The Impending Annexation of America

[Aggie]

Well donegeal i am planning another war once i get our defense and offense ready. I won't agree to a timetable because I don't want to tie our hands. The likely target will be france, hopefully before muskets. The attack would be set up like this 2 5knights attacks hit Rheiems and Chartes and a 10knight forces attacks the french iron and mainland. But that is for WHEN we have the rquired forces. Another possiblity is a German war but that plan is top secret but generally includes taking Berlin southward. Of course greece with their wonders is also tempting so generally I am sure a major war will come, but not for alittle while. So basically I think we are following our current strategy of building up cities and armies and going to war. We just don't need our whole empire devoted to war, also remember the joy of the 100l upgrade from chariot to knight, that means less resources have to be committed to building knights.
One thing is I expect future wars (at least until the industrial age) to be quick strike affairs with knight then calvary later attacking quickly and then peace occuring in 5-10 trurns.
Aggie

[Duddha]

While my posts are usually radical and firery, I think many of you are painting my position a more radical color than it really is.

While it could be read that way, I am not arguing for an immediate war on France. I understand that Aggie needs time to build an army and that we should not go into war unprepared.
From Reddawg's post I got the impression that the builders would use this period of peace, after a war with America, to kill our momentum and make any future war impossible. We need a period of peace to build an army but I do not think we should stop fighting. Our position is still too weak and the beniefits of a future war with France or another are still very great. If we wait too long our advatage will be lost. The benefits of a long period of peace are small. Our fate is still tied with the fate of our army. No one can argue that our current success is not due to war, plain and simple.

I'm sorry there is nothing too specific in this post, I'm very tired. Hopefully someone else will lay out a more specific argument.

[Duddha]

One thing I do want to adress:

If we trigger a GA in our war with America we should not waste it on a period of peace. GAs are best spent fighting and expanding.

[Harovan]

Duddha: While I support further warfare, here I disagree with you. GA's are best spent building up infrastructure and catching up in the tech race.

[Reddawg]

I agree with SIr Ralph.

But I think my proposal was a bit misconstrued from the get-go: the Pax will not be a 100% builder period... quantitatively, it'll be like 75-25 instead of the current 50-50 or even 25-75. The army will be definitely kept up to speed, but it wont be out gallavanting around and getting killed! And we wont have to worry about foreigners coming in to destroy public works and capture workers.

[Arnelos]

Oddly enough, I think there's an unusual level of agreement (perhaps with the exception of truly committed pacifists) that we should use this "pax" period to prepare for a large war campaign in the future. That's where it seems that we have agreement (of a sort) across the builder-warrior split.

I think what Unortho pushed in terms of concentrating on PRODUCTION as much as science during our infrastructure build-up is also something everyone can probably agree on.

If Duddha is conceding that we shouldn't immediately go to war after America (not sure from his post if he is or not...), but rather spend at least *some* time building our infrastructure (at the very least to increase our *production* - which is absolutely vital to fighting continued wars), then it seems we have a agreement on A LOT, given the circumstances.

That said, here are what seem to be the issues still in contention:

1. Whether (for some) and, more specifically, *when* a given period of peaceful (or mostly peaceful) infrastructure development should lead to a return to dedicated warfare.

2. How much focus should be placed on science during our infrastructure development phase. Some argue that being on emperor level ultimately makes the endeavor a pointless waste of time. Others argue that our complete lack of scientific research dooms us to forever be behind in science, no matter how much fighting or trading we do.

3. Whether the GA is better spent in peacetime or wartime (or limited warfare accompanied by more of a concentration on infrastructure development for the city planner).

RESOLVING THE REMAINING ISSUES OF CONTENTION:

The first one is safely more long-term and that I think we can allow that one to be more thoroughly debated after we've resolved the other issues of contention.

More debate is needed on #2 and #3... I honestly don't think either side has given a *compelling* argument for WHY they're right in more meaningful terms than "because the other course is useless" with at least some minimal backup (I'm counting myself in this as well...). If we broke out the math, that would certainly be the most compelling way for one or the other (or it could simply lead us to realize that neither path is especially more compelling than the other ).

CONCLUSION:

Ultimately, this issue (whether to continue warfare of SOME sort through the GA or not) will likely have to come down to a poll vote. Until then, I think it needs more debate to see if we can bolster the arguments with more *substantive* support. I guess we should go ahead and start trying to iron out how that poll would be worded while we're at it though (though we have at least 1 turnchat or so before the issue becomes critical).

[GhengisFarb™]

I don't know about Emperor level, but on Diety you HAVE to build up your science output. Good science output is the most sure way to win on Diety.

[GePap]

I disagree with UnOrthO and XOR about the overall usefulness of strategy of blackmail for sceince. Lets take Otto: He has several large cities that might not be too prodcutiv, but giver him the money to buy luxuries from other players- plus the tech to bribe others to war against us. He also has good terrain for saltpeter, and you can bet your life he will get it much sooner than us. Then our knights will face musketmen- add to that the fact that he has various cities that can produce knights, and the situation becomes clear- we have won three wars in a row by picking on weak enemies, ususally lacking the resources to create modern armies. That is increasingly not true. Many of our future opponents will have iron, and horses, and saltpeter. War will no longer be cheap- besides, we are number one- that does not mean everyone else will sit back and not do anything against us- it means they will be likely to agree to join a war to take us down a notch.

