SGOTM 14 - Ivan

Why 2 Cities in Celtia? We need only 1!

Because for the price of one settler, we greatly reduce the number of galleys needed to ship units from our core to Greece. This system has the drawback that one move units (pikes, crusaders) have to burn a turn while in transit. But we still don't have enough galleys to make everything work perfectly.
 
Concentrated. I cannot say that loudly or strongly enough. I made some mistakes on that early on in my turnset, and I think fragmenting our forces is the big mistake we made earlier in the game. By Concentrated, I mean we keep our units in stacks of 5+ until an island has been "cleared". Also, by concentrated, I mean we don't attack a fresh island with less than 25 units. Plus, we need reinforcements immediately available for that invasion. Knights have a huge advantage in concetration, especially in the first kind (keeping units in stacks of 5+), because they can go out to kill a unit and retreat back to protective cover. This is huge!
Listen this pals!. Valuable fresh experience. Unfortunatly I did not find proper words for that. May be "25" is too much if we can Land on Mountains (I land 8 at Rome and they did nothing), (or if we have RoP) but 5 - 6 Fortified Knights almost never attacked by AIs in Field. It is important move by small steps in dangerous area just "step - fortify" and so on.
 
Because for the price of one settler, we greatly reduce the number of galleys needed to ship units from our core to Greece. This system has the drawback that one move units (pikes, crusaders) have to burn a turn while in transit. But we still don't have enough galleys to make everything work perfectly.
Really? My impression was that we Ocean we move faster anyway...
 
"I also... really it is really contra - intuitive math that says, that bepper capture 4 citiesa and lose 4 knights then capturre 8 Cities and lose 8 Knights... Anybody will prefer second , I know..."

If this is what the math in fact says, then the equation has to be wrong! :) Because, if nothing else, we would then capture 4 cities later (and probably lose another 4 knights). I'd rather do 8 & 8 quickly.
 
Naff-Naff I'd say.

I'd write more but my hand is broken.

I hope that is a good thing?!

Consider this a "got it" but won't play for a day or two while I assess.

Condolences on the hand.
 
Thanks, that's not bad, I'm happy about bone fracture. I have more time for things that I don't do usually, also vacation! (Quite odd to surf the net with just left hand only)
 
Really? My impression was that we Ocean we move faster anyway...

Well, the ocean is a little "misplaced" to be much help in transporting to Greece, but maybe we should revisit this. :hmm:

We might have enough galleys to stretch from Yaroslav to Sparta, but only enough to transport 2 units per turn, I bet. I have felt it better to use the island shortcut: it lets us transport 4-6 fast units in one turn from Yaroslav to Sparta. But perhaps it's actually better to be able to transfer our 1 move units (pikes, crusaders) in one turn, even if it's just two units max throughput capacity. Anyhow, if we get 4-5 more galleys in the area, we can probably blow up the current model and just have a big ol' fatty ship chain from Yaroslav to Sparta.

And guys, what is the deal with this "naff-nuff-niff" stuff? :confused:

P.S. Sorry about the hand, Ignas. That's rough.
 
"I also... really it is really contra - intuitive math that says, that bepper capture 4 citiesa and lose 4 knights then capturre 8 Cities and lose 8 Knights... Anybody will prefer second , I know..."

If this is what the math in fact says, then the equation has to be wrong! :) Because, if nothing else, we would then capture 4 cities later (and probably lose another 4 knights). I'd rather do 8 & 8 quickly.
Equations are correct, what is the wrong is the "interpretation". That's why I try to find Physical sence to this. [But can't so far].
Basically it is three mathematically correct questions:
1) When it is time "to play risky" or "carefully?" And are there numerical value for that?
2) When "military enough" and finial infra must be "first priority"?
3) What is the balance between "early knights" and proper Infra?

