VS1-Agression

[Gengis Khan]

Ok, your post just came across as very condescending, I'll chalk it up to the language barrier.

Disagree with the tax collector/scientist point. If we take a citizen off a tile that's making 2f/1s/1g & turn him into a 2gpt or 3 beaker per turn scientist we'll be limiting growth & production.

Don't agree about going to ICS either. The best way for us to bounce back is to build up our infrastructure a bit, while building up some more troops, then switch governments & as soon as the change is made go after a neighbor. We take a couple cities, sue for peace, then go to another neighbor, rinse & repeat ad infintium. With the entire world at war everyones troops are tied up in at least one other place. Not to mention that since "half the world can't trade with the other half," once we get our infrastructure up to date(markets in every city) & out of despotism we can broker techs between parties that are war. More cities packed together won't help, it will just clutter up things & be more cities to worry about defending.

Another thing, with Cheiftess & Wildfire as no-shows, and with Strider temporarily out of commision you want me to dig up another player or two? As it stands we're running with a 3 man roster.

 

[akots]

IMHO, ICS in the core is the only way to win rapidly any high-level game (DG and above). What you are talking about is a standard SG tactics which is often resulting in very long and boring games.

There is a certain relatively large gap between our points of view and it is not a result of language barrier. There are other reasons for this which better not be discussed. But it's fine with me and I'm willing to accept any alternative reasonable point of view supported by strong arguments. No offense please.

Since in the case of ICS all core tiles would be worked, there would be a bunch of taxmen and scientists in these core cities which would help a lot to balance the budget. Infrastructure... Not for a military win. And these cities don't have to be defended because they are inside our core. It might be considered as a variant of AW build. Wasting productive tiles is very limiting for our expansion at present. If this is the preferred style of playing, we can decide and take a vote on what to do. (DemoGame experience hurts sometimes...)

Regarding some other players, we can post a replacement request in the respective thread. Apparently, we would need at least two more strong players to pull this off with Deity military victory experience and good at mm.

 

[Gengis Khan]

There are 16 AI Civs on a Huge map with Demi-build discounts. Rapidly winning anything was out of the question before the game even started. I play to win, if that means winning by Space Victory so be it. But there isn’t going to be a 500AD Conquest victory.

You’re right, we have dramatically opposed styles of play. You lost me though on the “There are other reasons for this which better not be discussed. But it's fine with me and I'm willing to accept any alternative reasonable point of view supported by strong arguments.” And no offense taken, I have no clue what you’re talking about.

I don’t know how you’re planning on pulling off this military victory, but you’re about to be going to war against knights, longbows, Med Infs & pikes with Numids & horsemen. If we don’t get some markets in our cities, the only thing changing about that will be their units upgrading again, cause we sure don’t have the money or income right now to start buying techs. A couple taxmen won’t help this situation, they will only add to it.

 

[akots]

Originally posted by Gengis Khan
... Rapidly winning anything was out of the question before the game even started.

Why is that? 500AD Conquest was fine with me. More reasonable was probably something around 1000AD Domination. Did not see a problem with that when we started. Otherwise, I see no point in going for maximal aggression at the time the game was set up. That was one of the reasons I decided to play in it.

Now, certainly, it looks rather different but still military victory may be the fastest option. We just have to play accurately and with properly set goals. However, if the team would want to go for a more peaceful development aiming to space race victory (Diplo as a last resort), I have no objections.

Lets find some replacements, get a vote on plans, and then decide what to do next. I'll hold the turn before we are firmly set. Otherwise, I may screw up the intended development by going via military route.

 

[Gengis Khan]

I agree.

Btw- Diplo & culture were turned off.

 

[akots]

While praying for rapid Strider's recovery, I posted the ad in the replacement thread. Just in case here as well.

We need 1-2 replacement players for this game with some DG+ experience.

 

[Gengis Khan]

Sounds good, I PMed a couple people I've played with in some other challenging SGs who can handle this game as well.

 

[akots]

I've got one or two players almost 100% confirmed, changing the ad to reflect this.

 

[Gengis Khan]

Who, if I may ask? And also why is DemoGame experience prefered?

 

[Commander Bello]

If you don't mind about my limited time (for job reasons I would only be able to attend at weekends, since I am abroad from Mo - Fr) I would like to join.

 

[akots]

@GK
DG = Demi-God level
DG+ = Demi-God level and above (Deity or Sid)

@Bello
IMO, we can schedule your turns for weekends somehow and there is little problem with that.

If I may update the roster:

1. Strider - in hospital. Vacant
2. Commander Bello
3. Gengis Khan ---> Just played, great turns!
4. akots ----> UP, holding the save
5. vacant
6. andvruss

 

[Commander Bello]

Ok...

