LK102, Deity, RaR, just win.

[Greebley]

Ok, I got it.

I am ok with the deal with America. If we go to war it will be with the Sioux. I don't like our double front and would rather weaken/eliminate them than go for America first.

I feel defense of single city islands is generally straight forward. If you put enough defenders in a city then the AI will ignore that city. For the most part this works for island cities as well.

 

[Greebley]

Preturn: Builds all look good.

Cut two turns off or the time to Smiths by starving a small amount. Seems worth it.

Going to build up some more units. and consider the Sioux.

Early: Getting some defenders onto the Island. It is hard work
We get East India

910 AD: I think we can handle the Sioux. Will try it at least.
Capture Yanktonai and Cuzco which lessens our border.

IBT: Two elephants attack us on the Northwest island. One retreats and one is killed
A rogue elephant charges us.

920 AD: Capture Dakota

IBT: We get Smiths Lose a Musket.
Elephant Rider, Man-at-Arms, and an Elephant land next to our Northwest island town.

930 AD: Regroup and Heal

940 AD: Advance on the enemy. We get a Leader

IBT: We see several elephants heading into our territory.

950 AD:
Capture Machu Picchu, Kill a bunch of Elephants near Dakota.

Notes:
My reason for the war was not strong. I think sitting around and building infra would be a winning strategy. I also think that killing off the Sioux will be an equally good strategy (we double our towns). I was feeling in an agressive mood, so thus the war. The fact that Romeo would probably enjoy fighting on his turns did influence me.

My thought was to destroy the Sioux. If we don't want to do that we can start building settlers and abandon cities we captured so far.

One of the goals of the war has been achieved. We got a leader. My thought was to use the first leader for the International Port and a second (if we get it) for the Military Academy which gives leaders every 30 turns (use a high shield town so we can build leaders too).

I made two small goofs on this last turn.
1) I move the Kano guard the wrong way. There is a Longboat Near it that could possibly drop something off. If you need to protect Kano, use the Caravel in Maroi to get one or two unit(s) there in time.

2) The army ran out of movement in Dakota. There is a very small flip chance. If you wish disband the town. I personally would keep the town, but I leave that to the next player to decide.




The Save

 

[Greebley]

Two more points.

1) The Iroquois demanded horses and I gave them since I didn't want complications.

2) Thinking back on the play, I don't think I correctly handled the possibility of America allying with the Sioux and attacking from the North. We may want to do something about that. We could either Ally them against the Sioux or we could make sure we have adequate defense on the American front for a suprise attack (or both).

The downside of the Alliance is that America will own some Sioux towns instead of us.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I think it was a good move to be aggressive. Should help us more than the usual builder stuff.
I for one wouldn't beat on the Sioux much longer. Chimbote, Sarkee, and raze/replace Wounded Knee. That gets us a nice defencable position, and we do not accumulate more questionable towns like with the Incans.
But I would America ASAP, for the very same reasons as the Sioux - in my turns, Supe would have required 15 garrison to remove the flip risk (and Supe =Horses, Saltpetre). Miami, LA need to go, and Denver would be nice to have.

 

[Greebley]

If we don't want to follow the Sioux war to the bitter end, I we should build some settlers. I don't think the towns have oppression, we go to them too fast for that.

IIRC, we did get the Mausoleum of Moosefaces (or whatever it is called) in one of the ex-incan towns that has some value as tourist trap. Not sure if we want to raise that our not. It may still have Incan citizens in which case starving would work.

 

[LKendter]

Where is our new government? I wanted a revolt after Smith's for an improved government.

The fact that Romeo would probably enjoy fighting on his turns did influence me.

That IMO is a downright horrid justification for a war. A war should be done because it benefits us, not because a player likes war. This is a line I don't want to ever hear again.

My reason for the war was not strong. I think sitting around and building infra would be a winning strategy. I also think that killing off the Sioux will be an equally good strategy (we double our towns). I was feeling in an aggressive mood, so thus the war.

Well I feel was BAD timing. I would have preferred the revolt to Constitutional Monarchy BEFORE the war. I agree with Doc that Republic isn't serving us well. We need a government with the 150% worker boast before rails arrive.

Thinking back on the play, I don't think I correctly handled the possibility of America allying with the Sioux and attacking from the North. We may want to do something about that. We could either ally them against the Sioux or we could make sure we have adequate defense on the American front for a surprise attack (or both).

The one thing that could hurt is a two front war. I see one of two choices: immediate alliance with America or ASAP peace with the Sioux. I feel simply continuing against the Sioux for a long battle is a major mistake.

This option was clear not thought out. A short war should have a few settlers to replace the cities to eliminate flip risk. I hate having a low corruption city with Sioux citizens that could flip. A short-term war should have RAZED those cities for the workers. I don't like capture unless we had a plan to take out a civ like the Inca.


