OFFICIAL: Shall we go to war with Austria?

[Dale]

As President of the War Party.......


Hmmm..... I think I'll vote for peace. NOT!

[MrBaggins]

We SHALL go to war with Austria

Originally posted by Tamerlin
We have already extensively debated about this but you feign not to hear what we are saying. We advocate the settlement of the lands East and South-East of our territory, the very land you have never cared to explore in order to further your bloody plans.

To the East is Germany and Thailand. We cannot peacefully settle and invade their borders.

To the South, and South-East, there lay great swathes of rolling hills. To settle there, means that we'd have to overcome the unhappiness penalty, essentially, of 2. That means having to build 3 units to compliment a settler, so that the city wouldn't riot when it was created. That would extend the build time to around 24 turns. When will you find time to build the social improvements you talk of? Will you leave our cities sparsely defended, when the enemy has great hordes?

Science will bring new advances that will allow us to build the improvements and infrastructures that we need in order to give the people what they really need, health, justice, wealth, enlightened governments and the list is very long my fellow citizens.

Our science lags terribly behind our enemies. If we do not accelerate our progress we shall be lost. Why do you trust our enemies not to attack us? Do you feel that if we are nice to them, and perhaps, give them gold (that we don’t have,) that they will leave us alone? They will quickly discover a more bureaucratically able government and seek to expand, whether we are at peace or not. How will your granary protect our city from the barbarians at the gates?

Building only the military units we need to defend our lands will spare many resources where the plans of the warmongers has a double cost, the blood of your children and the commitment of the whole resources of our nation. With the spared resources we would build libraries, mines, commercial outposts and the list is once again very long my fellow citizens.

Only if we ignore our defenses, and also become also become so pitifully backward in technology, which our foes will be quick to use against us.

You rely entirely on the goodwill of our enemies, not to attack, whilst you plan... poorly... to grow peacefully.

Interestingly, we have no ability to build ANY of the improvements we speak of. We merely dream that we will survive to see the ability to construct them. War makes it MORE likely that we can. Troops conquering new territory and cities… can fight on, and capture yet more territory.

By capturing their territory we gain citizenry developing new technological ideas, faster, and more able to defend ourselves, and ultimately improve infrastructure.

War is not a constant state, or a constant throughout the empire... we shall, in our heartland, when we have established and captured a new front of warrior cities, form a great productive powerhouse... of growth and science.

Build two settlers and the difference will be the same, but we would keep an ally and would not create a bitter and eternal enemy at our gates.

But again... settle where?

By war, we shall pull the teeth from the monster that faces us.... and their enmity shall be for naught.

These are only guesses and you know the Austrians, may I remind you they are currently considering us as friendly, will retaliate and that we have almost no chance to withstand the blow. And you are telling us you are taking such a foolish risk for a Size One city (according to our City Administrative Classification System).

The city will have grown since you see it... a city of 40 or 50 thousand, if farming around it has not been employed. It will rival Pedrunn in size, and be a most worthwhile addition to our empire.

I categorically disagree that we will be unable to withstand the blow. Our great army will create a fortress in their land, and still have its attackers as a new defensive garrison, and gives us a forward base of operations to strike out further from.

You are wrong, we need allies while we are growing, we need to grow now, our reputation must be stainless from now on.

We can maintain our reputation with nations we are wary of, and be at war with another without angering them. They are not allies or befriended, with our target.

Your lot refuse to build settlers. Soldiers, spears, bows and swords are the only words you have in mind, we can't grow peacefully without settlers and you know it.

Here is where I agree with you... I wish to build settlers also, interspersed with military units. Military conquest gives us space and options to build in, and additional resources to build the very settlers, which you speak of. We will bend the resources of our enemy against him.

We also will be able to settle in fertile and productive environments, rather than the putrid swamps and barren hills that you would have us build our great nation upon.

The price is definitely too high!

The price of delay, or peace, is complete destruction within this very millennium.

You have already selected an easy prey, we will win a battle but we will lose the war that will follow.

Again, I categorically disagree... the moment to fight, is right... at this very instant. By taking valuable cities as a spoil of war, we multiply the production of our empire as a whole, and gain stronger.

There is no honor in betraying our neighbors!

Your implicit trust of our neighbors worries me more than any threat of retaliation in the event of war.

Strength and honor… for those brave enough to stand against our enemies.

MrBaggins

[Devil of Truth]

The Prussian master of strategy, Clausewitz, teaches that one must only start a war that one can win.

Can we win this war?

No. We don’t have the economic, technological or numeric superiority. We’re not even close.

But can we ever catch up?

