SGOTM7 - Team Wacken
- Thread starter mad-bax
- Start date
WackenOpenAir
Deity
I think we need to remove the cultural thread of both.
If we attack the zulu, we still should attack Baghdad as well IMO. We could then however raze it and not need to worry about keeping it. With some luck, they moved most of their forces to fight Persia.
Attacking a civ with iron before pikes could help us in the future as we might be able to prevent ever even having to fight pikes.
We need to research probably anywhere between 40 and 70 turns before we have chivalry and will be able to fight pikes. 40 if our science output turns our prosperous and we get a free tech at new age that is usefull. 70 if our science output is less prosperous and we get the wrong tech from our scientific trait.
With 40 turns, we would probably just be done with the zulu and arabs and have knights at just the right time to continu on those defended by pikes.
40 turns is however the best case scenario.
If it is 70 turns, we will be done after 40 turns with zulu and arabs, and we will be waiting 30 turns for knights to start fighting pikes.
On top of that, even if we get to knights in 40 turns, knights vs spears is still better than knights vs pikes.
That said, i stated my reasons to take a civ with Iron first.
Of course, i there also are very good reasons to do otherwise, most importantly the geographic strategical position and the diplomatic situation. Arab's and Persia are keeping eachother busy, they won't bother us too much while we take the zulu. If however we attack arab's / Persia, the zulu will be on us as well.
Therefore, i am not too sure about whom to attack. It is not an obvious and easy choise imo.
If we go for zulu, we should really give a little extra focus to science as we want to have chivalry asap.
(note, i do not advocate building libs in every crappy vilage, but we should pay more efford to ICSing north India ASAP and irrigating grassland there so that each city can support 2 scientists in monarchy.)
*the 40 and 70 turns are estimates. I have not calculated a thing about them, don't burn me if they are not accurate
If we attack the zulu, we still should attack Baghdad as well IMO. We could then however raze it and not need to worry about keeping it. With some luck, they moved most of their forces to fight Persia.
Attacking a civ with iron before pikes could help us in the future as we might be able to prevent ever even having to fight pikes.
We need to research probably anywhere between 40 and 70 turns before we have chivalry and will be able to fight pikes. 40 if our science output turns our prosperous and we get a free tech at new age that is usefull. 70 if our science output is less prosperous and we get the wrong tech from our scientific trait.
With 40 turns, we would probably just be done with the zulu and arabs and have knights at just the right time to continu on those defended by pikes.
40 turns is however the best case scenario.
If it is 70 turns, we will be done after 40 turns with zulu and arabs, and we will be waiting 30 turns for knights to start fighting pikes.
On top of that, even if we get to knights in 40 turns, knights vs spears is still better than knights vs pikes.
That said, i stated my reasons to take a civ with Iron first.
Of course, i there also are very good reasons to do otherwise, most importantly the geographic strategical position and the diplomatic situation. Arab's and Persia are keeping eachother busy, they won't bother us too much while we take the zulu. If however we attack arab's / Persia, the zulu will be on us as well.
Therefore, i am not too sure about whom to attack. It is not an obvious and easy choise imo.
If we go for zulu, we should really give a little extra focus to science as we want to have chivalry asap.
(note, i do not advocate building libs in every crappy vilage, but we should pay more efford to ICSing north India ASAP and irrigating grassland there so that each city can support 2 scientists in monarchy.)
*the 40 and 70 turns are estimates. I have not calculated a thing about them, don't burn me if they are not accurate
@Wotan: The only mistakes i did is by moving galley north and noth back where it came from and by making bad report.
Actually to tell the entire true i declared not the same turn, but turn after i had met the archer. Scandinavia indeed appeared on f4 screen and i had no choice according to rules.
I was writing the report after playing couple of turns in a row and didn't feel well yesterday.... Hence missinterpretation of the facts.
However i feel very ashamed of breaking rules on joining a worker for pop-rushing
. I totally absolutely forgot it is against the rules.
Actually to tell the entire true i declared not the same turn, but turn after i had met the archer. Scandinavia indeed appeared on f4 screen and i had no choice according to rules.
I was writing the report after playing couple of turns in a row and didn't feel well yesterday.... Hence missinterpretation of the facts.
