted wonders will allow us to conquer wonder builds for strategic gain an culture at a minimal cost to the country. Again, we run the continent honorably, but strikes adversaries hard where it hurts. Seize wonders.

Additionally, we should be prepared to kill for coal, oil and rubber when we need to, and develop a doctrine to get this quickly.

If I get elected, I represent an honorable policy on our continent, where we in defense wars can rightfully claim wonder cities and strategic resources we do not own or want to disallow within three turnchat wars with predefined initial and end criteria polled on in a multipoll.

 

[GenMarshall]

I can certanly back this idea up

 

[Rik Meleet]

I'm ususall not in favor of wars, but the basics of this plan seems a bit ok-ish.
But I wouldn't go for all Wonder-cities.
Let's first evaluate what Wonders would really be useful.

• - The Pyramids in Salamanca. This Wonder doesn't expire and is very useful, no matter what age or what city-size.
• - The Hanging Gardens in Grand River. Obsolete with Steam. Not worth the effort. :thumbdown
• - The Colossus in Moscow. Long life span, obsolete by flight. The distance to our Capital however is way too big to become useful. :thumbdown
• - The Great Lighthouse in Nineveh. Obsolete with Magnetism, which we'll learn soon. :thumbdown
• - The Great Library in Delhi. Already Obsolete. :thumbdown
• - The Oracle in Tenochtitlan. Already Obsolete. :thumbdown
• - The Great Wall in Zimbabwe. Obsolete in 5 turns. :thumbdown
• - Sun Tzu's Art of war. Currently being build in Marseilles, Ur, Umtata, Salamanca, Tenochtitlan, Moscow, Hangchow and Houston. We better wait till it has finished before we can decide. wait
• - Sistine's Chapel. Currently being build in Tours, Nineveh, Tugela, Teotihuacan and Boston. We better wait till it has finished before we can decide. wait
• - Copernicus Observatory. Currently being build in Bangalore and Zojoji. We will probably build it ourselves. And if it finishes first somewhere else the usefullness is very limited due to corruption. wait / :thumbdown
• - Leonardo's workshop. Currently being build in Babylon and Zimbabwe. As long as it is on our continent this Wonder might be worth capturing. wait /
• - Smith's trading Company. Currently being build in Shorin-Ryu. No competition yet. It seems we'll build it ourselves, thus no need to capture. wait

ConclusionWe should wait till Leonardo's, Sistine's and Sun Tzu's finishes before we can decide. Those 3, combined with The Pyramids and Smith's are worth capturing, in certain circumstances.

Which doesn't mean that I automatically agree with the capturing or war...

 

[Provolution]

I'm ususall not in favor of wars, but the basics of this plan seems a bit ok-ish.
But I wouldn't go for all Wonder-cities.
Let's first evaluate what Wonders would really be useful.

• - The Pyramids in Salamanca. This Wonder doesn't expire and is very useful, no matter what age or what city-size.
• - The Hanging Gardens in Grand River. Obsolete with Steam. Not worth the effort. :thumbdown
• - The Colossus in Moscow. Long life span, obsolete by flight. The distance to our Capital however is way too big to become useful. :thumbdown
• - The Great Lighthouse in Nineveh. Obsolete with Magnetism, which we'll learn soon. :thumbdown
• - The Great Library in Delhi. Already Obsolete. :thumbdown
• - The Oracle in Tenochtitlan. Already Obsolete. :thumbdown
• - The Great Wall in Zimbabwe. Obsolete in 5 turns. :thumbdown
• - Sun Tzu's Art of war. Currently being build in Marseilles, Ur, Umtata, Salamanca, Tenochtitlan, Moscow, Hangchow and Houston. We better wait till it has finished before we can decide. wait
• - Sistine's Chapel. Currently being build in Tours, Nineveh, Tugela, Teotihuacan and Boston. We better wait till it has finished before we can decide. wait
• - Copernicus Observatory. Currently being build in Bangalore and Zojoji. We will probably build it ourselves. And if it finishes first somewhere else the usefullness is very limited due to corruption. wait / :thumbdown
• - Leonardo's workshop. Currently being build in Babylon and Zimbabwe. As long as it is on our continent this Wonder might be worth capturing. wait /
• - Smith's trading Company. Currently being build in Shorin-Ryu. No competition yet. It seems we'll build it ourselves, thus no need to capture. wait

ConclusionWe should wait till Leonardo's, Sistine's and Sun Tzu's finishes before we can decide. Those 3, combined with The Pyramids and Smith's are worth capturing, in certain circumstances.

