Term 2 - Commander of the Armed Forces: Dawn of War
- Thread starter GenMarshall
- Start date
Please consider moving a 2nd garrison to Bentley. At present it houses a scientist because the people would be too unhappy at their normal labours. An additional MP would allow us to produce additional units faster, as well as helping prevent the citizens of this key outpost from abandoning us to join the Indians.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
President Dave of the Shack (Sorry, I had to do that 
),
I will consider moving one of our troops that is non-esential to Bentley.
Regards,
Commander of the Armed Forces, Surface Marshall CivGeneral
Note: Cant add in Cyborg since we dont have electronics and computers yet
),I will consider moving one of our troops that is non-esential to Bentley.
Regards,
Commander of the Armed Forces, Surface Marshall CivGeneral
Note: Cant add in Cyborg since we dont have electronics and computers yet
MOTH
Emperor
(time travelling) Cyborg Surface Marshal,
I would like to point out that a citizen was skipped in the Unit Names. Chieftess had requested a Swordsman Unit to be named Spice Raiders. She had been skipped as we had only been building warriors until recently.
I would currently suggest that your unit naming instructions be:
1. Next Sword produced should be renamed Spice Raiders.
2. Next Sword produced from Camelot should be named Sir Robin.
3. If we produce a Spear it should be named Swiss Guard.
4. Next 3 land units after these should be named: Tuor, Mr. Bean, and Fodder
From the Term 2 Notary of Names Thread:
First Swordsman unit: Spice Raiders; HMS Chieftess if naval
Also currently being skipped:
Next naval unit: Old Ironsides
First Knight: Sir Robin (preferably built in Camelot)
I would also like to point out the next unit names:
1. Swiss Guard if defender; Parceval if Knight
2. ANZAC if horse/knight/cav/tank/MA; HMAS Chuz-Whaza if naval
3. Tuor
4. Mr. Bean
5. Fodder
I have sent PMs to Furiey and classical hero in regards to Sir Robin and #2 and would expect these to be skipped until clarification is recieved. I haven't bothered with a PM for the "Swiss Guard" as the sponsor has not been online in a month; we should skip until we build a defender or a Knight.
Edit: Furiey has replied and a Sword from Camelot would also be fine. She is in line behind CT's sword however.
I would like to point out that a citizen was skipped in the Unit Names. Chieftess had requested a Swordsman Unit to be named Spice Raiders. She had been skipped as we had only been building warriors until recently.
I would currently suggest that your unit naming instructions be:
1. Next Sword produced should be renamed Spice Raiders.
2. Next Sword produced from Camelot should be named Sir Robin.
3. If we produce a Spear it should be named Swiss Guard.
4. Next 3 land units after these should be named: Tuor, Mr. Bean, and Fodder
From the Term 2 Notary of Names Thread:
First Swordsman unit: Spice Raiders; HMS Chieftess if naval
Also currently being skipped:
Next naval unit: Old Ironsides
First Knight: Sir Robin (preferably built in Camelot)
I would also like to point out the next unit names:
1. Swiss Guard if defender; Parceval if Knight
2. ANZAC if horse/knight/cav/tank/MA; HMAS Chuz-Whaza if naval
3. Tuor
4. Mr. Bean
5. Fodder
I have sent PMs to Furiey and classical hero in regards to Sir Robin and #2 and would expect these to be skipped until clarification is recieved. I haven't bothered with a PM for the "Swiss Guard" as the sponsor has not been online in a month; we should skip until we build a defender or a Knight.
Edit: Furiey has replied and a Sword from Camelot would also be fine. She is in line behind CT's sword however.
Commander CivGeneral,
There are calls to declare war this turnchat, possibly even before hitting enter on the current turn. Is your battle plan for India up to date? Also what is your assessment of our defensive capabilities vs possible risk of attack by roving bands of Indian warriors? Are the citizens comfortable with our position?
Thanks!
p.s. check your PMs
There are calls to declare war this turnchat, possibly even before hitting enter on the current turn. Is your battle plan for India up to date? Also what is your assessment of our defensive capabilities vs possible risk of attack by roving bands of Indian warriors? Are the citizens comfortable with our position?
Thanks!
p.s. check your PMs
Commander,
I have started THIS THREAD which includes discussion relevant to the interests and duties of your office. My purpose is to stimulate discussion on when we should attack India, and prompt us to make a decision. I invite you to participate in this thread.
Thank you for your consideration.
I have started THIS THREAD which includes discussion relevant to the interests and duties of your office. My purpose is to stimulate discussion on when we should attack India, and prompt us to make a decision. I invite you to participate in this thread.
Thank you for your consideration.
MOTH
Emperor
Commander,
There seems to be some irregularity in the unit naming. I'm trying to update a comprehensive list, but there are a few discrepancies I cannot find as I cannot open the save. Assuming that Cavvie's spreadsheet is correct then it appears that the following 2 units are missing: "Tim the Great" and "groundpounders". Also, it appears that the name ANZAC was given to a slow unit when a fast unit was specifically requested. We also have a warrior named Hadrian but this is nowhere to be found in the Citizens registry.
I will be posting an informational post for the president to address these discrepancies as well as noting the next names in the queue.
Please feel free to visit the Notary of Names thread if you have any questions or concerns.
