Unofficial: What wars would you support? (last try, really!)

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by E_T


We currently have some cannons in the Works.

ET_

Glad to hear it. We're gonna need 'em...

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Arnelos
If this poll passes (which seems likely),

This poll is strictly unofficial; (Perhaps I should have emphasized that more, but it is in the thread title. ) I only wanted to see if there really was popular support before the War Academy thread got carried away.

Seperate polls for actual declaration of war would have to be set up. It currently looks like Germany and England are the only two acceptable targets, but I'm sure many have yet to vote.

[Jonny]

I believe that it is not in our best interest to go and conquer other nations at the time. Any potential gains would be nullified by the increased amount of corruption and waste.

The only war I would support at the moment would be a war against Russia. And, the only goal of that war would be to take Krasnoyarsk, just so we don't have that one city in the middle of our territory.

[Duddha]

Kill them all!

[Meshelic]

If the time is right for world war, why don't we drag the whole world in with us?

Too bad the Japanese Chinese and Indians are not really part of the greater Apolytonian continent; they are not of much use to us in a world war.

Let me search my Shadow Service records, I remember commissioning several agents to the German area, and I also recall several people opposing the reports they came back with, stating that the Germans are preparing for war with us.

How interesting is that? My early warnings went unheeded when the Germans had just begun to build their military to it's present size, and now that they are powerful they want to send our boys into war! Alas, I shall support this war nonetheless, but remember, the Shadow Service was there long ago!

Regardless, in these interests I shall furnish the Apolytonian Army with horses, iron, and able fighting men from my own Shadow Service ranks to accompany our soldiers into battle.... ONE word of caution though, do not swing your axe or fire your rifle those figures who travel in the shadows, for my men are trained to be silent and invisible like shadows themselves.

Should my men suffer friendly-fire casualties there may be hell to pay, so be forewarned.

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by joncnunn
In Civ III, I'm not sure what the point of a pure defensive war is unless the oppoent is on some other land mass.

If they are on your own land mass, they will quickly committ all their resources against you. If you beat off this attack, it's a realitive cake walk to roll up their empire.

Sure, we can have the first stage of these wars on our boarder city inside our cultural boundary if we want to, but after we successfuly beat off that attack, go take their cities.

I'll tell you what the point is... The point is that if we were to attack, say, Germany and they brought in an ally against us, we should IMO stay focused on the German attack and not incite more war weariness among our people by going on the offensive against a new enemy or spread our attack too thinly. Rather, we should stay on focus and finish the first conflict which is a "offensive" campaign and simply push back the attacks of the new ally against our homeland; thus, we have an offensive war and a "defensive" war going on at the same time.

This is something we haven't had to experience before because the forces arrayed against us were not nearly so well organized or powerful enough to really threaten Apolytonian lands.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by ruby_maser


I'll tell you what the point is... The point is that if we were to attack, say, Germany and they brought in an ally against us, we should IMO stay focused on the German attack and not incite more war weariness among our people by going on the offensive against a new enemy or spread our attack too thinly. Rather, we should stay on focus and finish the first conflict which is a "offensive" campaign and simply push back the attacks of the new ally against our homeland; thus, we have an offensive war and a "defensive" war going on at the same time.

This is something we haven't had to experience before because the forces arrayed against us were not nearly so well organized or powerful enough to really threaten Apolytonian lands.

This entire issue can be circumvented with this thing called an "alliance", should the public actually support the formation of such odd things...

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by Arnelos
This entire issue can be circumvented with this thing called an "alliance"

I think our border is too precarious to assume an alliance will buffer us from an attack against our homeland

[Randolph]

I've never thought of myself as a peace-lover (in Civ that is ), but I really don't see the game play benefit (opposed to 'movement towards victory'). We're already bridging on becoming so powerful that it's not all that fun. For me it's not peacetime that's boring, but rather tedious wars that I know I'm going to win. Let’s face it someone who has play 3 games of Civ could win any of these wars.

Yet it looks like whether or not we go to war isn’t even really an issue, just with whom and how.

[Randolph]

If we do go to war I say we intentionally take on 3+ civs at the same time... at least that would be a challenge

[Meshelic]

Randolph speaks in terms parallel to the Hawk Party sentiments. let us take three nations on! who can defeat us? none! the English and German Empires have been building on land set aside for us by the Great Banana, and we must appease the banana's thirst for war!

World War is on the horizon, we must take the appropriate steps...

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Meshelic
Randolph speaks in terms parallel to the Hawk Party sentiments. let us take three nations on! who can defeat us? none! the English and German Empires have been building on land set aside for us by the Great Banana, and we must appease the banana's thirst for war!

World War is on the horizon, we must take the appropriate steps...

And dare I say it while I'm running for Foreign Affairs Minister, but THIS is precisely what makes people scared to join your party

Personally, I would oppose any war with more than one enemy civ at at time if we can possibly avoid it. There's no reason to give our enemies an unecessary advantage simply for kicks... that is a WEAKNESS entirely ill-suited to the true hegemon.

[Panag]

hi ,

we should build our cities a bit further , modernise the army , make a cash reserve , and then BANG , we nail them , .... all of them

have a nice day

[joncnunn]

The problem with a delay now is that Germany is currently the fastest researching AI.

The more turns we wait, the fewer turns of attacking we can do before Infentry comes onto the scene and wars have to wait for Tanks. Given that Germany gets Panzers, that is also a bad time to go attacking them. Besides which, Germany gets to build Panzers before we can build Tanks.

We need to take them out now. (At least to the point where they we never be a major science power again.)

[SABRA]

No more war , we should stop for now and try to get on our feet first !