 |
|
wervdon
|
|
Honestly, I think the fact that Persia and Germany got bribed into war with us is a good thing. I really suspect that one or both of them would of been declaring war on us within 30-40 turns anyways (they are both backstabbing war-like ai's). There's a good chance that it would of been a sneak attack when they did as well, which would of caught us more unprepared than we are now. At least this way, they jumped in ahead of schedule and don't have massive armies at our border already ready to go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Robber Baron
|
 |
Commonwealth of Commonsense
Jun 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
In retrospect, at least, we could have expected Germany to jump in. Bismark tends to take advantage of third party wars to move against the player civ, in my experience. Really, I'm surprised the Germans didn't move against us sooner. This is very much in character.
And, as things turned out here, actually quite advantagous. Now we get to strike against Persia while she is in the throes of anarchy -- should be short war, with possibly some tribute. At any rate, we can take the opportunity to raize Sidon without (I predict) incurring a long, costly war as a result.
As for the Aztecs and English, again, these are expansionist civs, and they tend to roam around looking for battles. I'm glad we're not involved in this round. Hopefully it will weaken both of these powers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002
time: 02:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robber Baron
In retrospect, at least, we could have expected Germany to jump in. Bismark tends to take advantage of third party wars to move against the player civ, in my experience. Really, I'm surprised the Germans didn't move against us sooner. This is very much in character.
|
Germans. Argh! Well, Otto did not surprise me, and I agree with Robber Baron, I was expecting they jump over us sooner.
If we can finish the French war soon, Persia will not be a problem at all, they have many settlers in our territory (at least two), what mean slaves. Their military is weak.
People are saying that Germany is unprepared for this war, but I’m not so sure… In my games, they are prepared for war all the time. They have iron. Annoying.
The point is: we can fight in two fronts for a little, but we cannot afford this for a long time. And I’m still worried about our defenses in the east front.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:22
|
|
This is a discussion about surprises and mistakes made. So I'll lay out both.
Surprises:
Persia declared war on us. This Institute felt that the RoP would make it more costly for Persia to declare war. There was also the general belief (which I feel was true) that Persia was still in Rex mode because it had sent three settler stacks into our territory and was in the midst of Anarchy as it is becoming a Republic.
Mistakes:
The popular notion that RoPs deter war and can result in profit.
Conclusion:
No one can present proof that the AI even factors in the cost of breaking a RoP into their war equation, and given the very small sum it took to convince a nation in anarchy with an RoP with us AND a Republic to attack (note: Attack occured after we seized money from the conquest of Paris and Orleans, and I wish I knew how much we took, as it might tell us how much it ultimately cost to drag them into war), I think we need to ultimately conclude that RoPs are worthless for promoting peace. With an opportunistic Civ like Persia or Germany, a RoP might even make it LESS likely that peace will occur as it will give them a chance to sneak attack us.
The "RoPs for Profit" idea is just playing Russian Roulette, as it invites other civs to come play in our backyard and, at the least, interfear with our workers, and it rarely produces more money than we ordinarily make in a single turn. That idea must be disguarded as well.
As for the Aztecs declaring war on Greece, they were the only nation that England could afford.
As for why Greece picked England, we can only speculate. We do not have enough information.
As for why Germany didn't get involved in the Greco-Anglican war, who can say. Neither side could afford them ... but France COULD afford them. Perhaps they wanted to go to war with us all along (the Munich situation), but France urged them to go in sooner than they anticipated. As Germany will soon find out, that greedy decision was a grave mistake.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
I agree generally with Uber: the A.I. has gotten wise to our warlike and expansionist aims. We have been planning some sort of war against everyone around us daily. The A.I. doesn't plan much, but it is not stuid enough to fail to see the danger we pose to everyone.
I think the RoP with Persia was a gain. We got 33 gold, and have significant Persian assets within easy striking range. U and until Persia gets iron, they will remain weak.
I have been clamoring against the Germans for a long time, and I do think they are a threat. I would not be surprised if a dangerous German army shows up in our doorsteps. They could probably outproduce us long term, so using the troops we have now effectively will be key.
I must add that we are forgetting the biggest actor not involved, Rome. They have cities close enough to the action (France and Greece) and are big, have all the needed resources, and are the only civ, along with Greece, to make our military look 'Average'. We have to try to keep Rome out of this war, at least, out of war with us. If Rome goes to war with us and gets a RoP with France, they can threaten Paris and our French gains, hold up armies needed in the east, and we are too far from their heartland to strike at them in any time.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-08-2002 14:49
This is why we are in this situation.
|