Signed up:
LKendter
T_McC (skip until May 25)
Greebley
Romeothemonk (currently playing)
Doc Tsiolkovski (on deck)

Remember 10 turns per round - STRICT 24 hours got it, total 48 hours to complete.

 

[LKendter]

One of the goals of the war has been achieved. We got a leader. My thought was to use the first leader for the International Port and a second (if we get it) for the Military Academy which gives leaders every 30 turns (use a high shield town so we can build leaders too).

I agree on rushing the IP. Now the question is what town is the best - NOT the captured Sioux city!

 

[romeothemonk]

Hmm, I will get to it, but will probably need the full 48-72. Looking at the situation, LK, this fell within my parameters for starting a war, and I probably would have started the war as well. Since Greebley is letting me inherit a war, I will do the best I can.
After playing a few games with Greebley, he is perhaps as much or a bigger warmonger than I am.
The feeling of the war starting is an itchy trigger finger, something I have been accused of a few times, and I completely buy it. You are looking for any real excuse to start the war. In RaR especially with the position we have, I really get the itchy trigger finger at this point.
@government situation, federal republic is a far, far stronger government than consitutional monarchy. The justification follows. Corporate offices with Smith's are very powerful, and allow the construction of the Conglomerate. (The Conglomerate is so powerful, I think it is broken). We are not doing much of our own research and collecting a lot of gold. If WW strikes us, then we raise lux 10%. The extra revenue buildings more than makes up the extra cash we are pouring into lux. The Statue of Liberty is also much more powerful than the Magna carta, as I have yet to see an LK game not build the Supreme Court. If we don't need the extra lux, then we just make more money, which is not so bad.
@IP, I would rush it at either Teahouas (Right under the iron and saltpeter island, ~10-12 useful water squares) or Tauhua, a more developed city in our first ring.

 

[LKendter]

On the government comment - regardless of the choice I wanted the revolt BEFORE another war. I almost pull the trigger during my turn despite going for Smith's. Now I am sorry I didn't. Now that we are trapped in another war I don't see when we can get out of Republic. The only time I revolt during a war is AW as a peacetime revolt is impossible.

@IP, I would rush it at either Teahouas (Right under the iron and saltpeter island, ~10-12 useful water squares) or Tahoua, a more developed city in our first ring.

Give the 10 to 12 water square city the IP. After that let that city build the Summer Palace as I prefer very low corruption in the IP city.

Hmm, I will get to it, but will probably need the full 48-72. Looking at the situation, LK, this fell within my parameters for starting a war, and I probably would have started the war as well.

My complaint with Greebley is I felt the war was NOT planned out. Was this a raze and replace a couple border towns war, or a full-blown kill the Sioux war. The raze and replace option means some settlers should have been built before the war. A full-blown war would have been ally with America from turn one to avoid a two front war.

One of my biggest war rules is to avoid 2 fronts. We have an ugly enough empire with those islands and a stretched out empire with way to many points to be attacked. With capturing Sioux cities it appears the goal was a long-term war. In that case I feel not allying with America was a big mistake.

I really don't feel safe with this type of empire until rails and avoid multiple fronts as much as possible.

 

[romeothemonk]

In my perusing of the WWW, I came across a smilie just for LK.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

civforum.de has another nice one...
(Deppenalarm=Fool Alert).

Guess that's how he feels.

 

[LKendter]

I took a look at the game. I want to make some comments outside of the war issue.

Is there any reason outside of potential slaves not to upgrade our heavy horseman to cuirassier? We have the science cheat and plenty of cash. On the same note we still have a few stray pikeman. I would like to upgrade those.

We still have some workers and slaves. Once rails become available we have a ton of work to do. I would like to upgrade all of those units.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I for one wouldn't upgrade many HHs. I played Mali quite often already, and they proved pretty useful as fast movers with a decent defence. They should loose a HP as well (don't quote me here before checking).
Pikes and Workers, of course.

 

[Greebley]

Well I am personally completely happy with republic for a while. I don't really understand the rush to switch. We have the encyclopedia and a lot of units to upgrade - there is no pressing need for the ability to rush building which is an very inefficient way to use gold anyway. We have already upgraded a good number, but have more to go.

The ability to rush buildings isn't important in a war. Republic allows us to keep more units and makes warring easy. It is the better govt for the Sioux war. Switching govts and then war seems less good to me.

Personally while switching govs and building infrasture is viable, I think the war is the stronger stategy. More cities especially close ones to the capitol is very powerful in RaR. The non-war strategy will still wint the game - just not as easily and quickly. More towns is very powerful with multiple palaces. Taking out the Sioux will put us ahead in the long run, not behind.

