Realpolitik CIV - An Interactive AAR

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am still wavering on Plymouth. I usually dont like to build cities so close together. It would also, like Ravus says, stop us from vassalizing them later. And Iceland usually has some resource like deer, but we should explore it first. If it looks like it could possibly be a decent city then we should make one there.

And we will build the libraries anyway as they are very powerful. The great Library would also be a likely wonder choice that we could build. This quest only offers more incentive to build these.
 
I am still wavering on Plymouth. I usually dont like to build cities so close together.

Wasting valuable food resources is far worse. As is the case with settling on resources (yes), sometimes the optimal solution is not what seems natural. However, in this case, using valuable tiles that would otherwise be wasted is the only optimal choice.
 
I am still wavering on Plymouth. I usually dont like to build cities so close together. It would also, like Ravus says, stop us from vassalizing them later. And Iceland usually has some resource like deer, but we should explore it first. If it looks like it could possibly be a decent city then we should make one there.

And we will build the libraries anyway as they are very powerful. The great Library would also be a likely wonder choice that we could build. This quest only offers more incentive to build these.

It costs more to maintain a city in Iceland than it would be to place it in Great Britain. Plus, it's going to take a while to build the infrastructure around Ravus-York, especially if the Romans get pillage happy. On the other hand, there's a great place on the island that's not being used and with decent infrastructure being unused.

Besides, why should we think about vassalizing the Irish? It would be beneficial to simply annex Ireland in the future and turn Rome into an Eastern European buffer state.
 
No Ilduce, there is no unclaimed land in germany. If you had read the comments in the updates (the updates themselves for that matter) then you would realize that. Go back and look at the screenies of the last couple of updates.

Also, why make rome a buffer? If we are going to annex Ireland, then we shoudl annex rome eventually.

Like i said, maybe we should explore iceland first. But i am against a city in plymouth, as i dont see a need for it. If we annex the irish mongols then london will control england, and new horizons will cover ireland and plymouth (i think). A city in plymouth would interfere with ireland, hurting us in the long run if we annex them.
 
If by "annex" we mean conquer, no, it won't hurt Ireland if we conquer them by settling Plymouth. If we take them as vassals, perhaps. On the other hand, I don't see any point to taking them as vassals; they will probably serve us better as trading partners, if that. Plymouth can become an enormous boon to our empire, and it would be nonsense to not settle that sight.

But, it's moot ... for the time being. As we are at war, and the spot is in no danger of being settled, we'll take care of it later.
 
Good point change the construction of a settler to a unit who can actually attack

I hope you realize that i am not a dumb idiot and i have already changed that in the plans that i have already sent to LH. If i really was that dumb to keep the settler in production, then i would be sad that i got elected. Why would the settler still be in production in the first place?
 
First off :lol::lol::lol: Your reaction amused me. I never accused you of being an idiot, I just wanted to make sure you remembered. Who knows maybe you accidentally forgot, I have in the past. The other reason is I was worried you might be one of the pacifists who think JC will sign peace in 10 turns.
 
Also, why make rome a buffer? If we are going to annex Ireland, then we shoudl annex rome eventually.

Because Ireland is close to the home island and just plain in the way. Rome, on the other hand, isn't in our way if you think about it. As a matter of fact, it's probably one of the greatest shields we have if we're able to turn them into a vassal. If we ever go to war with any power beyond Eastern Europe, we can simply march through Rome and use their roads. However, if anyone beyond Eastern Europe tries to come for us, they'll have to go through Rome and it would be Roman lives being loss and Rome's issue to fix. We don't need to prop up their infrastructure, that's their job. We just need to prop them up politically with a leader who kowtows to the glory of England.


Like i said, maybe we should explore iceland first. But i am against a city in plymouth, as i dont see a need for it. If we annex the irish mongols then london will control england, and new horizons will cover ireland and plymouth (i think). A city in plymouth would interfere with ireland, hurting us in the long run if we annex them.

Which would bring us into contact with a few more civilizations and given England's inability to barely hold on to what she has, this is the last thing we want to do. It won't hurt us in the long-run if we annex them. It'll hurt them in the long run if we don't annex them.

We're also technologically inferior to Rome (and yes, the fact they have construction and we don't mean we're behind) and establishing a city in Iceland, which is farther away from the capital than a city in Plymouth would hurt us greatly in the short-term.

And let's face it, this war with Rome will take quite some time and because we have to shift from to war-footing quickly, our economy is going to suffer even once your term comes to an end, especially if we push an offensive. Then we're going to have to pay for the increased upkeep of holding our new holdings (if we gain any).

The last thing that should be on England's mind following the war is expansion into Iceland or Germany. It should be finally improving the countryside of Ravus-York and getting our economy on a stable footing. And Iberia, which has the potential to become a MAJOR source of gold and silver, is so heavily neglected that the region is probably a huge economic death spiral for our economy which, as I stressed, will have to switch to a war-footing and build the military England should've have had built up fifty years ago.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of Englishmen living in poverty because potential places of work (diamond quarries, gold and silver mines, farming of wheat) are being ignored. Iberia has the potential to bring in so much revenue for England but it's been neglected.


At this point, no matter who wins this war, England loses. We're going to lose lives and Antium is a fortress at the moment compared to Ravus-York and if Rome really wants it, Nottingham will crumple. Why is anyone surprised that Rome, seeing a country militarily weak on its borders, decided to invade?


