[RFC Marathon] Realpolitik America

Dangerbird is the president. He is the leader of the SAM. Micbic was winning the election, but due to a scandal (probably sexual, just because this happens to every president) he stepped down, Dangerbird took his place, and rallied the party to victory in the election.
 
Dangerbird is the president. He is the leader of the SAM. Micbic was winning the election, but due to a scandal (probably sexual, just because this happens to every president) he stepped down, Dangerbird took his place, and rallied the party to victory in the election.
:lol:
As for trading, I would not be negative to trade, though only with nations which do not pose any direct threat to us . Of course, we should have no vassal states or defensive pacts.
As for turn builds, though I am not the one who decides: New York, Boston Grenadier--->Market, Washington; Market--->Library--->Rifleman
 
Ok,
basiclly what we have so far:
Anarchy
Decided our builds
Last thing to decide:

The people of Washington (well the settlers) wish to expand, they ask you, the senate, where to expand to. This will be the last vote before the update. The votes will be counted on Monday, only current members of parties get votes, each member gets party votes/members. 18/35 needed to win.

A) We will not find a city in Florida

B) A city in Quebec will be founded soon

C) A city in Cuba will be founded soon

D) We will not find a city in Africa

E) We will not find a city in South America

It has been decided, Expect an update tonight or tomorrow.
 
I vote no on D, yes on A and B, and will wait for my party's leader's choice until I cast my vote on the rest.
 
A and B get my vote.
EDIT: No way D.
 
I would say we should found a city on Cuba, thus not Miami, as it overlaps too much. Both will be on their own for defence (since we don't have biology, or do we), but Havana has a liitle more production and more food and commerce too.

So..

C (Cuba) and B (somewhere, not too north, in Quebec)

not A (Miami)

Save the rest of the settlers.
 
I'd like to change my votes to support Danger Birds', so I vote for settling around Montreal and in Cuba, and not settle the rest.
 
DangerBird, why Cuba and not Miami? My rationale about Miami was that i) it is more historically accurate, ii) Cuba will be remote defensively, and since we are to, most likely, be at war for a time with European Grand Powers, it will be an easy prey and iii) according to the policy, Cuba is at the Caribbean, while Miami at the N. American continent.
 
Settlers can still go through jungle, and they can be transferred through ships too.

I don't think settling Cuba is against our policy and ideology, since it's better for us to control it than a European. Also my view as which areas should be liberated from Europeans is exactly the area of the 1st UHV. Settling in Cuba will prevent the Europeans from settling there and will help to reduce their influence on us.
 
DangerBird, why Cuba and not Miami? My rationale about Miami was that i) it is more historically accurate, ii) Cuba will be remote defensively, and since we are to, most likely, be at war for a time with European Grand Powers, it will be an easy prey and iii) according to the policy, Cuba is at the Caribbean, while Miami at the N. American continent.

Actually, It is impossible to settle Miami, due to there being jungle in southern Florida

I think we can settle the Miami tile (which isn't jungle) but because of the jungle to its north it will be like an island for defence, just like Cuba. Cuba is a better site overall, and I am willing to consider those Caribbean islands part of our birthright. ;)

Now, the President will be overseas for the next 72 hours and may be hard to contact, except sporadically. So, in case a decision needs to be made quickly, I leave the administration in the capable hands of the VP, Lighthearter, and my fellow party members, micbic and BurnEmDown.
 
Cuba is better than Miami, as if you chop the jungle wall, which has no productivity, it is unprotected. Cuba needs a naval invasion.
 
Back
Top Bottom