Pax Apolytonia? - Page 2

ThePlagueRat · October 20, 2002, 17:53

A bit hawky, that principle about securing friendly trade interests.

It's not a legal ground for war declaration by the (rl) UN charter.

Panzer32 · October 20, 2002, 19:41

Quote:

England is strategic - they are in a prime position to set off in search of new civs.

By the time we conquor France, and then England, I feel that the lost civs will be the newfound civs.

Arnelos · October 20, 2002, 19:43

This brings up an interesting question... Is the Civ3 U.N. simply going to make rules on creating and enforcing the honors code that will be required for a multiplayer Civ3 democracy game or will it ALSO be a collective security arrangement between the various human-controlled civs within the game?

If it's also the second of those, getting the Security Council to authorize action under Chapter 7 (of the RL UN charter... who knows if it'll correspond to the Civ3 one

) could be a hell of a lot of fun if we're not the ones being ganged up on...

Personally, I think this "U.N." should essentially act like the Congress of Europe did between the various major European imperial powers throughout the 19th Century (with the exception that this congress/UN would be permanent rather than called every decade or so). No prohibition on the use of force or rules constraining action by the various parties, but merely a forum for working out treaties or for resolving disputes between the human-controlled civs should they actually not want to go to war over them (they have the right to go to war over disputes if they feel like it, however).

That's my opinion on the matter, anyhow

Duddha · October 20, 2002, 19:47

Quote:

This brings up an interesting question... Is the Civ3 U.N. simply going to make rules on creating and enforcing the honors code that will be required for a multiplayer Civ3 democracy game or will it ALSO be a collective security arrangement between the various human-controlled civs within the game?

If it's also the second of those, getting the Security Council to authorize action under Chapter 7 (of the RL UN charter... who knows if it'll correspond to the Civ3 one ) could be a hell of a lot of fun if we're not the ones being ganged up on...

Personally, I think this "U.N." should essentially act like the Congress of Europe did between the various major European imperial powers throughout the 19th Century (with the exception that this congress/UN would be permanent rather than called every decade or so). No prohibition on the use of force or rules constraining action by the various parties, but merely a forum for working out treaties or for resolving disputes between the human-controlled civs should they actually not want to go to war over them (they have the right to go to war over disputes if they feel like it, however).

That's my opinion on the matter, anyhow

I think these issues should be decided when we actually start the Multi-Site Democracy game. It would be kinda unfair to make up all the rules now.

Arnelos · October 20, 2002, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Duddha

I think these issues should be decided when we actually start the Multi-Site Democracy game. It would be kinda unfair to make up all the rules now.

Duddha,

fair enough

Duddha · October 20, 2002, 19:56

i'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it. We just shouldn't decide everything now. It is going to be a lot of fun.

I'm more in favor of a Congress system. Our unilateral and bilateral options shouldn't be restricted by the UN. Down with the UN!

Arnelos · October 20, 2002, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Duddha
i'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it though. We just shouldn't decide everything now. It is going to be a lot of fun.

I'm more in favor of a Congress system. Our unilateral and bilateral options shouldn't be restricted by the UN. Down with the UN!

How about that... Duddha and I cordially agree on not having a U.N. body that would constrict our right to declare war when we felt like it

Duddha · October 20, 2002, 20:01

I'm already planning the Nationalist Democratic Party.

ThePlagueRat · October 20, 2002, 22:28

Almost resurrecting the old National Socialist Democratic Party ?

And put in the german word for labor, Arbeiter --> NSDAP

Torkkeli · October 21, 2002, 03:45

Peace as always

joncnunn · October 21, 2002, 12:57

Voting for War of France.

Complete conquest war, not enough left of France after taking the core cities.

Be sure to trigure the Golden Age.

DON'T sell the surplus Saltpeter to anybody on this contientant, this ensures at least one AI here won't have Calvary latter on. Instead sell to the lost civs without it as soon as we have contact and ocean trade is possible.

We will need to fight England, but this can wait until we have Calvary. (Or for the Germans to attack them, whichever is first.)

Will 5001 · October 21, 2002, 15:26

From the maps I can't see how a war with france will be that difficult, we must double the area of their country and we beat them last time, what's to say we won't do it again.

mrmitchell · October 21, 2002, 18:17

After hearing some good arguments in this thread, I must say a conquest war would be okay if it was our last war of aggression. We can squish them like a bug, but we must know if there is anyone they can buy into a war with us. That would really rain on our parade.

jdjdjd · October 21, 2002, 20:28

I have to agree with E-T on this one. Though I truly believe we need a prolonged period of peace, to build our infrastucture, increase our technological advances, upgrade and refortify our military....the best way to propel these is a Golden Age which we can trigger in the French War. If there is no intention to trigger the GA, then I say to war with France.

Thud · October 22, 2002, 21:35

Okay, at this point, I would say that this poll has served it's purpose.

I conclude that there is not enough support to expect a 2\3s majority for a declaration of war. Thusly, I strongly suggest that the military branches CEASE AND DESIST manuevering for a war with France.

I consider failure to do so, and operating with the assumption that the Senate will support war, entirely undemocratic and worthy of a court case.

E_T · October 22, 2002, 22:31

France has aquored Gunpowder, but they have yet to connect up their sourses of Saltpeter. As of the 720AD save, there aren't even any Workers at the SP sources to connect them.

As we have bought several workers from France, they are currently worker poor and might not have a sufficient worker force to connect it up quickly. If we're going to war, we need to do it soon. We have 6 turns to complete Printing Press (780AD) and we should declare in 790 and get our GA then.

