The Reason the 2nd Keshik HAS to live

[Provolution]

I am posting this memo as a desperate measure to save the life of the last Keshik in our Campaign Army, our very last cavalry unit in that stack, from the attempted purge by Grant2004 and his minions. This is the end of Keshiks, so to speak.

The Army needs to send scouts, which has to be a cavalry unit, to the German Hill with the gold east of Berlin. This has to happen this turn, since we need an early warning system for a German counterattack on Berlin. This is very important as the Roman peace ends in a few turns, and we do not know what the Romans and Germans make together.

So, in the 2nd Longbowman attack poll, please vote against sending the keshik. Since it is a private/secret poll, you can vote whatever you want, but for the sake of the Mongol Army and the Mongol People, vote against attacking with the 2nd Keshik.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[DaveShack]

I see both sides of this issue. That is why I would prefer to give the DP freedom to use, or not use, the 2nd keshik depending on what happens during the first battle. What if the 1st keshik fails, but leaves the longbow at .1 strength? If that happens, I think we must avenge him so that he doesn't die in vain. If the longbow ends up barely scratched, then a suicide mission for the 2nd keshik should be out of the question.

In this case, it's not a black and white question. Orders must be given which allow reaction to the tactical situation.

A General's worst fear is the necessity to send those under his command to their likely deaths. The burden of command requires the commander to weigh the lives of some against the lives of others. Even the lowest ranks know that they may be called on to pay the ultimate price in saving countless others. This is why we call the brave ones heroes.

Should we be aware of possible losses? Yes, and we should mourn every one who is lost. But we must be willing to make choices which minimize the sacrifices which must be made.

 

[Provolution]

But from a military perspective, closing down ones options is sheer folly, heroes or no heroes, sacrifice or no sacrifice. Losing one infantryman more in the assault on Berlin I can live with, but not having no keshiks left.
Since we are attacking turn 5, infantry reinforcements assures the victory, longbowman or not. The keshiks, two of them, most likely only one guaranteed, are necessary to scout, and nothing else. If we had 3-4 keshiks, I would not hesitate. The keshiks near Berlin are scarceties, this is why I disrespect squandering them.

 

[grant2004]

But from a military perspective, closing down ones options is sheer folly

And yet you won't allow the dp the option to decide whether to use this keshik or not?

 

[Provolution]

This is where we have to agree on risk, and in my opinion, I am not going below 70 % for the 2nd keshik. You probably do not care about scouting at all, do you. Your many proposals have a level of insistence, but very little research and objective criteria like odds and so on.
You never mentioned other uses of the keshiks. Dave sees my side of things. The reason, again, I am polarized in discussions, is your lack of research. You barely research your proposals, and throw in last minute alterations to the plan via polls. This is where you differ from the rest.

If we are to sacrifice a unit, I rather use one more infantryman for the attack on Berlin, which would be the case when the four catapults and a huge stack of infantry has done their job. we do not HAVE to sacrifice both keshiks, that is something you have put into everybody's head. That, and that we do not need to scout East of Berlin at all.

This is our fundamental difference Grant, I wait with my sieges till units are healed, add more assaulters so I feel confident to win, and if I have too few cavalry units (which I use to scout with, unlike you), I save them and rather sacrifice infantry.

I can accept using one keshik, but for the second keshik, there never was an odds discussion was it. If you just added the odds you found acceptable, and not, at least we would have an informed discussion. Informed discussions are always better.
Now we have done your research, so at least provide what you think is acceptable odds, acceptable losses, and this time, you have to consider scouting too, like it or not.

 

[grant2004]

I have considered all of this, not all people have the seemingly unlimited time you do to analyse and micromanage every aspect of moves. it's a ridiculus standard to say that we need to know everything about the odds of a proposed move.

I clearly see that you haven't laid out odds for your plan on attacking Berlin. What are the odds that another longbowman will be produced and promoted while you're waiting for unnecessary units to heal? What are the odds that your attack will succeed assuming that the Germans don't manage to change their force composition in four or five turns as you are assuming?

The poll that is being created isn't a poll asking for the keshik to be suicided, as you like to portray it, all that it is asking is that you give the DP the power to make a call about how the battle goes. One of the many problems I have with your plan is that you have left almost no room for the DP to adjust the strategy as the game dictates. You don't know what is going to happen in the next few turns, but you've laid out specific rules based on your assumptions of what will happen. A wise leader issues instructions that can be modified as necessary to remain relevant.

Our fundamental difference is not how we conduct sieges Provolution, our fundamental difference is that you want to lead, and have the citizens tamely follow you, I on the other hand want leaders who listen to the will of the citizens, whether it be simply through discussions, or when necessary through a poll which demonstrates where the will of the people lies.

 

[Methos]

I on the other hand want leaders who listen to the will of the citizens, whether it be simply through discussions, or when necessary through a poll which demonstrates where the will of the people lies.

I agree whole heartedly. This is the type of leader, citizen, and player I enjoy playing with. Thanks Grant!

 

[Hyronymus]

I agree too, grant2004. I don't have much up with the solitude of some demogame player. If you play a demogame you play it because you like the interaction with others. Surely this interaction can become a slow process but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for interaction.

