1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Station Troops Overseas: Operation Rays of Freedom

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game V: Polls' started by ali, Nov 19, 2004.

?

Which Plan would you like Japan to act on?

Poll closed Nov 22, 2004.
  1. Plan A

    2 vote(s)
    8.7%
  2. Plan B

    2 vote(s)
    8.7%
  3. Plan C

    1 vote(s)
    4.3%
  4. Abstain, let us continue as it is

    18 vote(s)
    78.3%
  1. ali

    ali Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Australia
    I’ve noticed that many people are now looking at a brotherly protection of the smaller and weaker nations rather than extend our empire to include these nations we wish to see them have their own autonomy. We also seem worry of the military threat that China poses to both her neighbours on the other continent and to her future threat to us. Therefore I propose the following plan we gain RoP with America and Russia and begin building a few fortifications individual bases within these two countries and station troops in these areas in which to help protect Russia and America from a possible Chinese invasion until further reinforcements arrive from Japan. This should give us the critical time needed that could make the difference between the saviours of these nations. When possible I would like a mutual protection pact be signed between these nations a series of network alliances aimed at off-setting Chinese aggression at a later date I would like the Aztecs be included these troops will not act aggressively towards china unless in the likely event of a Chinese invasion of Russia, America and maybe at a latter time Aztecs. Here are the following options that are being polled:

    Plan A: A series of fortifications built in America and Russia acting as bases for Peacekeepers acting in a defensive manner and in no way aggressively towards any nation, these peacekeepers may intervene in the defence of the nation they are stationed at from a aggressive nation, this however will be first be decided by the people before any military action is taken by the Peacekeepers. These Peacekeepers will give enough time for reinforcements from Japan to come and rescue any nation in danger and enough preparing time needed to assemble a expedition force to be assembled aimed at liberation (Highly advisable, low risk to Japan)

    Plan B: A rapid deployment force would simply be having troops in transports escorted by naval vessels stationed near the coasts but outside of borders (limits the mobility of the navy and therefore exposes our coastline for attack, a unadvisable option).

    Plan C: Some fortresses inland will handle some lasting engagements, but a Marine Corps should be in place for long mobile coast runs. This allows for fewer ships to be used in operations than Plan B (also a highly advisable option, low risk to Japan).

    Abstain

    Here is a link to the discussion of stationing troops overseas in the citizen forum to get an idea of the debates of the issue.

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=104846&page=1
     
  2. MOTH

    MOTH Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,676
    Location:
    mostly lurking
    I voted abstain as there is no "other" choice. My choice would be for permanent bases in the form of cities with barracks, temples, and walls.
     
  3. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    Plan B, but what is this bias in there Ali? Seriously, if you're going to make a poll at least present the options in an unbiased way. Plan B will not limit the mobility o the navy or the coastline, since it's a seperate force, not part of mainland defense.

    If you follow that same train of thought, Options A & C would weaKen our defense at home since it takes troops and workers away to a far off land. Also, I notice that you put that people will only decide when to intervene in Plan B, when it is the people's authority in all of the plans.

    Why is this poll private?
     
  4. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    As I've already stated in the heated discussion over this proposed MSAV action, General Ali is just assuming China will go berserk and slaughter everyone on the New World. Furthermore, General Ali suggests that America and Russia already are our allies, when, they are not! There isn't a spirit of friendship or unity between us and the Americans and Russians, nor are there hints of hostility towards us from the Chinese. As Nobody said, how would we feel if the Chinese were to put troops in Zululand to counter our aggression.

    Utilizing Plan B would make us prepared to fend off any attacks on another nation by any nation on the New World. We would have the near limitless mobility of the sea, much more than we would if troops were to be stationed in fixed positions on land.
     
  5. ali

    ali Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Australia
    My apolgies to Moth I completely forgot about that option however u may safely assume that Plan A incorporates this idea...once again my apologies.

    To Mr. BlackHeart it is Grand Admiral Ali not General ppffttt the army, no way, the navy is the senior service,we can stioll deploy troops in these nations and still make a effective stop of any nations aggression much more effectively and yes the navies mobility will be severly hampered as it will have to deploy ships for your plan B, in all plans military action by the peacekeepers will be decided before hand by the people, no america and russia are not yet our allies however we can have them as allies this will improve our chances for a diplomatic victory in the UN vote, last time I checked we have put a check on our aggression so therefore the chinese would feel no need to deploy troops in Zululand
     
  6. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ok, Admiral Ali. Funny that, if someone were to station gun turrets in my backyard I would be alarmed. If we put a check on our aggression, then why are we deploying troops then? This is a passive aggressive action. What's your point about the navy's mobility being hampered? Ships are meant to be deployed are they not? We could always build more ships if that is the case. In terms of economy, it would cost more to ship workers over to build forts, pay for any costs incrued from ROPs, etc.
     
  7. ali

    ali Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Australia
    yes the cost of RoP will be in the form of forign aid in which will make other nations more at ease with us, thus making a diplomatic victory easier, this is not a aggressive action these plans have no intention of attacking anyone, thus no aggression, I think the cost is worth it for the RoP if we want to think in the long term for a victory, if we build more ships that would mean more funding will go to the MSAV to support these new vessals thus in the long term would be more expensive
     
  8. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    Deploying troops to fend off a nonexists invasion is aggressive. If we want more nations to be at east with us, gifting items produces much more dramatic resources than by overpaying someone for a ROP. We would need more naval vessels regardless of which plan is executed. We currently don't have the transport capacity to transport a large quantity of troops quickly to the new world. And if we were to stop an invasion of China, we would need a fleet to already be there to bombard them and destroy their navy.
     
  9. Ashburnham

    Ashburnham Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    827
    Why isn't there an option to vote against all three plans? I, for one, don't want to do anything this aggressive at the moment. I would suggest making a new poll with "Other" and "No action" as options.
     
  10. ali

    ali Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Australia
    the abstain option constitutes this
     
  11. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    Um no, abstain means you don't give a flying squirrel, you're undecided, or you refuse because of the poll's format.
     
  12. ali

    ali Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Australia
    yes i understand this but if u care to look at the typing after the word abstain Mr blackheart
     
  13. ali

    ali Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Australia
    hence why i want troops deployed there now I do not wish to waste naval resources on building a large transport fleet i belive the citizens wish to put their tax elsewhere
     
  14. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    And as I said, that is not the meant purpose of abstain.
     
  15. ali

    ali Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Australia
    well that option has a double purpose now
     
  16. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    :lol: Whatever you want, it's your poll.
     
  17. ali

    ali Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Australia
    are u conceding im right lol
     
  18. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    I'm conceding to the fact that this is your poll and the choice is up to you on what the poll options are. And no, grouping abstain with another option isn't "accepted".

    Come to think of it, this is how wars in real life started. Nation doesn't like Nation B and stations troops in a country neighboring B to fend off any "aggressive actions". Then B counters and stations troops in a country neighboring A in an act of self defense. Pretty soon everything escalates and one small spark sets everything ablaze.
     
  19. ali

    ali Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Australia
    no wars are started with people such as yourself sparking mass panic and exaggerating the purpose of actions and waving around accusations of aggression making people more jealous and untrusting of one another
     
  20. Donovan Zoi

    Donovan Zoi The Return

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,960
    Location:
    Chicago
    I am abstaining from this nonsense. Or, am I voting to keep things as they are? :mischief: The world will never know.............

    Good thing this is a private poll or it would probably send Ravensfire into meltdown. :crazyeye:
     

Share This Page