Pax Apolytonia?

[ThePlagueRat]

A bit hawky, that principle about securing friendly trade interests.


It's not a legal ground for war declaration by the (rl) UN charter.

[Panzer32]

England is strategic - they are in a prime position to set off in search of new civs.

By the time we conquor France, and then England, I feel that the lost civs will be the newfound civs.

[Arnelos]

This brings up an interesting question... Is the Civ3 U.N. simply going to make rules on creating and enforcing the honors code that will be required for a multiplayer Civ3 democracy game or will it ALSO be a collective security arrangement between the various human-controlled civs within the game?

If it's also the second of those, getting the Security Council to authorize action under Chapter 7 (of the RL UN charter... who knows if it'll correspond to the Civ3 one ) could be a hell of a lot of fun if we're not the ones being ganged up on...

Personally, I think this "U.N." should essentially act like the Congress of Europe did between the various major European imperial powers throughout the 19th Century (with the exception that this congress/UN would be permanent rather than called every decade or so). No prohibition on the use of force or rules constraining action by the various parties, but merely a forum for working out treaties or for resolving disputes between the human-controlled civs should they actually not want to go to war over them (they have the right to go to war over disputes if they feel like it, however).

That's my opinion on the matter, anyhow

[Duddha]

This brings up an interesting question... Is the Civ3 U.N. simply going to make rules on creating and enforcing the honors code that will be required for a multiplayer Civ3 democracy game or will it ALSO be a collective security arrangement between the various human-controlled civs within the game?

If it's also the second of those, getting the Security Council to authorize action under Chapter 7 (of the RL UN charter... who knows if it'll correspond to the Civ3 one ) could be a hell of a lot of fun if we're not the ones being ganged up on...

Personally, I think this "U.N." should essentially act like the Congress of Europe did between the various major European imperial powers throughout the 19th Century (with the exception that this congress/UN would be permanent rather than called every decade or so). No prohibition on the use of force or rules constraining action by the various parties, but merely a forum for working out treaties or for resolving disputes between the human-controlled civs should they actually not want to go to war over them (they have the right to go to war over disputes if they feel like it, however).

That's my opinion on the matter, anyhow

I think these issues should be decided when we actually start the Multi-Site Democracy game. It would be kinda unfair to make up all the rules now.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Duddha


I think these issues should be decided when we actually start the Multi-Site Democracy game. It would be kinda unfair to make up all the rules now.

Duddha,

fair enough

[Duddha]

i'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it. We just shouldn't decide everything now. It is going to be a lot of fun.

I'm more in favor of a Congress system. Our unilateral and bilateral options shouldn't be restricted by the UN. Down with the UN!

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Duddha
i'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it though. We just shouldn't decide everything now. It is going to be a lot of fun.

I'm more in favor of a Congress system. Our unilateral and bilateral options shouldn't be restricted by the UN. Down with the UN!

How about that... Duddha and I cordially agree on not having a U.N. body that would constrict our right to declare war when we felt like it

[Duddha]

I'm already planning the Nationalist Democratic Party.

[ThePlagueRat]

Almost resurrecting the old National Socialist Democratic Party ?
And put in the german word for labor, Arbeiter --> NSDAP

[Torkkeli]

Peace as always

[joncnunn]

Voting for War of France.

Complete conquest war, not enough left of France after taking the core cities.

Be sure to trigure the Golden Age.

DON'T sell the surplus Saltpeter to anybody on this contientant, this ensures at least one AI here won't have Calvary latter on. Instead sell to the lost civs without it as soon as we have contact and ocean trade is possible.

We will need to fight England, but this can wait until we have Calvary. (Or for the Germans to attack them, whichever is first.)

[Will 5001]

From the maps I can't see how a war with france will be that difficult, we must double the area of their country and we beat them last time, what's to say we won't do it again.

[mrmitchell]

After hearing some good arguments in this thread, I must say a conquest war would be okay if it was our last war of aggression. We can squish them like a bug, but we must know if there is anyone they can buy into a war with us. That would really rain on our parade.

[jdjdjd]

I have to agree with E-T on this one. Though I truly believe we need a prolonged period of peace, to build our infrastucture, increase our technological advances, upgrade and refortify our military....the best way to propel these is a Golden Age which we can trigger in the French War. If there is no intention to trigger the GA, then I say to war with France.

[Thud]

Okay, at this point, I would say that this poll has served it's purpose.

I conclude that there is not enough support to expect a 2\3s majority for a declaration of war. Thusly, I strongly suggest that the military branches CEASE AND DESIST manuevering for a war with France.

I consider failure to do so, and operating with the assumption that the Senate will support war, entirely undemocratic and worthy of a court case.