Discussion in 'The Knights’ Brotherhood' started by I. Larkin, Jan 26, 2011.
Here it is. We must multiply figure in brackets by 25.
thoughts about a war against the Küche
to the küche we need 7-8 turns
until we need MM+HR, 2-4 galleys and 4 horses. with NS GA comes to early and horses are good enough to destroy streets and good enough to put the kitchen in shrink. that leads to speed on those of units and will slow down their growth. thats enough, no big invasion.
why in the world would we devote so many shields and energy into damaging the LAST CIV ON EARTH before we want to ship over our NM to kick off the GA???
i really cannot think of the slightest reason to do this.
I think Memento means to kick GA. Barracks + troops is 350 Sch approx, it will happen about right time...
Memento´s post indicates quite clearly, that he means to send galley with horses soon to damage Küche´s development.
Only later the NM to kick off our GA.
This is what I strongly objected: if we want to send the NM later, then please please do not waste shields and time to hamper the last ranked civ, but simply delay the passage.
I must write in German for a better understanding:
Ja ich will nur mit Galleys (die wir eh bauen müssen) und Reitern rüber (Streitwagen aufwerten).
Die Schildkosten sind niedriger. 4 Streitwagen kosten 80 Schilde+etwas Gold zum aufwerten.
Es gibt mehrere Gründe:
Zum einen wissen wir nicht welche Ziv die Küche haben. Sind sie Perser bekommen sie Ihr GA eh.l
Sind sie Osmanen oder Franzosen können wir sie mit billigen Mitteln länger bzw ganz von Ihren UUs fernhalten.
Mit NS würden wir unser GA auslösen. Nach meinen Geschmack zu früh.
Es gibt ja nur 2 Wege. Mit den Eagles oder Anarchos.
Wenn wir gg die Anarchos kämpfen können wir auch dann unser GA auslösen. Wenn wir mit Ihnen kämpfen können wir mit wenigen Mitteln einen vermeintlich leichteren Gegner gut schwächen während die anderen sich gegenseitig schwächen. In dieser Zeit können wir weiter wachsen und das GA später effektiver nutzen.
btw:ich würde erstmal nur Streitwagen bauen. Die kosten wenig Schilde, sind billig aufzuwerten und halten uns bei f3 schwach.
translate by google and corrected by me a little bit
i am replying in German as well, as i had already understood what Memento meant above, and my answer is the same now in German:
Ich sehe den Sinn hier überhaupt nicht. Wieso sollen wir plötzlich ZWEI Invasionen machen, eine schnell mit Pferden, ein sobald wir das GA wollen?
Szenario1: Allianz mit Anarchie
In diesem Fall sind beide anderen Civs unser Feind, und spätestens nach der ersten Invasion werden immer Dromonen die Passage bewachen. Das macht unseren Plan, darüber unser GA auszulösen, entweder riskant oder aufwendig.
Szenario2: Allianz mit Eagles
In diesem Fall würden wir mit höherem Mitteleinsatz nichts anderes tun, als zusätzlich zu unserem GA-Auslöser (was uns nützt) denen ihre Eroberung des Kontinents erleichtern (was ihnen nützt UND uns schadet). Zudem fehlen dann Ressourcen für die Eroberung unseres eigenen Kontinents.
Strategisch ist dieser Vorschlag daher völlig sinnlos. Es gibt kein vorteilhaftes Szenario.
Wir sollten nur 1x - vor einer richtigen Invasion! - hinüberfahren, und dann sicher nicht, um die letzte Zivilisation im Ranking auch noch in ihrer Entwicklung mehr zu behindern, als es zB entweder für das Auslösen des GA nötig wäre, oder als gleichzeitig die Anarchos die Eagles behindern.
Ich habe nichts von 2 Invasionen geschrieben.
Dromonen können nicht alles bewachen und die Eagles können gleichzeitig nicht viel Militär bauen.
Außerdem würde in diesen Fall die Anarchos die größere Aufgabe haben.
Bei einen Krieg gg die Anarchos wäre ich mir nicht sicher ob Eagles und Küche uns nicht in den Rücken fallen.
btw:what will you do if Eagles and Küche are in war next round?
