Peace Doctrine?

[Epimethius]

I'm a bit of a pacifist, though I did not quite mind the war with Rome (mainly because I care more about nice borders without any holes than I care about not going to war). I was displeased with how we conquered the entire world last game (and how we leveled a third of it to finish without being stopped ahead of time), and I would rather we not have a repeat. Obviously some wars are bound to happen, and, this being a democracy, people are bound to support agression. But after the success of the war with Rome, followed by a golden age and unique unit, we're get a bit ahead of ourselves. So I propose the following.

What this would be is not any really official document. This isn't a law, or an amendment, or anything. It could easily be overriden by the will of the People. But its a doctrine, meaning we'd try to follow it as much as possible, except when the people explicitly say not to. It would be approved by a vote for validity. I'm holding a discussion to shape and see if this could actually fly, which will be followed by a vote on it.

Japanatican Doctrine of Peace

Following the defeat of Rome, we, the people of Japanatica, have decided that we will make an effort to only wage war when impossible to avoid, and to do so as nobly as possible. We adopt, therefore, the following doctrine of peaceful government:
-No war shall be declared by Japanatica on another country, though other countries may declare war on us.
-We may defend our honor against a country demanding tribute.
-Once a civilization has declared war on us, we may attack their cities and defend our own, however we may not pillage their land.
-We will not use espionage tactics against our enemies, except to expose their own (expose spy).
-Nor will we misuse a Right of Passage Agreement to prepare an attack.
-Military Alliances may be signed against enemies, as well as Mutual Protection Pacts.
-Peace will be made at the first possible instant, without pursuing prizes (gold, tech, maps).
-We will honor any agreement made to the best of our abilities.
-No civilization will ever be wiped out by Japanatica.
-An army may be maintained for defensive purposes, as well as offensive if necessary.
-Efforts will be focused on cultural and scientific improvements and wonders throughout this period of peace.
-We shall aim for a diplomatic, cultural, histographic, or space victory.

This goes a bit far, but keep in mind that we can always overrule it. And we did conquer the entire world last time, so I think its reasonable not to go that far this time. This allows us to focus on wonders and science, two things we have not done well in so far. And we shouldn't have to worry about falling behind militarily for a while. I don't know how much people support pacifism at all, much less a doctrine, but I figured this was worth a shot.

 

[Black_Hole]

hmmm great plan and all but only one problem.... wheres the war at?

 

[Civanator]

You're basically saying we should hand our nation over to any other nation that wants anything. I refuse to lower myself to a level of giving into demands made by other nations.

 

[ali]

I have a big problem with part 2 of your doctrine!!!!- Tribute will be given to any country demanding it while threatening with war. - I adamnetly refued to allowed us to be blackmailed in any way and refues the notion of negoating with Bully states we are a proud and powerful nation this is degrading, i believe the last part of part 3 is not very tactically sound however we may not pillage their land. This may simply prolong the war and put at risk the servicemen and women at greater risk not to mention our civilians, and part 7, Peace will be made at the first possible instant, without pursuing prizes (gold, tech, maps).
I dont see why we as a nation according to your doctrine is involved in a war that was started by the otherside should not seek compensation for the losses of our citzen and the service ppl of our nation

 

[Nobody]

iam also a fan of nice borders, but these should included iroquois and babalon.

 

[MOTH]

Japanatican Doctrine of Peace

-Tribute will be given to any country demanding it while threatening with war.
-Peace will be made at the first possible instant, without pursuing prizes (gold, tech, maps).

These are the only two that I have any big problem with. We are a proud nation and should not have to give in to extortion to either prevent or stop a war.

The tribute line should be removed entirely.
The peace line should be changed so that we declare peace at the first possible instant where we do not have to pay the other nation.

We should also add in:
-We will never break any deal with another country before it has expired.

 

[Rik Meleet]

The tribute line should be removed entirely.
The peace line should be changed so that we declare peace at the first possible instant where we do not have to pay the other nation.

We should also add in:
-We will never break any deal with another country before it has expired.

I agree with the tribute line removed. We are honorable, but not sissies.

I do not agree with the peace accepted at the moment we don't have to pay. That is not a democratic session and it removes this reponsibility from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It shouldn't even be in here.

I'd like to rephrase "-We will never break any deal with another country before it has expired." to "We will honor every deal we sign".It's just a lot more Japanatican.

 

[blackheart]

Give in to demands?! Never!!! The processes of war and peace are up the FA minister. And as for pillaging, that's entirely a military matter, not one up for discussion.

