Apolemurian People's Party - Page 4

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 6, 2003, 05:17

perhaps mrbaggins should be contracted for the newspaper as a comedian, well, at least if we want a stupid and reactionistic newspaper like the sun in england, "bild" in germany and i'm quite sure there are ones like those in all countries represented in this dg

Devil of Truth · February 6, 2003, 05:42

I’ll put my weight behind Zaphod for Burro Master. Both candidates would make great leaders IMHO, but we need to get this party rolling. If my maths hasn’t gone the way of disco, 3 votes should secure a victory (since we have only 5 members.)

We really need to get organised here. The war party is dominating this game, and I think we can all agree that their particular brand of bloodthirsty strategy would be the end of all of us.

So allow me to make suggestion/resolution/proposal/submission APP001:
We need to put this party’s mission/vision/party line into words. Do we believe in peaceful expansion, or aggressive development? Is it peace above all else, or just until diplomacy fails?

Suggestion/resolution/proposal/submission APP002:
We must nominate an APP member for every election. From the presidency to stable keep (for the donkeys, obviously.

) Even though the war party dominates the political scene at the moment, losing to them by one vote in IW’s MoD campaign holds promise

. Let’s get ourselves a list of members, and debate who’ll be nominated for what.

Suggestion/resolution/proposal/submission APP003:
Let’s get some figureheads on our team. If we can sway Locutus etc. to join our merry band, it could definitely work in our favour.

Any thoughts?

Tamerlin · February 6, 2003, 06:37

You are right on both point Devil of Truth.

I won't have any time until tonight so I must leave, but I will think about a kind of vision/goals (I knwo I have already said this).

medio · February 6, 2003, 13:20

I believe these are our members:
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Tamerlin
Devil of Truth
Immortal Wombat
medio

Zaphod, it appears you won the election though you do not want the job of chairperson. Do we have another election or will you appoint a replacement?

We have 5 members, there are 11 names on the WP list.

Fencesitters:
Locutus
Jbytheway
H tower
Martin Guhrmann

These are all heavy hitters. It would be a real coup if we could get a couple on our side of the aisle. Perhaps one of our senior members can approach someone(or two).

5 app + 11 WP + 4 fencesitters= 20.
There were however 25 votes cast in the MoD election so I am obviously missing at least 5 citizens.

power to the people

Tamerlin · February 6, 2003, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by medio
I believe these are our members:
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Tamerlin
Devil of Truth
Immortal Wombat
medio

I think the count is good.

Quote:

5 app + 11 WP + 4 fencesitters= 20.
There were however 25 votes cast in the MoD election so I am obviously missing at least 5 citizens.

power to the people

We are five but we have gathered 7 more votes, it would be interesting to know who. I think Locutus is leaning towards the WP and that Martin would be closer to us. I might be wrong.

J Bytheway · February 6, 2003, 15:29

Not guessing at my stance, eh? I think that's probably a good thing

.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 6, 2003, 20:00

oh, i already won? time is passing by *g*
of course i accept the job, and would be glad if tamerlin would accept being my delegate, especially since i won't have much time before around sunday according to my current rl-schedule

Tamerlin · February 6, 2003, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
oh, i already won? time is passing by *g*
of course i accept the job, and would be glad if tamerlin would accept being my delegate, especially since i won't have much time before around sunday according to my current rl-schedule

I would be honored to be the delegate of our Prime Secretary Zaphod Beeblebrox.

Tamerlin · February 6, 2003, 21:44

I have bad news to report dear brothers and sister (I dare not use the plural) of the Apolymurian People's Party, war is imminent.

A Lemurian army has been moved close to the border of our Austrian friends and the warmongers are already pulling the swords out of their scabbard.

But all is not lost, we the people must choose between war and peace as our constitution requests a poll before a war can be declared.

We must focus our energy against this foolish project and gather all the people of good will around the banner of peace.