Less clear the concept of
"concentrate"
, that says better to create overhamlet forces first and strike next. "Theory" recomend at this stage to fight vs weak opponents when losses are "negligble". Since AI "fixed" with Cities and Unit limit there is a best tacticks to have enough knights to kill them at 1-2 turns. And the simplest way to have that many is just to build them. And patiently wait when it will be enough.

However few things to take into account: 1. We need Wonders and Lux.
2. We may face GP if delay too much 3. We need too many Galleys for 1 unload.
4. For this special game we need remote Island to settle NW AIs to SW and vise a versa. Because of that I fight at Inca (I thought it will be easy target No Iron , Horses), Korea was very attractive as remote south place. But Greece was a real mistake.

As I understood from TL Persia will finish Leonardo soon and we have to direct all troops there. I think better to do it now, let Army finish what it can, but thats it.
Also it is too little troops in Japan. Kyoto needs 4 units + WLKD to supress flips. Also few Knighs near to recapture it just in case.
Why Othniel stop warriors and remove Knights? Situation in Greece not that bright, as I checked. All units are wounded and I belive many new Greek's units will appear soon.
Really I cand said it loud enough: AI near unit Limit. They will be happy if you kill some units in the field. Only Cities are counted.
Korea also looks like troops exausted. Why not razed fliped City? First time OK, to sell improuvments, to move faster, but second time?
I wrote, Zimbabwe was my mistake, why repeat ? Well if it will flips third D_W knows what to do..
Inca land: We may gift Remote tundra Cities to Babylon and Persia. The sonner the better. Better to get Tiwanuku via Peace deal, if it flps.
We have pressure evrywhere. Mongol, Maya, Germany, Zulu. Actually empty Cities attract Maya to India. It was wrong move to remove it. Hopefully 2/5 Knight will defend Delhi.
I think we need Peace with Mongols. Dunno, if Republic worth it, we may wait 1 turn and see, how much it is in reality.
Persia really nut. We will need Army for that and RoP later, I think.

Condolences on the hand, Ignas. Really all ods together...
 
Can't really post a screenshot of our progress. Map is too big. But I will post a screenie here soon on my idea of a dotmap for filling the rest of the FP core.

So, where it is? And where D-Wetzel suggestions?
 
I should have something tonight, most probably.
 
I looked at save deeply enough.

Can’ t trace back “for sure”, when but in 170 BC Persia already have started Sun-Tzu in Parsagrade. Strange, that they did not finish it yet. So, probably it will happened very soon. Since it will eventually save to us 180 gpt(!) it is an absolute priority for us.

So we may forget all other things and focus on war vs Persia. Just put suggestions how to quit from current wars in best possible ways.

Peace with Maya will give us 44+2 gpt. So, lets’ do it. Peace with Mongols costs 2 gpt now, but may be free after Maya Peace. If we return from Greece (well, we cant as have Army there…) Sparta will flip. I wonder where Army will boot then… OK, let’s continue to Greece somehow… My suggestion: Raze Sparta when flip, settle near Athens, Capture Athenes and use this small City with Barracks to heal. If Athens flips retake it with Army. Wounded troops (instead of Healing) will go immediately to Japan. They will heal on the see and in Japan. Unfortunately Othniel sell all Barracks there (very bad sole decision) and stopped warrior’s production. Also, no settler ready to settle in Greece.
So it will be like Triangle for troops Novgorod ->Athens-> Tokyo. Or may be better to give up on Athens? Really, I did not anticipate that it will take that long.

Japan: What to do? Build Barracks again?
It is absolutely not acceptable to have only 2 units in Kyoto. We need 3 or 4. RNG is binary things; most probably it has 256 grades. So, flip probability MUST be below 0.39%. (Check Civ Assist).

The closest Barracks at south area is Babylon. All horses should go there. We need Road Babylon – Nazare. It is (fortunately) worker there.
Later we may build “Cape-town”. Now it is Persia’s Territory.

War with Inca. We may sign RoP with Babylon (they pay 4 gpt) and gift Corihujarija to them. Next Inca’s City will be gifted to Persia.
After finishing Inca this part of Knights may deal with Istanbul and Ottomans. Hopefully Korea will be ready for Ottos then.

