Acceptance of Plan Eagle

[disorganizer]

abstain would be a fine option here, but either im blind or you forgot to put it there ;-)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by disorganizer
abstain would be a fine option here, but either im blind or you forgot to put it there ;-)

Or you don't have to vote either way. All abstain does is take up another line (unless it's a lame issue, and people won't care either way). This is more important, so the majority of people will have an opinion one way or the other, so an 'abstain' option isn't as necassary.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Well, an abstain could be seen as a protest vote of sorts, so that if someone is unhappy with all the choices, or they are protesting the poll/ideas themselves, they can still show up as a number - since no-one can tell how many do not vote.

There needs to be some kind of "protest" or "abstain" option.

[FrustratedPoet]

Isn't "No" a protest vote?

[UnOrthOdOx]

I am with Sir Ralph on this, we must tak full advantage of what we conquer. Without settlers ready, we will only be oening terrain for another civ. They will also likely have gold, tech, and workers we could "bargain" for at the peace table. They may even give us a city or two for us to halt our advance. Cities that otherwise would be razed...

We can eliminate them when they no longer have anything of value...

[Robber Baron]

As long as we get a good-sized patch of territory to work with.
And I would add one (enormous) caveat: if we need to prolong the war in order to get territory or a city with horses, we should do it.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
As long as we get a good-sized patch of territory to work with.
And I would add one (enormous) caveat: if we need to prolong the war in order to get territory or a city with horses, we should do it.

Why prolong the war? Sue for peace, gain tech/cities/cash, and use those 20 turns to form your annihilation army (or reinforcements to attack someone else) 20 turns over, renegotiate for peace and let it fail. No reputation hit, no fuss, no American forces make it near our homeland...

[Robber Baron]

I was just imagining a scenario in which we get NY and Washington, spare America, and end up with territory that contains no resources. So that in 20 turns, we might face a now wary enemy with iron and/or horsemen.
If one more city just outside of our grasp gives us either iron or horses, and if our attack force is more-or-less intact ....
Although OTOH, I agree we need to be careful about getting into a protracted war, absolutely. We can't afford not to start spending some turns doing some building as we come out of that war, and the war does have to be short and sweet. (Cripes, now I'm sounding like a bleedin' heart DIA )

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
I was just imagining a scenario in which we get NY and Washington, spare America, and end up with territory that contains no resources. So that in 20 turns, we might face a now wary enemy with iron and/or horsemen.
If one more city just outside of our grasp gives us either iron or horses, and if our attack force is more-or-less intact ....
Although OTOH, I agree we need to be careful about getting into a protracted war, absolutely. We can't afford not to start spending some turns doing some building as we come out of that war, and the war does have to be short and sweet. (Cripes, now I'm sounding like a bleedin' heart DIA )

Not DIA, just an intelligent UFC member, we can't win without building.
We will be able to see resources before the war, and therefore plan which cities accordingly. Why not leave them NY if something else has resources? Case pink/blue/im color blind anyway calls for a capitol to be taken, another city taken/razed, and a third (or more?) sued for. Just ensure they have no resources.

[Robber Baron]

Thanks, Unortho, on both points. I feel much better.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


We will be able to see resources before the war, and therefore plan which cities accordingly. Why not leave them NY if something else has resources? Case pink/blue/im color blind anyway calls for a capitol to be taken, another city taken/razed, and a third (or more?) sued for. Just ensure they have no resources.

Which means, by implication, that we shouldn't get too tied to an attack on New York at this stage. We need to keep our thinking flexible, and if we do proceed with a two-pronged attack and resources do appear once we get the prerequisite techs, we need to aim that second prong at the resource city.
Prong 1 should still strike at the capital, though, to stagger the enemy, cripple his response capability, and bring him on his knees to our capital to sue for peace.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Robber Baron


Which means, by implication, that we shouldn't get too tied to an attack on New York at this stage. We need to keep our thinking flexible,

YES!

"The warrior who is inflexible condemns himself to death" - Lao Tzu

[Aggie]

I do support this plan but maybe a slight difference could be made, to make better use of the turns. Perhaps we can build one stack as originally called for in case blue. We attack with that stack as the final elements of the other stack are nearing completion. We take washington. This will become a lighting rod and wall for the americans to throw themselves at and break apart on. Perhaps even post a spearman in their territory on a mountain. We can hold washington and perhaps get some elite archers. Now the second stack attacks where the americans are not concentrated. This delay would have the advantage of giving their new capital time to gain enough culture so as to not be razed. Just a suggestion, perhaps call this plan "case blue plus".
Aggie

[GoodFella]

I need to look at current maps, but I still think France would make the best target to go after first.

[Donal Graeme]

After quick re-examination of the map, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. We are being boxed in. With the Persians to the east, the Americans and Germans to the north, and the French and Greeks to the West, our great nation will soon not have any room to expand. We MUST knock out either the Americans or French to gain room.

2. The territory that the Americans control looks to be the most atractive available. Moutains plus flood plains equals lots of food and shields. Any cities we build there will gain strength and quickly. We can't afford to let the Americans hold a city near there. That is why we must knock them out in at least 20 turns after the first War, or they shall re-expand quickly.

3. NotyouEither is exactly right. If we do not take quick advantage of the terrain we occupy, someone else will. However, I disagree with him on not killing the Americans. Frankly, the only city we dare let them keep is New York, and that is their closest to us. But it also appears to be the most useless as well. Perhaps we should consider upgrading 1st Army, and eliminating 3rd Army and make 2nd Army a defensive one.

4. The Americans do not appear to have access to iron, which means their best offensive unit will be either a horseman or an archer. I bet archer. However, all of those mountains they have must be good for something, either coal or saltpeter or aluminum or uranium. Coal is not as much of a priority, as the jungle should be full of it.

5. While this is going on we will need to send a settler to creat a city to the east near the iron deposit on a mountain and near the dyes. We need access to iron, and dyes, and that spot is too far away for a colony, and too likely to be the spot for an enemy city.

Sorry to lay all of this on you Trip, but this is the situation at hand.