Why Go To War ?

[SABRA]

why not focus on settlers

why not explore the land first
some say its an island others say its a peninsula

is it not possible that there is more good land like plains and grassland or hills

is it not possible to sent protected settlers out and go for that land

there shall be war but why not wait a bit first to grow

[notyoueither]

We have no good space to grow in and on Emperor we have no time to waste.

[Sheik]

notyoueither is right. We are closed in and must fight to expand.

[Apocalypse]

Not to mention fighting is much more fun and interesting.

[Kuciwalker]

War is necessary. We will LOSE without war.

[Jon Shafer]

Check out my picture near the end of this thread if you think we can successfully expand peacefully anywhere near us.

[OPD]

If you want peace, then be prepared for war.
To truly live, be ready to die.
An apple a day, keeps the doctor away.
The French are already rubbing their grubby little hands together thinking about our land.
History is littered with senseless wars, at least ours will have a purpose.
Kill or be killed, that the name of the game.

[Andreiguy]

If we secure the continent/peninsuala for ourselves, we will be free to populate it with settlers without fear of the best sites getting taken by foreign powers.

[-=MordeN=-]

bc long term jungles are useless and we need the mts from the french so we can get the iron which unluckily is the only resource useful on the whole game

(or most of it...)

WAR

[Theseus]

There are certain games when a builder approach is very appropriate.

This is not one.

We are tremendously disadvantaged, in many respects.

The only way to survive, effectively, is through aggression. Sorry, but it's the truth.

For the non-war members: Bad news, this is not a one time event. We will NEED to commit surgical strikes, several times, to deal with the bad start. I refer to Aeson's iceberg as an example.

A non-aggressive, builder approach has NO chance of succeeding in this game.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Re: Why Go To War ?

Originally posted by SABRA
why not focus on settlers

Not much in the way of expansion room.

why not explore the land first
some say its an island others say its a peninsula

We are. I think the agreement is that it's now a peninsula (as it's pretty bloody unlikely that we'd have four civs on one island).

is it not possible that there is more good land like plains and grassland or hills

Yes, but most of it is under the control of our enemies.

is it not possible to sent protected settlers out and go for that land

Others would have reached it first. In that case, the only alternative is to take them by force.

there shall be war but why not wait a bit first to grow

Grow where?

[civman2000]

Even the builder party, the DIA, has admitted the need for these wars. It was discussed much and almost everyone agrees now.

[iain]

if we don`t fight now we`ll be in no position to fight later, if indeed there is a later

[jdjdjd]

SABRA,

The die is cast, and most have decided for it, including all the ministers and the two major parties. I attempted to elicit alternatives for our situation, and submitted a possible proposal. My proposal was rebutted quickly and thoroughly by those who support the war. No other counter proposals were presented. I am not the best of Civ'ers, so I need someone with more experience and game knowledge to come up with something. Can you come up with a counter proposal?

Otherwise, we will have to fight for a less militaristic Apolytonia after this war is over. Also, if you have already not voted Yes for a code of ethics do so as soon as possible, that is our first best hope in the quest for a peaceful society.

God save the people of Apolytonia!

I remain,

jdjdjd

[Robber Baron]

Meanwhile, Jungle warriors, start sharpening your spear- and arrowheads.
(And cast your votes accordingly. That ethics poll IS important. IF you want to play with your sharp toys, you'd better make sure a constitutional amendment won't stop you.)