Buce 02 - The Son's Of Ghengis Khan

[CivActuary]

OOB:
6 Workers (4 native, 2 slaves)
6 Warriors
10 Archers
4 Spears
1 Army
2 Curraghs

State of the Empire:
Karakorum (7) grows in 1, Archer in 1
Ta-tu (7) grows in 13, Settler in 1
Kazan (3) grows in 5, Archer in 4
Almarikh (3) grows in 8, Curragh in 1
Tabriz (1) grows in 3, Worker in 3

We have 101g and are making 7gpt.

Both China and Russia are up Masonry, Writing, Horseback Riding, and Mysticism.

PreFlight:
None.

IBT
2 Chinese Warriors approach our worker near Kazan
Chinese 2/3 sword attacks our 4/5 Archer, we win flawlessly (1-0)
Sword and Settler/Spear pair appear near Macao
Karakorum: Archer --> Archer (due in 2)
Ta-Tu: Settler --> Spear (due in 3)
Almarikh: Curragh --> Curragh (due in 4)

710 BC Turn 92 (1)
Turn 92? Don't know how we got off by one, but I will play 9 turns to get back on track.
I don't want to attack with the Spear army, but that sword is on the roaded forest. Move W to the other way around Macao.
4/4 Archer attacks 3/3 Warrior threatening our worker, win losing 2hp (2-0)
4/4 Archer attacks approaching 3/3 sword, win losing 2hp (3-0)
Stack of 3 curraghs sets out for Russian lands in search of the elusive Northwest Passage
Our free workers begins to mine, settler heads out on his journey to the Northeast. Will take 5 turns to get there. Send an archer to scout the way ahead of him.
New archer from the capital moves to cover the exposed worker. Back him up with a warrior from Kazan, that way if their warrior wins we will not lose the worker.
Fortify the big archer stack E of Kazan, awaiting the arrival of more Chinese swords.

IBT
Russian galley appears near Almarikh
The Chinese archer declines to attack our forces
Chinese archer appears up N toward our new city site.
Sword and Settler/Spear heading for us, followed by another Settler/Spear

690 BC Turn 93 (2)
Spear army moves, pillaging a tile on the way
4/4 Archer attacks 3/3 Warrior in our territory, loses, promoting him (3-1). A 4/4 Warrior tries to finish him but also loses (3-2). The 2/4 Archer we had recovering there finishes him (4-2)
4/4 Archer attacks the 3/3 Archer moving toward our site to the N. It's close, but we edge him (5-2)
No other units in danger.
Curraghs cross to the Russian side of the bay.

IBT
Russian galley exploring
Chinese units advancing
Karakorum: Archer --> Spear (due in 2)
Tabriz: Worker --> Rax (due in 20)

670 BC Turn 94 (3)
Army moves to hill next to iron
Attack the approaching Chinese:
4/4 Archer attacks 3/3 spear and loses (5-3)
4/4 Archer attacks 3/3 spear and wins (6-3)
4/4 Archer attacks 3/3 sword and wins (7-3) and we have taken 2 more slaves.
Curraghs move on
New worker moves to the SW

IBT
The Chinese settler/spear pair remaining moves to the N - the way we are going. Another spear heading for our territory.
Ta-Tu: Spear --> Archer (due in 3)
Kazan: Archer --> Archer (due in 4)
Russians building a big house for all their books. Wait, we don't know Lit yet. What are these "book" thingies?

650 BC Turn 95 (4)
Army pillages then moves on to the iron hill
Reinforcements add to our archer stack, but no skirmishing this turn. Their settler pair has to move next to us in the clear next turn, so that's when we will pounce.
Curraghs enter Russian territory. Prepare to hear from Cath in 3..2..

IBT
..1 "My generals inform me that Mongols yada yada yada". Yeah, we hear you, we're just passing through.
Chinese settler pair surprises me and moves back S.
Karakorum: Spear --> Settler (due in 3)
Almarikh: Curragh --> Spear (due in 5)

630 BC Turn 96 (5)
Ta-Tu is about to riot, shift a citizen from the unroaded forest to the grassland next to the river, which gives enough gold to get another happy face. Archer still in 2.
Pillage China's iron.
New Dinkyboat headed N to see what's going down up there.

