On Foreign Policy

[Augusto I]

Having recently joined in, I've been checking the situation and past events to get an idea of what's going on. Doing so, I found out that the present war against Persia comes from a three-front war caused by an agression against France. It seems the war was managed very well. However, I can't say that the whole episode is something to be proud of. The reason is that the president has posted his dubts about wether to continue or not the war based on the fatigue of the army. According to recent news, it doesn't seem a problem dealing with persians, but there will be an after-war, and we must keep in mind that the army is not only a resource to be used in war but also a source of respect in peace.
This take us where I'm pointing to. This exhausting war shouldn't have been so exhausting, as it shouldn't have been against three enemies. Apolytonia is one of the most powerfull nations of the world, but has serious rivals, and is surely not capable of dealing with everyone at the same time, and that's why it needs to move more carefully in the international board. The goal is to get other powers to fight our enemies, and not to let them find allies. Attacking a weak country may seem promising, but it's necessary to gather information on possible reactions. If (for example, I still lack of a detailed anaisys) the germans (or greeks, but germans are fourious, that's the point) have a decent army, not a fearsome army but decent one, and decide to cross through our land to finish the American, we may find out we're too weak to firmly demand them to withraw .
So, what I propose is a more machiavelic management of our foreign policy, wich may imply a slower expansion, but more secure. It's good to have heroes, but it's better not to need them.

I hear your critics (but before notice that there's no recrimination or serious critic to our leaders in my words, and forgive my poor english)

[Thud]

Actually, our army is currently the 2nd known strongest. (Rome is a little ahead) Aside from that, I can say that I agree, attacking a weaker nation at this point may be a bad idea, as they may have stronger allies. Another Reason why the DIA says "Don't Go Back In America!"

Oh, your english is forgiven. My Spanish would be much worse. Keep posting, keep active.

[Togas]

Nothing in the world of foreign politics is a sure bet, but my officie's continued support for the Persian conflict is because of the long term benefits the Pyramids, spices, and incense will give to our nation. The conflict has yielded two great leaders and boosted our nation to the second most powerful military in the world, the highest ranking we have yet acheived.

The American conflict was planned before my time. It's goal is the same = resources.

One should not look at these conflicts as "grudge matches." If we were only seeking to destroy these nations, we would bring in allies and let them do the work for us. We are, instead, seeking to capture valuable resources, and bringing in allies might make capture less possible, especially if our allies seize the resources first.

As for America and it's potential allies, I can assure you that it has very few friends. Germany once allied with America against the Aztecs and then abandoned them, causing even further bitterness between the nations. The Americans offer nothing of value to any other civ except the lands that it holds. It hasn't even figured out how to link its resources and trade them.

So long as we trade America a harmless tech for all its money prior to invasion, they will have no bargaining power at all to buy allies against us. All of the Republics around us will not declare war against a superior military power as it will cause instant civil unrest AND it will stop the flow of luxuries.

We are currently "addicting" Rome, France, Germany, and Greece to our luxuries. France is heavily dependent upon us as we give them wine, dyes, and horses.

As for the possibility of the Germans taking America, we are also worried that the Aztecs will take America (the two are currently at war). There is a very dire possibility that any nation may take America. I believe that is one of the reasons why so many people in our nation are pushing for us to finish the war on America before it's too late.

--Togas

[Augusto I]

I think some of my words were misunderstood. I'm not against the war with Persia - now that it is a fact, nor asking for allies to finnish it. The point is that Persia (as well as another nation that I don't remembr now) was put against us by France, so what was supposed to be a quite simple campaign became a three front war. The America thing was highly hipothetic, the idea is that the harder the war we fight (no matter if we win), the weaker our army becomes (momentaneously), and then we risk having conflicts with minor nations, wich we will eventually win, but the other main powers evolve faster than us.

The whole thing is: let's learn from the past and not let our enemies turn people against us, specially if they had right of passage. Of course this time we did great, I'm just trying to minimize the risk. This episode is happily conclueded, as far as I see.

About having allies: I don't think that allways is a bad idea. Of course you have to be sure to don't let them get the reward of the war, but it is a usefull tool to cancel out someone's betrayal, or even to provoke a war between two countries you never planned to attack (at least yet), just to stop their development and maybe interrupt someone else's trade (because of the pillage and the conquest of resources).