In short, we need to get onto a war-footing (which we are thank God) and peace out with Rome as soon as possible because an offensive is off to the far future and Rome is invading now. After the war, we need to stop expanding because we're not properly using the land we control. Then we should start expanding again.
 
We're also technologically inferior to Rome (and yes, the fact they have construction and we don't mean we're behind) and establishing a city in Iceland, which is farther away from the capital than a city in Plymouth would hurt us greatly in the short-term.

And let's face it, this war with Rome will take quite some time and because we have to shift from to war-footing quickly, our economy is going to suffer even once your term comes to an end, especially if we push an offensive. Then we're going to have to pay for the increased upkeep of holding our new holdings (if we gain any).

The last thing that should be on England's mind following the war is expansion into Iceland or Germany. It should be finally improving the countryside of Ravus-York and getting our economy on a stable footing. And Iberia, which has the potential to become a MAJOR source of gold and silver, is so heavily neglected that the region is probably a huge economic death spiral for our economy which, as I stressed, will have to switch to a war-footing and build the military England should've have had built up fifty years ago.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of Englishmen living in poverty because potential places of work (diamond quarries, gold and silver mines, farming of wheat) are being ignored. Iberia has the potential to bring in so much revenue for England but it's been neglected.


At this point, no matter who wins this war, England loses. We're going to lose lives and Antium is a fortress at the moment compared to Ravus-York and if Rome really wants it, Nottingham will crumple. Why is anyone surprised that Rome, seeing a country militarily weak on its borders, decided to invade?


In short, we need to get onto a war-footing (which we are thank God) and peace out with Rome as soon as possible because an offensive is off to the far future and Rome is invading now. After the war, we need to stop expanding because we're not properly using the land we control. Then we should start expanding again.

I agree with the quote above: We needed more of a defense, but the AI got more aggressive than usual here, and we need to exploit our resources a LOT more.
 
The best defense is a good offense

Actually, in Civ4, a good culture is the best defense. If your units are roughly equal, culture will bring home the win, helping you absorb other cities and protect against attacks. But that's just my two pence. ;)
 
Actually, in Civ4, a good culture is the best defense. If your units are roughly equal, culture will bring home the win, helping you absorb other cities and protect against attacks. But that's just my two pence. ;)

No, a good culture isn't a good defense unless you're in the cities. Culture doesn't prevent Romans roaming the countryside and burning the little infrastructure we have in place and since the Romans have siege units, culture doesn't help as much as it use to.
 
I pretty much agree with what sonereal's been saying.
 
I have found that the best defense is a good offense, If I am attacking the AI will generally move all their units into cities and fortify them. However if they have more power then me they will still attack.
 
I pretty much agree with what sonereal's been saying.

Same. But, then again, we are of a similar mind-set. :)

Culture: If you're talking about culturally flipping an enemy city, it's actually very hard in Civ IV compared to Civ III. You can certainly do it, but it's usually just easier to conquer the city in question. Now, having large cultural borders, i.e., tactical control of the battlefield can be very helpful, but it doesn't assure anything. Of course, defenders always have the advantage, all else being equal (which, in this case, things are not equal).

To echo what Sonereal has been saying, our goal at the moment should be to win some tactical victories (though LH is really the one commanding the troops, all things said and done), and sue for peace as quickly as possible. White peace preferable, but I think we can afford to give up a cheap technology. We do not have the economic infrastructure in place to sustain a drawn-out campaign, and we certainly can't afford to build the large armies that arya has called for (however, in 11 turns, most of that won't be built, so it's not a big issue). So the process should be:

*Hold off the Romans.
*Get peace.
*Develop our infrastructure and economy while building a new military task-force.
*Give Rome some payback.
*Gloat.
*Develop new territory until we can afford to find a new target.

We may or may not have Feudalism by the time we attack again. We could wait for it, but that can be chancy since they'll have more time to prepare, as well. But, not an issue worth worrying about now. We have to survive the current conflict, first.
 
Exactly. Since our industrial base (from what I'm getting anyways) is not the best, this is the whole reason I'm advocating peace ASAP (but without outrageous concessions).
THEN we use our counterattack. But that will need significant investment in infrastructure and military.
 
Exactly. Since our industrial base (from what I'm getting anyways) is not the best, this is the whole reason I'm advocating peace ASAP (but without outrageous concessions).
THEN we use our counterattack. But that will need significant investment in infrastructure and military.

Yes, though I just want to clarify a point on "infrastructure" (this may be what you meant). We need to increase our coin, as well. Units cost money; they cost more money when they are outside of our cultural borders. We need those Gold and Silver mines running, we need cottages, and all that nice financial stuff. I'd probably recommend Libraries in any city with a net income of 8 beakers, wherever we've got our slider at (though should be binary research).

We'll want to found new cities that are likely to increase our overall income, as well. Like Plymouth. We should avoid settling distant cities that we won't be able to develop for a long time.
 
I agree with Whosit, if the first presidents actually made England a power, we wouldn't be in this situation, it was the presidents and the oppositions fault, the pres for not making an army, the opposition for that stupid rebellion that just weakened are empire. ahwell.


For now we should focus on infrastructure and build the occasional military unit, and once we have the army to do so we slaughter the romans. What might not be a bad idea is rushing civil service and getting maceman before anyone has longbows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom