Realpolitik CIV - An Interactive AAR

[Deego3]

At around the time the election was closing down, did anyone experience connection issues? My computer sat there for 20 second loading my reply page, and now, its 2-3 seconds. Maybe to do with my internet, but just wanted to know if anyone else had similar problems or not.

Yeah, when the clocks go from XX:59 to XX:00 the fourms slow down a bit, I'm not quite sure why....

 

[Cull]

Sorry, didn't spot a question mark in there so i thought it was just a comment resposne. I'm just about to go sleep and i can't see a narrative flow in the paragraph. What's the point you are trying to lead towards? All i can make out is;

1) Apologising and reafirming dialogue
2) Pointing out that different views will shape a civs build choices
3) there is allways quibbling, ours will be done over techs

I basically agree with all of it so i'm not sure the comment you wish to recieve...

On tech paths well there are only three major paths, religious, science and military. (or monothiesm/writing/iron working) however choices towards these are based on both ideology and situation.

Military = At the moment we CANNOT go to war. We have no enemy in sight and no way to get onto the mainland. Heading towards this would have a detrimental effect on our ability to raise an army as we would rush towards weapons instead of increasing our ability to sustain an empire.

Religious = None of our group care for religion one way or another. We could go for one eventually but for now it would be a waste to chase down this tech path when we don't even know if buddism or hinduism have been founded yet.

Science = By process of elimination the only techpath left. Heading to writing will allow us to make librarys to further our tech rate and also open borders which is imperitive for both building peaceful relations and scouting out land for war.

There will be a few others but they are all limited.

The people wish for Stonehenge? Then we need masonry and wheel.
The people wish for French city? Then we need sailing and perhaps Archery to defend it.
The people wish for a prosperous city? Then we need animal husbandry

After writing is where the first actual choice will be made. Are we friendly enough to go for alphabet and trade with neighbours? are our enemies weak enough for us to go to iron working? Have the religions been founded slowly hinting we should rush for the third or fourth religion? (how fast is the great prophet from stonehenge growing that we could bulb a religion or found a shrine?)

However 50 turns will only be enough to get sailing/masonry/wheel/hunting/archery/animal husbandry/writing

after that it will be the NEXT elections.

-

Right. Now i'm going to sleep. This above was all basically just a rehash of whats becomeing my catchphrase > "we have limited options"

Cool. I was trying to get a response on how you felt I responded, but you're right. The flow was off.

I actually think Archery is a relativity useless tech. Archers are great city defenders, but taking the time to research it is a waste of time IMO when Writing, BW, IW, Pottery, worker techs, and even the religion paths are better.

Yeah, when the clocks go from XX:59 to XX:00 the fourms slow down a bit, I'm not quite sure why....

Thanks!

On Stone

Stone is great. Stone allows for fast defensive walls in time of wars, allow for great wonders to be build in record time, and even as a great area for our citizens to work. Indeed, Stone is a sign of England's power, and part of London's national heritage.

Yet, the technology to use this great national resource is not known to us. I propose to the Doom Administration that a tech path should finish Sailing, and beeline Mysticism, and Masonry, to give England access to Stonehenge, and unlocking the secrets of Stone.

 

[W|M]

Stone can also be acquired in France, making it a good trade resource.

 

[Cull]

Stone can also be acquired in France, making it a good trade resource.

Agreed.

However, I recommend a policy of isolation, trading when necessary, and being careful to trade others Stone when such wonders such as the Hanging Gardens are still out there. It would be horrible if we gave someone stone, they build fast walls, and we war with them. Another reason not to war.

To the Doom Admistration: How is your policy with other civs, if we do meet them? I'm speaking general long-term, as if you were in office forever, not the 50 turns you have currently that at most allows for a quick rush maybe? Isolation? An coalition member to the core? Something else?

 

[Cull]

People's Consortium of England, I wish to offer you in this thread to join the First Coalition. In ideology, my party and west india man's is pure pacifist, and while your party might have a stance of war only when needed, I'm sure that in other areas such as fiance, tech path, builds, and the like we can agree.

Yeah, I'm a hypocrite. Sue me.

 

[W|M]

People's Consortium of England-Money and exotic resources is what we want. We support creating overseas colonies, and vassal-izing them so we can trade our resources for their $$. We try to avoid war as much as possible (unless the war would open up a new trade setup) and want open borders so we can get those lovely trade routes! We think free market is key to happiness, and tech is medium priority (we can sell it!). Religion is just another key to making trade agreements.

Actually, PCE also have a pure pacifistic stance on war, and we support trading (although I should probably stop not liking FM, even though there is the awesomeness of SP and the lack of Fair-Trade). I guess we could represent Fair Trade in the game but still have FM...