Is it so far out of line to think, that if we go to war with germany, they could not get Rome and Greece, or Russia and other states to go to war with us? Yes, we sell dyes- but one lux is as good as any other- other states can sell other luxuries also.

America is weak, its alone- its yet another easy target- but aftre that, we will be left wth only one easy target, France (unless any proposes a sea invaion of babylon). The other won't be easy- we need to be able to win without war- because otherwise, we are in a bad spot.

[astrologix]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
We need to take Arbela and Antioch. We already have 2 French cities in the middle of our empire to worry about, there is no point in leaving a third enemy city (Antioch) to stab us in the back.

I fully agree with you, Ghengis, I simply did forget Antioch.

[astrologix]

Originally posted by Reddawg
The "specific # of turns" is actually just an attempt on my part to keep people from saying "ok we'll have a Pax" and then making it only one turnchat. It doesn't have to be five turnchats but if it's not at least like three then it's pointless.

I agree with you Reddawg.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Duddha: While I support further warfare, here I disagree with you. GA's are best spent building up infrastructure and catching up in the tech race.

And I fully agree with you Sir Ralph

Originally posted by GePap
............
America is weak, its alone- its yet another easy target- but aftre that, we will be left wth only one easy target, France (unless any proposes a sea invaion of babylon). The other won't be easy- we need to be able to win without war- because otherwise, we are in a bad spot.

Yes, GePap !

I would like to say that it would be a great challenge for us to win this game as a "gentlemen" empire. Now we are the best empire of the world. We don't need to fight all the time. This dislikes me.

Our size will allow us to build a great output of science and gold. Soon, we'll be able to win the technology race, if we build enough libraries, universities and so on.

Of course, in the future we need a good army, the best army if you wont, but we don't need to use it as "terrorists" against the world. I would prefer wait, while keeping it up to date, and only use it if others civs are forcing us agressively to do this.... or if the above pacifist strategy clearly fails.

[GodKing]

OK. Sounds like a plan is forming here.

Reddawg, as you started it, can you please compile this and set up some sort of poll or further discussion on specific points.

Regarding the Golden Age, we should use it IMO to a) catch up on our defence, which is very lacking and b) start a great push in our production capabilities, with secondary growth toward both culture and money. Science is still crap for now, and it is still cheaper to purchase - FOR NOW.

Soon we will have to take on the greeks and germans, so lets be sure to do so on an even footing in production and with a good, modern army. On the 380(?) save (last I have looked at) the greeks still had not bothered connecting to their iron, and hoplites are defensively equal to only pikes.

In this game (I prefere win by culture or diplomicy in my own on monarch usualy) with our crappy starting position and on emperor, I see us winning only by war - not til we own 1/2 this continent. Then shall we triumph.

[zeit]

Originally posted by GePap
I disagree with UnOrthO and XOR about the overall usefulness of strategy of blackmail for sceince. Lets take Otto: He has several large cities that might not be too prodcutiv, but giver him the money to buy luxuries from other players- plus the tech to bribe others to war against us. He also has good terrain for saltpeter, and you can bet your life he will get it much sooner than us. Then our knights will face musketmen- add to that the fact that he has various cities that can produce knights, and the situation becomes clear- we have won three wars in a row by picking on weak enemies, ususally lacking the resources to create modern armies. That is increasingly not true. Many of our future opponents will have iron, and horses, and saltpeter. War will no longer be cheap- besides, we are number one- that does not mean everyone else will sit back and not do anything against us- it means they will be likely to agree to join a war to take us down a notch.


America is weak, its alone- its yet another easy target- but aftre that, we will be left wth only one easy target, France (unless any proposes a sea invaion of babylon). The other won't be easy- we need to be able to win without war- because otherwise, we are in a bad spot.

i think GePaP is absolutely right, his point is a major case in the explanation of the outcome of WW2, as Richard overy writes in his book "Why the allies won". our state is much like germany in the time after the great successes of the blitz warfare, we achieved major victories over relatively weak enemies, and aqcuired many resources and much land, but if we would fail to exploit the great economical potential of the acquired land as germany failed to do, maintain a scattered industry (many smaller cities), keep falling behind in technology, and fight a war with a thinning defensive and support infrastructure (wars further and further from our industrial centers) as germany did in russia after it's first big push in 1941 and the begging of 1942, we would lose the war as germany did, or at least will have to settle for unprofitable outcome in the next major conflict.

