DarkObserver
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 2
I would like to join the educated party too! Love the idea, even though i don't have civ (yet)
Realpolitik CIV - An Interactive AAR
- Thread starter Lighthearter
- Start date
- Status
Cull
Big Daddy
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,838
Sweet! You getting civ soon then?
arya126
Squad Leader
we should not rush out to meet them...but we should take things slowly. i will not stand for any isolationist or pacifist policies in this government. Even if we dont intend for war to happen, we know it will eventually. Plus it is a great folly to close a diplomatic option such as war. War may be extreme, but it is a very powerful option. Tell me, would you rather fight a war yourself, or let your children grow up in a cold war scenario only to have to fight when they are adults?
btw with ages im only 14 as well...and somehow i get the feeling politics is going to play a major role in my life. At least americans arent total pacifists like some people here. We know when we are forced to fight. We will not stand to let the enemy build up until he can strike us. We are the ones that stop WW3. Maybe this britain should take a lesson. Do not seek war, but do not seek peace either. Deal with what you get. An uneasy peace is like the quiet before the storm. You just want it to end.
btw with ages im only 14 as well...and somehow i get the feeling politics is going to play a major role in my life. At least americans arent total pacifists like some people here. We know when we are forced to fight. We will not stand to let the enemy build up until he can strike us. We are the ones that stop WW3. Maybe this britain should take a lesson. Do not seek war, but do not seek peace either. Deal with what you get. An uneasy peace is like the quiet before the storm. You just want it to end.
Please people don't let real-life politics drag into this too much, it will only get depressing. Not to mention make me wince a lot. Arya and Cull in particuler don't please joke about a WW3 especially with the instant portrayal of US = Hero. Real life is never that simple.
@West India Man: Yes the city has grown large enough but what do you mean? that we finish a galley then continue the build of worker->fill build->Stonehenge (once stone is connected)?
@Conquerer: this isn't earth18. It's a new map called CartherRandom18 which is a mix of the huge carter map and earth18. Either way we can't assume the resources will be the same.
If this was earth18 we'd allready have wheat and know that we had horses and copper. Julius would definatly have Iron and be a terror.
But this is a different map. We don't know if Rome has Iron or even if we have copper.
I do agree that Archers are rubbish against Prats though. So i will still agree that we should go for Bronze Working. At the very least we should be able to scout some out in europe.
@Mechaerik: We can put it too a vote but i'm not sure all of our coalition are socialists... Not to mention i was hoping right out some stuff in Doom speak.
Doomspeak= We can put it too a vote. But Doom is not sure all of Doom's Coalition are socialists. Also Doom was hoping to Speak as Doom speaks.
(joke, don't worry people)
@Lighthearter: So when should i be prepared to start recieving these PMs?
@Opposition: Just to be clear but what is the nature of your pacifism? I assume it isn't against a defencive army? Not to mention we can pre-empt our enemies by settling resources that they need and not trade them to them etc.
Just wanted a basic outline.
Allright Ministers if there is no other comments i'm going to assume everything from my last big post was correct and that the build order, tech path and military outlook has been decided.
@West India Man: Yes the city has grown large enough but what do you mean? that we finish a galley then continue the build of worker->fill build->Stonehenge (once stone is connected)?
@Conquerer: this isn't earth18. It's a new map called CartherRandom18 which is a mix of the huge carter map and earth18. Either way we can't assume the resources will be the same.
If this was earth18 we'd allready have wheat and know that we had horses and copper. Julius would definatly have Iron and be a terror.
But this is a different map. We don't know if Rome has Iron or even if we have copper.
I do agree that Archers are rubbish against Prats though. So i will still agree that we should go for Bronze Working. At the very least we should be able to scout some out in europe.
@Mechaerik: We can put it too a vote but i'm not sure all of our coalition are socialists... Not to mention i was hoping right out some stuff in Doom speak.
Doomspeak= We can put it too a vote. But Doom is not sure all of Doom's Coalition are socialists. Also Doom was hoping to Speak as Doom speaks.
(joke, don't worry people)
@Lighthearter: So when should i be prepared to start recieving these PMs?
@Opposition: Just to be clear but what is the nature of your pacifism? I assume it isn't against a defencive army? Not to mention we can pre-empt our enemies by settling resources that they need and not trade them to them etc.