E_T

GhengisFarb™ · October 22, 2002, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by E_T
As we have bought several workers from France,

E_T

What the? When did we buy workers? According the the Presidents we haven't bought or built any workers in the last two terms.

Apocalypse · October 22, 2002, 23:06

Actually during the Tuesday turnchat that I ran last week we bought two workers from France. I posted this very clearly since many people have been whining about it.

Arnelos · October 22, 2002, 23:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Thud
Do we want to go to war? With whom?

This poll is unofficial and will close in 3 days.

Thud,

I really hate to be the one to tell you this, but...

You will note that you made this poll unofficial when you posted it.

It remains the case, however, that no official poll has been conducted permitting the administration to declare war on France... thus the declaration of any war at this point WOULD be unconstitutional in the highest.

I'd assume that an official poll likely will be posted at somepoint in the next week... should such an official poll fail to garner 2/3, that of course would mean what Thud is arguing, now wouldn't it?

Duddha · October 22, 2002, 23:24

Quote:

conclude that there is not enough support to expect a 2\3s majority for a declaration of war. Thusly, I strongly suggest that the military branches CEASE AND DESIST manuevering for a war with France.

Thud, don't think that the hawks aren't still strong enough to put up a fight. Out of all the possiblities, a war with France would be the fastest, and least painful. I suggest the DIA to support this war, when we are ready, or face the might of the Hawks.

Aggie · October 22, 2002, 23:25

Don't worry a Declaration of war poll is forthcoming. Probably tonight or tomorrow at the earliest.
ALL WAR PREPARATION continues, since I see virtually no chance that this poll will fail. Thud remember you endorsed this war earlier in the thread, I am sure if you support it now at the begining it will make it unstoppable.
Aggie

Kloreep · October 22, 2002, 23:59

Actually, I see no 2/3rds requirement in the current CoL. The official war poll will only need a majority to pass.

Aggie, please remember to hold a GA poll as well.

Aggie · October 23, 2002, 00:11

Klorkeep, I see the GA poll as necessary as the war poll itself. I intend to have them posted at the same time.
Aggie

Duddha · October 23, 2002, 00:12

Yeah, one of the major problems with the CoL is that it doesn't address declaring war.(not entirely sure about this)

Aggie · October 23, 2002, 00:27

It's amazing but you are both right, it says 2/3 for mobilizing for war but that ISN'T delcaring war, that just means putting the economy on war footing. Good to know that all my planning wasn't for naught. Though I don't doubt the war will get 2/3 anyway, but anything more than 50%+1 means war.
Aggie

mrmitchell · October 23, 2002, 08:05

I just realized I hadnt voted at all yet on the poll, so I chipped in a vote "War on France."
The debate's probably over, but with just a minor war to get the important cities that E-T mentioned a while ago on this thread, it's okay w/ me. Also, IF we got a GL (which I doubt but anythings possible) we could use it to rush either ToE or Hoover when we hit the Industrial Age, if the public could agree on saving it that long.
This is my final opinion, and I will carry it to any official poll in the form of a vote.

Randolph · October 23, 2002, 08:36

After seeing the expenses of war (see Aggie’s post under the economic report), I plan on changing my vote away from immediate war. I’m rather paranoid about making enemies, so I don’t want to make a stink, but I would urge people to consider how far 720+ Lytons would go for domestic development.

/RP
Realizing the immense controversy surrounding such a radical political position, and the power of its opponents, Randolph becomes painfully aware of his vulnerability and lack of allies.
Not wanting to attract the attention of the “Military security forces”, he slips away.

This may be a Republic, but who would stand up against the might of the supreme military commander.

RP/

Thud · October 23, 2002, 08:44

The half majority is still a little risky. My point is that to continue preparations to make war at this point is foolish and illadvised. If a declaration of war does not pass, then a lot of time, money, and preparation will be wasted. It is this potential waste that I would be willing to go to court to prevent, not the actual war.

I can't wait for the new constitution to occur. Then I could just introduce a bill to freeze military deployment, and see if it passes. Much simpler, and less painful for all.

joncnunn · October 23, 2002, 12:04

Thud, any and all War Charoits & Knights can be updated to Calvary and aren't a waste until our targets have Infentry.

All defensive units can be upgraded all the way to Mobile Infentry, and aren't a waste.

Aggie · October 23, 2002, 12:06

Thud, you know as well as I do that a majority support at least a limited war. So such a bill would never pass. Since a majority(including you) clearly wanted at least a limited war, I see no court case. As SMC I manage the military and the senate, even later, CAN'T change that fact. I can request to the the cp and the Moe(Senate later) for units and money. You would have to expressly forbid upgrades EVERYTIME. I wouldn't recognize a general no upgrade law, and I think neither would the court or President. As for as deployment of troops I can move as I desire and see fit, and in NO way could the senate tell me where to deploy, they can "advise" but not tell. I want to settle this issue so I don't have a senate believing they can micromanage the military. The Senate CAN refuse specific upgrades, but they can't pass laws about movement or laws forbiding future upgrades. If the senate didn't give upgrades I would request the building of units in cities(another thing the senate can't change), so by forbiding upgrades the senate would basically be telling me that I have to use production and not money for units. I hate to sound irritated, but I will not tolerate an attempt by the left to emasculate our military. If you do not like war you are welcome to vote against the declaration of war, but looking at this vote of 35-22 I believe the DOW will pass.
Aggie