SGOTM 13 - Gypsy Kings

After the capture of London on the following turn I will end my set.

All other stop conditions still apply, also, if Vicky gets Feudalism or does something else really hairy then I will stop.
 
The only way the Plastic Ducks spiked their graph the way they did was to capture mature cities. Knowing what we know about the map now, I would guess they captured Ragnar's capitol to kneecap him before he gets to Berserkers. But we have already committed to going east, so I think we need to push our advantage there. I want to wipe England out. I have follow up Axe and worker in 1 boat and another Cat + Sword just a few turns back.
 
Here is a test game save from the turn before I want to assault London.

This is how I want to play it.

This way gets 2 more Cats to London and allows culture to be 0 the turn of the attack. I lead my assault with a CD1 Promoted Cat and follow with either an CR1 Cat or my CR2 Sword depending on odds.

Obviously Vicky's units are not accurate because of RNG and other facors, but what I did with our boats after they dropped troops is more or less what I will do if Vicky reacts in a similar way.

This test game is accurate with 1 exception, Fh is behind by 1:hammers: on its current build and it is also -10:hammers: on a WB.

Research, I didn't really pay attention to anything past CoL as that is easily changed. In the save I have been working Compass at 0%, I was also able in the test game to trade CoL+ some gold for Calendar. If I get that opportunity in the real game I will probably take it also. My thinking was if we get a GS as our next GPers we can bulb Philo. I would understand if we didn't want to take that risk though.

There are also test game saves for every turn leading to this point.
I'm away from my computer today can you update the written ppp as well?

Mabraham and I worked hard on the galley plan and it does drop 2 catapults next to london so that the def bonuses are zero by the time we attack and we have 2 other catapults there as well to attack without crossing the river. The plan also gets 5 swordsman 2 axe and 2 axe for the iron one of which can get to london for the attack. Please look at te plan I think you will agree that it sets up very well to finish vicky.
 
I'm away from my computer today can you update the written ppp as well?

Mabraham and I worked hard on the galley plan and it does drop 2 catapults next to london so that the def bonuses are zero by the time we attack and we have 2 other catapults there as well to attack without crossing the river. The plan also gets 5 swordsman 2 axe and 2 axe for the iron one of which can get to london for the attack. Please look at te plan I think you will agree that it sets up very well to finish vicky.
I don't have time now, I'm at work. Please take a look at mine when you get time and please give feedback there.:D
 
When I published the test game I said...

Ok test game updated to T178.

...FH has not got the 10 hammers on its WB like it should (but hopefully the overflow is right to generate things properly), but all cities otherwise are right.

... and that overflow is right. All I did was fail to juggle the build order the same way... If the tiles aren't changing and the whip transition points are not crossed, then

"2 turns on build X, then 2 turns on build Y, then whipping Y and 1 turn on X"

is identical to

"0 turns on build X, then 4 turns on build Y, then whipping Y and 1 turn on X"

This test game is accurate with 1 exception, Fh is behind by 1:hammers: on its current build and it is also -10:hammers: on a WB.

Here are the first couple turns, FH is wrong here as I was making adjustments to get it closer to the real game.

FH is right so long as we put T178 on a WB. Anything else is unnecessary.
 
I don't have time now, I'm at work. Please take a look at mine when you get time and please give feedback there.:D

:) My first reaction was "no - we've worked hard to produce an integrated written plan that achieves the objective of 12 attacking units on London end T187. The impetus you gave us to seek a T184 DOW position was great, but now you're now expecting us to critique roughly the same plan you described earlier, without really telling us what that plan is or what advantage it delivers over our improved version"...

... but I looked at your first three saved games anyway :) It's much harder to get a feel for someone's plan by opening and closing saved games than a time series of labelled screen shots, by the way. Also, you didn't give me the earliest ones (T178-80), so I've had to do a bunch of guessing about how you managed things, and that is irritating :)

