Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
About the workers. If half a worker costs nothing, but a whole worker costs something...... It's not a real issue I think, but wasting free units seems illogical to me.
GK1- The Wrath of Khan!!
- Thread starter Gengis Khan
- Start date
Sir Bugsy
Civ.D.
I agree with Stapel with the worker. Let's use a homegrown worker for the colony.
The red dot site may be taken soon. Therefore, if we're not going on the warpath against Joan (which is probably a good idea.) I would favor green dot due to it's river.
The red dot site may be taken soon. Therefore, if we're not going on the warpath against Joan (which is probably a good idea.) I would favor green dot due to it's river.
gormdragan
King
Ok, this is what is going to happen.
(1) Ivory city swap to temple. (My preference is rax)
(2) Dye city and Coastal city swap to rax, for 20 turns, and then start a warrior/worker cycle (I prefer vet troops). The alternative (my 2nd choice) is to start a warrior/worker cycle immediately.
(3) Berlin to swap to settler. My preference would be green spot too.
(4) move archers from Berlin to Ivory city.
(5) Scratch the 2 workers southeast of Ivory city.
(6) Scratch the hill mining worker in coastal city to join road making worker from Berlin.
(7) Scratch jungle chopping solo worker east of Dye city (this takes way too long) to join road making worker team north of Dye City.
(8) Abandon troops guarding forest/mountain at Ivory city to muster a SOD on London.
Please let me know which is objectable and we can make ammendments from there.
(1) Making an Iron native colony is beyond my turns + we should accumulate more warriors before making the colony. We should road to the iron asap but we can delay the colony.
(2) Settling our 5th city is beyond my turns. Green dot has the added advantage of providing "covering fire" on our future colony.
(3) Actual siege of London is beyond my turns, so if we decide not to go through with it, we should decide now.
(1) Ivory city swap to temple. (My preference is rax)
(2) Dye city and Coastal city swap to rax, for 20 turns, and then start a warrior/worker cycle (I prefer vet troops). The alternative (my 2nd choice) is to start a warrior/worker cycle immediately.
(3) Berlin to swap to settler. My preference would be green spot too.
(4) move archers from Berlin to Ivory city.
(5) Scratch the 2 workers southeast of Ivory city.
(6) Scratch the hill mining worker in coastal city to join road making worker from Berlin.
(7) Scratch jungle chopping solo worker east of Dye city (this takes way too long) to join road making worker team north of Dye City.
(8) Abandon troops guarding forest/mountain at Ivory city to muster a SOD on London.
Please let me know which is objectable and we can make ammendments from there.
(1) Making an Iron native colony is beyond my turns + we should accumulate more warriors before making the colony. We should road to the iron asap but we can delay the colony.
(2) Settling our 5th city is beyond my turns. Green dot has the added advantage of providing "covering fire" on our future colony.
(3) Actual siege of London is beyond my turns, so if we decide not to go through with it, we should decide now.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
Go ahead. Part of the fun of SG is that not all is fully agreed upon!
BTW: I have C3C [dance] !
BTW: I have C3C [dance] !
Sir Bugsy
Civ.D.
Sounds like a good plan gorm.
![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
I just got it too Stapel
I just got it too Stapel
gormdragan
King
So did I.
:jump:
:jump:
Gengis Khan
Deity
A couple thoughts.
I agree that the colony needs to be built with a normal worker. We don't want to throw free workers away at any cost.
I don't think building our 5th city would be advantagous(green dot- yellow is even worse). It's gonna overlap our other cities by 3 tiles, which may or maynot be a big deal depending on if those tiles turn out to be the only 3 BGs in the area. Plus if we later abandon it for a more valuble site to the north, we'll have wasted a ton of worker turns developing that land, when they can be better used elsewhere.
Also I don't like the idea of having our capitol being the northern border to resist attacks. I'm alot more key on still building our last city in former Paris area, at 10.5 tiles to the NE will put wines within its boarder, and will be 4 tiles from horses. If there's no French to worry about there's also noone to worry about taking over our colony.
I disagree with the general concensus to go after lizzy. If we wipe Lizzy out we'll be forced into war with Joan, when that front is at it's weakest. Lizzy's military is at least as strong as ours, & we gain nothing(except some slaves & crippling her) by taking out London. Where if we still go after Joan(who's military is weaker then ours) we'll gain a city site that will benifit us for the rest of the game, rather then just for the next 20 turns or so.
But, this being a SG, I will go along with the concensus of the group even if I disagree with it.
