TT01: Beating Demigod

[ThinkTank]

We will eventually need astro but not in the near future. So I'm with Buce on this.

As far as war on the other continent is concerned, I think the goal is to reduce the tech pace there. In the process we should not create a runaway AI there, since that would backfire. Divide and conquer basically.

 

[DWetzel]

We will eventually need astro but not in the near future.

What can we research now that WILL help in the near future?

As far as war on the other continent is concerned, I think the goal is to reduce the tech pace there. In the process we should not create a runaway AI there, since that would backfire. Divide and conquer basically.

I agree with the sentiment...but I don't know if it's possible to instigate a war over there without creating a runaway. Maybe America vs. France would work--they have a long travel to go to make stuff happen, and it'll be in Incan lands, which is liable to tick them off...

 

[Bucephalus]

2. I think there's a number of assumptions here that I don't necessarily agree with.

I would think that once we get a steamroller going we will want to try to eliminate him entirely.

Why? If we can extort techs, what is your objection to taking-out Ragnar in two or even three stages? I think you continue to overestimate the power of these DG AI's - once we have razed two or three core cities it is over, bar the shouting. And there is absolutely no reason why Ragnar must be defeated before we attack the other continent.

Second (and I don't have the save/CA2 from memory, so please tell me if I'm talking out my butt here), does he currently have Astronomy? I don't think he does. IIRC, he's on par with us technology wise--which means that it's entirely possible that he gets Chemistry before Astronomy. Either way, though, I'm content--if he gets Astronomy, that will lower our research time further. If he gets Chemistry, he's likely to trade it for Astronomy, and that would be best of all for us. The ONLY way I see dropping out benefiting us a great is if he specifically gets Astronomy, and NOT Chemistry, by the time we want to make peace with him.

Ragnar has been at war a long time, and it is my belief that his research rate is little better than ours - I doubt that he has found time to build many libraries between building units.
He will get Astronomy by buying it from France - the AI to AI trade discount will ensure that. France is probably researching Banking, maybe heading for Democracy, so I think we will have a good shot at Chemistry. If we miss it we have another chance at trade bait with Metallurgy.

unless we want to wait until Navigation and galleons--and I can safely say that's a dumb idea) to do the job right.

Well, ignoring the fact that Galleons come with Magnetism not Navigation, what is so dumb about it? Once Ragnar is off our continent he can do little more than wait on his small island for our people to come. And the fact that we cannot take Armies over to his island until we have Galleons is just one further reason to take tech for peace - remember, since our rep is blown the only way we can get gpt deals is through being tied to a treaty. Even if kicking him off our continent isn't sufficient to persuade him to part with Astronomy, we will get a substantial discount on gpt. And if that deal was tied to an alliance it is doubtful that we would even have to pay for twenty turns.

Basically, forget the fact that we have put beakers in. We can either research Astronomy right now in roughly 9 turns, or Chemistry in roughly 15, if I have my numbers right, at our present research rate. Or we can try to trade for either of these, or beat them out of someone. (But anything we are going to beat out of the AI is going to take a while, because we are going to have to DOW and make peace, and I don't see that happening with the Vikings in the next TWO turnsets--by which time we are close to having both of those techs.)

Or we could have Chemistry and be a good way into Metallurgy

On another note, what's the team's thoughts about gifting/retaking cities? Exploit, or good clean fun? That would be a fine way to beat up France for a tech or two if we want to take that route.

Tacky and unnecessary would be my verdict.

 

[Bucephalus]

Let me add a few stats:

Ragnar doesn't even have GP - he will not be researching Chemistry.

At 100% Science, we can research Chemistry in eight turns, not 13 or 14 as was suggested.

America and France are 'average' to us militarily, Inca are 'weak'. This changes my mind on which war to instigate. If we go with our original thought, France will indeed eat Inca alive before the Yanks could get units involved. I suggest instead that we DOW Inca, allying the Yanks. This will have the effect of strengthening American opposition to France when we eventually want to land there and make them allies.

Oh, and for some reason they are all 'furious' with us.

