|
 Leadership is essential, but with no men to lead, even the mightiest general will be cut down. Fortifications and siegecraft are essential, but with no men to man the barricades and sap the enemy defenses, they are useless. A is our best choice in the short term.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
A for Grand Army.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
Necroskowitz posted:Further, do you know if it would be possible to change the name of Astrakhan (back?) to Khazaria? The Mongols have been defeated and scattered, why should we keep their names? Yes, you can. You can rename any province by clicking on the name on the province menu, and the same with the city name. There is also Colony Name Change Mod which does that to the new world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
B. Why aren't you voting B.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
A Grand army will give us the men and the weapons for victory versus Armenia. In the last war Armenia was able to beat us with their stronger armour. We have opened up trade with the finest artisians in the east, let us further support our smiths as they gird our troops for their glorious march for victory. Siege strength matters for naught when there is no force that can stop your troops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:05
|
|
|
C is for "Crushing Armenian scum"!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:05
|
|
|
We can't expect to beat the Armenians in their own manpower game. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell C is the best option
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:11
|
|
|
I'm voting A. I don't want Wiz to have it too easy and it's the least useful idea--having lots of manpower is nice but that are lots of more important things when it comes to winning wars. I wish there were non-war ideas we could vote for. I think Armenia is a paper tiger and not nearly as strong as they look.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
B
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
B because we could use better leadership, shock, and the tech bonus!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Vander posted:B because we could use better leadership, shock, and the tech bonus!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
These are all really good choices, honestly. Let's sit down and crunch them all out. Bear in mind that I am not that good at this game and so I may have completely misunderstood what some things do. First: all three offer the same reduction in War Exhaustion. We get it regardless of what we pick, so we can ignore that. Grand Army gives us higher manpower and higher force limits. We've already run out of manpower at least once already, so this is clearly an issue for us. In addition, high force limits will save us on upkeep costs, though Wiz says we're not in any really financial trouble at the moment. The big thing in favor of Grand Army, IMHO, is the Land Tech cost reduction. That is nice, especially seeing as we're still in a slower tech group (though with the Advisers from the West, we're countering that exactly, if I remember the numbers correctly). In any case, a permanent reduction in Land research costs will help us keep up with, and maybe even outpace, our neighbors. Battlefield Commissions gives us yearly war tradition; this is good because as I understand it you lose that slowly anyway if you aren't constantly fighting. It also gives us a bonus to Shock for our generals, and this will be really nice until we start seeing gunpowder weapons. Engineer Corps gives us cheaper buildings (meaning more forts, assuming we can keep the flow of magistrates up), a bonus to generals for sieges, and a bonus to our forts that will help them last longer. This is a pretty defensive option. It'll help us keep what we have. The general/siege thing, well... I'm probably doing it wrong, but I tend to just detach sieges as I go, meaning the general stays with the army that's going around beating up the other guys, not staying behind concentrating on the sieges. This is also fairly early in the game, so Fort Levels (which is what, I'm pretty sure, general Siege counteracts) is pretty low anyway. A and C are probably the best choices for right now, unless we want to take advantage of Shock while it's still important and then potentially change out Battlefield Commissions later. In my mind it's a choice between offensive and defensive, though Grand Army's additions would also help in a defensive conflict: cheaper Land research means better forts faster, and more men to fight off invaders. All that as an extremely elaborate preamble to my vote for A. We can (and should) pick up Engineer Corps at a later date.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
Voting A, Grand Army.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
I am a unique snowflake and so I will be voting for the second one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
Sniper, you somehow have me down as voting A without an icon. That is impossible since I haven't posted since the 30th, before this latest batch of updates. It seems likely that you actually put my name in place of some other voter's. Your punishment then will be that you get to try and figure out who you were counting! Also I vote C. With the true soul of a Civic, how could I do anything else?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
Grand Army seems both pragmatic, as well as fitting for a Regency Council. Stuck with a country that you aren't quite sure how to run? Make a bunch of dudes! Battlefield Commissions is a close second. Creating an Engingeering Corps just doesn't seem in character for a bunch of temporary rulers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 04:04