In conclusion, we must improve our industry and exploit or newly acquired territories (and those from america), improve our tech, all the while maintaining our military force in adequate condition, switch to republic at the correct timing (as said, 2 turns after end of the persian war), a thing germany failed miserably- hitler's obssesive non-professional interference in the military and mitary research mangement, againt the efficent mangement of the aspects in the US, England and even Russia.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by GePap
I disagree with UnOrthO and XOR about the overall usefulness of strategy of blackmail for sceince. Lets take Otto: He has several large cities that might not be too prodcutiv, but giver him the money to buy luxuries from other players- plus the tech to bribe others to war against us. He also has good terrain for saltpeter, and you can bet your life he will get it much sooner than us. Then our knights will face musketmen- add to that the fact that he has various cities that can produce knights, and the situation becomes clear- we have won three wars in a row by picking on weak enemies, ususally lacking the resources to create modern armies. That is increasingly not true. Many of our future opponents will have iron, and horses, and saltpeter. War will no longer be cheap- besides, we are number one- that does not mean everyone else will sit back and not do anything against us- it means they will be likely to agree to join a war to take us down a notch.

America is weak, its alone- its yet another easy target- but aftre that, we will be left wth only one easy target, France (unless any proposes a sea invaion of babylon). The other won't be easy- we need to be able to win without war- because otherwise, we are in a bad spot.

I agree with the assessment, we have attacked weaker neighbors that had an unlikely chance of defended themselves against us. That is why we went to war.

America is in that position, and if we don't annex them, someone else will.

We need to take Rheims, Chartres, and it would be nice to extend our border into France somewhat if not go all the way to the coast. I would support taking the French highlands, increasing our chances of saltpeter and making France more likely to be dependent on another civ to be able to build their UU.

The only German city I crave, is Hamburg but I don't necessarily think its worth going to war over.

[Reddawg]

I dont support re-opening hostilities with France before the Pax...
but, I'll start a new thread with clarification of the points that are still in wide contention, and then hopefully we'll be ready to move to a poll.

[MrWhereItsAt]

/me emerges from University nightmares to add his take on things

I haven't seen the save yet, so I cannot make a call on when the Persian war should end, but it would make sense to do an analysis on which cities, if we took them, would be of little use to us from lack of resources and distance corruption. There would be no point in taking these now at the expense of perhaps several units that would be best employed elsewhere.

However, I agree with the idea of NOT immediately starting another campaign once we finally tire of Persian-hunting. Yes also to taking America with Persian war remnants, but if for some reason this takes longer than 2 chats of warfare, I believe we should quite while we are (hopefully) ahead. Then I too would like a shifted emphasis to an Apolyton Renaissance of sorts; perhaps we could date this period to from the fall of Persepolis and the relocation of skilled engineers and sages to Apolytonia proper? Libraries and Temples would be built, also Aqueducts and a huge Public Works project would be mapped out. BUT I do not believe we should restrict ourselves to ANY period of no-war. If an opportunity arises, we must take that opportunity and not be bound by any uninformed decisions from earlier on. Say for example the one source of Saltpeter available to any of our neighbours is held by France. As soon as we find this out, we must prepare to take it - this is an example of an opportunity too good to miss.

I do believe that any military action must be limited in extent, based wholly on getting in, taking what we want, and ending the war quickly. We cannot afford to slow down our economy any further now, and I believe, with a little rebuilding of the army, we will be able to take any such small opportunity without diverting resources from our Renaissance. Thus I would support a moratorium on all-out wars for 5 turnchats or so, but not a moratorium on initiated conflicts of LIMITED extent. We would have to of course have an option to change our minds in light of a really good opportunity, but thos would be decided when and if there were any such golden situations.

In short, I want America to be ours, a Renaissance of development of what we have where we switch to Republic (when we can support it), and as far as wars goes, flexibility. We can't make a decision now and say we have to stick by it. We can and should set or priorities on internal growth, but we cannot limit ourselves by any means. We still have a long way to go - once we have stopped acquiring Persian and American land we will soon drop out of the top spots unless we use what we have.

[Randolph]

Two points to think about
1) Right now we are in a 100% cash 0% science position (i.e. tech followers), switching to a position where we are producing science (i.e. competing in the tech race) can be a difficult transition. If we are going to switch (spend resources on libraries, and trade on science) we need to be sure that we will be competitive. The AI is probably researching at <10 turns/tech, and faster due to inter-AI trading. If we can’t hit (about) <=8 turns/tech there is no point in trying to compete, since before the industrial age (or perhaps late medieval the AI is generally will to sell tech a reasonable price (particularly if you have luxuries, like we do). Therefore perhaps we should focus on marketplaces/cash while we build up our infrastructure; we will lag in tech slightly but we will also have cash for rushing improvements. Trying to compete in tech then failing and being forced to revert back to a cash/buy strategy can be costly.
2) We want to make sure we time any ‘future conflicts’ so that the happen before or after the early industrial age. It would be silly to follow a ‘builder’ strategy during the mid/late medieval, only to be ‘ready’ for war during the point in the game where peace/build up is most necessary (early industrial). Quick industrialization is the key to late game domination; everyone has different strategies, but for me being in ‘just the right position’ for quick industrialization is my primary goal during the mid/late medieval. Unindustrialized nations will drop like flies to the productive capacity of an industrialized one.
I am new here, and just trying to get involved, so try not to be to harsh

[Aro]

Randolph, you and your comments are welcome!
I have to think about what you and others are saying, and I'm short of time right now. However, your thoughts seem to be very balanced. Again, post your comments, we are a kind democracy here (well, sometimes… ).