Korea. If Pusn will flip – raze. May be raze next at once? I think we may continue there and send 2 AC and Knight there. Warrior may pillage as well as AC.

Other Wars: ZULU and Germany don’t want to talk. So SE area need some defense attention.

Settlers: Don’t waste them: we need many for Combat. The Only SF is Lisbon. I have no better idea as pump Settlers from there. Also Gui may build next if native worker nex joint it after. Granary next.
Stop All native workers in Core and merge them to Cities, that without that will grow too long. (Faro, Yarosavl’, Novgorod).

Lagos may pump worker any 4-th turn, as Horse-worker combo factory.

Don’t forget to change Pickmans to Horses.

Combria will expand, so you may give now it’s tile to Emertia.

Save transportable Army, our hope for Persia.

Do'nt forget (in time) renegotiate Pece with Babs and Japan. They may pay more.
 
Sorry, time's been short. I'll try to throw up that dotmap later on.

Just a few other quick comments:

Why would we want to pull out of Greece now? I honestly think they are very gassed. Persia is an important target, yes, but mostly abandoning Greece would be a huge mistake when we have them on the ropes.

I still support the idea of securing the northern hemisphere first before major operations in the south. Persia is the one exception to this. Otherwise, imo, we run a huge risk of becoming fragmented again.

Barracks/warriors in Japan, honestly what is the big deal? A barracks there is nice, sure, so we can upgrade troops before debarking to Persia, but that is not critical. We can upgrade most of our troops on the homeland before shipping them over, and not waste turns. And warriors? Again, I thought I made a good arguement that warriors are useless except for flip supression. If you wanted to use the warriors as upgrades for MDI, maybe, but those cities still can only build warriors once per 10 turns. Not efficient when you have to also pay 1gpt for the rax. So yes, I sold the raxes, but I'm far from convinced that this was a bad move.

And are you 100% sure on the flip risk in Kyoto? IIRC, CivAssist reported a 0% flip risk for that city with the current number of defenders. As such, I felt it very prudent to just leave behind 3 mobile defenders on the Japan island and send the rest to help in Greece.

Abandon Pusan, that's fine. I didn't think the flip risk was that high anymore, and more importantly, we are so scarce with our settlers that I was trying to raze selectivly.
 
1) Barracks/warriors in Japan, honestly what is the big deal? A barracks there is nice, sure, so we can upgrade troops before debarking to Persia, but that is not critical. We can upgrade most of our troops on the homeland before shipping them over, and not waste turns. And warriors?
2) Again, I thought I made a good arguement that warriors are useless except for flip supression. If you wanted to use the warriors as upgrades for MDI, maybe, but those cities still can only build warriors once per 10 turns. Not efficient when you have to also pay 1gpt for the rax. So yes, I sold the raxes, but I'm far from convinced that this was a bad move.

3) And are you 100% sure on the flip risk in Kyoto? IIRC, CivAssist reported a 0% flip risk for that city with the current number of defenders. As such, I felt it very prudent to just leave behind 3 mobile defenders on the Japan island and send the rest to help in Greece.

4) Abandon Pusan, that's fine. I didn't think the flip risk was that high anymore, and more importantly, we are so scarce with our settlers that I was trying to raze selectivly.
1) It is all about time. It will take 3-4 turns from Cener to Persia. And rest of the south. Japan could be a major military base. At least 1 Baracks there should be.
2) To have Warriors for Flip + reserve for emergency to upgrade just in case. We can't negglect this possibility. May be "bad" is to strong, but that move will make life "uncomfortable".
3) I checed it in my turns and have checed now. It is above 1 %. If Galley with Army sink due to flip it may be a disaster.
4) Well, let give them "chanse". And Raze only after 3-d time... I think we may leave open areas as need some combat settlers. That why I was against 2 Cities in Celtia. To Have this Settler in Greece w'd be much better.