IBT
3 Swords come through the choke, and our army spots 3 more emerging from cities. Hopefully those are the last.
The settler spear heads back N, I don't know what they are doing.

610 BC Turn 97 (6)
The city with too many a's, Ulaanbaatar, is founded in the N. Start on Rax due in 20.
No fighting, but there will be next turn...

IBT
Here come the swords.
Ta-Tu: Archer --> Archer (due in 3)
The Chinese also start on a book-storing-place
The Koreans finish The Great Lighthouse.

590 BC Turn 98 (7)
4/4 Archer attacks 3/3 Sword. Loses. (7-4)
4/4 Archer attacks 3/3 Sword. Wins. (8-4)
4/4 Archer attacks 3/3 Sword. Loses. (8-5)
5/5 Archer attacks 1/3 Sword. Wins. (9-5)
I'm not going to attack the remaining 1/3 Sword, as all it will do is expose an archer to attack.

IBT
Lots more troops headed our way. but now some archers are mixed in.
Karakorum: Settler --> Spear (due in 2)
Kazan: Archer --> Archer (due in 4)
The Egyptians complete the Hanging Gardens

570 BC Turn 99 (8)
Up Lux to 40% - 2 cities were about to riot.
4/4 Archer attacks 3/3 Spear, loses (9-6)
4/4 Archer attacks 3/3 Sword, loses (9-7)
4/4 Archer attacks 3/4 Sword, wins (10-7)
4/5 Archer attacks 1/3 Spear, wins (11-7). Plus, this

Ok, I'm going to stop here, since we have some important things to discuss. The next player can play 11 turns.


OOB:
1 Settler
9 Workers (5 native, 4 slave)
5 Warriors
9 Archers
6 Spears
1 Army
4 Curraghs

State of the Empire:
Karakorum (6) grows in 5, Spear in 2
Ta-tu (7) grows in 8, Archer in 2
Kazan (4) grows in 17, Archer in 4
Almarikh (4) grows in 20, Spear in 2
Tabriz (1) grows in 5, Rax in 7
Ulaanbaatar (1) grows in 8, Rax in 18

We have 123g and are making 5gpt.

So...

- We have another MGL. What should we do? Personally, and I think we need Swords anyway, now that we have a city up by the iron we need to grab it and make a sword army. Our kill ratio against these swords is suffering.
- Where should the next settler go. Up and grab the iron?


And the file
>>FILE<<.

Spoiler :

 

[Bucephalus]

Sounds good, CivA.

I'll have more thoughts later, when I've had a chance to look at the save, but I agree with the Sword Army now we are so much closer to having Iron, and with nothing but Archers to come from Mao, we may well see more MGL's yet; hopefully, we are that much closer to getting some contacts also.

 

[Othniel]

Good stuff, CivA. We're getting excellent MGL rolls so far.

Archers really are mostly weak-sauce so getting swords would be great. That said, as a passing observation, we seem to be building a fair chunk of spears. Is China threating enough to need more spears or would archers be better builds? (or more warriors for sword upgrades, although I doubt we'll have enough $$)

Also, the Russian Bear's wonder-building program looks strong...I rather hope they finish the GLib for us.

 

[CivActuary]

Archers really are mostly weak-sauce so getting swords would be great. That said, as a passing observation, we seem to be building a fair chunk of spears. Is China threating enough to need more spears or would archers be better builds? (or more warriors for sword upgrades, although I doubt we'll have enough $$)

Also, the Russian Bear's wonder-building program looks strong...I rather hope they finish the GLib for us.

Not really for China, but I was building a couple more spears to have in the cities near Russian outposts; her ACavs worry me a little. I'm not married to the builds, if we think archers are better. Our income has stagnated a bit, so I don't think more warriors are a good idea unless we start getting positive gpt again.

 

[Elephantium]

What's the current roster? I was looking at the first post in the thread for it, but it bears little resemblance to the current play order.

 

[Bucephalus]

The roster appears in post 22.

It says that it should be NortonII up, in which case it should be down to Othaniel to make his debut.

@Othaniel: Are you able to take it, mate?

 

[Othniel]

Yep, I should be able to play tonight.

