View Full Version : Poll: War vs Vox to stop Hinduism from spreading?
notyoueither
June 7, 2006, 01:16
Here is a poll by paw.
Speak up. Do we declare war on Vox to stop the spread of religion, or do we stay at peace and accept the possibility of spread?
This thread isn't for debate. Please simply state your preference here (along with reasoning if desired) while carrying on the discussion in two or more other threads where this is being discussed.
The turn player (probably me) needs a simple tally of opinion, and this would be where it will be looked for.
Yes, you can change your mind. Post a second time.
Declaration of war, :b: there are many ways a gouverment could restrict or act against a religion and there are many stances between peace and war that are not simulated by this game in a good way. i dont think its an exploit, but if you others concider it at such i will change my vote.
Arrian
June 7, 2006, 08:47
I'm torn. My gut answer, though, is no.
-Arrian
Mudhut
June 7, 2006, 08:50
I too am a bit concerned about it, but my vote is yes.
Briefly:
-Snoopy has confirmed that it is legal (ie faux war is allowed)
-The benefits outway the disadvantages
-I've told my conscience to shut up
Cort Haus
June 7, 2006, 10:37
What we cannot do is declare war in-game, then announce to vox that it is only for religious reasons (no conflict involved) and then hit the scout. Hence the vote is more complicated that yes/no to one question.
If we declare now there is perhaps less chance of us springing the ambush on the scout. If we wait we have the chance of hitting the scout (very valuable) and then being at war for 'real' - at which point we can explain to Vox where we stand.
I'd rather kill the scout than go to religious war now and let the scout escape.
Unfortunately I don't have time to articulate properly, as I've got impossible deadlines in a few hours, (and MUST get back to work) but I wanted to make that point.
Originally posted by Cort Haus
I'd rather kill the scout than go to religious war now and let the scout escape.
That's part of the reason why for the moment, my vote would be no.
Another reason would be that we need a religion, even if it isn't our own. But we'll get one sooner or later... and at that time we can attack the shrine city to get our holy city too.
DeepO
Cort Haus
June 7, 2006, 13:33
I'm not in favour of an immediate declaration, but I wouldn't rule it out, in case we have a chance to hit the scout.
As I said on the Vox diplo thread, if they keep off the borders they won't take the hoped-for path towards Grog, so I think this chance may have diminished.
I'm not convinced either that catching Hinduism in the next few turns would be too disastrous. I'd be inclined to risk leaving it a few turns, to give us a chance of whacking the scout, and to not play our hand too early.
I don't have the save - can anyone say if we have a trade route with Vox?
Originally posted by Cort Haus
I don't have the save - can anyone say if we have a trade route with Vox?
we do according the the screens from the earlier turns.. dont have the save either but cant think of any possible action that can have changed this taken they sure dont have any roads..
Arrian
June 7, 2006, 15:57
Oh, yes: if we have a shot at the scout, my position swings more toward favoring war in order to kill the scout.
No shot at scout = I'm against.
-Arrian
I have no opinion.
I think for the good of the team we should declare war.
But my personal preference is towards the unpredictably of allowing religious spread.
Basically I'm going to vote for taking a shot at the scout if we can, if this happens, we remain at war. Otherwise we stay at peace and deal with the religious curve-ball.
Summary up to this point (for easy reading):
War vs Vox to stop Hinduism from spreading?
Yes (3): Ennet, Mudhut & Theseus
No, but yes if we can kill the scout (5): Arrian, Blake, Cort Haus, DeepO & Dominae*
No (0):
*Still for a war in the scout ambush fails..
EDIT: updated as of post #20
Ennet, I strongly support taking out the scout if at all possible. I don't oppose war to Vox, I simply feel we need to win more than blocking spread.
DeepO
Sorry missread your post, :o updated with the correct info now
No problem, that happens a lot with my posts ;)
DeepO
Theseus
June 7, 2006, 18:54
Beyond just the issue of religion:
I say, take Vox out.
* With our production advantages (i.e., non-coastal and good hills), we are certain to win an early war, either to the death or for an easy Skirmisher choke.
* Assuming we don;t take huge losses, the investment in Skirmishers will continue to yield value.
* By capturing Hinduism, we can of course focus our efforts on other important matters.
I do not consider there to be any meaningful benefits to a Vox vassal strategy.
From my limited experience in team demogames, I do not think that there is any significant diplomatic penalty to early conquests, as long as they are, hmm, straightforward. :) So that means no trickery regarding diplomacy followed by an unexpected Scout capture, or some such thing. But a straight-up war? Let's have at it!
