Foreign Advisor Campaign Thread

[Kuciwalker]

Do you favor "sharing" our civilized nature with our neighbors .

[Ninot]

I favor keeping ourselves civilized, and to that point, always more civilized than our neighbors. I have no objections to civilizing our neihbors, as long as we can do it wihout the fuss afterwards. Basically, I don't prefer going to war if we can't completely conquer the enemy. A disgruntled neighbor is useless to us. A conquered neighbor isnt.

Now, i would like to state my opinion on what Turambar said about "You scratch my back, I'll stab yours".

I completely disagree with this sentiment. Our neihbors are not there to be abused, and I presume they understand that. I feel we need to keep a diplomatic stance in every case possible, untill we feel a war is on the horizon. It is not only dangerous, but short-sighted to abuse our neighbors needlessly. I believe it better that we keep cordial relations with all nations we do not wish to conquer immediately.

[Captain]

I favour Ninot over Turambar - he is more diplomatic but also making sure our rivals don't take advantage of us.

The foreign minister should be level-headed and cool.

If one wants to be a warmonger, run for military advisor. That is the one position where the job really is to always watch for military opportunities.

But, in the early game, warmongering is good. The ancient age is full of brutalities, so Turambar's policy is fine then.

I think I would support Ninot more as foreign advisor in the crucial middle ages/ industrial ages but I want to see how he does in the early game too.

[beno]

strong doesn't have to mean brutal and I find that the opening style of play, and diplomatic decisions made, will send their echoes rippling through our history. (wow!)

I'd love to see our democracy produce a nation of evil - but I suspect it won't. Winning on Emperor (or above ) with a morally upstanding code (some might say 'chivalrous') seems more challenging, fitting - and in keeping with this democratic contest of pop-civ.

I hope this makes sense. I... I'm not very good at drinking guiness at lunchtime.

[Turambar]

By "You scratch my back I'll stab yours" I mean that we should get as much as we can from opposing civs through diplomacy and when there is no more to gain from them we should go about destroying them (assumeing we are in a position to do so).

If we are ahead of one of our neighbours in tech and military power then there isn't much point in them existing any more so we should destroy them.

[Togas]

Foreign Advisor Candidacy

I too would like to run for Foreign Advisor.

Instead of a prolonged campaign speech, I would like to explain my unique perspective on this job and how I would handle it if chosen:

The job (as I see it) is to manipulate our neighbors in ways that benefit our nation.

I would only advise that we give into demands if we are facing certain defeat, but only once. Once is more than enough. We should always be ready to stand against an agressive neighbor.

To that end, I will endeavor to engage in agrements that favor our nation and will push our president to squeeze every last bit of benefit from our neighbors capitulations after we have defeated them in war.

I will urge our government to mass-trade the same (harmless) tech to as many parties as possible, so that we may reap multiple benefits from our labor.

I will encourage other nations to fight each other, break treaties and the like through bribes and hollow promises to aid in their defense.

I will resist any efforts to get us entanged in foreign wars through mutual defense pacts unless possible war would lead to new resources and prosperity for our nation.

I do not want foreign military units in our nation and will not thwart the efforts our of military advisor by signing a right-of-passage agreement.

I do not believe in world peace. I do not believe in sharing our glory with others. I will strive to push our nation to the top as the only super power.

-- Candidate Togas

[Kuciwalker]

Let me clarify: do you favor FORCEFULLY "sharing" our civilized nature?

[Togas]

Originally posted by skywalker
Let me clarify: do you favor FORCEFULLY "sharing" our civilized nature?

I certainly do.

But I'm not a proponent of taking on some backwards, corrupt, rebellious foreigners that are going to require us to spend the bulk of our treasury defending and rebuilding them. There is a limit to how large we should expand the empire ... but such decisions are ultimately made by other ministers.

--Candidate Togas

[atawa]

Originally posted by Togas
There is a limit to how large we should expand the empire ... but such decisions are ultimately made by other ministers.

--Candidate Togas

What is your (and that of the other candidates) position on expansion? When do you want to start building up instead of building new city's?

[Ninot]

I would like to heartily thank Captain for his comments. I realise that my view may not be truly adapted for the early ages, where war is key, but I would like to think that other nations are not existant solely for abuse...

And to that point, I would like to state exactly where I differ from my (apparant) two opponents.

And I would like to start with quotes in a counter-chronological order, thus, starting with Togas.

I will encourage other nations to fight each other, break treaties and the like through bribes and hollow promises to aid in their defense.

This is exactly the one thing I stand adamently against. I will never enter into any kind of treaties or pacts, and then ponder stepping out of them by choice. Because it will be early game, i cant use MPP's as example.. but if we enter into any ROP's or Mutual Agression pacts, or even simple trade agreements, I will do everything within my power to force the cabinet to realise that we should wait untill the 20 turn agreement ends, so that we may break off the deal with peaceful terms, even if it is to engage in war, or to disengage in one.