  1. The last unit you have coming out of BF leaves on T180. We are getting an axe produced on T181 to the front line in time for the DOW. This requires a judicious coast-for-citizen juggle about T178. Your saved game has an axeman labelled from Fish Hills near Vicky's eastern iron. My equivalent axeman does not have that label. So I think you are "cheating" on T178 and putting the extra 10:hammers: of FH overflow to that axeman. However, if we can get an FH axeman out legally in time together with our extra axeman from BF, then that would be an extra unit for us. However, if I had the early saved games, I wouldn't be guessing.
  2. The last unit you have coming out of PC is T182 - that's OK, but can be done faster, as in our plan
  3. As I said in post #1637, I do not like the three not-fully-in-sync galleys in the landing force. One of them has only one movement point after the DOW and if Vicky or barb has a trireme/galley lurking around that ruins the whole DOW timing. The units on your last galley could have been left with the walking-over-land stack, and still we can bomb down to 0% in time for the attack, and have two suicide cats available (either both 3XP or both not across a river, whichever is better), and not have to walk units onto the hill east of London.
  4. You have sent only one trireme with the three landing galleys. That's not enough to guard even the two empty galleys in our plan. We know Vicky has three galleys already, and if she builds a trireme (or two), that could take out our landing force navy on a bad RNG day. Once we take London, we want our front navy still intact to land the second wave next to York ASAP - assuming this proves possible. Vicky will build triremes if we take out her iron, as she does in the test game. We need two defensive triremes at the DOW.
  5. In order to send two triremes to the front, we need a third one between PC and Nottingham, and our plan sends La Couronne from near CC, who arrives in time to be useful barb deterrent around T182.
  6. In order to send La Couronne, we need a replacement trireme from the west, and we also need to 2-whip GH to keep BF happy at one point, so it builds the trireme on T180. FH needs to build the workboat for SR, rather than GH where you are building it.
  7. The trireme from BF about T182-3 from the respective plans is nice, but too late to help much more than relieve La Couronne to move forward.
  8. You've moved the PC archer to the front, which is fine (our plan can probably accommodate that, but there's no rush for it, and our plan has a galley picking that archer up from PC with the worker about T184, to be escorted by La Couronne)
  9. You sent both the iron-pillaging axemen through London. There's some merit in sending the 3XP axe to the eastern iron as you have done, but also some merit in the southern 0XP axe walking through York for the extra intelligence. I am not sure what is best.
  10. You had Magellan wandering around unprotected to the north of London, instead of gathering intelligence on what units Vicky has lying around her empire. The axes walking through gather some data, but we should be augmenting that with Magellan and taking notes so that we can DOW on T184 and be confident where and what 90% of her units are. I expect she'll have a lot more stuff in the real game than the test game, because of the WHEOOHRN mode. We need to DOW knowing what we're biting off.
Probably some of the above criticisms result from you not taking full care in a test game, and I understand that. But I also think there's some good features of our plans that you'd benefit from having read and incorporating in play-throughs.

I think the only clear positive feature of your plan is that we are stuck with a 3XP cat on the forest. That makes a few percent difference in the survivability of the second suicide cat (if we need to use two).

I'm happy to integrate the features in posts #1622, #1637 and #1638 into a one-post plan, but I'm also happy not to waste my time if it's not going to be read :)
 
Still at work.

I'm happy to integrate the features in posts #1622, #1637 and #1638 into a one-post plan, but I'm also happy not to waste my time if it's not going to be read
I read them all, and while I appreciate the work you both have done, my problem is lack of time to process/understand/integrate all of it. With the limited amount of time I have, it is easier for me to build a plan,(it is my turnset and PPP), and then have you critique the aspects that you are uncomfortable with.

As I said in post #1637, I do not like the three not-fully-in-sync galleys in the landing force. One of them has only one movement point after the DOW and if Vicky or barb has a trireme/galley lurking around that ruins the whole DOW timing. The units on your last galley could have been left with the walking-over-land stack, and still we can bomb down to 0% in time for the attack, and have two suicide cats available (either both 3XP or both not across a river, whichever is better), and not have to walk units onto the hill east of London.
1) I am not overly concerned about the 3rd galley, we will need a chain to get reinforcements over so a galley trailing a few tiles is not always a bad thing. With our movement advantage, we can also play dodge the Trireme and keep it moving back and forth. If you want another Trireme from us, we can definitely do that.

2) Yes we can bomb down to 0%, but then we are attacking across the river. My plan gets more cats there sooner so we can get to a better offensive position.

3) What is wrong with taking a position on the hill? Unless you can attack a turn earlier, why NOT take a position on the hill would be my argument. It is better for us both offensively and defensively.

