Poll (Official) Declaration of War on France

[Togas]

Ghengis,

You're usually a very reasonable guy and I normally agree with your opinions, but on this you seem to be so bullheaded that you'd rather we NOT have a war (golden age, control of saltpeter, unified nation, etc) if it's not exactly to your liking.

Compromise, my friend. Compromise.

While I also wish this nation wasn't so soft and peaceloving and guilt-ridden about our history of victories and conquests, I understand (as does Aggie) that our job as ministers is to follow through with the wishes of the people. If the majority of the people aren't in favor of total war, we don't do total war.

Nearly half the people don't want war at all. Those on the fence went with this war because of the Golden Age aspects and the promise that it would be kept short. Very few people support the notion of total conquest of the French.

What bothers me is that you don't truely believe that not going to war is better than having a limited war. You're just trying to sabatage Aggie's plans.

--Togas

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Togas
Ghengis,

You're usually a very reasonable guy and I normally agree with your opinions, but on this you seem to be so bullheaded that you'd rather we NOT have a war (golden age, control of saltpeter, unified nation, etc) if it's not exactly to your liking.

Compromise, my friend. Compromise.

They changed the goal of the poll after I voted. Until Aggie OFFICIALY retracts his statement on a limited war I'm going to continue campaigning against it. I DID NOT vote for a limited war, I voted for a war plain and simple. I will not have people twisting my vote into a something it was not intended to support.

I believe a complete victory or partial victory should have been debated AFTER the war was in progress not before the declaration vote was over.

While I also wish this nation wasn't so soft and peaceloving and guilt-ridden about our history of victories and conquests, I understand (as does Aggie) that our job as ministers is to follow through with the wishes of the people. If the majority of the people aren't in favor of total war, we don't do total war.

Nearly half the people don't want war at all. Those on the fence went with this war because of the Golden Age aspects and the promise that it would be kept short. Very few people support the notion of total conquest of the French.

I believe more people support total war than partial war, and it will be even more obvious once we have achieved the initial objectives. We are a war-hungry civ as Aggie had 70% support BEFORE he backed down and gave in to the pacifists.

What bothers me is that you don't truely believe that not going to war is better than having a limited war. You're just trying to sabatage Aggie's plans.

Aggie already sabotaged his own plans. His pre war plan called for total conquest, he will now have to redo his attack plans by his own choice. I'm just irritated that he changed the purpose of my vote AFTER I voted.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

I believe a complete victory or partial victory should have been debated AFTER the war was in progress not before the declaration vote was over.

This is entirely contrary to sensible military strategic planning... it is always better to determine the objective FIRST and THEN devise a war plan to match that objective. To declare war BEFORE wondering what you're actually going to do in the war is inviting both potential problems in fighting the war due to lack of planning and lack of defined goals AS WELL AS an invitation for public opposition on the basis of unclear war goals.

Aggie has very wisely anticipated public uneasiness about a full elimination of France and has changed plans. However, I would agree with GhengisFarb that we don't know FOR SURE yet where exactly different proportions of people stand on the issue of war aims.

Personally, I would support the posting of a poll asking what war aims people would support.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

They changed the goal of the poll after I voted. Until Aggie OFFICIALY retracts his statement on a limited war I'm going to continue campaigning against it. I DID NOT vote for a limited war, I voted for a war plain and simple. I will not have people twisting my vote into a something it was not intended to support.

The goal of the poll is simply to allow for declaration of war, anything beyond that is opinion, nothing reguarding the actual poll.

Should we go to war, there SHOULD BE A SECOND POLL deciding how long/total the war is to be. But, first thing first, we must declare war before we can vote/decide to annihilate a nation.

[Arnelos]

Unortho and I posted at the same time to propose that we should have a second poll

[Aggie]

Ghengis here is a solution that will please you. Remember this war will not start at LEAST until the following chat after this next one. We will probably get to our goals during this chat. After the war poll is over you can have a poll on whether we want a limited war or not. If there is overwhelming support for total war(which I think is unlikely) that could have an effect. However I suspect the results will not be to your liking and will simply confirm the decision for a limited war. When in decided to support the limited poll.In this poll all the people who had reason for either way can present.
Aggie

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

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

This is the only thing I have a problem with and Aggie is refusing to retract it.

It technically alters the result of the poll. This is a change from the initial question of the poll and does not follow the warplan Aggie posted.

It created an entirely different situation from what had been discussed and voted on. Where is the new warplan? Currently we appear to have switched objectives with no forethought or preparation.

[joncnunn]

Poll on character of war should have at least the following options, and should probably allow multiple selections:

1. Total War : Wipe out France

2. Take up to _____ no matter what and declare peace then if possible.

3. Take up to _____ but try to stop short if we'd have to fight the French main army in order to complete these objectives.

4. No war with France at all.

(Edited for clarity.)

[Arnelos]

joncnunn... the poll should mention the goal of achieving a GA

[joncnunn]

That would be redundant because there's already an active poll on the question of should we have our Golden Age during the French War.

Originally posted by Arnelos
joncnunn... the poll should mention the goal of achieving a GA

[WhiteBandit]

Hmm.

Are we really ready to take advantage of a golden age? It seems not more than 10 or 15 turns ago when we were at war with America, we didn't want a golden age to begin since our infastructure wasn't ready. Has that much actually changed that we are ready to "fully" take advantage of a golden age? Granted we have some courthouses and cathedrals here and there, but the newly aquired areas of Persia still need a lot of work.

Also, we want to prevent France from getting musketeers and getting stronger. Fine. Do we need war? What ever happened to my "lazy worker" strategy where I suggested sending a worker to sit on top of the saltpeter tile. That would effectively prevent them from having saltpeter?

Granted my arguments aren't the strongest in the world, but I do not support war at the moment.

[joncnunn]

WhiteBandit, having units inside French territory at the end of a turn without a Right of Passage results in rep hits.

On the Golden Age, I voted yes for the Golden Age then, so I'm not inconsitant in still wanting it.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Re: Hmm.

Originally posted by WhiteBandit
Are we really ready to take advantage of a golden age? It seems not more than 10 or 15 turns ago when we were at war with America, we didn't want a golden age to begin since our infastructure wasn't ready. Has that much actually changed that we are ready to "fully" take advantage of a golden age? Granted we have some courthouses and cathedrals here and there, but the newly aquired areas of Persia still need a lot of work.

Also, we want to prevent France from getting musketeers and getting stronger. Fine. Do we need war? What ever happened to my "lazy worker" strategy where I suggested sending a worker to sit on top of the saltpeter tile. That would effectively prevent them from having saltpeter?

I am NO to a limited war.

YES to complete conquest.

I want to trade the saltpeter now while it is at its peak in value.

And WhiteBandit needs to talk to Donegal because he was feeling unloved the other day.

[Aggie]

This poll is still the war poll and is valid.
Aggie

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Poll on character of war should have at least the following options, and should probably allow multiple selections:

1. Total War : Wipe out France

2. Take up to _____ no matter what and declare peace then if possible.

3. Take up to _____ but try to stop short if we'd have to fight the French main army in order to complete these objectives.

4. No war with France at all.

(Edited for clarity.)

A poll with no war as an option would be a repoll, and as such would be invalid if challanged. Unless of course you start it 3 weeks after this one ends.