Ministry of the Military Campaign Thread

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Ah, another instance where Uber shows he is not the maniac he would like us all to believe he is. There is a deep tactical mind in there somewhere...

It surprises me how many actually favor America's destruction, though...

In each of YOUR OWN VIEWS, although the public will likely ultimately decide, do each of you favor their destruction, or just a trimming?

in my own view, i would honestly like to DESTROY America, and Subjigate France and Persia (and others, depending on where they are).

i'm all for pruning and subjigation, but the way i see it we need land fast, and just pruning back the two closest AIs wont do it.

Again, thats my opinion, and I am nothing more than a public servant. My opinion is not final in any way shape or form.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by UberKruX
1) Do you support Case Eagle?

No.

A pity.

Firstly, we'd need more time to build up 2 stacks. We don't have much time. Sure a "Lightning Strike" would be great, but we can't wait until America has horsemen/swordsmen.

You're right, it does take more time. However, how many times have you seen the AI running around with Swordsmen in 500 BC? Not only that, but America isn't exactly in an area you'd expect to see resources. France, OTOH, I would have to plan for them having iron, because the Great Rift is so massive the chances of having it are nearly 100%.

Secondly, Trip's plan doesnt account for rivers / geographical formations We need to stack the odds in our FAVOR, not against us.

Have you seen the modified version? The 1st Army approaches from the south-east rather than directly from the south, which bypasses the river. Other obstacles can be dealt with as they're arrived at.

Thirdly, it calls for the utter destruction of America, which is still in debate (although it is winning).

The plan in its entireity. It can be called off at any point and stull achieve a great victory for whatever goal is desired.

Fourthly, we haven't even firmly decided we're taking on America fisrt, that debate rages on, and will continue to do so until we are prepared to attack. A lot could change in the meantime.

Germany had a plan to attack Russia and France 30 years before World War I. Does that mean they shouldn't have planned how to deal with such a situation?

Fifthly, this is a violation of the code of laws. and i quote, "The Military Advisor is granted the power to set up the army's strategy. He tells what troops to move where, and which battles to engage". There is no such clause under the President.

Do you have to listen? Maybe not, but if 2/3 of the people support it, it might be a good idea...

He refers to case pink not being written by the ministers, attempting to defend his plan as legitimate. Case pink was composed from several threads in which ministers were talking. the IE was considering placing "Red" and "Blue" cities. the SMC asked for barracks, then archers, and the City planner was willing to agree. The actual plan was drawn up by NYE, Sir Ralph, and myself, and OKed by all respective ministers.

And the people supported it, so it was done. If people support this, then why shouldn't it be done? You're right, it's your job, but the people ultimately are the judges of the actions of the government.

There is also a clause in the City Planner's area of the code of laws, and i quote, "The City Planner is strongly recommended to accommodate all Ministers who approach him/her with their various needs".

Okay.

No such clause appears in the Military Advisor's Section, or any other section for that matter.

Case Blue was a broad venture... trying to influence multiple officies. Is that right? Not my place to decide. Plan Eagle is only a military plan. Certain areas of it call for units to be produced at particular cities at particular times, etc. but that is only a suggested to allow for the quickest buildup of forces for Eagle.

I approve of the buildup, I approve of the Goal, but I do no approve of or condone the strategy in any respect.

Then you disapprove of the only reason it was created for.

.2) Do you support a 2-stack, 2-pronged attack strategy?
No.

It's designed for speed and surprise. A 1 pronged attack would be too slow and leave to many areas for enemy units to pop up in.

As I have stated, we need to strike as quickly as possible, and we do not have the time to build up 2 strong stacks. I believe we should attack with 1 strong one, take Washington, leave a few as garrison, and hit NY.

What are the problems with attacking 10 turns later? What do you think the chances of them having iron are? Even if they do, the AI is very slow in starting to produce Swordsmen.

It's not a lightning strike, btu it will get the job done in less time.

And many more casualties. And I still don't see how it will take less time... with the 2 cities on the American border captured or destroyed within 3 turns, we can make peace right then if people desire... you can't say the same for a 1-pronged attack. And even once the initial shock is over, the 2 Armies will combine and capture Boston, then Philadelphia. The entire campaign is designed to be completed within 10 turns even with the goal of the complete destruction of America. It can be halted at any time, which will take even less time.