The last unit you have coming out of BF leaves on T180. We are getting an axe produced on T181 to the front line in time for the DOW. This requires a judicious coast-for-citizen juggle about T178. Your saved game has an axeman labelled from Fish Hills near Vicky's eastern iron. My equivalent axeman does not have that label. So I think you are "cheating" on T178 and putting the extra 10 of FH overflow to that axeman. However, if we can get an FH axeman out legally in time together with our extra axeman from BF, then that would be an extra unit for us. However, if I had the early saved games, I wouldn't be guessing.
Sorry, I thought I uploaded them all.

I did not "cheat", if there is an axe near the eastern iron, it is the axe that was farthest N in the test game I opened, that's where I sent it because it can get the farthest east based on its current position.

You are totally right that I am NOT getting the last unit out of BF on T181. I thought you wanted a Courthouse there and I figured more units out of PC's barracks were better.

Back to work for now....
 
Based on the recent posts I think we might have to discuss how we want to play the game going forward.

So how to we go forward in a positive way?
We have to balance what is possible/reasonable/fun for the players on the team with the desire to win a medal. Also what is fun for some us might not be for others as well.

Personally I like the mental challenge to achieve various short and long term outcomes in the game and I enjoying looking at the nitty-gritty necessary to get the best outcomes possible.

However, there does seem to be a point where all the details do become difficult to communicate to each other and implement successfully in the game. We all have made some minor variations/mistakes on our prepared PPPs.

So the question is what to level of detail should we attempt to incorporate into PPPs?

Personally I would rather have a well thought out and detailed plan and perhaps fail to implement it perfectly, but still end up with an outcome that would be probably better than one we could achieve without a well thought out and detailed plan.

What can we expect an individual player to process?
Well obviously there is a limit to how much we can all read/process/understand. However, it is also very discouraging to spend a few hours developing a well thought out detailed plan that you have made a serious attempt to communicate as clearly as possible be dismissed. Especially when that plan achieves an outcome (like capturing London and setting up the fall of Vicky) better than a plan another player proposes. Also, another goal of this type of game (at least for me) is to learn from the other players. So reading&understanding these detailed plans is a positive for me even if we don't win a medal. So not trying to read and understand others' plans is hard for me to accept/understand. Especially when they go to some lengths to explain their ideas clearly. So personally, I expect people to try to understand the plans others propose so they can learn and argue why their proposals are better.

When do plans become too detailed?
Maybe we have reached the point where we shift to goals/outcomes rather than individual galley movements laid out every turn. The first war however seems to be very important if not game-breaking if we fail so I think this is why we have gone into so much detail this time.

With all this said
Do you think this is important to discuss?
If so, what do you think about the bolded questions? Or any other questions you think are important?
Do you agree with me? or disagree?
 
Still at work.


I read them all, and while I appreciate the work you both have done, my problem is lack of time to process/understand/integrate all of it. With the limited amount of time I have, it is easier for me to build a plan,(it is my turnset and PPP), and then have you critique the aspects that you are uncomfortable with.

OK, well we've done both now. We did anticipate the problem, and that's why our plan is so detailed. Someone has to write something in order for a PPP to be a useful tool during the actual turn set. We don't want the player's brain to be burdened with working out which galley needs to go where to take what unit in two turns time... we need them thinking and responding to the things we don't yet know - like Vicky's units, and where barbs are invading.

1) I am not overly concerned about the 3rd galley, we will need a chain to get reinforcements over so a galley trailing a few tiles is not always a bad thing. With our movement advantage, we can also play dodge the Trireme and keep it moving back and forth. If you want another Trireme from us, we can definitely do that.

  1. What are you going to do if Vicky has a trireme in London and another 2NE of Nottingham on the DOW turn? Or the DOW teleport puts the lagging galley next to a threatening boat? We know she's got three galleys right now... If you land the force as planned and split the defending triremes, she'll throw 2 triremes and 3 galleys at the landing stack, probably win, and if she doesn't block the next landing, our follow-up trireme and galley are vulnerable also.
    Under our plan, a stack of 2 triremes and 2 galleys that's already landed its units will still take some hurt if she throws 2 triremes and 3 galleys at it, but she's less likely to do so, we're about even money in that fight, and we don't have a strategic constraint on T185 of landing new units. We can run away with our three movement points.
  2. Galley chains using that third galley are just as effective from PC to Nottingham, as Nottingham to London - and easier to defend. I also don't think reinforcements will ever be an issue. We might roll her with what we already have, or have her tech Feudalism T185, or find her squatting on her iron fort T184 with an axe... Most of the time, we'll take London and maybe York and bunker down until we can sue for peace.
  3. We'll also want two galleys ready to move into London the turn we take it, so that the straggling units can move in and potentially load up to land on York the next turn. If Vicky's whipping boats out, then we could well take London defended by an axe and three archers with only one suicide catapult, so that there's a cat with movement points to load on galleys with other unused units in London. Speed is of the essence with Feudalism threatening - not setting up galley chains for reinforcements that are not yet built and about 6 turns' movement away.
  4. Certainly movement advantage is very useful, but only if we know where the threats are, and we're not going to know if Vicky or a barb has a unit in the fog north of Nottingham on the DOW turn, or charging out of Nottingham on T185-6.