Sure, North better to have but later. I hope Army + 2 -3 Knights will manage somehow.
 
Gah. Sorry.

I will absolutely, positively, for sure have something up later this evening*.



*=Unless my kids are whiny and clingy again.
 
Dear All, why nobody write about situation? Or everething clear? Or (because we are not expected to win this) somebody lost intrest? As I know in our team Ignas best Knight expert, but I have not read his coments for a very long time. Really I do not understand what's going on.

Last week has been quite busy, at work as well as at home. Saturday evening I finally finished GOTM85 and yesterday I read everything that you guys have posted here. So I'll try to add my thoughts now.
And everybody: Don't loose hope! We had a pretty good start, and why should we not be able to catch up with Spooks and klarius again?

Can Ignas and Lanzelot (and next players) provide me information how many "Knights" (other units ar 0.5, say) they have lost in total and how many City they have captured. Just 2 figures.

I still have all CivAssist archive files of my turnset, so I can give you the exact numbers. However, the PC, on which I played that turnset, is currently packed up in a box: the house got new windows last week and the week before, and we packed up everything that doesn't like dust... So that'll have to wait till later this week.

We can take care of those 90 tiles at the point in which our military sailing for their final conquests. That way, any military we would otherwise be building would be too late to be useful anyway.

Agree. Building Kts (and perhaps settlers for overseas resettling, see below) is now prio 1. We need to crack the AI resistance, before they stack even more units...

Looks that most part of the game will be "island invasion excersise". And (based on our experience) things not goes well sometime. It is important to understand whats going wrong and not to make the same mistakes on next Island. It is hard to analise your own playout, because it is allways impression that "I try my best but RNG...". In fact statistics works in general and we have to adjust to this somehow. Game have many parameters and as soon as we understand the Macro-behavior the better. That's why I did some calculs to find out optimal way and ajust style. Theory based on "simple assumption", that City capture rate proportional to amount of "Knights" and losses proportional to amoun of captured Cities. We may take it from rule of thomb, but better to varify it somehow.
However, no matter, what these coefficients are "SQRT" at post #26 is "universal". Basically it explain what is better on current stage of the game : capture more Cities or save Knights for future players? Answer is "save more Knights is better".
All of us however try to do "opposite", in Ignas, Lanzelot and my turs it was "resonable" but still big. I wonder why? Is it "wrong theory" or it is our intuition wrong? and instead of split Knights to 33 groups better to capture each island in one or two turns?
Few words about

I've so far written nothing about the situation because (I think - not sure about DWetzel?) I'm so far the only player not to get involved in "major" combat operations - so apart from what others are saying as they return from the front, I don't really know what it's like "out there".

I think that intuitively it is wrong to delay somewhat--but that may be because we are asking an incorrect question. Or maybe I just am not understanding the math. ;)

It seems that in the present case we are limited more by our ability to bring force to the enemy (e.g galley capacity, and the turn "lost" every time we unload a galley onto land) more than our knight production capacity.
...
I have not the mental capacity to put this into equation form, but it seems as though focusing on number of knights lost may not be the "right" question. Intuitively it seems right to bring "just enough" force to each island to attack and defend against counterattacks, assuming that we can produce enough knights in the interim to invade the next island, almost regardless of the result on the first one.

Here is my experience of "what it's like out there" and my thoughts on these topics. First something on the mathematics: My "feeling" tells me, that it should be very important to minimize losses, because a unit that survives takes 1-2 turns to heal and can then attack again right away. But a unit that gets killed, needs to be re-build in the core, up-graded, sent to a port town and then shipped all the way back to the front. Also the time to ship units from one island to the next adjacent one is much much shorter than to ship them all the way from the core to the distant island. So in my understanding the "Loss rate" should be a more important factor than the equations currently suggest?! Perhaps the equations don't put enough emphasis on two factors: the time needed to transport replacements from the core to the front and our limited galley capacity. (I think the factor "f" reflects this a bit, but perhaps not enough?!)
Just as an example, if there are enough units left from the war in Greece, they (+ a few reinforcements from the core) can already strike at Mongolia much much earlier than if you had to ship a complete new army from the core to Mongolia! In any case, moving cautiously and avoiding losses feels like the right thing to do here.