I agree that the colony needs to be built with a normal worker. We don't want to throw free workers away at any cost.
I don't think building our 5th city would be advantagous(green dot- yellow is even worse). It's gonna overlap our other cities by 3 tiles, which may or maynot be a big deal depending on if those tiles turn out to be the only 3 BGs in the area. Plus if we later abandon it for a more valuble site to the north, we'll have wasted a ton of worker turns developing that land, when they can be better used elsewhere.
Also I don't like the idea of having our capitol being the northern border to resist attacks. I'm alot more key on still building our last city in former Paris area, at 10.5 tiles to the NE will put wines within its boarder, and will be 4 tiles from horses. If there's no French to worry about there's also noone to worry about taking over our colony.
I disagree with the general concensus to go after lizzy. If we wipe Lizzy out we'll be forced into war with Joan, when that front is at it's weakest. Lizzy's military is at least as strong as ours, & we gain nothing(except some slaves & crippling her) by taking out London. Where if we still go after Joan(who's military is weaker then ours) we'll gain a city site that will benifit us for the rest of the game, rather then just for the next 20 turns or so.
But, this being a SG, I will go along with the concensus of the group even if I disagree with it.
Sir Bugsy
Civ.D.
All valid points Gengis.
I don't think I would rule out the city in the vacinity of Paris. In that case it would be a good idea to hold off building our last city. I do think that clipping Lizzy's wings right now would be a good idea. We razed Hastings. Razing London would be very good. Gathering up some slaves would be most excellent.
So I suppose the question I would pose to the team would be,
"Do we build our fifth city as soon as possible in one of gorm's locations or wait and build it in French lands?"
Each path has advantages and disadvantages.
Consider: improvement of lands, loss of productivity, overall strategic gains and losses, short term gains and losses.
I have an option, but I'm going to keep my mouth shut for the time being. I hatched the crazy scheme we're on now and I'd like to hear everyone's options
I don't think I would rule out the city in the vacinity of Paris. In that case it would be a good idea to hold off building our last city. I do think that clipping Lizzy's wings right now would be a good idea. We razed Hastings. Razing London would be very good. Gathering up some slaves would be most excellent.
So I suppose the question I would pose to the team would be,
"Do we build our fifth city as soon as possible in one of gorm's locations or wait and build it in French lands?"
Each path has advantages and disadvantages.
Consider: improvement of lands, loss of productivity, overall strategic gains and losses, short term gains and losses.
I have an option, but I'm going to keep my mouth shut for the time being. I hatched the crazy scheme we're on now and I'd like to hear everyone's options
gormdragan
King
At least build a scrappable city for added unit support. I see no advantage in delaying. If we decide to keep Paris later, we could scrape the 5th.
Looking at where we stand, if we do not go to war against Lizzy, it will be at least 50 turns b4 we will see Paris. Is it logical to hold for so long? I think it is disadvantagous to delay our 5th city any further. As a matter of fact, I think it makes more sense to go to war against Lizzy if you want the 5th to be on Paris.
Strategically, we should attack a stronger enemy to prevent him from getting stronger. In an NOW (Non-oscillating War), it seems to me that having the troops and not attacking the designated enemy is abusive. I would agree with not attacking if we are weak. Not attacking Lizzy because we gain nothing does not strike me as being inconsistent with our SG rules.
Striking France where our troops are weak and we have yet any qualms does not appeal to me. We will end up fighting a 2 front war with 2 out of 4 cities not in production mode. That strikes me as sucidal.
Paris is without doubt a better city. But with French having confirmed iron resource, I think it is no longer advantagous to attack Paris. Even if we attack Paris, I estimat at least 50-60 turns before we build a sufficient army and take Paris. Can we really afford 50 turns with 2 useless cities and only 2 producing cities? without great library?
Having Berlin where it is now as our northern border would appear to me as strategically advantageous. Berlin stands as a bottleneck to where the French are stuck. Once we settled with Lizzy (by then our iron should be online), we can proceed to wack off Joan.
If we build a scrappable city, I would build it slightly northeast of Berlin, where grassland and plains are plentiful. Little work is needed and it is a good midway to Paris, much like a staging ground.
I am definitely against not going to war with Lizzy. I am also for building a 5th city even if we scrape it later for Paris. My 2 cents.
Looking at where we stand, if we do not go to war against Lizzy, it will be at least 50 turns b4 we will see Paris. Is it logical to hold for so long? I think it is disadvantagous to delay our 5th city any further. As a matter of fact, I think it makes more sense to go to war against Lizzy if you want the 5th to be on Paris.