 

[Cull]

Actually, PCE also have a pure pacifistic stance on war, and we support trading (although I should probably stop not liking FM, even though there is the awesomeness of SP and the lack of Fair-Trade). I guess we could represent Fair Trade in the game but still have FM...

Ah, right. I just looked at the first page party summary.

My party supports trading, for it brings forward new culture, and technology to Britain, but are generally isolationist unless needed. We could represent Fair Trade as people still trade/barter in State Property, as the general idea is equal distribution of goods. People could still trade with others, for more goods that they want. That's a way into the future though. We can be State Property, but in civ civics, no.

 

[mechaerik]

I support settling in France. We must gain a foothold in the European continent. We must build up a military and destroyliberate Augustus's cities before he can get Praets online.

I also have to say I don't totally agree with the LMP's position of war only for liberation. War is a matter of vital necessity for the State.

 

[arya126]

Well on the topic of foriegn relations, its my turn to oppose you Cull. What i say in this post is in no way the official opinion of the Domm Administration but rather a rough idea of the way i wish things to go. That includes pleasing all members of our coalition and the opposition, as well as what i think is best for england.

Adress of the Advisor of Foriegn Affairs to the Presidente​

From our intelligence we have recieved reports of two other nations on this continent people call europe. Some people have called for isolationist policies, making us ignore them. Others want to avoid war at all costs-even if it means the empire collapses. Still more people call for an agressive plan of conquest to beat these ao called barbarians back! Yet we are unprepared for these things, especially the war.

Has everyone forgotten that peace is the goal of the common people? No drafts, no war taxes, and no mass production of weapons. No mass deaths and burials, and no adventures far away from home. Yet peace and war are not our only options. We can have the best of both worlds (pauses as laughter sounds from the audience).

If we encounter any civilized peoples in our journeys far from home, peace shall be established in our time. We do not have many choices, or as our leader puts it "Our choices are limited". We are subject to one city, the mere begining of an empire! Shall we sentance it to a life of producing sticks and stones for a madmans conquest? When there isnt even anything to conquer? NO!

But when the time is right, when the guard of the enemy is down, when the golden opportunity is right in front of us, we shall snatch it! Peace does not last forever and it is best fought on your own terms, on their land. We trust that by that time, our military advisors should have been able to hash out a decent amount of the budget with which to start our glorious forces path to victory.

Even then, we will still support peace. people will call us hypocrites. They will wish they hadnt voted for us. But then when we emerge from the fog of war, the clouds of war shall be gone from our lands and the common people shall realize how wise our intracite decisions were.

Trade is essential to feed this city's hunger for an empire. And in order to reach distant lands we must cooperate with others for the maps needed to reach them. But some in our own circles preach secrecy, no alliances, no cooperation. I must adress this as many people think like this. I do not disagree, as alliances arent always a good thing. But whatever alliances we shall make, will be to defeat the common enemy. Or in other words temporary. Secrecy is a big concern. Some of the opposition want to open ourselves completely to the world, inviting an attack from nations who know too much of our workings. Some of our own wish for us to leave everyone be, only to leave our lands for war. I say we must reach a compromise. Wars will be fought, but why activly seek them? Secrecy shall be upheld, but why purposly alienate nations when we cant properly defend ourselves yet? we must have nither until we are ready. That is my stance. What is yours?

******************************************************************
So in game terms we shall be friendly to all, until the time is right. Trade shall prosper, yet we shall not open ourselves to everyone, giving everything up. We wont give peoples of other civs techs when they are ahead of us already. And once we are ready for war (can readily defend our lands and have a force capable of tearing apart THEIR defenses) we shall wait for the right moment to strike. A war will not cripple this coalition, nor this empire. And it is my stance, that if a war is fought, then a peace shall not be made unless our empire is hurting badly and they still have a chance for a successful counterattack. We will also prefder wars on our own terms, rather than being attacked. Trade will be allowed but it will be neither a priority to stop it nor encourage it. Also we shall seek out alliances in our favor should it fit the needs of the situation.

discuss...

 

[Cull]

Excellent!

While trading is good, Caesar and Ragnar could back stab us at any moment. We must be on our guard. That is while I think uneasy, peaceful, semi-isolationist peace with the two warmongers is best. Baring that, side with one, Ragnar most likely, and maintain an uneasy peace with the other, while relations with Ragnar flourish. This is my stance.

You wish to start a Vietnam, killing and murdering, all for the sake of Britain? You wish to bring death to other civilized people to further our own nation? You wish to bring death to our own countrymen?If so, we are not better than mere barbarians! Please, Lords of Britain, strive for peace, or we will be thrown into an evil, dark age of no return.

Lords of Britain, hear my call!