So what am I saying? I am saying that I will never pull a diplomatic maneuver that leaves us in a very bad diplomatic state with another nation, such as breaking an ROP agreement with a declaration of war.

But, to keep things clear, I am not anti-war. I realise war is vitally essential to the early era, and to that point, I say I will not fight any urges to declare war against a neighbor, AS LONG AS WE ARE NOT BREAKING ANY TREATIES OR AGREEMENTS

Now, I have one specific scenario I will state. If another nation is seen to be crossing our territory with settlers, or massive ammounts of forces, i think our only option is war. We can not allow nations to try to settle our nether regions, and we can not allow them to get military advantages through positioning. However, if it is just a warrior exploring, I think we can agree that is not so offensive for war.

This next part is Turambar's

By "You scratch my back I'll stab yours" I mean that we should get as much as we can from opposing civs through diplomacy and when there is no more to gain from them we should go about destroying them (assumeing we are in a position to do so).

As i have always stated, other nations are not present to be abused. They are people too! (or sorta...) I believe we should keep plans for what we plan to do while in office, such as, which nations we can consider conquering. And I most definately suggest we always try for Polite relationships, unless we are planning for a war that may be immeadiate.

But, to keep things clear, I do believe we should get maximum profit from every deal. We must test our neighbors to see what kind of deals we may get that are best in our favor.

To that end, I will endeavor to engage in agrements that favor our nation and will push our president to squeeze every last bit of benefit from our neighbors capitulations after we have defeated them in war.

This i very much disagree with. IF the nation is still around to have benefits extracted from threw trade, that means we didn't conquer them completely, or perhaps didn't conquer them much at all. That means they are still a threat to us. To that point, I think we should try to reastablish Polite relationships ASAP.

And, even though i admitt early war is essential, I leave you with this to think over. If we pick on everyone, who's gonna be our friends if a Massive World War breaks out in the Industry age?

[Turambar]

I believe that any decision made to do with expansion and war needs to be decided with the ministers in charge of expansion and the military.

I'm in favour of early expansion in order to secure our position in the world early on but not beyond our ability to defend all of our empire.

I believe that all nations must eventually be destroyed until only we are left to rule the world, but this must be done over time and with careful planning to ensure its success.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by skywalker
Let me clarify: do you favor FORCEFULLY "sharing" our civilized nature?

Sorry if i didn't answer this question as well as you wanted it to be answered.

In one context, yes, in another, no

I believe in expanding our empire through force if the way we are doing it is for reasons, and good ones.

I don't believe in gaining land that is not of much use. In the early age, there may not be such a thing for how little we have anyways. So, in the early age, I suppose my answer would be "Yes".. i do favor forcefully sharing our version of civilization. But as long we do it tastefully enough so that we aren't building rafters for ourselves to hang from in the future.

So, in short, Yes, but prudently.

And as for the latest question from Atawa

What is your (and that of the other candidates) position on expansion? When do you want to start building up instead of building new city's?

I would favor getting as much land from our own settlers as possible. Its easier than trying to maintain other nations citizens who revolt. But as soon as we fill the land available to us, that is when i think the optimal time for military buildup would be.

so ya, early, i put settlers before war.. but when the settlers are running into borders.. lets replace them with swordsmen!

[atawa]

Originally posted by Turambar
I believe that all nations must eventually be destroyed until only we are left to rule the world, but this must be done over time and with careful planning to ensure its success.

My thoughts exactly

Originally posted by Ninot As i have always stated, other nations are not present to be abused. They are people too! (or sorta...) I believe we should keep plans for what we plan to do while in office, such as, which nations we can consider conquering. And I most definately suggest we always try for Polite relationships, unless we are planning for a war that may be immeadiate.

Kill them all

[atawa]

I would favor getting as much land from our own settlers as possible. Its easier than trying to maintain other nations citizens who revolt. But as soon as we fill the land available to us, that is when i think the optimal time for military buildup would be.

so ya, early, i put settlers before war.. but when the settlers are running into borders.. lets replace them with swordsmen!




I thought I'd made up my mind but I might reconsidder now.

[Spiffor]

I will support Ninot wholeheartedly.
He's the man of the situation : cool headed, and aware our reputation must remain spotless (obvious in the ancient era).
A foreign advisor must be pragmatical, and that's what Ninot is offering us.

Atawa : we can't afford to say "kill them" before we know the exact situation. A foreign advisor has to be wise in his decisions, and has to declare war at the good time. Deciding to make war at bad timing (ex : when we don't have money to bribe allies) could be destructive for our empire.

edit : added answer to Atawa