 |
Diplomatic Victory? (VOTE LASTS 7 DAYS, SO YOU HAVE TIME TO CONSIDER CAREFULLY)
This poll is closed. |
| Yea |
   |
30 |
58.82% |
| Nay |
   |
20 |
39.22% |
| Banana (Abstain) |
   |
1 |
1.96% |
| Total: |
51 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
roadcage
|
 |
Minneapolis Kansas
Nov 2001 time: 23:26
|
|
Follow the link to where the Diplomatic Victory plan was outlined.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...463#post1715463
That post was made based on the 1360 save so a little update is in order. Our max Science production has swelled from 2371 beakers in 1360 to 2749 beakers in 1395. This is more than ample to do Fission in 4 turns.
The Plan:
1395 start Flight, the last required Industrial age tech
1415 start Fission, the UN enabler
start buying alliances, objective is atleast 6 preferably more alliances against Japan by 1425
1430 rush whatever Apolyton is building so
1435 Apolyton Leader rushes UN
1440 hold vote and celebrate
We should have lots of goodies to give to our Alliance partners. MT, Flight, Cash, Cash/turn, Lux whatever it takes to buy our way to victory.
And it is also necessary to maintain the war against Japan for the duration. Just keep it low intensity so we don't get a lot of war weariness.
Comments welcome.
Last edited by roadcage on 15-02-2003 at 12:40
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CiverDan
|
|
I think the time has come to get this game over with...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002 time: 23:26
|
|
I'm going to refrain from voting for a few days thinking this over some more before voting.
As long as we destroy Japense forces within our territory, including teritoral waters, we will get no WW.
Even destroying a transport in the ocean won't add much WW. (I think that's only counted as 1 unit against us regardless of the # of units it's carring)
What would cause big war werrious would be an invasion of Japan.
The big thing we need is to have as many civs as possible be gracious towards us.
The following civs though we've been at war with so if they are still around the most we can hope for is for them to abstain:
Persia, Zulu, China, Rome, Babylon. (Japan will almost certatinely be eligible to vote for themselves and do so.)
Those most likely to vote for us: Greece, England, Irq, Russians, and Aztecs. (But be sure to check Greeces population, it's possible that they might be eligible to vote for themselves as well which would throw a monkey wrenth into the works.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
roadcage
|
 |
Minneapolis Kansas
Nov 2001 time: 23:26
|
|
Victory by UN vote is not necessarily risky. There are certain diplomatic steps necessary to ensure that the outcome is satisfactory. That's why they call the victory type "Diplomatic". What is risky is calling for the vote without doing the necessary diplomatic things.
Let's imagine that the vote were called right now. Needless to say it won't happen because the UN Great Wonder needs to be built first. But if it were, each civ remaining in the game would be given 3 options. The leader names of the top two civs as determined by score on the display, and abstention. Looking at the current scores the choices would be:
banana
Tokugawa
abstain
And looking closely at the score spreads, it is almost a certainty that the top two civs will be the same 9 turns from now.
So how do we convince a majority of the civs that the banana is a better choice than the Shogun Tokugawa?
By diplomacy. We are currently in a low intensity warfare situation with Japan. It is a reasonable and proper choice for us to solicit allies in this war. If we can get a majority of the civs to form Alliances with us against Japan, those civs will also be at war with Japan and therefore highly unlikely to vote for the Shogun.
We approach this situation with an extremely large bag of goodies to offer prospective allies. Motorized Transport, Flight, several Luxes, and several thousand Lytons and over a thousand Lytons per turn. And I am confident that we can get all 10 of the candidate civs to ally against Japan for a mere fraction of our stash.
So where is the risk? We do not commit to having a vote until we call for it. We will be Leader Rushing the UN in Apolyton in the year 1435 and will have the option to call the vote in 1440. If by some chance, we cannot get a significant majority of the Civs to Ally with us, we will not call for the vote.
So I say to all these present. Vote for Diplomatic victory. See how the alliances pan out. And when they do as I am sure they will, be present for the turnchat that encompases 1440. And be sure to bring your party hats.
Ssgt roadcage (retired)
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
roadcage
|
 |
Minneapolis Kansas
Nov 2001 time: 23:26
|
|
There is nothing 'tainted' about a diplomatic victory. It is included within the Civ3 engine and therefore a proper victory.
If we go this route, the final save for the game will be just before end of turn in 1435. From that point, it is just end the turn, respond to any tween turn contacts, acknowledge all the builds, and finally a dialog asking about a UN vote.
For those who wish to seek other paths to victory, just say no and play on for 36 more turns for space race, or an indeterminant number of turns for domination.
The plan is fully consistent with a full science blitz space ship victory, and will be achievable 9 techs or 36 turns later whether we do the alliances thing or not.
The only difference is which tech we will decide to research in the 1430/1435 tween turns interim. If we go diplomatic, any Modern era tech will do. If we go space ship, Computers is indicated. Computers allows Research Lab improvements and Seti program Great Wonder for furthur beaker enhancements. To maintain the 4 turn tech rate to the end, we will need several Research Labs. Since Computers is an acceptable choice for both paths to victory, it is suggested.
And Mechanized Infantry is always nice.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002 time: 23:26
|
|
Several of our historical enemies can no longer vote:
Abe, Joan of Arc, and Xerxes won't be able to vote against us.
What's potientally risky is that there can be 3 civs eligible to be Sec General instead of merely 2.
If everybody's choice is between Japan, us, and abstaining, then signing MA against Japan with as many countries as possible, starting with those we've never been at war with should result in a victory for us.
But if countries have a choice between Japan, Greece, us, and abstatining, then the vote would be risky.
In addition, calling a vote without signing the MAs against Japan would also be too risky.
quote: Originally posted by realpolitic
Too risky we've made too many enemies. At least we know where we stand technologically.
Diplomatic victory is insanely historically inaccurate, too. |
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|