Razing: Opinion Poll & Discussion

[Kloreep]

Before I leave for a day or two, I wanted to open another can of worms. Specifically, razing in general, and the recent atrocity at Hamburg in particular.

I object to Hamburg's destruction (which may not have been entirely legal, BTW I don't plan to push charges, though); I also don't want any further destruction. Turn cities into worker farms till the pop's gone if you must, but do not pillage and kill. That is the way of bananaless barbarians!

[Nolan]

rp}

These slums must be burn't to the ground, the populations come back when we resettle, and they are loyal to us, how can we let people live and worship in the horrid conditions left in the German cities, in their so called democracy

rp}

Regards

[Nimitz]

Hey Kloreep maybe you and I should form a Opinion poll organization maybe called K & N Opinion Poll Group.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Nimitz
Hey Kloreep maybe you and I should form a Opinion poll organization maybe called K & N Opinion Poll Group.

Why not?

[Nimitz]

Cool this should do well.

[Arnelos]

I objected to the butchery of Hamburg during the chat. However, I respect the legal right of the Supreme Military Commander to make such decisions (unless you can tell me that the rules have changed on that and I somehow missed it ).

Though, in role-play terms, I have ethical and Great Banana religious reasons for opposing such a butchery, in strictly game-terms my only objection is that I don't believe the population would have been as prone to flipping as the SMC feared (or at least that spending the shields it takes to build a settler was too much for the small chance of an actual flip).

That said, I'll once again say that (unless the rules have changed and I didn't know it), I respect the SMC's right to make such decisions. My role as "President" is to carry out those decisions and, even with whatever objections I may have had, I am explicitly denied by the constitution from failing to execute ministerial orders for their own departments (his troops, in the SMC's case).

[Panag]

hi ,

we should abandon some cities , spead up the production of workers or setlers true rushing and relocate the city in question in a spot that would be better , .....

we should have no hard feelings for razing a city , those backward species would do it to us when they had the oppurtunity , ...... we should destroy the temples of kiwi's and strawberry's , .....

have a nice christmas day

[Epistax]

I think completely removing a city is ok, but given the right reason.

From what I saw about culture flipping, we basically sacrificed Hamburg so we didn't lose our advance. This is the result of poor planning-- we should have defensive units ready and waiting to shut resisters up, and keep culture at bay. Since we were unprepared, it may be excusable.

I cannot think of another circumstance where this would be an issue. Removing a city where two cities could go, or where they city could go better, is fine, just get everything out of it you can first.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Epistax
I think completely removing a city is ok, but given the right reason.

From what I saw about culture flipping, we basically sacrificed Hamburg so we didn't lose our advance. This is the result of poor planning-- we should have defensive units ready and waiting to shut resisters up, and keep culture at bay. Since we were unprepared, it may be excusable.

I cannot think of another circumstance where this would be an issue. Removing a city where two cities could go, or where they city could go better, is fine, just get everything out of it you can first.

hi ,

well blame some people who dont want to support the building of banks and markets , those taxes from it would generate money to purchase new gear and train more soldiers , .........

vote DIA for a strong a mighty army

have a nice christmas day

[E_T]

Does this mean the we have to spend our hard earned money to have 1 turn Rushes for Slaves. We have other discussions currently about freeing such slaves.

If Hamburg had even had some Item of use to the Nation (i.e. Marketplace or other noncultural Improvement), it would NOT have been Abandoned. As it turned out, it didn't and it was.

When I had originally outlined the possible offensive against Germany (during my Campain as SMC), I had made the statement that there would be the possibility of this. I had also stated that Stuttgart WILL be moved South, by the same means AND that the Same might happen to Frankfurt.

This is because of the Desire of the Senate to let Berlin stand in Enemy hands UNTIL the end of the War. If it was up to me, Berlin would fall shortly after Stuttgart, but I don't make these kind of policy decisions, the Senate does. I just Implement them to the best that I can.

Berlin is all but cut off from the Rest of Germany, and will be in fact in 1285AB (the Backstreet Boys Operation). Berlin will be Shelled until the only thing left standing is the one Wonder that it possess's. Hopefully, by this time, we will have obtained our other Objectives and the taking of Berlin will be but a simple prospect.

Then we can turn to Rome. And start preparing for our Zulu Offensive.

