Term 2 - External Consulate

Consul,

As I read your instructions to the DP for the April 13 play turn, it occurs to me that although they are perfectly clear, someone who hasn’t troubled to read the discussion threads in which your instructions were developed might not grasp the full import of some of your instructions. Specifically, I suggest you clarify the instructions for the Indian War strategy.

First, you might want to state that our strategy is to have two Indian wars: a limited one now, and another (or two) wars later. Second, you might want to identify which Indian cities need to be captured to achieve the strategy for the first war. Dehli of course is the capital; and capturing Bombay will enable us to “secure a source of silks.” You might want to specify that capturing these two cities should be enough to “use peace to gain territory” and “provide a strong strategic position from which to launch a war against the Netherlands,” thus achieving your immediate strategy. You may want to include in the strategy the option of allowing the DP to march troops towards Madras after taking Bombay. This would actually position them better for our war against the Dutch; and the threat of our taking Bombay might encourage India to give us a more generous peace settlement. Of course the Commander of the Military will be responsible for drawing up the actual plans for achieving your strategy; but his task may be easier if the strategy for the first war is more clearly delineated.

Speaking of the peace settlement, I suggest we ask for the cities of Lahore and/or Kolhapur. These are the two coastal cities to the SE of Oxford. Karachi is the tundra city near Camelot; I’m not inclined to ask for that because it’s a city that we can take whenever convenient. However, it is an enemy at our backdoor, so we may want to take that simply to eliminate the threat from an attack from that direction.
 
I just don't want the war on India to exceed the objectives of the Policy without having it discussed first. I guess if you follow my instructions about proceeding until we have Delhi + Spices and the troops healed and stacked in Bombay, then we can stop and decide whether we target Madras next or prepare for the Dutch war.

I am concerned that the COA war plan as it stands today exceeds the authority it has from the Consul. I thought that it was this offices job to set the scope, and the COA was responsible for execution.
 
mad-bax said:
I thought that it was this offices job to set the scope, and the COA was responsible for execution.

I agree with you; that is why I suggest that if we make it crystal clear what it takes to achieve our strategy, there can't be any room for misunderstanding. BTW, I suggest how the actual war plans might not be in real - only apparent - conflict with your strategy in THIS POST.
 
I will update the policy in line with your suggestions Bertie. I cross-posted with you earlier which is why my previous post didn't mention it.
 
mad-bax said:
I just don't want the war on India to exceed the objectives of the Policy without having it discussed first. I guess if you follow my instructions about proceeding until we have Delhi + Spices and the troops healed and stacked in Bombay, then we can stop and decide whether we target Madras next or prepare for the Dutch war.

I am concerned that the COA war plan as it stands today exceeds the authority it has from the Consul. I thought that it was this offices job to set the scope, and the COA was responsible for execution.

These are my expectations as well.
 
mad-bax said:
I am concerned that the COA war plan as it stands today exceeds the authority it has from the Consul. I thought that it was this offices job to set the scope, and the COA was responsible for execution.

Just to clarify to you, I only made secondary routes in the event if India does not accept our terms for peace. The Red Arrows are the Primary Routes and are under the terms of the objectives this department has set. The Green Arrows are Secondary Routes, thoes routes are only inplace incase India rejects our terms for peace.
 
CivGeneral said:
Oy, the more I hear complaints that I am stepping on other peoples toes unintentionaly, the more I favor the government system of the old.

So you don't like it where the civilian authority sets the goals, and the military creates the plans to achieve those goals?

MB - what are the expectations of the Consul for External Affairs should the Indian government not accept our demands for peace after taking the two cities? Are we going to take only those two cities, and fight a defensive war with Indian while our main forces continue to the next objective? Or, will we want to continue to "persuade" the Indian government to accept peace, as outline in CG's plans?

-- Ravensfire
 
Oh hail great ruler king of trade, foreign affair and true commander of the military, Mad-Bax.

I was justing wondering if it is within your invinte wisdom to allow a small party of troops to conquer the indian city of Karachi? Although it is not in your "Grand Manifesto" this city is inside the area normally consided our nation. Thanks
 
ravensfire said:
So you don't like it where the civilian authority sets the goals, and the military creates the plans to achieve those goals?

Please disregard that message ravensfire. I take back that statement regarding beurocracy.

@Nobody - For starters, try toning down the wording since to me its kind of treading twards trolling.
 
Karachi would auto-raze, and we certainly don't want to build our own settler to send to the frozen wasteland. How about we let them offer it to us as partial payment towards their continued existence?
 
Just to be clear.

It is my understanding that the External Consulate set out who we go to war with, and the general timescale for the war. He/she sets the the objectives for the war (in other words, what we should acheive before stopping). This is all I have done.

