View Full Version : Turn 46 - 1950 BC
May 01, 2003, 09:41 AM
Secure Site (http://220.127.116.11/cfc_msdg/index.html)
I opened the save to find that Gamecatcher's warrior near Zhi Gang had actually moved closer to our city rather than moving away, as we had hoped and had previously expressed our concern over. Barring instructions from our Defense Minister, I made some moves to protect our worker:
The warrior guarding Zhi Gang moved out and fortified on the tile with our worker. This leaves Zhi Gang defenseless.
The Spearman garrisoned in Shen Ling moved out and down the road to Zhi Gang to help with the defenses there. It is currently 1 tile away and will arrive in town next turn.
Shen Ling, with only one unit garrisoned inside, is now 1/2/1 (H/C/U) on the attitued scale and is scheduled to grow next turn. I interrupted the growth so that we can rush out a warrior before the city riots.
Shen Ling can only produce 1 warrior every 2 turns at the moment because Shen Ling only produces 9spt (10spt would be 1 warrior every turn).
May 01, 2003, 09:49 AM
I have some suggestions for how to proceed:
First, all officials should post some instructions for their department in the official instruction thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52043).
Second, next turn, we should resume our growth of Shen Ling which would coincide with the recruitment of our warrior. Garrisoning the warrior will allow the city to grow to size 5, which should allow us to generate 11spt - enough for 1 vet warrior every turn!
Then, after we get around 6 or so warriors, we resume building settlers. With these warriors though, we start pushing the GC troops back from whence they came - by force, if needed.
May 01, 2003, 10:22 AM
this sounds reasonable, i think GC is pushing us cuz they know were watching there warrior i think we should get a battle ready force up and run ASAP we now have a enemy warrior within 2 tiles of zi gang and another one on the loose scouting up north (who knows were that one will go) maybe our diplomats should contact GC and tell them we are sorely displeased at there actions and that we can't be responsible for what could happen if they continue to maraud our (future) territory like common theives ;)
May 01, 2003, 01:30 PM
Why have our Warrior near BoP moved away?
May 01, 2003, 02:33 PM
Methinks gamecatcher is trying to say, you had a guy by our cities, so we will too.
So here's what we need to tell them: your city is a fortress. Our city is just a peaceful hamlet. You have a military bottleneck. We have untamed wilds. We don't have guys next t o your productive commercial towns, so leave us alone!
May 01, 2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Cheetah
Why have our Warrior near BoP moved away? A couple of reasons went into this, but primarily it was an act of good faith so that they cannot say what Hygro just said.
Contrarily, we can now say, we've removed our guy from your border, now you do the same. Remember, that warrior right now sits directly in the path of our projected roadway to our next city site. I'd rather him move on his own than see him park his butt there and force us to move him the hard way.
May 01, 2003, 03:06 PM
Hmm, Possibly GC has something up there sleaves :hmm:
May 01, 2003, 03:25 PM
I hate to do this but this reminds me;
Remember when I proposed that we should guard that choke point in BoP and everyone said *no* because we would know ahead of time if thier starting stuff wit us, and it would be wasting shields to send a couple warriors when now we still have to send warriors. hmmmmm
May 01, 2003, 04:02 PM
At that time, we couldn't honestly have expected to completely blockade the landbridge - we didn't have the manpower to accomplish this. Even now, we are severely undermanned to tackle such a feat.
We must focus on the situation at hand. From discussions with CDG in which they've mentioned certain "friendlies" not behaving very friendly, and with this new development, I think we may well have the ammunition we need to strike a deal to rid the world of Gamecatcher.
May 01, 2003, 04:10 PM
So we should start building warriors and Spearmans as soon as possible now, no more improvements are needed. Probably switching from the Granary from our second city would be wise also.
May 01, 2003, 04:21 PM
I vote we keep building the granary for now.
May 01, 2003, 04:38 PM
:congrats: Great work FortyJ. You handled that situation admirably! :congrats:
May 01, 2003, 04:51 PM
First off, I would propose that we also block off the Northern chokepoint, once that second exploring warrior gets up there.
Second, I'll try to talk to Ek to question him about that warrior near Zhi Gang. He doesn't look very friendly.
May 01, 2003, 05:52 PM
why don't we keep the granary running untill we can pop rush it?
May 01, 2003, 07:50 PM
There is a poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52218) posted which deals with the situation in Zhi Gang. All citizens should cast their vote as soon as possible.
May 02, 2003, 01:09 AM
Hmm, may I suggest WAR!?!
If their warriors dont turn around, they face consequences. However attack them in weak spots, not on the mountains. And grab that iron ASAP. I think we should built a warrior for garrison, a warrior for protecting the settler, then immediately the settler so we can grab the iron. We may have to take the northern iron if war breaks out.
May 02, 2003, 01:21 AM
You know, I'm actually thinking we might want to go to war also...
Or just threaten to anyway. Tell them: DISBAND the warrior or its war!
May 02, 2003, 01:55 AM
not disband, move away is reasonable, we don't have the upper hand here, they are in control of the choke point, and we won't get a man through there once they fortify it (it could take dozens of turns to get that iron, and swordsman) i say we put in a formal request for them to remove there warrior or we will go to war the next turn (after they had a chance to move)
May 02, 2003, 02:14 AM
But if they do not want to move the warrior, such a message would make them position the warrior on the best defendable place, making it harder for us to react...
May 02, 2003, 02:27 AM
true, but i don't think we should go to war so early, if we convince them to leave we can continue to expand our economy, if we go to war now we WILL NOT win the best we can hope for is to push them back to BoP (we won't take it without swordsman or TONS of archers) then what have we gained? they move back having scouted the whole area, forced us into military production (while because they can just fortify BoP well they can work there economy in the other cities) we should go to war if they absolutely refuse to move him, but we should do so only after have we have exausted the diplomatic option.
The best we can hope to do in this war is not lose.
May 02, 2003, 02:30 AM
Well said Centurion!
May 02, 2003, 06:17 AM
Hmm, may I suggest WAR!?!
:lol: I remember the days when GingerbreadMan was your regular pacifist, now look at him! We have turned him into a bloodthristy Warmonger. :rotfl:
But seriously, an attack now is far to premature. We need to wait for swordsmen as my Canadian brethren said, but we also need to get CDG on our side to help us out. This war will be easier if we have CDG on our side. GC will have to fight a two front war.