Apolemurian People's Party

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
sister? we have women in our party? *g*

I was joking as there is no female member registered in the Apolyton APP log.

[child of Thor]

Just out of interest i was wondering in what style you guys play a game of CTP2 and under what circumstances do you go to war?
This is NOT a loaded question that i will use in a political manner to get any 'leverage'. I give you my word on that.

The reason is i see myself as a peaceful player, and it's been quite interesting to be percieved as a 'warmonger' because of my affiliation with the WP.

My usual prefered strat is to try to keep as far away from other civs for as long as possible so i can build a nice self-dependant empire(maybe 10-20 cities max), lots of internal trade,city improvements and wonders. Useing science to keep in the game and generaly having a small but advanced army mainly for defence.
Thats if i'm in a non-conflict zone.

If i get aggressed then i will strike back, but on very rare occasions i will wage war on another civ for strategic reasons.

So do you guys get through a 'whole' game without any warfare and if not always, under what circumstances do you decide to go to war?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, of course i change playing styles from game to game, but normally i don't declare war often by myself, rather caring to polish my empire. you can't conquer all the lands, due to the city cap, so i normally invade only those begging for it.

[MrBaggins]

Well... conquering can include bloodbathing their cities... so...

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

which will not help you in getting other civs as friends. i almost always (though of course in enjoy a bloody game sometimes as well) try to go for diplomatic or science victories. of course most games becoming boring at some stage when you have become unbeatable. but that occurs even earlier if you are (succesfully! which gets harder to impossible with higher difficulty levels) just slaughtering anybody in your way.

[Tamerlin]

Double Post...

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Just out of interest i was wondering in what style you guys play a game of CTP2 and under what circumstances do you go to war?
This is NOT a loaded question that i will use in a political manner to get any 'leverage'. I give you my word on that.

The reason is i see myself as a peaceful player, and it's been quite interesting to be percieved as a 'warmonger' because of my affiliation with the WP.

My usual prefered strat is to try to keep as far away from other civs for as long as possible so i can build a nice self-dependant empire(maybe 10-20 cities max), lots of internal trade,city improvements and wonders. Useing science to keep in the game and generaly having a small but advanced army mainly for defence.
Thats if i'm in a non-conflict zone.

If i get aggressed then i will strike back, but on very rare occasions i will wage war on another civ for strategic reasons.

So do you guys get through a 'whole' game without any warfare and if not always, under what circumstances do you decide to go to war?

I am playing excactly the same way as you though I tend to be more aggressive as I increase the level of difficulty.

We are the kind of player called "empire builder"...

[child of Thor]

yes thats true(re bloodbath), but i've always felt that even though it's a great feature to have, it should have much bigger consequence with loss of regard - maybe specifically all the cities nearest to the civ that commits the action+ maybe higher garrison requirements forever in those cities? Look at Wales/Eire/Scotland for example
I rarely bloodbath - only if i think a civ has behaved very badly towards me(like keeps breaking non-trespass agreements and starts pillageing my tiles or worse etc).

Zaphod Beeblebrox,
Ok i was just a bit surprised at the very strong anti-war stance and was thinking maybe it was just to keep 'in character' with your party, rather than support the tactical risk in going with war in our situation. We will have to see how it turns out.

Tamerlin,
I agree that 'empire builder' would suit my prefered play style. Maybe with an added 'isolationist scientist'

Once we have got a hold of austria so it can't get back at us i'll be much less keen for attacking other nations, i just feel this austria campaign will give us the room we need to set-up a strong peaceful tradeing nation. Unlucky for austria(or us!) for being so close and having nice territory. In time we should give peace a chance

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Zaphod Beeblebrox,
Ok i was just a bit surprised at the very strong anti-war stance and was thinking maybe it was just to keep 'in character' with your party, rather than support the tactical risk in going with war in our situation.

well, of course this dg is a game as well, a diplomatic roleplayinggame or something like that, and i love games. so maybe if everybody would have cried for peace in the beginning, i would have founded a war party just for the fun of it

[MrBaggins]

I view there as being only two genuine victory conditions in CtP2... bloodlust and science.

I always play with the aim of achieving my set goal as quickly as possible. Even with a science victory aim, acquisition through conquest is always valuable, as is degredation of their capabilities; it keeps you safe, and it keeps them from researching anything close to the gaia controller advance.

I really don't see the point of artificial game styles, when the game has not been adapted well to it.

Diplomacy is useful, only to delay annoying wars, and to allow you information, so you can target your aggression, not to further your goals, ultimately. Conquest will always get you further, faster. With the game balance as such, war, coupled with aggressive expansion and development will always be the premier strategy.

MrBaggins

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
well, of course this dg is a game as well, a diplomatic roleplayinggame or something like that, and i love games. so maybe if everybody would have cried for peace in the beginning, i would have founded a war party just for the fun of it

The role playing part of this DG is obviously an important element as far as I am concerned and I think I would miss the whole point if I ignored it.

[medio]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


The role playing part of this DG is obviously an important element as far as I am concerned and I think I would miss the whole point if I ignored it.

exactly my position also. This is especially true for us lowly settlers who have little to offer in the way of an overall stratagem, but enjoy these things nonetheless.

[Tamerlin]

You are wrong medio, the Settlers (that which I was just a few months ago) are the life forces of the CtP2 community. Each Settler bring with him a fresh perspective, allows the community to grow and without their input the community would not evolve and end up looking at its navel.

[H Tower]

I'm not reading through more than 100 posts to find out what your party stands for, someone explain it to me please

[Tamerlin]

Dear H Tower, though our program is yet to be fully detailed I can try to sum it up in a few lines:

The APP believes the needs of our people can only be met through the commitment of our nation's resources to growth through peacefull means such as new settlements, science and friendship with our neighbours.

We strongly advocate the building of a defensive army and not of an offensive military force. The spared resources would allow us to invest in many improvements and buildings that will in turn accelerate our growth and promote the welfare of our people through economical, technical and scientifical development.

War should be the ultimate answer to a threat that can not be deal with in any other way. The current situation does not claim for a war as the territories around our cities (especially to the east and south-east where we could send settlers if we were not building military units) have not been adequately explored and could be settled in order to expand our borders and increase the generated resources.