Yes. I’ve not yet played a game where the AI doesn’t lose steam, and I advance well beyond them before the middle ages. Patience and peaceful cohabitation may not make for an exciting game now, but at least we’ll still be playing a month from now.

But we have nowhere to go; we can take the city easily.

I can remember a little war that was started because of lebensraum. Sure, we can take a city. We may even win three or four battles. But once we’ve shown our neighbours that we only thirst for their blood at the ends of our slightly pointed sticks, they’ll descend on us like a pack of hungry wolves.

We have options. Every city doesn’t have to be situated in the ideal spot. Let’s rather take a hit, than take the fall.

No to war!

[MrBaggins]

Ah... however Clausewitz's world was not subject to CtP2 game rules.

Stacks, Defensive or Offensive, are limited to 12.

City Defence is easier than offence: City Defenders get a +50% bonus for Fortifying before any other terrain or improvement bonuses.

After a stack size of 8, and considering balanced stacks (50% defence,50% ranged) , defenders can minimize casualties.

City defenders heal quickly.

The AI does not push attacks: simultaneous multiple concerted attacks from the AI are rare in the extreme.

All we need to do is to push into a city or 2... now... hold till we get statistically superior defenders, and then create, gradually, multiple stacks (2x12) capable of taking out the strongest city, and this process will gain us a massively developed city (size 8-10), and take away from them... The cycle of our conquering, and securing will continue, we shall grow, the Austrians diminish. We shall aim for 11 in defence in our capital, and then develop a settler and expeditionary force to set a forward city to the south west of Pedrunn. KP will be a feeder town, assisting in the development of defenders for Pedrunn and our 3rd city, north of the coal.

After Innsbruck, if we can press on a smaller target and take it, that will become a feeder town for Innsbruck.

Innsbruck and Pedrunn will be the center of attention for an Austrian counter-attack, so we can concentrate defensive development in those areas, but that will only take a scant 30 turns... after that we have choices to further press the attack, or develop in other ways.... from two regions, not one region.

Lets have our cake AND eat it. A one or two developed city improvement is massive when you only have three cities to begin with.

In conclusion... I'd like to see the APP PROVE that

a) we cannot defend against Austria
b) we can trust Austria and Germany not to attack if we remain peaceful.

[MrBaggins]

A point of order: We'll be able to attack next turn: we can move towards Innsbruck this turn, since we haven't moved in the current save.

[MrBaggins]

/me notices his new post rank

[Gilgamensch]

By now most people voted for war.

DoT and other's from the APP

Another thing is (I think already mentioned):

The AI's have far more cities as we have. This means higher research. If we don't try to swallow as much as we can from a 'weaker' nation, we'll be doomed. There isn't so much space left anymore for settling.

Also if we weaken our neighbours, we strengthen ourselfs, with a 'minimal' cost from our site.

But it is also our task, given from the High Lemur () to bring our brother's and sister's back to the right choice, even by the means of persuading them with tools

OK, back to the topic:

As we are stucked between Germany and Austria, we have a problem.........

Germany can expand to the east, so if we don't grow stronger, they might choose us as an area to be expanded into. The only way for this (as we can't win against them), we have to expand into Austria.

At least my thoughts...........

MrBaggins:

How do you mean City Defence? Securing first, one of their troublecausing cities and keeping our peace troops in, on high numbers?

[MrBaggins]

Yes, an appropriate garrison, for a city that we want to defend is 8 or more troops. 11 or 12 is ideal.

[Gilgamensch]

Which garrison? I thought, it is about sending our peacekeeping-guardians over ?

[MrBaggins]

the troops which first secure their troublecausing city, will become the first peace troops... or 'garrison'.

The city will then build enough defenders to adequately protect the city... and we can decide further action from that point.

[Gilgamensch]

I was trying to give you a hint, how to persuade some other people, so that you are not longer seen as a warmonger

[MrBaggins]

My primary concern is defence, then growth, then production, in that order.

War is a necessary evil:

Our offensive will put the Austrians on the defensive... we pick the fight *AND* know where they will try to recover and strike.

Our taking Innsbruck, later moving on Linz and founding a 4th native city on the West potato site, will form the basis for a wall of satellite cities... protecting our core cities, and leaving them able to develop needed infrastructure.

Strength and honor

[MrBaggins]

In addition, they are among the very best city sites available... anywhere...

[Devil of Truth]

No one is blinder than he who will not see. Go have your bloody war. Have fun. Peace out.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
In conclusion... I'd like to see the APP PROVE that

a) we cannot defend against Austria
b) we can trust Austria and Germany not to attack if we remain peaceful.

now you are becoming really silly, there is no proof, neither for our assumptions, nor for yours! , unless acting according to them and see what will happen.