 

[DWetzel]

Why? If we can extort techs, what is your objection to taking-out Ragnar in two or even three stages? I think you continue to overestimate the power of these DG AI's - once we have razed two or three core cities it is over, bar the shouting. And there is absolutely no reason why Ragnar must be defeated before we attack the other continent.

That's okay if we want to do it that way--but that implies a full raze and replace strategy on our continent. Unless we want to take cities and watch them flip back (and the ones we'd want to keep WILL flip back with annoying regularity). Which means either breaking a peace treaty, or waiting 20 turns to retake them all and having that be a general nuisance. I'm fine with that in concept, but we need to be prepared to take full advantage.


And oops, yes, my brain said Magnetism but my fingers overruled.


My silence on the rest of this is not meant to imply assent--but I've said plenty about it so far.

 

[DWetzel]

Let me add a few stats:

Ragnar doesn't even have GP - he will not be researching Chemistry.

Noted, and good news. For our sake I hope he IS going for Astronomy. But somehow I doubt it.

At 100% Science, we can research Chemistry in eight turns, not 13 or 14 as was suggested.

A bit of bait and switch here, I think. What's the timetable at our current research rate? (Alternatively, what's the timetable for Astronomy at 100%)? Let's compare apples to apples.

America and France are 'average' to us militarily, Inca are 'weak'. This changes my mind on which war to instigate. If we go with our original thought, France will indeed eat Inca alive before the Yanks could get units involved. I suggest instead that we DOW Inca, allying the Yanks. This will have the effect of strengthening American opposition to France when we eventually want to land there and make them allies.

I like this as a general concept, but in that case why not DOW America and ally in the Incans? That would result in a more balanced (and bloodier) fight, since we'd be bringing the Incans up a bit in tech to hold off the stronger Americans.

 

[Bucephalus]

Another thing to consider is that it will be highly desirable - if not absolutely necessary - to have the Military Academy. Since we cannot be sure of another MGL, we may have to hand-build it, something we can look to be pre-building for if we know when we will have MT.

 

[Bucephalus]

A bit of bait and switch here, I think.

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with that term.

Whatever the research rate is now is irrelevant - we should either run at 100% or zero Science. We have gold aplenty - there is no reason at all not to run a defecit.

I like this as a general concept, but in that case why not DOW America and ally in the Incans? That would result in a more balanced (and bloodier) fight, since we'd be bringing the Incans up a bit in tech to hold off the stronger Americans.

Why would we want a balanced fight? The Inca are cannon fodder for the Yanks, who will then be a much stronger ally against France, once they have assimilated Incan lands and resources.

 

[DWetzel]

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with that term.

Whatever the research rate is now is irrelevant - we should either run at 100% or zero Science. We have gold aplenty - there is no reason at all not to run a defecit.

So compare the turns for Astronomy at 100% to the turns for Chemistry at 100%, and present both. Both my figures were for the current research rate (40%, IIRC). It makes no sense to just say "we can have Chemistry in X turns" unless you also say "and Astronomy costs X turns at the same research rate".

I think we're thinking in completely different terms about how to invade the other continent. I think we want a bloodied opponent to take out first, and on this I think we all agree (at least, I hope so!)--we want someone to take out quickly so we can get some land and a base of operations. If the Americans run over the Incans, then we have two reasonably strong opponents over there to deal with--and we can play one against the other, true, but either way it will be no fun. If they fight each other to a bloody draw, then we have two weakened opponents to take over BEFORE we take out France with the final war. You seem to be suggesting (or I'm misunderstanding) that we would use a useful America as an alliance against France. I'm having trouble understanding why that way is better than allying WITH France against the weakling, carving them up, and getting some land faster.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Maybe we ally with America vs the Inca to get some Incan lands as a base against France at a future date. I agree to go against the Vikings in a multi-step war, first taking their resource towns in a raze and replace operation, make peace for tech, wait 20 turns, go after their core. Burn any non-wonder cities. Make peace if necessary. If not, stage 3, grab their island towns and eliminate them.

 

[Bucephalus]

So compare the turns for Astronomy at 100% to the turns for Chemistry at 100%, and present both. Both my figures were for the current research rate (40%, IIRC). It makes no sense to just say "we can have Chemistry in X turns" unless you also say "and Astronomy costs X turns at the same research rate".