There seems to be some irregularity in the unit naming. I'm trying to update a comprehensive list, but there are a few discrepancies I cannot find as I cannot open the save. Assuming that Cavvie's spreadsheet is correct then it appears that the following 2 units are missing: "Tim the Great" and "groundpounders". Also, it appears that the name ANZAC was given to a slow unit when a fast unit was specifically requested. We also have a warrior named Hadrian but this is nowhere to be found in the Citizens registry.
I will be posting an informational post for the president to address these discrepancies as well as noting the next names in the queue.
Please feel free to visit the Notary of Names thread if you have any questions or concerns.
MOTH
Emperor
cavvie said:
I'm looking at it at least. I would like to suggest that instead of editing your post that you post updates in new posts. This way we also get a history of sorts.
Just a quick reminder, in the upcoming action vs India some people are noticing references in the plan to actions which go beyond the strategic objective. For now it will help to proceed with just the moves which fit into the consul's plans and if stopping at the objective seems to be a bad idea go ahead and jump into the discussion on the objectives. 
Nobody
Gangster
general, i was wondering if you could post a updated list of our military. if its all ready some where just slap me and point me in the right direction
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
CivGeneral slaps Nobody around a bit with a troutNobody said:
Look at cavvie's post in post #7
Commander,
May I offer a suggestion regarding your instructions for tonights turn chat? Your current instructions target Delhi as the primary target of our military forces, which I believe everyone agrees should be the case. However, the second objective of the strategy developed by the External Consul, and approved by most in the discussion threads, is to next secure Bombays silks after we take Delhi. Instead, your battle map suggests the attack on Bombay should be a secondary target (green arrow) while Calcutta (red arrow) should be the main target after we secure Delhi. Might I suggest you switch the arrow between Delhi and Calcutta to green and the arrow between Delhi and Bombay to red? I believe this would meet with everyones approval and achieve both your tactical objectives as well as the External Consuls strategic ones.
Thank you for your consideration.
May I offer a suggestion regarding your instructions for tonights turn chat? Your current instructions target Delhi as the primary target of our military forces, which I believe everyone agrees should be the case. However, the second objective of the strategy developed by the External Consul, and approved by most in the discussion threads, is to next secure Bombays silks after we take Delhi. Instead, your battle map suggests the attack on Bombay should be a secondary target (green arrow) while Calcutta (red arrow) should be the main target after we secure Delhi. Might I suggest you switch the arrow between Delhi and Calcutta to green and the arrow between Delhi and Bombay to red? I believe this would meet with everyones approval and achieve both your tactical objectives as well as the External Consuls strategic ones.
Thank you for your consideration.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
@Bertie - Done and uploaded a new map
Nobody
Gangster
hey, i was looking at the game (for the first time) and i came up with a question. do you have plans to take the indian city to the south? but you better make sure and ask premisson of the king.... i mean mad-bax
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
he doesnt need to ask max bax, you have gotten the alternage governemtn all wrong.
Mad Bax sets guidelines, CivGeneral can do whatever he wants within those guidelines.
If mad bax didnt say anything about that southern city, then cg chooses.
Mad Bax sets guidelines, CivGeneral can do whatever he wants within those guidelines.
If mad bax didnt say anything about that southern city, then cg chooses.
Commander,
The office of the External Consul has started THIS THREAD to affirm that we want to declare war on the Dutch next. Because such a war would be of great interest to your office, we invite you to join the discussion. We suggest this because we think it might be convenient to integrate all discussion of such a war in one thread. Of course you may very rightly prefer to discuss the specific affairs of your office pertaining to the Dutch war in a separate thread, and we would certainly understand.
The office of the External Consul has started THIS THREAD to affirm that we want to declare war on the Dutch next. Because such a war would be of great interest to your office, we invite you to join the discussion. We suggest this because we think it might be convenient to integrate all discussion of such a war in one thread. Of course you may very rightly prefer to discuss the specific affairs of your office pertaining to the Dutch war in a separate thread, and we would certainly understand.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
@Bertie - I have looked in the thread and have posted my conserns about the first objective of the External Affairs.
CivGeneral said:
I feel that I must point out that this is a completely 180 degrees on one of your election promises "A war against the Dutch, possibly eather eliminate them or force them to become a landlocked nation.
CG. I belive this lead to a number of ppl voting for you u are now using the reasons that i advocated for an invasion for india and not following up on your promise to attack the dutch 1st as implied.
ali said:
Wow, that's bringing up a fairly ancient post...
The Consul of External Affairs prioritized India above Netherlands as the first victim based on citizen input, and that we could finish a limited war with India before we are ready to tackle the Dutch. As you can see, it has worked out that way, and we're almost ready for the Dutch already.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Ali, There is no reason to start attacking me because of that, I feel that this is an attack on my reputation that I had worked so hard to rebuild. I do not advocate nor use mudslinging to damage other people's reputations because I feel that it is not moraly right. I have no control what the External Affairs decide on which civ to attack. I wanted to attack the Dutch first but I had to follow orders from the External Affairs and attack India insted.ali said:
This is a Demogame, not the Parlament Model Government. The main difference between the two government sim games is that one is just ment for a good old time (Demogame) while the other is a dog eat dog game (Parlament Model).
Similar threads