Strategically, we should attack a stronger enemy to prevent him from getting stronger. In an NOW (Non-oscillating War), it seems to me that having the troops and not attacking the designated enemy is abusive. I would agree with not attacking if we are weak. Not attacking Lizzy because we gain nothing does not strike me as being inconsistent with our SG rules.
Striking France where our troops are weak and we have yet any qualms does not appeal to me. We will end up fighting a 2 front war with 2 out of 4 cities not in production mode. That strikes me as sucidal.
Paris is without doubt a better city. But with French having confirmed iron resource, I think it is no longer advantagous to attack Paris. Even if we attack Paris, I estimat at least 50-60 turns before we build a sufficient army and take Paris. Can we really afford 50 turns with 2 useless cities and only 2 producing cities? without great library?
Having Berlin where it is now as our northern border would appear to me as strategically advantageous. Berlin stands as a bottleneck to where the French are stuck. Once we settled with Lizzy (by then our iron should be online), we can proceed to wack off Joan.
If we build a scrappable city, I would build it slightly northeast of Berlin, where grassland and plains are plentiful. Little work is needed and it is a good midway to Paris, much like a staging ground.
I am definitely against not going to war with Lizzy. I am also for building a 5th city even if we scrape it later for Paris. My 2 cents.
"Meaningless worker actions" is right. Don't know what came over me there.
As always there are good things to be said for all the points in all the posts.
I will add my two pence worth:
We will need at least seven archers to gain our TFF objectives. Chartres and Lyon will have to fall in addition to Paris. However, if we do clip Joanie's wings now that means much less to worry about on the Eastern Front when the time comes to put her away for good. There is also the opportunity for "pointy stick research" which should not be overlooked.
A two front war against widely separated opponents who are both militarily weaker, at least to this point, is not a bad thing, especially since our TFF objective is a limited one. If our intention were to prosecute the Eastern Front to the destruction of Joan, you're right, that would be the worst thing we could attempt.
As for improvements for cultural expansion, we are a Mil/Sci civ, no? Libraries are less costly than temples and the resulting expansion is nominally quicker. If I remember right libs build with 40 shields and temples with 60 and the expansion is in three rather than four turns. I don't foresee any happiness problems in either Dyeburg, Ivoryopolis or CC for a while yet. It's going to take a while, even with gangs of workers to clear all those trees and vines, so growth is restrained until the jungle is gone and the productvity at Ivoryopolis is not going to come on line real soon now.
Settling at least temporarily in the jungles west and east of Dyeburg will have the benefit of defusing any barb threats from there. We have had no barb actitivty from the East. Queen Joan must be doing a good job on that front. All the barbs have come from the west, no? However, building the settlers and the defensive units might require too much productitivity from Berlin, just when military is needed for TFF or TFE.
The western archer regiment is well positioned to harass Lizzie's southern marches, remember. Moving the archer/spear pairs west towards London with the intention of harassing/razing London is not without risk but may be a good use of those units.
Can we trade for a map that might give us a better idea of where Lizzie has placed her cities? My concern right now is that when we do take Lizzie out, but haven't knocked Joanie back a little we will have an army in the west with a long road to the Eastern battlefields. With an Eastern outpost we not only gain wine and iron we at least have Joanie just that much further away when time comes to take her on and a fortified town on her western border.
Looks more like thruppence than tuppence. Sorry for rambling but both strategies have much to offer.
Good hunting, gorm.
Bede, the humbled and long-winded.
gormdragan
King
The problem with making library is that it gives us no gains at all.
(1) we are doing 40turn gambits, so library bonus do not apply.
(2) expanded borders gives us only more jungles and we have not even finished working the inner 8 tiles, so we gain nothing as well.
(3) we are a 5CC, so any additional expenditure is critical. library upkeep cost unnecessarily burns our coffer.
Hope this explains better my opinion.
Let me know what the poll is so that this game can get going. :jump:
(1) we are doing 40turn gambits, so library bonus do not apply.
(2) expanded borders gives us only more jungles and we have not even finished working the inner 8 tiles, so we gain nothing as well.
(3) we are a 5CC, so any additional expenditure is critical. library upkeep cost unnecessarily burns our coffer.
Hope this explains better my opinion.
Let me know what the poll is so that this game can get going. :jump:
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
Do what you think is best!
we will correct your mistakes later 
we will correct your mistakes later
gormdragan
King
Err, I have a bloody-thirsty nature. I don't like to have troops lying around doing nothing. My Motto is " If you build them, use them.