The Director of commerce decides the exact date of the war.
The COA decides how many units of wichever type, attack which cities in which order from which tiles etc.

The governors decide which cities will build which type of units at what time.

So my expectation is this.

Step1. External consulate says "Declare war on India on or before 700BC, secure the iron near Bentley, secure a source of silks and prepare a launch point for attacking The Netherlands - Use peace negotiations to maximise territory"

Step2. COA says "In order to meet the External Consulates Objectives I need 12 swords, four horses, two spears and 3 catapults" I will attack this city from this tile on this date with these units. I will then move troops to this tile to attack this city..... until the objectives are met"

Step3. Governor says "In order to get the troops required by the COA I must build a sword in this town, a spear in this town, change this wonder build to catapult ...."

Step4. The Director of commerce says "At the current build rates the COA's troop requirements will be met on this date. It will take X turns to get into position. Therefore we declare war on this date."

Step5. The Director of Infrastructure says "According to the COA the battle plan aims to capture cities in this order. In order to speed reinforcements to the front line these X tiles should be roaded. City X has changed from spear to sword therefore we will mine a tile to allow it to build at 6spt instead of 5"

Then we fight the war until the External Consulates objectives are met. Which leads us to step 6.

Step6. External Consulates objectives are met. Will India accept peace?

a) Yes. Peace negotiations take place. The director of Expansion decides which cities (if there is a choice) should be taken in peace. The director of commerce decides which techs should be taken in peace.

b) No. Discussions take place as to whether we should continue on the offensive, or ignore India for a few turns and go after the Dutch anyway etc. There will be a vote on the options, since the new plan did not exist in the external consulates mandate (posted in the nominations thread at the time of his election, and in the Government thread the day after).

If I have misconstrued the constitution in any way then I would be grateful if someone could put me right. :)
 
I just read what happened in the turnchat, might i say we should judge people on what they do not on the silly things they post. Mad-bax well done we can get 2 citys from the indians.
 
I must admit, I went a bit beyond what was expected and whacked Madras too, interpreting the "get something for peace" part of the objectives to be higher priority. It was kinda there on a silver platter given the road was already in place, and destroying it denies India horses...

Now we're in a place where we can choose which 2 cities to take. :D
 
No, the External Consulates instructions were not exceeded. It is clear that one of the objectives of the war was to gain territory from a peace deal. After the capture of Bombay we could not gain territory, and so the objectives were not met at that point. Razing Madras was a method of acheiving the objective, and was in-line with the COA instructions. My opinion was that after capturing two cities we could make peace for territory. I was wrong. But instructions must not be confused with opinion.

Later I asked that the turnchat be stopped after the capture of Bombay if there were no instructions from the COA or his instructions conflicted with mine. He did post instructions and they did not conflict with mine.

All in all, a perfectly played turnchat from my perspective. :goodjob:
 
No, the External Consulates instructions were not exceeded. It is clear that one of the objectives of the war was to gain territory from a peace deal. After the capture of Bombay we could not gain territory, and so the objectives were not met at that point. Razing Madras was a method of acheiving the objective, and was in-line with the COA instructions. My opinion was that after capturing two cities we could make peace for territory. I was wrong. But instructions must not be confused with opinion.

Later I asked that the turnchat be stopped after the capture of Bombay if there were no instructions from the COA or his instructions conflicted with mine. He did post instructions and they did not conflict with mine.

All in all, a perfectly played turnchat from my perspective.

I was kidding
 
Consul,

In various threads we’ve spoken much about the need to war with the Dutch so I think the citizens of Fanatannia pretty well understand that it’s coming and are in agreement. Still, do we need a discussion thread and a poll about this just to dot the i’s and cross the t’s? If so, would it be useful to invite the Commander of the Armed Forces and the Commerce Director to jointly sponsor the thread so that we can have an integrated discussion about not only whether we should go to war, but the timing of the declaration and troop maneuvers?
 
The President has already asked the COA to start a discussion thread. In two minutes time I won't have internet access for 24 hours.

If you have the time and inclination, then you could set up official discussion threads and polls for:-

A. War on the Dutch. Objectives, timeframe and such.
B. Getting Persia into a war (with Byzantines, French and Chinese) before they get Middle Aged ;) and to force them into Monarchy instead of Republic.

You could also post a poll on making the Portuguese our next minor target whilst we build infra after switching to republic. There is already a discussion thread for this.

You don't have to ask in order to do this Bertie of course. You and I are fairly like-minded on these subjects which is why I asked you to help me, and so I am quite happy for you to post official discussions and polls for this office. We would only need to talk first where there is a substantial change of policy being considered. :)
 
Top Bottom