Department of General Musings

[Tubby Rower]

D'head was building a catapult since it was possibility to build settlers out of there. Since we are looking at building up forces, If the cat doesn't finish this turn D-head needs to be switched to a rax. Either way, d-head should be building a rax at the end of this turn.

workers near Polecat should head over to start chopping around Dunderhead.

 

[Daghdha]

The team seems to agree on MIA as first target for our fast growing blood thirst although the timing are to be decided. It struck me that some culture in EWR and Senilityville will deny MIA both Dyes and Spices which would be cool. Maybe it will not be neccesary but still something to remember.

 

[IroquoisPlisken]

No point if we're just going to take those cities by force anyway. Plus, if they ever get around to connecting up those spices, that's one less road we have to build.

 

[Daghdha]

I am definetly not an expert on warfare and will leave that to our honourable Chief Warriors but my thought was that a defensive central line in that luxury region will draw lots of attention (and units), then we could circumvent (sea or land) with offense. If MIA think Flaxon and the Dyes-city the're about to settle is important they will prolly expect an attack there and bring in Hoppies. Then they can fortifie and watch the luxes disappear without a fight. Am I thinking too much again Tubby

 

[Own]

And, a city out there will take a while to build it, and they could build a city to poach them anyways...

 

[Tubby Rower]

The following errors occurred when this message was submitted:
1. Whomp has exceeded their stored private messages quota and can not accept further messages until they clear some space.

please clean out the old messages

EDIT:: fixed now... tanks

 

[Tubby Rower]

Poll... please vote.

 

[Crakie]

Poll... please vote.

What Tubby said...

 

[Kickbooti]

Alright, before the blood letting begins I have a few questions...

1) How long until we can actually launch our SoD? If we have a 'Home Gaurd' of 12 - 16 GS plus 20 or so GS in our SoD plus however many catapults and spearmen for garrison/cheap defense, how far out are we?

If we're talking 40 - 50 turns then we had better be careful. That is a long time away, and we had better not burn bridges too quickly. If we are that far out, we had better carefuly think about overtly tearing up our agreement with MIA. If they get the sense that we are prepping earlier than we want, they could encourage a mini-dogpile. It would take many MW's to start pillaging and trash our vonMotke-esq timetables.

Rmember, battles are won by soldiers, wars are won by diplomats...

2) Spekaing of diplomacy, what are MIA's likely reactions to an attack. Hop-builds are obvious. But would they be in a position to launch a counterattack? If they could, do we think it would be a head-on to stop/slow our SoD, or would they do a flanking spoiler on our supply train and lux cities? Assuming they couldn't, does anyone have any thoughts about likely 2nd party responses?

If we think a dogpile is a reality, our attack will make it more so. I think we should pick a pony on the other continent and ride that sucker. Nuts would be my choice but I don't have my finger on the pulse of diplomacy like some. I don't like the mental picture of POTKISS and PWE having to work closely, but if we want to win badly enough...

3) I think we need a scout on the other continent. I know we don't have galley's yet, but if it isn't going to stir up the political hornets nest it makes me really nervous not knowing ANYTHING about the other land-mass. For all we know they could be collaborating on exploding crullers over there, getting ready to serve them at the dog-pile party.

 

[Tubby Rower]

1) I don't think that 12-16 GS are needed for homeland defense. I'm thinking more of 4-6. After all the best defense is a good offense. If we start taking their cities they will need to be fighting on their soil not ours.

with a stack of 20 GS for the ATTACKing force, I'd say ~30-40 turns. but I could be worng on that too

2.)hopilites and swords are probably the builds from MIA. I see no 3rd party responses since they are busy being intimate themselves

3.) No Galleys yet, the F4 screen definately shows war over there (thanks to our embassy). So any collaboration would be hard since trading during wartime is not allowed.

 

[barbslinger]

1) I don't think that 12-16 GS are needed for homeland defense. I'm thinking more of 4-6. After all the best defense is a good offense. If we start taking their cities they will need to be fighting on their soil not ours.

with a stack of 20 GS for the ATTACKing force, I'd say ~30-40 turns. but I could be worng on that too

2.)hopilites and swords are probably the builds from MIA. I see no 3rd party responses since they are busy being intimate themselves

3.) No Galleys yet, the F4 screen definately shows war over there (thanks to our embassy). So any collaboration would be hard since trading during wartime is not allowed.

I agree on all points except needing 20GS SOD. We are already strong against them. Once we turn the repub trade and they go into anarchy, we hit them. They may have an archer or two but we should be able to march right through.

 

[gmaharriet]

Aren't we required to give them 10 turns notice of ending our alliance?