I'll try to collect some thoughts and put together a pre-flight strategy post later on here.

 

[Bucephalus]

A few thoughts and observations for us to consider:

Kazan is currently wasting 4 shields making a 4 turn Archer; if it moves a citizen from the BG that it shares with Ta-Tu, it will still make 5 shields (and 4 turn Archers). Ta-Tu can then be mm'ed to make 2 turn Archers instead of the current 3 turns.

Mao has the last of his Swords heading towards Kazan, and I think the stack of Archers set to intercept is too small to cope with bad RNG.

We are still vulnerable to a war with Cathy (remember, we cannot pay tribute), and will remain so until we have a few Swords. An offer of 123g + 3gpt is 'close' to getting us HBR, and our payments of 5gpt to her end in 1 turn, so I suggest we make a deal for it for as much gpt as possible. We need HBR, and the gpt payments offer a little insurance.

Unless we gang Workers, roading to the Iron will take 20 turns; just as food for thought, it would take slightly fewer turns (I think) to hook-up the Iron to the NE.

Our short term strategy should continue as we are, IMO:

Our Spear Army can continue to weaken China while we leader fish Mao's Archers;

Do whatever we can to keep Cathy on-side, but keep Ta-Tu well garrisoned in case;

Get that Iron hooked-up ASAP;

With HBR, it will be worth our while hooking up the Horses - something that can be done quickly - and crank out a few 3 turn Horses from KK and Ta-Tu;

I'm personally unconcerned about falling behind in tech at this stage; Mao has neither Horses or Iron, so Feudalism/Chivalry will do him no good, and once we have a Sword Army and a few Swords, we will be able to oscilate our wars, taking techs for peace.

Cathy is a danger at present, but once we have Swords, our superior generalship will be decisive.

 

[Othniel]

Since Iron is quite far from being hooked up, do we want to consider a horse army? At the very least, (if this hasn't been done yet, I'm not sure) I'll have the MGL create an army and leave it empty. That way we can continue to leader-fish.

Other thoughts: (some standard stuff)
I'll go ahead and deal for HBR
MM cities for exact shields
Make settlers out of Ta-tu when growth allows
If possible, I plan on emphasizing archers (or horses) over spears

What kind of city spacing pattern do we want if I build a new settler? I tend to favor a cxxc pattern --terrain dependent/modified-- for anything not too corrupt, but if you guys discussed something else before I came on board...

Re spear army, should I go on a pillaging run to the Chinese core or should we stay near the Iron to make sure it's not reconnected? I tend to say go on a run for the Beijing area but I'm open to other thoughts.

Do we want more curraghs or do we think we have enough. It's of course pretty difficult to project suicide run failure rates but making contact could be a big boost for us. At the same time, if Russia does successfully build the GLib that makes contacts a less pressing need, IMO.

 

[Othniel]

Well, my time was more limited tonight than I thought. I'm going to have to put off my debut until tomorrow night. Of course, that gives us more time to discuss if there are ideas floating out there...

 

[Bucephalus]

Since Iron is quite far from being hooked up, do we want to consider a horse army? At the very least, (if this hasn't been done yet, I'm not sure) I'll have the MGL create an army and leave it empty. That way we can continue to leader-fish.

By all means create an Army, but I'm thinking we should hold our nerve for Swords; of course, once we have three Horses built we always have the option of forming a Horse Army if the need arises.

What kind of city spacing pattern do we want if I build a new settler? I tend to favor a cxxc pattern --terrain dependent/modified-- for anything not too corrupt, but if you guys discussed something else before I came on board...

We did discuss it, settling for a wider spacing in our core 5 cities, followed by cxxc.

Re spear army, should I go on a pillaging run to the Chinese core or should we stay near the Iron to make sure it's not reconnected? I tend to say go on a run for the Beijing area but I'm open to other thoughts.

Absolutely. Just remember to pillage all roads as you go, and the Iron will never connect to anywhere again.

Do we want more curraghs or do we think we have enough. It's of course pretty difficult to project suicide run failure rates but making contact could be a big boost for us. At the same time, if Russia does successfully build the GLib that makes contacts a less pressing need, IMO.

I don't think we have a definitive answer to this one, but logic suggests that more equals increased probability.