2) Yes we can bomb down to 0%, but then we are attacking across the river. My plan gets more cats there sooner so we can get to a better offensive position.

Under either plan, if we have 12 units on London, and two cats are bombarding on T187, then we have two cats to attack not across a river, and then six swords and axes to attack from the main stack and the northern iron - all not across a river. The last two swords, if they see action, are likely to be attacking quite injured units, and the river effect will be negligible. We don't need to deliver maximum force with every unit if that compromises something - we need to deliver maximum force with enough of them to break her best units, and then mop up. I think that accepting some uncontrollable risk with a third galley isn't worth the last two swords not having to attack across a river...

Under your plan, I'd consider doing two bombs T185, four bombs T186, and then moving two swords and 2 3XP cats to the hill on T187 while the two 0XP cats finish the bombing. I reckon Vicky's unlikely to make an offensive move on those unprotected cats still on the forest, because we're looming on London, and the road tile she'd have to occupy to avoid the river is threatened by the London stack and the northern-iron axeman. If so, on T188 we have two 3XP cats for suicide runs and will still have the option of two 0XP cats across the river to follow up. If she's got several CG2 archers and several axes, we'll need that extra collateral damage, and the river is really only hurting us for about 5% of survivability...

3) What is wrong with taking a position on the hill? Unless you can attack a turn earlier, why NOT take a position on the hill would be my argument. It is better for us both offensively and defensively.

Both plans attack the same turn. What's better is not *needing* to take a position on the hill, where Vicky might be able to pick off wounded units, or 0XP cats IBT T187-8. (We know she has Theocracy and at least one C1+C2 sword floating around...) Admittedly, the stack on the hill has better terrain than the stack in the open, but we won't know what units are in the fog to the south-east of London.

Sorry, I thought I uploaded them all.

I did not "cheat", if there is an axe near the eastern iron, it is the axe that was farthest N in the test game I opened, that's where I sent it because it can get the farthest east based on its current position.

OK, great.

You are totally right that I am NOT getting the last unit out of BF on T181. I thought you wanted a Courthouse there and I figured more units out of PC's barracks were better.

Now I don't know where your 12 units have come from. You haven't got that last one out of BF, and the 12 units in each plan are 6 0XP units, 5 3XP units and 1 5XP unit, not counting the archer. So the extra 0XP unit must have come from Fish Hills, but I don't see how it can have done so...
 
After much thought, I found a way to achieve the equivalent of R1's DOW position. I didn't like having three galleys committed NW of London, such that one would be sure to be undefended, lest a stray trireme from Vicky (or barb galley) ruin our whole day.
This is the root of why I like my plan.

I really don't see the danger here, but if that is it, then I can easily get the Triremes in place. I like having 4 cats next to London longer. It allows us to bomb it down to 0 and attack from a more favorable position. We might also get supremely lucky and have Vicky do something stupid like leaving London with only 1-2 defenders and we might be able to take it with just 4 cats and 2 swords. Then the entire march stack could take Hastings immediately and cut her in half. I think the advantages of getting 6 units next to London quicker outweighs the danger. The reason that Magellan is up north, and it can be any time before the galleys get there, T182-T183, is to fully scout and make sure there are no barbs. Also, if you look at Englands culture, there are very few tiles in which a barb could spawn. We could even split 1 Trireme and go around the north side of Nottingham, while the galleys go into the bay. When we teleport, all the boats end up on the same tile, so our level of risk is really quite low IMO.
 
So how to we go forward in a positive way?

I think we've all done a good job at cooperating so far - doubtless everyone could have done something better, whether in playing or communicating. However, stopping for a pulse-check as bc suggests is a good idea.

