OFFICIAL: Attitude Towards Austria

Immortal Wombat · January 10, 2003, 12:31

We've just met what looks like Austria's second (possibly even third) settler with our warrior. Judging from the power graph, they've got a headstart on us. Mostly since they have more settlers at the start.

Going to war with them now is probably a bad idea, if it drags on, we'll get a really slow start.
BUT... there is a minute possibility that they haven't finished any defenders in their capital city yet. We may be able to take out their settler next turn, then scoot down to their capital to wipe 'em out completely. Of course if we had two warriors then both would probably take out the one defender in the city - assuming they haven't got two garrisoned. They shouldn't usually.

If we don't go to war, do we want to expell their settler or not?
NB: we cannot expell it yet, it is not in our territory: this is a hypothetical question, assuming that the settler does enter our territory
(dunno who makes this decision, probably a joint decision)

Do we want to "make friends" with them (gifts, proposals etc.) or just leave them, and conquer them later?

Turambar · January 10, 2003, 14:14

I say that for now we should be nice and try to exchange maps with them before we start planning a war. Threaten them if we need to, to get their map.

I think attacking their city now might be too risky at the moment.

Once we know more and have the units needed we can then wipe them out

.

How can we expel a settler that's not in our land?

Pedrunn · January 10, 2003, 14:32

We have too few units. Lets be nice for now and back stab them later.

Lets be nice for now!!!

How many regard is lost in case of a expell?

HuangShang · January 10, 2003, 14:41

take a city as fast as possible to speed thing up in all areas

Dale · January 10, 2003, 18:25

Sound the warhorns!

Maquiladora · January 10, 2003, 19:18

War
Abstain on settler issue
Be Nice to Austria, Make Friends

Be nice to them, exchange maps, while building up plenty of troops then surprise attack them, if thats possible with 1 movement archers. Theyll only tresspass in our territory eventually anyway so lets get plenty of archers and warriors and get in the first punch!

Quote:

How can we expel a settler that's not in our land?

If the settler is in neutral land we can expel it back inside their own borders, but if its inside their borders already it wont move. Obviously we can expel it out of our own borders.

Turambar · January 10, 2003, 19:28

It's in their land.

Immortal Wombat · January 10, 2003, 20:14

Yeah, but its coming our way. Probably. The AI doesn't seem to acknowledge borders.

ískallin · January 11, 2003, 04:42

Kill em when we have the chance!!!!
until then be nice

Zaphod Beeblebrox · January 11, 2003, 06:48

try to make friends at first and kill them later

Pedrunn · January 11, 2003, 07:35

The expel regard cost may be -10 or -20 regard depending on the player personality in this mod impossible to determine due to the constatly changing of personality types in the apol mod.

For those who dont know how to measure regard. Regard is a value that we cant know how much we have with another civ only have an idea by checking the faces. And it can vary from 0 to 1000 and we start with 500 toward every civ.

In Which:

0 - 100, hot war
101-300, cold war
301-700, neutral
701-900, friend
900-1000, allied

Pedrunn · January 11, 2003, 07:42

No War but act agressive specially threatening them for maps

Send their settler away

Zacharov · January 11, 2003, 08:08

No war and no threatening, we should act as a frienly nation, until we have enough units to capture their capitol

Pedrunn · January 11, 2003, 08:54

Welcome from the President representing all the citizens, Zacharov!
I hope you enjoy our democracy.

I dont think we should go to war too. We have to few units!. But I still go for a exchange map proposal Followed by a threat in case of rejection.

Turambar · January 11, 2003, 09:05

I'm in agreement with Pedrunn.

Martin Gühmann · January 11, 2003, 09:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Pedrunn
I dont think we should go to war too. We have to few units!. But I still go for a exchange map proposal Followed by a threat in case of rejection.

I agree we don't have the troops right now in order to conquer Austria. So be nice to them and leave their settler there as it is now. But of course get the map so that we know how strong Austria is.

-Martin

mapfi · January 11, 2003, 14:10

In light of the case filed about the validity of this poll - and clearly without deciding anything beforehand - I'd like to advise IW that it'd be in the best interest of the game to post new polls about this issue in order to be able to rely on their outcome.

besides that - I'm also for an agressive stance towards Austria. Kill the settler!

