The War Party: Membership and Philosophy - Page 2

Immortal Wombat · January 29, 2003, 05:18

And who is HuangShang voting for?

Maquiladora · January 29, 2003, 05:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
You've not heard of ICS then?

It stands for 'Infinite City Sleeze'. Its a typical TBS ploy... and had its heyday in Civ2.

It effectively exploits a 'weakness' in the design of TBS games... namely that your cities use 1+POP (basically) squares of resources. Its mathematically advantageous to just build just settlers (and enough defensive units to be viable) whilst you can (subject to space and empire size caps.)

I do agree that we should take an Austrian City, but not at the expense of as rapid an expansion that we can muster, ourselves.

MrBaggins

ICS doesnt work in CtP2, well not half as powerful as before. We should strive to gain cities until we're roughly 1 or 2 over the max for our government, by force or by building settlers.

MrBaggins · January 29, 2003, 12:01

Thats something everyone can agree with (the gaining as many cities as possible.) At least in my opinion.

HuangShang · January 29, 2003, 21:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
And who is HuangShang voting for?

read my sig

child of Thor · January 30, 2003, 12:25

well i don't know......with so much war potentially kicking off in RL, maybe we should be nice to the austrians and germans - just to prove it's possible to be human and not seek to kill our fellow man/woman?

centrifuge · January 30, 2003, 13:21

COT, You damned hippy

, The Austrian's are "developing weapons of mass destruction!!!!" and we can not allow it to continue

MrBaggins · January 30, 2003, 13:52

don't forget the Germans... they are 'Evil Doers' (TM) too...

The big issue we face, in the War Party, is not having enough enemies to declare an impressive Axis Of Evil (TM)... maybe the hippie peaceniks will suffice as the third party until another more suitable enemy appears.

MrBaggins

child of Thor · January 30, 2003, 15:00

No, lets be nice to them..........'may i carry that cross for you sir'(badly quoted Monty Python) etc.

Can it be Slic'd so a diplomatic exchange could include an option to 'Give them a Big hug' ?
It could be part of an ' All Loved-up' victory condition.

centrifuge · January 30, 2003, 17:34

Your peacenik mind tricks won't work on me

... muuuust resist the hippies, mmmuuuuust resist the hippies...

HuangShang · January 30, 2003, 21:12

the hippies are no use on me

ískallin · January 31, 2003, 09:29

send the hippies to the marines...
and keep them there!!

Zaphod Beeblebrox · January 31, 2003, 10:43

ctp definitely needs antiwardemonstrants.
maybe there could be a woodstock feat of wonder?

HuangShang · January 31, 2003, 18:34

no, we need anti hippy demostations

Zaphod Beeblebrox · January 31, 2003, 20:27

yeah, hippos can be dangerous

HuangShang · January 31, 2003, 20:39

dont mock me

anti-hippies demostration now!

centrifuge · February 1, 2003, 04:57

Okay guys, stop the nonsense!!! You're starting to push me toward the darkside...

If we don't go to war soon, and I don't start reading some different posts and/or sober up

, I may just start up a woodstock thread.

centrifuge · February 1, 2003, 04:58

OG, I'm gonna regret that in the morning

Maquiladora · February 1, 2003, 16:13

May i remind all War Party members to vote for Comrade Turambar in the MoD elections, this is a very important position for us. Its 7-9 against at the moment...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...1&pagenumber=2

Turambar · February 1, 2003, 18:18

Thanks for the support Maq!

Lets keep the peacemongers out of power!!!!

ískallin · February 2, 2003, 13:51

kill the hippies

Immortal Wombat · February 2, 2003, 15:02

All love-loving peaceniks vote for me.

child of Thor · February 3, 2003, 08:57

Sorry IW, i think your wombat nature is getting the better of you in this time of crisis.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 3, 2003, 09:04

well, at the moment, i would advise the warlovers as well to vote for IW. at least those, that only like wars when the win them.

child of Thor · February 3, 2003, 11:53

Don't get me(or all the members of the war party) wrong Zaphod B.I'm not a war-monger, infact i will, in most situations rather live a peaceful CTP2 life.

Still i feel, as do the members of the war-party, that our current situation is not good. So much so that going to war against a stronger civ is possibly a better option for long term survival. We all know that the AI is at a huge disavantage when going to war against a human opponant. We can be 'wiley' in ways the AI can only dream about. We can lure enemy armies into traps, we can scout attack(use a unit as sacrifice to see the defences before going to attack) etc etc.
So even when at a disadvantage the human player can fight tactical to even out the balance of power.

Also the AI is very bad at keeping to it's diplomatic agreements. You can spend all the gold you like and be as nice as you can, but at a momments notice you will be attacked without provication. When surrounded by stronger and bigger AI civs this can lead to disaster.At the momment we have two larger civs on our doorstep, each within striking distance and each capable of fielding bigger armies than us.
This make me nervous as we already had diplomatic probs with the austrians and the germans won't be happy that we are so close.

Even if we expand south and invest the production into settlers and science, we will not catch up with either austria or germany for along time, time enough for them to decide they don't actually love us anymore and instead want to kill us - completely. We still won't be strong enough to defend ourselfs.

Atleast if we attack early and really fight a good tactical and focusd campaign, we will expand our empire quickly enough so that we can get decent defences in place and weaken one potential 'super' enemy for later on in the game.

There is a risk in attacking a stronger enemy, and it could all go horribly wrong if we don't do it well enough, with the right focus at the right times.

There is also a risk in being stuck between two very powerful, unpredictable and untrustworthy AI civs.

Which is worse? We feel the later in this camp.

Maquiladora · February 16, 2003, 09:51

Bumped this thread cause i couldnt find another relavant one.

Who is the WP going to concentrate their votes on in MoD election, Pedrunn or Turambar? We cant split the votes between them or neither will win, we need to make a decision.

Ive already voted for Turambar because even though Pedrunn is going to start more discussions an stuff i still dont see that as a reason to kick out a perfectly good MoD. Anyone can start discussions on tactics, even Pedrunn can if he wants to when Turambar gets elected, but its hardly a reason to elect someone out.

Thoughts?

Pedrunn · February 16, 2003, 10:49

What i have to say is what it is in my speech.

I will remain impartial! Wont be campaigning here

HuangShang · February 16, 2003, 19:23

maq is right, we must have only one WP candidate to take all the votes