Who should we take on next? (reassessment)

[Chieftess]

The Iroquois are marching into the Russian heartlands, so our hopes of attacking Russia become all the more difficult. Why? Because all of the Russian borders cities with us have been captured! We'd need to go through Babylon, and even if we did take some Russian cities, the question is, can we hold them?

So, this is what I think:

America - They have a sole possible buffer city incase the Persians conquer England (England IS shrinking slowly). If we take America, we'll have the Persians to deal with soon. On the plus side, they have some productive cities that we could use. They do have a few troops (including a knight being chased by a horde of Bab riflemen) at the Babylonian border. (probably from Denver). Their culture is slightly higher than ours, but not by much, we we can hold their cities.

Iroquois - They seem almost a bit overextended going into Russia (no new troops). Their economy could possibly be spent on the war. Plus, they also have some productive lands around our FP. We have more culture than the Iroquois (more like 7:6 in our favor). Invading them would put us right next to Babylon.

Russia - These guys are being beaten back. Attacking them means going through Babylon, and holding cities by their border. Russia only has 7 cities left, and lost 6 to the Iroquois. Our culture is much greater than theirs, so holding them from the Russians isn't a problem. Holding them from Babylon is.

Babylon - The cultural powerhouse. However, their culture IS DECLINING!!!! We were just in a war with them, and didn't get much, but several Babylonian colonies (and a homefront city) were razed. Holding them would be tricky.

China - They lay to our south, across the jungle, and currently have a large expedition headed through former Indian territory (now ouirs), headed by 2 Cavalry armies that are going to Babylon. We should use them to raze some more Babylonian cities. We have more than twice as much culture, so holding their cities shouldn't be a major problem, but, their cities could be corrupted.

England - They are VERY weak, with size 1-6 cities. We need them as a Persian buffer state.

France - Much stronger than England, we need them as a Persian buffer state.

Greece - They're our main source of trade, being the ONLY commercial trait civ still in power. (India is all but dead).

Persia - Our arch-enemy of the game. They're too far for now...

Inida - They only have 1 city. Take it, and we suffer a rep hit.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I think if we were to take on anyone, it should be the Iroquois. We could easily grab to ex-Russian cities as they are probably only guarded by cavalry. Another plus to that would be that those cities with join us with no resistance, since they are still populated with friendly Russian citizens.

The question is: are we willing to take on the rest of Iroquois Nation to facilitate this? I say that if we were to do this, we should make a focused attack on the former Russian cities while defending our borders. And there is a lot of border to defend, with our cities in New India being the most susceptible.

So, in a nutshell, we need to weigh risk versus reward on this one. And I believe that a focused war against the Iroquois is the only one we should consider at this time.

 

[Cyc]

That's a good point. Something else to consider is that once those Russian cities are taken by the Iroquois they become target of the Bab Culture. What is the possibility of the Babs taking everything the Iro's win back with Culture?

 

[Chieftess]

And that means depleted Iroquois forces.

 

[Feodor Ardent]

Given that we are already aiming for about 20 turns of Factory/infrastructure production, I would hope we can avoid any additional wars. However, possible candidates:

1) China -- best candidate for attacking us. If they do, we should beat them back into the Wasserwald (rainforest) and leave them there until we get our Panzers.

2) Iroquois -- we have a dangerously convoluted border and something nasty could spring up. However, we are better served aiming for cultural pressure at this time.

3) America -- Best candidate for outright conquest, but ask again in 20 turns.

4) Everyone else. Either helpless, useful, or too far away to bother with until we have motorized transport.

In either case, we need to keep up a steady upgrading of muskets and transfer of riflemen to the western border cities. We've been in India for almost 300 years and we are still holding it down with cav an knights.

 

[Cheetah]

I think we should take on the Iroquois if any. Keeping a weak Russia alive could always serve to something, and the Russian cities we want are already captured by the Iroquois. I say we take them for ourself and then take a few Iroquois cities as well. But I dont think we should invade the entire Iroquois nation.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

I think we should stop worrying about another war and focus on internal issues at home, which means the road and rail system irrigation improvements, getting ourselves to our UU (so we can then roll over our most hated enimies) and last but not least and the best reason. We try and stop worrying about the fules and focus more on the game itself

 

[Chieftess]

This is just informational, and long term. I agree with building up our infrastructure. That's why I didn't put a date - not to mention, FA would have to do that.

