- Jun 27, 2003
- North Harbour
I agree. Archers are a bit too one dimensional at this stage of the game, even if they are a bit cheaper.
I am torn about keeping or razing Khan's cities. We are already down to 60%. Each city will add maintenance and will reduce our science. I am quite sure that we are already backward to the other civs in this game, so I do not know whether we can afford taking more cities until we have COL. What is everybody else thinking on this ?
My mantra is: when in doubt, raze away. Our main objective is to neutralise Kahn. The other factor in this is that there is nobody south of Khan who is going to expand into his vaccuum so we can take our time resettling there at the pace that suits us.
Btw I seem to remember reading in a thread somewhere that you can see the impact of keeping a city, on your gold, when you are asked if you want to keep the city. Not sure how true this is as I haven't experimented.
The city at the gems we should keep. The gems are already connected, so it will give a good amount of gold. This city should pay for itself and we would have a city on that coast towards Gandhi. The others I think I would just raze and slowly resettle.
Looking forward to seeing what Jenarie's turns reveal, but I am glad things aren't moving that quickly because I'm having hard time shifting my focus between the various games that are going on around the place at the moment.
While we're waiting for the next tactical decision, can someone tell me the story of how this team came to be called The Geezers? Shame we don't have the "geezer" smilie on this Board. I'll have to use this one instead
In General I am not opposed to Razing all these Cities But I am opposed to Keeping Samarqand, the Gem City.
Yes, I've noticed you posting in Aelf's Immortal thread; and in Sisiutil's ALC as well?