So I think it would be better if we decide as a team, as you may not like the road I will lead you guys to - I am like a bronco (aka mad horse).
So I think it would be better if we decide as a team, as you may not like the road I will lead you guys to - I am like a bronco (aka mad horse).
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
Then use them!
Gengis Khan
Deity
My vote goes to attacking the French. We're stronger already. if we raze a city(or maybe two) they'll cave with all their techs & gold in 5 turns.
gormdragan
King
The problem is all our troops are tied to the English front, there is no way we can move troops over without risking the Anglo side. So in reality, I very much doubt we are stronger than French from what we have mobilisable.
Attacking Anglo allow us to take advantage of already deployed troops while comfortably move TFF over to the English front without risking much.
So now it's
War against Anglo (1 - myself)
War against French (1 - GK)
5th city (scrappable to produce warriors and workers) (1 - myself)
no 5th city (1 - GK)
Attacking Anglo allow us to take advantage of already deployed troops while comfortably move TFF over to the English front without risking much.
So now it's
War against Anglo (1 - myself)
War against French (1 - GK)
5th city (scrappable to produce warriors and workers) (1 - myself)
no 5th city (1 - GK)
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
My vote goes to whatever Gorm wants .
.
Gengis Khan
Deity
The problem that I see with launching a full out assult on the Anglo front is that all our newly created units will have to move to that front to reinforce our casulties. Meaning while we raze a city or two, we're gaining 0 ground towards planning an assult on the French. Not to mention every city we raze(while it cripples Lizzy) will be replaced by the Russians or Indians. Where as razing French cities couldn't be replaced by anyone except the French.
Sir Bugsy
Civ.D.
OK, how about this alternative.
We fight a holding action against Lizzy. We have archer/spear pairs deploy across our front. The archers can pick off English units and stay under spears for defense. I'd say 3 or 4 pairs could do the job.
We can then build up TFF with 7-10 archers, a few spears and a settler. I bet we could set that up in less 15 turns.
If we go this route then I vote to hold off on city #5. If we don't plan on a limited French war within 20 turns, then I vote for the disposable city.
We fight a holding action against Lizzy. We have archer/spear pairs deploy across our front. The archers can pick off English units and stay under spears for defense. I'd say 3 or 4 pairs could do the job.
We can then build up TFF with 7-10 archers, a few spears and a settler. I bet we could set that up in less 15 turns.
If we go this route then I vote to hold off on city #5. If we don't plan on a limited French war within 20 turns, then I vote for the disposable city.
gormdragan
King
Please add into the equation that we have only 2 producing cities. I see no way we can make 7-10 archers, a few spears and a settler in anything less than 30 turns. Dye city and coastal city are essentially non-producing.
If we go for a TFF buildup, we should make our 5th city 1st. A settler can be made in Berlin in another 2-3 more turns. If we settle close by, a city is found in 10 turns time. our first worker or warrior will be out in 20 turns.
We should bite the bullet and cut our losses in the wasted archer/spear investment and stop producing outdated units. Archer/spearmen combo is no longer a force to be feared in a iron era.
This is an alternative I would suggest if we want to go ahead with TFF. Move all archers to Anglo-Deuch Front. Make warriors like no tomorrow. In 30 odd turns, iron comes online, upgrader 7-10 swords, and go after French. Swords against swords we have a fighting chance. But if we do archer/spear combo, with a french iron source so nearby, it is likely our archer/spear force will be slaughtered by french swords. In the meantime, make the 5th city, use it to pump out workers, if nothing else. By the time we take Paris, which i estimate 40-50turns, we can then scrap the 5th.
If we go for a TFF buildup, we should make our 5th city 1st. A settler can be made in Berlin in another 2-3 more turns. If we settle close by, a city is found in 10 turns time. our first worker or warrior will be out in 20 turns.
We should bite the bullet and cut our losses in the wasted archer/spear investment and stop producing outdated units. Archer/spearmen combo is no longer a force to be feared in a iron era.
This is an alternative I would suggest if we want to go ahead with TFF. Move all archers to Anglo-Deuch Front. Make warriors like no tomorrow. In 30 odd turns, iron comes online, upgrader 7-10 swords, and go after French. Swords against swords we have a fighting chance. But if we do archer/spear combo, with a french iron source so nearby, it is likely our archer/spear force will be slaughtered by french swords. In the meantime, make the 5th city, use it to pump out workers, if nothing else. By the time we take Paris, which i estimate 40-50turns, we can then scrap the 5th.
