Our neighbors and the neighborhood

[DaveShack]

Dear Citizens,

Having finally had a spare moment or two to review the reports from our gallant warrior bands which have been exploring the surrounding territory, I would like to offer an analysis of our neighbors.

It seems the Germans and French have the most appealing land, by far. They also have the strongest military presence, which does not seem to have been impaired by the war between them. Even though we cannot see it, the French capital of Paris seems to be on prime real estate and would be a good candidate for assimilation into our league of city states should we decide to eliminate the French threat. Much less is known of the German territory, but it also seems their capital is on good land.

The Romans and Persians each have a significant challenge in the form of barriors to growth. Eitther one would be an easy target, but any city we take from them would then become vulnerable to aggression from either of France or Germany.

We need to hold every other nearby civilization to fewer than 10 cities. Failure to do so risks giving them the ability to out produce us, and ultimately to dominate us. The upcoming term needs to be a period of constant vigilance, and careful buildup and execution toward a strategic goal of permanently reducing all of the neighboring nations to puppet states which we can control.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for your insightful post. This is useful information for us all.

First and foremost, we must get to the point where we are outproducing our rivals. Only then can we pull out the tiny continental stage and get our neighbors to talk in funny voices.

The actual execution of the military action you cite will likely happen in term 3. I will do whatever I can in my power to ensure we are ready for that day.

 

[Ranger99]

I agree with you on limiting our neighbors to a smal size. If we can out-produce them then, we have the upper hand. The hardest part is on how to limit them, and HOW we can out-produce them with only five cities. What makes this game even harder is, we've got to have a strong military, or be conquored...AND we've got to have a strong culture or be assimilated into another ciz's own culture, this makes balancing the two nessecity's a prime order of the day.

Basically I agree with you DaveShack, and Mr. President.... But I can't figure out how to do what you're suggesting...Please inform, me and The Minister of Defense what your current plans are so that we may produce and fit our military accordingly.

Thanks you, and good day!

-Ranger-

 

[Icmancin]

Mr. Vice-President,

I strongly endorse your proposal. But the Fanatiks cannot support a large military of which you speak! The five city states can only support their own cities Armies; national wealth will need to be used to keep the Fanatik army and navy training and sailing. Our industry is only just blooming, thus we cannot create the weapons needed to arm the Fanatik Army. And we cannot contain the strange people of the North, East and West very well: We are resented among them and only one of their cities would accept our rule. They will always build more and we will always have to curb them, that is something we cannot do in our current state.

Ic

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Gentlemen,

Here is what I envision for our military policy. When feasible, we will bring forth a scorched earth policy against one of our neighbors, leaving the area inhospitable. Rival nations will certainly want to invest in the newly unincorporated area, and that's where the fun begins. This will repeat until we have a sizaeable buffer between ourselves and any sovereign nation.

And I haven't even mentioned the propect of Industrial Age insurgents. These rebels will be a constant, yet minor, threat as they try to encroach upon our cities or disrupt strategic trade routes to far away colonies. But I believe as time marches on, we will receive greater rewards for their capture.

Do I think we can stay in control of a continent in which all civilization is located in the SW corner? Certainly!

Bring on the Wild East, I say! But first, we need to prepare. And that will take this entire term and a good part of the next.

 

[Nobody]

We only need one city from each, so to protect or reputation i say we take them off one nation. For example if germany takes two french and one roman citys in the currnt conflict we could take 1roman,1french and 1 german. without 3 wars

 

[DaveShack]

We only need one city from each, so to protect or reputation i say we take them off one nation. For example if germany takes two french and one roman citys in the currnt conflict we could take 1roman,1french and 1 german. without 3 wars

That's actually a separate question, on how the law should be interpreted. One way to think of it is "one city from each rival" and the other way to think of it is "one city per rival". My preference is for the 2nd interpretation.

The point of this thread however is that we need to knock our immediate neighbors straight back to the stone age (well, at least strand them with stone age units and no access to resources) just as soon as we're militarily able.

 

[Civlord]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We won't be able to support a large military for too long. But we have this dilemma: if the enemy expands to more than 10 cities, then they will probably assimilate us after a bloody war. If we try to defeat them by force, then we will get bankrupt. The best alternative will be probably to keep them against each other as long as we can do, so they spend all their resources fighting instead of prospering. We need a great diplomacy, and we all count with Ic to do that. I think that, now, this is our best strategy.