Which doesn't mean that I automatically agree with the capturing or war...

I think this war doctrine is bridging the interests of the doves and hawks and the processes of the democracy of the game. Brief 3 turnchat wars allow the constituency to know the extent and vote on which cities we should conquer before we make peace. This means that I will poll casus belli, war budget, end goals, target cities, peace terms and cooperate with the FA on some other polls. The length of 3 TC wars also makes it easier for governors to plan build queues, so we can produce what we need. I also see that we need culture wars on our continent to flip several cities. The doctrine is honorable and simple, any attacker will potentially lose up to three objective ports or wonder cities if they gamble on an attack on us. The Iroquois is the most tricky part, since I would like to find an Island Southeast of them. As long as we agree on the doctrine, we can decide to poll which three cities in each of the four neighbors we want to take.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

A couple of comments on the first map:

• When we attack Ur, we shouldn't go over the forest - that slows our movement. Start one tile SE on the plain, and we can attack the city in one turn.
• When we attack Nineveh, land the units on the hill with the road so that when we capture the city those units can move into the city and fortify on the same turn. If we landed on the mountain without road, that wouldn't be possible.

And comments on the second:

• Shouldn't we also capture the other two French cities on the coast too? (Dijon and Lyons)
• If we get a RoP with the Zulus (if we want it), we could get Rouen in 1 turn.

Just some things to think about. But yes, the main cities we capture should be wonder cities - not only for us to use, but to stop the AI from using.

 

[Provolution]

A couple of comments on the first map:

• When we attack Ur, we shouldn't go over the forest - that slows our movement. Start one tile SE on the plain, and we can attack the city in one turn.
• When we attack Nineveh, land the units on the hill with the road so that when we capture the city those units can move into the city and fortify on the same turn. If we landed on the mountain without road, that wouldn't be possible.

And comments on the second:

• Shouldn't we also capture the other two French cities on the coast too? (Dijon and Lyons)
• If we get a RoP with the Zulus (if we want it), we could get Rouen in 1 turn.

Just some things to think about. But yes, the main cities we capture should be wonder cities - not only for us to use, but to stop the AI from using.

I agree on you Nineveh part. Ur has a road in the forest as well, and will give our attacking forces a defense modifier of 50 %. I will keep that part.
About the other two coastal cities, my plan is to take max 3 cities per enemy, but with wonders, we would certainly get these remaining ones culturally.
Iroquois is the problem here, and we need to explore the ocean.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Finally! A grander discussion about the war. Before I get into comment, just want to say this: glad to see you back, Provo.
Secondly: where were you durring the last round of Irq War polls? (we could have used you..)
Third off: great plan. I've wanted to go into Babylon for a while now.
One thing irks me: why only in defense. Why can't we go at this without being provoked. C'mon, other people have gone into Babylonian soil with out reason, why can't we?
Rik, your wonder anaylsis is great.
And provo- what office are you running for? You may have just made this vet decide to stick around...

SaaM
Yes, the Liberal Penguin all in favor of a DG5 Iraq War. We need this Continent to ourselves os we can go for the Diplo win.

 

[blackheart]

D-Day on a continent wide scale, sounds good and challenging to me.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

One thing irks me: why only in defense. Why can't we go at this without being provoked. C'mon, other people have gone into Babylonian soil with out reason, why can't we?

