Tweet
OK, PLEASE NOTE THAT:
I am thinking about PERHAPS starting such a team, if there appears to be interest in it... if not, I'll probably join Togas' team (unless its full).
With that issue aside... the idea for a team I'd like to start if people are interested...
---------------------------
A civ that is neither dedicated to warmongering, nor to pacifism - for both are signs of weakness.... a civ that is neither self-righteous, nor thoroughly evil - both which would merely alienate possible friends...
Rather a civ which aspires to the height of "pagan" civic virtue... to do what is necessary (even if it be nasty or cruel) to secure the safety and prosperity of our people. We will not attach any positive sentiment to the execution of violent conflicts such as the blood-thirsty warmongers. However, we will be completely willing to use violence when it is in our interests. And we will be prepared to be far more cruel in war than the pacifists would be.
A civ which will seek to possess both the means and the will to violently assault our enemies, but will be consciously sparing in the application of those means. A civ which is humane in its preference for peace, yet perfectly willing to be extraordinarily cruel when the use of force needs to be applied.
We would not back down from those who threaten or assault us, but would remain cooperative with those who are willing to be cooperative with us.
All things in foreign policy would be judged by an un-wavering set of cold calculations of the interests of our people. The notions of "private virtue" which self-righteous civs will seek to attach to their policies we will not allow to cloud our judgement in such matters.
As for all other matters of our society (the whole gamit of domestic issues), we most certainly would be more attached to notions of private virtue than in foreign policy (where a detached and even machiavellian realpolitik is necessary)... the moralities and ideas which shape domestic policy could very well be bizarrely diverse and we could fight, as any democracy, over which policies to pursue in this area.... I would hope for a wide diversity of people willing to role-play in this manner (even in ways that may CONTRADICT our game-mandated interests at times - just for fun).
In this manner, our domestic policy would be open to FAR FAR MORE role play of internal division than foreign policy. Foreign policy would be an area where, while there would certainly be differences of opinion of what "is in the interests of our people", all agree that war is neither inherently good, nor inherently bad... simply an option among other options. A particularly dangerous option that should only be taken after much consideration, yes, but not an option we are afraid to take when the situation calls for it.
Both the coldly realpolitik nature of such a foreign policy and the raucus and divisive nature of domestic policy could very well be open to a great deal of role-play... something I'd think which would be encouraged.
Personally, here are my own civ preferences (though I certainly don't presume to decide for others):
OLD CIVS:
Greeks (great traits, decent UU) - UU is a bit early, but VERY useful
Rome (good traits, good UU) - may be taken (by Ninot?), but would be perfectly matched to the idea of this team/civ
Germany (good traits, good UU)
Babylon (great traits, decent UU)
France (great traits, crappy UU)
India (great traits, crappy UU)
Persia (great traits, good UU) - awesome, but I don't like playing them (they'll probably be taken anyway)
NEW CIVS:
Carthage (great traits, good UU)
Koreans (great traits, crappy UU - though well timed)
Ottomons (great traits, mediocre UU)
Spanish (great traits, mediocre UU)
IF (and likely only if) we know we're playing on a huge map with lots of land mass.... then expansionist civs are a FAR better than otherwise... thus:
England (great 2nd trait, crappy UU - though well-timed)
America (great 2nd trait, crappy UU)
Vikings (mediocre 2nd trait, good UU)
Russia (good 2nd trait, crappy UU)
I am thinking about PERHAPS starting such a team, if there appears to be interest in it... if not, I'll probably join Togas' team (unless its full).
With that issue aside... the idea for a team I'd like to start if people are interested...
---------------------------
A civ that is neither dedicated to warmongering, nor to pacifism - for both are signs of weakness.... a civ that is neither self-righteous, nor thoroughly evil - both which would merely alienate possible friends...
Rather a civ which aspires to the height of "pagan" civic virtue... to do what is necessary (even if it be nasty or cruel) to secure the safety and prosperity of our people. We will not attach any positive sentiment to the execution of violent conflicts such as the blood-thirsty warmongers. However, we will be completely willing to use violence when it is in our interests. And we will be prepared to be far more cruel in war than the pacifists would be.
A civ which will seek to possess both the means and the will to violently assault our enemies, but will be consciously sparing in the application of those means. A civ which is humane in its preference for peace, yet perfectly willing to be extraordinarily cruel when the use of force needs to be applied.
We would not back down from those who threaten or assault us, but would remain cooperative with those who are willing to be cooperative with us.
All things in foreign policy would be judged by an un-wavering set of cold calculations of the interests of our people. The notions of "private virtue" which self-righteous civs will seek to attach to their policies we will not allow to cloud our judgement in such matters.
As for all other matters of our society (the whole gamit of domestic issues), we most certainly would be more attached to notions of private virtue than in foreign policy (where a detached and even machiavellian realpolitik is necessary)... the moralities and ideas which shape domestic policy could very well be bizarrely diverse and we could fight, as any democracy, over which policies to pursue in this area.... I would hope for a wide diversity of people willing to role-play in this manner (even in ways that may CONTRADICT our game-mandated interests at times - just for fun).
In this manner, our domestic policy would be open to FAR FAR MORE role play of internal division than foreign policy. Foreign policy would be an area where, while there would certainly be differences of opinion of what "is in the interests of our people", all agree that war is neither inherently good, nor inherently bad... simply an option among other options. A particularly dangerous option that should only be taken after much consideration, yes, but not an option we are afraid to take when the situation calls for it.
Both the coldly realpolitik nature of such a foreign policy and the raucus and divisive nature of domestic policy could very well be open to a great deal of role-play... something I'd think which would be encouraged.
Personally, here are my own civ preferences (though I certainly don't presume to decide for others):
OLD CIVS:
Greeks (great traits, decent UU) - UU is a bit early, but VERY useful
Rome (good traits, good UU) - may be taken (by Ninot?), but would be perfectly matched to the idea of this team/civ
Germany (good traits, good UU)
Babylon (great traits, decent UU)
France (great traits, crappy UU)
India (great traits, crappy UU)
Persia (great traits, good UU) - awesome, but I don't like playing them (they'll probably be taken anyway)
NEW CIVS:
Carthage (great traits, good UU)
Koreans (great traits, crappy UU - though well timed)
Ottomons (great traits, mediocre UU)
Spanish (great traits, mediocre UU)
IF (and likely only if) we know we're playing on a huge map with lots of land mass.... then expansionist civs are a FAR better than otherwise... thus:
England (great 2nd trait, crappy UU - though well-timed)
America (great 2nd trait, crappy UU)
Vikings (mediocre 2nd trait, good UU)
Russia (good 2nd trait, crappy UU)
"
Comment