Official Military Debate Thread

[MrWhereItsAt]

Due to reasons specified in the War Minister poll, I am likely to be largely absent from here for a couple of days (and ONLY a couple of days). In order that the ppl may take out their frustrations, I present to all this thread for members to put it to the Ministry what our soldiers should be doing now we seem to be having some success against the corrupt Egyptian regime, and the dangerous Americans.

Personally I hope to get the support to continue the assault until the Egyptian lands are liberated, and the American threat contained. Once these objectives are reached, I believe we can divert our efforts into more infrastructure and science. That will of course allow more potent armies for future War Ministers!

I can see it now...

Let the furious arguing commecne...

War Minister,
MrWIA.

[Kropotkin]

I feel the war should not be run at all costs (ie a total war). Limitied warfare should be enough so that the development of our heartland woun't suffer.

[MrWhereItsAt]

But what exactly do you mean? If we set ourselves some targets, we can achieve them (or find they are too hard and change them), and then be done with it. That's what I'm hoping for, some concrete things to achieve before ending the war.

[CannonFodder]

I think total war is the answer! We must take more lebensraum for the fatherland!!!

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I keep plugging the idea of ironclads for two reasons:

1. They are unaffected by city walls, and should thus have a much much better kill ratio than even cavalry would, and
2. This effectiveness means we will need far fewer unit to conquer the desired territory.

Just a few ironclads to pop the defenders, and a few land units to move into the undefended cities. Voila! Conquest.

Using fewer units means there will be no need to alter production of improvements and camel breeding in our core cities. Ergo, our borders expand while our cities get richer.

[civman2000]

Total war is too extreme. Take our best 8 cities or so, have 1-2 doing wonders, and the rest working on military. Of the next few cities the caravan building gets passed around, and occasionally one of the tops cities builds one. Then have the outer cities work on defense/improvement.

[JCP]

At this stay of our action, we have to go at the end of our war with Egypt and America.
For that, cf. the posts in the http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=51503 link.
Our army is sufficient and will be completed if we take foreign cities by bribing (after their capital).
We may progressively balance our effort between improvement, caravans and new units.
But we must keep ourself strong, because, as the diplomacy screen shows, all the AI Civ are unfriends.
Even without our will, we'll be at war with Carthaginoys, then Babylonians or Indians, and early than we hope, with Romans which will not accept our Citadel stopping their expension, in some (how ?) years.
In that situation, we are communists for a while, and we may become democrats only after building happiness improvments and wonders (temple in each city, JSB's, and later Women Suffrage).

[cavebear]

I agree with current Minister of War Sodaq. Ironclads are a great way to attack walled coastal cities. They ignore the walls, and they have 3 hit points to a Crusaders 1 hit point. Unless we through a half dozen Diplomats at the walls Crusaders will have a hard time getting past even Phalanxes, never mind Pikesmen.

And since Thebes is the Capital, we can't bribe it. I'll be very interested in seeing the first military recommendation from the new Minister of War.

[-Jrabbit]

Further, as soon as our ironclads kill *anything* they will become vets! Hail Magellan!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Will our Caravels upgrade to Ironclads? It's been a while since I've played civ2.

[Zedd]

I think caravels only upgrade to galleons.

[Space05us]

correct me if I'm wrong but when ships "bombard" in Civ 2 doesn't thier attack rate get cut in half?

[Gen. Hancock]

Ok people, ugh hmmm,


I suggest this as a possible alternative to our current Imperialistic, tyranical, blood, thirsty, savage way of doing things.

1) There is no other way right now of completely getting out of this war with Egypt so flatten them and forget about em.

2) Seek revenge on the Americans by destroying one unwalled yet key city and then negotiate peace and establish trade with them.

3) Build Marketplaces, Temples, Universities, and Stock Exchanges in all of our cities save but four or five.

4) in these four or five cities build up defence.

5) also focus on building roads to conect our cities to eachother as well as to our neighbors' cities.

Let us have World Peace rather than World Domination, rather let us Dominate as a more technologically advanced people that the rest of the world rather than just having the largest Military and destroying the rest of mankind.

Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock
Comanding II Corps
Union Army of the Potomac

[Space05us]

well for one thing I say flatten the Americans and Egyptians! We can be good neigbors with the americans after we take thier cities that we can see. As far as I'm concerned any other civ that goes to war with us deserves nothing better than to be a puddle of goop.

About the Americans, if we take the cities of thier's that we can currently see than wouldn't that make people more willing to explore in order to find the other American cities?

Besides in all of the games I've played the Americans and Egyptians have always had attitude problems.

SQUISH THEM


I've been really sloppy at writing things lately, perhaps sleep would be a good thing to consider...

[H Tower]

So far i've only seen a diplomat plan and a ironclad plan of attack on the egyptians and americans.

Votes for the ironclad plan:
Marquis de Sodaq
cavebear
-Jrabbit
H Tower

Votes for the Diplo Plan
JCP


Quite a few others of you say squish the enemy, but how?