It makes perfect sense in the context of my previous point - I don't care how many turns are left on Astronomy, it is still wasted gold, IMO.

I think we're thinking in completely different terms about how to invade the other continent. I think we want a bloodied opponent to take out first, and on this I think we all agree (at least, I hope so!)--we want someone to take out quickly so we can get some land and a base of operations. If the Americans run over the Incans, then we have two reasonably strong opponents over there to deal with--and we can play one against the other, true, but either way it will be no fun. If they fight each other to a bloody draw, then we have two weakened opponents to take over BEFORE we take out France with the final war. You seem to be suggesting (or I'm misunderstanding) that we would use a useful America as an alliance against France. I'm having trouble understanding why that way is better than allying WITH France against the weakling, carving them up, and getting some land faster.

I can only assume that you don't do much warmongering in your games.

 

[templar_x]

ok guys, time will see when we are ready to continue for now, there´s quite a bit of disagreement around – quot capita, tot sententiae on some points – some i don´t see as a problem and we can go for a simple majority vote, but only as long as we stay consistent to our strategies.

i would have really liked everyone to give me his ideas on the basic questions raised in #412. i´ll summarize where i think the discussion led us so far, putting myself into the third person sometimes for easier read:

+ fp:
Buce supporst a quick build in any city that profits and once mentioned Persepolis; templar likes Pasargadae but doesn´t want a long delay – so Pasargadae in case Persia is history in 4 turns otherwise Lauwerskoog (if i remember right that CA2 said this benefits our empire most now)

+ tech: DWetzel wants to finish Astro; Buce, Thinktank and templar think it´s lost money and switch to Chemistry immediately; TheOverseer could imagine to trade for Astro with the beakers invested (that could be only with France right? not sure that´s feasible); understand everyone says Chemistry next. agreement there
otherwise stands 1 for Astro/research, 1 for Astro/trade, 3 for Chem/switch now
DWetzel, i think we do not want to run a deficit for a tech that doesn´t help us now and won´t be tradable. we may not have the funds left to keep running a deficit for the tech we DO want after that. i see quite a few tasks to spend money on in this next set.
what i want to point out, this is linked with the war against Vikes strategy. since most of us prefer a more than 1 stage war against Ragnar we should be able to get some tech out of him.

+ city builds:
DWetzel started some libs, Buce stated a “libs first, markets probably never in this game”, templar had his coming out as an uneducated capitalist pig and wants markets first and libs after those.
everyone likes lots of settlers for filling the empty spots and the coming razes/refounds.

+ dotmap:
thanks for the technical help. i´d appreciate some contentwise input in addition. therefore, since you didn´t like my modern art, i´ll try to find time and create a new dotmap tonight.

+ war on other continent:
lots of discussion so far. i´m trying to bring it down to the basic lines –
Buce first recommended France against Yanks and Incas, and would try to get Ragnar into a coalition against France (bold! i like it); second idea was only Yanks vs Incas (or the other way around).
DWetzel pondered to ally with France, but we probably won´t have anything of interest for them.
templar fears any war including France on the other continent bears a big risk that it makes the French only stronger. thus votes for either no war or only a war where France is unlikely to gain territory. DWetzel had the idea of Yanks vs French, i assume in the hope that the Yanks can deal with the units France has to send through Incan territory. what convinced me that France indeed preferably should fight somebody now was Buce´s argument that it´s better they use their GA bonus production on MA units. so someone should lose a fight against a musketeer.

any war between Yankees and Incas, as Buce suggested another time, does only make sense IMO if we decide to first invade the other continent for the French territories. then we might want a stronger ally (America). if we first umm.... *free* the south of the other continent eliminating the weaklings we definitely want them both to stay as weak as they are. we should have a general agreement on from which direction we want to clean the other continent. this, i think, because it greatly affects our short and medium term phony war strategies.
for myself i have to say that now giving that point more consideration i come up with a different view: it´s conquest we want and for this vc war against France first with the Yanks as (then stronger) allies might turn out to be the way to go.

if that can be done, what do you think about us+Vikes against France (can they ship berserks over to America? that would be needed of course) and us+Yanks against Incas?

