Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game V: Citizens' started by ali, Nov 14, 2004.
China is the number two civ, and they increase their distance to the others.
I think a continous RoP is possible we can negotitate this by providing forign aid in the form of luxeries, gold and maybe technology this will further their positive attitude towards us, now I dont see how the MSAV is being aggresive by deploying troops for peacekeeping operations in other nations I think the ppl who are opposing this are being hypocritical "Oh no we must stop our aggression by invading other nations" well we are stopping it and protecting the weaker nations which the majority of citzens are lobbying for in the last few weeks. I believe the military can easily stop an invasion from our continient anytime easily enough and handle 4 fronts against the Zulus, French, Babs and Iros, for the time being i just wish a RoP with the nations ive proposed give some forign aid to sweeten the pot and to get a better attitude for us. In all honesty by the time the "Rapid Response Expedientary forces" get to America/Russia those nations will be swarming with chinese trrops making a effective defence harder casusing further casualties making a general draft more likely. Whilst if deploy these forces now on the main invasion routes it will give us a chance to reinforce these critcal areas.
Why would we pay other nations to stay there? If that's your tactic why don't we just build the UN and bribe everyone a few turns before elections. The MSAV is being aggressive by deploying troops to fight China, who is currently neutral towards us.
Oh yes I am a hypocrite. It isn't hypocritical to deploy troops for war against a country that has not crossed paths with us and say the reason is to protect other countries.
If a rapid deployment force is stationed correctly, it would take one turn for them to land, then on the next turn they can move into action. The advantages of this over putting troops on the mainland is we don't need a continuous ROP, we can quickly move troops halfway around the world by sea, and we can easily flank any attacking force.
ROP is part of building the diplomatic relation, which takes time, and we should keep them alive longer, and fortifications would make the military placement cheaper.
ill give another three days for discussion and i will then poll this
Cheaper in what way? We would have to send our own workers over there, taking away from our workforce which can be used to improve our infrastructure.
Where did i say im deploying these troops on a aggresive stance against china??? These troops will act on a defgensive manner not an offensive one
It willl be cheaper because without these fortifications military casulaties will be higher, casuing more spending on troops and drafts which will disrupt city production however with these fortifications we can minimise casualties and not have to mobilise a force that can disrupt the Home Front
Ali, he simply does not have the vision, and he wants double garrisons.
compare that to other governors interests.
That is considering we are foolish enough to deploy troops right on the enemy. Our troops would inevitably have to move away from the fortifications because the enemy could simply just bypass us.
Read Provo's post, he makes it clear that China is in the scopes. If China is not who the troops are being deployed against, then this would make stationary positions harder, since troops would have to be all over the entire new world. A rapid deployment force would avert all this by having the mobility of the sea and also the neutrality of the sea.
What is your problem really? I disagree with you, you say I don't have vision. My vision is different from yours. My interests are to that of Zarnia, not the other governors, few of whom have even posted in this thread. I don't feel the need to stick with the pack, but if that is what you're looking for in everyone, then you're in the wrong place.
A demogame is about disagreeing, and that is the fun part. Well, cooperation can be fun as well. WE are just having different types of fun. But a variation of disagreeing and cooperation is more interesting, not outright rebellion and persecution of future plans.
So you just want to retire our military, stay home, post buildqueues and let the game flow on autopilot? No use for the military ? No use for Foreign Affairs?
I have never said this?
Did I not just advocate a RAPID DEPLOYMENT force instead of stationary forces? I just agreed with the MSAV on something! We should peacekeep! But my plan is a variation from yours. And as I recall, you're the one who wants to retire units, I advocate for upgrading them. Look, read, absorb.
Hence the deployment of calvary Mr. BlackHEard.. These fortifications will be "BASES" of operations infantry will defned these bases, artillery will fire upon troops invading the peace in AMerica and Russia with calvary sallying out and hitting enemy troops and retreating back to these operational bases. With these bases deployed on the main routes we can slow an invasion by at least 2-3 turns, critical time for reinforcements
I retired REGULAR units, I upgraded VETERAN units, and I concentrated ELITE units.
Look, read and absorb.
VETERAN swordsmen cannot be upgraded so I DISBANDED them for Yattas FORBIDDEN PALACE. Rapid Deployment to American cities will take 20-30 turns. Do you call 1 turn response rapid, or is your 25 turn rapid sailing regatta rapid?
You only come with blanket statements to mess with us, but you never posted any plans.
anyways, Grand Admirals Alis plan is muchmuch much better, and much much more effective. I do not trust your Rapid Response more than I trust the "Let the Germans die, we will not get there in time anyways".
Yes, I read the plan, and what I'm saying is that there is limited mobility. This plan is also considering that China is the aggressor, which is a possibility. Our troops' range would be limited by where the bases are placed. We would also have to divert workers from our infrastructure to build these bases.
A rapid deployment force would simply be having troops in transports escorted by naval vessels stationed near the coasts but outside of borders. This would allow us to quickly move halfway around the continent by sea and land in desirable and strategic locations. If our troops are in danger we could also quickly pull them out by sea.
Let's face it, we don't know where the AI will attack so we would have to build bases everywhere, thereby limiting the mobility of our forces. We would also have to build a RR infrastructure to rapidly move our forces, taking away our needed workers. With a naval rapid deployment strategy, these limitations are eliminated.
Blackheart, post a plan in the military thread, and we will poll it.
You're not clearly reading my posts. Would I call it rapid deployment if it took 25-30 turns? Read my post above this one, I outline it.
As for the Germans, if you remember, at that time we were LUCKY to even get to the new world on a galley. I'm sure sending 4 samurai would have saved the Germans, considering that when we had the capabilities to get there, the Germans were one turn away from annihilation.
wat if the fleet gets attack in the opening attacks of an invasion casuing a higer rate of casualties, and the key issue is fortresses being built as well i want my boys to have adqwuete protection
What if the enemy sends all their forces towards the base and the boys get screwed? Sending transports alone is idiotic, that's why we send escorts as well. If we had an MPP with a nation who is being attacked, more than likely the enemy would attack our allies first, not come after us specifically.
Fortresses only give a bonus on that tile. The enemy isn't going send all of their soldiers to a single fortress. Our troops would have to ride from the fortress to hunt them down. And unless we're making an expensive Maginot Line, single fortresses in a few spots isn't going to be effective.
Separate names with a comma.