SGOTM 22 - Anti-TSR

Looks like we can get to size 24 eventually. The last pop will be slow. We can get +11 health from:

Pig
Banana
rice
rice
HangingG
aqu
aqu
grocer
grocer
grocer
grocer.

That's exactly enough health for size 24.
 
WastinTime said:
Looking at Knights more closely, I see they are immune to first strikes. I thought they had that ability, but I actually had to look that up, cus I've never really cared. I just ignore the first strike effect. I never take those promotions on my attackers. But this game, I've seen LBs with 4-5 first strikes! Maybe Knights will tear them up. (especially with city revolt).
Click to expand...

LC had a much less subtle way of reminding me of this fact in SGOTM-17. :lol:

I'm following along as best I can. Looking forward to reading about this next turnset. As we all know, it's the most important set of this game! :p
 
:lol: Man, did I waste a lot of time writing that post. :blush: I not only forgot about that post, but I still don't remember having written it.
 
Turnset Report

167
Horse for 13 from Brennus

ibt: Our 6.6 Prat (jungle defense) holds his ground and heals. He is attacked...
Catapult dies
Catapult ditto
Catapult same
HA joins them.
Prat's final health: 6.6 :D Now 8/5 XP

The WE's just sorta dance around aimlessly west and east.

T168
OB with Zara

Zara MiltTrad(6) :drool:

T169
Darius: merc
We trade Iron, Darius sweetens the pot by adding 10 gpt and Ivory along with Stone, Copper, and banana!
And, we get +1 health from banana without Calendar.

T170

Brennus loses IC to the Barbs

Sal's HA and 3 WEs continue to patrol between Najran and Kufah. Odd.

Maybe I should upload soon so you can see all of Zara's land. Ideally I could finish this turn tonight and save the 171 DoW for the weekend.

2 Zara HAs appear at Rome NW.

Kufah bombarded to 0%
 
LowtherCastle said:
Sorry, Mitch, that was a wee bit brutal. :blush:
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's only a game. It's actually funny to look back and see how bent out of shape one can get. Our team has had its share of drama for sure. :mischief:

By the way, if I have any more kimchi, I'm going to die. I'm looking forward to getting back to the land of avocados.
 
th


Looks like dog food to me.
 
LowtherCastle said:
We could pull back the pike from Kufah, rather than build another.
Click to expand...

Pike is already standing next to Kufah. I suppose we won't attack with it if we don't have to. I'll see what I can do about transporting it back if we get Kufah and a peace deal next turn, but it might not be worth it. Just let our Prats handle the problem.

If we rush everything and DoW zara 171 we will only have 14 units (because we must unload a spy and hindu) We can have 16 if we wait 1t. Of those we have 3 siege.

I've paused play. Not sure I can get back to it tonight.
Lali (from memory) has 2 LB, 2 mace, HA, cat.
 
Off topic (which applies to 99% of my posts these days) :D:

It turns out that I'm going to kill myself regardless of how much kimchi I eat, which is basically spicy, pickled, half-rotten cabbage. I'm in a room with about 30 people and we're trying to agree on the wording for a new process. The 30 of us come from 35.4 different countries and Broken English is the common tongue. It reminds me of a passage I recently read.

Following is an extract from the Minutes of an English Borough Council Meeting:
Spoiler :
Councillor Trafford took exception to the proposed notice at the entrance of South Park: "No dogs must be brought to this Park except on a lead." He pointed out that this order would not prevent an owner from releasing his pets, or pet, from a lead when once safely inside the Park.

The Chairman (Colonel Vine): What alternative wording would you propose, Councillor?

Councillor Trafford: "Dogs are not allowed in this Park without leads."

Councillor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, I object. The order should be addressed to the owners, not the dogs.

Councillor Trafford: That is a nice point. Very well then: "Owners of dogs are not allowed in this Park unless they keep them on leads."

Councillor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, I object. Strictly speaking, this would prevent me as a dog-owner from leaving my dog in the back-garden at home and walking with Mrs. Hogg across the Park.

Councillor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that our legalistic friend be asked to redraft the notice himself.

Councillor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, since Councillor Trafford finds it so difficult to improve on my original word, I accept. "Nobody without his dog on a lead is allowed in this Park."

Councillor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I object. Strictly speaking, this notice would prevent me, as a citizen who owns no dog, from walking in the Park without first acquiring one.