You did implicitly talk about 2 invasions:
- the one you mentioned, with 2 ships worth of horses
- and another one you mentioned by saying, that we should ignite our GA with NM and against the Küche as well, but later
How else than with another "invasion" (getting another ship over to the other continent) do you want to do this?
And the Eagles do not need to guard "anywhere", because there seemingly is only one sea passage.
About the other continent backstabbing us: of course we should not start any war on our continent if we do not at least believe we have an ally or a stalemate position on the other. However, if it takes us more than 10 turns to practically conquer our continent, we should not even start a war first place!
What we´ll do if the others fight next turn, we can consider when it happened. No idea why this would be a very urgent question.
I never talk about 2 invasions. where u saw this?
the timeout from eagles lets me think about it.
they have many time so it must be an important thing for the timeout. talks on alliance are not important enough for a timeout
Today I made some thought about how to use the GA.
The usage of it for the early warfare was already covered in the "military post" above.
Now I want to add two more approaches:
Here we would try to settle towns most or even every town in our lands first, but not necessarily trigger the GA only when its effect can be used for those towns optimally already.
For this, I counted approximately 10 towns still to be founded from now in our lands. With 4-turners from now on, plus anarchy as a negative effect, plus the odd settler from Glaston as a positive effect, this will require about 40 turns from now. If we want every town to be at least size 2, add 10 more turns. so in 50 turns we would get some very reasonable effect from a GA, and could still build a few 1-turn workers or 2-turn settlers from Glastonbury to finish our landtaking and fill up our pop and workforce.
This would quite well go together with the "strike before GP" military approach.
"Optimal GA approach":
Here we would want to start our GA when the towns are optimally prepared to use the GA for a civil buildup. Those 20 turns would see our markets, libs and harbours built in many towns.
Key for this strategy is that our workers built at least one shield on any feasible town until then. So worker turns are what need to be counted to decide when to start the GA for this strategy, plus giving the towns time to grow to at least say size 3.
Without calculating this in detail, I am pretty sure this approach would start the GA between turn 60-70 from now.
Militarily this is very probably too late to still can hope for any surprise element, and the Anarchie will quite certainly have already had their GA until then. So they as well have lots of improvements erected, as well as at least a few troops built. Thus this would be my strategy if we went for a SS contest.
Sorry, I obviously misunderstood you here. I believed I saw that you would consider both, either triggering against Küche later or against Anarchos. But in fact you really did not say that.
I am still not really convinced. But now I believe I understand the plan. Do I get this straight, this is what you mean:
1. We and the Anarchos together disturb the development of the other continent by landing troops, destroying improvements, maybe towns.
2. When they have fallen back enough, we turn and attack the Anarchie.
3. After taking our continent, we hope that we still have enough advantage over the other continent to manage 1 vs 2.
Maybe. But I believe this plan will work less likely than my military plan to ally with Eagles and first strike against the Anarchie. Now they have no troops at all, until then they will at least have a few.
I think it is too early to make military plan. It depend will Eagles or anarhos support us or oppositely they will tread us with invasion. It also will depend on research rate and Tech exchange.
I agree, however, that at present diplo situation early war with Kuhe most probable and we may think about that in more details then about another wars. Next priority is how to prepare to defense / contra-strike vs Anarchie, third it might be possible invasion/bombardment of our shore by Eagles.
More important is to have approximate idea how to balance military /infra, Science/Tax, optimal City sizes, general strategy of build up. Just to estimate, like t-x did that MA may be in 25 turns (I think 40 more realistic, but anyway), how many Cities we will have, how many units we want have and what possible to build during this time.
40 turns is the number you come up with when we research at the Anarchos´ speed. They want to go slow anyway, so if we can delay the research like this, no problem from my side.
Regarding military plans, we NEED those if we want to know what our options are. Do you really believe that real military leaders make only plans they are planning to execute? the term is "map exercise" I think, and they have one in their drawers for nearly any thinkable and unthinkable situation that may ever arise.
Sure, we may play on map, but I just remind not to focus on "single scenario", and take into account resources and time scale.
just not to be misunderstood (and I do not know how it could):
i am carrying together various scenarios of course for the sake of getting an impression of different time windows, and not in order to narrow the view down to a single one...