However i feel very ashamed of breaking rules on joining a worker for pop-rushing
. I totally absolutely forgot it is against the rules. The Persians having iron does change things a bit. They really ought to be able to roll over the Arabs with immortals and will be having a Golden Age. It probably isn't in our interests to help them any more, or we could potentially destroy the Arabs just to be faced with lots of immortals. An attack on the Persian rear would be very nice if possible: most of their troops will probably be in Arabia.
However, the Zulus may well be the best target for now. It would of course be a bit silly to attack Zulus with horsemen, which form the bulk of our army at the moment.
However, the Zulus may well be the best target for now. It would of course be a bit silly to attack Zulus with horsemen, which form the bulk of our army at the moment.
Tubby Rower
Chronic Slacker
lurker's comment:
I think that the last line in mad-bax's response to what is a contact? means that if you can click on a unit to open up dialogue you must. I don't want you guys d-q'ed on something as trival as this.... good luck!mad-bax said:
So it is Zulu then, right???
Actually right now we are going to spend next 4-n turns in anarchy and i hope it is 4 turns not 9 like i had once before.
@Tubby, Hey stranger. Does the fact you are here means team Bede has their game officially over?
@M-B: I made a big mistake, but not in purpose. however i have an idea on how to punish players like me. I think we can use pro-sport system. Make such players to skip their turns. Few in a row for repeating offenders. It wil definitely punish the players and somewhat team. I hope and i don't think teams should be disqualified for a single mistake
Actually right now we are going to spend next 4-n turns in anarchy and i hope it is 4 turns not 9 like i had once before.
@Tubby, Hey stranger. Does the fact you are here means team Bede has their game officially over?
@M-B: I made a big mistake, but not in purpose. however i have an idea on how to punish players like me. I think we can use pro-sport system. Make such players to skip their turns. Few in a row for repeating offenders. It wil definitely punish the players and somewhat team. I hope and i don't think teams should be disqualified for a single mistake
Tubby Rower
Chronic Slacker
I'm not at liberty to say
I wouldn't want you guys to know something that the other teams don't. But Wacken's analysis of the chart might be right on.
WackenOpenAir
Deity
I have tried PM ing MB about the issue, but his message box is full.
Therefore, i asked AlanH to have a look at the situation.
Just wait to continue playing. We must have this set straight before moving on.
As it was a mistake, not a rule violation on purpose, and we reported it ourselves, let's hope he thinks of a concequence that will only undo the advantage we had from this action and not too much more than that
Therefore, i asked AlanH to have a look at the situation.
Just wait to continue playing. We must have this set straight before moving on.
As it was a mistake, not a rule violation on purpose, and we reported it ourselves, let's hope he thinks of a concequence that will only undo the advantage we had from this action and not too much more than that
grahamiam
In debt to Mr. Geisel
deleted garbage post
WackenOpenAir
Deity
Indeed, but with all opponenents before scandinavia, that is the way we did it. I made contact with zulu and India as soon as i can.
With arabia and Persia, we had not seen any unit before we made contact, only a border not big enough to make them appear on the F4 screen.
With arabia and Persia, we had not seen any unit before we made contact, only a border not big enough to make them appear on the F4 screen.
Tubby Rower
Chronic Slacker
lurker's comment: sorry I didn't mean to stir the pot. On the bright side your post count is going up without turns being played....
WackenOpenAir
Deity
Yes to conclude:
Wotan should have made contact when he had the opportunity to.
This mistake gave us some turns delay on war with scandinavia.
Hard to estimate the effect of this. But it shouldn't be too big as it is only 2 turns.
Dman made a mistake on the barracks rush build. Providing us a barracks earlier than we should have had it. There should be good ways to rectify this error.
Tubby, no problems. We made mistakes and they should be straightened. We do not want to win the sgotm in any way unfair. If we make a mistake, it is good that we get pointed to it asap.
We shall not make accusations amongs eachother about who's fault things are, everyone can make mistakes.
Wotan should have made contact when he had the opportunity to.
This mistake gave us some turns delay on war with scandinavia.
Hard to estimate the effect of this. But it shouldn't be too big as it is only 2 turns.