Just wanted a basic outline.
Allright Ministers if there is no other comments i'm going to assume everything from my last big post was correct and that the build order, tech path and military outlook has been decided.
So in this view you'd want us to end up with all the British-isles, France and Spain and thus create a clear defendable borderline through germany and italy that we can keep well defended?
Lighthearter
President of the United States
Ravus_Sol - I don't have a definite date yet, but I think that one week is reasonable - only that long because I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow and as soon as I get back(Tuesday) my life is going to explode. I mean it's going to go absolutely nuts.
However, when I send you the first screens and other update pieces, I promise it'll be good! (And you're allowed to send them to your advisers for their opinions before responding to me
nothing says it has to be done in one day).
- Lighthearter
However, when I send you the first screens and other update pieces, I promise it'll be good! (And you're allowed to send them to your advisers for their opinions before responding to me
nothing says it has to be done in one day).- Lighthearter
Nukeknockout
Rusty Hinge
@Mechaerik: We can put it too a vote but i'm not sure all of our coalition are socialists... Not to mention i was hoping right out some stuff in Doom speak.
Doomspeak= We can put it too a vote. But Doom is not sure all of Doom's Coalition are socialists. Also Doom was hoping to Speak as Doom speaks.
Allright Ministers if there is no other comments i'm going to assume everything from my last big post was correct and that the build order, tech path and military outlook has been decided.
I'm a socialist.
I see no issues with path or build order,and military is not my job to critique. Can the rest of the advisors post and make their support clear?
arya126
Squad Leader
I believe we should settle in this general order (subject to be modified due to resource finds and other factors): scotland, then north france, south france, northeast spain, ireland, south spain, morocco, algiers, tunisia. by then we should start an iceland, canada, america path. Africa is essential in my mind, as it cuts off roman expansion, and gives us more leverage in foriegn affairs. scotland is also very inmportant, so that the vikings dont surprise us with a city there.
and i respectfully wish to decline the notion of socialism as this coalitions official title. although i was thinking about Call of Duty as our name. It makes sense as we are answering the call to serve our duty to britain right? i mean we are the most diverse coalition, all answering the call of our duty together, all for the greater good of britain.
as to our opposition: a defensive army is a great idea, but any proffesional army always has an offensive arm. Whether its just to destroy any armies that enter our lands, or to capture the enemies cities, its there.
and i respectfully wish to decline the notion of socialism as this coalitions official title. although i was thinking about Call of Duty as our name. It makes sense as we are answering the call to serve our duty to britain right? i mean we are the most diverse coalition, all answering the call of our duty together, all for the greater good of britain.
as to our opposition: a defensive army is a great idea, but any proffesional army always has an offensive arm. Whether its just to destroy any armies that enter our lands, or to capture the enemies cities, its there.
Cull
Big Daddy
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,838
True, but I think CoD is worried about Praets, where axes are superior. Protective Longbows on a Hill will kill everything up to Rifles though.
Disagree. Settle Scotland first, and then let France be gobbled up by Augustus. I say settle where it is natural to expand, and you have the right idea. However, Scotland first is bad, France first is good.
Offensive arm? If any army enter our land, we use our defensive army to defend and, regretfully, kill the army. And we don't WANT to capture enemies cities, because if we can in a war, we should be at peace, unless THEY declare war on us, then we sue for peace ASAP and DON'T capture cities.
I think the pacifist opposition needs to be more clear on what they mean when they say that our defensive army will be able to defend us without an offensive arm.
If you build only archers and then some axemen wander into the lands you will be forced to give up the initiative in the farmlands and watch as they burn/pillage/rape the people there. You need a diversified army to be able to handle the threats that appear. If it offends you to call it an offensive arm merely give it the label of "exterminators" or "troubleshooters" or "Rangers"
As the Military Minister has pointed out archers alone will be unable to stop enemy prats from pillaging the land. The best quick defence is axemen and even then they are weaker than prats. Personally i'd recomend one of every unit type we have available be part of our 'Rangers' so that each can roam where they are needed.
-
Also on the topic of forging peace treaties. Rival civilization do not suffer war wearyness against us if we fight a reactive defencive war. They just see a civ that does that as weak. The only way to forge a peace would be to bribe them while surrendering, and yes we COULD do that and while it's fine if the enemy just wants resources or money... Sometimes they may want a whole city.