Also I have been thinking about the annoying flips, which are really a pain in the butt. Perhaps we need indeed 3-4 settlers in each attack group (turning Lisbon into a settler factory/combo is fine with me) and just raze&replace the capital and 2-3 cities with the highest flip-risk right away (or rather after gifting and retaking them to a third party, see below)? These will probably be the ones, which have accumulated the most culture, so this may also reduce the flip-risk for the remaining towns?

- Filled one Army in Greece. I know Ivan and I disagreed a little on this, but I felt strongly it was the right move. I think it's helped alot, both to take down tough city defenders and to cover our big stack so the Greek MDI wouldn't attack us.

I don't blame you here... I think, we should use our Armies this way. Better make the best use out of a size-3 Army and conquer a heavily defended opponent quickly, than to risk loosing a size-1 Army on a Chasqui... (Man, that must have been a shock for you...!)
Persia is our next prio 1 target and they have Immortals, so I vote for filling our second army in Persia and using it to best effect there.

First off, we can't "poof" away island defenders by killing all their cities. So we're forced to basically kill each and every defender to secure an island. Moreover, the flip risks on newly captured cities, especially if it is our first foothold on the island, are astronomically high.
...
Also, revisiting the Pike/MDI vs Knight question, I think undoubtedly our Knight strategy is superior.

Yes, we can't "poof" in this game, but still I was very impressed by Ivan's Indian campaign and perhaps that tactic can be used again in the following way ("island attack plan"):

  • Let A be the target and B a "friend" of A, which is at peace with us and has already been reduced to size 1. B should not have a RoP with A.
  • Gift a far-away town to A
  • Declare war, take a town and settle another town (using a settler that has been included in the attack force) in such a way, that the taken town "shields" our founded town
  • Leave the captured town undefended and move the wounded units into our settled town. The green units approach the next town to be captured.
  • The counter attack stack will move next to the undefended town. Take the next town. Move wounded into our settled town again and then gift the town captured in the previous turn to B.
  • The big stack will now change direction and start approaching the next undefended town. Repeat that scheme until all towns are taken and gifted to B.
  • Now make peace with A and then take all towns back from B.
Result: We have all of A's towns, A now has a far-away town somewhere, and a big stack of units left on the original island. A will probably have negative gpt by now and the units get auto-disbanded every turn... :D Will A keep the 20-turn peace deal? If we are lucky, 20 units will be disbanded by then. However there's also the risk, that he attacks us again later, if there are still units left on "our" island. (As the example of Arabia has shown, even size-1 AIs attack us, if they are mad enough...)

Regarding Kt versus MI+Pike: in GOTM85 I experimented with both. The situation was similar, but not identical, because the islands were much bigger, so the Kt movement even more important than here. Still I think, the experience can be transferred to this game. In the beginning I tried a pure Swordsman/MI attack on Arabia, but that was painfully slow and had high losses (wounded MI remained in the open and got picked up by enemy horses). After I switched to Kts it went better. So I think Kts are the better choice. Only mix a small amount of MI/Pikes into the stack for the initial attack and for cheap cover.
But I think a few more trebuchets might help. (In PTW artillery units are almost useless in attack, but C3C is different.) Cities on hills are tough nuts and need to be cracked either with trebs (10 or so) or with a size-3 Army.
So if we attack an island, that has cities on hills, bring 10 trebs!

So we may forget all other things and focus on war vs Persia. Just put suggestions how to quit from current wars in best possible ways.

Sure, Persia is prio 1 at the moment, but do we really need to bring back our Greek forces all the way to Persia?! I would much rather advance it to Mongolia. (After finishing the job in Greece completely, and if there are still enough left.)
Can't we just sent our remaining "shippable" Army, the forces from Korea and all units, which are currently build in the core, to Persia?