 

[Daghdha]

Slingers view on things are very encourageing and prolly correct, and gma's note is also valid (assuming we want to break no treaty). What troubles me a lil bit is the lack of concensus on how to act in the near future. We have no decision whatsoever on how to respond to MIA's lates proposal and questions. I have thrown out a lot (too many ) of thoughts about it but zip has come out of it. Some say we should tell MIA to get lost, others that the rep deal are on. Everyone seems to agree on attacking MIA but no one knows when. The relationship to Nuts is very unclear. Are they our new allies or are they playing us with the help from MIA? Where does the odd man out, TNT, come into play. Are they a possible friend or should we just leave them out. Am I the only one with the feeling that we, atm, have no idea on how to paint the big picture? I whish the grumpiest ol men would step up and give their view on this so that we can come to some sort of common understanding on how to handle diplo.. I'm fine with whatever is decided (while, of course, argueing for my opinion), but I'm not satisfied with the current state of affairs to be honest. Talking with fe is easy, but will be complicated without having the rest of the team behind my back. I'm not diplo-chatting with him for my own amusement but with the intention of informing/inquiering/deciving for the benefit of the team. I believe that goes for everyone involved in the diplo buissness.

 

[Tubby Rower]

well our position is that they broke the deal by trading overseas.... The deal that you are speaking of was referring to if we got the republic slingshot which they botched by researching something other than writing as the first tech.

 

[Tubby Rower]

@ Daggie, I thought that the consensus was to make the big trade for Republic with MIA. Attack ASAP. Which means with 1 or two turns to go with Republic, GS's need to be pulled from MP duty and sent to the south. We should have ~ 10 GS total when we are in anarchy. Most of the current ones are strewn about due to MP issues. we have ~ 7-8 turns until Republic comes in.

One thing that we will be able to do is wait on them to send us the first set of techs before we give them Republic. This will allow us to revolt and be out of anarchy when we give them Republic. Once they revolt the next turn we hit them. We HAVE to wait until they revolt since they could elect to not revolt and stay in despotism after we attack.

I might be completely off-base but these are the edges of the frame of mind that I've been in for the past few days.

 

[Daghdha]

Then maybe I've been the dunderhead here . The treaty you're referring to, sep. 21, is all about the slingshot...? So we have actually no deal stating that MIA give us ALL their techs for republic. And I thought we had . I understood it as the reason we were annoyed they would withhold any techs, and it was the reason I was so pi55ed off by fe saying Poly wouldn't be in the deal...oh my God. Well then, do we consider all 7 tiers of friendship as gone bye bye or...? Help me interpret #7 in that signed agreement, the one that states that peace is unlimited and that no attacking will take place before 10 turns after republic is in plus 10 turn notice, i.e. about 27 turns from now. Is that also part of the slingshot mission and therefore outdated?

 

[Tubby Rower]

That was all one treaty. IMO breaking one part nullifies the entire thing. It's good to be ticked off Dag .

This is just how I read it. It can be interpretted any number of ways. If the team wants to wait 10 turns after republic then another 10 turns notice, then I'd suggest that we wait until cavs. Cause 10 turns notice is going to allow them to not be in anarchy and a chance to set up defense.

What if we sign a Military alliance against MIA with D'nut and stipulate that this overrides all other treaties. Then we could legally get out of it.

 

[barbslinger]

This is just how I read it. It can be interpretted any number of ways. If the team wants to wait 10 turns after republic then another 10 turns notice, then I'd suggest that we wait until cavs. Cause 10 turns notice is going to allow them to not be in anarchy and a chance to set up defense.

Well that would screw our ability to make use of our GS. Waiting until cavs kinda puts all teams but the IRO's a bit behind, especially us with no horses at this point. I would hope to trade Repub with no peace treaty attachments. They are the ones that are hungry for Repub.

 

[Daghdha]

I'm not familiar with the expression "Ticked off", but I guess that is of lesser importance, hehe. More important is that we, as a team, decide on how to interprete the treaty and, thus, how to treat MIA accordingly. I have problems with considering the agreement invalid without having notified MIA about it. It may well be that they have, in some way, stepped over the line, even if I have a hard time finding the evidence of that in those written words.
To me, the trade part of treaty says "share techs @ the discovery of writing and republic" (the sling). Now, the sling didn't happen so if we, based upon that, consider the whole deal off, then it is somehow strange to point at the deal and say "you are to give us all you techs for Rep". Maybe that is based on agreements not written? If we don't consider the deal off, then we have to acknowledge the part that says no attacking within 10 turns after rep plus 10 turns notice or we will indeed be backstabbing MIA. We could choose to do that (and I would put my war-avatar on) but I would not be comfortable with it.

I would hope to trade Repub with no peace treaty attachments.

Me too, but for MIA it will mean the same as saying "Give us your techs and we will give you republic, but we don't wanna sign peace because we're planning on hitting you in anarchy. How about it?"

 

[Tubby Rower]

ticked off = pi55ed off

I don't care if we "back-stab" MIA. It's not the way I saw things going down, but giving them 20turns after Republic isn't happening unless we aren't going to war with them.

Is the entire agreement posted somewhere in our forum? it would be nice to view it one more time before it gets torched. I still feel that it is not valid anymore, and they don't necessarily need to be told that we consider it void.

About the techs for Republic, nothing is in writing about this. We are just going on faith that they will hand them all over just before we declare. If they don't we'll declare. either way we declare.

And to quote the great Philosopher Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."


EDIT::: Oh and slinger, we have horses... just not horseback-riding. I realize that this isn't pivotal to your point but I wanted to make that clear.