Opinion Poll: The next War

[E_T]

Well, we will be making Otto our house Boy relatively soon and we need to start thinking about what we will do next.

Do we want to start gearing up to do one of the following?

1) Take on England (Operation TOBE)

2) Take on Greece (Send Alexander a Hot Artillary Shell)

3) Take on Zululand (Show Shaka exactly how to stage a proper Invasion)

4) have Peace for a while


and how soon do we want to do it in?

A) As soon as we can get all timed agreements out of our hair (with mostly Cavalry against Infantry).

B) Wait until we have Tanks.

C) Wait until we have both Tanks & Bombers.

We need to start planning now for whatever we do decide to do.

E_T

[EDIT] Because this is for opinion & discussion purposes, this poll will last for 14 days before closing.

[Thud]

I want to get Zululand for their treachery eventually, but the time is not right. Peace!

[Kloreep]

Both Liz and Shaka are good targets. I think we should wait for Tanks, though.

[ManicStarSeed]

I am tempted to take out liz and alex. Liz should be the next one. As for alex, Greece is the only nation that can give us grief in the future. Once we marginalize Greece, then the time would be ripe for the zulu.

Either way, I think we need to wait for tanks.

Mss

[Arnelos]

WAIT

We have immediate infrastructure needs that are more important than a few extra cities (which is all any war is going to get us after Germany, our lead in the game already assured).

Once our infrastructure needs are done with, I'm sure we'll have TONS of spare shields to build armies with.

Think about it...

We currently are short on military units and we're in the middle of an offensive war... if something goes wrong and we lose our offensive forces, we're a sitting duck... we simply don't have enough defensive units...

We ALSO don't have adequate infrastructure in most of our cities. We still have cities across the empire w/o such basic improvements as marketplaces, nevermind extremely critical improvements such as factories and hospitals.

The answer should be incredibly obvious...

We just got the technologies allowing us to industrialize... We should STOP fighting once we're done with Germany until we can complete most improvements, especially factories, hospitals, police stations, the Hoover Dam, banks, and universities in as many cities of the empire as reasonable possible.

THEN we will have an enormous productive capacity empire-wide to produce an absolutely enormous force of tanks, armor, and anything else you'd like to drum up.

However... if these warmongering idiots get their way...

We will FAIL to properly industrialize as quickly and we will be continuing to waste resources on what piddling number of military units we can currently produce when it would be FAR FAR BETTER to build up our improvements first and THEN build EVEN MORE MILITARY UNITS.

............

So it basically comes down to whether you want to continue trying to stretch what small military we can continue to keep up and keep on the warpath while neglecting our infrastructure OR whether you'd rather have BOTH a strong infrastructure and an even LARGER military. Any true patriot, whether a warrior-player, a builder-player, a pragmatist, a war-builder, or anyone else, should agree that the latter option, that of BUILDING right now, is the superior of the two.

[Spiffor]

PEACE

I remember the ancient times, when Apolytonia was a mere group of villages in the Jungle. Our leaders knew we could only resort to war if we didn't want to get crushed by the strangers next door : Americans, French, Persians...
Despite the odds, we conquered them, and we became the most powerful empire in the whole world.

Reasons to go to war were less and less essential :
- First it was about our very survival (America)
- Then it was about an essential territory expansion (France)
- Then it was about becoming the greatest power (Persia)
- Then it was to remove a scientific rival (Germany)
What will be the next reason ? To get a few more cities ? Because Liz is ugly ? Because Shaka betrayed us some centuries ago ? Because we want ONE mere luxury ? Simply because we Apolytonians will like to genocide people until we get spanked ?

It is absurd to go to war with our military, which is too small for our huge empire.
It is absurd to go to war with our poor infrastructure : look at it, no hospitals are even planned in most of our cities, because we'd need approx 50 years to complete our military projects.
It is absurd to expand our territory with the high corruption we already have. Conquering Zululand will be much more costly than leaving it alone, and trying to end their embargo towards us.
The more cities we'll have, the more barren Macross City, Ferropolis et al. will become. Is it what we want ?

We are on the verge to become the shining beacon of the world : in 10 years, our scientists will be far more advanced than in any other country. We are the richest technology dealers in the world. We can do great achievments in no time. Only a few things lack : hospitals, universities, banks, you name it.
But to warmongers, this is of no importance. No matter how detrimental to Apolytonia's greatness war will be, they'll promote war anyways.

We've reached the point where war will bring nothing but increased corruption and less opportunities to make money by selling techs. The war against Germany was somehow useful, unlike all future wars we might wage in the future.
Worse, with war weariness, we'll have to control our demography drastically, to avoid cities entering in disorder. WLAD will only be a fond memory of the past, so will be the increased production it bringed.

"Otto, we will bury you under a mountain of shields" could we proudly say. "Alex, we will be buried under a mountain of corruption" will we say in the future, if we follow the ramblings of the warmongers.

Let's face it, military imperialism belongs to the past of Apolytonia. Only a strong peace will allow victory in greatness.

[Shiber]

The Zulu are an excellent target for the reason that the Zulu are extremely weak. A war with the Zulu would be easy, cheap and with little casualties. This kind of war won't demand a lot of resources or attention and we'll be able to focus on infrastructure back at home as if we weren't in war.
Besides, think of the Gems. Winning this war will bring us to a monopoly on the Gems market, and that would bring a lot of money home. Considering that this war could be very cheap and the reward is sweet, especially in the long run, this war would be very cost-effective.

A suggestion regarding strategy: if we wait for flight and build a few airports in the mainland, we can take over a single Zulu city with forces that we'll transport over the sea, and rush an airport in that city so that we can fly the rest of the forces from Abananaba (instead of making several trips with a sea transport vessel). The rest would be a piece of cake - we'll just march into their cities with our tanks, meeting very little resistance on the way.

