Poll (Official) Declaration of War on France

[E_T]

Originally posted by Aggie
Ok in response to all, I have after much consultation and analyzis decided that I will limit this war to the eastern and se cities of france. This seems to be the center of gravity of the people views so I'll take support it. Additionally I have been informed by another minister that the extra cities would adversly affect our corruption. So I will support a limited war, also this will allow us to extort GPT from france and in the future perhaps we can use them as a GL factory.
Aggie

I don't think that We'll get much in the way of LPT from France, but we can try. If this is the case with just a limited War and IF we don't start too soon, I then Hereby Support this proposed DOW!

E_T

[Jonny]

We must go to war with France, in order to:

1)Get a GA,
2)Possibly get a GL, and
3)Get access to the Western Sea for exploration.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

To go to war with France to only take a few cities makes no sense. If we got to war with France it should be to take them out of the game.

Taking them out would eliminate any hostility of French citizens as their civ wouldn't exist anymore. This is not a new war as the only reason the last war with France was ended was because the SMC orders had not been followed to the letter and our military was weakened and we lost Rheims. We hadn't finished and it was understood that we would regroup and finish the war.

Leaving another 3-4 city mini-state like the immense tactical blunder we did in the American war is just giving those cities to another Aztec civ. This time it would probably be Greece.

Since Aggie has declared it a limited war there is no way that I am supporting this war.
Anything other than total elimination of France is illogical.

[Torkkeli]

Originally posted by donegeal


The French have no techs we need.

The French have no money.

The French have land, but we are already the largest civ and need to fix the land we have.

The French have resources we already have extras of. We don't need them.

NO WAR! Let Pax Apolytonia finish what it started!

Give Peace a chance!

[Harovan]

Let's wage the war as long as we have this SMC. Go Aggie!

I agree, that we don't really need it, but heck, that's what keeps the game interesting. How would look the president's turn reports if it wasn't for war? Sonething like that?

"I looked around, moved some workers and pressed <RETURN>."
"I looked around, moved some workers and pressed <RETURN>."
"I looked around, moved some workers and pressed <RETURN>."

Boring, no?

[notyoueither]

Man. We're a blood-thirsty lot...

Give us bread and circuses...

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
To go to war with France to only take a few cities makes no sense. If we got to war with France it should be to take them out of the game.

Taking them out would eliminate any hostility of French citizens as their civ wouldn't exist anymore. This is not a new war as the only reason the last war with France was ended was because the SMC orders had not been followed to the letter and our military was weakened and we lost Rheims. We hadn't finished and it was understood that we would regroup and finish the war.

Leaving another 3-4 city mini-state like the immense tactical blunder we did in the American war is just giving those cities to another Aztec civ. This time it would probably be Greece.

Since Aggie has declared it a limited war there is no way that I am supporting this war.
Anything other than total elimination of France is illogical.

I am against this war. But as it looks like Aggie is going to get his 50%+1 (which is total bull to begin with) I also suport GF reasoning. We also have to consider this: If we go to war and take one or two of the three objective cities, France will send its counter strike force against us (Might I remind everyone of the Persian Counter Strike? Archer stacks 6+ deep defended by Spears). No big deal, you say? I would actually tend to agree with you, but, if we are going to endure the French Counter Strike, we might as well finish off the job as they will already be down to virtually nothing in reguards to units.

This also brings up the Republic issue again. As it is pointless to do a "whacking" (take a few cities and sue for peace) of France, we will be in a longer war than we want. This will bring war weariness into the picture again. Might a change back to Monarchy be in order?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by donegeal
Might a change back to Monarchy be in order?

If WW gets out of control, yes, but not preventive. We are religious and can do it anytime, no big deal.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Let's wage the war as long as we have this SMC. Go Aggie!

I agree, that we don't really need it, but heck, that's what keeps the game interesting. How would look the president's turn reports if it wasn't for war? Sonething like that?

"I looked around, moved some workers and pressed <RETURN>."
"I looked around, moved some workers and pressed <RETURN>."
"I looked around, moved some workers and pressed <RETURN>."

Boring, no?

My sentiments exactly. Kinda hard to write a paper on how many roaded tiles we made the last 100 years.

[Robber Baron]

I'll throw in for war, mainly to trigger the Golden Age. I'd set it up this way (if it were my personal game): might as well take out the French altogether. Hold off on the war chariots until near the end, and time the golden age to bloom just as France dies and peace settles, to maximize GA bonuses in building infrastructure. If we're lucky and get a leader, probably spend it building either the FP or the palace relocation -- whichever pays off bigger/faster in terms of boosting production in surrounding cities.
And meanwhile, be careful of possible aggression from another expansionist/militaristic civ (i.e., Rome, Germany and/or Aztecs). They might be provoked as we undergo yet another round of expansion.
My two bits, anyway.

[Aggie]

I knew some would be unhappy with the decision for a limited war, but let me explain alittle more. I believe that the goal is to have a fun game for everyone and thus all people's views must be considered. We could have certainly passed a DOW without the limited war plan but it would have been very close and I feel uncomfortable decideing such issues by a bare majority. So I decided to limit the war so that we can get more people on board. I consider this very important in a game such as this. Imagine if we had won the DOW poll 38-37. In that case we would be taking a course 180 degrees from almost half our population. Imagine the alienation of those people, many might stop playing or participating believing that they will have no voice and that the number of people for war would always out vote them. So I decided to make some concessions to let them and all people know that their voices are heard and considered and to aknowowledge that they do have some points(corruption and potential alliances among them). Since we will gain all resources that they will have and connect HIW, we will have little left to gain by taking the rest of the cities that would be worth alienating a significant portion of people. Later(after palace relocation and Forbidden palace) we can take the rest or earlier if they are attacked by someone else. Remember the americans lost so much to the aztecs because we were preoccupied with another war. I doubt this will be the case this time.
Aggie

[joncnunn]

Those odds listed before are BEFORE defensive teraign bonsus & city size bonsus.

Originally posted by CiverDan

actually the odds are the same in both cause Knight att=4, Musketeer Def=4 & Cavalry att=6 rifle def=6.

[joncnunn]

A limited strike war only makes sense if we can end the war before the French main army attacks us.

If we beat off the French main attack force, we should finish the job.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Aggie
I knew some would be unhappy with the decision for a limited war, but let me explain alittle more. I believe that the goal is to have a fun game for everyone and thus all people's views must be considered. We could have certainly passed a DOW without the limited war plan but it would have been very close and I feel uncomfortable decideing such issues by a bare majority. So I decided to limit the war so that we can get more people on board.

You lost me, I'm going to campaign against this war now. Your reasons are like the US deciding to limit their targets is the Persian Gulf war to one tree. No military bases, no oil fields, we are simply going to war with Iraq to bomb one tree, because thats the only thing that all of the people will support.

So now instead of having one final war and the possiblilty for peace we will have 2-3 wars with no possiblity for an era of peaceful infrastructure construction.

Originally posted by Aggie
Later(after palace relocation and Forbidden palace) we can take the rest or earlier if they are attacked by someone else. Remember the americans lost so much to the aztecs because we were preoccupied with another war. I doubt this will be the case this time.
Aggie

Who's to say Germany doesn't attack us and as we're mobilizing to fight that war Greece or Rome attacks France?

The Aztecs waited until we were busy to declare war and that could very likely happen again.
Just vote No! Say NO to the Pacifest's PC War on France!

Next thing you know Aggie's going to want to use rubber bullets and nerf artillery.......

[Thud]

Actually, I think I will vote in favor of Aggie's plan. But I've got a bad feeling about this whole thing *sense of foreboding smiley*