Realpolitik CIV - An Interactive AAR

[W|M]

By the time Genghis comes from Eastern Asia, we should have gunpowder anyway. And I'm in Greater London (London's suburbs), so I'm GMT. Also, I'd be pretty goddam worried if everyone was this eager to war (except me, Cull and the other members of the 1st Coalition) . Also, who are all the civs in the world?

 

[Cull]

Yeah, the Khan is too far away to really hurt us at this point unless we go France-Germany-Russia path of settling which I don't think is better than France-Spain-Germany.

CoD does seem eager to war. Also, can Lighthearter or someone else post a link to the thread about the map? Then, we can talk about how to deal with the civs, and such.

 

[W|M]

About the map, I really hope the Native Americans are in America if the Aztecs are there as well. It would balance the power out, and prevent a massive North American Super-Power (Ironically, there is a massive North American Super-Power today that has a lot of really bad ideas).

 

[Cull]

Really hope so, and adding America is good too. For balance issues.

 

[arya126]

okay well i left the RL topic alone when ravus_sol asked, but how about you do the same? dissing america is a very bad idea when im in the debate. were the reason that this world isnt either russian or german. if you want to talk about america being bad, go to some off topic forum. (if you were talking about obama forgive me, but hes one guy. most of america isnt bad even in government).

and your afriad of augustus in france, but not ragnarok in scotland? why dont we establish a firm base in our homeland before going for continental ventures? 2 cities connected is better than 2 sepated by a channel.

eager for war? hardly. I merely want to keep it as an option. like i said before it would be folly to disrequard it. war is a means to peace. i highly doubt that waging a defensive war, we would be able to hold out more than 20-30 turns against agressive armies such as rome and the vikings. a peace deal is also unlikely if we dont capture at least one city or strike another such heavy blow. cowards is what they will think of us. too cowardly to fight their mighty armies, hiding in our walls, watching them pillage and burn everything in sight. years and years of work on the countryside gone in a few turns. do you want that? do you want our empire to be ruined because we were cowards?

fighting is in human nature. it will never stop. even large scale violence such as wars will never stop. We must ride out to fight. At least if we lose, our children will know we tried. we tried our best. that we werent too scared to fight, so scared that we cowered behind walls until a peace could be amde. a peace that will likely involve giving a city with each war. and yes there will be more than one war. once we give up, once we lose the first war, they will know we are weak and come back for more. and more. and more until london is sacked and we are dead.

my thoughts (though i am not the military minister) are that we should have maybe 3 units per city for its permanent defense. such as an archer, a longbowmen, and maybe an axe since people are saying they are good against romes special unit. Then we have 2 other defensive units defending key points like hills or important resources around each city. thats 5 units per city and that should easily hold. we then establish a rangers unit, made up of our best offensive men. axes, knights, swordsmen, and such. say 3 armies of 4 units each should be our eventual target. this will be enough for any limited offensive action that involves weakening stacks that aproach our cities, or making short raids against their own lands. And once the war starts, our economy switches to a war status, and we start churning out more and more men to prepare for a huge blow. that huge blow will be the sacking of their capital which will almost defintly force a peace in our favor.

i relaize that the amounts of untis for this to work are big, at least to me, but they will ensure that we never lose a war, should we start it or not. also for most of the early years, this will have to be scaled down according to our economy and our relations with others. should our relations worsen i will send a request for an extra unit for 2 in the case of war.

 

[Cull]

I never brought up America, I said they should add America to the map for balance issues. Don't be stupid.

Ragnar will have to research Sailing to get us in Scotland, and the AIs will ignore generally speaking Sailing for a time. We have a long time maybe until the end of CoD's current 50 turns until Ragnar comes. You think you can't get 2 settler out by then?

So waging war makes peace? What?

 

[W|M]

Also, London is a good food city, so we should be able to pump out 2 settlers in no time.

EDIT: : offtopic: Why does everyone build cottages on floodplains, if farms make them reach their full potential? Places such as Alexandria become perfect whipping cites with farms (although I still advocate Emancipation as the only good labour civic).

 

[arya126]

i wasnt talking about you when i mentioned america. west india man made a quote about a northj american blob having very bad ideas.

i believe that rome wont expand into france first anyway. its a gamble, but font you think germany might be more appealing to them? and i wouldnt put much stock in the ai's previous actions. scotland is a priority to me as if by chance the vikings get it, we would have to wage a war we are unprepared for to get it back.

yes waging war makes peace. obviously if a war is fought, there is an issue that it is being fought over. maybe its politcal, maybe its religous, or maybe its liberation or expansionism. to win a war, i mean truly win it, then you have to solve that issue. once that issue is solved, peace can be pursued. obviously in RL its more complicated, but in game it would be like rome wants to expand into frnace but we have blocked them off. So they attack us. if we repel them and take a city or 2, then they will back off, and we will have a new source or production in a city we will take in the peace deal.

