Senate Bill: Victory by Diplomacy

Kloreep · February 15, 2003, 02:36

This bill (if passed) orders Na'rmer to build the United Nations in Apolyton as soon as Fission is discovered. It further orders that the President, when prompted, will choose to hold a vote of the UN to attempt the diplomatic victory of our grand civilization!

Poll lasts 7 days, so please take your time and listen to arguments before voting.

Aro · February 15, 2003, 02:45

First vote...

Kloreep · February 15, 2003, 02:46

Do we go the short - though maybe riskier - route, or the long way round? Remember, you don't have to vote immediately; this poll is open for a week.

Also, if this bill passes, Shiber will probably need authorization for numerous alliances. I'll leave it up to him to figure out what he wants and post a bill for it if this looks like it'll pass.

Kloreep · February 15, 2003, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Aro
First vote...

Don't you people ever consider carefully?

Aro · February 15, 2003, 02:49

We have to study carefully the roadcage's plan, but it seems very, very efficient.
Sarge, could you post your plan about the diplo victory here, or a link?

Aro · February 15, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Kloreep

Don't you people ever consider carefully?

I'm considering this for days...

Jon Shafer · February 15, 2003, 02:50

Do it.

Let's end this game when we can.

roadcage · February 15, 2003, 03:01

Follow the link to where the Diplomatic Victory plan was outlined.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...63#post1715463

That post was made based on the 1360 save so a little update is in order. Our max Science production has swelled from 2371 beakers in 1360 to 2749 beakers in 1395. This is more than ample to do Fission in 4 turns.

The Plan:

1395 start Flight, the last required Industrial age tech
1415 start Fission, the UN enabler
start buying alliances, objective is atleast 6 preferably more alliances against Japan by 1425
1430 rush whatever Apolyton is building so
1435 Apolyton Leader rushes UN
1440 hold vote and celebrate

We should have lots of goodies to give to our Alliance partners. MT, Flight, Cash, Cash/turn, Lux whatever it takes to buy our way to victory.

And it is also necessary to maintain the war against Japan for the duration. Just keep it low intensity so we don't get a lot of war weariness.

Comments welcome.

Shiber · February 15, 2003, 07:18

I've voted no.
IMHO, the triumph of scientists is much more glorious and honorable than the triumph of diplomats. Therefore, I would like us to go to the stars. Wouldn't you?

CiverDan · February 15, 2003, 08:35

I think the time has come to get this game over with...

Nimitz · February 15, 2003, 12:22

Do we really want to risk all we've done on this very risky win.

joncnunn · February 15, 2003, 13:36

I'm going to refrain from voting for a few days thinking this over some more before voting.

As long as we destroy Japense forces within our territory, including teritoral waters, we will get no WW.

Even destroying a transport in the ocean won't add much WW. (I think that's only counted as 1 unit against us regardless of the # of units it's carring)

What would cause big war werrious would be an invasion of Japan.

The big thing we need is to have as many civs as possible be gracious towards us.

The following civs though we've been at war with so if they are still around the most we can hope for is for them to abstain:
Persia, Zulu, China, Rome, Babylon. (Japan will almost certatinely be eligible to vote for themselves and do so.)

Those most likely to vote for us: Greece, England, Irq, Russians, and Aztecs. (But be sure to check Greeces population, it's possible that they might be eligible to vote for themselves as well which would throw a monkey wrenth into the works.)

Arnelos · February 15, 2003, 17:11

Too risky, in my opinion.

Besides, I'd rather win by space race.

Sheik · February 15, 2003, 18:21

Let's end it. I vote for Diplomatic victory

roadcage · February 15, 2003, 23:44

Victory by UN vote is not necessarily risky. There are certain diplomatic steps necessary to ensure that the outcome is satisfactory. That's why they call the victory type "Diplomatic". What is risky is calling for the vote without doing the necessary diplomatic things.

Let's imagine that the vote were called right now. Needless to say it won't happen because the UN Great Wonder needs to be built first. But if it were, each civ remaining in the game would be given 3 options. The leader names of the top two civs as determined by score on the display, and abstention. Looking at the current scores the choices would be:
banana
Tokugawa
abstain

And looking closely at the score spreads, it is almost a certainty that the top two civs will be the same 9 turns from now.

So how do we convince a majority of the civs that the banana is a better choice than the Shogun Tokugawa?

By diplomacy. We are currently in a low intensity warfare situation with Japan. It is a reasonable and proper choice for us to solicit allies in this war. If we can get a majority of the civs to form Alliances with us against Japan, those civs will also be at war with Japan and therefore highly unlikely to vote for the Shogun.

We approach this situation with an extremely large bag of goodies to offer prospective allies. Motorized Transport, Flight, several Luxes, and several thousand Lytons and over a thousand Lytons per turn. And I am confident that we can get all 10 of the candidate civs to ally against Japan for a mere fraction of our stash.

So where is the risk? We do not commit to having a vote until we call for it. We will be Leader Rushing the UN in Apolyton in the year 1435 and will have the option to call the vote in 1440. If by some chance, we cannot get a significant majority of the Civs to Ally with us, we will not call for the vote.

So I say to all these present. Vote for Diplomatic victory. See how the alliances pan out. And when they do as I am sure they will, be present for the turnchat that encompases 1440. And be sure to bring your party hats.

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

Arnelos · February 16, 2003, 00:19

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage
Let's imagine that the vote were called right now. Needless to say it won't happen because the UN Great Wonder needs to be built first. But if it were, each civ remaining in the game would be given 3 options. The leader names of the top two civs as determined by score on the display, and abstention. Looking at the current scores the choices would be:
banana
Tokugawa
abstain

The banana might actually WIN an election!