Lanzelot
 
Okay, I have the save open on the adjacent laptop as I type this. I have some definite good news/bad news thoughts. I'm trying to take a "big picture" view before getting down to details. And I think we may want to partly rethink things.

First, we have a LOT of land to claim on our own landmass. Counting coastal tiles, which count as domination tiles, we have the following tiles unclaimed (feel free to check my math!):

26 at south tip near Babylon
17 in immediate area between Ashur and Rostov
64 in area from Hlobane up to Mecca
2 off coasts of Mecca and Medina
23 in Babylon or off coast
39 in Ottoman of off coast
7 in land SW of Ottmans
2 NE of Braga
11 north & west of Coimbra-Emerita
38 along west coast from Lagos down to Nineveh

That's, if my math and counting is right, 229 tiles that are on our landmass, or adjacent to it, which we do not currently control. Note that this does require evicting the Babs and Ottomans once and for all from the landmass, but I think that's doable. It also counts every tiles which directly touches our coast, which should be doable but requires making sure there is no coastal encroachment.

Between the Incan landmass and what's left on France, that's another 100 tiles roughly. (It depends a bit on what we count between Incan and Iroquois lands.) We can probably add another 100+ just from areas where we already have a foothold (old Japan, Celt-land). Which means that with judicious city placement and aggressive resettling, we can probably claim 500+ tiles ON CONTINENTS WE ALREADY HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER. That leaves only about 700 left to "conquer" (understanding that we may have to re-evict a few civs in the end game one more time, but that should be the easy part).

Now, the bad news is that a couple of the other teams, who I assume have gotten ToA on their landmass by one means or another, will pick up those 200+ tiles for "free". We won't. But there's a lot to be said for looking at other means besides pure military to pick up those tiles.

A lot of the internal land (i.e. between Mecca and Rostov) can be claimed by settlers... it could also be claimed by a couple of strategically-placed temples though. IF we think that the game will go on another 50 turns or so, it makes sense to rush temples. Two or three temples are much cheaper than trying to pop our a half-dozen settlers--especially in some of our "core" areas that are near our forbidden zone.

This is especially important in areas where we have coastal or near-coastal cities (e.g Lagos, Yaroslavl). A couple of culture buildings there would pick up 10 tiles in the first bump between them, and another 4 on the second bump. 14 tiles is a pretty decent return on two temples or libraries, in my opinion. A temple in Rostov would pick up 12 tiles in one bump, and 5 more coastal tiles on the second bump.

Alternatively, we could research Literature (would take us 5 turns, at 30% science initially, reduced to 20% about halfway through), and do libraries, which would take 34 turns for two culture bumps--39 turns in all, counting the research time. This would make sense if we thought we could conquer in about 40 turns the extra available land. That seems like an entirely reasonable goal to me.

I have not yet had time to fully dotmap and plan things. What I could use some help with is a best guess to estimate how long it will take us to take approximately 700 tiles worth of land by force. That's probably 4-5 additional land masses depending on the size.

We know we want Persia, for various reasons (relatively large size, adjacent coastal, Leo's, and we don't have to worry about gifting them somewhere else because they already have a city off-island). We've just started work on Greece--I think that might make an excellent site for final re-gifting of civs we plan to evict one more time (Babs, Ottomans)--meaning we need a few settlers there to close-pack cities in.

Besides Persia, what is the most convenient way to take out three-ish other civs given the current placement of our forces? My laptop just ran out of battery, but if we wish to concentrate forces on one particular area, it seemed to make sense to me to take the Greek forces and head south to Egypt--or was that Mongolia--whichever one is due south of Greece; finish taking out the Inca and then return home for battle in the Persia area; and move on to Aztecs and Rome for the final batch of tiles. Does this make sense as a basic strategic plan?

Given the number of tiles we need to take by conquest, what is I.Larkin's equation saying (roughly) about the number of knights we need per tile of conquest? (One other thing we've not considered in this is a diminishing-returns aspect; 1000 knights will take an island very quickly, but it won't do the job much more quickly than 50 would.)

My other immediate gut reaction is that we need a lot more settlers rather than galleys in our outlying towns. Towns that would start those now would finish in 30 turns, which seems about right for our final push of gift/conquer some of the cities on our controlled landmasses.

I will try to work up a fairly detailed plan tonight of the optimum way to control some of the tiles on semi-controlled landmasses as quickly as possible. I think we may prepare to do a lot of aggressive re-settling on those landmasses to get more coastal cities (to more easily capture coastal tiles), which we have not done much at all of to date. I ask that you all be patient--this feels like a fairly crucial turnset in terms of big-picture strategy, and I'm trying to make sure we don't miss anything. We've been very focused on the military aspects of things, and are doing a good enough job in that area--but the less of that we have to do, the faster we can finish.
 
Very brief: 1) Hope that somebody else will research Lit.
2) is my "peace regulation " good?
3) Lanzelot described how I wared, with minimum Knights to conquer. Is it clear?
4) Basic sheme "Fresh Knights to Greece, wounded to Japan", shattel scheme, like on the picture.
Basic idea not to wait 3-4 turns while Knights heal, but send it to Japan to prepare to Perisa strike. Galley also will travel there. I am not going to give up from Grecee, but combine war there with Persia preparation and Galley trnsfer.
We better capture Athenes first and have own small City nearby.

else because they already have a city off-island).
This City too close, example with Zimbabwe shows that it must be very far away. So Persia, Babylon will get Inca's Cities.

Besides Persia, what is the most convenient way to take out three-ish other civs given the current placement of our forces? My laptop just ran out of battery, but if we wish to concentrate forces on one particular area, it seemed to make sense to me to take the Greek forces and head south to Egypt--or was that Mongolia--whichever one is due south of Greece; finish taking out the Inca and then return home for battle in the Persia area; and move on to Aztecs and Rome for the final batch of tiles. Does this make sense as a basic strategic plan?

Given the number of tiles we need to take by conquest, what is I.Larkin's equation saying (roughly) about the number of knights we need per tile of conquest? (One other thing we've not considered in this is a diminishing-returns aspect; 1000 knights will take an island very quickly, but it won't do the job much more quickly than 50 would.)
Statistics say that we lose about 3.5 Knights per City. It is about 90 City to capture, so we need at least 300 Knights to produce. We may produce infra in parralel, but should take into account that later loss rate may be higher: Germany may discover GP, and China Riders. I think After Persia Those two will be our next targets. Mongolia, Rome, America may wait.

I will travel tomorrow (30 hours trip with lot plane chandes) will look from aiports, probably, but not sure.
 

Attachments

  • Triangle.jpg
    Triangle.jpg
    212.5 KB · Views: 111
1. Well, the problem with hoping someone else does it is that if someone doesn't do that VERY soon, we're better off with temples now. Against that, it'll cost us roughly 375 gold now to research it ourselves. It may depend on what the second culture bump is worth; it may be more useful to not bother.

2. Not quite sure what you mean--did you mean "peace renegotiation"?

3. I have a reasonably good idea. The execution may be slightly lacking, but I'll do my best. War is not my strong point.

4. That makes sense in general.

I'm curious how you came to your 90 cities number? That seems VERY high. If we take out seven enemy civs completely, that's only about 35-40 of their cities in total, since they're averaging about 5-6 cities each. (China seems a bit more, but Persia for instance is 5 on their mainland from what I recall.) Even accounting for higher losses down the road, that would mean we would lose at most 150-160 knights, not 300. And, of course, once we capture the last city, optimally speaking we'd have zero knights left--more than that is a waste. (Of course, in practice, there should be some overrun, but we shouldn't be building 50 extra knights that we don't need, it's a waste of shields.)
 
Back
Top Bottom