War Party: Debate on policy regarding Austria

Dale · January 18, 2003, 19:04

Situation:

Lemuria has a withdraw treaty with Austria, and currently our regard is not too good with them. Austria has just settled a new city which has put our northern warrior inside of their borders. This is a breach of the treaty and grounds for war.

The potential for Austria to declare war is high, as they have also just recently rejected our map-exchange proposal.

There is now a growing feeling of war between Lemuria and Austria.

Discussion:

1. Should we go to war with Austria?
2. How should we wage that war?

Dale · January 18, 2003, 19:09

I believe that we have a case for war with Austria. They are currently more advanced than us, and are really starting to encrouch on our territory. Already we've seen them begin a new border settlement. I feel that if we take the upper hand and declare war now, with our warrior so close to their new city we can destroy it in two turns before they can get troops there. In this way, we can then offer peace and the chances are high that they'll accept. With a city destroyed and no hope of regaining it, the Austrians will most likely accept a peace offer.

The result would be that the Austrians would be humbled quite a bit, and it'll give us a peace treaty which will buy us some time to found a second city to build more troops.

Also, the Austrians will fear us a little more than before and know that we aren't easy pickings.

So I say:
- Declare war on Austria while we have the initiative.
- Use our northern warrior to destroy their new undefended city.
- Offer peace to gain the breathing space to found our second city.

Maquiladora · January 18, 2003, 20:31

I think we should go to war with the Austrians but not without a second city built on our own. Their new city along the northern river is undefended and can be easily destroyed, chances are by the time it reaches pop 2 it will have at least 1 hoplite, so attacking the city now with no ends but destroying one of their cities and making them very pissed off is a bad idea IMO.

So found one more city, produce archers like theres no tomorrow, then surprise attack their new city.

HuangShang · January 18, 2003, 22:34

i agree w/ Dale more than Maquiladora....

centrifuge · January 18, 2003, 22:46

Maq's plan is the most logical. Waging war with only warriors and one city is suicide. We need to build at least one more city. This will speed are technology enough so that we can get archers and possibly even hoplites within a reasonable timeframe. From that point we rush out as many units as we can, sneak attack the punks, and pummel them into oblivion

...

HuangShang · January 18, 2003, 22:58

but where to build a city?

Dale · January 19, 2003, 07:52

I think maybe Maq's plan is a better one. At least that way we'll have archer's too.

If everyone agrees, and the poll finishes today, I'd say that makes our policy to NOT have war in the next two turns in Maq's poll.

Turambar · January 19, 2003, 11:13

I think we should just produce Warriors from our current city and once we've 6ish that we can use to attack then we start picking off weak Austrian cities.

Waiting to build a settler could cause a lot of trouble when the barbs come.

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 11:16

We need to up production; we can do this by zeroing science research and rush buying units once they are half completed. That way we get units in half the time but only invest 25% of the cash. That is the best return on investment and maximizes the bang we get out of are meager cash horde.

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 11:19

At our current output a settler would take 20 turns while a warrior would take 4-5 turns. Producing warriors will allow us to defend against Attila and we might even be able to nab a few of the Austrian cities.

ískallin · January 19, 2003, 15:16

I think that Dales plan is better

child of Thor · January 19, 2003, 18:20

I'm with Dale,Oerdin and Iskallin;
we need to act asap.
Risks are worth taking in this situation - 20 turns to build a settler will give the already powerful austrians plenty of time to build up defences in the new city. Get a half stack of warriors out(or at least 2-3 for this new austrian border city) and grab as much as we can as quickly as we can.
If it is decided to go this route then everything must be well planned and coordinated, or we could end up with a dead army and an undefended city.
If we wait to build a settler then i feel the window of opportunity to attack the austrians could be pushed back a few hundred years or more.
War now - peace later.

Pedrunn · January 20, 2003, 00:50

Either we have a agressive attitude and build warriors or a peaceful attitude and build settlers.

We cant have mix things up.

HuangShang · January 21, 2003, 21:46

can we do something to not build a setter?

Pedrunn · January 22, 2003, 05:46

Quote:

Originally posted by HuangShang
can we do something to not build a setter?

another Resolution Poll

HuangShang · January 22, 2003, 21:44

do we want to do that?

Locutus · January 22, 2003, 21:58

Polling the exact same thing a second time would be silly and a waste of time as it would hardly change the outcome. Either wait a while until the situation in the game has changed sufficiently or poll that supplements the existing resolution rather than replacing it entirely (though in this case I can't think of a way to do so).

HuangShang · January 22, 2003, 22:01

fine