And the idea of sacrficing a whole city of our people to foriegn opressors just seems repugnent to me.
So sometimes you may need a offensive army not to completly destroy an enemy but just to bloody their nose so that they will actually sign a peace treaty.
-
We havn't been able to get a close up of the resources in Scotland yet so i won't comment on the efficiency of founding Scotland first or not. If it has more then 6 resources in place for a single city i know i would be tempted.
But if we don't found Scotland we HAVE to send a warrior up there to make sure no barbarians appear from the fog to come sack London.
-
I think i'm in a different time zone from most people here, everyone seems to post just as i'm going to bed. oh well ce' la vie' or whatever the phrase is.
If you build only archers and then some axemen wander into the lands you will be forced to give up the initiative in the farmlands and watch as they burn/pillage/rape the people there. You need a diversified army to be able to handle the threats that appear. If it offends you to call it an offensive arm merely give it the label of "exterminators" or "troubleshooters" or "Rangers"
As the Military Minister has pointed out archers alone will be unable to stop enemy prats from pillaging the land. The best quick defence is axemen and even then they are weaker than prats. Personally i'd recomend one of every unit type we have available be part of our 'Rangers' so that each can roam where they are needed.
-
Also on the topic of forging peace treaties. Rival civilization do not suffer war wearyness against us if we fight a reactive defencive war. They just see a civ that does that as weak. The only way to forge a peace would be to bribe them while surrendering, and yes we COULD do that and while it's fine if the enemy just wants resources or money... Sometimes they may want a whole city.
And the idea of sacrficing a whole city of our people to foriegn opressors just seems repugnent to me.
So sometimes you may need a offensive army not to completly destroy an enemy but just to bloody their nose so that they will actually sign a peace treaty.
-
We havn't been able to get a close up of the resources in Scotland yet so i won't comment on the efficiency of founding Scotland first or not. If it has more then 6 resources in place for a single city i know i would be tempted.
But if we don't found Scotland we HAVE to send a warrior up there to make sure no barbarians appear from the fog to come sack London.
-
I think i'm in a different time zone from most people here, everyone seems to post just as i'm going to bed. oh well ce' la vie' or whatever the phrase is.
Jayrad
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 136
If we don't go on the offensive eventally we will lose to somone who is less hesitant. Because if we are in a world with Genghis,Shaka, and Monty then what will happen is most of N.A. will be aztec at least half of Africa will be Zulu and Who knows what Genghis will do Keshiks are scary if he can get them early enough
Cull
Big Daddy
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,838
I'm EST or GMT-4 I think.
I believe I was too extreme in my last post. What I meant was that I don't want a fully offensive army that only goal is to capture and pillage. I meant that we SHOULD have these "rangers" capable of some offensive action. Our army should be mostly defense though, with some troops capable of field engagements. I agree that our military should be diversified.
I believe that simply waging a war of attrition is better than ANY "real" offensive action(capturing cities, waging war in their land, etc.). They won't see a weak nation, but a mighty civilization, too good to steep down to fight. If the situation call for it, as in Ravus_sol's example, we're see. I'm still against "real" offensive action.
Warrior spawn bust is good. How about our initial warrior? London culture visibility is good enough to stop barb spawns there.
I believe I was too extreme in my last post. What I meant was that I don't want a fully offensive army that only goal is to capture and pillage. I meant that we SHOULD have these "rangers" capable of some offensive action. Our army should be mostly defense though, with some troops capable of field engagements. I agree that our military should be diversified.
I believe that simply waging a war of attrition is better than ANY "real" offensive action(capturing cities, waging war in their land, etc.). They won't see a weak nation, but a mighty civilization, too good to steep down to fight. If the situation call for it, as in Ravus_sol's example, we're see. I'm still against "real" offensive action.
Warrior spawn bust is good. How about our initial warrior? London culture visibility is good enough to stop barb spawns there.
Cull
Big Daddy
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,838
An defensive war, if done right, still allows for expansion. You just need a small portion producing military all the time, then if war comes, you have loads of troops, and can build more if needed.
Keshiks take a long time to get with them needing HBR, even with a dedicated beeline straight toward it, and by then we should have spear men, so nah.
Also, map link please?
- Status