Does anyone else have anything to add? Remember, Othniel is coming in to this cold, so I'm sure he'd appreciate some input.

 

[CivActuary]

Since Iron is quite far from being hooked up, do we want to consider a horse army? At the very least, (if this hasn't been done yet, I'm not sure) I'll have the MGL create an army and leave it empty. That way we can continue to leader-fish.

I would personally like to wait for swords to fill it, unless we really start to get pressed, which I do not anticipate.

Re spear army, should I go on a pillaging run to the Chinese core or should we stay near the Iron to make sure it's not reconnected? I tend to say go on a run for the Beijing area but I'm open to other thoughts.

Pillage away. It can only help us to decrease Chinese productivity.

Do we want more curraghs or do we think we have enough. It's of course pretty difficult to project suicide run failure rates but making contact could be a big boost for us. At the same time, if Russia does successfully build the GLib that makes contacts a less pressing need, IMO.

I built and sent a single curragh N to see if there was any better opportunities that way. Until we get contacts I would continue to knock some dinky boats out of the port every so often.

 

[Phaedo]

My only thoughts for pillaging is that after the resource is denied, the next greatest benefit to us is hurting Mao's logistics. The longer it takes him to get units to us, the less his cheap build benefit affects us. It's the road network more than productive tiles that will help us especially if we can detach the cap from the rest of Mao's empire.

As for the army, I wonder of the movement of a horse army wouldn't help us more than a sword army. It would still be invulnerable for quite while and could quickly stop Cathy's AC builds once her ivory is gone and make her much more manageable through pillaging. The Spear army could then be used to give an invasion force of invulnerable swords for the long walk down. The movement of a horse army with the spear army would pretty much be all we need for our continent. OTOH, a sword army would slow things down and allow Cathy more contact possibilities and would be more versatile. What's our long-term strategy?

For me, the real value of armies is their invulnerability. Denying resources and ensuring a full strength attack force (when reinforcements are being produced) ensures overpowering firepower and numbers. There are times when the army is nice for an attack force but they take so long to hea;, if there isn't a close rax, or Field Medicine isn't researched, the time spent healing them is longer than the time spent reinforcing the attack force.

Until we get swords/horses we can't really put a serious dent in Mao but spears and archers will be effective defense for a good long time against him, The balance between the two is debatable and IMO should be decided by efficiency of production. The units we build now can be a long-term defense against him and allow us to concentrate on Cathy.

Assuming that we are on the road to depriving Mao of resources (while still letting him research), we basically want to leave him with a productive core and not much more. The variant clearly states that we can't have a BS war so we can't just keep Mao as the sick man of the continent with a single city if we want to alternate war between Cathy and Mao to minimize WW and grab useful techs. That means we have to leave him with a productive core (I'm assuming that a potentially productive core as opposed to an actual productive core is acceptable) for a while. We will have to look at a fight with Cathy soon and she is a long way off. Might not the movement of the horse army be more effective? Mao can always colonize far away terrain with boats that we can take as our expansion develops; so let him sail his ships and let's raze as much as possible. We won't be ready for an overseas invasion until we get frigates at least, so we need to keep Cathy ad Mao around.

Also, as we are in a no-science variant. Are we allowed to get the GL? I was pretty explicit in the Luddite game but I copied the idea from someone else. If we can't spend any research on science then there isn't any reason to build or keep Science buildings but what about wonders? My feeling is that they shouldn't be allowed either. It isn't my call though and I will happily go with the team.

As for the suicide run, I'm pretty sure 3 currahs was the number in Scoutsout's post. We could make it 4 to be safe and give us the possibility of faster exploration, but I think we have to circumnavigate our continent as well, so further currah builds would be an option. A short sea crossing could kill us for trading. We need to think about our rep. We need to trade but we also need pointy stick research. I know it's not a immediate priority, but knowing who has contact with who is absolutely necessary. Is it Nav or Writing that gives us this? Whichever tech it is, we need to make it a relatively high second or third priority, If Cathy or Mao have some funny access to another Civ (there doesn't seem to be any indication that they do yet), it will seriously affect our war options.

