War Academy: Plans for France - Page 2

Hot Mustard · October 16, 2002, 19:35

Meshelic: Sorry, but I cannot accept your argument, it is just the same old warmonger reasoning.

I fail to see what could be wrong with strengthing both our cities and armies during a peacetime. Odds are that before long someone will declare war on us, which then provides the opportunity for growth, or that other civs will war, presenting us with profitable alliance options.

In the meantime, rather than rushing buildings and units on the battlefront, we can spend our money and effort on building all our cities into a much better position to wage war a little bit down the road.

From previous posts, it seems as though Thud and Reddawg agree with me. However the warmonger:builder ratio around here is alarming.

WhiteBandit · October 17, 2002, 00:51

Let it be known that I also support peace. We need to focus on building improvements at the moment. We need to "lock down" Persia and get it's infastructure up to speed. Hell, we need to get all of our infrastructure up to speed! A constant war footing will put us behind technologically, and techs are getting really expensive to buy.

Meshelic · October 17, 2002, 03:42

dejon - you are saying that you think a quick 5-10 turn war (one without the issue of civil disorder to worry about) in which we capture both an iron and saltpeter resource, thereby decreasing our chances of having a strong enemy is not a good thing? C'mon! I may be a Hawk, that does not necessarily mean I'm a warmonger. I support this war because it promises to lessen the threat to our borders!

You would rather have strong enemies surrounding us?

Torkkeli · October 17, 2002, 04:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
dejon - you are saying that you think a quick 5-10 turn war (one without the issue of civil disorder to worry about) in which we capture both an iron and saltpeter resource, thereby decreasing our chances of having a strong enemy is not a good thing? C'mon! I may be a Hawk, that does not necessarily mean I'm a warmonger. I support this war because it promises to lessen the threat to our borders!

You would rather have strong enemies surrounding us?

Short wars maybe good...
But what IF France gets some allies against us again. They did it once what/who says they wont do it again?
We have so poor defenses that I dont think we could do a two front war. And what IF they dont accept our peacetreaty? Then war weariness would really kick in.

And in conclusion France is in no way strong enemy nor will it never be one.

Meshelic · October 17, 2002, 04:25

Render the French incapable of accepting anything other than peace and they will. They would be desperate to pay anything to save themselves! I know I don't stand alone in this.

France not a strong enemy? good lets keep it that way.
Who would ally against us? The Germans? No, they can be on our good graces. The Aztecs fear us. The English know they had better stay out or it's them as well. The Greeks are not prepared at all to fight.

The power of Rome and Russia is steadily declining, being replaced by our own. We are soon to be the dominant power on our continent. Not without some tech improvements of course, but what I'm trying to say is that in keeping with Aggie's current warplans, we can fight this war with the units we presently own, not sacrificing any industry that need not be used for war. That means industrial growth at home and a military abroad.

Meshelic · October 17, 2002, 04:28

Warmonger? Yes, but mostly in my own games.

I prefer to be known as a Hawk with a moderate streak.

I support war at this time purely because of the timing, not for the sake of conducting war.

Hot Mustard · October 17, 2002, 07:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
dejon - you are saying that you think a quick 5-10 turn war (one without the issue of civil disorder to worry about) in which we capture both an iron and saltpeter resource, thereby decreasing our chances of having a strong enemy is not a good thing? C'mon! I may be a Hawk, that does not necessarily mean I'm a warmonger. I support this war because it promises to lessen the threat to our borders!

You would rather have strong enemies surrounding us?

Ditto what Torkkeli said.

In addition, I believe that starting any war now would open the proverbial floodgates again - leading to wars with the English, Germans, and whoever else the War Academy hungers to destroy.

I will resist all attempts to break the peace, because I believe it may be the last peace period in which we can improve our infrastructure for awhile.

If you support peace let your voice be heard amongst the crowd! So far I count Thud, Reddawg, Torkkeli, WhiteBandit, and myself. I suspect E_T would agree, but I'll let him explicitly say so.

Meshelic · October 17, 2002, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
I support war at this time purely because of the timing, not for the sake of conducting war.

Quoting myself is awesome.

Donegeal · October 17, 2002, 16:20

If we go to war, let it be against someone other than the French in there heavily and well defended hilly cities. We will see Apolytonian blood shed the likes of which we have never seen before if we were to charge up the French hills. War with France I don't think is an option. England on the other hand....

I would have to say that I am an advocate for peace at this time (mainly because Knights against Muskets is a loosing situation). But I am for expanding our borders culturaly. See the Flip'em Off thread.

CiverDan · October 17, 2002, 16:37

Lets not start a war with France unless we feel we can handle at least one other civ possibly joins France against us. With our current forces, this means that our eastern knight force has to stay there (i.e. it can't be used to assist any France attack). Otherwise we could be in trouble if they get allies in the east.

Arnelos · October 17, 2002, 17:13

It is far too early to start a war with France in my opinion...