On the good side, though it furthers the goals of the bloodthirsty War Party, a peace treaty quickly followed by a non-trespass agreement have been concluded with the germans and this will perhaps save our land from utter destruction. All our production, to the detriment of our citizens' welfare, has already been changed to offensive units. These news are of bad omen.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 7, 2003, 03:13

sister? we have women in our party? *g*

Devil of Truth · February 7, 2003, 04:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
sister? we have women in our party? *g*

Nope. He’s just addressing MrBaggins, in case he drops by.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 7, 2003, 05:03

oh bugger, and i just thought we might have an additional advance in contrast to the testosterone driven war party

Frozzy · February 7, 2003, 05:05

Devil of Truth · February 7, 2003, 05:35

Quote:

Originally posted by medio
I believe these are our members:
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Tamerlin
Devil of Truth
Immortal Wombat
medio

Fencesitters:
Locutus
Jbytheway
H tower
Martin Guhrmann

Medio, your counts are right. Good work

. We need to grow these numbers.

I believe there are a number of "sympathisers" lurking out there that feel at least somewhat positive towards our cause. (Using your numbers and the MoD election as a yardstick, there should be about 9 people). I think they haven’t signed up for membership because they want to remain free to choose and change as they wish.

That’s fine.

These are the people we should focus our attention on. Not to get them to join necessarily, but to get them to at least consider our proposals. The war party is too bloody-minded to listen to reason, trying to get them to tone down their "blood shall run" attitude is like asking our donkeys to stand on their hind legs and dance the can-can. We need to position ourselves as a viable alternative to the fight club. We should be a party of the people (as opposed to soldiers and tyrants). Let them concentrate on their petty squabbles while they lose focus of the bigger picture.

Any thoughts who our sympathisers may be, and how we could reach them?

Devil of Truth · February 7, 2003, 05:38

Please don’t forget to vote on the war against Austria. The thread is here.

Vote NO!

Tamerlin · February 7, 2003, 09:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
sister? we have women in our party? *g*

I was joking as there is no female member registered in the Apolyton APP log.

child of Thor · February 7, 2003, 11:12

Just out of interest i was wondering in what style you guys play a game of CTP2 and under what circumstances do you go to war?
This is NOT a loaded question that i will use in a political manner to get any 'leverage'. I give you my word on that.

The reason is i see myself as a peaceful player, and it's been quite interesting to be percieved as a 'warmonger' because of my affiliation with the WP.

My usual prefered strat is to try to keep as far away from other civs for as long as possible so i can build a nice self-dependant empire(maybe 10-20 cities max), lots of internal trade,city improvements and wonders. Useing science to keep in the game and generaly having a small but advanced army mainly for defence.
Thats if i'm in a non-conflict zone.

If i get aggressed then i will strike back, but on very rare occasions i will wage war on another civ for strategic reasons.

So do you guys get through a 'whole' game without any warfare and if not always, under what circumstances do you decide to go to war?

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 7, 2003, 11:18

well, of course i change playing styles from game to game, but normally i don't declare war often by myself, rather caring to polish my empire. you can't conquer all the lands, due to the city cap, so i normally invade only those begging for it.

MrBaggins · February 7, 2003, 11:22

Well... conquering can include bloodbathing their cities... so...

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 7, 2003, 11:49

which will not help you in getting other civs as friends. i almost always (though of course in enjoy a bloody game sometimes as well) try to go for diplomatic or science victories. of course most games becoming boring at some stage when you have become unbeatable. but that occurs even earlier if you are (succesfully! which gets harder to impossible with higher difficulty levels) just slaughtering anybody in your way.

Tamerlin · February 7, 2003, 12:18

Double Post...

Tamerlin · February 7, 2003, 12:18

Quote:

Originally posted by child of Thor
Just out of interest i was wondering in what style you guys play a game of CTP2 and under what circumstances do you go to war?
This is NOT a loaded question that i will use in a political manner to get any 'leverage'. I give you my word on that.

The reason is i see myself as a peaceful player, and it's been quite interesting to be percieved as a 'warmonger' because of my affiliation with the WP.

My usual prefered strat is to try to keep as far away from other civs for as long as possible so i can build a nice self-dependant empire(maybe 10-20 cities max), lots of internal trade,city improvements and wonders. Useing science to keep in the game and generaly having a small but advanced army mainly for defence.
Thats if i'm in a non-conflict zone.

If i get aggressed then i will strike back, but on very rare occasions i will wage war on another civ for strategic reasons.