That's my two cents. The fact that we only have 2 civs on our continent makes me think that we are on a 3 continent world and that there should be trade options plenty once we figure out what they are. I also think we have to manage our two civs so that we can stay at war in an effective way and still fulfill the criteria of staying in a "real" war. I think that if we raze or capture cities, it constitutes a "real" war so allowing Mao and Cathy to build cities in corrupt areas is the best policy to benefit from their bonuses and stay within the variant rules.

 

[Aabraxan]

As for the army, I wonder of the movement of a horse army wouldn't help us more than a sword army. It would still be invulnerable for quite while and could quickly stop Cathy's AC builds once her ivory is gone and make her much more manageable through pillaging. The Spear army could then be used to give an invasion force of invulnerable swords for the long walk down. The movement of a horse army with the spear army would pretty much be all we need for our continent. OTOH, a sword army would slow things down and allow Cathy more contact possibilities and would be more versatile. What's our long-term strategy?

For me, the real value of armies is their invulnerability. Denying resources and ensuring a full strength attack force (when reinforcements are being produced) ensures overpowering firepower and numbers. . . . .

lurker's comment: First, are you sure that cutting Cathy's ivory will stop the AC builds? I haven't tested it, but I would assume that once the SoZ is completed, it would continue to produce ACs, regardless of her ivory situation.

Second, while a horse army would be a 3-move army and superior to an archer army, I think it's still inferior to a sword army. It also suffers from the primary weakness of an archer army: a defense of 1. If you can build horses, they'll have the same movement as a sword army. You can then hide a stack of horses under the sword army. This becomes your stack of fast-movers. Use it to pillage, pick off strays, and take towns. Bring the spear army home and hide a stack of cats, swords and archers under it. This becomes your stack of slow-movers. Use it for larger or tougher targets. In this scenario, the only thing that doesn't use its full movement is the spear army.

 

[Phaedo]

lurker's comment: First, are you sure that cutting Cathy's ivory will stop the AC builds?

Yes, if the civ doesn't have ivory, it can't build ACs. It could trade for it but in our situation we have the possibility of ensuring that she doesn't (assuming we have the same contacts that she does and contact with the beta continent hasn't been made).

My thought about the horse army was purely for the movement. It will take cavs to make it vulnerable right? That's a lot of resource deprivation for a long time. What does a sword army give that the spear doesn't other than a nice attack? I know I overprotect my armies but in this situation with a good 20 tiles (at least) to Russia, isn't the movement significant? We went for a pillaging army before, why doesn't the extra movement with the extra distance amount to a similar decision? Slowing down those ACs (and possibly getting them ourselves) seems like a very similar strategic decision. We would also have the spear army to walk our forces down to deal with Cathy while horsey was pillaging. Because it is the second army, it allows it to be a beautiful pillaging resource and pillaging would remove the possibility of those tough ACs. It's not a rule of thumb by any means, but it makes sense to me in this situation.

Please enlighten me about what I'm missing

 

[Phaedo]

I do forget the attack/defense ratio where armies are invulnerable but even if 4/1 LBs will attack a 3D army, don't we have time to deprive Cathy of iron and horses to make LBs her only threatening attack against a horse army? Wouldn't the extra movement and pillaging of roads still make that horse army effective against only LBs for quite a while? The extra movement makes it totally different than an archer army.

If we didn't have an army at this point I would be all about the sword army but the spear army gives us the same protection and our offensive units will just improve in strength once iron is hooked up so until we get cav, don't we have all the armies we need?

 

[Aabraxan]

Yes, if the civ doesn't have ivory, it can't build ACs.

Cool and good to know. I thought she'd still be able to build them.

My thought about the horse army was purely for the movement. It will take cavs to make it vulnerable right?

No. It will only take a sufficient number of swords, archers, horses or ACs, because the horse army only has a defense of 1. Every one of the afore-mentioned has a higher attack than that. The 3 movement of a horse army is great, and there's no question but that it can do a lot of pillaging. but if it's left standing, it's vulnerable to attack. I think a Sword Army is simply less likely to be attacked in the first place.

. . . . What does a sword army give that the spear doesn't other than a nice attack?

In theory, nothing. But should you find yourself in a position to use those extra attack points, a sword army is tough to beat. The comparison with a possible horse army is a different beast, though. Being able to match the movement of an army with horses is, to my mind, tactically significant. That allows your horses to use all of their movement points in enemy territory without really being subject to attack and without being tied to a stack of spears.