 

[Octavian X]

I'm all for going for America: they have been a thorn in our side , what with Denver and all.

I will agree with Feodor, though. With our Golden Age, we should get some factories, hospitals, banks, marketplaces, universities, etc. As soon as the Age is over, shoot Lincoln's hat off...

 

[donsig]

We are certainly in no position right now to attack anyone. If we ever do get into a position to fight again we should attack who ever owns those cities near our forbidden palace.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by donsig
We are certainly in no position right now to attack anyone. If we ever do get into a position to fight again we should attack who ever owns those cities near our forbidden palace.

I agree. We should spend the golden age building improvements that will help our economic and science output, and then maybe fight one more war to take those cities, and then possibly switch to democracy.

 

[Chieftess]

eh emm... I said this isn't right now, but in the longer term. It seems everyone has a problem with long term planning in this game.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Chieftess
eh emm... I said this isn't right now, but in the longer term. It seems everyone has a problem with long term planning in this game.

Well, CT, we did some long term planning a long time ago and decided to be an aggressive conquering nation. That seems to have gone by the wayside. We even had a poll about switching to democracy and the result was that we never wanted that form of government. But there is still talk of overthrowing our beloved monarchy.

As for the specific long term planning you seek in this thread, unless we take measures to get our military up to par and then make it stronger beyond that, there is no sense in planning our next *victim* because someone will be attacking us!

 

[Feodor Ardent]

Hmmm . . . If we have 56 rifles and 45 cavalry, what else is needed to bring us up to par? We've certainly got everyone hopelessly outgunned except the distant Persians.

Of course, about 30-40 cannon scattered appropriately around the map would make me feel a lot more secure, but I've found myself in a distinct minority in that respect.

 

[Plexus]

I think that an armament of 10-20 cannons would be a bit more realistic, Feodor. Donsig, don't worry about the size of our military, we are doing fine.

 

[Octavian X]

Actually, along with improvements during our golden age, I'd also like to pump out a decent number of cannons for upgrade. Feodor's urging for very big guns is a good one.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Feodor Ardent
Hmmm . . . If we have 56 rifles and 45 cavalry, what else is needed to bring us up to par? We've certainly got everyone hopelessly outgunned except the distant Persians.

Of course, about 30-40 cannon scattered appropriately around the map would make me feel a lot more secure, but I've found myself in a distinct minority in that respect.

Have you counted the number of pikemen we have? Last time I checked we had 3 spearmen as well. 30 or 40 cannon would not make me feel any more secure. I also don't see the point in churning them out for uprgrading later when we won't even upgrade those blasted pikes.

While we may have any one country outgunned, what happens if more than one decides to attack us at the same time? in any event what we have is not enough to go picking any fights, now or later.

 

[GenMarshall]

I would say first we take into account our Units and resources. If we have enough, we can whipe down a civ (But leave them one city)

 

[Ehecatl Atzin]

Taking into consideration the need of improvements both in our military and domestic fronts, I think the most likely candidate is the States. We've expanded quite alot to the west, while Persia is dominating the east, we need to have our foot in the door over there. Besides, The South Doughnut Coast can do with a little expansion

EA

 

[Feodor Ardent]

While we may have any one country outgunned, what happens if more than one decides to attack us at the same time?

The late Kaiser Wilhelm of the old German Empire was prone to blurting out whatever bumptious thought came into his head, which made him a poor diplomat. While in Switzerland he was treated to a display of marksmenship by the Swiss army, and the winner of the shooting contest was brought to speak with him. In reply to a question about the quality of Swiss infantry, the soldier humbly said something to the effect that there were perhaps 200,000 men in the army as good with a rifle as he was.

Kaiser Wilhelm, ever prone to making comparisons. than said: "Ha, yes, 200,000 of you. But what would you do if I sent 400,000 German grenadiers over your borders?"

The diplomats all around, both German and Swiss, all choked and turned pale, but the soldier calmly replied: "Your Highness, if that were to occur, then we would all need two bullets."