3) How many archers should go in a stack?
6 is the Absolute Minimum.

With Veterans I feel that 5 is sufficient for the initial assault.

4) Do you favor a sneak attack, or a declaration of war before moving into American territory?
Declaration of war. I see no reason to harm the reputation.

We shall see...

[UnOrthOdOx]

Trip, was this really the place to promote your plan? You already have a number of threads on it elsewhere...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Trip, was this really the place to promote your plan? You already have a number of threads on it elsewhere...

I was responding to UK's concerns with it, not promoting it.

[Benjamin_Berman]

UberKrux, you are too agressive. If Trip does carry out the attack on America, I would just bring them to their knees by capturing only one or two of their cities, instead of completely destroying their nation. If we show them that we can crush them like a tiny bug, we can exploit them and take advantage of their terror.

For example, we capture Washington and New York, get two new cities, and steal some of their money from the cities we took. Then, we can demand their surrender: A peace treaty if they give us money or resources or technology, etc. We can get a lot more out of them that way.

I also suggest we wait for a while until we have better military units to bring them to their knees. We should concentrate all our resources now on science so we can develop units like horsemen, catapults, and swordsmen. If we concentrate all our resources on science now, we will develop these techs before the Americans, and we will be attacking helpless spearmen and warriors and archers with more advanced swordsmen and horsemen, plus the tremendous advantage of catapults.

I believe that the best would come out of exploiting them before we go to war. What we could do is give them money for resources we need for creating swordsmen and horsemen. We will get that money back when we conquer New York and Washington as well as in the terms of a peace treaty after the war.

As for my future agenda (Yes, I am running for this position), I have a strictly DEFENSIVE stance. I agree that a lot could come out of Plan Eagle and the conquering of America, but I think war has a lot of bad consequensces: The wasting of shields for military units, War weariness (That further in the future, but its still a downside), the risk of having your cities captured by the enemy, the risk of the enemy having friends who would go to war with them, etc.

After the carrying out of Plan Eagle, I will support a peacetime army that will be updated with the best units that we know of. I will build a peacetime army out of horsemen: A very fast unit that will go from horseman to knight to cavalry, all three being very powerful units against foot soldiers. Swordsmen also last for a long time, so I will support that, and I will have only one spearman protecting every city: If we are at war, the army of horsemen/knights/cavalry should be enough to keep out invaders. I believe this because Spearmen advance with time as well: From Spearman to Pikeman to Musketman to Rifleman to Infantry to Mechanical Infantry (Which are, by the way, the best defensive units of each of their ages).

This is what I think I would bring to Apolytonia if elected. For everyone who is against war and wants to avoid it at all costs (Except for Plan Eagle, which is necessary, according to Trip), I am YOUR man for this job. I guarantee that the citizens of Apolytonia will feel safe and be guarded from all outside evil and never have to worry about war as long as I'm the Military Minister.

Vote for ME!

[UnOrthOdOx]

His concerns were a part of the campaign, not meant for a discussion IMO.

Since you bring it up, however, did you consult anyone, especially the SMC when drawing up that plan? I cannot view this 'revised' version as no matter how long I wait, the page will not load...And the plan, as originally drawn, was flawed. You admit that, or you would not have 'revised' it.

[Benjamin_Berman]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
Case Eagle offers us an ideal opportunity to test both candidates' military acumen.
So Uber, Random:
1) Do you support Case Eagle?
2) Do you support a 2-stack, 2-pronged attack strategy?
3) How many archers should go in a stack?
4) Do you favor a sneak attack, or a declaration of war before moving into American territory?

I have one thing to say: There are three candidates: I'm one of them.

1) I support Case Eagle except I do not want to crush the Americans, as I feel that we can exploit them once they see we CAN crush them.
2) I support one army that is very large and will, with no doubts, get the cities of New York and Washington one at a time.
3) I do not think we should use archers. I suggest we wait until we develop the technology to build swordsmen and Horsemen, so we don' tneed as big of an army, and our victory would be assured.
4) On this topic, I will do whatever the public wants me to do. If I am elected, I will have a poll asking them what we should do. Some people think that we should declare war first for moral standards, so we can just give them a chance. The other candidates would probably think this is a weak characteristic trait for a military leader, but if we sneak attack them, we could cause anger with other nations, more than just declaring war, then moving in. So, this question is totally up to the citizens of Apolytonia.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
His concerns were a part of the campaign, not meant for a discussion IMO.

Saying "I don't like this, this is why" and not allowing it for discussion somewhere isn't a very good way to work things, IMO. He didn't post his concerns in any of the other Eagle threads, so what am I to do?

Since you bring it up, however, did you consult anyone, especially the SMC when drawing up that plan? I cannot view this 'revised' version as no matter how long I wait, the page will not load...And the plan, as originally drawn, was flawed. You admit that, or you would not have 'revised' it.

I did not consult anyone because I didn't expect it to be instantly accepted, and for multiple people to have input on it before the final plan was drafted. This is how it how things have transpired as well.

And shouldn't you post your concerns in one of the other threads?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Benjamin_Berman
UberKrux, you are too agressive. If Trip does carry out the attack on America, I would just bring them to their knees by capturing only one or two of their cities, instead of completely destroying their nation. If we show them that we can crush them like a tiny bug, we can exploit them and take advantage of their terror.

I agree with you here...

I also suggest we wait for a while until we have better military units to bring them to their knees. We should concentrate all our resources now on science so we can develop units like horsemen, catapults, and swordsmen. If we concentrate all our resources on science now, we will develop these techs before the Americans, and we will be attacking helpless spearmen and warriors and archers with more advanced swordsmen and horsemen, plus the tremendous advantage of catapults.

I believe that the best would come out of exploiting them before we go to war. What we could do is give them money for resources we need for creating swordsmen and horsemen. We will get that money back when we conquer New York and Washington as well as in the terms of a peace treaty after the war.

Um, here you lost me. Have you played this level? PUT OUR RESOURCES INTO SCIENCE AND OUT RESEARCH THEM? They ALREADY have Iron Working and at least the wheel, maybe horsback riding (we can't tell till WE get the wheel). We must strike WITH WHAT WE HAVE before they USE those techs. Plus they have SEVERAL river sites giving them an even GREATER cash advantage than they already get...edit: plus we would need to build a road through the jungle before we COULD trade for those resources.

I wont even go into my views on DEFENSIVE armies, or I think I did earlier...

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Trip
And shouldn't you post your concerns in one of the other threads?

As I have said, I cannot say much about the 'revised' plan as I cannot view it. Issues with the old one have been stated, and apparently 'revised'.

[Inverse Icarus]

Benjamin_Berman, no offense, but how much do you really know about this democracy game? Have you been following it for a while?

Originally posted by Benjamin_Berman
UberKrux, you are too agressive. If Trip does carry out the attack on America, I would just bring them to their knees by capturing only one or two of their cities, instead of completely destroying their nation. If we show them that we can crush them like a tiny bug, we can exploit them and take advantage of their terror.

i said my opinion is i'd like to destroy one quickly and milk several others. i am not opposed to milking.

For example, we capture Washington and New York, get two new cities, and steal some of their money from the cities we took. Then, we can demand their surrender: A peace treaty if they give us money or resources or technology, etc. We can get a lot more out of them that way.

New York will likely be autorazed. We wouldn't gain it. The monetary gains from the capturing will be modest, at best. Signing a peace treaty for techs and everything is a great idea (again, not opposed to milking), but there are others to milk.

I also suggest we wait for a while until we have better military units to bring them to their knees. We should concentrate all our resources now on science so we can develop units like horsemen, catapults, and swordsmen. If we concentrate all our resources on science now, we will develop these techs before the Americans, and we will be attacking helpless spearmen and warriors and archers with more advanced swordsmen and horsemen, plus the tremendous advantage of catapults.

Again, this shows lack of knowledge and insight. The entire idea of this attack is to be a crippling early attack, not a long winded "wait 100 more turns" war. We have no iron (no mountains), and we may have a horse or two (if we're lucky somehow). We need to TAKE land to get RESOURCES. and also, in my expierence as a warmonger, catapuls are useless at this stage of the game. Plus, the AI already has Iron working and The Wheel, meaning they could possibly already have sources of iron and horses. all they need is TIME to build them, and we cant let them do that.

