Chryshe - 120AD

[Jayne]

Build Summary:

Castle Jayne - Caravan in 14 turns
Fort Anarchy - Caravan in 10 turns
Roskilde - Settler in 14 turns
Legendary City - Temple in 9 turns
Dellham - Phalanx in 2 turns
Reneaux - Phalanx in 3 turns
Monks Towne - Archer in 2 turns

It's been suggested previously that we maybe want archers instead of phalanxes. Reneaux already has a warrior and phalanx guard. Do we maybe want a caravan instead?

We need to consider disbanding Roskilde. Roskilde will grow in 3 turns. To build a settler and disband before then will cost a lot of money. Also, we don't have time to get units rehomed. Other alternatives are: we let Roskilde grow and try to disband with2 settlers rather than one. Or, we hire Elvis so the city cannot grow. If necessary, the phalanx can be sacrificed to speed production along with IPRB.

Vikings

Citizens of Chryshe are distressed at the Viking incursion. My suggestion to President MonkE and General CivGeneral is to send the diplomat and horseman to the north east of Fort Anarchy. We want to build towns here, and this is where the Vikings are coming from.

Settler

The settler is ready to build a coal mine. I suggest after this head towards LC to mine iron then start on the LC-CJ motorway!

Please vote and discuss!

EDIT- (I knew I'd forget something! )

Roskilde settler is heading to found Fruit City with an archer guard. I suggest caution is exercised due to the presence of the Viking horseman. If anyone feels we shouldn't found Fruit City yet, please post!

 

[Serutan]

Just to restate my position on Roskilde, it should be kept
until its current settler can found Fruit City, then the second
settler it builds can disband the city. Hire Elvis if needed to
prevent growth.

 

[GaryNemo]

Elvis in Roskilde will give us time. The city will grow+0, and build 1 shield per turn. Once Fruit is built, growth will take off and we'll need the $IPRB. The idea of building Ros Sett #2 and founding another city is an interesting one, and may work. Not sure. I suspect it simply delays the inevitable $expense of nearly $100. It may make a big difference in rehoming the units, tho.

Jayne's request for an army to scan N of Dellham, E of Fruit City is a sound one. Right now, our Archer will likely survive that filthy Viking Horse; depends on whether their Horse is Vet, Archer is not, but on 50% defensive terrain.

I would rather not risk the Diplomat. Let it hide behind the trees.

 

[GaryNemo]

Jayne, after studying your post, the options make sense. I voted as follows, more or less with the current majority. But, Mining the Iron is a large investment with little payback.

Generally, serfs on Roaded Plains or River Plains, to slow growth.

Fruit City is Forest, N NE of Banana. Also SE of Viking Horse. Are we going to found before or after the Viking Horse is eliminated? Found on Forest, or irrigate first? The Fruit is 4 Food, so founding it on Forest makes sense to me. Cities are growing too quickly.

Dellham: Move in Archer Guard (Vikings nearby!) and move serf to River Plains. There is only 1 Black Dude, so the city works. Phx in 2 turns, hence safe even with 2 Black Dudes. Serfs on River & Road Plains to slow growth. Then start a Caravan. Supplies Silk and Hides, Hides are in demand in RC.

Reneaux to build a Caravan. Serf River Plains to slow growth.

Monks Towne start Temple or Settler. Perhaps Settler.

Build Coal Mine, definitely. We get +3 shields from Mining any Hill, only +1 shield from Mining Mountains. The Iron is 4 shields as it is, let it be. Hire Elvis is Roskilde to buy time.

 

[duke o' york]

Can I just make everyone aware that when the Roskilde settler builds Fruit City (whether that be sooner or later), we will have an extra food in Roskilde and it will start to grow again so maybe the settler could build a few roads or something and just generally hang around until we can affordably buy the next settler, having founded the Fruit City the turn before.

 

[Jayne]

duke, that's a good idea. My concern is that if we let the city grow to size 2, we may never catch up with ourselves, and spend forever churning out settlers trying to disband, but never actually manage it.

 

[GaryNemo]

There is an interesting discussion of Roskilde in "Caravan Priorities" (of all places).