+ war against Ports:
i feel we all agree on this, sure to pursue only without too big an engagement of our troops

+ war against Iros:
templar and DWetzel think we should pursue this with limited troops, Buce says let the Vikes do the fighting (btw Buce, do you mean peace by that?)
stands 2 for continuing (little) war efforts, 1 for a pause fighting them

+ coming war against Vikes:
DWetzel wants to keep fighting Ragnar till he´s dead. Buce, Overseer, Thinktank and templar see two or maybe more stages of war against him than 1 - the first war resulting in exclusive posession of our continent.
i think by the majority´s plan for this we do not want to keep a single Vike city on our continent but raze them all. for the division of his lands and the long wars he´s been into, i personally do not really expect Ragnar to be too hard to throw off our continent.

+ next MGL:
Buce said Pentagon, templar likes that too and would love to have another one for an empty (later cav) army as well; no other opinions heard yet


ok, that was a bit of work to gather all that together from our posts. i hope this is of some help for our further discussion.

 

[templar_x]

aren´t the Vikings currently in their GA? i remember i saw a berserk and i assume they used one (and won) against Iro units.

 

[DWetzel]

aren´t the Vikings currently in their GA? i remember i saw a berserk and i assume they used one (and won) against Iro units.

I haven't seen that, but it is probably likely. During my turnset I did not see ANY Iroquois-Viking combat at all. I did see Portugal feebly attempt to take the city they wormed into our north border, but I do not believe a berserk was involved in that combat (I couldn't see it but I assume that a Viking spear or pike did its job.

That doesn't mean there isn't some combat going on, but if the Vikings were actively pursuing the Iroquois, I think there would be a lot less Iroquois cities right now. Berserk vs. spear is not a pretty combination for the defender.

 

[DWetzel]

I can only assume that you don't do much warmongering in your games.

As a general rule, you are right; I am more of a builder than a warmonger.

However, this sort of statement doesn't exactly help to explain why your way is better. I hope I haven't unduly frustrated you. Please do explain. Use small words so I can understand.

 

[DWetzel]

ok guys, time will see when we are ready to continue for now, there´s quite a bit of disagreement around – quot capita, tot sententiae on some points – some i don´t see as a problem and we can go for a simple majority vote, but only as long as we stay consistent to our strategies.

i would have really liked everyone to give me his ideas on the basic questions raised in #412. i´ll summarize where i think the discussion led us so far, putting myself into the third person sometimes for easier read:

+ fp:
Buce supporst a quick build in any city that profits and once mentioned Persepolis; templar likes Pasargadae but doesn´t want a long delay – so Pasargadae in case Persia is history in 4 turns otherwise Lauwerskoog (if i remember right that CA2 said this benefits our empire most now)

+ tech: DWetzel wants to finish Astro; Buce, Thinktank and templar think it´s lost money and switch to Chemistry immediately; TheOverseer could imagine to trade for Astro with the beakers invested (that could be only with France right? not sure that´s feasible); understand everyone says Chemistry next. agreement there
otherwise stands 1 for Astro/research, 1 for Astro/trade, 3 for Chem/switch now
DWetzel, i think we do not want to run a deficit for a tech that doesn´t help us now and won´t be tradable. we may not have the funds left to keep running a deficit for the tech we DO want after that. i see quite a few tasks to spend money on in this next set.
what i want to point out, this is linked with the war against Vikes strategy. since most of us prefer a more than 1 stage war against Ragnar we should be able to get some tech out of him.

+ city builds:
DWetzel started some libs, Buce stated a “libs first, markets probably never in this game”, templar had his coming out as an uneducated capitalist pig and wants markets first and libs after those.
everyone likes lots of settlers for filling the empty spots and the coming razes/refounds.

+ dotmap:
thanks for the technical help. i´d appreciate some contentwise input in addition. therefore, since you didn´t like my modern art, i´ll try to find time and create a new dotmap tonight.

