Term2 Nominations for Consul of External Policy

[Icmancin]

there are some other candidates

Sorry Nobody, but mad-bax has a strong point. Not saying that yours isn't...


Anyway for the question.

We cannot depreive India of its iron diplomaticly, as the AI will only trade if it has excess and we have our own. Iron is always the lifeblood of a nations military in the Ancient Age and early Medieval for always-at-war players. I hope that the government will not be overrun by warmongerers. Add horses to iron plus tech to the mixture and you've got a decent chance of a strong military.

Really to deprieve our... ahem... enemies of the iron resources we must first target India (To let everyone know I am not anti-Indian. It just seems they are the under-dog in this scenario). The iron is within sight from our borders. It would be wise to strike while India has no road connected or is in the stage of started to use the iron. But first the political front...

India is surrounded by Fannatannia and the Netherlands. India and the Netherlands seem to be prime targets for our former/current politicians. India is (in my sight) the easiest to defeat in conflict and (if elected) I plan to make a blitzkreig/test war on India, depreive it off its iron and keep it huddled in the corner so we can focus on the Dutch giant.

Before our assault we must isolate India politically (much like Hitler did to Poland. BTW I loathe Nazis). I suggest delaying our attack until we make good relations (temporairly (whoah I suck at spelling)) with our Dutch neighbours so they would be less liable to attack India.

I dont have the v 1.22 patch yet but I will have it tomorrow. Ill get more up-to-date with the years tomorrow. Until then....

VOTE ICMANCIN

EDIT- What in the world was I thinking? Less liable to attack India I meant less liable to stand up for the Indians and attack us!

 

[mad-bax]

I have posted an argument for war vs India before war vs the Dutch >>HERE<<

And I have posted a preliminary battle plan >>HERE<< , which would be subject to the scrutiny of the Commander of the Armed forces, naturally.

If the plan is successful there will be two 6 turn wars with a break of 5 turns between them.

 

[Icmancin]

Interesting...

We can agree on one thing: A Dutch before Indian campaign would be a failure.

Your battle plan is well laid, but I still prefer a more cautious approach on the Dutch front. I support the Blitzkreig effect on India but i have my doubts on the Dutch... We all know what happen to the Schlieffen Plan don't we?

It has a good chance that the blitz will work on the Dutch BUT...

I do not plan to just leave with some more resources and more cities. I want to leave the Dutch and Indians militaristicly shattered (hence the longer campagin).

In theory, a long war would drive the Dutch resources to military, stunting expansion. It would happen to us as well but the Dutch aren't planing to be attacked are they?

Capture The Hague and Groningen and draw the Dutch into the open. If we sustane a large army AND continued expansion we will eventually beat the Dutch. They will shift to building up strength, thus lowering possible science and settling. They will constantly attempt an assault on their captured terrain but if we have a reserve ready we could beat them before they reach the city. Slowly and painfully they will begin to decline.

 

[Ulyaoth]

I'll pull my nomination of myself then. I think I'll just watch this term.

 

[Bertie]

You did that on purpose.

Who?












ME?

Another visit to the school ma'am for you me lad.

RL is piling on at the moment, but yes, I do believe the Schoolmarm may take an active interest before long. Though I dunno how I'm going to fit a bax of matches into things . . .

 

[Bertie]

Question for all candidates:

Mad-bax proposes not seeking complete destruction of the Indians or the Dutch.

What are the arguements for and against this?

And for candidates other than mad-bax:

What would your policy be?

 

[Nobody]

Question for all candidates:

Mad-bax proposes not seeking complete destruction of the Indians or the Dutch.

What are the arguements for and against this?

And for candidates other than mad-bax:

What would your policy be?

If you wage war against a neighbour it is far more advantogous to wipe them out. If you don't you will be sourrounded by small hostile nations who will never get over there anger. e.g. Irouois and zulu from last game. and later on if you want to send troops over seas you must always be weary of sneak attacks at home. Now im not saying that if im elected i would wipe out the Indians and Dutch. I would hold discussions and offical polls on if we should wage war. if we do (or we are attacked) i will poll what peace conditions we should accept or if we wipe them out.

Sorry Nobody, but mad-bax has a strong point. Not saying that yours isn't...

Fuhgetaboutit

..................................

Basicly people if you vote for my competitors you are voting for war against India. If you vote for me you will have the option to democraticly decide when we go to war, and if we shale

A VOTE FOR NOBODY, IS A VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY

 

[Ulyaoth]

Basicly people if you vote for my competitors you are voting for war against India. If you vote for me you will have the option to democraticly decide when we go to war, and if we shale

A VOTE FOR NOBODY, IS A VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY

Yes, but isn't the point of voting for people to vote for those who share your views and let them handle it, and if they end up not following as they promised, then you just don't re-elect them? Kind of useless to elect people who are supposed to be representing us if we still have to vote on each thing ourself.

 

[Icmancin]

Question for all candidates:

Mad-bax proposes not seeking complete destruction of the Indians or the Dutch.

What are the arguements for and against this?

And for candidates other than mad-bax:

What would your policy be?

I do not want the Dutch and Indians destroyed. There would be no reason to. But if we keep them alive without doing a significant amount of damage our decisions could come back to haunt us. IF we do enough damage to keep them in a poor city, possibly surrounded, they will be practicly part of Fannatannia (Such as Formosa (Taiwan) is to China. Also the poor Tibetans). They will have no choice but to fall in to our demands.

I don't play by wipeing out (or annexing) my eneies unless they are really annoying. So far that is not an option.

 

[Nobody]

Yes, but isn't the point of voting for people to vote for those who share your views and let them handle it, and if they end up not following as they promised, then you just don't re-elect them? Kind of useless to elect people who are supposed to be representing us if we still have to vote on each thing ourself.

Ummm.... from what i understand of the demogame, that is not the way we elect our positions, we elect the best person to do the job, and they carry out the will of the people. other wise we could just elect people at the start of the month and just sit back and watch.