War Peace War Peace...

[Prothero]

Originally posted by Eric S


My guess is that this would actually make things worse, since the AI would see itself fighting on more fronts, so it would be more likely to split up what forces it has. Fixing the AI unaggressiveness should fix this in a better way, in that the AI usually won't go 10 turns without attacking someone that it is at war with.

There's better fixes, but that's the only one I can see working at the mod level.

And the proportion of ships the AI builds. I don't see how the battle can go on if the he pumps out tons of transports

[drsparnum]

War Peace

Hey,

If you go ten turns without any conflict then a forced peace is declared between the two powers. If the other empire still hates you (which is likely, I'm not giving those jerks anything just to change their mind) they declare war once again. It is particularly stupid/humorous in the beginning of the game when enemy empires like to declare war on you even if they cannot get a starship to your planets. I saw on Infogrames forum that this would be changed although it actually doesn't bother me that much. If you remember that each turn is supposed to be about 2 years instead of the 1 minute it took you to play that turn it seems less ridiculous.

O/T: Please don't take thedraka to represent the opinion of all Americains (or a testament to good grammar either). I guess the reason I did not chime in with my 2 cents before is that it is such a complicated issue I have mixed opinions on the matter and I am not fully settled on where I stand. I just don't want to leave thedraka's comments as the sole significant reply from the USA on this thread (look at that, I guess I do care).

First, I have spent my entire life living within 50 miles of NYC in NY State and NJ and I have been there hundreds of times (I'd live there if I could afford it). I did not lose any personal close friends or family in the tragedy but I know quite a few people who knew people closely who died. I don't want to get into a debate of who has more right to be pissed about things from a couple years ago, I just want to head off counter-arguments that I don't know these things personally.

On one hand, I know that the first people who would critize the USA for doing something to deal with Iraq now (both within the USA and abroad) would be the very same people to critize the USA for not having done something after a disaster strikes in the future. Leadership is so often judged harshly by history for not acting pro-actively when it was obvious to act and it is now being met harshly for trying to act in advance.

However, I cannot help but feel that if the USA takes actions now they will only contribute to training a new crop of terrorists 5-20 years from now within the Arab world by building anti-USA sentiment. It isn't about revenge (and attacking Iraq wouldn't even give the USA revenge since despite Bush claiming there are links between Iraq and Al-Queda I have seen no proof offered - although I concede it is possible it exists and I am not aware of it). Therefore, overall I lean myself in the direction of opposing the war. Foreign policy shouldn't be built upon what has happened but what will make for a better future. Right now, I see more negatives then plusses.

I would favor military actions if the majority of governments of Iraq's neighbors were in favor of a US effort to remove and cripple Iraq's military and leadership. In addition, better support from the world as a whole wouldn't hurt either (although I care less about that-Europeans may thumb their nose at the USA for this but I don't think they are about to drop a dirty bomb on Chicago or anything). These two things would substantially reduce the negative effect this military action will have in its current form on the minds of people in the region who are quite capable of being future terrorists or future peaceful citizens. These nations would also have to favor this without the USA twisting there arm with threats and carrots like immigration and aid policies. I (and you) can never know for sure if the governments are making these descions in the absence of behind the scenes manipulations from the USA - but at least the people who make the big descions know. Furthermore, if Iraq trully is such a great threat the nations most likely to bear the brunt of there military are not the USA (although I concede it does run a risk) but Iraq's neighbors. It is logical to assume Iraq will have short range nuclear weapons before it has long range ones. An ICBM is still a tough thing to develop. Plus, if Saddam is a crazy-nut job then he will likely not hold onto these short range missles and not do anything with them before he develops long range ones.

Hence, if Iraq trully is such a great threat then it should be easy to persuade these nations to support us. I know that there is already some consensus in these nations to support a USA effort (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and a building of support in Turkey) but without a good consensus (you can never convince everyone) of support I think in the long run you will do more harm then good. I also think it is possible to build this support and that the USA should concentrate its effort on building this support first and attack second.

Finally one thing I noticed. The USA wants to go against a UN policy (since France said no) to attack Iraq for going against a UN policy (keeping WMD).

Furthermore, I think if the USA stops meddling in the affairs of the Middle East when it isn't wanted it will cease to be a terrorist target. Once it is not a terrorist target it won't need to meddle. Not every fight can be the US's fight.

Thats my 2 cents. Maybe I am just a crazy nut. My educational training is in Molecular Biology not foreign policy.