Commerce Discussion: The Beginning of The War for Indian Annexation (730 B.C.)

[Octavian X]

This discussion isn't so much one about the plans for the actual war, it's just one about the beginning of it.

The External Consulate's current long-term policy calls for the Government of Fanatannia to declare war on India on or by 700 B.C. Please note that the current year is 730 B.C. The next year will be 710 B.C. To stay in line with established policy, it's either now or next turn.

Basically, are we ready? We've got about 10 swordsmen located in Bentley, a whole two tiles away from the Indian capitol at Delhi. Do we do it at 730 B.C.? 710? 690?

 

[zyxy]

I would say 10 swords is enough to take Delhi and probably Bombay, so let's go. Declare on the turn that the swords are on the Indian border with Delhi with movement points left, to minimize any poprushing by India.
The date of 700BC should not be set in stone I think. The troops are ready; declare when they are in position. I would probably give the DP a window of 2 or perhaps 3 turns, to deal with unforeseen circumstances.

btw: Is declaration of war part of the commerce office? I should reread that constitution I guess....

 

[mad-bax]

Having just looked at the save I see we have a dozen swords ready in Bentley and half a dozen more done or nearly done. I am upset that we haven't started to build chariots and get cities to 7spt but thats another story. It appears that Bombay is on a hill. I didn't realise that. This will mean that it will need probably 6 swords to be sure of taking it. We will need 8 to be sure of Delhi. Therefore I would declare before hitting enter. I would split the stack and send 8 swords to Delhi and the others to the hill on the way to Bombay and fortify for a turn to wait for the other swords. That'll be enough.

Any road up. We can declare any time in the next couple of turns. The External Consulate policy is firm and there has never been any need to change it. 690BC is late really, but grudgingly acceptable.

Pity about the chariots though. The Dutch war will take longer now.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

mad-bax, I'm curious as to why you want chariots. If we do buy Horseback Riding (which it seems we will with Construction according to the other commerce discussion), and upgrade the chariots at 30 gold each, we have a 2.1.2 unit instead of 3.2.1. We would need a lot more chariots / horses to take a city, as a vet sword vs. a vet spear fortified in a town on a hill has 19.4% more chance of taking a city (a horse only has a 22.3 chance of taking on that vet spear fortified in a town on a hill). Anyway, the time is set now, and we can take on India either now, or in 710 BC, to take on India - let's not let mad-bax and 700 BC down!

 

[DaveShack]

Two items in favor of horse units -- better upgrade path and retreat capability. Also with movement 2, there is the small matter of being able to declare and capture a city on the same turn if it is unexpanded or you have access to the diagonal.

The real question is whether we can better afford to upgrade Chariots, or build Horsemen. Which do we have in plenty, GPT or SPT?

 

[Octavian X]

Looking at the most recent save, I'm tempted to say neither. After our massive program of sword upgrades which really wasn't that big, though I had to shed a tear after seeing our current account), it'd be difficult to afford the chariot - horse upgrades. And, given our rather miniscule size, it would be difficult to initiate a larger force of horsemen now.

 

[Nobody]

are we taking just two citys? do we have war goals yet? (if we do can someone link me im a bit backwards)

 

[mad-bax]

They are in the Wednesday instruction thread. We may take more than 2 cities, however only 2 are needed to meet the war objectives. India only has half a dozen cities anyway, and wasting time and resources taking cities with no strategic importance is not a good idea IMO. Better to save the time and units for the Dutch.

 

[Nobody]

but if we take all the indian citys we will have a large territory to bulid up a big army, i don't know why people in the demogame are so obsessed with leaving angry small nations on our borders. do you people do this in your real games?

then while where attacking the dutch the angry indians can attack us back and our citys will riot because of the war and flip. when did we vote on these war goals? or did i miss them

 

[zyxy]

@nobody: India will be angry but powerless. We will have time to come back to them before they get war elephants, IMO. We will deprive them of iron, so no pikes for India, even if they get the tech.
The real danger is the dutch. If they get feudalism, then we're in for a treat
Oh, and in my own games I usually don't play this smart. I would have attacked the dutch head-on.

@everybody -- sorry, couldn't resist : we will have enough cash for upgrades if/when we shut down science. It might be better to do that anyway, we are hurrying towards feudalism, and we don't want it...

 

[mad-bax]

Also... The Indians have a series of 1 pop cities to the East that we cannot get without a peace deal. Finishing them off means no peace deal and therefore no freebie cities. We have to "buy" them all with units and time.

 

[Nobody]

I still think it is better to take them out in one go rather than leave small and angry. (not genocide but in 2000 year history will see it as an allaince where we unifed into a united kindom. with equal rights of course.)