H Tower · January 11, 2003, 14:10

killing the settler would severly hinder austrian growth in the future though

Martin Gühmann · January 11, 2003, 14:30

First get their map and we can decide again on killing the settler.

-Martin

Maquiladora · January 11, 2003, 14:33

We really shouldnt expel or kill it yet, thatll just make them more angry and theyll come for us straight away rather than in 50 turns or so. The army needs time to prepare, let war be on our terms.

I dont think we need run off polls of these 3 subjects, but the results are abit

. We still need one more vote to decide the white questions too, but then again that could totally balance out all other polls again...

ískallin · January 11, 2003, 14:39

Kill the Autrians! Kill the Autrians! Kill the Autrians! Kill the Autrians! Kill the Autrians! Kill the Autrians!

[img]

Maquiladora · January 11, 2003, 14:40

Also theres 37 votes in the poll, it should be a multiple of 3, someone didnt vote in 2 of the options or 2 people only voted in 1 option.

Maybe we need spin off polls...

Immortal Wombat · January 11, 2003, 14:43

There is one extra vote in the WAR category than the other two.

H Tower · January 11, 2003, 15:06

but it adds up to 13 votes for the poll, which is the same exact number of voters we have had. people are not required to vote in any poll, or even in both polls in one thread

Pedrunn · January 11, 2003, 16:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Also theres 37 votes in the poll, it should be a multiple of 3, someone didnt vote in 2 of the options or 2 people only voted in 1 option.

Maybe we need spin off polls...

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
but it adds up to 13 votes for the poll, which is the same exact number of voters we have had. people are not required to vote in any poll, or even in both polls in one thread

Thats why I tried to ban the multiple votings type of thread from the constitution. I knew they were going to be confusing

And the settler (kill, expel, leave) issue is a task for the Minister of Defense therefore Maquiladora

So will we be the "no tolerance" time of democracy or the "It is forbidden but you can" one

H Tower · January 11, 2003, 16:10

at this point, killing the settler is more of a foreign policy decision IMO.

Locutus · January 11, 2003, 19:56

Aside from being unconstitutional, there's another problem with this poll: you can't expell units when they are inside their own borders. So Immortal Wombat is presenting a promise to the people that he cannot possibly live up to. He is actually misleading the Citizens of Lemuria! In theory that could be grounds for impeachment, although in this case I don't think the situation is serious enough for it. However, I suggest that anyone who runs against IW in future elections takes careful note of this

H Tower · January 11, 2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
Aside from being unconstitutional,

that has yet to be decided.

Quote:

there's another problem with this poll: you can't expell units when they are inside their own borders. So Immortal Wombat is presenting a promise to the people that he cannot possibly live up to. He is actually misleading the Citizens of Lemuria! In theory that could be grounds for impeachment, although in this case I don't think the situation is serious enough for it. However, I suggest that anyone who runs against IW in future elections takes careful note of this

are we done ripping on IW today? you've already gotten your court case, so continue this conversation in that thread, this thread(absent the poll) is still a completely legal conversation on how we wish to deal with the austrians, and I would much prefer to deal with only one topic per thread today.

Locutus · January 11, 2003, 21:55

Chill, I'm just trying to spice things up a bit

And I wouldn't be doing this if I wasn't sure that IW can handle it. If it had been you or redbull, I would have been more careful as I know you less well and have no idea how far I can push you... If he's sitting in a corner crying right now, I apologize, but I doubt it. Actually, I'm anxiously awaiting the counter-attack (and/or an interesting election campaing)

BTW, I think we should make IW's use of colors a bannable offense - the yellow's horrible!

Frozzy · January 11, 2003, 22:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
Chill, I'm just trying to spice things up a bit

Really?

Quote:

And I wouldn't be doing this if I wasn't sure that IW can handle it. If it had been you or redbull, I would have been more careful as I know you less well and have no idea how far I can push you...

Good point...

Quote:

Actually, I'm anxiously awaiting the counter-attack (and/or an interesting election campaing)

I'll admit that the last elections were BORING. But surely personal attacks on a fellow Apolytoner are taking it too far...

Quote:

BTW, I think we should make IW's use of colors a bannable offense - the yellow's horrible!

This sort of thing has happened before in the ACDG...