Minister of Imperial Expansion campaign thread - Page 2

Harovan · July 8, 2002, 08:21

Papa Chubby,

the answer is, as soon as there will be an alternative with better land than we have now. Aggressive and domestic expansion shall go hand in hand, they can not be divided in the early game, or we will remain a small banana republic. We can not compete with 2 close AIs on Emperor. They always will outproduce us with their production and growth boni. So we will have to take their cities, to (auto-)raze others, and in the gaps settle with our own settlers.

I use this strategy in my own games. I eagerly switch to builder as soon as I see, that I have the biggest slice of the pie. But until then, I let my armies go, with settlers in their footsteps. It's always a challenge to integrate cities built by the AI with my own build pattern, especially for the Imperial Expansion office.

UnOrthOdOx · July 8, 2002, 09:23

Sir Ralph, as one of the authors of case pink, has shown that he is indeed quite capable at this position. He has my full support, even should that mean I am hunted by the UFC

Robber Baron · July 8, 2002, 09:49

If we install Sir Ralph, is there any chance he could transplant that kick@$$ city he built in the tourney game over to our sleepy subcontinent?

Jonny · July 8, 2002, 09:58

Papa Chubby: I will support buliding new cities when we have decent land to build them on. This probably means after we have taken out the Americans.

Captain · July 8, 2002, 10:39

Sir Ralph is a very knowledgable person who has shown his worth many times, in the War Academy and developing Case Pink. As a private citizen, he has done great things for us. I think it would be foolish of us as a people not to have him in elected office where his expanded powers could be put to even better use.

As I have not had time yet to search ALL the threads in the past few days, I'd like to ask Candidates:

What are your plans and policies regarding a POST-Case Pink/Blue-Plan Eagle situation?

What are your goals and how do you intend to achieve them, in a post-war environment?

UnOrthOdOx · July 8, 2002, 10:40

I fully believe, also, that if Sir Ralph had been elected during the first term, we would be in a better position today. The 'red' and 'blue' cities from case pink would already have been built, and although not this positions duty, he would have likely advocated not building the second worker and instead focused on getting the third city faster. Look back through our history, he was proposing this now widely accepted plan from the beginning. He is, IMO the most qualified. Especially given our terrain.

Harovan · July 8, 2002, 12:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
What are your plans and policies regarding a POST-Case Pink/Blue-Plan Eagle situation?

What are your goals and how do you intend to achieve them, in a post-war environment?

Well, as I said before, I'd like to see one of the AI capitals (probably Washington) later as our FP city, but it would be good to see a bit more of the map first, to plan an optimal P/FP shape. I intend to close the breach, that our brave archers made, quickly with own settlers, to take advantage from the rush. City placements highly depend on the terrain and what cities could be captured, razed or gained for peace, so no statement meanwhile.

About city spacing, I will try and see to use a mixed approach. In poor terrain, we can build tighter. But I also will strive to locate a couple of future powerhouses, with the optimal mix of fertile land and hills.

I will prepare maps with well-thought future city sites, explain the future perspectives for each city (power city, support center for quick buildup, temporary military camp etc.) and let the citizenship of Apolytonia decide.

Papa Chubby · July 8, 2002, 12:54

I´l vote for Sir Ralph, mainly because what he says makes sense and that he seems very proficient in Civ3, at least that is indicated by how he speaks about it. Another reason for voting for him is that he seems to be constantly explaining something to me, gotta respect that.

UnOrthOdOx · July 8, 2002, 12:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Papa Chubby
Another reason for voting for him is that he seems to be constantly explaining something to me, gotta respect that.

Yes, he has been very gracious with those of us with less experience. He (and a few others, NYE comes to mind...) has made me a far better player.

Will 5001 · July 8, 2002, 13:23

Looks like I have lost the election and its only Tuesday, Maybe Ralph would be better off in a more prestigious post (vice president for example

).

Anyway in response to Papa Chubby- I say that we start to use our own settlers whenever we get the chance to acquire good land though non-military expansion and we are not under threat. This means after the war with America, then we can see how much of a threat France is (especially when they get Musketeers, long way off right now). Then perhaps after the war with France, we will be in a stable and powerful position to expand where there would be little challenge to our settlers marching onwards!

GodKing · July 8, 2002, 17:32

Cannnn't run...
Gonna be workin to much with construction season marchin forward...
Cannot make any of the chats....
Ouch.....
Oh well, perhaps I will be appointed as a judge, where all I will have to do is watch and read and sit on my arse occasionally...

How many of you will be able to make the chats? If not, how do you plan on having your job perform if you are not there?

Good Luck All. Tough vote. Gonna have to think this one over....

Jonny · July 8, 2002, 19:53

Captain: After we take out whoever we attack first, we should send in our settlers to build new cities.

We would build new cities at good sites that we could send settlers to after the war, but couldn't earlier, and sites where foreign cities used to be that we razed or were auto-razed.

I would follow no set city-spacing pattern. I would place them in the places that would make them most efficent.

While building the new cities, we should heal and increase our army, in prepreation for our next attack.

We should hold off on building FP or moving the capital until we know more about our continent.

Will 5001 · July 9, 2002, 04:28

I disagree, I think that we need to build the FP away from our starting location since we aren't going to be building any more cities around there. Then if we discover any more prime land or we decide to go to war again we can always jump our palace, that way we get minimum corruption at critical stages of the game where the governments create high corruption levels.

Harovan · July 9, 2002, 04:43

The FP should be prebuilt as soon as we get noticed ("People want to build..."). In order to get it ready in a reasonable time, this should occur somewhere in the zone of maximal 50% corruption. Guess, Washington would be a good place, although it would be better to see more of the map first. As far as I can see by now, a P/FP axis Washington-SomewhereInPersia looks promising.

If we are lucky to get a leader very soon, we can either rush the FP in Washington or we could pick on another civ, finish the FP in Washington and move our capital to this other civ.

In all cases it's good to have a FP as soon as it is possible, for the sake of productivity. What effect do we have from better terrain in America, if the cities there are at least half corrupt?

Jonny · July 10, 2002, 13:12

***bump***

Will 5001 · July 11, 2002, 16:20

Well, the election is tommorow. Good luck to Sir Ralph and Jonny, may the best man win!

Harovan · July 11, 2002, 18:10

Yes, for the sake of our empire. Good luck to you too.

Jonny · July 11, 2002, 18:28

I wish good luck to my opponents.

Kuciwalker · July 11, 2002, 20:52

Despite the fact that I'm in the UFC, I have to say that I think Sir Ralph is the best candidate. He has firmly established his competence throughout the game and would be a great Minister.

Will 5001 · July 12, 2002, 03:17

I agree, but we must give the voters a choice, right?