 

[MOTH]

Give in to demands?! Never!!! The processes of war and peace are up the FA minister. And as for pillaging, that's entirely a military matter, not one up for discussion.

Of course these are the areas of FA or MA, but they should be up for discussion as that is how the WOTP is determined. If the WOTP say we don't pillage then the Minister or war better follow that will.

I personally agree with Blackheart here, and the WOTM (will of the MOTH) says that we don't give in to demands and that we pillage when it makes sense. My main point is that this is valid discussion fodder.

 

[Epimethius]

Tribute line removed and a thing put in about respecting treaties. The pillage line is in there because its honorable simply to attack the units and not the peasants (and because it will be your mine soon enough, anyway).

As for the peace bit, I'm unsure, since we seem a bit divided over it.

 

[blackheart]

War isn't meant to fight for your honor, it's meant to fight for your survival. Do we wage war JUST for honor? No. Those who do do not know the real suffering of war. Capturing peasants weakens the enemy, bringing about their downfall quicker.

 

[Epimethius]

The idea of this is that we would be honorable. This is essentially a code of honor. Don't wipe anyone out. Don't attack without reason. Don't deal the first blow. Don't kill civilians. Etc.

I figure if war must be fought at all, it should at least be fought as cleanly and minimally as possible.

 

[snipelfritz]

As much as I am aggainst a war at this time I could never be a total passifist. If someone threatens us, let them suffer the mighty wrath of Japanatikka's soldiers!!!

 

[classical_hero]

Well why don't we trade away our dignity. We shall never bow to the demands of another Civ. They shall bow down to us. If a civ were to demand tribute, we should defend our honour and declare war against this upstart of a nation.

 

[blackheart]

Being peaceful doesn't mean you have to be a sissy. We don't start things we finish them.

Why are the espionage options limited? Is stealing troop plans or world map too dishonorable? We need all advantages in war. How about stealing technology, why is that prohibited too?

And there's the peace issue still. Who will pay for our war reparations to rebuild ourselves, especially when we're not the aggressors?

 

[MOTH]

In my opinion, the various ministries have been very lax in clearing defining their doctrines and I have seen nil in the way of polling to obtain a mandate from the people in support of any doctrine.

I have an idea on this and how to avoid the variations in the WOTP from one chat to the next. We should direct the discussion into developing mandate/doctrine polls for Term 4 for the various Ministries. These polls would be 'do you approve ....' with Yes/No/Abstain.

Each mandate proposal would include a statement to the effect of:
If approved, any specific override of this mandate will require a at least NN* positive votes to override.
NN* would be replace in the actual poll based on 66% of the term 4 census.

As an Example:
The Foreign Ministry Mandate poll could be worded:

Do you approve of the following doctrine for Term 4 for the Foreign Ministry?
Yes/No/Abstain

-No war shall be declared by Japanatica on another country, though other countries may declare war on us.
-We may defend our honor against a country demanding tribute.
-Peace will be made at the first possible instant, without pursuing prizes (gold, tech, maps).

If approved, any specific override of this mandate will require at least NN* positive
votes to override this mandate.

Note: some of the points of doctrine above are taken from Epi's first post and are included as a starting point. I do not necessarily agree with each of these points.

The other points from Epi's post will be included in the Military, Trade, Culture, President or Governor's Mandate polls as appropriate.

Next step: we can continue the discussion and get some agreeable mandate points by next week. We can then ask candidates for each position if they would support a mandate/doctrine poll for their department.

 

[blackheart]

Isn't doctrine defined by the government? That's what we elect leaders for isn't it, to lead and lay out a vision? Not to be followers but leaders.

I think it is perfectly fine for the WOTP of the people to shift, it gives us flexibility, albeit lessens stability. These doctrines smell awfully like laws that are set in stone.

 

[MOTH]

Yes, doctrines are defined by our leaders. However, I have not been able to find any threads or posts that indicate to the people what that doctrine is or to allow discussion on the matter. The DG elections are too short and rushed to allow for any doctrinal discussion to take place before people start voting. This would allow for a clearly established mandate that the leader could hang his hat on and not worry about anyone CC'ing them for not following the WOTP.

My suggestion will allow for shifts in the WOTP via the overrides. It seems to me that the flavor of the minute wins a poll when the timing is bad and not enough people vote.

 

[blackheart]

MOTH, would you care to do a trial run on a doctrine for Hai Rando please? I would like to see how it goes before I support or oppose this idea.

 

[MOTH]

Blackheart, Already done. Please see this thread for my discussion on HAI-RANDO's mandate for Term 3. As you will see, very little discussion was had, so I felt no need to have a poll on the matter.