So do you guys get through a 'whole' game without any warfare and if not always, under what circumstances do you decide to go to war?

I am playing excactly the same way as you though I tend to be more aggressive as I increase the level of difficulty.

We are the kind of player called "empire builder"...

child of Thor · February 7, 2003, 12:23

yes thats true(re bloodbath), but i've always felt that even though it's a great feature to have, it should have much bigger consequence with loss of regard - maybe specifically all the cities nearest to the civ that commits the action+ maybe higher garrison requirements forever in those cities? Look at Wales/Eire/Scotland for example

I rarely bloodbath - only if i think a civ has behaved very badly towards me(like keeps breaking non-trespass agreements and starts pillageing my tiles or worse etc).

Zaphod Beeblebrox,
Ok i was just a bit surprised at the very strong anti-war stance and was thinking maybe it was just to keep 'in character' with your party, rather than support the tactical risk in going with war in our situation. We will have to see how it turns out.

Tamerlin,
I agree that 'empire builder' would suit my prefered play style. Maybe with an added 'isolationist scientist'

Once we have got a hold of austria so it can't get back at us i'll be much less keen for attacking other nations, i just feel this austria campaign will give us the room we need to set-up a strong peaceful tradeing nation. Unlucky for austria(or us!) for being so close and having nice territory. In time we should give peace a chance

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 7, 2003, 12:38

Quote:

Originally posted by child of Thor
Zaphod Beeblebrox,
Ok i was just a bit surprised at the very strong anti-war stance and was thinking maybe it was just to keep 'in character' with your party, rather than support the tactical risk in going with war in our situation.

well, of course this dg is a game as well, a diplomatic roleplayinggame or something like that, and i love games. so maybe if everybody would have cried for peace in the beginning, i would have founded a war party just for the fun of it

MrBaggins · February 7, 2003, 12:58

I view there as being only two genuine victory conditions in CtP2... bloodlust and science.

I always play with the aim of achieving my set goal as quickly as possible. Even with a science victory aim, acquisition through conquest is always valuable, as is degredation of their capabilities; it keeps you safe, and it keeps them from researching anything close to the gaia controller advance.

I really don't see the point of artificial game styles, when the game has not been adapted well to it.

Diplomacy is useful, only to delay annoying wars, and to allow you information, so you can target your aggression, not to further your goals, ultimately. Conquest will always get you further, faster. With the game balance as such, war, coupled with aggressive expansion and development will always be the premier strategy.

MrBaggins

Tamerlin · February 7, 2003, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
well, of course this dg is a game as well, a diplomatic roleplayinggame or something like that, and i love games. so maybe if everybody would have cried for peace in the beginning, i would have founded a war party just for the fun of it

The role playing part of this DG is obviously an important element as far as I am concerned and I think I would miss the whole point if I ignored it.

medio · February 9, 2003, 08:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Tamerlin

The role playing part of this DG is obviously an important element as far as I am concerned and I think I would miss the whole point if I ignored it.

exactly my position also. This is especially true for us lowly settlers who have little to offer in the way of an overall stratagem, but enjoy these things nonetheless.

Tamerlin · February 9, 2003, 09:20

You are wrong medio, the Settlers (that which I was just a few months ago) are the life forces of the CtP2 community. Each Settler bring with him a fresh perspective, allows the community to grow and without their input the community would not evolve and end up looking at its navel.

H Tower · February 9, 2003, 10:43

I'm not reading through more than 100 posts to find out what your party stands for, someone explain it to me please

Tamerlin · February 9, 2003, 15:18

Dear H Tower, though our program is yet to be fully detailed I can try to sum it up in a few lines:

The APP believes the needs of our people can only be met through the commitment of our nation's resources to growth through peacefull means such as new settlements, science and friendship with our neighbours.

We strongly advocate the building of a defensive army and not of an offensive military force. The spared resources would allow us to invest in many improvements and buildings that will in turn accelerate our growth and promote the welfare of our people through economical, technical and scientifical development.

War should be the ultimate answer to a threat that can not be deal with in any other way. The current situation does not claim for a war as the territories around our cities (especially to the east and south-east where we could send settlers if we were not building military units) have not been adequately explored and could be settled in order to expand our borders and increase the generated resources.