I didn't just choose a war because "Romeo likes war" there were lots of reasons. I probably shouldn't have stated it that way. The fact that Romeo will be open to pursuing the war and gaining something from it is important however. Immediately signing peace seeems the worst strategy in this situation to me. We need to take more towns to make the war worthwhile. The units will peter out soon and we can make some real progress.

My personal choice would be to pursue the war to its end.

I guess I don't understand at all why war is a bad choice in most cases. For better or for worse, war is the most efficient way to win the game.

Note that we have already gotten the International port (assuming Romeo uses the Leader that way. Two more and we get the summer palace in ex-incan lands and the military academy.

I will admit not factoring America into the equation was an error on my part. I don't think it would have been fatal however.

-----------------

Part of the problem is that we view things differently. If I lose a single town to a flip later in the game, but save myself from draining cities of pop earlier when we are struggling = that is a gain to my mind. Similarly even if we lost a town now due to an American attack - we are still way ahead with capturing several Sioux towns.

 

[LKendter]

My personal choice would be to pursue the war to its end.

I will admit not factoring America into the equation was an error on my part. I don't think it would have been fatal however.

That is my big issue with the war. We failed to factor in the 2 front war issue. I really hate the lay of our land and a 2 front war would be messy.

 

[Greebley]

My choice would be to ally with America vs the Sioux which you mentioned I think.

The strategy I was thinking of though was to keep 3 defenders in the towns on the border with America with some attack units.

I was building cheap fast defense (adventurers) that can move quickly.

-----------------------------

I you prefer though, we are close to rails. With Rails the America issue is moot. We can sign peace now and plan to attack again in 20 (or a bit more). We may even want to research toward rail if we do that. Not sure, but there is big cash to get a number 1 tech (some civ have 12K or so gold).

 

[LKendter]

Well I am personally completely happy with republic for a while. I don't really understand the rush to switch. We have the encyclopedia and a lot of units to upgrade - there is no pressing need for the ability to rush building which is an very inefficient way to use gold anyway. We have already upgraded a good number, but have more to go.

The issue isn't the gold or rushing. The issue is worker efficiency. Rails are close. Laying rails is much faster when you have 150% workers. You get that with the IA governments, but not republic. Republic is going to really hurt are ability to lay rails.

 

[Greebley]

The war would end before rails though. It is 4 more techs when I last looked.

I also expect in 10 turns we could revolt whether at war or not. In fact it might be a good way to end the WW if we do go for war.

To date the Sioux have had very few knight type units. Most are elephants. Do they have iron and horses both? I didn't check.

We have some towns at max size. I was starting to pop workers off the top, but be sure to do more of this. We will need them when rails do appear.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Ok, we're in troubles.

The issue isn't the gold or rushing.

Well, for you it's the Workers. For Greebley it's the unit support, and for me it's the rushing...

there is no pressing need for the ability to rush building which is an very inefficient way to use gold anyway.

Pardon? A Cuirassier for 132gp isn't effective? Even upgrading costs 150gp.
I do not rush any full builds. I rush some missing shields to get two-turn items. Like we had a city that made 58spt - would have been 3 Cuirs in 6 turns...in a cash-rush Gov.
That also is the reason why I don't care that much for support - I do not stockpile units. I pump them out when I need them...

Play England on a World Map, with 3 productive cities, and you'll see what I mean.

 

[T_McC]

OK. We're fighting a war, and we're sitting on a leader. We haven't built either the IP or the Summer Palace. I see two ways to play this: (A) We rush the Military Academy in our FP city once its current build finishes. The MA is 770 shields and auto-generates Armies. Anticipate we get another leader during the inevitable 20 turns of war we have embarked on. (B) We bite the bullet and sit on the leader until we wipe out the Sioux and rush the IP in Santee, setting up a Summer Palace build there. The city can be a monster as it works 5 Hills + 8 Water tiles.

If we could plant Forests, we could move Ollantayambo 1 tile S and build the IP in and Iron Works location. We are a long way from that in tech.

If we're going to Ally the Americans vs. the Sioux, we might as well buy the Iros in as well. The Sioux are getting Horses from one of those two. Knocking them down to infantry and elephants will make the war much easier. It would also be nice to capture the Sioux Saltpeter source, or at least pillage it.

I probably wouldn't upgrade the Mali HH, its rather expensive (150 gold) to gain 1 attack and 1 move, and lose 1 defense.

When we revolt my vote would be to Federal Republic. The only thing Cons. Mon. has going for it are the Tombs of the Unknown Soldier. The gov't-specific SW isn't anything special, and we can have the effect of the Magna Carta by spending 1590 shields across four cities instead of 1200 in a single city. It appears both wonders (Magna Carta and Supreme Court) give the same building, so having both wouldn't be of any use.

Yanktonai is on an absurd build, and we seem to have a lot of high-shield units being built in low-shield cities.