Term 2 External Consulate: First Victim? (Re-poll)

[Bertie]

This poll sets out to answer the following question:-

Who should we declare war on first?

Although this question was polled in term 1, in-game circumstances have changed enough for a re-poll to be prudent.

Term 2 discussion on this topic may be found >>HERE<<

The poll will close three days after the poll was opened.
The poll is public and other users can see how you voted.
Select one option only.

 

[RoboPig]

I voted to attack Holland, I did so since that was what we told at the term's beggining and i am Indian, so i do show allegiance

 

[MOTH]

I am in favor of war with the Indians first as there are clear objectives that can easily be obtained:
1. Secure Iron source by capturing Delhi.
2. Secure a second luxury by capturing Bombay.
3. If the choice is to eliminate the Indians then this can also be somewhat easily accomplished.

My analysis on how easily this can be accomplished is primarily based on distance. The Indian core is only at most a half dozen tiles from our core.

Could any proponent for a Dutch first war outline the objectives and provide some counter analysis on how likely we are to accomplish the objectives?

 

[greekguy]

Kill the Dutch. Don't let them build Swiss Mercenaries!!

 

[mhcarver]

after looking at the debate more closely I now think India first is the right choice, so could a mod please change my vote to india?

 

[Provolution]

I firmly support a Dutch war, as the geopolitcal landscape states that Netherlands is our largest challenger, and a military alliance with India would clear our way to China.

 

[vikingruler]

we need to take out the dutch. those swiss mercenaries will stop us from taking them out until late middle age.

 

[Furiey]

I feel that this poll would have been better served if we had the plans to vote for showing how we could actually achieve this in either case, This would have allowed a choice seeing what we could achieve and more importantly when, rather than a gut feeling eg: I think it should be the Dutch, they're big and will have Mercenaries.

MOTH presents an analysis for the Indians first, an analysis for the Dutch first would allow a comparison, the timescales involved are also important. I believe this will show that we will be able to achieve our objectives against the Indians in a timescale and with a plan and a resultant increased production base that will put in a position to take on the Dutch with a far better chance of achieving our objectives there as well. So perhaps the Indian first analysis should extend to Dutch second to show how the Mercenary problem will be dealt with. No time to do it myself unfortunately

 

[Provolution]

I vote for Dutch first since

1. Indians are peaceful and not pushing demands on us
2. The Dutch has more cities and spreads much faster
3. The Dutch UU, the Swiss Guard is closer in time and as tough defender as Muskets
4. We are hemmed in by the Dutch, we already got Oxford isolated
5. Our expansion east is blocked by encircling Dutch cities
6. Dutch share the seafaring trait, and their agriculture counter our commerce
7. To get cleaner borders we must take the Dutch first
8. The wine-monopoly requires Dutch first (We can trade India now)
9. An Fanatannian Indian Alliance could very well win the Dutch war
10. Dutch first gives us time to take out India prior to War Elephants.

 

[mad-bax]

The reasons I support an Indian war first are posted >>HERE<<

Please take the time to read them.

A bad choice here would be a great shame.

 

[Furiey]

I fully agree with mad-bax's reasoning for Indian war first.

If we start on India first we can start earlier, with a smaller army, allowing us more time to build up our forces to take on the Dutch before their UU. We could quickly secure the Iron and a luxury.

If we go for the Dutch first we will need a larger force to start with delaying the start of the war and giving us less time to go on to achieve our Indian objectives. We would have to march through and raze the outlying Dutch cities (denying them to us)before we could reach their core, this would take longer and allow for the Dutch to respond. Why not use the Indian war to position our troops to strike directly into the Dutch core, and take those outlying cities as part of the Peace deal.

 

[MOTH]

It looks like once a mod updates mhcarver's vote that this is evenly split.

As Provolution has been the only "dutch first" proponent to post some significant reasons I will take this opportunity to try and convert these into objectives and analysis and then contrast this with my own views of "india first".

Provolution's (assumed) objectives:

1. Stop Swiss Mercs by denying Iron.
2. Get expansion room for us and clean up borders.
3. Get Wine Monopoly.
4. (implied) Hurt Dutch ability to expand.

Stated Tactics: Get a MA with India execute dutch war.

My (mostly unbiased) Analysis: Indian alliance would allow us to sweep North and capture first the close dutch cities and eventually the northern dutch city of Utrecht (sp?) to deny the Iron. Swords would need to accomplish the first cities and fast units (horsemen) would need to be produced to catch up and assist in the later assaults. Our Indian ally would go against the Dutch capitol and western cities. The best case scenario to accomplish this is 12 turns, based on the time to walk from our borders near Gronigen to Utrecht. My realistic estimate is that our troops will likely need to heal and regroup after intermediate objectives and it will take at least 16 turns to capture Utrecht.