Continued from the "Diplomacy with Anarchos" thread:
First of all I want to say: I had almost given up and was ready to go your way, as I thought: "well, if both, Ivan and templar are so convinced of their plan, perhaps it's ok after all". But when Memento said he didn't like that strategy either, I thought, "ok, someone else finally sees it the same way as I do, so perhaps it is indeed the better way?!" and therefore I continued to fight for it as good as I could.
Sorry, that I became personal and called your actions "emotional". But I didn't mean any personal attack or insult, I only didn't find a better word to express how all this looks to me. I can't believe it's "cool-headed thinking about what is best for the long-term prospects of winning this game". After all you did say things to me like "you would like to punish them for their bad/irrational/whatever behavior" (and I added in my head: "even if the current strategic situation does not support such a punishment and trying for it would hurt our game badly") and you and Ivan did say something like their behavior goes on your nerves so much, that you can't stand a cooperation with them, even if it is a clear path to victory. Both is not "objective logical thinking". There is a certain emotional component in this, isn't it? (Again please don't take "emotional" as an insult! I just can't find a better word for expressing that this isn't really justified by "mathematically precise reasoning".)
I'm quite calm, only a bit frustrated, that you still didn't see the reasons why my approach is so much better... I have posted my arguments, but no one responded to them (or even refuted them!) (Which is probably why I've repeated them a couple of times...) I carefully read the previous posts again, and I agree that a lot of them are good strategical planning, like when to trigger the GA and what to do during that time, Ivan's flexible approach in post #133 (makes a lot of sense to me!), Mementos ideas on "limited military actions", etc, and I agree with all of that. However, most of this is general advice independent of whether the cooperation with Eagles or with Anarchos is better! And nothing you said in these posts convinced me that your plan is better than the one I outlined. So what can I do? Either keep up fighting like a lion for what I believe with all my heart is the superior strategy, or keep silent and let you go ahead.
You posted your calculations of what you think how many units and shields we will need until a certain point in the future. But sorry, this is not "strategical planning", it's "tactical planning". Strategical planning is done with high-level abstract concepts. And besides: what does it help us, if we know how many shields we need, if the other side is capable of producing the same amount of shields/beakers/etc in that time? With my strategical planning I want to achieve that we will be able to surpass our enemies in shield production and income, (independent of the concrete number of required shields). Also, how did you arrive at those numbers of x horsemen, y Numideans, etc? Did you estimate the number of shields that the other side is able to produce in the same time to get to an estimate of how many defenders we will meet? I think the numbers are a bit too high. Even a small stack of 4MI + 4 Numideans will be able to cause havoc, if they come right after reaching the MA. (Which will be in approx. 36 turns from now: 6 more turns for Rep, 5 turns anarchy, 25 for finishing the AA, which is ambitious, but can be done. It would require an average 77bpt (ours+Anarchy), which we almost have even now without Rep.) Where will the Eagles be in 36 turns? 1-2 turns for CoL. Rep is 665 beakers (I subtracted 5% for the contact, is that right?), so at net 30bpt it will take them 22 turns. They are still rexing, but let's assume they can do it in 20 turns. Add 6 turns for the anarchy (theirs will "statistically" be longer than ours), so they just barely had 8 turns in a Republic government by the time we reach the MA!! That's just enough to get Literature and a bit of another tech (plus the techs they may be able to trade from the Küche). So they are still lacking WC, CB, Mys, Poly, HB, MM, Math, Cur, Const! How many of these can the Küche do in 36 turns, provided they and the Eagles cooperate harmoniously? Let's only count Mys, Poly, HB, MM, Math, Cur, Const. That's 1925 beakers. 36 x 30 = 1080 (didn't subtract an anarchy here, but also didn't take into account higher commerce for 8 turns in Rep), but in any case we are still approx 900b or 3 techs ahead of them, and the full benefits of our early Rep and the corresponding growth is not yet added to that equation!
At that early point they will not yet have produced so many units either, and they'll probably not expect an invasion so early, so the above mentioned small-sized invasion might find them unprepared and do enough damage to throw them even further back. But don't get me wrong: I'm not saying we should attack that early! With such a big lead, we could as well keep going until Chivalry (trying to increase the lead even more), and then evaluate the situation again! No need to hurry things. Our advantage will increase the longer we wait. And we can pick the point of time best suited for us. But in any case it's nice to have a big tech, population and production lead and have many options open!