Thanks for the replies, and I'm glad to read a reasoning directly from the mind in charge of the issue.

[adaMada]

Augusto,
First thing, welcome to the game! (Well, I haven't seen you around, so I'm hoping your new).

What Togas said basically sums up the official opinion of the Foreign Ministry, and I agree with everything he says. Having said that, here's a personal opinion: America is currently at war with the Aztecs -- if they could draw anyone else into their war, they would. It is a possibility that they'll be able to draw a civilization in who has a specific hate for us in, but (as Togas said) the Foreign Ministry will take action to reduce American resources just before the war, hopefully limiting their ability.

Having allies isn't always a bad idea, but in this case, an ally might take the cities we want before we could get to them, making the whole war pointless .

-- adaMada

[GePap]

I seriously doubt that the Aztecs will gain any American territory- my worry lies in the future, when larger, closer enemies, such as greec or gerany may seek to conquer those areas. Not only for resources, but also for a better gestrategic situation, the control of American lands by our state is key.

Our states military supperiority means few states will seek a confrontation with us, yet at the same time we lack the money and techs that would make the best bribes to bring strong allies, such as the germans, or greeks, or Romans, with us. Any war with America should be quick and have few international reprecussions. The same, of course, could not be said of wars with greater powers.

[adaMada]

GePap,
The Aztecs already have begun damaging america.

We believe that the Aztecs have begun razing American cities. We've noticed two that suddenly aren't there anymore...

Just a quick point.

-- adaMada

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by adaMada
GePap,
The Aztecs already have begun damaging america.

We believe that the Aztecs have begun razing American cities. We've noticed two that suddenly aren't there anymore...

Just a quick point.

-- adaMada

HOLY SH#% !!!!

If that's true, we need to get some settlers over there to claim the land.

I need to check out the save, but we should start sending troops to the american borders and prepare for our assault and defend our new cities. We should declare war 2-5 turns prior to the end of the persian war.

I am afraid that greece will not like it if we attack america. We should be prepared to ally with the aztecs (or perferably germany) in the event that the americans bring greece into it.

My 2 cents
Mss

[Reddawg]

The American cities that were razed were on the north coast and thus are not important to us at this juncture. Augusto, the other civ that was brought into the war was Germany, but they quickly folded after we took Munich. I too was against the war at it's conception. But now it is vital to push this Persian front further. But I am determined that the Persian War be the last one for a long, long time.

[Augusto I]

Originally posted by Reddawg
Augusto, the other civ that was brought into the war was Germany, but they quickly folded after we took Munich.

That's what I 've called "well managed". First strike and it's out

[SIZE=1] I too was against the war at it's conception. But now it is vital to push this Persian front further. But I am determined that the Persian War be the last one for a long, long time.

That pretty much represents my point of view.

[Donegeal]

If we go back to America (to which I don't really see a point, as we will have aquired Incense in the Persian homeland), I would say we do it as a quick strike. Finish the Persian war the stratigicly place Knight stacks (about 3-5 each) just out side the borders of ALL of their cities (unless they build more on the coast), declare war at the begining of a turn and sweep in (Knights have movement of 2) to take the entire country in one turn. There will be no chance of anyone getting upset about a war with America as it will only last one turn and then they won't exsit anymore
It truly will be annexation.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Bienvenido Augusto! Gracias para sus observaciones.

Have a little look at our starting position - casi totalmente selva! We decided we needed some better land and more resources. Thus our first war with America, and the second with France. Persia and Germany were signed into an alliance with France and attacked us. We quickly ended the war with Germany, but with Persia's lack of Iron (which they need to build Immortals), we decided war would be a good way to gain some extra techs we didn't have, as well as land and resources. I don't think very many here today would disagree with that decision, looking back on it.

That we may settle down once we have had enough of Persia is likely. But our foreign policy has been well-planned, and when unexpected things occurred, I believe we have adjusted well to situations.

[joncnunn]

The main reason I'm in favor of a second American war is that it should be short enough to complete in one turn chat.

[Ninot]

My views resemble those of President MWIA

we have done well, and are prepared for anything

we don't need much more land.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I think we should take America as it wouldn't be much of a war and the desert increases the possibility of saltpeter and oil. I seriously doubt we have any tiles that will have the oil resource currently.