So the question is what to level of detail should we attempt to incorporate into PPPs?

Certainly there must come a time when we are prepared to accept "Yeah, I'm going to shuffle these units over there and set up to attack these cities". However that's not likely to be the case for game-changing situations - like the opening turn of a war, or the opening war, or when we know it is the last few turns. Knowing that the other players have seen the kinds of plans you like to implement, and have discussed points of difference in the past, builds the confidence that someone you've never met will do good things for you :) But I know I haven't got to that point with you guys yet, because we haven't done any warring yet :)

What can we expect an individual player to process?

I think a self-consistent all-of-empire written plan deserves at least a play-through from the active player - when they get time. In the meantime, suggesting an alternative is reasonable, and here that's been fruitful in establishing that we should DOW on T184. However, some text will need to be written about any plan that is accepted, and if possible that should accompany the suggestion.

Especially when that plan achieves an outcome (like capturing London and setting up the fall of Vicky) better than a plan another player proposes.

I think both suggested plans at the moment are quite good - we're discussing fine details (as usual). Not having a vulnerable naval force, and not having to attack across rivers, and not having to split land stacks are all minor details, any one of which might prove critical or not, depending whether Vicky is building triremes, axes, or settlers.

When do plans become too detailed?

Ours are at about that stage :)
 
We've cross-posted here. My above post also discusses some of these points

This is the root of why I like my plan.

I really don't see the danger here, but if that is it, then I can easily get the Triremes in place.

Yes, something can always be done, but you have to split our triremes and risk losses, or delay the DOW.

I like having 4 cats next to London longer. It allows us to bomb it down to 0 and attack from a more favorable position.

Both plans bomb to 0 on T188 in time for the attack. The increased positional advantage only accrues on the last two swords that attack, which I expect to be nearly irrelevant.

We might also get supremely lucky and have Vicky do something stupid like leaving London with only 1-2 defenders and we might be able to take it with just 4 cats and 2 swords.

Or 2 cats and 2 swords...

Then the entire march stack could take Hastings immediately and cut her in half. I think the advantages of getting 6 units next to London quicker outweighs the danger. The reason that Magellan is up north, and it can be any time before the galleys get there, T182-T183, is to fully scout and make sure there are no barbs.

But if our naval stack has two triremes and two galleys all staying together, barbs are irrelevant and Magellan can be scouting the bits of Vicky we need to see - like the whole coast of the London-York lake on the DOW turn.

Also, if you look at Englands culture, there are very few tiles in which a barb could spawn. We could even split 1 Trireme and go around the north side of Nottingham, while the galleys go into the bay. When we teleport, all the boats end up on the same tile, so our level of risk is really quite low IMO.

Sure, there's no real risk right then, but the plan requires we split up immediately, and now there's risk.
 
I read them all, and while I appreciate the work you both have done, my problem is lack of time to process/understand/integrate all of it. With the limited amount of time I have, it is easier for me to build a plan,(it is my turnset and PPP), and then have you critique the aspects that you are uncomfortable with.

This comment is primarily why I asked my questions. You posted a preliminary PPP, and we were critiquing it by suggesting how to do certain aspects of it. And I thought we were helping you develop a better way to achieve some outcomes. But then you tell us that while you read our posts you are unwilling to process/understand/integrate them. Then you post another plan without much written documentation and ask us to critique it without processing/understanding/integrating our earlier suggestions. So why should we bother critiquing your plan if you are unwilling to process/understand/integrate our earlier suggestions? Will you process/understand/integrate our new suggestions?

You seem to be asking us to do what you are unwilling to do yourself. You are asking us to process/understand/integrate what you plan to do and then critique it, but you are unwilling to take the time to process/understand/integrate our suggestions.

So rather than critique your plan I would rather discuss how we go forward in a positive way.
 
But then you tell us that while you read our posts you are unwilling to process/understand/integrate them.
I did not say I was unwilling, I said I didn't have a lot of time. So I went back to the test game and tried to make make some detail adjustments. I "documented" it with all of the game saves as that is easy to do. No screens to edit and arrange.

I had a late shift last night, and I have to get ready for work right now. I'll look at it some more later.
 
I did not say I was unwilling, I said I didn't have a lot of time. So I went back to the test game and tried to make make some detail adjustments. I "documented" it with all of the game saves as that is easy to do. No screens to edit and arrange.

I had a late shift last night, and I have to get ready for work right now. I'll look at it some more later.