[Togas]

Those Zulus have it coming.

Send in the tanks and test them against the backstabbing savages.

--Togas

[Spiffor]

I have to disagree with Shiber on one point :
The AIs are broke, because we take all their money by selling them techs (outdated compared to our current technology level). Our most powerful neighbour, Greece, only makes a measly 22 Lpt.

The Zulu war might be cost effective, as Shiber rightly points out, but the afterwar won't : the cities there will be entirely corrupt, and will either bring naught to our empire, or will cost fortunes in Lyton-rushes to make them decent.
Also, to invade Zululand, we'll need a better armada, if only to allow all the needed tanks/cavalries to travel. Building this armada will further slow down the development of our cities.

Moreover, they will increase our total amount of cities, and as such, they will increase the overall corruption in our core cities. I highly doubt of the economic effectiveness of such a war in the long run.

[E_T]

Spiffor, where you completely absent when I had posted my Corruption Charts, when I was CP & DM? THe English & Zulu Cities would fall under the FP (i.e. FP Centric) and would have Less Corruption than, say, Helopolis.

As for Greece, they will be no problem, If the Palace is moved.

And Arnelos, the reason that I am posting this poll/discussion is not to jump right into the next war, but to let the Senate take full consideration as to what they will want, so that we can start the LONG TERM planning to have the next war, If they so desire.

If the Senate wants to wait until we get tanks, then it will most likely be 16 turns before we even get the technology to start building them, then we have to build a sufficient quantity of them to have a proper war, say 20 turns after that. So this would be about 36 to 40 turns away. If we also deside to mount the invasion, then we will also need a proper Naval Fleet, which whill delay the land unit builds.

There is more than sufficient time to build our Military up to the point of that we need it to be. There is also enough time to get the other needed things built in our cities. In the timeframe of our Government, this will be either towards the end of the next trem OR during the term after that.

And to let you know, I am not a Warmonger, but just doing my duty to our Nation. As SMC, It's my duty to see what the Nation as a whole feels about the next War AND how we should go about it. I am a long term planner and I base my requests to the other Government Officials & the Senate with that in mind.

E_T

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The AIs are broke, because we take all their money by selling them techs (outdated compared to our current technology level). Our most powerful neighbour, Greece, only makes a measly 22 Lpt.

You're absolutely right. At least having all the gems in the world leaves us with the advantage of being able to deny gems to a certain city. Eventually we'd want to have a monopoly on as many luxuries as possible in order to really be able to hamper the progress of threatening civs.

The Zulu war might be cost effective, as Shiber rightly points out, but the afterwar won't : the cities there will be entirely corrupt, and will either bring naught to our empire, or will cost fortunes in Lyton-rushes to make them decent.

Why improve thhose cities then? Let them build their own courthouses, even if it takes ages. We're not interested in Shaka's cities as production centers, we're merely interested in his territory because it holds all the gems in the world.

Also, to invade Zululand, we'll need a better armada, if only to allow all the needed tanks/cavalries to travel. Building this armada will further slow down the development of our cities.

That's why I suggested that we fly our forces to Zululand. We'll build a few airports in the mainland anyway, so I suggest that we send a small force with the transports that we've got, take over one city, rush an airport and bring the rest of our forces from the mainland via airlifts.

[Arnelos]

I am absolutely and totally against an immediate war. I thank E_T for noticing my comments in this regard.

As for targets... I wouldn't be overly bothered by taking out England because they would be, as E_T has correctly argued in the past, within the area that would be FP-centric and thus have fairly low corruption. Even Zululand wouldn't be TERRIBLY, though I believe that Spiffor is CORRECT in asserting that the cost of rushbuys and the expense of the war itself would likely exceed the combined income of all Zulu cities until the end of the game for us... making the war more of a drag than a gain... the question then becomes whether one measly luxury is worth the price.

Taking over any of Greece, on the other hand, would be precisely as I have argued in the past (and a banner which Spiffor has picked up here): Any new cities would cost us more in maintenance costs than they would give us in income, NEVERMIND rushbuy costs. As such, conquering these cities would be a DRAG on the Apolytonian economy and the expense and effort expended to take them would be nothing short of a WASTE of our resources (resources better spent on the space race victory).

There is also the point to be made that the consensus in the Senate is clearly in favor of a space race rather than a domination victory. As such, we should (at most) only pursue one more major conflict before game-end. England would be the best target for that conflict because the corruption would be rather low so near to the Forbidden Palace. Any other conflicts would simply waste money and production as well as be detrimental to the stated goal of space race victory.

So...

Wait until we have tanks, bombers, and all sorts of fun goodies like that. Then blast the hell out of England for kicks as the last big war. Then we just build to the space race and win the game already.

[Panag]

hi ,

we should wait and build our infrastructure a bit first , ....

no more wars unless its selfdefense

we shall need to focus on getting more that means banks eveywhere and science , ......

ones we are in the lead again and we have finished all what we need we can go to war again , in the mean time we should build up our armed forces at a steady rate

have a nice day

[Kuciwalker]

*sigh*

manually add +1 to 1 and B

[roadcage]

There is no reason to beat up on Liz. She is beyond broke and has nothing but land. Land is Good

Alex is almost but not quite broke. He has Ivory and land. Land and Ivory is better.

Shaka is living off of his Gems. A proper Amphibious assault would be fun, but very time consuming and transport limiting. Shaka doesn't have enough land to matter.

The Shogun is restless. I want our next campaign to be on the mainland where our fully developed rail grid is an effective counter.

But the real choice is none of these, but rather Persia! Yes Persia. This makes our road to Ivory much shorter and is a suitable tuneup prior to Alex.