Foreign Advisor Campaign Thread

[Ninot]

Originally posted by 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.

While the conquer victory is popular and perhaps what we may achieve.. i ask you this: "Will we be constantly reminding our neihbors of their impending doom, or will we stay low, taking it one enemy at a a time?" I think the latter is the better option.

[Turambar]

As i have always stated, other nations are not present to be abused.

What are they there for? What do you mean by abuse? If you mean war then we won't get anywhere without "abusing" other civs.

I believe we should keep plans for what we plan to do while in office, such as, which nations we can consider conquering.

Hang on a minute! Surely conquering another civ is a form of abuse which you are against! Make your mind up!

I've have never said other civs should be abused but that nations from which we can get no further benefit from should be destroyed providing we are in a position to do so.

I'm all for having good relationships with civs from which we can get resources or tech from but in order to establish ourselves as a dominat nation there must be war at some stage!

[Turambar]

On the issue of early settler's vs war I must agree that settlers are essential early on to set up the "core" of our empire from which build upon. Once borders are established then war must be considered. This is really a question for the Minister in charge of expansion though.

"Will we be constantly reminding our neihbors of their impending doom, or will we stay low, taking it one enemy at a a time?"

One nation at a time of course. Multi front wars will not work in our favour.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Turambar


What are they there for? What do you mean by abuse? If you mean war then we won't get anywhere without "abusing" other civs.

Hang on a minute! Surely conquering another civ is a form of abuse which you are against! Make your mind up!

I've have never said other civs should be abused but that nations from which we can get no further benefit from should be destroyed providing we are in a position to do so.

I'm all for having good relationships with civs from which we can get resources or tech from but in order to establish ourselves as a dominat nation there must be war at some stage!

You have stated before that you intended to squeeze things out of other nations and then declare war. that is what i declared abuse. If you can't keep up, don't run

And, I have also stated that I favor war in the early age, as long as we aren't in a bad position to go to war. I have also said conquer victory may be what we get in the end, and i am not opposed to that at all.

Also, if we have no further use for another nation, why does that automaticaly decide they should be vanquished? If they ARE so measily... then perhaps, let them be! If there are bigger fish to fry, why do you insist on taking on the easy job?

Beating up on nations that can just as easily be conquered later seems to be imprudent, when they might always decide to sign an agreement with another nation, that perhaps a minister suchas yourself was not planning on picking on just yet... and then what do we do? What do we do when agressive diplomacy goes wrong?

[Togas]

Excellent...

I think the candidacy is becoming very clear. One thing I wanted to draw was distinctions between the flowery words of Ninot, the agressive expansionism of Turambar, and myself.

Ninot clearly hasn't played this game enough to understand the fundamentals of actual Foreign Affairs in Civ III, as opposed to the real world. The other civs will not "respect" us. They will measure us by the numbers of our military and the value of our culture, and by how often we have broken a treaty.

I do not advise making many treaties because I do not want us to have to break them. Ninot is misquoting me. I advise us bribing other nations to break their treaties with each other, starting conflicts on other shores that drag down our opposition into endless wars with each other while we prosper in our democracy and play each side against the other as necessary.

So long as they hate each other, we can endlessly use their distrust against each other. That is the key to our rise to super world power. Should one of them attack us, we make a quick call to their hated rivals who immediately joins in "in our defense", drawing their military away. We take a few needed resources from the foolish nation who started the war, force them to give us additional spoils at the peace table, and then watch the "We Love the King" day parades.

... frankly, I'm not sure how much Turambar and I disagree, except that he might be more "conquer the world" in his approach than I. My approach is more "manipulate the world". I think Ninot's approach is "be respected by the world and play fairly".

With regards to expansionism, I will support our continued expansion into new territory with needed luxuries until such expansion becomes a burden on our economy and infrastructure. We should no doubt be one of, if not the, largest nations in the world. We need not take over the planet.

--Candidate Togas

[atawa]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

Hey I'm running for minister of Imperial Expansion, and if we run out of land.....

On the issue of early settler's vs war I must agree that settlers are essential early on to set up the "core" of our empire from which build upon. Once borders are established then war must be considered. This is really a question for the Minister in charge of expansion though.

SETTLERS!!

Well at least untill we run out of land orin need of tech or units

[Turambar]

You have stated before that you intended to squeeze things out of other nations and then declare war. that is what i declared abuse.

I think squeezing things from them a good idea. I did not say however that we should declare war immediatly, I said only when they have no further use for them and we are in a position to do so.

Also, if we have no further use for another nation, why does that automaticaly decide they should be vanquished?

What should we do with them then? If they no longer serve a purpose then surely their cities would be better off under our control paying us tax and producing units for us?

Beating up on nations that can just as easily be conquered later seems to be imprudent

If it is as easy to conquer them later as it is now then why wait? If we conquer a nation early then we get the benefits of having their cities for longer putting us in a better position within the world.

You never know what might happen in the future!

[Ninot]

Ninot clearly hasn't played this game enough to understand the fundamentals of actual Foreign Affairs in Civ III, as opposed to the real world. The other civs will not "respect" us. They will measure us by the numbers of our military and the value of our culture, and by how often we have broken a treaty.

I can see respect between the candidates has taken a back seat.

To say it plainly, I believe i have played the game enough. And to answer you plainly, it seems I know how to deal with people much more curteously.

I have played the warmongering style, and honestly, it is my style of play of choice. Cultural buildup is too boring for me. However, forcing other nations to dislike me isn't.. nor is your style.

