Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
Critique for Ziggy:
550: Changing worked tiles so that wasted shields are replaced by commerce is always a good move. The fact that it allowed you to run 20% luxuries instead of 30% is just an added bonus.
Declining the alliance was a good move. Don't start a war you aren't ready to fight, no matter how tempting the offer might seem. As you saw, we were able to get just as good of a deal a few turns later from Babylon. It's always important to make the AI civs react to YOUR actions, not the other way around.
530: Workers on goto is definitely a nono. It was an accident from Ming's turn, but you're right to point this one out as something to avoid.
510: Purple does need a better defender, but we can produce that out of Athens or Sparta. Purple needs food more than anything else, so it should get a harbor next.
490: "Delphi produces swodsman...starts temple (more troops will take 8 turns so no point)" NO!
This is a common misconception among players: create enough units to start a war but then stop producing more ones. Units DIE in wars. That's expected, and it's ok. But you need to keep on producing units to ensure that the attack can continue and not peter out as all of the forces die. When you start a war, you have to keep on unit production until that war ends. No other way around it. The decision to build a temple there isn't bad, but the reasoning behind it is 
. Upgrading two warriors to swordsmen if we have the money (even if they are only regular) was a good move to add more punch to the initial attack.
470: Now here you did continue swordsman production in Athens and Sparta. Maybe you should have said when describing Corinth "I stop producing swords here because they're going to be coming from Athens and Sparta." It looks like you are aware of the need for reinforcements after all. But the logic in that previous turn's statement wasn't very good. We were able to get all Hammurabi had for an alliance anyway, making the 1st turn decision look very good indeed. But even if you had gotten nothing, I would have still approved not fighting a war before we were ready. Getting 3 Russian workers too... 
450: Thermopylae to temple? Well, it certainly needs it, but I would have suggested a Hoplite to free up the sword just sitting in the city on MP duty for action. Not a bad decision though, as Thermopylae needs a temple. St. Petersburg with no losses?
It's good luck, but we prepared well enough that it would have fallen even with poor luck. We now have silks? Since we can't trade with Babylon, I'm going to assume that you mean we have SPICES. 
Odessa flipped to us, that's quite funny. I actually had another game where a city that was about to be obliterated on the next turn flipped to me peacefully. That's always fun when it happens.
410: Corinth on temple? Well it certainly needs it, but I'm not so sure another sword wasn't a better choice. In any case, it's not a bad decision, just I'm always concerned when top shield cities are pulled off of military units in the middle of a war. Golden Age time! [dance]
390: Losing our SPICES hurts, but fortunately we can get them hooked up again shortly. Remember that the AI is not always as dumb as you think; they are programmed to go after resources as well as units and cities. At this point you now have 0 attacking units in production. Don't kill the attack by ending all military production! The faster we kill Russia, the faster we get back to our infrastructure phase. I'm going to have to switch at least one or two cities off to military units.
370: Moscow falls! You don't know how many games on mine recently have involved playing against the Russians; seems like I've been saying that it every game.
Getting the Colossus will be a big help on a small map once we get a courthouse in there and switch to Monarchy. Babylon's settler could be a problem, but we'll just work around it.
Thanks for the head's up on Sparta, I will be playing right now and post ASAP with the results.
550: Changing worked tiles so that wasted shields are replaced by commerce is always a good move. The fact that it allowed you to run 20% luxuries instead of 30% is just an added bonus.
Declining the alliance was a good move. Don't start a war you aren't ready to fight, no matter how tempting the offer might seem. As you saw, we were able to get just as good of a deal a few turns later from Babylon. It's always important to make the AI civs react to YOUR actions, not the other way around. 530: Workers on goto is definitely a nono. It was an accident from Ming's turn, but you're right to point this one out as something to avoid.
510: Purple does need a better defender, but we can produce that out of Athens or Sparta. Purple needs food more than anything else, so it should get a harbor next.
490: "Delphi produces swodsman...starts temple (more troops will take 8 turns so no point)" NO!
This is a common misconception among players: create enough units to start a war but then stop producing more ones. Units DIE in wars. That's expected, and it's ok. But you need to keep on producing units to ensure that the attack can continue and not peter out as all of the forces die. When you start a war, you have to keep on unit production until that war ends. No other way around it. The decision to build a temple there isn't bad, but the reasoning behind it is . Upgrading two warriors to swordsmen if we have the money (even if they are only regular) was a good move to add more punch to the initial attack. 470: Now here you did continue swordsman production in Athens and Sparta. Maybe you should have said when describing Corinth "I stop producing swords here because they're going to be coming from Athens and Sparta." It looks like you are aware of the need for reinforcements after all.
But the logic in that previous turn's statement wasn't very good. We were able to get all Hammurabi had for an alliance anyway, making the 1st turn decision look very good indeed. But even if you had gotten nothing, I would have still approved not fighting a war before we were ready. Getting 3 Russian workers too... 450: Thermopylae to temple? Well, it certainly needs it, but I would have suggested a Hoplite to free up the sword just sitting in the city on MP duty for action. Not a bad decision though, as Thermopylae needs a temple. St. Petersburg with no losses?
It's good luck, but we prepared well enough that it would have fallen even with poor luck. We now have silks? Since we can't trade with Babylon, I'm going to assume that you mean we have SPICES. Odessa flipped to us, that's quite funny. I actually had another game where a city that was about to be obliterated on the next turn flipped to me peacefully. That's always fun when it happens. 410: Corinth on temple? Well it certainly needs it, but I'm not so sure another sword wasn't a better choice. In any case, it's not a bad decision, just I'm always concerned when top shield cities are pulled off of military units in the middle of a war. Golden Age time! [dance]
390: Losing our SPICES hurts, but fortunately we can get them hooked up again shortly. Remember that the AI is not always as dumb as you think; they are programmed to go after resources as well as units and cities. At this point you now have 0 attacking units in production. Don't kill the attack by ending all military production! The faster we kill Russia, the faster we get back to our infrastructure phase. I'm going to have to switch at least one or two cities off to military units.
370: Moscow falls! You don't know how many games on mine recently have involved playing against the Russians; seems like I've been saying that it every game.
Getting the Colossus will be a big help on a small map once we get a courthouse in there and switch to Monarchy. Babylon's settler could be a problem, but we'll just work around it. Thanks for the head's up on Sparta, I will be playing right now and post ASAP with the results.
![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
Here's the write-up:
