06-06-2004 17:08									#1
	GAUL Treaty Discussion Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This was brought up on a turn thread, but needs its own.

Some considerations :


1. What would be the scope of such a treaty?

2. What would the war aims be?

3. What would happen to Legoland territory?

4. Would a GS-GoW NAP be included?

5. What about afterwards?

	06-06-2004 17:10									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

DeepO's responses (from the T211 thread) :

quote: What would be the scope of such a treaty? contract. We buy them to invade Lego on the same turn as us. (so not one turn sooner or later) What would the war aims be? Main goal is to disrupt Lego's supremacy. Secondary goal is to have a beach head on Legoland. Final goal (which we may never reach) is to destroy Lego and Vox What would happen to Lego? See above. Either they are hampered, or destroyed. preferably the latter, but it can't be a goal of the treaty Would a GS-GoW NAP be included? Could be, but only for the duration of the invasion. And i presonally prefer to simply don't mention this, as GoW is the main possible target for a doughnut once we get off Lego, and have MA ready. ND can't catch up in tech, GoW can. What about afterwards? Well, see above. If things go well, I would love to be able to take the fight to Bob.

	06-06-2004 17:45									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 1) What would be the scope of such a treaty? contract. We buy them to invade Lego on the same turn as us. (so not one turn sooner or later)

perfect, and fair, and makes sense militarily.

quote: 2) What would the war aims be? Main goal is to disrupt Lego's supremacy. Secondary goal is to have a beach head on Legoland. Final goal (which we may never reach) is to destroy Lego and Vox

I think that goal two is required, and the final amount that we need to take should be about 40% of legos land, and preferably all of their rubber, so A second round of war would be much easier to complete.

quote: 3) What would happen to Lego? See above. Either they are hampered, or destroyed. preferably the latter, but it can't be a goal of the treaty

well, other than a vassal treaty (I know that it is unlikly, but you never know...), denial of rubber and lux is preferable. It would stop their military from threatening us if and when we attack ND or GoW (I take it we want ot win?).

quote: 4) Would a GS-GoW NAP be included? Could be, but only for the duration of the invasion. And i presonally prefer to simply don't mention this, as GoW is the main possible target for a doughnut once we get off Lego, and have MA ready. ND can't catch up in tech, GoW can.

They will know we are going to attack them if we don't accept an NAP, So we should offer to tie it up in a lux trade, to try and catch them off guard.

quote: 5) What about afterwards? Well, see above. If things go well, I would love to be able to take the fight to Bob.

Round two anybody?

	07-06-2004 10:49									#4
	Put an end to popups!

We'll at least need to come up with a good way to feign post-Lego war cooperation with GoW to get them on our side. The purpose would be two fold - getting them on our side, and catching them further off guard. This includes at least a proposed division of Lego's land, and the promise of a NAP that lasts post war. Of course, we'd break both, but does it matter this late and this time in the game?

	07-06-2004 18:50									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Breaking a promise of a NAP? No thanks, not if we can avoid it...

DeepO

	07-06-2004 19:07									#6
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'm not in favour of breaking NAPs either. If there has to be war with a former ally I'd favour pistols at dawn at twenty paces rather than a backstab on that scale.

	07-06-2004 20:15									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well, yes... but I prefer that they don't suspect it to come that fast, but aren't prepared either. I think the division of Legolang discussion is a good one: we don't break anything by discussing Legoland division, and the moment everything is divided we attack their home country in full force. By discussing the future land, they can think a NAP is implicit, while we never promise anything, and hence don't break things either...

DeepO

	08-06-2004 04:46									#8
	Support Apolyton

Breaking treaties are still just options to consider. At the very least, our discussions with GoW should mention divisions of land, NAPs, and such, to lead them on and ensure that we catch them off guard.

And, if we do try to attack GoW, do we try to get ND on our side as well?

	08-06-2004 05:04									#9
	Inflate your Upload Space

Oct, why would we need to discuss NAPs with GoW? If we discuss it, we will have to sign one, most likely one that will extend beyond the Lego war. If we don't discuss it, there's a big chance we won't need to sign one, so don't break one either!

DeepO