So let's analyse your style of play. You convince two nations to begin a war overseas, lets say. Then one of the two becomes very dominant, and controls their continent. Is that good? No, its worse. Two small nations are easier to conquer than one big one.
And in ANY case..
It is not a diplomat, or foreign advisor's primary role, to look for ways to begin war. It is SUPPOSED to be our job to ensure our peoples needs are met, and guarantee good relations all around unless public opinions state we need different with a certain nation.

Diplomats don't start wars. Thats the job of politicians.

[Ninot]

If it is as easy to conquer them later as it is now then why wait? If we conquer a nation early then we get the benefits of having their cities for longer putting us in a better position within the world.

k.. maybe you skipped the part of the thread where I explained why.. not your fault, maybe i shoulda made it bold or underlined...


small nations can ALWAYS call on bigger nations for help, can't they? and if we are picking on nations till they are useless, one at a time.. then that means there is the posibility of other pretty decently big nations to help out these small powers.

what would you do if your 4 city neighbor nation calls on the 30 city neighbor nation to the other side of you.. for a little, "help"?

[Turambar]

small nations can ALWAYS call on bigger nations for help, can't they? and if we are picking on nations till they are useless, one at a time.. then that means there is the posibility of other pretty decently big nations to help out these small powers

Obviously you missed me repeatedly saying useless nations should be destroyed and not left to cause truoble (which is what you want).

what would you do if your 4 city neighbor nation calls on the 30 city neighbor nation to the other side of you.. for a little, "help"?

I'd give him a good kicking too! Which we hopefully be in a position to do so!

So lets say we left this little nation alone what would you do in a few thousand years when that little nation expands, gets nukes and poses a threat along with his 30 city mate?

[Ninot]

Well, by what you are proposing, if we are sizeable enough to take on a big nation just like a small one, then why are we bothering to piddle over these small nations?

If we can conquer a nation disturbing our lead in the game.. why are we taking out nations that should be last on the score list?

you seem to have low military ambitions. Do you not trust our future military advisor?

What I am saying is this little nation has less of a chance to get to the modern age and build nukes than that 30 city neighbor.

And what I am also saying is that (even tho I am not trying to be a militarist advisor) to bring down a competitive neihbor down a notch will do us more good than to take down a neighbor that is useless to us.

Oh, and to that point, if a neighbor is useless to us in trade, how will the addition of their cities prove usefull enough to ponder?
That last question is hypothetical, i dont wish it to become a part of this campaign

[Kuciwalker]

[indignant]There is NOT a limit to how far we should expand our empire.[/indignant] CONQUEST VICTORY!

[Captain]

Ninot is prudent, not reckless.

He is correct in saying we should take down our most powerful rivals while maintaining good relations so we don't get piled on. I don't think he'll be a pushover. I am concerned that the other candidates will go to war to take over cities that will serve our empire no purpose.

that brings up a question for all candidates:
what is your opinion of the "vassal" state strategy?
would you ever use it? if so, under what circumstances?


Conquest victory is not the only option, and depending on the difficulty level and how well we do, may not be viable. Ninot has shown us that he has a strategy for winning in case we can't win by conquest, whereas all the others are basing their diplomacy on a conquest victory alone.

(No, I do not belong to any political party and I'm not on anyone's payroll, I'm just stating the opinion of 1 private citizen. I think our military advisors are quite the warmongers already - we don't need all of our ministers to be so needlessly aggressive. OTOH, Ninot, diplomats do have to be politicians too.)

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not running, but I'll argue anyway .

I think that we need to keep in mind the fact that everyone is ultimately our enemy. There is no "allied victory." Vassals are good only if we can conquer them later without even thinking.

[Togas]

Originally posted by Captain
I am concerned that the other candidates will go to war to take over cities that will serve our empire no purpose.

that brings up a question for all candidates:
what is your opinion of the "vassal" state strategy?
would you ever use it? if so, under what circumstances?

Captain's concern is my own. Seriously. Take a look back at my previous posts. I have stressed my dislike for taking on pointless cities that merely burden our country's defense and infrastructure.

My aim is to involve the office of Foreign Affairs in the manipulation of other nations to the benefit of ours.

I will not be the one who annoys the President and generals saying that we cannot attack someone at a key strategic moment because our sterling reputation with the computer will be scarred. Instead I'm going to weigh the negatives with breaking a treaty against the positives involved in the conflict and give my honest advice.

If you want a canidate who's going to protect our nation's reputation at all costs, vote for Ninot. If you want someone who's going to consider the big picture, I'm your man.

I'm not going to promote an aura of world peace and harmony. I'm going to promote an aura of chaos amongst the other nations (if at all possible) where they all fall into the Dark Ages wageing eternal wars against each other that no one wins. If one nation is the dominant one on another continent, we must support the lesser nations in their wars against the greater nation. To that end I wholely support the Vassel State strat. We will need "minions" to fight our wars for us.

If you want a candiate sticks to peace and stays out of the foreign arena because he fears foreign wars because, oh no!, some other nation might possibly benefit, then vote for Ninot the pacifict. If you want someone who wants to take an active hand in manipulating the other nations into tearing each other down, vote for me.

It's simple. Ninot writes real well and he can obviously shmooze with the best of the politicians, but he's a gutless pacifist with no idea how to play multiple countries against each other. His idea of Foreign Affairs Minister is to make us be the most "respectable" nation on the globe: not break any treaties, not get involved with anyone, and to annoy our leaders about not breaking treaties. He lacks vision and lacks the ability to take advantage of other civs.

Me? I'm here to win. Conquest, Culture, Space Race, it doesn't matter. My ideas and methods will work towards all of them. If you want to win with a U.N. vote, vote for Ninot. If you want to have the most options for our country, vote for me.

Candidate Togas