+ war on other continent:
lots of discussion so far. i´m trying to bring it down to the basic lines –
Buce first recommended France against Yanks and Incas, and would try to get Ragnar into a coalition against France (bold! i like it); second idea was only Yanks vs Incas (or the other way around).
DWetzel pondered to ally with France, but we probably won´t have anything of interest for them.
templar fears any war including France on the other continent bears a big risk that it makes the French only stronger. thus votes for either no war or only a war where France is unlikely to gain territory. DWetzel had the idea of Yanks vs French, i assume in the hope that the Yanks can deal with the units France has to send through Incan territory. what convinced me that France indeed preferably should fight somebody now was Buce´s argument that it´s better they use their GA bonus production on MA units. so someone should lose a fight against a musketeer.

any war between Yankees and Incas, as Buce suggested another time, does only make sense IMO if we decide to first invade the other continent for the French territories. then we might want a stronger ally (America). if we first umm.... *free* the south of the other continent eliminating the weaklings we definitely want them both to stay as weak as they are. we should have a general agreement on from which direction we want to clean the other continent. this, i think, because it greatly affects our short and medium term phony war strategies.
for myself i have to say that now giving that point more consideration i come up with a different view: it´s conquest we want and for this vc war against France first with the Yanks as (then stronger) allies might turn out to be the way to go.

if that can be done, what do you think about us+Vikes against France (can they ship berserks over to America? that would be needed of course) and us+Yanks against Incas?

+ war against Ports:
i feel we all agree on this, sure to pursue only without too big an engagement of our troops

+ war against Iros:
templar and DWetzel think we should pursue this with limited troops, Buce says let the Vikes do the fighting (btw Buce, do you mean peace by that?)
stands 2 for continuing (little) war efforts, 1 for a pause fighting them

+ coming war against Vikes:
DWetzel wants to keep fighting Ragnar till he´s dead. Buce, Overseer, Thinktank and templar see two or maybe more stages of war against him than 1 - the first war resulting in exclusive posession of our continent.
i think by the majority´s plan for this we do not want to keep a single Vike city on our continent but raze them all. for the division of his lands and the long wars he´s been into, i personally do not really expect Ragnar to be too hard to throw off our continent.

+ next MGL:
Buce said Pentagon, templar likes that too and would love to have another one for an empty (later cav) army as well; no other opinions heard yet


ok, that was a bit of work to gather all that together from our posts. i hope this is of some help for our further discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. You have my thoughts not quite correct in a couple of places though, or left them out...

+ fp: Pasargarde or Lauwerskoog, depending on the speed we can eliminate Persia. But really I think it's a small point in general, as long as we agree that the MGL is going to the FP.

+ city builds: I don't feel too strongly about the libraries, but I suppose it sort of ties in with my overall thinking that we'll be doing more of our research. Right now, my slight order of preference is libraries>military units>markets, but again I don't feel that strongly about it. They are all in a position where they can comfortably be switched to whatever. We may in fact want some more military to execute our Viking war to maximum effect (depending on the answer to my question in the War vs. Vikes section below).

+War vs. Iros: I would actually like to see us either pursue this until they are off our continent, or make peace soon. I don't really like going at them halfway. The units we do have in place are doing an adequate (if slow) job; I don't see any reason that an army can't be brought north to finish the task more quickly. We need at least one up there for the Viking war anyway. I suggest that the existing unit stack continue to advance slowly through the Iroquois (basically, bombard and attack when you get a decent bombard result). It's probably capable of eliminating them from our continent with minimal casualties given enough time--but of course more units to do this faster would be good. I think minimizing casualties is wise though, rather than going for a world speed record. For the record, allowing the Vikings to fight them has not been useful to date--I have seen precisely NO Iroquois-Viking combat in my turnset.

+War vs. Portugal: This is a tricky one. It's probably simplest to burn Lisbon and then make peace for whatever we can get from them, since mounting a naval invasion with no armies and limited naval transport won't be a lot of fun with what we have in the area. We'll need to do this just after eliminating Persia (what happens if we renegotiate peace tied to alliance vs. Persia and then eliminate Persia--does that trigger war?), since we want to burn the last Persian city and evacuate. I would very much LIKE to drive them to extinction, because if we do not, we will have to hold a few units back to handle Portugal's random military unit dropoffs. They do have a few cities on that island, so it's not as if we can send two knights and conquer them.