I know I overprotect my armies but in this situation with a good 20 tiles (at least) to Russia, isn't the movement significant? We went for a pillaging army before, why doesn't the extra movement with the extra distance amount to a similar decision?

Is another pillaging army what you need right now? If so, the horse army isn't a bad choice. But what you wind up with is the only 3-move unit on the battlefield. The math on movement is simple enough. In enemy territory, no roads or rivers, a horse army can cover 20 tiles in 7 turns. With the same assumptions, a sword army can cover it in 10. The difference is that the horse army has to leave any supporting units or other attackers behind to skim off those 3 turns. The sword army can bring a stack of horses with it without losing speed.

Slowing down those ACs (and possibly getting them ourselves) seems like a very similar strategic decision. We would also have the spear army to walk our forces down to deal with Cathy while horsey was pillaging. Because it is the second army, it allows it to be a beautiful pillaging resource and pillaging would remove the possibility of those tough ACs. It's not a rule of thumb by any means, but it makes sense to me in this situation.

Please enlighten me about what I'm missing

I do not dispute for one second the idea that claiming the SoZ is a good idea. What will you do with a horse army after the ivory is pillaged, though? I'm sure it's a fine pillager, but I think you'll get more useful life out of a sword army.

Bear in mind, though, that I haven't looked at a save. I'm just going by what's in the thread. Lack of information has never prevented me from expressing an opinion.

 

[Elephantium]

How close is the city with the SoZ? Is it a viable choice for us to set our sights on capturing that city and building an A-Cav army with a future leader?

 

[Othniel]

How close is the city with the SoZ? Is it a viable choice for us to set our sights on capturing that city and building an A-Cav army with a future leader?

The SoZ is being built in Moscow. Of course that means it most likely won't be captured for a while.

Regarding the armies, I tend to also see the horse vs sword army as a pillaging vs attack issue. Horse armies have the movement for pillaging fast but will need to heal more if it's used as a lead attack unit. Sword armies are slower but are less likely to take damage.

Because we already have the spear army for pillaging --and we could send that toward Cathy sooner rather than later-- I tend to say the sword army would be the better choice. Complicating matters, though, is that Iron is ~20 turns from being hooked up. So, even if we pre-build for swords, we're looking at a fairly large time gap before a second army could be up and running.

If we can get 3 horses in just a couple of turns from now, I rather like the idea of a horse army. It's still a much better attack unit than anything short of a sword army and it would allow us to go much sooner on the offensive against China. If getting horsemen is a few turns off, then I lean toward waiting for swords.

One thing to note, I don't think 1 defense armies are all that vulnerable at this stage in the game, especially if they are at least near fully healed. IIRC, I think the AI has to have a 10% chance or greater of having an individual unit kill the army or else it won't attack. That means even an elite sword will probably not attack a 1-defense army unless the army is really banged up.

Note also, Armies can heal in enemy territory pre-Battlefield Medicine. I think it's a C3C thing only, though.

It'd be nice to reach a team consensus on the GLib even before I play. I think our decision on that could really affect how we trade and play for contacts. I'm personally okay with capturing the GLib because we're doing just that--capturing and appropriating its value for our civ. I don't see a lot of difference between it and extorting techs for peace.

 

[Aabraxan]

lurker's comment:

Regarding the armies, I tend to also see the horse vs sword army as a pillaging vs attack issue.

I believe you've hit the heart of the discussion that Phaedo and I were having. I think he was thinking more in terms of pillaging, and I was thinking in terms of attacking. Whichever the team decides on, I look forward to watching the outcome.

I'm personally okay with capturing the GLib because we're doing just that--capturing and appropriating its value for our civ. I don't see a lot of difference between it and extorting techs for peace.

For ease of reference of everyone involved in the GLib debate, this is what I found in the OP. I did not search the rest of the thread for clues as to interpretation.

We will never spend a single gold piece on research; the Mongols were warriors not scholars, and Temujin took the technology that he needed from the vanquished - we shall do likewise.

Such technology that we cannot trade for, or steal, we shall take at the point of a sword.