Dman made a mistake on the barracks rush build. Providing us a barracks earlier than we should have had it. There should be good ways to rectify this error.
Tubby, no problems. We made mistakes and they should be straightened. We do not want to win the sgotm in any way unfair. If we make a mistake, it is good that we get pointed to it asap.
We shall not make accusations amongs eachother about who's fault things are, everyone can make mistakes.
To recap our mistakes.
1. We should have been at war with Scandi 2 turns earlier than we did.
2. We have built barracks in Delhi 17 turns earlier than we would otherwise.
Scandi issue isn't biggie. 2 turns won't make a difference.
Barracks however will give us 3 vet Anc. Cavalry during these 17 turns, which is a much bigger advantage. Oh well... I'll just go and shoot myself :suicide:
1. We should have been at war with Scandi 2 turns earlier than we did.
2. We have built barracks in Delhi 17 turns earlier than we would otherwise.
Scandi issue isn't biggie. 2 turns won't make a difference.
Barracks however will give us 3 vet Anc. Cavalry during these 17 turns, which is a much bigger advantage. Oh well... I'll just go and shoot myself :suicide:
WackenOpenAir
Deity
I would like to add this:
The Persians are average in millitary compared to us.
The Arabs are weak compared to us.
The Zulu are strong compared to us.
It depends a bit on the scandinavian strength i'd say.
I think i prefer to start on the Persians, then take the arabs, then the zulu.
This way we are assured we have opponents until we have chivalry and we won't get to wait as we stand with horses against pikes.
I do not really care about the zulu becoming a powerhouse. They do not really have expansion opportunities other than conquering us. We are at war with the world, 2 small opponents means 2 capitals with low corruption etc, 1 large means only 1 capital. I think it is better if we take out 2 small ones than to take out the largest one.
That is of course except for the cultural offencive city.
To keep the zulu's off our back while we attack the persians and Arabs i would suggest using someting fortified on their island, be it with a city or not. If we do it with a city, we could maybe raze hlobane, build our own city there on a hill outside their cultural influence, and rush a library in there as well as a barracks.
The Persians are average in millitary compared to us.
The Arabs are weak compared to us.
The Zulu are strong compared to us.
It depends a bit on the scandinavian strength i'd say.
I think i prefer to start on the Persians, then take the arabs, then the zulu.
This way we are assured we have opponents until we have chivalry and we won't get to wait as we stand with horses against pikes.
I do not really care about the zulu becoming a powerhouse. They do not really have expansion opportunities other than conquering us. We are at war with the world, 2 small opponents means 2 capitals with low corruption etc, 1 large means only 1 capital. I think it is better if we take out 2 small ones than to take out the largest one.
That is of course except for the cultural offencive city.
To keep the zulu's off our back while we attack the persians and Arabs i would suggest using someting fortified on their island, be it with a city or not. If we do it with a city, we could maybe raze hlobane, build our own city there on a hill outside their cultural influence, and rush a library in there as well as a barracks.
I am pretty sure I did not make a mistake. The clarification by M-B below is talking about the various screens and utilities and that the tribe needs to be in them for contact to have been established.WackenOpenAir said:
Seeing a unit on the map is not in my opinion since that would be a very easy to miss, eg. you move a unit along a road and an enemy flashes by when you move past it. With your interpretation I would have to reload and move the unit cautiously so I stop when it becomes visible, click on it to open the dialogue and then DOW. I do believe this to be a possible interpretation but not the intended interpretation. Having the tribe appear in a utility or on a screen is a much safer and definite rule as "contact".
If units on the map would be a "point of contact" too, M-B would not have had to clarify the rule with "opponents emmisary", saying "the ability to talk to an opponent" would have been enough.
Mad-Bax said:
grahamiam
In debt to Mr. Geisel
the zulu, being stronger than us, will consume a lot of resources. imho, i'd rather try a backdoor landing on the Persians as offa suggests, then sweep up thru the Arabs to the Zulu. that way, when we do focus on the Zulu, we can do it almost 100%.
question: do we know the location of the Persian iron?
question2: any idea of how many cities the Vikings have?
question: do we know the location of the Persian iron?
question2: any idea of how many cities the Vikings have?
Similar threads
