Term 3 - Nominations for Trade Minister
- Thread starter Chieftess
- Start date
- Status
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I'll nominate Minister CivGeneral for this position. And Deputy Minister Stuck_As_a_Mac also.
Stuck_as_a_Mac
Aptenodytes forsteri
I accept my nom.
I shall trade softly and carry a whiny stick.
Or something like that
SaaM
I shall trade softly and carry a whiny stick.
Or something like that
SaaM
mhcarver
Newspaper Mogul
I also nominate Stuck As a Mac
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I wish to Decline my nomination. I am planning to go into semi-retirement into the govenorship. With College going on and starting a new social life in RL, I am looking for a job that would be less demanding and more school freindly.
Civman2004
Something goes here...
I support Saam 
classical_hero
In whom I trust
I would like to nominate myself for this position and accept. I want to be SaaM's deputy. He did a good job as Deputy and would like to follow in his footsteps.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
A question for the candidates:
how much would u be willing to give to get peace in our current war? or would u not make peace until we could break even or get stuff?
how much would u be willing to give to get peace in our current war? or would u not make peace until we could break even or get stuff?
Stuck_as_a_Mac
Aptenodytes forsteri
Heh.. never had someone run to be my deputy before. thats sweet.
As per the question: I believe that we are in a position to not have to pay anything for peace in this war, and that is if we ever come to it. I'm going to be optimistic and say that we hopefully may eliminate one or both of the civs we are playing against. If we do not eliminate them, then we will at least gain from making peace. We have already dealt them blows and that means the ballance is swinging towards us in the favor of a profitable peace. Would there be a sudden swing and we were for some reason forced to pay for peace, I believe that it should be done if and ONLY if it were in our best interests. If we were about to mass a counterassault, no. No peace then. If not, then peace at the price of gold and techs and maps would be acceptable to me. However, cities should only be dealt if the situation is grim. And even then, no core. Only cities we can afford to loose.
Hope that answers the Q.
Vote SaaM
Because he wants the job, not the deputyship
As per the question: I believe that we are in a position to not have to pay anything for peace in this war, and that is if we ever come to it. I'm going to be optimistic and say that we hopefully may eliminate one or both of the civs we are playing against. If we do not eliminate them, then we will at least gain from making peace. We have already dealt them blows and that means the ballance is swinging towards us in the favor of a profitable peace. Would there be a sudden swing and we were for some reason forced to pay for peace, I believe that it should be done if and ONLY if it were in our best interests. If we were about to mass a counterassault, no. No peace then. If not, then peace at the price of gold and techs and maps would be acceptable to me. However, cities should only be dealt if the situation is grim. And even then, no core. Only cities we can afford to loose.
Hope that answers the Q.
Vote SaaM
Because he wants the job, not the deputyship
- Status
