DIA : After the French Campaign

[Aro]

I agree we should stop with wars and concentrate ourselves in infrastructure. But what about Munich? It's placed in a bad position to us, cutting our contact with Ubergorsk. Could be a nuisance. I don't defend a war against Germany, I'm a builder myself, but I have had a lot of bad experiences with the Germans in my games

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Unortho :
Actually, I thought the DIA needed a place to discuss its views, to elaborate a platform. The Great Debate (builders / warmongers) is unsolvable through compromise, because the game is balanced enough to make these 2 paths viable.
Warmongering or building are not vital necessities (well, building our infrastructure in the near future is necessary, but building all the time isn't), they are a choice of society. Warmongers are already organized, with the UFC and Military Ac. / Machiavelli Inst.

Builders, on the other hand, aren't organized because it was impossible to seriously push for builder policies in the past. We need intellectuals to think in global terms (such as "what does builder mean ?"), and we need a political relay to builder demands, which is the DIA.
A builder party is essential for builder policies to be more than talk. Same thing applies for a warmonger party.

I already thought the DIA WAS the party end of it. I was thinking you needed the other parts to organize. Plus, I would like to see what such a group could come up with. If you are saying the DIA is in need of organization, fine. I just thought organizing ALL builders, DIA or not, would prove more fruitful than trying to get the DIA policy to match up with all builders. Organizing the Thinker's Guild and the Cultur Club in a similar manner to the War Academy and Machiavelli Institute would allow more people to discuss the whole idea of being a builder, and strategies, than is in the DIA. The only reason to make it a DIA affair that I can see is to set up party line voting. However, I have had my say, and some do not wish me in this thread, so I will leave it at that and hope non political discussion arises so that I can participate without criticism.

[Spiffor]

Unortho : I don't think you're unwanted here. I think the ranting DIAs here (to which I belong) don't want less opponents in this thread, but more DIAs. It seems DIAs aren't around...

[Ninot]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Sorry, again for interrupting:

I would like to say, for me, the highlight of the game so far has been these non-political groups mentioned above. I am glad to see some activity in organizing the Thinker's guild as well. Perhaps some of you more active DIA members could do something similar to the Culture Club? (or rename something similar) To speak of peacefull alternatives without making it a DIA only discussion? Why drag politics into something this important?

Just a thought.

The idea of a non-political builders league is one that MIGHT be xplored, but I dont see a point to it.

for war, we need plans, like how many troops we attack with, who do we attack, from where?

but for peace-time building, its all decently simple. Build some temples, build some libraries, wait for tech advance, build whatever it gives, wait...

the only micro-management that would warrant a non-political group might be a culture-war scenario, or if we got crazy and had a genios-type builders plan that would somehow put us leaps and bounds ahead of everything. Although such a thing might be possible, its not something we have considered.

[Aggie]

While i'm not a member of any political group, may i make a suggestion. The point of this thread is to create specific policy platform. So may I suggest that such things as specific building sites, building queues for the cities, building of defense forces(even peaceful nations need the ability to ensure protection), and research paths etc be discussed. I also hope the UFC starts such a thread so us independents can see their beliefs. These threads can be very useful if done right. Since I am not a member, I will withhold comments about strategies, though during the uber island debate I gave opinions about the future course of our nation.
Aggie

[Nimitz]

I'm a DIA and I didn't post because I don't figure people think my opinions important and I make my point by vote, but I agree we need to put our postion out there if we are going to get people to agree with it, they need to know what we believe is good for the nation. We need to say War isn't the only way or even the best way we need to say that true streangth is through building or we wont be able to keep up with the AI. I Know this probobly won't mean much to any one but it is my opinion thank you for your time.

[OPD]

lol
I thought thus thread was called "after the French complain".

*Dude you better make a point before you get accused of spamming and posting at a party Iyour not a member of.*

"If necessary people will create an issue to disagree about."

But on the other hand I don't think the French war should be our last war. I think a war against the Greeks, persians or Germans should follow almost immediately but thats my opinion and probably won't happen.

To any "builders" I say build, only one city is produciing millitary.

personally I expected the builders/DIA role in the game to increase dramatically after the US campaign and subsequent city gain. Perhaps once our cities have grown a bit discussion threads such as "market place or library in x" will appear.

[Spiffor]

Nimitz :
I'm glad you posted, because I now know more of what you think. My aim is to write a platform to which all DIA members can identify, so your opinion (and the opinion of all DIAs) is precious. If you feel like giving details, please don't hesitate.