|
|
|
I am voting B sans commentary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
Gotta go with the sappers C
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 04:27
|
|
|
I vote for A. All the benefits of the other two choices are useless if we don't have any men to send to the battlefield, and getting a leg up on land research will help us against our western rivals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
Do you people really view Azeri life so cheaply that you'd make it our specialty to round up even more of our youth and send them into the desperate meat grinder of war? Manpower does not come from nowhere. It's not an increase in our population. It's merely an increase in the proportion of young men we can pluck from civilian life to serve in our armies. A vote for "A" is a vote for killing more Azeri youth. Are you people really so blind to Azerbaijan's role in the world? To her strengths and weaknesses? Azerbaijan is not a Mongol horde. We do not ride forth and conquer foreign lands. We do pragmatically expand, but our neighbors are, and always will be, far stronger than ourselves. We will never win a major war without relying on our allies, so why specialize in attack? Let us concentrate on preparing for the times we must fight on our own. At those times we will be fighting on our own soil, and what we'll need above all else is time. Time for another power to take advantage of our preoccupied attackers, or time for the attackers to simply grow weary of trying to subjugate Azerbaijan. We are not a great power. It is not brave or visionary to make decisions as if we were. It is stupid. Our strength in the long run will not lie with our force of arms. It will lie with our progressive society, free from the shackles of arbitrary tradition, to pursue what will truly make us most strong. And what is most vital to make us stronger is With our people, our past, and our future in mind, I can only chose C, and encourage all idealistic Azeri to do the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
It's nice to see myself on the same side of an issue as my old comrade Eiba. Your eloquence is sorely missed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
Azerbaijan is not a heavily populated region. If we are going to survive, we need to have the enemy kill as much of themselves as possible. So why not throw them against our fortifications? Once they are weak, then we strike with a counter-offensive, from a position of strength! C is the vote for strength!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 05:06
|
|
|
A I intend to see our manpower shortage tolerated out of existence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 05:07
|
|
|
C is for citadels, C is for construction, C is for counterattacks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
C
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
B is better but it has no chance and C is a terrible choice. Therefore: A it is!
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
A. C is something we should pick up eventually, but Armenia will probably keep attacking us and we're behind in tech and keep running out of men. It's the most practical option defensively and offensively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
A
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
I wonder what would happen if everyone who voted for B voted for it. I wanted to but then some wonderful debate started so I went with my Heart. C
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
Putting in a futile vote for B because +1 leader shock is, like, really good at this point in the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
Wiz said that he made seiging more difficult, didn't he? Maybe engineers would be the most useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
300 Years ago Azerbaijan was the giant of the holy lands. Now we are a backwater, struggling to even survive against upstart nations that once were so small they were not worthy of being crushed under our heel. Azerbaijan must rediscover it's conquering spirit! We must rebuild, we must take back the lands we once held, and rightfully so as the defender of all faiths! The only answer to our current ill fortunes is the formation of A grand army. We will triumph against such bastard nations as Armenia and Syria, we shall return to our lands in egypt and return them to our demesne! We will conquer all the land of the middle east, and bring glory in gods name! Allahu Akbar!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
I say we vote C
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
C. Why waste Azeri lives fighting in Amerenian territory when the Armenians can do a good enough job killing themselves on our awesome citadel walls?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 06:57
|
|
|
B final answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 07:09
|
|
|
A
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Wiz said that he made seiging more difficult, didn't he? Maybe engineers would be the most useful. You can't assault, making seiging less useful in general. Everyone voting for C should switch their vote to B.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
On the contrary, seiging is the only way to militarily take provinces, and C speeds that up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 07:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:On the contrary, seiging is the only way to militarily take provinces, and C speeds that up. You can't take provinces if you don't defeat the armies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Grand Army, if it was good enough for the Soviets, it's good enough for us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 07:59
|
|