Since we have enough other things to decide, maybe we should plan on the third Settler to disband Roskilde, serf on Whale. That may be the best we can do anyway, and it clears our heads for other decisions. It means we can afford normal IPRB, which affects many things.

 

[MonkE]

I'll restate my thoughts from that thread:
Why not build another settler in Roskilde? The first can found Fruit City. The second can rehome to FC and be useful or found E on the GLS. We wouldn't need to spend gold on this project. I'd really like to know why there's any hurry to disband.

 

[MonkE]

Dellham: the purpose of the phalanx is crowd control for the imminent growth to 3. If it isn't built, Elvis is up for a long stay. There's no way to limit growth without sacrificing beakers.

MT grows in 18 turns or sooner. We'll hire Elvis again unless there is a temple and 2 units.

 

[Jayne]

I'd really like to know why there's any hurry to disband.

Initially we wanted to disband Roskilde to rebuild it to grab all the specials. Delaying this is just wasting time isn't it? Perhaps the question is really do we still want to disband? Or do we build another city to utilise the other special.

Dellham: the purpose of the phalanx is crowd control for the imminent growth to 3.

I polled on this because it has been previously decided that phalanxes were obsolete and investing 2 extra turns to build an archer was worth it. If you disagree, then vote to keep the phalanx.

 

[GaryNemo]

Thank you, Jayne. Now I see what the Dellham question really is! I had voted for Phalanx, because there is already an Archer. But I would also be happier with another Archer instead.

We think that there is another Viking City up there. At the moment, Dellham has merely one Black Dude. We can move the Archer into the city for safety, serf to River Plains, growth to Size=3 may occur w/o riot, so we have time to build an Archer instead. Now I prefer a second Archer.

Regarding disbanding Roskilde, I personally never disband a city in my own games. But The People want the city moved SE, and that is alright with me. MonkE's idea of rehoming Ros Set #2 in Fruit City is good, so we disband on the third Settler. It still may cost money, but that is then, not now. Unfortunately, the poll is for Ros Elvis - anyone want to retract their vote by posting?

 

[GaryNemo]

Yes, Nemo. I change my Ros vote from Elvis to "2 more Settlers"

 

[MonkE]

In this case the Dellham phalanx was under construction to save time, because the city grows next turn.

* Start rant *

Personally, I would have been content to build a warrior so the city could get on with caravan building. In the absence of a comprehensive military policy, I tend to do the minimum to keep order. As phalanxes are just as good as archers defensively, the changeover to archers was motivated by a desire to have offensive capability. With adequate defence already (comments?) and the absence of an offensive military plan, why would we prefer archers when even a lowly warrior will keep crowd control (our biggest problem currently)? They will all upgrade to musketeers eventually. Are we planning to mount an offensive? If nobody puts forward a military plan, domestic priorities will inevitably win out by default - that means caravans, trade, and Republic.

* End of rant *

 

[GaryNemo]

MonkE, an Archer might be helpful because we may have a military problem up here. But Warrior, Phx, Archer, any would be fine, then on to Caravans. We can use $IPRB to move right along.

This is a place to umanage, serfs on Plains rather than Grassland...

 

[MonkE]

If y'all don't mind the loss of science beakers + the gold cost + the delay in caravan production, that can be done. But I don't happen to think that it's necessary or worthwhile. We have plenty of punch for a war party near Roskilde already.

"The will of the people be done, even if I don't like it" TM

 

[Rout]

I would prefer a quick disbanding of Roskilde, the quicker it is done the quicker the site it is moved to can start contributing, growing and building improvements.
There are quite a lot of sites in the area that are to be settled and the settlers will be helpful.
If we settle quickly we will prevent the Vks moving in again, and avoid a repeat of the whole situation.

 

[Leowind]

After mining the coal, the settler should build the road to LC. I think this will reap benefits sooner than mining the mountain.

 

[MonkE]

Two Roskilde options are tied at 4 votes each. I presume the Elvis option includes IPRB of the last settler, since production would be only 1 shield.

If we're willing to spend a bit more, we could allow growth and IPRB 2 settlers. The last settler must take at least 5 turns to build anyway to give time for the previous settler to reach Fruit City.

I like the idea of disbanding sooner but I also like the idea of making 2 more settlers. I'm just as ambivalent as the poll. I hope I won't need to flip a coin ...