 

[arya126]

I wish to defend what is ours and make sure that none is a threat to the might people of britain! There are no drafts in this great empire to be of ours. Only the brave men who know the risks of war come to the army, knowingly putting themselves at danger to keep our homeland safe. We do not strive for killing, or think that murduring is an honorable way to live a life. But we also believe that if we do not become so powerful that none dare to challenge us, then our nation can never have true peace. It will be like you say, an uneasy peace, that is just waiting for the next war. Better to start a war and become dominant, than to be reserved and fight many wars to remain at the status quo. You would have the world call us cowards! We will have them call us the bravest of the brave, the elite of the elite, the only power that they dont dare attack.

 

[Cull]

Better to be cowards that live right, than be considered strong yet living wrong, warring. Uneasy peace trumps war, no matter how good, no matter the promises you have, no matter how much you sweet talk, war is war, and an uneasy peace is better than war. I would like you to consider the vast land that we have right now. Parts of Europe, Africa, East Asia, numerous islands, and parts of Americas are open to us. War, my friend, is fundamentally evil, no matter how you try to sweet talk it. Let war come to us, and let us fight to defend Britain, but let us not spill blood, for any offensive cause.

Link for map and civilizations?

 

[Jayrad]

Ragnar and Ceasar are Known warmongers and backstabers its better to take them out soon and fight at the gates of Rome Insted of Trying to Defned LOndon from Viking Hordes in late game with their well built Armies. We should Fight until the Sun never Sets on the British Empire. Long Live England!! Long Live the President!!

 

[micbic]

As you say, we will be more vulnerable to attacks by JC and Raggy boy if on Europe. For this reason, I believe that we should mainly expand towards the rest of British Isles, before doing anyrhing else, and then colonise.

 

[Cull]

I agree with micbic that Europe is a very dangerous place. However, the Eurasia super continent is huge, and we would be foolish to keep out of such a wide, rich domain. Keep a strong defense, while expanding into France, Germany, Spain, and farther into Africa, Russia, Asia, and beyond! I suggest first settle 2 or so cities from London to France, then from that France base, expand into Eurasia, while London then deals with settling the Isles.

Yes, Ragnar and Casaer are well-known for their war-like thoughts, but in my two previous posts, I outlined what I think is the ideal policy in dealing with them.

 

[arya126]

You would rather have london razed in a defensive war than being able to raze rome in a quick offensive action? and if we took rome then it would be the jewel of the empire, conducting trade throughout the MED, a symbol of our greatness just as london will be. You talk of war as if it can be avoided. Look what happened to neville cham,berlain and his similar talk. world war 2 happened. see a link there?

No matter how much you say war is evil, you must accept that it WILL happen sooner or later. Would you rather it happen when the vikings have an army of swordsman and galleys just on the shores of england, or when we have cavalry ready to blitz through scandinavia? Ragnar is the more pressing enemy, as he is just east of the isles and poses a great danger to us should we not defend ourselves.

 

[ilduce349]

can lighthearter place a save so I can better understand the map?

 

[Cull]

illduce, I believe that lighthearter only send info to the Prime Minister, and we just have to gleam info from what he tells us.

WW2, IMO, is not a great example, my friend. Nazi Germany was on the rise, an evil meteoric success story for dictators. We have no Nazi Germany. Chamberlain must have known that war was coming, yet he urged for peace. I am obliged as a pacifist to do the same, and try to stop our England from spiraling down the same path as post-WW2's England. It was a time of great sadness, of poverty, of pure grief, as dead ones were buried.

While I accept war is inevitable, I prefer a defensive war, in which we defend the jewels of Britain, the cities. And while I accept this, you too must accept something. Each war fought, each front made, each battle fought does not equal glory for Britain, but brings the death of loved ones, of brothers, and of sisters, of fathers, of husbands, and of wives of Britain's people. Continue down this path, and Britain's glorious people, who in other time lines might be great in peace, now lie mangled in the wars of the Continent. Draw back from the war path, or a unmistakable curtain of war and despair will reign.

 

[Jayrad]

All who die will have died a hero's death insted of some poor peasant death and also with all of Europe under our control we will have a safe base to launch a colonial empire then we can start to pull down the capitalist opressor's empire piece by piece and the british will never have to worry about war again. But until that day we will have to live in fear of the evil nations trying to assert their power against us. Basically if we take over the world we have no more war

 

[Cull]

Living a life of privilege in England, however tense, is better than war. I must repeat that war is evil. We must have try to maintain peace of all time, to allow the humanities, math, and science to flourish, not let war bring a curtain of death, and sadness upon the Continent.

You speak of taking over the world as a journey similar to walking down a street in London. To war and to take over, for lack of a better word, tough. To capture, or raze cities, killing civilized people, and to let England's finest men die in battle is a waste, and the path of success does not follow war.

Jayrad, your post sounds like a propaganda in Europe in the World Wars era. War is tough, and war is brutal. We can't let our men and women die to further on own goals. To do so is a crime, and crimes have punishments.