So far, the debatable points within the DIA are :
- Should we finish off the Americans ?
- Should we settler-expand where possible after the war(s), or start building already ?
- As for more specific orders, should we favor marketplaces or libraries ? (I know everybody here wants to say "both" )
- Should we go for cathedrals as soon as possible, or build other things before ?
- Is chivalry a priority tech ?

Etc, etc.

I have a question for the DIA (remember, I'm a POTENTIAL VOTER ). Exactly how long do you think Apolytonia should go (after the French war) without conflict? I'm only asking because war is more or less inevitable. Unless we focus all our attention on rushing settlers and workers, we're not really going to increase our size that much. Many enemy civs are still in REX, so they'll be well into the unclaimed lands once we get finished with France (and they'll probably keep expanding faster than us regardless of how quickly we can pop-rush settlers). If we expect to acheive any type of end-game victory, it's imperative that we go out and increase our power by taking what we can get. So, how do you think we can acheive this using your strategies? What's the DIA's grand scheme for Apolytonia?

I didn't mean for that to come off as too critical of your party, I'm just curious about this (I'm still very much independent). Sorry for posting in your thread, but if you give a good answer you'll probably help your argument a good deal.

[Kuciwalker]

I think a lot of you are missing the point.

You don't need a "nonpolitical builder group". Not only would this end up losing the front end, it wouldn't be anything like the War Academy. The War Academy is NOT pro-war. It doesn't have policy or anything. It's just a way to efficiently put out strategies for war, not to promote war. We need a group that does the same thing, but for infrastructure and development.

[Spiffor]

Edrix :
About the grand scheme for Apolytonia : we don't know yet. This is the second tiùme we discuss our policies (the first time was just before the foundation, when cofounders agreed being "generally in favor of building policies and promoting Democracy".

I don't think this thread will result in a stonehard grand sheme for Apolytonia that will last for the rest of the game. But it will give leads.

As far as it seems, the debate is not settled yet over early expansion after the French campaign. The question about future offensive wars has not been raised now (and I think we should wait a bit before opening such an important question)

But stay tuned : the DIA has always shown responsibility, and knows when wars are necessary. You could have seen it with our behaviour re Case Blue and Case Pink. It's unlikely we take a radical stance about future wars.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Reporter again:

Spiffor, can you answer? my PM? I REALLY want to get this done and get on with other things. Like sleep...


And I agree with skywalker (OMG the world is comming to an end...) something to make TACTICS for infrastructure, building queus, whatnot for peaceful building.

edit: Thanks, sorry, my comp is being weird. Didn't get the notification for some reason...

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Edrix
I have a question for the DIA (remember, I'm a POTENTIAL VOTER ). Exactly how long do you think Apolytonia should go (after the French war) without conflict? I'm only asking because war is more or less inevitable. Unless we focus all our attention on rushing settlers and workers, we're not really going to increase our size that much. Many enemy civs are still in REX, so they'll be well into the unclaimed lands once we get finished with France (and they'll probably keep expanding faster than us regardless of how quickly we can pop-rush settlers). If we expect to acheive any type of end-game victory, it's imperative that we go out and increase our power by taking what we can get. So, how do you think we can acheive this using your strategies? What's the DIA's grand scheme for Apolytonia?

I didn't mean for that to come off as too critical of your party, I'm just curious about this (I'm still very much independent). Sorry for posting in your thread, but if you give a good answer you'll probably help your argument a good deal.

Honestly? As long as possible, untill we are in a position where our dominance is in jeapordy. I dont see arguments such as "If we kill off Persia, that means one less threat to us!" valid. With good diplomacy and building, nothing is a threat to us. If we don't own our own continent, that does not mean we are sub-par. But if we are the strongest nation in the world, and still dont have either 1: the largest landmass or 2: an overwhelming monopoly on the things we need, that does not mean we are inferior.

Even though I think we should ignore a war stance right now, I'll play the game. If we were to win the war on France, i would propose a builders stance untill we can either 1: see a huge threat (not a mininal one that MIGHT surpass us somehow), or 2: gain a new offensive military techonolgy that would without a doubt allow us to conquer easily.

[Guardian]

Well, I guess it's about time for me to stick my head in here...
Actually, I have visited this thread a few times already, but only for a couple of quick scans, as I have been rather busy elsewhere and haven't had enough time to sit down and join the discussion.

Anyway, I suppose I have been one of the more "warmongering" DIA members so far. I am in favor of Plan Gold and an offensive campaign against France, followed by another American campaign and possibly a second French campaign as well. At this point, however, we should sit back, consolidate our position and build up our infrastructure. We need several settlers to found new cities on any and all good sites we can lay hands on. We're also going to need a bunch of workers to clear the jungle and build a good road network. Every city should be connected, and the roads should also be stretched out to our borders so as to allow trade with our neigbours and / or faster troop movements in case of emergency. Our cities are going to need temples, granaries, marketplaces and libraries - preferably in that order, but some flexibility is definitely in order here.