Councillor Hogg (with some warmth): Very simply, then: "Dogs must be led in this Park."

Councillor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I object: this reads as if it were a general injunction to the Borough to lead their dogs into the Park.

Councillor Hogg interposed a remark for which he was called to order; upon withdrawing it, it was directed to be expunged from the Minutes.

The Chairman: Councillor Trafford, Councillor Hogg has had three tries; you have had only two.

Coucillor Trafford: "All dogs must be kept on leads in this Park."

The Chairman: I see Councillor Hogg rising quite rightly to raise another objection. May I anticipate him with another amendment: "All dogs in this Park must be kept on the lead."

This draft was put to the vote and carried unanimously, with two abstentions.
 
Mitchum said:
Off topic (which applies to 99% of my posts these days) :D:

It turns out that I'm going to kill myself regardless of how much kimchi I eat, which is basically spicy, pickled, half-rotten cabbage. I'm in a room with about 30 people and we're trying to agree on the wording for a new process. The 30 of us come from 35.4 different countries and Broken English is the common tongue. It reminds me of a passage I recently read.

Following is an extract from the Minutes of an English Borough Council Meeting:
Spoiler :
Councillor Trafford took exception to the proposed notice at the entrance of South Park: "No dogs must be brought to this Park except on a lead." He pointed out that this order would not prevent an owner from releasing his pets, or pet, from a lead when once safely inside the Park.

The Chairman (Colonel Vine): What alternative wording would you propose, Councillor?

Councillor Trafford: "Dogs are not allowed in this Park without leads."

Councillor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, I object. The order should be addressed to the owners, not the dogs.

Councillor Trafford: That is a nice point. Very well then: "Owners of dogs are not allowed in this Park unless they keep them on leads."

Councillor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, I object. Strictly speaking, this would prevent me as a dog-owner from leaving my dog in the back-garden at home and walking with Mrs. Hogg across the Park.

Councillor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that our legalistic friend be asked to redraft the notice himself.

Councillor Hogg: Mr. Chairman, since Councillor Trafford finds it so difficult to improve on my original word, I accept. "Nobody without his dog on a lead is allowed in this Park."

Councillor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I object. Strictly speaking, this notice would prevent me, as a citizen who owns no dog, from walking in the Park without first acquiring one.

Councillor Hogg (with some warmth): Very simply, then: "Dogs must be led in this Park."

Councillor Trafford: Mr. Chairman, I object: this reads as if it were a general injunction to the Borough to lead their dogs into the Park.

Councillor Hogg interposed a remark for which he was called to order; upon withdrawing it, it was directed to be expunged from the Minutes.

The Chairman: Councillor Trafford, Councillor Hogg has had three tries; you have had only two.

Coucillor Trafford: "All dogs must be kept on leads in this Park."

The Chairman: I see Councillor Hogg rising quite rightly to raise another objection. May I anticipate him with another amendment: "All dogs in this Park must be kept on the lead."

This draft was put to the vote and carried unanimously, with two abstentions.
Click to expand...
Just be sure not to engage in any conversation related to eating peanuts. :p
 
WastinTime said:
Pike is already standing next to Kufah. I suppose we won't attack with it if we don't have to. I'll see what I can do about transporting it back if we get Kufah and a peace deal next turn, but it might not be worth it. Just let our Prats handle the problem.

If we rush everything and DoW zara 171 we will only have 14 units (because we must unload a spy and hindu) We can have 16 if we wait 1t. Of those we have 3 siege.

I've paused play. Not sure I can get back to it tonight.
Lali (from memory) has 2 LB, 2 mace, HA, cat.
Click to expand...
Well played so far!

I'm off to Lali land. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Sticky
6otm203 AAR (After Actions Report)
Replies
2
Views
468
Brunotaurus
Brunotaurus
T
  • Sticky
6otm202 (After Actions Report)
Replies
7
Views
499
Thorak
T
T
  • Sticky
6otm201 AAR (After Actions Report)
Replies
6
Views
625
elmagico
E
T
6otM199 After Actions Report (AAR)
Replies
9
Views
799
leif erikson
leif erikson
Eyswein
  • Sticky
7otM11 (Nov 2025) - Announcement
Replies
6
Views
924
Head_North
H
Back
Top Bottom