Ceasefire with Americans?

Ben Kenobi · October 27, 2003, 03:52

Citizen sparrowhawk has suggested a most machiavellian plan to destabilise the American Democracy. He suggests that we meet with their leader and sign a temporary cease fire with every intention of breaking it should it become inconvenient.

Then, with the ceasefire in place we will begin to occupy American territory with units. The hope is that if we put enough pressure on the cities, the Americans will bust the ceasefire and thus bring the downfall of their government once the Senate catches wind of their loose cannon President.

My opinion, Prussian that I am is to just steamroll over their last few cities, rather than having the Americans bring about their own downfall.

What say the people? Do they prefer the Austrian or the Prussian approach to dealing with the Americans?

duke o' york · October 27, 2003, 08:59

I don't see the need to fanny around with cease-fires, however good the plan is. We aren't in a position where the need to make a quick peace treaty will become vital so our reputation will have no bearing on the rest of the game. We'd only be prolonging our victory if we start the diplomatic two step with either the Greeks or the Americans. It'll be quicker - and far more fun - to just crush them like the insects they are!

cavebear · October 27, 2003, 11:49

After some additional thought (and Sparrowhawk's excellent summary of possible outcomes), I think there would be no harm and some potential benefit to trying this.

We can try to arrange a cease-fire, and if it is accepted (and the Americans have offered one on several ocassions) and have Dips positioned to bribe their cities immediately. If they refuse, no harm to us.

My guess is they will not accept a ceas-fire unless we take a city of theirs, but you never know. We have Dips near Bombay, New Orleans, and Denver, and only Los Angeles to find.

I say we try it.

Sparrowhawk · October 27, 2003, 18:40

I am pleased the our Foreign Minister choose to poll the citizens on this request, and as Cavebear pointed out, I see no drawback to this plan, and no reason why not to try it. (I have given my summary of possible outcomes in the Tale of the Years thread ?1824-1834? )

Truly you will make a great President Ben Kenobi and one who listens to the words of the people.

Whoever nominated you was wise indeed

:P

/me

shade · October 27, 2003, 19:16

Love the idea(and hope it works)

1 question to our foreign minister: is it ok if I ask the ppl to go to (active)war with russia, or will you do a poll on that yourself( then I'll ignore my results)

Shade

Ben Kenobi · October 27, 2003, 21:44

I consider this Russian attack an affront on our good conscience, and I expect you to show them the folly of their decision.

Unless the people object, I say we go to an active war, which you get to direct.

You're not stepping on my toes, you are just trying to figure out where we need to send our troops. The Russians did all the diplomacy.

shade · October 28, 2003, 06:37

Quote:

You're not stepping on my toes, you are just trying to figure out where we need to send our troops. The Russians did all the diplomacy.

Just wanted to make sure...

Thanks for the support.

Shade

Sparrowhawk · October 29, 2003, 21:04

Just thought I would add the note that I think this should also be used with the Greeks. However, this poll is on the Americans, and I agree that if we are unsuccessful at implementing it with the Americans that we do not have to try it with the Greeks (though I really hope we do anyhow

)

Ben Kenobi · October 30, 2003, 01:03

We have to learn to walk before we can run.

We don't even have a ceasefire with anyone yet!

Ljube · October 30, 2003, 02:20

I don't support a ceasefire with Greeks, cause they are notorious for their sneak attacks regardless of the government.

Let's first test the idea with the Americans.

duke o' york · October 30, 2003, 06:58

But the plan is to get them to sneak attack! The Greeks would appear to have an advantage if that is the case. However, I think we should try this out on the weaker civ first, but I still disagree with the idea!

We are the mightiest civ this bizarrely-shaped world has ever seen and we should be subjugating the heathens with the strength of our armies, not messing about so that we can buy their cities. If we can buy their cities then great, but I don't want to have to wait to do it! Taking Bombay might cause a change of government anyway. Let's smash them to pieces and then see what happens.

Ben Kenobi · October 30, 2003, 19:17

Quote:

We are the mightiest civ this bizarrely-shaped world has ever seen and we should be subjugating the heathens with the strength of our armies, not messing about so that we can buy their cities.

Unfortunately, the majority does not agree with us, so we now have to try this scheme. I completely agree with your approach, but we are in a minority, we few Prussians in a land of Austrians.

atawa · October 30, 2003, 23:05

But was it our goal to destroy those pests outside our borders or to have non stop celebrations in our city's while our soldiers are dying in the field?

Give the army another 30 cannons and 30 engineers and the war will soon be over

Seriously, all we have to do now is build railroads to the Greek and German core and build loads of cannons and engineers. I understand that this is not everyone's ideal game but it is the most effective means of ending this war

MrWhereItsAt · October 31, 2003, 01:07

Hmm, counting me as another Prussian voter, that makes far more than actually voted.

/me looks at the Prussians

Who didn't vote?