Similar with me, but due to diffrent causes, my english isnt the best and per rule i rarely post in discussions as have nothing to say, or i post, and still have nothing to say. =)
I did have some arguments for the choice of civ earlier however but it took me too long to write it up so i had to go to bed and the next day there were another page and a half of posts that kind of made my writings a bit pointless so i gave up the argument. Bit quieter here now so i can keep up with what's going on. :)
Theseus
June 7, 2006, 18:56
Originally posted by Theseus
Beyond just the issue of religion:
I say, take Vox out.
* With our production advantages (i.e., non-coastal and good hills), we are certain to win an early war, either to the death or for an easy Skirmisher choke. [Edit: To clarify, either for Skirmisher conquest, or a Skirmisher-choke followed by Axe-conquest.]
* Assuming we don;t take huge losses, the investment in Skirmishers will continue to yield value.
* By capturing Hinduism, we can of course focus our efforts on other important matters.
I do not consider there to be any meaningful benefits to a Vox vassal strategy.
From my limited experience in team demogames, I do not think that there is any significant diplomatic penalty to early conquests, as long as they are, hmm, straightforward. :) So that means no trickery regarding diplomacy followed by an unexpected Scout capture, or some such thing. But a straight-up war? Let's have at it!
Theseus
June 7, 2006, 18:57
Sorry, 'replied' instead of 'edit'.
Cort Haus
June 7, 2006, 19:43
Ennet, I'm in the 'No, but yes if we can kill the scout' camp for now.
Dominae
June 7, 2006, 22:34
I, too, think we should wait a couple of turns in order to help us ambush the Scout.
However, whether or not the ambush plan is successful, my vote is for declaring war regardless as soon as possible afterward.
Which gets me thinking: maybe we should have a "Poll: Should we Skirmisher rush Vox?" poll.
Our early UU is more useful if we go to war soon. As time goes by it becomes less of a power. What is the UU for Vox? Will it come into play much later?
notyoueither
June 8, 2006, 15:18
Vox are Russian, so Cossack.
Mudhut
June 8, 2006, 20:40
Okey dokey, in spite of all common sense, Vox have given us the very opportunity we were all discussing:
http://apolyton.net/upload/thumb/800/44669_Vox_Scout_next_to_us_weiu.JPG (http://apolyton.net/upload/view/44669_Vox_Scout_next_to_us_weiu.JPG)
Now, this is almost too easy...I can't believe that (1) after sending a message saying they would keep away from our borders, and (2) after Spinebreaker moved that way specifically to deter this movement, they would still move to this square.
But this is our chance -> what say you, comrades?
Mudhut
June 8, 2006, 20:53
Just in case it wasn't clear, I'm for attacking. We may not get another shot at the scout, and it really slows them down if we kill him (both in terms of exploration, and in the huts they will miss out on). Stopping the spread of religion is great as well.
But, since we should check it from all sides:
-There is a vague chance that we lose the combat -> can somebody do the maths?
-It is a suspiciously stupid move. Is there any reason why they would want us to kill their scout? Perhaps they want us to go to war with them so we don't get Hindu (hmmm). Perhaps they have a Woody II warrior about to make an assault on EotS (unlikely, there hasn't been enough time for them to build him and find a hut). I can't think of any other reason why they would have done this.... anybody else got any ideas?
Cort Haus
June 8, 2006, 21:38
Kill it!
Dominae
June 9, 2006, 00:09
Indeed, this is a great opportunity for us to gain momentum. I say attack.
Theseus
June 9, 2006, 00:59
Ummm, isn;t a Scout Str1?
notyoueither
June 9, 2006, 01:13
Yes. 1.25 when on that hill.
Metaliturtle
June 9, 2006, 01:31
KILL IT!!
Metaliturtle hath speakded!
Mudhut
June 9, 2006, 03:13
I've been thinking about it some more, trying to work out why they would make such a move. Here are my options:
1. They are just really really trusting, figuring that GS is soft and wouldn't attack this early.
2. They realised that if Spinebreaker was to get the opportunity to move 7 from his current position, they couldn't ever get past him. Because of the location of the hills, a scout would have to stop within range of a unit on that square. So they tried to slip past now, hoping that we wouldn't risk an early war, but figuring that even if their scout got bumped off, they had seen as much as they were ever going to see. [Note that this depends on them thinking that there is no passage around the southern edge of our borders - which is mistaken, but anyway]. Does that seem plausible?
Arrian
June 9, 2006, 08:19
KILL! MAIM! DESTROY!
[/ptwdg] ;)
-Arrian
Or they were not carefull and moved two squares at once and never laid eyes on the warrior until they were on top of the hill..
They agreed to stay off our border and still moved there, defenatly a kill :)
Pretty much have to do it.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.