 

[DaveShack]

our fundamental difference is that you want to lead, and have the citizens tamely follow you, I on the other hand want leaders who listen to the will of the citizens, whether it be simply through discussions, or when necessary through a poll which demonstrates where the will of the people lies.

I agree, but would strive for an even higher standard than that.

I want leaders who make proposals that can be understood on the 1st reading, respond to citizen questions with more details and not "trust me" type statements, and engage citizens in dialogue when there are disagreements on specifics. I also like to see officials give their peers suggestions instead of orders.

 

[fed1943]

I shall not speak about legal questions.

About this civ game: to attack across the river is a mistake; it's easy to see

the interest of not allow the enemy bow join the defenders of Berlin.

But the keshik would lose badly and the bow arrives at Berlin anyway: an

useless sacrifice.

To attack Berlin right now,perhaps not so wrong (1 cat+4 axe+1 mace) but also

a poor move because the bow there is 13,6 worth. (No cheat to find this, just

to count is needed). The city could fall, or not, but a terrible price.

If the goal is to avoid the bow to arrive at Berlin, move the healthy keshik to

NE of Berlin, 2 units to N of Berlin and 2, including the formation mace, to NW

of Berlin. (A fair fight if the bow attacks the keshik and the river would be

against the spears, if they try).

 

[Provolution]

I am sorry if there has been hurt "democratic feelings" and "citizens concerns" have been tampered with. This does not mean I do not listen to good counsel and good advise. This does not mean I reject polls. This does not mean I do not change my opinion when I am otherwise convinced.

But it does mean I weed out proposals I do consider bad. And poll them, for Jupiters sake, I fully respect being overruled by polls, that is part of the demogame. Opposition does not necessarily mean "majority", I cannot easily bend over to the harshest critics and not listen to the silent majority, who mostly writes through voting in polls, or just agreeing to something.

I am here portrayed as someone who does not cooperate, which I think is unfair in many respects. I have adopted stances on a continuous basis, opened polls, and closed polls.

About the longbowman move. This is the first time I have seen such a striking bug in the game, where we get better odds charging across the river from a larger distance. None of us knew this when the discussion started. Someone was hell-bent not only on making the keshik(s) cross the river, regardless of odds, but also to demonize my intentions and my plan. This situation has not only the longbowman in mind, but also the complex of processes surrounding the civics change, the new city built and so on. I guess some players think I have tried and wanted too much in the first few turns, rather than sitting idle, like our settler in EA, and waiting for the next "citizen input".

It boils down to this Grant, who has the better strategy, better arguments (in lack of arguments, socio-emotional clout playing on democratic verbage), a critical mass of kindred spirits that play the game your way
Also, it is an element that includes flexibility and willingness to adapt plans and include new momentums.

I am the first to admit that I have been very argumentative, results driven, curious on researching things and a bit too adamant in weighing different options, but this is not unique to me, it applies to several of us.

So please do not go on with this "I am such a heroic and polite citizen who is so and so democratic and you are so and so mean". We all argue our cases, and we poll it, sometimes the polls are bad, and we stand corrected.
If someone should point out anything bad in my direction, it would be may Civ4 playing skills, but that has to be backed.

 

[Provolution]

I have considered all of this, not all people have the seemingly unlimited time you do to analyse and micromanage every aspect of moves. it's a ridiculus standard to say that we need to know everything about the odds of a proposed move.

I clearly see that you haven't laid out odds for your plan on attacking Berlin. What are the odds that another longbowman will be produced and promoted while you're waiting for unnecessary units to heal? What are the odds that your attack will succeed assuming that the Germans don't manage to change their force composition in four or five turns as you are assuming?

The poll that is being created isn't a poll asking for the keshik to be suicided, as you like to portray it, all that it is asking is that you give the DP the power to make a call about how the battle goes. One of the many problems I have with your plan is that you have left almost no room for the DP to adjust the strategy as the game dictates. You don't know what is going to happen in the next few turns, but you've laid out specific rules based on your assumptions of what will happen. A wise leader issues instructions that can be modified as necessary to remain relevant.

Our fundamental difference is not how we conduct sieges Provolution, our fundamental difference is that you want to lead, and have the citizens tamely follow you, I on the other hand want leaders who listen to the will of the citizens, whether it be simply through discussions, or when necessary through a poll which demonstrates where the will of the people lies.

It is very simple, I move in one more assaulter from the south (Munich) and heal up enough units to increase our odds. Look very closely at the plan, and you will see it is not bad. It is ok to be a devils advocate, to a point, but please be constructive at some stage. I have been tampering with different timescales and so on, and landed on turn 5, to make sure we got in another maceman. War is always a gamble, but this one can be more calculated.

Now I have laid out a battle calculator, so people can calculate the odds if they want to , with not too much hassle. Also, I do not condone misleading, and would expect to be confronted when I lay out unfactual odds, as I expect citizens to confront other citizens doing the same.

I do not expect anyone to tamely follow me, but to contribute with sound analysis and friendly inputs.