 

[Cull]

On floodplains, 3/0/X is superior to 4/0/0. The extra commerce is superior to an extra food. The commerce is its "full" potential, but farms are useful as well.

 

[Cull]

i wasnt talking about you when i mentioned america. west india man made a quote about a northj american blob having very bad ideas.

i believe that rome wont expand into france first anyway. its a gamble, but font you think germany might be more appealing to them? and i wouldnt put much stock in the ai's previous actions. scotland is a priority to me as if by chance the vikings get it, we would have to wage a war we are unprepared for to get it back.

yes waging war makes peace. obviously if a war is fought, there is an issue that it is being fought over. maybe its politcal, maybe its religous, or maybe its liberation or expansionism. to win a war, i mean truly win it, then you have to solve that issue. once that issue is solved, peace can be pursued. obviously in RL its more complicated, but in game it would be like rome wants to expand into frnace but we have blocked them off. So they attack us. if we repel them and take a city or 2, then they will back off, and we will have a new source or production in a city we will take in the peace deal.

Its a gamble, but an unnecessary one. Its not the ai's previous actions, its their actions through MANY games. Plus, this game is on Noble, and, I really doubt the AIs will reach sailing by turn 50. Plus, is Scotland BETTER than France + Spain?

Take a city or two? You are ignoring the point that war causes death, slows down discoveries, and makes life BAD.

You favor a new source of production over human lives?

 

[Aysee]

On war: Consider this: would you rather have the floods of praetorians or berserkers invading the british isles and pillaging the countryside, or would you rather take the fight to the enemy BEFORE he gets strong enough to create a large army? Because the last time britain got invaded, it wasn't very pretty afterwards. I'm not advocating a sweeping war of conquest throughout europe, but i think but as we share the continent with Rome and a known warmonger, we should keep that as a possibility. We should expand to france and germany to block out Caesar, Russia to block out Ragnar, and only then go to war with them if we are certain that we could win. Or, we could expand to france, tech bronze working and make a pre-emptive strike on Caesar while he still has archers or something.
But i don't favor that, as a large army will invariably crash the economy. Instead I favor a policy of trying to contain the two other european civs, while preparing for the eventual war.
Sorry if that sounds a bit rambling, but im a really bad writer.

 

[W|M]

Last time Britain was invaded was 1000 years ago, and the last battle on British soil was 300 years ago. The only reason the Normans won was because of there being a Norse invasion in the North, and King Harold's men were exhausted from forced marching, and the fact that Harold himself ended up getting killed.

Anyway, Cull mentioned that Russia wasn't a good idea due to the Mongols. From the West Atlantic Coast to Germany and Austria is good, and I'd like an empire from Iceland (Or at least Scotland) to North-West Africa, maybe further south. We should expand to all of North Africa if Carthage isn't in the game, and even if it is, we should take a lot of it. Also, about the statements about war making peace, peace also makes peace, without the devastation and loss of life.

 

[Cull]

Empire picture sounds good. Maybe even FURTHER south in Africa, and Russia is okay if the Khan doesn't get it first.

Island properties, such as in East Asia, plus Canada, plus the Atlantic Seaboard, and as much as we can get in America.

 

[micbic]

Plus Oceania, I would say.

 

[Cull]

Yup, Oceania sounds good.

British Australia shall rise again!

 

[MathNerd]

I am however against early Writing/Archery.

I know this was a long while back, but I actually am for early Writing. Writing is the gateway to long term technological advancement.

Also, don't you think Oceania may be too isolated of a start? That's just me, though.

 

[Cull]

Writing is wonderful for the very fact that it opens up all those gateways. However, I believe, in this content, we're talking about Writing pre-some worker techs. That's TOO early.

 

[MathNerd]

...take the fight to the enemy BEFORE he gets strong enough to create a large army?

Like Cull mentioned, this game is on Noble, and AIs are not very threatening when it comes to war. If we follow the advice of The Educated Party, we will not need to worry about units due to us having units much more advanced than any of the AIs.

 

[MathNerd]

Writing is wonderful for the very fact that it opens up all those gateways. However, I believe, in this content, we're talking about Writing pre-some worker techs. That's TOO early.

I'm in agreement.

 

[Cull]

Oceania, to my understanding, is sort of a last stop. Our first goal is France, then the Isles/Spain/Germany, then Russia/Africa/Americas, then Oceania, which includes Australia.