Shiber · October 17, 2002, 17:22

Actually, this is an excellent time to start a war. If we wait for too long we might have to face fortified musketmen on hills (7 defense). If we wait for cavalry, it won't be long before the saltpaper we'll acquire from France will become a thing of the past (saltpaper is no longer needed in the industrial age) and we'd have lost most of its trade potential. Furthermore, we want an extra iron source so that we can sell it to one of the Abananaba Minor civs that don't have iron in order to strengthen them against Rome.

Meshelic · October 17, 2002, 17:26

I agree with Shiber...France will be stronger if we wait too long, and if we lose that grace period then who knows how long it will take before we get another chance like it?

A fine point was brought up in the other thread concerning war with England or France. How likely is it that the French will ally themselves with another civ to defeat us? Surely by that time the French would be decimated, but we would still have another enemy to fight in their place. A two front war is not exactly in the best interests of our nation, however much a war with France may be.

joncnunn · October 17, 2002, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
Actually, this is an excellent time to start a war. If we wait for too long we might have to face fortified musketmen on hills (7 defense). If we wait for cavalry, it won't be long before the saltpaper we'll acquire from France will become a thing of the past (saltpaper is no longer needed in the industrial age) and we'd have lost most of its trade potential. Furthermore, we want an extra iron source so that we can sell it to one of the Abananaba Minor civs that don't have iron in order to strengthen them against Rome.

Actually, Saltpeter is needed for Calvary and so is still used in most of the Industrial Ages.

We need to ensure that we always keep 1 of each non-Horse resource in reverse just in case a reource gets relocated out of our territory.

Sounds too me like if we wait for Calvary too attack France, they get a Golden Age during the war with their darn fortified hills.

(Even after considering that our Catapults would be upgraded to Cannons.)

In my opinion, we either attack France while they don't have Musketters or else we wait until Tanks or perhaps Modern Armor if the French manage to get Infintry before we get Tanks.

We do need to precede the Knight attacks on city in hills with a round of bombardment with Catapults to soften up the defenders.

Perhaps a few more Catapults would be wise?

joncnunn · October 17, 2002, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
I agree with Shiber...France will be stronger if we wait too long, and if we lose that grace period then who knows how long it will take before we get another chance like it?

A fine point was brought up in the other thread concerning war with England or France. How likely is it that the French will ally themselves with another civ to defeat us? Surely by that time the French would be decimated, but we would still have another enemy to fight in their place. A two front war is not exactly in the best interests of our nation, however much a war with France may be.

France is a weak nation, they'll have to bribe another nation to join them. They'll have an easier time doing so after they get both Saltpeter sources hooked up than now.

Apocalypse · October 17, 2002, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
I think Apoc is now on to something here...

About what? The Greece trade?

Meshelic · October 17, 2002, 19:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Apocalypse

About what? The Greece trade?

Yes the trade, I thought that was a pretty insightful post.

Apocalypse · October 17, 2002, 19:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
Yes the trade, I thought that was a pretty insightful post.

Good for me

CiverDan · October 17, 2002, 20:37

I agree with attacking them now IF we are going to attack them. If they get their GA it could be a longer war.

Another thing to consider, France could get involved with a war with someone else if they get musketeers, get a GA, and, depending on the opponent, could still get out of it w/o losing any cities. Thoughts on consequences of this (if it happens)?

Panzer32 · October 17, 2002, 22:28

This is what is comes down to:

1. Attack the Frence RIGHT NOW

2. or wait for a VERY LONG TIME

I currently don't know exacly which side i'm on. Probably leaning towards waiting.

nz_upy · October 18, 2002, 01:09

War Now.
Limited Strike for resources.
Then Peace.
The easy War later.

Meshelic · October 18, 2002, 01:25

An attack is imminent to be sure. It's basically timing at the moment, and I understand Reddawg's unsure attitude towards this; we want to make this a limited operation, probably with the goal of saltpeter and iron and one or two border towns to be included in the package.

The only issue that I have difficulties with are alliances against us. I'm sure we all understand that this would spell trouble for us, so my question is What can we do to prevent multiple alliances from crushing us once we war with France?

Panzer32 · October 18, 2002, 07:46

Quote:

What can we do to prevent multiple alliances from crushing us once we war with France?

Simple:

1. Get them on our side
or
2. Don't go to war

Meshelic · October 18, 2002, 16:39

I like the idea of selling France technology before the war, thus taking most of their bargaining chips for later, and then declaring war. That will make it so difficult for them that no ally would get anything out of it, except the possibility of grabbing some of OUR land. But that's not likely to happen...

Apocalypse · October 19, 2002, 01:47

They don't have any bargaining chips. They WM sucks and they aren't willing to pay GPT for tech.

Meshelic · October 19, 2002, 03:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Apocalypse
They don't have any bargaining chips. They WM sucks and they aren't willing to pay GPT for tech.

And that's a position we should definitely have them in by the time we go to war, say the turn right before...

Without a doubt, war with France is a win-win situation. We gain so much more than what we might lose. Once we defeat the French, an extended period of building and cultural advances. By that time, no one could challenge us. Once we've cleared the jungle and an 'industrial revolution' can occur, we will be unbeatable.

E_T · October 23, 2002, 18:36

Bump for DOW poll. I'll link this into my Post in the Poll, soon.

E_T