Senate Bill: Enabeling legislation for Persian campaign

[Aro]

Originally posted by Arnelos
Nay

Not because I care about Persia, but because I believe the signing of a RoP agreement to be a mistake. The esteemed members of the Senate should recall what happened the LAST TIME we signed a RoP agreement with one of our neighbors... Indeed, Persia comes to mind.

I'd rather not make the same mistake when railroads give a potential foe such unlimited access to our empire.

This poll don't says nothing about RoP, it's about war with Persia or not. If possible, of course...

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Aro


This poll don't says nothing about RoP, it's about war with Persia or not. If possible, of course...

But this bill authorizes the plan which includes the RoP.

[Aro]

"Shall the Senate pass Enabling legislation of the Persian campaign?"

The plan can be discussed, I understood this bill as an authorization to take Persia before the Greeks.

But I can be wrong (likely).

[roadcage]

Actually the bill does mention an RoP. It mentions it because without an RoP, it is doubtful that we will beat the Greeks to Hamadan. We should still take Samaria in 2. Now if the Greeks slip up and allow us to take both cities in a simple westward advance, the RoP is not needed. But I don't think they will. If we can settle for Samaria only, we don't need an RoP

However, there is absolutley no risk in an RoP because we have ample workers to block and ample defenders to protect our interests. This is diametrically opposed to the condition that existed when the original RoP with Persia was negotiated so very long ago. I questioned that RoP because Persia is agressive, we had few if any defenders, and we were preparing to commit our attackers to a war with France at the opposite end of our empire. We were lucky. This time we are prepared.

[Aro]

Originally posted by roadcage

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

However, there is absolutley no risk in an RoP because we have ample workers to block and ample defenders to protect our interests. This is diametrically opposed to the condition that existed when the original RoP with Persia was negotiated so very long ago. I questioned that RoP because Persia is agressive, we had few if any defenders, and we were preparing to commit our attackers to a war with France at the opposite end of our empire. We were lucky. This time we are prepared.

Good point, roadcage. We have workers and troops. Meshelic also said something about this in the Persia thread.

[Aggie]

But we don't have enough troops toprotect ALL borders and because of the ai's tendency toward rops we woul;d have to seal off all our borders and if he should attack a border unit and break through he could take much of ourr country unopposed. Also he could land else where and move through. I say NO to the rop.
Aggie

[GhengisFarb™]

There's also the possibility of landing forces by ship to utilize our railroads, we would have to line units along our coast also.

[Aro]

You're probably right, guys. A RoP may be dangerous.
But... the question is, can we study the possibility of a war with Persia? That's the subject here.
I say yes, we can do that.

[roadcage]

Nonesense. We have over 100 surplus workers and almost as many Infantry. Nobody has marines, so landing forces cannot attack on the turn. THERE IS NO RISK in the proposed RoP.

Here's the skinny
With a RoP Hamadan in 1 and Samaria in 2
Without a RoP Samaria in 2 and Hamadan in 3

With a RoP all cities are probable
Without a RoP, Greece could easily beat us to Hamadan

[Alexander's Horse]

Just go and attack the Persians.

[Aggie]

1 extra city is not worth the danger and hassle of an rop, and there is a chance we can get both without. also note that if this line should be breached, since we would need many infantry to hold it, our cities would be undefended and could easily be rushed. Also rememeber amphibious warfare could well be discovered before the 20 turns were through. As far as war i say yes and wish these had been 2 seperate bills.
Aggie

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Aggie
wish these had been 2 seperate bills.

My wishes as well.

[Shiber]

Why are we in such a rush to capture two corrupt Persian cities? I understand that they'll be good staging points for capturing the Greek ivory, but if we're heading to a war with Greece anyway, we'll be able to capture these two cities from Greece using artillery and tanks.
I'm in favor of an all out war against Greece once we build a formidable force of tanks. Then we'll be able to take their core, which will add many productive cities (good terrain + close to the palace) to our empire, and once their core is taken and most of their military might will have been expended, we'll be able to march all the way to the ivory coast with little resistance.

[Meshelic]

Although I already voted, I admit I believe it was a mistake, and that I do not support a ROP treaty with the Greeks at this time.

The dangers, upon looking not only at the save game, but also the history of the AI and how it works towards ROP's at this level of difficulty, leads me to believe that although our military is strong, we are not strong enough to withstand the potential threat to our security, and I don't wish to see our security compromised in any fashion.

I support a war against Persia, but not involving a ROP with Alexander.

[Panag]

hi ,

great , we are going after a couple GL's , why waste the oppurtunity , we should go to war after we have used our last one , then we get the best chance to generate a new one and we shall be prepared for it , .....

or we could use the one we have right now , ....

no to ROP

we dont need it (!)

have a nice day