I like the name OSS.

Oh no, not another cryptic 3-letter acronym!

I have already been trying to persuade Team CRC to change their name to a much more pleasant looking "Team CivRu"...

One place I think we stumbled was the late realization that we needed COL and the assumption (I certainly assumed it) that we needed cats. So we ended up stalling a bit when we were facing strike. Would have been better to go immediately for the lightbulb strat and run max specs in Athens after we had the good fortune to take the shrine.


Getting COL a bit earlier would have helped, but I think our biggest mistake was focusing too much on commerce instead of production. In retrospect we did not need to research construction or maths. We should probably have raised Edo and the other good commerce sites we took and instead have taken production power houses and used CFR`s trick of whipping/chopping an army there and then ababdoning the city to a weak power. This would have removed the need for COL completly.



Taking one of Saladins cities before attacking Greece would also have helped.
If we had founded the bridge city to China earlier as TDK suggested we could also have finished off China earlier. The attack on the maincontinent could also have been handeled better, the pyramids were probably not worth the detour, and we ended up having to fight the same battle several times in Japan.

In retrospect we did not need to research construction or maths. We should probably have raised Edo and the other good commerce sites we took and instead have taken production power houses and used CFR`s trick of whipping/chopping an army there and then ababdoning the city to a weak power. This would have removed the need for COL completly.

Yes agree about math and con--although the chopping bonus from math was useful. I disagree about razing good commerce sites--why would it make sense to raze a city that pays for itself like Edo did?

The whip/chop/abandon trick never occured to me.


Taking one of Saladins cities before attacking Greece would also have helped.
If we had founded the bridge city to China earlier as TDK suggested we could also have finished off China earlier. The attack on the maincontinent could also have been handeled better, the pyramids were probably not worth the detour, and we ended up having to fight the same battle several times in Japan.
Have to disagree on the Saladin piece. It felt like we were in rush mode and a detour could have proven fatal. Agree on the China bridge, not sure on the pyramids. PS was really pretty useful--both for WW and unit production.

I confess I really felt out of touch here--haven't played the level in a while and was consistently overestimating the AI leading to way too cautious strategy. Again I'm glad that for the most part (except for construction) the team was smart enough to take us in a bolder direction.

Oh no, not another cryptic 3-letter acronym!

I have already been trying to persuade Team CRC to change their name to a much more pleasant looking "Team CivRu"...
Now what would happen if we shortened our name to the RMB? :mischief:

Now what would happen if we shortened our name to the RMB? :mischief:

hm... it looks like shorted REMBO :D

Congrats OSS with a very strong played game! :goodjob:

Thanks for those sympathetic "congratulation on 4th place".

My take on this game is that our various tactical errors cost us a maximum of 15 turns. Sometimes our tactical errors led us into larger strategic blunders, in part because we didn't articulate and employ a coherent strategy. For example, we should have commited more fully to the principle of attacking the most distant target first. We spent a lot of turns marching our armies back and forth because we let tactical considerations decide whom to attack.

Also, "Scorched Earth" tactics could clearly have sped up our victory date.

I also think we played sloppy in the end game, not thinking through our redeployment schemes and waiting to long to engage Arabia and China. We had way to many units on the continent in the end and no good plan for redeploying them to usefull places.

I enjoyed playing it a lot and I will be back for the next one. Should we rename our team Office of Strategic Services?

TDK

Next time I think we need to put together a coherent long term plan early in the game. If we had done this in this game we would have come at least 3rd, maybe 2nd.

Office of Strategic Services probably sounds more impressive than One Short Straw, but I don`t really mind.

The name is fine here.

I'm looking forward to the next time--I'm always up for more discussion and planning.

I think transitions are always a challenge. I had comp problems for the last round of turns but it sounded like we didn't switch soon enough to the nearby targets. In past SG's we had overshot the transition from war-peace and way overbuilt units.

I'm not good on conquest games, but having read a few of the spoilers in GOTM's from the top players it seemed like the consistent theme was figuring out what was necessary to take out the most distant AI and planning when and how to get it there.

Well played guys. Much better than our game, where Cyrus launched on us in 1991 AD.

For those of you who still have this thread subscribed to, the signup for SGOTM6 (Warlords) is up. I would like to play again, preferably on OSS. What do you guys think?

I'm up for it. I've been having trouble running warlords with BTS but that'll motivate me to do the dual install or whatever it is that makes it work.

Yes! I will sign up. I probably won't be very active until medio january.

TDK

I have signed up, seems we have plenty of folk for OSS to continue