ALC Game #7: Frederick/Germany

[Betafor]

Question - if i agree with a statement someone else made, should i waste a post to say i agree or would that be repetitive?

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

Question - if i agree with a statement someone else made, should i waste a post to say i agree or would that be repetitive?

It's repetetive if all you say is that you agree. If you have something to add or expand on, then it isn't.

Now who agrees with me? Sound off!

 

[WaterMoon]

I agree with this repetitive post

 

[Cabledawg]

I agree with watermoon that he agrees with this repetitive post

 

[Betafor]

YOU"RE ALL RONGz!

Anyway, on topic, the fact that discusion is sleeping means we are all waiting for the next round nothing else to do just a reemeyenzerz!

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Anyway, on topic, the fact that discusion is sleeping means we are all waiting for the next round nothing else to do just a reemeyenzerz!

I’ve got a Pocket-Scrabble set.

 

[Betafor]

I’ve got a Pocket-Scrabble set.

Play scrabble in your pocket? that would be wrong in too many ways O.o

 

[Fetch]

I was pooh-poohing the idea of declaring on Monty and waiting for his troops to come to you, but research on war weariness in another thread reveals that this isn't actually such a bad idea. It turns out that the length of the war and who started it have no bearing on WW whatsoever. All that matters is whose units are getting killed and where they die. So you will have less WW overall by killing as many of Montezuma's men on your own soil as you can. If WW was already low enough at the end of fighting Kublai that a small increase in the culture slider was more than able to handle it, then maybe it's not an issue, but if it is high enough that you're seriously thinking about a switch to police state then this is something to consider. Of course, the downside of this plan is that the number of turns spent overall on a defensive war is higher, which will be a crimp in efforts to win quickly.

Am I seeing this sideways? Shouldn't it cause MORE weariness to citizens when the battle fought right next to them rather on some far-away (God forsaken) battlefield?

 

[Sisiutil]

I got partway into the next round last night. A quick update:

• Researched Physics (burned free GS on Biology), then Replaceable Parts, Biology, Rifling, Steam Power, now working on Railroads for my increasingly-idle workers.
• Waited 5 turns then switched Civics to Vassalage.
• The insertion of Biology was to ensure the Macemen I'd inserted into several cities' build queues (for the CR upgrades) would complete. Most of them are now Riflemen.
• War declared on Monty. 1st city (SW of Old Serai) taken, as planned.
• Frigates destroyed two Galleys with troops, now bombarding other coastal cities.
• Roosevelt put a city on the tundra south of Persepolis. I'm increasing the culture output in that city just 'cause I'm ticked.

Anyway, the rest of the war has a ways to go. I hope to finish the round (and Monty) tonight and post the results.

 

[Betafor]

If you are not planning to attack roosevelt, having the city there can be an advantage - (city matinance kills his research).

However - you will need all the land you can - if you dnt' think you can flip him culutrallly in time, you may have to attack him instead of hatty.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Am I seeing this sideways? Shouldn't it cause MORE weariness to citizens when the battle fought right next to them rather on some far-away (God forsaken) battlefield?

No because if it is being fought next to them, they Want you to defend them, if it is on some far-away battlefield, they see no point to it

(ie X Troop deaths in Vietnam=massive student protests... if those X troop deaths were in California, from the Mexican Army, they would want you to keep fighting)

[I know there's the Russian Revolution counter example, but that had many otherissues, and in the end its a gameplay ballancer... if you are benefiting from a war especially territorially, your people will get more and more unhappy. So you need to finish it quick.

The idea is Winning war= people unhappy, Losing war= You unhappy

 

[Phrederick]

I don't think a single city of his should matter too much. If Hatty doesn't give you enough land, then sure, capture it, but until then, don't worry about it.

 

[cabert]

I don't think a single city of his should matter too much. If Hatty doesn't give you enough land, then sure, capture it, but until then, don't worry about it.

so true!

you need border expansions after you settle all available land/island, then go for whoever you want.
one or even 9 tiles don't make such a difference

 

[Eqqman]

Isn't war weariness tracked separately for each enemy? The old war weariness from Kublai shouldn't matter in a war against Montezuma.

I think this turns out to be one of those things you expect intuitively to happen but is not actually the case. Increases in WW are calculated separately for each team you are at war with, but it all goes into the same WW pile once accumulated. It may look like there are separate piles if you only have short wars with little WW buildup and enough time between wars for it to go away. Pile up a huge amount of WW, then make peace and attack somebody you've never fought before right after and you'll see it all come back.

 

[cabert]

I think this turns out to be one of those things you expect intuitively to happen but is not actually the case. Increases in WW are calculated separately for each team you are at war with, but it all goes into the same WW pile once accumulated. It may look like there are separate piles if you only have short wars with little WW buildup and enough time between wars for it to go away. Pile up a huge amount of WW, then make peace and attack somebody you've never fought before right after and you'll see it all come back.

well, just ask sisiutil.
He just did that...(killing off a neighbour then attacking next one)
care to give us the ww situation?

i'm pretty sure you have a pile of WW for every "team" (= opponent in standard games). I did get most of my ww down when at war with more than one opponent and sueing for peace with only one of them, and this more than once.

 

[Sisiutil]

There were maybe 10 turns, I think, between finishing off Kublai and declaring on Monty, and WW was barely a factor at first except in the Serais--but that was because of Aztec cultural pressure. OTOH, WW appears to be rising quickly in some cities, especially my oldest ones like Hamburg. There, I'm getting a "we will not fight with our brothers and sisters of the faith" ding as well, probably because the city has been resolutely Buddhist for so long.

I'm anticipating WW and dealing with it in several ways. Frankfurt has nothing else to build right now, so it's pumping out missionaries to take advantage of the FR happy bonus. I'm also building happy boosters like markets as well as Jails for WW reduction.

I'm reluctant to switch away from Representation and lose a lot of my research, so I think once I have the Pentagon, if WW is a big issue, I'll switch from Vassalage to Nationhood. I may divert research to Fascism at some point in order to build Mount Rushmore as well.

 

[Phrederick]

I think that it would be better to raise the cultural slider than to change from representation. You would lose roughly half of your research, but if you have a decent gold stockpile, you should be able to take 10-20 turns of a high cultural slider pretty easily. Theaters should be in every high-pop city, with jails and coliseums as needed.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

I think that it would be better to raise the cultural slider than to change from representation.

Absolutely. As I understand it, that's one of the reasons why the specialist economy is so well suited to war mongering. You can put money into culture, and it doesn't change your research rate.

 

[Betafor]

You would lose roughly half of your research

No he wouldn't !

Don't you love a specialist economy?

I'll forgive you .

 

[Eqqman]

i'm pretty sure you have a pile of WW for every "team" (= opponent in standard games). I did get most of my ww down when at war with more than one opponent and sueing for peace with only one of them, and this more than once.

Okay I did some tests to try and prove or disprove this, started a game and used the worldbuilder to start a war and net myself some huge losses. Had 8 unhappiness from WW in the capital, elimated that guy, then started a war on a new guy. Next turn I was only at 1 WW. So now I have to figure out what was going on in the games where it looked exactly like all my WW merged together.

Hmmph.. you'd think with all these emoticons they'd have one with a guy scratching his head in puzzlement, I'll have to settle for .