I have at least given Hamburg a chance, before I destroyed it. I at least did not Raze it without Question. If the shoe was on the other Foot and Otto was doing this to us, I really doubt that he would wait and see if Apolyton or Chiquita or Ghengistown was of any worth to him before he would burn it to the ground. At least, in that respect, I'm different.

E_T

[Panag]

Originally posted by E_T
Does this mean the we have to spend our hard earned money to have 1 turn Rushes for Slaves. We have other discussions currently about freeing such slaves.

If Hamburg had even had some Item of use to the Nation (i.e. Marketplace or other noncultural Improvement), it would NOT have been Abandoned. As it turned out, it didn't and it was.

When I had originally outlined the possible offensive against Germany (during my Campain as SMC), I had made the statement that there would be the possibility of this. I had also stated that Stuttgart WILL be moved South, by the same means AND that the Same might happen to Frankfurt.

This is because of the Desire of the Senate to let Berlin stand in Enemy hands UNTIL the end of the War. If it was up to me, Berlin would fall shortly after Stuttgart, but I don't make these kind of policy decisions, the Senate does. I just Implement them to the best that I can.

Berlin is all but cut off from the Rest of Germany, and will be in fact in 1285AB (the Backstreet Boys Operation). Berlin will be Shelled until the only thing left standing is the one Wonder that it possess's. Hopefully, by this time, we will have obtained our other Objectives and the taking of Berlin will be but a simple prospect.

Then we can turn to Rome. And start preparing for our Zulu Offensive.

I have at least given Hamburg a chance, before I destroyed it. I at least did not Raze it without Question. If the shoe was on the other Foot and Otto was doing this to us, I really doubt that he would wait and see if Apolyton or Chiquita or Ghengistown was of any worth to him before he would burn it to the ground. At least, in that respect, I'm different.

E_T

hi ,

not one turn rushes , you can sell something if there is something to sell there and then complete the rest of the work with money , it tends to be cheap , you can continue untill there is nothing there ,and then go for method two , order the unit , wait a turn , some shields are done , complete the rest , that shall give you one every couple of turns a settler , a settler we can use to create new cities , or to join small cities , or we can create workers to work , .....

have a nice day

[Nolan]

rp}

The city of Hamburg would of been a drain on our resources, our main duty is to our own people. Hamburg had to be cleared for the good of the nation, we can't be a nation of refugee camps and slums

rp}

[E_T]

Originally posted by Epistax
I think completely removing a city is ok, but given the right reason.

From what I saw about culture flipping, we basically sacrificed Hamburg so we didn't lose our advance. This is the result of poor planning-- we should have defensive units ready and waiting to shut resisters up, and keep culture at bay. Since we were unprepared, it may be excusable.

I cannot think of another circumstance where this would be an issue. Removing a city where two cities could go, or where they city could go better, is fine, just get everything out of it you can first.

I take offense to your accusations, Epistax. Is it was under my guidance as CP/DM that a lot of this planning was made and implemented during my tenure in those offices.

Yes, we could have had a much larger Army, so that the possibility of flipping would not be an issue. But we wouldn't have had the Explorers to use in the attempt to cut Berlin off from the rest of Germany.

Yes, we could have had a larger Bombardment force, to level those Cities completely and make them easier to take by force. But we would not have become the Scientific leader that we are if we had done that.

Yes, we could have rushed more Mil Units, but then would not have had the monies to have spent on some of our special projects, or to even have Reduced the former Rampiant Corruption that this Nation once Faced.

I think that the planning and balancing of all of our needs, has given us all of these things and more. And if we want this war to grind down and have to suffer from War Weariness, then we can keep some of the potenial Problem Cities and not have the forces to take more, in a timely manner.

But then, that's a different form of planning and That's were I'm at now...

E_T

[Meshelic]

Originally posted by panag


vote DIA for a strong a mighty army

have a nice christmas day

DIA.....

Just kidding.

Merry Christmas Panag, and everyone!

Meshelic

[Aidun]

E_T,

I think you've done your best. I do not approve the razing of Hamburg for the same reasons as Arnelos has, but your arguments show that you have thought about the problem of Hamburg and that is what we, the Senate, may expect of a minister. I cannot judge your planning, but as I can see you take your ministerial job serious and weigh the arguments precisely, I do not doubt that the attack on Hamburg was well planned.

