Machiavelli Institute: Aztec Encroachment

[Robber Baron]

To clarify, I only meant we should swoop in and seize American cities. I might have gotten carried away with my anti-Aztec propag -- er, public information campaign. We should not declare war against the Aztecs. We should not need to.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
We should not declare war against the Aztecs. We should not need to.

I agree, and we must anticipate troubles.

[Togas]

The Ministry has been in contact with the Aztecs through our Embassy and discovered that the Aztecs would be happy to see our involvement in their American conquest. They will pay us 23g and their WM if we join them.

I see this as a win-win situation. We liberate the remaining American cities (this must be done quickly), improve our relations with the Aztecs, and gain a little profit in the mean time.

And once the Aztecs learn how to build better roads and link their capital to the world we can sell them the incense we capture.

--Togas

[DAVOUT]

The Astek irruption in the Great Basin is potentially a major problem. Is an alliance, giving them in addition a free ROP, worth only 23g ?
Their weakness could be the war weariness which must be hight since they are a republic at war for as many turns as us. The fact that they have been unable to produce settlers to replace the 2 or 3 american cities they have destroyed coud be an indication of their problems.

[Aggie]

The aztects pose little danger to us. Yes they might take some cities near us, but their core cities are too far away to threaten us. Perhaps they could launch 1 large army but they couldn't follow up, and they would lose any part of america near us. So it doesn't give me nightmares them haveing cities near us. Here is my list of potential threats in the danger order.
1.Germany
2.Greece
3.Russia(they have the potential to be #1) and when they get cossacks they have an offensive units that is harder to kill and could give them ga
4.England(could take the persian area)
5.Aztects
Aggie

[joncnunn]

Right of Passage is a seperate agreement, we can have an alliance aginst America without a Right of Passage.

Still, we might want to check to see if a right a passage thru Aztec-occuplied Washington would speed up us getting to the Incese city.

With these tied into the same proposal, the Right of Passage should expire when Abe is captured and brought to justice.

I see England as more of a cultural threat to occuplied Persia than a military one. (Or whatever we end of renaming that area)

As I recall, Cosacks are an offensive unit with an extra defense point, almost as useless as an extra offense point on a defensive unit. As long as we attack the Cossacks with Calvary before they attack us, we'll be fine in combat.

Also, the Russians have the Romans to worry about. Now if the Russians wipe the Romans off the map, then we will need to be concerned.

I've never known the Greeks to initate a war on their own. The main worries are two fold:

1. The Greeks will sign a MPP with a warlike nation (say Germany), and then Germany attacks us, bringing the Greeks into the war against us as well.

2. We try to prevent this from occuring by signing an MPP with Greece, and Germany attacks them, bringing us into war with Germany when we're not ready.

[History Guy]

I don't believe any military alliance is really needed, unless we want to take that extra money from the Aztecs. A single turn, I think, can take out all of America for our glorious empire, without any point of an alliance, or, for that matter, of a right of protection pact. As for the Aztecs, as of yet, there is no reason to attack them, though in future they may become a threat. They are hardly as much of a threat, however, as the Germans.

[Arnelos]

zeit,

I FULLY want us to attack the AMERICANS, as I think we should take as many American cities as we can from the Americans. However, I am absolutely and totally against going to war with the Aztecs in order to take any American cities they might have already taken.

Does that make sense?

[Meshelic]

I agree with History Guy, really, we don't need an alliance to 'liberate' these American cities currently being overrun by Aztecs...

If we are to gain anything from the America's then we must strike now in quick succession, lest there be Aztecs wondering around, harrassing our women and stealing our bananas.

For the defense of our nation we MUST 'liberate' these American cities.

[zeit]

Originally posted by Arnelos
zeit,

I FULLY want us to attack the AMERICANS, as I think we should take as many American cities as we can from the Americans. However, I am absolutely and totally against going to war with the Aztecs in order to take any American cities they might have already taken.

Does that make sense?

Sure, that's what i thought, makes perfect sense, and seems there is a wide consensus on this issue- Liberate america-yes, fight with with the Aztecs (for now)- no.

Seems like we're on the same side here.

[Meshelic]

The only reason I can see for an alliance with the Aztecs is to get them 1.) Friendlier towards us 2.) to help us legitimize a war against the Americans so we don't get a black mark for it... otherwise I don't think there is much they have to offer, at least anything of value

[Shiber]

We won't get any rep hits for declaring war on America because our peace treaty with America has long expired. The only reason to ally with the Aztecs is for the possibility that they'll become friendlier with us.