Tent of the Chief of Staff, HQ

[POTUS]

I want to command the South-East Front to lead our march on the Old City.

[EmuGod]

Here's a map of Israel at the UN Partition. These are the current boundaries, not the ones Azazel posted.

[EmuGod]

BTW, this map is from Insurgent's Under Seige scenario.

[conmcb25]

OK Emu and the point is?

[Dr. Nick]

I don't know but this politico is loco if he thinks I'm going respect the dirty UN.

[PinkyGen]

True, but Azazel's map is bigger, and more clearly marks where he at least wants to attack. I think we all realized it was a present day map, but the political borders was not the point of the map. It was the colors that showed where we should end up. Nevertheless, I think your map currently shows the military predicamate the UN put us on. I mean Jerusalem is how far into Arab territory?

Anyway, it's not like the Arabs are going to respect the U.N. as well.

[Az]

actually, those aren't the current borders, as well. For example, Tiberias is palestinian. This is the UN DECISION, not the things on the ground.

[conmcb25]

OK Im confused here ( not a hard thing to do i know! )

What does the Un have to do with anything in game terms?

We should be pounding those Palestinian cities unmercifully tryoing to hook up our cities before the Brits leave correct? Around turn 7?

Am I missing something here or are we getting on a real life track vice a good strategy in the game track, AGAIN?i

[PinkyGen]

Ok, so things on the ground don't even match what the U.N. says.

I'm with conmcb25, while we may role-play to try to include the UN, the UN should not affect how military operations are actually conducted.

Additionally, El, a reminder, inform me when you have the fronts organized so I can get this show on the road.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you need to exceed them, you need a good reason, and you need to plead your case to the Knesset for vote.

And with an 80% vote needed, the probability of that happening is slim to none.

Especially since I hold the Harmony seat.

I support exceeding the UN terms if we are to give the Palestinians an offer to join Israel. Much less messier and more efficient than outright conquest.

Secondly, with these limited objectives, bribery will not exceed the intentions of the scenario designers.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, with these limited objectives, bribery will not exceed the intentions of the scenario designers.

Your not serious are you?

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Especially since I hold the Harmony seat.

It's 80% of the cabinet, not the knesset. You only get a vote if you become President. This is not law, or anything like that, just the governments policy that will change if the coalition decides to change.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I support exceeding the UN terms if we are to give the Palestinians an offer to join Israel. Much less messier and more efficient than outright conquest.

And for precisely these reasons the scenario designer has asked all players not to use it. The scenario also allows us to buy unlimited weapons even if our treasury is at 0, but that does not mean we should do.

Secondly, with these limited objectives, bribery will not exceed the intentions of the scenario designers.

Huh? He said don't bribe. I think we all already messing with the intentions by contemplating at least bribing one.

I think it's all good we forget about the map Emu posted, it's just confusing the issue. We know what starts as ours, and what starts as not ours. We have already indicated what we want to take that was not initially ours. If we capture these objectives, then it seems to me common sense that we expand the objective list. If such a situation arises where we capture all the objectives, and the cabinet does not agree to expand the list does not expand, I would be most upset.

[Ben Kenobi]

Huh? He said don't bribe. I think we all already messing with the intentions by contemplating at least bribing one.

Then why have a spy unit like the Mossad if he just sits there? I don't think it unbalances the game that much, especially if we don't use the military forces.

Are we going to make this a formal rule not to bribe at all?

The scenario also allows us to buy unlimited weapons even if our treasury is at 0, but that does not mean we should do.

No, that's obviously unbalancing.

Odd. Used to be the policy of only expanding through bribery was too harsh, now it seems too lenient.

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then why have a spy unit like the Mossad if he just sits there? I don't think it unbalances the game that much, especially if we don't use the military forces.

Are we going to make this a formal rule not to bribe at all?

He suggets using it for sabatoge and espionage. I think they could be useful in stealing technology and scouting out a cities defenses, less for sabatoge missions.

As for a formal rule, that's what the other thread is for, to see if people want it or not. I may post a poll. It will be the policy of this government to either not incite revolts, or to minimally incite revolts at a rate of one turn. I haven't made up my mind, and if there is an actual law passed banning it, then obviously then this government will not incite revolts.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Odd. Used to be the policy of only expanding through bribery was too harsh, now it seems too lenient.

It's deemed as possibly destabilizing, though I'm not sure if we could even have the cashflow necessary to sustain a bribing campaign. Perhaps later in the game, when more money is coming in, is bribery much more potent. The reason I care about this point is that I don't want people to view this game as invalid because we overrode the designer's House Rule.

Anyway, we should probably move this over to the Mossad thread anyway.

[conmcb25]

Ya and I say post a poll.

Being the self righteous SOB that I am.