1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Our next research goal

Discussion in 'Civ2 - Game of Democracy II' started by Leowind, Oct 11, 2002.

?

What shall our next research goal be?

  1. Map Making (Triremes): 1 tech

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
  2. Republic: 1 tech

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. University (Universities): 3 techs

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Feudalism (Pikemen; Sun Tzu's): 1 tech

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. The Wheel (Chariots): 2 techs

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Iron Working (Legions): 1 tech

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Construction (Aqueducts; Coloseums; Forts): 2 techs

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Astronomy (Copernicus's Observatory): 3 techs

    10 vote(s)
    58.8%
  9. Monotheism (Crusaders; Cathedrals; Michelangelo's Chapel): 3 techs

    4 vote(s)
    23.5%
  10. Something else

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. MonkE

    MonkE Primate Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Perhaps I'm accustomed to being too far ahead! :)
     
  2. duke o' york

    duke o' york It don't mean a thing....

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,635
    Location:
    Don't get around much anymore
    I think that we should attack everything we see, except their settlers. Obviously we should only allow a single settler on our continent but they'll be worth far more once we let them build a city. I think that if you take an undefended size 1 city then you'll get the gold and the tech, but if you defeat a unit in a size 1 city then you won't. Now and again I think I remember being able to keep the city, but not all the time. :)
     
  3. Dell19

    Dell19 Take a break

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2000
    Messages:
    16,231
    Location:
    London
    We probabl;y wouldn't want to keep the city anyway...
     
  4. Rout

    Rout ZZzzzzzz

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Location:
    Leeds UK
    The whole reason the vikings have managed (if they indeed have) to get a foothold on our continent is that we have messed around with filler cities when we should have used those settlers to build cities the length of the continent.
    Lets get them off and hope they havent messed up the plans for major city placements. Then we can get back to exploring and geographic expansion.
    :shotgun: :viking:
     
  5. duke o' york

    duke o' york It don't mean a thing....

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,635
    Location:
    Don't get around much anymore
    Well if it's in the centre of the 4-special site to the north then we should definitely destroy their city but otherwise I'm not too concerned. An extra city is an extra city and if it becomes a filler then fine - we can at least use it to build some troops to defend the cities we choose to build and then starve it and build a settler. :D
     
  6. Zwelgje

    Zwelgje Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    3,953
    I agree we shouldn't destroy any Viking city we encounter, it can produce units we will need badly up there! Even if it's within the 4special radius I want us to keep it as in the beginning the 4 special city won't need all the tiles within it's radius.
    When the city has served it's purpose: :slay:
    :lol:
     
  7. duke o' york

    duke o' york It don't mean a thing....

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,635
    Location:
    Don't get around much anymore
    The trouble is that there are eight squares in the 4-special radius upon which the AI could build a city, miss out on the benefits of all the specials and still deny us the chance to build in the right place. And believe me they will!
     
  8. Leowind

    Leowind Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Eugene, OR, USA
    agree we probably shouldn't just destroy every Vik city we come across, but building units and then trying to starve out a city could be problematic if it gets too large. Better plan might be to use captured Vik cities we want to move to produce settlers and let our established cities build the units we may need up North.
     
  9. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out. If it's blocking something we want built right away, it should go, if not, let it build stuff until it gets crowded out by the other cities.

    It's good to have a general plan, but first we have to actually find them and see if they even built a city yet. We could be facing just one horseman.... or boat loads of units.....
     
  10. Leowind

    Leowind Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Eugene, OR, USA
    Which is why I suggested elsewhere not to be in too big a hurry to rush North and destroy everything Viking in our path. It would be nice to get Map Making from them, which will require that they actually have a city founded on our continent. They probably do, but there is still a significant chance that all they did was land a horse or two with no settlers.
     
  11. Duke of Marlbrough

    Duke of Marlbrough The Quiet Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,702
    Location:
    Southern CA, USA
    I think the general idea behind wiping them out is to secure our continent. That is seems to be the first priority. Secondary seems to be getting stuff from them.

    If we feel secure enough by penning them in by fortifying a unit on defensive terrain, then maybe we can try to milk them for units, gold, and tech. :)

    But, yes, rush units North.... to find them, then evaluate the situation and act accordingly. It may be eradication, it may be controlled actions. It just depends on what they have and what we want to do with it.
     
  12. Leowind

    Leowind Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    1,236
    Location:
    Eugene, OR, USA
    Duke of Marlbrough, I agree completely. Thanks for summing it all up very nicely :goodjob:
     
  13. MonkE

    MonkE Primate Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Good points, everyone. It seems to me that milking them for units, etc. is a tricky business that would require fine diplomatic and strategic skills - not nearly as simple as removing them from the area. Sounds like extra fun! :D
     
  14. GaryNemo

    GaryNemo Settler from None

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,237
    Location:
    Ohio, GMT-4
    I agree with the points above. Suppose they just landed the one Horse. Seeing it wandering in our South Iron Hills, it would have been exploring its black, right? What if we don't find a main encampment as we approach the bananas and peat? Iron City will shortly have an archer that can stroll up to the Mtns and work along them, looking for that Horse.
     
  15. duke o' york

    duke o' york It don't mean a thing....

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,635
    Location:
    Don't get around much anymore
    I'm tempted to let the horse do whatever it wants for the time being. At least until we know they don't have any cities.
    If we find a foreign city oop north then we shouldn't attack the horseman until we have units in a position to attack this city but if the horsie's alone then we should just wipe it out. It's best not to go to war before we are ready to in most circumstances, but since the AI have had some cash from us then they may be hankering after more, and will probably declare war when we tell them where to stick their demands.
    :cringe:
    (Sorry, just thought that smiley looked as though it had stuck it's demand for gold and techs where the Vikings should ;))
     

Share This Page