Aidun

[Shiber]

I would not have ordered the razing of Hamburg until the entire population was turned into slaves. I have already discussed this with E_T and he has given me the reasons behind his order, which were valid, but I was still not convinced. Eventually we agreed that we disagree.
It is obvious from what I've said that I gave my vote to option #2. I did not vote for any of the other options (yes/no to razing in the future) because I think each case must be discussed independantly.
I have nothing else to say on this matter.

[Aidun]

The same option I chose. Shiber is right, we mustn't already decide about the other cities as we cannot look into the future.

[Aggie]

For all this discussion let us not forget, that in the end most certainly, Hamburg would have ended up as a city of 1 or 2 due to unhappiness and starvation. Except for the fact that we did it immediately this is little different than when we reduced the French and Persian cities to size 1 or when we eliminated them outright and we can start using the city immediately(remember you can't rush temple's with resistance). This is something we will soon see more of since with large size cities and drafting we will inherit unhappiness that will be better dealt with by eliminating the city. In the end it is the SMC's call and I think we should accept it and not tie his hands. If you don't like it show it in the next elections, but bills that reduce the flexibility of the SMC are not wise.
Aggie

[Panag]

Originally posted by Aidun
The same option I chose. Shiber is right, we mustn't already decide about the other cities as we cannot look into the future.

hi ,

that is true , but it would nice to see we have some kind of plan when the time is there , .......

have a nice day

[Shiber]

Panag has a point. While the SMC may do as he wishes with newly-conquered cities (if I remember the Con correctly), it would sure be nice if any actions consisting of abandoning cities had senate approval.

Is there enough support on this matter to propose a bill that forces the government to have senate approval for the abandoning of cities or towns with say, 3 pop or more?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
Panag has a point. While the SMC may do as he wishes with newly-conquered cities (if I remember the Con correctly), it would sure be nice if any actions consisting of abandoning cities had senate approval.

Is there enough support on this matter to propose a bill that forces the government to have senate approval for the abandoning of cities or towns with say, 3 pop or more?

hi ,

we need to look at each city before we go in , the SMC had a valid point when he mentioned that the city was very close to the capital , .....

the best thing to do is to have settlers ready in advance and ones those cities are razed we just make new cities in great spots , .... that solution would be the best , ....

have a nice day

[E_T]

Already planned for..

I do not think that we will need to do such things to Hannover or Cologne.

E_T

[DAVOUT]

During wars, the government is practically a War Cabinet coordinating the war effort of the Nation. This is where a veto right could be given : the War Cabinet could veto the SMC project of razing a city. It is absolutely unreasonnable to interrupt a military campaign for getting the Senate approval of a military decision. The conduct of war cant afford the democratic process.

[Shiber]

There's no reason to interrupt a turnchat with things that can be planned ahead many turns ahead.
We can plan ahead for every city in Germany, and in the worst case, if something unexpected pops up during the turnchat the attendants can override the decision if a certain majority for doing so is present.

[DAVOUT]

The veto can also be given ahead. As for democratic decisions in a turnchat, it is a joke.

[Shiber]

There's gotta be a solution to this.
Maybe if we pass a bill that denies the government the power to abandon a city if the senate has decided in an official poll that that city may not be abandoned (a decision that applies only to the next turnchat and expires once the turnchat is over).

[Aggie]

I totally oppose such a bill, which by the way MUST be an admendment. Let the SMC do the job, if you don't like it vote or run against him in the next election.
Aggie

[Shiber]

Now that you put it that way, I see that you're right. After all the SMC was elected by the senate to make these and other decisions. The members of the senate know what powers they are vesting the SMC with when they elect him.

[Aidun]

Originally posted by Shiber
Now that you put it that way, I see that you're right. After all the SMC was elected by the senate to make these and other decisions. The members of the senate know what powers they are vesting the SMC with when they elect him.

Keep in mind though that what you're saying is no argument to not to change the CoL. Senate members do know what powers they are vesting the SMC when electing him. The Senate has but the right to change the CoL when it considers it to be needed. that does not depend, and should not depend, on the election of the SMC.
I think the Senate should not be given any right to approve, but only to advice. It depends then on the SMC himself to choose to follow the advice or not, with the risk not be be re-elected.

Aidun

[Nolan]

It is the beauty of the democratic system that it keeps the elected members in line, the purpose of political affiliation then becomes one of showing what decisions the member will make based on the party they join instead of having to explain there opinion to a base of independents, that is why I feel we need a more moderate imperialist party that can realistically take on the DIA, with policy and membership, as currently most parties are a bit extreme for any showing of mass support.

Regards