BrantleyL1
Warlord
A bit of background on the game...
We are all on the same continent. It's shaped very strangely - sort of like a lopsided U - maybe closer to an L with tail... I'm pretty much in the middle. I only remember for sure a couple of the AI players. I'm playing Victoria. I've got a bunch of redcoats and doing OK. I'm in Third. Civ A and Washington are in 1st and 2nd and switch back and forth from time to time.
- Washington is to my NW and only touches me in my extreme NW corner.
- Civ A occupies almost all the territory to my East - to the coast.
- I think there is one city between us - in my NE corner that is H.C.
- Otherwise, HC is to my North, across an inland sea.
- Civ B is to my west and also has one city in the middle of my territory
- I'd been beating up on Civ B, they sued for peace, I tried to get them to go for giving me the city in my middle, but they would not go for it. So, we are currently at peace.
- Fred is to the west of Civ B, but has two size 3 cities at my SE corner.
- Hartsput (?) was to my east south of Civ A. He was giving me a hard time while I was beating up on Civ B, so I Bribed Civ A to go to war with him. They did and wiped him out.
I am war-minded at this point. So, who is next?? And that is my question. It's been almost 10 turns, so I could declare on B again. I was thinking that my next action would be to take out Fred's citys in my SE... He is far enough to the West, that he's probably not bother me traveling from there for a few turns. Or should I just wait out the peace treaty and go after "B" again?? OR should I build up some real strength and go after "A" or George? I think if I wait - that gives them too much time to advance. So, I'm thinking if I take out the weak players and then sit back, I might be able to get a diplomatic victory.
So, any thoughts??
We are all on the same continent. It's shaped very strangely - sort of like a lopsided U - maybe closer to an L with tail... I'm pretty much in the middle. I only remember for sure a couple of the AI players. I'm playing Victoria. I've got a bunch of redcoats and doing OK. I'm in Third. Civ A and Washington are in 1st and 2nd and switch back and forth from time to time.
- Washington is to my NW and only touches me in my extreme NW corner.
- Civ A occupies almost all the territory to my East - to the coast.
- I think there is one city between us - in my NE corner that is H.C.
- Otherwise, HC is to my North, across an inland sea.
- Civ B is to my west and also has one city in the middle of my territory
- I'd been beating up on Civ B, they sued for peace, I tried to get them to go for giving me the city in my middle, but they would not go for it. So, we are currently at peace.
- Fred is to the west of Civ B, but has two size 3 cities at my SE corner.
- Hartsput (?) was to my east south of Civ A. He was giving me a hard time while I was beating up on Civ B, so I Bribed Civ A to go to war with him. They did and wiped him out.
I am war-minded at this point. So, who is next?? And that is my question. It's been almost 10 turns, so I could declare on B again. I was thinking that my next action would be to take out Fred's citys in my SE... He is far enough to the West, that he's probably not bother me traveling from there for a few turns. Or should I just wait out the peace treaty and go after "B" again?? OR should I build up some real strength and go after "A" or George? I think if I wait - that gives them too much time to advance. So, I'm thinking if I take out the weak players and then sit back, I might be able to get a diplomatic victory.
So, any thoughts??