My (admittedly biased) critique of Provolution's 10 points:
1. Indians are peaceful and not pushing demands on us
While it is true that India is currently peaceful, this will not last as we have aggressively settler Bentley to take their Iron. It will only be a matter of time before they turn aggressive.
2. The Dutch has more cities and spreads much faster
They are starting to run out of space except for the Northern desert, mountains, and jungle/marsh. It does not hurt us for them to expand in that area as it will contain the Chinese until we are ready for them.
3. The Dutch UU, the Swiss Guard is closer in time and as tough defender as Muskets
Even with an India first war we will be able to turn on the Dutch in about the same timeframe as we could deny Utrecht to them.
4. We are hemmed in by the Dutch, we already got Oxford isolated
We are also hemmed in by Lahore to the East or Oxford. India has also settled to the south of us in the Tundra.
5. Our expansion east is blocked by encircling Dutch cities
Also blocked by the Indians.
6. Dutch share the seafaring trait, and their agriculture counter our commerce
The seafaring trait is not going to provide significant benefit to either us or the Dutch in the short term due to the need tobuild harbors and the pangaea map. Their aggriculture benifit will soon be more limited as they run out of prime land.
7. To get cleaner borders we must take the Dutch first
No, to get cleaner borders we must take out the dutch, but it doesn't have to be first.
8. The wine-monopoly requires Dutch first (We can trade India now)
Same as 7. It doesn't have to be first.
9. An Fanatannian Indian Alliance could very well win the Dutch war
Yes, but this will leave India in a much better position than they are now. We will just have another major AI to deal with next.
10. Dutch first gives us time to take out India prior to War Elephants.
I wholely disagree with this point. The Dutchwar is likely to be prolonged and although can leave us in a stronger position is also likely to strengthen the Indians. This will jeopardize our ability to take out India prior to War Elephants.

My (also biased) comparision of the 2 potential wars:
India first: Timeline: 6-8 turn war capturing Delhi, Bombay, and possibly Calcutta. Will significantly weaken India while leaving the Dutch in a near status quo. Will allow us a chance to harden our troops prior to a Dutch war. Will allow us to position our troops for a strike at the Dutch core with little delay. We could strike at the Dutch capitol as early as 14 to 16 turns from the start of the Indian war.

Dutch first: Timeline: 14 to 18 turns with capture or auto-raze of 4-6 Dutch cities. Will weaken the Dutch while the Indians gain strength. Will leave hardened troops to the far north and thus out of position for a followup attack on India. We leave the Dutch capitol either alone or in Indian hands.'

Final Analysis: A war with the Indian's only strengthen's our ability to attack the Dutch while resulting in extremely little delay. It would be foolish to not take the few extra turns needed to secure our flank and position our troops for a quick decisive war against the Dutch.

 

[Bertie]

Moth's analysis and reasoning is excellent. I urge my fellow Fanatannians to carefully consider his argument, and vote for the Indian war. A vote for the Indian war doesn't mean we won't be taking on the Dutch; we will, and in short order. But tactically and strategically warring first against the Indians is the ideal (really, only) choice.

I've stated my reasons for supporting the war in several threads and won't repeat myself. A good summary of them can be found HERE.

 

[greekguy]

so far i've said the Dutch should be invaded first. this was based on the fact if we invade India first, we won't be able to then attack the Dutch before they get Swiss Mercenaries. but if an Indiacrat can prove to me that we will be able to invade the Dutch in force in less then 20 turns, then i will change my mind on the issue. sorry all you Dutch supporters, but the only logical reason to invade the Dutch first is because of their UU. all the other problems the Dutch present could be solved later.

 

[MOTH]

@greekguy,
I can't provide you without someone providing real objectives and the required forces for a Dutch war. Can you provide this first and then the India first position can be extrapolated to show how much it would delay the Dutch war.

Note that India first is now leading 16 to 10 if you take into account mhcarver's vote change.

 

[zyxy]

I voted for India with some hesitation. I am just hoping we'll be in time before the swiss guys arrive, and like Furiey would have liked to see some timescale.

What convinces me (sort of) is that war with India will not cause a long delay, but will put us in a better strategic (closer to dutch core), logistic (reinforcements through former India, possible use of roads) and economic (extra lux, extra cities) position.

 

[greekguy]

@greekguy,
I can't provide you without someone providing real objectives and the required forces for a Dutch war. Can you provide this first and then the India first position can be extrapolated to show how much it would delay the Dutch war.

Note that India first is now leading 16 to 10 if you take into account mhcarver's vote change.

if our objectives are to totally destroy the Indians entirely (which i think we should do to India, war with them first or not) we will be a bit short of swords and such to attack the Dutch quickly IMO. how can you prove to me now, we will have enough forces to quickly invade the Dutch as well. force requirements might be: 15 swords, 5 chariots, and other assorted units.

 

[mhcarver]

perhaps I should ask again, COULD A MOD PLEASE CHANGE MY VOTE TO INDIANS

 

[Ashburnham]

I don't think it matters now. India is the clear choice.

 

[vikingruler]

not taking out the dutch will prevent us from expanding until the late middle age in IMO, because in a matter of turns, the dutch will get swiss mercenaries and we can't defeat them without taking heavy casualties and time. if we build up some swords and chariots and anything else now, we can SEVERELY weaken the dutch and finish them off later. swords can defeat spearmen, not swiss mercenaries. this is our best chance to take out the dutch and get valuable expansion room and get out of our corner of the map. the indians we can take out whenever, but we need to take out the dutch now before they get swiss mercenaries and become nearly invunerable.