I'm still in favor of a space race victory rather than a diplomatic one, but the banana actually winning an election is enough of poetic justice for the banana and amusing headline for the last Jungle Gazette that I'm willing to be quite contented by a diplomatic win

Aggie · February 16, 2003, 02:11

I could support diplomatic victory if we could accomplish it "honestly". What I mean by honestly, is if play the game as we normally would in the persuit of spacerace victory. In short the decsions made must not be made just to get a diplomatic victory. Any alliances/wars MUST be what we would normally do. Otherwise it could taint the victory.
Aggie

Arnelos · February 16, 2003, 02:32

Aggie,

So, in other words... you're suggesting that you would be willing to go toward a diplomatic victory only if we don't actually try to go toward a diplomatic victory, thus raising the distinct possibility that we will LOSE the game.

C'mon.....

Jon Shafer · February 16, 2003, 03:05

The game is won either way... if you need a little popup box from the game to tell you that, then so be it.

Whatever it says, Apolytonia dominated the game.

roadcage · February 16, 2003, 11:14

There is nothing 'tainted' about a diplomatic victory. It is included within the Civ3 engine and therefore a proper victory.

If we go this route, the final save for the game will be just before end of turn in 1435. From that point, it is just end the turn, respond to any tween turn contacts, acknowledge all the builds, and finally a dialog asking about a UN vote.

For those who wish to seek other paths to victory, just say no and play on for 36 more turns for space race, or an indeterminant number of turns for domination.

The plan is fully consistent with a full science blitz space ship victory, and will be achievable 9 techs or 36 turns later whether we do the alliances thing or not.

The only difference is which tech we will decide to research in the 1430/1435 tween turns interim. If we go diplomatic, any Modern era tech will do. If we go space ship, Computers is indicated. Computers allows Research Lab improvements and Seti program Great Wonder for furthur beaker enhancements. To maintain the 4 turn tech rate to the end, we will need several Research Labs. Since Computers is an acceptable choice for both paths to victory, it is suggested.

And Mechanized Infantry is always nice.

Panag · February 16, 2003, 14:18

hi ,

nah , we should go for space race or so , ....

have a nice day

joncnunn · February 18, 2003, 11:13

I usually reserach Computers as my first Modern Era tech, but with us having a GL on hand that's commited to building the UN we should research Fission first to use him, especally if we are contining to allow Jap units to land before killing them.

OPD · February 18, 2003, 13:27

Nay
I don't think I've ever been against anything else in the game as much as this.

Why go for the hollow victory now when there is so much left to do.

After looking at the save for the first time since term 4, I was a bit disapointed with the lack of expansion and conquest. I had hopped that, considering our earlier conquest we would now rule the entirety of our original landmass or at least abanana major.

Ok so perhaps things went a bit builder and a load of universities were built but that doesn't mean that a conquest victory is not still possible.

If it were up to me I'd declare war on most of the other civs immediately, it'd be alot more interesting than waiting to see who the zulu's vote into the UN.

I mean the Greeks haven't even been attacked yet nor have the Aztecs been punished for stealing those two US cities off us.

joncnunn · February 18, 2003, 13:38

I think the Zulu are probably going to be abstaining on the vote; I think they've been at war with just about everybody that's left in the game at some point.

The English wipe out of the Persians increased the chances of us winning an election.

If another of the civs that we've been at war with in the past is wiped out, we would have an exclent chance of winning the election.

Aggie · February 18, 2003, 14:20

Quote:

[SIZE=1]
We approach this situation with an extremely large bag of goodies to offer prospective allies. Motorized Transport, Flight, several Luxes, and several thousand Lytons and over a thousand Lytons per turn. And I am confident that we can get all 10 of the candidate civs to ally against Japan for a mere fraction of our stash.

I said earlier that I would support Diplomatic victory only if we played as we normally would. Well as shown by this plan we would be tainting our victory. Would we normaly gift such techs to other nations. If the answer is no, we are not playing"honest" as we normally would.
It would be sad to play a game one way and at the very end change our play to get a desired result.
Aggie

roadcage · February 18, 2003, 16:20

OPD, wake up. there is no hope of getting our peacenick administration to go for a domination victory.

So the choices are Diplomatic or Space Ship. And to demonstrate how rediculous the Space Ship Victory is I offer a link to

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...SC#post1680612

Yes, Our Ironworks can do the entire SS Banana faster than 4 turns per tech.

So I ask, which victory type is hollow?

realpolitic · February 18, 2003, 20:48

Too risky we've made too many enemies. At least we know where we stand technologically.

Diplomatic victory is insanely historically inaccurate, too.

GhengisFarb™ · February 18, 2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
The game is won either way... if you need a little popup box from the game to tell you that, then so be it.

Whatever it says, Apolytonia dominated the game.

Agreed, not bad for some Jungle people.

joncnunn · February 19, 2003, 13:37

Several of our historical enemies can no longer vote:

Abe, Joan of Arc, and Xerxes won't be able to vote against us.

What's potientally risky is that there can be 3 civs eligible to be Sec General instead of merely 2.

If everybody's choice is between Japan, us, and abstaining, then signing MA against Japan with as many countries as possible, starting with those we've never been at war with should result in a victory for us.

But if countries have a choice between Japan, Greece, us, and abstatining, then the vote would be risky.

In addition, calling a vote without signing the MAs against Japan would also be too risky.

Quote:

Originally posted by realpolitic
Too risky we've made too many enemies. At least we know where we stand technologically.

Diplomatic victory is insanely historically inaccurate, too.

Panag · February 19, 2003, 14:08

hi ,

, we could "downsize" the others a bit , wanna bet they shall vote for us , ......

have a nice day