+War vs. Vikes: I am content to fight him in a multi-stage war, as long as we understand that we will be taking that approach (i.e. full raze and replace). I have an unanswered question of whether we would wait the full 20 turns for peace, or figure out some way to make it last less than that by a condition tied to the peace, or just screw them over and make peace and then re-invade once we have what we want from them with no regard for the peace treaty. I have no strong opinion as to the right answer, but I think we need to have one.

+War on the other continent: What order are we planning to invade the other continent in? As templar_x alludes to, this affects even our near-term strategy. It seemed to me most expedient to plan to eliminate America first, then the Inca, securing the south half of the hourglass-shaped continent before taking on France. Buce seems to have implied gently that I am an idiot for thinking this way. In my invasion plan, we would want an enemy as weak as possible to invade first, and then proceed from there. Again, this may be stupid, but I have not yet heard a compelling reason WHY it is.

+next MGL: I'm fine with the Pentagon. However, I would caution that we need to be careful about creating four-unit armies--they will be trapped on our island until we have transports.

+tech:

+dotmap: I'll have a look this evening and throw something together.

 

[templar_x]

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. You have my thoughts not quite correct in a couple of places though, or left them out...

sorry if i unintentionally left anything important out. searching the threads for the opinions you guys raised on the different topics is not very exact science.
from what you added i don´t see any major contradiction though, so i hope you didn´t feel totally misunderstood.

what happens if we renegotiate peace tied to alliance vs. Persia and then eliminate Persia--does that trigger war?

no it does not. alliance ends though.

+War vs. Vikes: I am content to fight him in a multi-stage war, as long as we understand that we will be taking that approach (i.e. full raze and replace). I have an unanswered question of whether we would wait the full 20 turns for peace, or figure out some way to make it last less than that by a condition tied to the peace, or just screw them over and make peace and then re-invade once we have what we want from them with no regard for the peace treaty. I have no strong opinion as to the right answer, but I think we need to have one.

must have missed this as i cannot remember the question.
i have the perception that we stand by our treaties. it is too easy to make use of the AI´s inability to remember that peace won´t give him another second to live. (given you don´t care about rep any more at this stage)

re dotmap, which time zone are you in DWetzel? in other words, how many more hours will make it evening for you to work on a dm. it´s 9pm with me now and i leave office. i think i can make one in 2-3 hours.

 

[Bucephalus]

Buce seems to have implied gently that I am an idiot for thinking this way. In my invasion plan, we would want an enemy as weak as possible to invade first, and then proceed from there. Again, this may be stupid, but I have not yet heard a compelling reason WHY it is.

As a general rule, you are right; I am more of a builder than a warmonger.

However, this sort of statement doesn't exactly help to explain why your way is better. I hope I haven't unduly frustrated you. Please do explain. Use small words so I can understand.

Yeah, it was a little terse, wasn't it?

Fact is, I'm a grumpy old git first thing in the morning, and I broke my own rule when I posted before sitting down with a coffee. Apologies.

I'll try and post a more coherant reply later.

 

[DWetzel]

sorry if i unintentionally left anything important out. searching the threads for the opinions you guys raised on the different topics is not very exact science.
from what you added i don´t see any major contradiction though, so i hope you didn´t feel totally misunderstood.

No offense taken.

It's 2 PM here, so figure in about five-six hours. Let's take an independent crack at it.

 

[ThinkTank]

I personally do not like fighting many wars at once. I'd say finish the Persians first. Going after the Portugese I'm not sure, they're toast anyway, and it's the sort of distraction that may hurt our progress against our next big opponent, the Vikes. Persuing the war aginst the Iroquios is a distraction of the same kind. I think we can maybe allow us one side show, not two.

Instigating war on he other continent is in my view good for slowing the tech pace there, and for taking care that when we land, we do not have to fight massive amounts of units. We want to avoid a runaway AI there, so if one of three goes down in the process, fine, but for the remaning two we want them to be in reasonable balance until we land. We will land under the cover of an army or in the territory of our ally. We'll see how and where later.