I believe that the best would come out of exploiting them before we go to war. What we could do is give them money for resources we need for creating swordsmen and horsemen. We will get that money back when we conquer New York and Washington as well as in the terms of a peace treaty after the war.

First off, thats the trade adviosor's area. He handles foriegn trade. We're a poor nation as it stands. We need our money for the "techwhoring" project (see the thread), and cannot waste it on resources. Why pay for it when you can take it?

As for my future agenda (Yes, I am running for this position), I have a strictly DEFENSIVE stance. I agree that a lot could come out of Plan Eagle and the conquering of America, but I think war has a lot of bad consequensces: The wasting of shields for military units, War weariness (That further in the future, but its still a downside), the risk of having your cities captured by the enemy, the risk of the enemy having friends who would go to war with them, etc.

Good. Stay in the jungle. Units are needed for the war, and for general use. the AI respects power. War Weariness has no effect to speak of in despotism. Having cities captured? Thats a possibility, but a defensive garrison (preferably an "offensive defense") is being called forafter the initial army is out. It's unlikely. I also had a "worst case scenario" thread in which france delcared war on us, but thats very remote of a possibility and we could handle it if the need be. Shortly after declaring war, we will have washington, and NY will be razed. America will come begging for peace. If france (or another "friend") starts something, we'll make peace with america and mess them up.

After the carrying out of Plan Eagle, I will support a peacetime army that will be updated with the best units that we know of. I will build a peacetime army out of horsemen: A very fast unit that will go from horseman to knight to cavalry, all three being very powerful units against foot soldiers. Swordsmen also last for a long time, so I will support that, and I will have only one spearman protecting every city: If we are at war, the army of horsemen/knights/cavalry should be enough to keep out invaders. I believe this because Spearmen advance with time as well: From Spearman to Pikeman to Musketman to Rifleman to Infantry to Mechanical Infantry (Which are, by the way, the best defensive units of each of their ages).

One spearman at every city will not work. This is emperor, we need both Martial law units in a city. Plus, it's not even cost effective. Every city of any size in a despotism allows for 4 units. 2 defenders and 2 offensive units for each city on the map is nothing. basically, each city can support 2 "roaming" units, meaning the 4 cities we will have by the time we declare war will support 8 units plus a garrison of 2 men at each city (garrison may come AFTER offensive units).

As for the modern era, or even INDUSTRIAL era stuff, it's too far off to say anythign about for now.

This is what I think I would bring to Apolytonia if elected. For everyone who is against war and wants to avoid it at all costs (Except for Plan Eagle, which is necessary, according to Trip), I am YOUR man for this job. I guarantee that the citizens of Apolytonia will feel safe and be guarded from all outside evil and never have to worry about war as long as I'm the Military Minister.

So you're saying you represent all the people that don't want to go to war... but you're willing to go to war because the president says it's "necessary". interesting.

Vote for ME!

Yea, I wrote it down so i wouldnt forget. Goodluck in the election.

this post brought to you by supreme military commander UberKruX. Glory Comes From Spilt Blood.

[Robber Baron]

In what looks to be shaping up as a fascinating scenario, we might end up with a ministry in which the President disagrees with his Supreme Military Commander about the basic strategy to be followed in the war that looms ahead. So I ask the candidates, if your president firmly backed a warplan that you opposed, would you insist on taking direction of the field, or be willing to vigorously prosecute ... oh, lets say, purely hypothetically ( ), Plan Eagle.

[UnOrthOdOx]

OOOO, double hit too!

Excellent.

[Thud]

random and ben: notyoueither asked what difficultly level you have beat the game at and how often. I would also like to know this, and if that was by world domination.

I know that probably the one post i wouldn't run for is Minister of War. I'm just not as good as Uber and others (note the DIA sig). I want to be sure this is not the case for you guys.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
In what looks to be shaping up as a fascinating scenario, we might end up with a ministry in which the President disagrees with his Supreme Military Commander about the basic strategy to be followed in the war that looms ahead. So I ask the candidates, if your president firmly backed a warplan that you opposed, would you insist on taking direction of the field, or be willing to vigorously prosecute ... oh, lets say, purely hypothetically ( ), Plan Eagle.

It appears as though the crowd has grown rather silent, neh?