Okay I misunderstood what you were saying. "I don't have time" is different than "I didn't have a lot of time". The later leaves open the possibility that you will later.

I'll have some time in about 4 hours to give some feedback then. In the hope we can come to some agreement. In general right now I agree that 3 not synced galleys with 2 trireme is a significant risk. And I don't believe getting those extra units to the north of london is superior to the alternative plan.

I will have more time to support my opinion later as I said above.
 
Originally Posted by Ronnie1
I am not overly concerned about the 3rd galley, we will need a chain to get reinforcements over so a galley trailing a few tiles is not always a bad thing. With our movement advantage, we can also play dodge the Trireme and keep it moving back and forth. If you want another Trireme from us, we can definitely do that.

1) What are you going to do if Vicky has a trireme in London and another 2NE of Nottingham on the DOW turn? Or the DOW teleport puts the lagging galley next to a threatening boat? We know she's got three galleys right now... If you land the force as planned and split the defending triremes, she'll throw 2 triremes and 3 galleys at the landing stack, probably win, and if she doesn't block the next landing, our follow-up trireme and galley are vulnerable also.
Under our plan, a stack of 2 triremes and 2 galleys that's already landed its units will still take some hurt if she throws 2 triremes and 3 galleys at it, but she's less likely to do so, we're about even money in that fight, and we don't have a strategic constraint on T185 of landing new units. We can run away with our three movement points.
2) Galley chains using that third galley are just as effective from PC to Nottingham, as Nottingham to London - and easier to defend. I also don't think reinforcements will ever be an issue. We might roll her with what we already have, or have her tech Feudalism T185, or find her squatting on her iron fort T184 with an axe... Most of the time, we'll take London and maybe York and bunker down until we can sue for peace.

I agree with mabraham's points 1 and 2 here. I have played through the war with Vicky a few times and she definitely does attack our fleet when we are weak. Remember as well that she is in theocracy so her triremes which she will whip will have 2 xp and will get even odds against our triremes. She could whip triremes in London and Nottingham before we want our navy to leave even if she doesn't have any triremes by T184.

3)We'll also want two galleys ready to move into London the turn we take it, so that the straggling units can move in and potentially load up to land on York the next turn. If Vicky's whipping boats out, then we could well take London defended by an axe and three archers with only one suicide catapult, so that there's a cat with movement points to load on galleys with other unused units in London. Speed is of the essence with Feudalism threatening - not setting up galley chains for reinforcements that are not yet built and about 6 turns' movement away.
Certainly movement advantage is very useful, but only if we know where the threats are, and we're not going to know if Vicky or a barb has a unit in the fog north of Nottingham on the DOW turn, or charging out of Nottingham on T185-6.

Yes, I agree here as well whipped triremes in Nottingham have hunted down and killed my galleys in the test game. I don't think we can reasonably expect to both protect our navy near london and run galley chains through the water north of Nottingham safely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie1
2) Yes we can bomb down to 0%, but then we are attacking across the river. My plan gets more cats there sooner so we can get to a better offensive position.

Under either plan, if we have 12 units on London, and two cats are bombarding on T187, then we have two cats to attack not across a river, and then six swords and axes to attack from the main stack and the northern iron - all not across a river. The last two swords, if they see action, are likely to be attacking quite injured units, and the river effect will be negligible. We don't need to deliver maximum force with every unit if that compromises something - we need to deliver maximum force with enough of them to break her best units, and then mop up. I think that accepting some uncontrollable risk with a third galley isn't worth the last two swords not having to attack across a river...

Under your plan, I'd consider doing two bombs T185, four bombs T186, and then moving two swords and 2 3XP cats to the hill on T187 while the two 0XP cats finish the bombing. I reckon Vicky's unlikely to make an offensive move on those unprotected cats still on the forest, because we're looming on London, and the road tile she'd have to occupy to avoid the river is threatened by the London stack and the northern-iron axeman. If so, on T188 we have two 3XP cats for suicide runs and will still have the option of two 0XP cats across the river to follow up. If she's got several CG2 archers and several axes, we'll need that extra collateral damage, and the river is really only hurting us for about 5% of survivability...

I agree with mabraham's points here and I think the hill is actually not all that desirable location for our catapults and swords for the reasons he suggests.

3) What is wrong with taking a position on the hill? Unless you can attack a turn earlier, why NOT take a position on the hill would be my argument. It is better for us both offensively and defensively.