Infrastructure should have a high priority, but the military should not be left out.
And - as I have said elsewhere before - I don't believe in "defensive armies". Yes, we should have a "backbone" army of defensive units that can hold the fort for a couple of turns on their own, but we should also have several faster, more mobile offensive units readily at hand. With a good road network and strategically placed "Rapid Deployment Forces", we won't need to have a very large standing army. In the event of a sudden outbreak of war, our "backbone" defensive units, backed up by a rapid response from our offensive-capable "RDF" troops, can at the very least stall the enemy long enough for us to build more units, bring in allies, etc.

Yes, we should stay in building mode for as long as possible, but the goal is NOT "to avoid war". The goal is to build, grow and prosper, and to be the proudest, happiest, most enlightened people in the world - or at least to be in the right end of the scale. To our neighbours, we should be fair. No more, no less. In my opinion, yes, we should establish embassies everywhere, but we should only sign RoP agreements if they benefit us, and even then we should be careful about who we allow to go trolling around in our backyard. I suppose an occasional gift will be in order if we wish to improve relations, but if they start making unreasonable demands, then we should NOT give in - unless the situation is such that we actually have no choice in the matter. We shall NOT be pushed around and we shall NOT be intimidated by threats. If they want to declare war on us, then fine, so be it! It just means we get to crush them like bugs and not lose any sleep over it.

Also, if we see a significant threat, we should always retain the right to strike first and eliminate said threat, as doing so could well be averting something far more hideous and bloody in the future. -Sort of like if the allies had attacked Germany, Japan and Italy in 1936... It would have been a very, very nasty move at the time, but in retrospect, it might have been preferable to the World War II that we all know from the history books. Of course, it would have been even better if they'd all just sat down together and found a diplomatic solution that everyone agreed to and respected, but alas, these things don't always happen... Yes, we should consider our options, the alternative courses of action and the possible consequences very carefuly before resorting to such drastic measures, but we should consider our options, meaning nothing should ever be ruled out completely.

As for system of government, we should go for Republic and - later on - Democracy. For a builder party, the benefits of these forms of government are simply too good to pass up. Also, the restrictions they place upon our military are fully overcomeable if we take full advantage of their strengths rather than fret over their weaknesses. At least that's my experience.

[Harovan]

Well, I'm not a DIA member, and never will be, but I throw in my 2 cents anyway. Guardians position is sound and has my full support. We should win in plan gold first, and then finally deal with America (mind you the incense valley) and France again, before we settle down. When we have 3 different luxuries (dyes, grapes, incense), Republic will be a valid choice. As for the build-up, well, the city connection is already under construction and few basic improvements (barracks, temples) are already built. We should just continue this way. But, as Guardian said, don't forget about military. It has to be there, and it has to be strong. Only a strong military guarantees peace, or can at least keep a possible war off our territory. We have aggressive neighbors.

However, after we have built up a good economy, short wars with Knights or Cavalries should not be excluded. I don't wish constantly to be at war. But does anyone of you want the Germans with Panzers as neighbors? I'm sure, not. So they have to be cut in time, that means in the late medieval age at the latest.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Spiffor
With their ["warmongerers"] media (war academy, machiavelli institute to some extent) ...

Actually, I see the Machiavelli Institute as a potentially powerful instrument of peace and building, as well as war-making. Diplomatic manipulation may be able to keep our enemies occupied, buying us a window for development of infrastructure, culture, etc.

Just my two bits -- and I'm sorry about intruding on a DIA forum. But as an Imperialist, not a Hawk, I for one will support a period of military retrenchment and sustained building, once the war with France is done. With the caveat that we build up a mobile defense force (we can expect hostile incursions from either the Germans or the Persians, maybe both, IMO). Otherwise, I think we should hold off on further expansion adventures until the middle ages.

Again, I don't really belong on this forum. Except to indicate that there will probably be opportunities for coalition building that the DIA may want to pursue. Personally, I always saw the UFC as a temporary expedient.

[edit: I meant, "war with France" round two, following war with America, round two. Hmm. Maybe I am a warmonger after all. ]

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Aro
I agree we should stop with wars and concentrate ourselves in infrastructure. But what about Munich? It's placed in a bad position to us, cutting our contact with Ubergorsk. Could be a nuisance. I don't defend a war against Germany, I'm a builder myself, but I have had a lot of bad experiences with the Germans in my games

Aro: I agree Munich is a thorn in our side. But I say we try to flip it, rather than take it by military means. We should be able to encircle it culturally.