On the other hand I still don't see, how we will achieve a similar advantage in your plan. Eagles, Anarchy and ourselves will progress with approx. the same speed. (In research as well as in population.) We may be slightly faster, but not enough to build up a decisive advantage as outlined above! The only tribe that might fall significantly behind is the Küche, and that is not even good for us.
Yes, I did not really know what to tell them. Anything I would post there would certainly meet your disapproval, so I better kept silent.
This is not true. What happened was: in the second chat we had talked about Masonry and the misunderstanding they had about our tech exchange proposal. I wanted to ask d7, whether they would like to get Masonry now, but completely forgot to do so during the chat. The next morning I realized I had forgotten to ask that question and sent d7 a quick PM, whether they would like to get Mas next turn. He replied with yes, and so I posted a corresponding message in our "Turns 38-57" thread.
We did not sign any contract or research agreement and therefore they are completely free to do whatever they like. And for the moment it seems to make more sense for them to try for an SGL and do those techs now, which they can currently do in 4 turns, and keep the more expensive ones for after the anarchy. We may not like this, but in that case we should have signed an agreement with them earlier...
Here I completely agree. We have to get things straightened out along these lines (no matter whether we want a "real" alliance or a fake one)! But at the moment we have again "stale-mated" ourselves ("handlungsunfähig" in German...). I did not push the negotiations during the last week, because I was sure that whatever I do, you others would only be against it. And you didn't indicate what you want to do with them either. So we simply did nothing...
But it takes so much time to argue about all this here and at the same time lead the time-consuming negotiations with the Anarchos. I propose we just pick one of us and give him "full power of attorney", so that these deals now finally take shape quickly. We just trust, that the "elected person" tries to get the best possible deal for our team. That might be the simplest, I no longer have the time nor the strength to argue against you and against the Anarchos at the same time.
A few corrections:
- You do not need to argue against us and Anarchie at the same time. Just stop the one and start the other.
- More seriously, you not posting with them is of course not good. I compensated for that a bit, and I believe they are at least not too wary.
- Your definition of strategic/tactical is... well, let us put it this way: I am the business consultant, so let me define that.
In such a game, there are no big abstracts to be called strategy, except "win" or maybe "win honourably". Thus preparation of a war can of course, if it is a nation-wide development program for a decisive war in a distant future, with the goal to path the road to win the game, be a strategy. It is not as simple as shields=tactics, theoretical waffling=strategy.
- If I have a really good plan for each civ on this planet to destroy it, and I like one less than the other, it will be the first one. I will keep a cool head, and still I can punish them. See?
- The Anarchie is acting egomanic: if we are not giving them what they want without a deal, we are the bad ones and the ones they have sooo many doubts about; if we give to them what they want, we still may not be good enough for them; but if they want an SGL, even you think it is just fine if they use our intelligence (which we gave to them FOR FREE) for their purpose.
And you are really worried that they believe we are not nice enough? I rather fear they might die for holding their bellies that we are playing their wicked game!
To me, they are no good as a strategic partner, because they are too obviously selfish to be trusted.
A plan or strategy cannot be good that does not incorporate how other parties have behaved in the past. You can always promise or hope or expect whatever you want for the future, but the past is for sure and you can see what they did back then! (it is weird that something so obvious is so often overseen or belittled by many people. this is a psychological phenomenon, btw)
- For an invasion of the other continent I counted that we cannot bring new troops there for quite a while after the first landing. If we want to cause havoc, sure, go with a few troops. But if you want to take the Kuchean empire, trust my numbers.
But why you insisted that I send them Masonry?
I wrote several times. You did not ask clarification.
So go ahead and start to discuss this. Or finally let them state that "no agreement because Anarhos (by definition) always do what they want".
Ok guys, read all the strategy posts, read again what stands here:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10473831&postcount=78 and go for another vote.
We now have the offers from Anarchos and Eagles on the table. How do you want to continue? We need a short meaningful discussion and a clear vote in my eyes, after which we proceed with whatever the outcome is.
Lanzelot posted that he still supports the Anarchie alliance.
I too stay with my 1st vote and support to deal with both, but really ally with the Eagles.
Separate names with a comma.