It is actually significantly worse defensively at least for those swords and catapults. Those swords will not have protection from the axe walking down from the iron until T188. So if they move to the hill on T187 to attack on T188, Vicky could hit that stack hard at favorable odds. I can easily see Vicky attacking with a straight up 5 xp axemen to kill a sword or catapult. Or attacking with a stack from York and support from London, with us losing multiple units.

If they remain in the forest the swords can fend off axemen at reasonable odds, and thus they are in a better defensive position. And their offensive position as mabraham suggests isn't that critical with the latest proposal.
mabraham suggest a similar idea here
Both plans attack the same turn. What's better is not *needing* to take a position on the hill, where Vicky might be able to pick off wounded units, or 0XP cats IBT T187-8. (We know she has Theocracy and at least one C1+C2 sword floating around...) Admittedly, the stack on the hill has better terrain than the stack in the open, but we won't know what units are in the fog to the south-east of London.
But I disagree with him. It could be worse than he suggests for units on the hill and not as bad as he suggests for the units in the open. Vicky could pick off healthy units here with 5xp axes at favorable odds. The stack in the open is significantly larger and composed of both axes and swords and thus less vulnerable to being smashed as badly. And as he points out it is not as close to York and as vulnerable from units reinforcing from there. Since units from York could attack in 2 turns where as units from York would take 3 turns to get to the units in the open.

In fact moving to the hill actually might draw units out of York since they would be able to strike at them the next turn after they moved.

Now I don't know where your 12 units have come from. You haven't got that last one out of BF, and the 12 units in each plan are 6 0XP units, 5 3XP units and 1 5XP unit, not counting the archer. So the extra 0XP unit must have come from Fish Hills, but I don't see how it can have done so...
he is counting his archer as the part of the 12 units. In our latest plan we have 5 swords 3 axe and 4 catapults. He has 4 swords, 2 axe, 1 archer, and 5 catapults.
On T188 we could attack with 3 swords, 3 axe, and 2 catapults without the river penalty and 2 swords with the river penalty. (and 2 catapults that can't attack since they bombarded defenses to 0% on T188)
On T188 he could attack with 4 swords, 2 axe, 1 archer, and 3 catapults without the river penalty (and 2 catapults that reduced defenses to 0% on T188) assuming vicky doesn't attack the swords and catapults on the hill at favorable odds with an experienced axe. Or units from York. And assuming no problems with naval assaults.

I agree that his plan puts us into a similar military position on T188 but assumes a greater risk with the galleys and with movement onto the hill. Both of these are not small risks in my opinion. They could amount to nothing but they could spell disaster too. I think there is a significantly lower risk with our plan.
 
I have other comments about the rest of the details of Ron's plans revealed by the save games, but maybe I should wait until we settle the war plans?
 
I only just realised what Ron's 12 units on London were. He had the archer from PC in his overland stack. That's fine - we can get the archer there too.

I also realised that he got three catapults out of PC, rather than our two catapults and sword. I think that fifth catapult is very much more useful for taking York.

However, we had a whole extra axeman out of BF that is very useful again.

I chatted to bc on IM, and we worked out that if we use Ron's three-catapult and archer approach together with our axe-from-BF approach we can put 13 units on London. This is an improvement of an archer plus cat-vs-sword over our old plan, and an improvement of a whole 0XP axe over Ron's plan.

To do this, we have to use a form of our galley plan to get the T181 units from BF in time - three galleys are required for it, and there's no way to have a three galley landing force as well. And in order to do that, we have to get the three catapults out of PC by T181, which requires that we 2-whip the second one, chop the forest, and then switch off working both the clams tiles for two turns. That costs 4*5=20 food, so roughly speaking we're three-whipping PC.

I think that cost is worth it.
 
My PC plan gets the required units by T181.

I can get the Axe out of BF instead of the Archer I get there, but this city needs an MP sooner or later, it is hurting for happiness.

I will look more closely at the galley plan.

Why does FH have to build a WB? We could really use another Galley, and FH can put the over flow from the last build onto a galley now and 2 whip it in a few turns. GH can whip a WB then a Trireme or in reversed order. We just have to decide which we want 1st.

Courthouses???
Is there a radius that we want to determine that gives payback value for the courthouses we intend to build. Or is the plan to just whip them everywhere because they are cheaper for us.
 
Top Bottom