Because we are now an enlightened nation, SaaM-san. War will present itself in due time, either through our refusal of tribute or through an outright declaration of war from a hostile nation. Let us capitalize on these occurances as they happen, rather than following the low road of the aggressor. Our Samurai is a strong defensive unit for a reason.

D-Day on a continent wide scale, sounds good and challenging to me.

If we take on all 4 at once, I may consider yet another national role as world villain(see DGs 2 & 4; while DGs 1 & 3 saw a significant difference between ourselves and the #2 civ). Anything less would be akin to shooting fish in a barrel, and would turn this into just another game of civ.

What the heck is wrong with handicapping our game through restraint of aggression?

As it stands right now, we can predictably conquer the Iroquois, then Babylon. After that we can mobilize our new(and corrupt) lands for military conquest of the Zulus, and follow that with the pointless decimation of the peaceful French. By this time, our lands will double or triple that of the Chinese, and we can paint in the numbers for world conquest in that region as well.

Come now, is this really our manifest destiny? Let's make this game something more than the usual fare. Let's take a risk, and live as a real nation would, with all the uncertainty included. Otherwise, the game will pretty much follow the path I just described, and we can close the book on it right now.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Additionally, we should be prepared to kill for coal, oil and rubber when we need to, and develop a doctrine to get this quickly.

Not if we can trade for it first. A war for selfish gain should not be tolerated by the people of Japanatica.

 

[Provolution]

Of course, a trade must be balanced to the risk of an expensive war.

 

[blackheart]

Not if we can trade for it first. A war for selfish gain should not be tolerated by the people of Japanatica.

Is trade at the edge of a sword still a trade? . I was thinking that perhaps if a nation won't trade with us or the price is too high, we declare war on them, pummel them into submission so we can get the resouce in the peace resolution, then give them back all of their cities. This would certainly make the game more interesting.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I like that, blackheart. While we would still be the aggressors in a way, it would at least be a novel approach that would ultimately maintain the balance of power. I am just tired of this game being a duck shoot once we hit the Industrial Age.

 

[Provolution]

Well, some people prefer the Duck Shoot. But again, some people watch A-Team and other tv series, they want the safe and tested and what they consider comfortable.
Notice how some warmongers call for simple conquest wars, but does not add challenge.

 

[RegentMan]

Is trade at the edge of a sword still a trade? . I was thinking that perhaps if a nation won't trade with us or the price is too high, we declare war on them, pummel them into submission so we can get the resouce in the peace resolution, then give them back all of their cities. This would certainly make the game more interesting.

Well, the resource won't be selectable in the peace treaty. So we'll have yet another expensive trade on our hands after peace is declared.

 

[Provolution]

SAAM, thank to you too Good to see you around again. About future wars, Japanatica is already a superpower with a 30 % lead on number 2 and 3 and leads in all faculties. We need to add challenge to the game, So I will only seek to develop military doctrines that create room for good storytelling in the DG tradition. This means that we do not go for the easy, practical and rational wars, but the more interesting wars that has a number of of self imposed rules and criteria, very much like the real world. This also means that in the MSAV, we may appoint generals by front or admirals by ocean and democratize the war effort in all levels, and keep the wars short and interesting with a highly detailed discussion and polling by everyone. The idea of doctrines is to reduce game fatigue of the smallest denominator.

 

[Sir Donald III]

Well, the 30-turn doctrine is all well and good for Wars caused by Demands upon us, (i.e. "Give me Map!",) let alone MPP/Alliance commitments.

However, if a Civ just outright attacks us, without any declaration of intent, then I'd be for cutting off their heads.

There should also be a contingency for a continuince in case we can't come out with at least a straight peace in negotiations at Turn 30.

 

[Provolution]

100 % agreed, we are free to extend after 30t, but then we let FA present a Peace proposal we poll, or we continue war. However, the 30t rule allows the people to decide what to do with the civ.

 

[blackheart]

Would we give back unneeded cities after peace has been declared? If we keep excess cities this would just inflate our corruption levels. And that would be very much real life, since we are not out to conquer the world.