War Acadmy: Persia instead of France?

[GoodFella]

I've been thinking that we might just be able to pull of a successful against Persia instead of France. So far, their only source of iron is not connected and outside of their borders. They are also still REX mode. I'm thinking if we manage to forge an alliance with Germany (whom I believe has already fought a war against Persia) we could take away their iron and their ability to train immortals, strengthen our eastern borders, and cripple Persia for the rest the game. I think it could be done. Think about it.

[Epistax]

You think germany and persia have fought? (We weren't first? ) Is there some evidence of this? (swapped cities)

I'd have to check a map but I think the after effect of the war would simply be delaying them because they are too far to hold cities-- they are farther than france, right? Damn where are the maps. Nevermind now I'm hungry.

[Inverse Icarus]

we saw persian warriors in german territory take damage but win barely.

(probably not a barbarian thing)

[Spiffor]

You can find maps there : http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=57323

[Vlad Antlerkov]

OTOH, what if they really are at war with each other? It'd be better to stay out of the way and let them wear each other down (unless one gets a huge upper hand over the other, or if they're in our path of expansion).

[Ninot]

In my humle opinion.....

YES! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD YES!

I hate the idea of war with our best trade partners. It lacks any foresight for the future of our trades.

Persia would be a much better target IMHO.

[GodKing]

What do they have that we want?

We want french wine.

French territory is close to our center of mass, thus less corruption.

We can probably take on almost anybody we want in the next 20 odd turns. But before we do so, we would need to know why. What are the objectives (plan gold is developing very clear objectives, what cities to capture, peace treaty minimums, etc.)? Their land doesn't appear to have any significant rewards in comparison to frances.

[Aggie]

Though persia is tempting, i think war with france is much better and will give us extra area that will have only one enemy(greece) adjacent to. Also it will open expansion southward. We would gain at least 3 maybe as many as 6 cities and their corruption would be low. We could also settle southwar and gain real land. Additionally the french would cease to be a threat.
On the other hand a war with persia would a a drawn out affair during whick time they could bring any number of countries in against us. Any land we take would have germany,england AND persia border and would be hopelessly corrupt. the best thing to do is build temple/defence in uber and thensend a few units there, perhaps 3spear/2arch to secure it. Then be friendly with persia. War with persia would be costly with little real gain. Thus as they say in football, upon further review the play stands.
Aggie
Aggie

[GhengisFarb™]

Persia would be a safer bet from a defensive stand, we don't create any new borders or open ourselves to easy assaults from as many new civs.

By annexing France we effectively put ourselves within attack range of no less than four new civs.

Persia also gives us grassland near the coast for future naval expansion and colonies.

If necessary we could later move the capital to Ubergorsk or Munich (which is predestined for our glorious Apolytonia).

[Robber Baron]

Persia looks to me to be a looong way off. Any cities we took would be ruined by corruption (unless we got a great leader -- but that's a long shot). And our invading military troops woud be exposed at the end of a very long supply chain. To attack in force, we'd have to strip our defenses everywhere and send them far from our cities, leaving us vulnerable to attack from a third civ (I can just see Germany swooping down).

As I see things, we still need to consolidate fertile territory and resources -- and nearby, too, so that we can hold it. Which means taking on either France or Greece or Germany.
I still favor France, since it will put up less of a fight, and direct our expansion (and future heartland) away from Germany and the Aztecs. I agree it would be great to be able to cut off the Persians from iron -- but right now we need to think about which war would secure the best territory and resources.

[Harovan]

Persia is a lousy target for now. We can get some halfway productive cities from France, from Persia only corrupt ones.

[adaMada]

I believe we must prepare plans for a defensive war against Persia, but as for large scale conquest, I say we wait until France is ours... After France, we'll be a much more powerful empire, and (with good strategic planing and ample forces) there's no reason to think we can't take Persia then.

-- adaMada

[Donal Graeme]

IMO, I think that the best shot we have at winning a war right now is against France. And the benefits will be much greater, far more productive cities that are easier to defend. However, it is also my opinion that we should not kill off or even cripple France. We should figure out what cities we want and can use, and leave them the rest. With luck, Joan will build a new border below the great rift that will keep the other civilizations below at bay. Also, Joan would probably make the best neighbor we could have.

[Spiffor]

Although Persia has merits (3 incense + 3 spices, already connected), I don't think we should attack it. We need quick and decisive wars, because we'll be outproduced during long wars. That's what Uber's strategy does with France (getting their most important cities at the same time).
But Persepolis is a long way, even with galleys, and attacking the petty Persian towns neighbouring us will not force Xerxes to accept peace.
Our best strategic option for now is to attack France, but I think e shouldn't finish them after : it's a very convenient stamp-state between us and Romans / Iroqs / Russians.
I think we should get the best possible relations with France once we conquered them, with massive gifts (such as our excedent wines), and permanent diplomatic goodwill once Paris is ours.

[Harovan]

Don't rely on AI civs as buffer states. That is a fallacious feeling of security and not an argument at all not to cripple France. The AIs have always RoPs with each other and do nothing to hinder other AIs to attack us. Still my opinion is, we don't wait till they attack and attack ourselves. We shall be the biggest fish and we decide, when war is and when peace.

By the way: If we don't violate trade or per turn treaties and declare war in time, we always can make alliances or sign embargoes even with civs we attacked before and who are furious towards us. To wage a war does not hit your reputation at all, if you don't sneak attack or abuse treaties. Your only penalty is, that Joan doesn't smile anymore in the diplo screen. Hell, who cares about the attitude of a lousy data structure in the computer's memory?

[Guardian]

No, no, no, no... NO!

Persia is too far away from our heartland at this point. The war would take too long, cost too much, and we'd have little to gain from it in the foreseeable future. With France, we can have another quick and decisive victory, and then we'll consolidate our position and take it from there.

[Max]

Enough with bananas: Persia meens more jungle and thus more bananas.
Let's colonize a fertile territory and get wine that our people can enjoy!

I'm personnaly fed up with bananas: banana cake, banana pie, banana marmelade, pizza with banana, banana split... ENOUGH.

Still we will soon have a problem with persian immortals. How are we supposed to deal with this ? Any plan ?

[Spiffor]

Plan : more units in Ubergorsk
Founding a city N of Ubergorsk to contain Persian expansion
Getting along with Xerxes (since we built an embassy, he's cautious towards us)

[Shiber]

It looks as though by the time Persia gets iron we'll already have a few swordsmen of our own. If we play our cards right we might delay Persia enough to reach the next era before they even get their iron, and then their immortals will soon become outdated by knights.