As I am currently busy with some work, I could join in tomorrow (Mo, 26th) but it would be fine for me to be on duty next weekend, either.

 

[akots]

@Bello: Next weekend sounds right if the game would start moving. We need to decide what to do now during my turns (see discussion above).

 

[Gengis Khan]

We've got our 5th. gormdragan has said he'd like to join our motley crew.

Welcome to both new members! Please (including andruss) take a look at the save & suggest how you think we should to proceed. We're still in a very sticky spot & it will take us all working together and on the same page to get out of it & start moving ahead.

 

[gormdragan]

Hi pple, I hope I don't disappoint. Heading to work now, will post my thoughts when I get off work today. Until then.

@Andruss, it's nice to play with you again.

 

[akots]

It would be a nice company, gormdragam. We'll argue a lot and decide something and then do what we have planned. And ultimately win. The sooner the better.

If I may update the roster:

1. Strider - in hospital. Vacant
2. Commander Bello
3. Gengis Khan ---> Just played, great turns!
4. akots ----> UP, holding the save
5. gormdragan
6. andvruss

We're almost set but would be able to use another player if someone has enough guts to join.

I'm holding the save pending discussion and decision on what to do next. We must determine victory type we are going for. Possible variants:

Military (warmongering) - Conquest, Domination.
More or less peaceful - Spaceship.

UN and cultural are out of options.

If going for military I would set a few priorities:
1) getting iron
2) going leader fishing with MDI or swords + cats + knights as brilliantly described by SirPleb.
3) accumulating 3-4 armies, loading them with knights and expanding getting more leaders in the process.

In this case, we minimize infrastructure builds, focusing on rax and units with occasional markets. ICS in the core would make the life easier. Rough estimate: we will win playing accurately but it is going to be gory.

If going for space victory:
1) same as above but not so actively
2) same as above but in a more relaxed manner
3) same as above but trying to make our life more peaceful and limit our expansion to manageable nearby areas. Pay to AI whatever they demand if possible and try to improve our land. No ICS ever.

In this case, we build considerable infrastructure including libraries, temples, markets, universities, banks, etc. Trading and tech brokering becomes a priority. Rough estimate: we can win if playing accurately but it is risky. AI tends to have some runaway civs in C3C and they may be too strong to handle.

The point of holding the save is that I was going to build a few more cities in the core because it might be difficult to survive and expand at present without efficient use of our limited resources.

Please all discuss these issues and then we can decide which route we take.

@Bello as SG newbie. You can load the save (if you can...) and examine the game but cannot make any moves.

 

[gormdragan]

After looking at our save, here are some of my thoughts.

(1) Although we are at war with 6 civs, it appears that only the Celts are directly adjacent to us. (If I miss something let me know). Our northern border is protected by our uneasy neighbor, the japs, while the south is protected by the Americans. If at all possible, I would stay away from war against the Japs, at least until after sams. We should take the opportunity to knock the Celts off the game.

(2) Upon taking the Celts, we might want to consider making our FP at Entremont. Getting a 2nd core up and running asap is a good way to slingshot over the AI.

(3) Keeping some Numecs at our harbor cities should pretty much protect us from the other At-war civs. Some thoughts about Numecs....they suck!!! No value what so ever. As a replacement unit to spear and pikes, which are meant as defensive units, a +1 att is lame. I rather have a +1def or +1mob. Having Numercs is like having pikes, not a good investment in the long run.

(4) As to the argument of archers vs horseman, as a personnal obsession on mobility, I would value horsemen more. If we need bombardments, it is better to invest in catapults.

(5) We need to quickly secure our iron resource at Kagoshima, hence i think it is a good idea to build up a good no. of horsemens or wars for upgrading to knights and swords.

(6) I would scrap the Heroic Epic. MGLs are no longer as good as they used to be. I rather pile up our nos. of offensive units, and use the 1st MGL to rush an FP, and if you like HE.

(7) I would also take advantage of our lack of iron to build lots of wars, especially from corrupted cities. We might want to consider only keeping temple production for border cities with Japs and Americans. Switch other productions to horses, or wars for swordman upgrade. I think we have way too much Numecs, could switch to other productions. Some settlers would be nice.

(8) If any of the non-neighboring civs sue for peace, I suggest we that it. No sense being at war with so many civs, if we are not actually inflicting any damage. Unless the purpose is to slow down AI development, in which case I say go ahead. Just need to watch our backs (i.e. our harbor cities).

My 2 cents.

 

[gormdragan]

One question,

Are we playing cultural conversion? If not, we can scrap temples at the border cities as well.

 

[Gengis Khan]

Yes, 2 of our cities have flipped already.

How do you feel about city layout. Leave it as it, or go to an ICS pattern?

 

[gormdragan]

I am not a fan of ICS, as I view it as a form of cheating. My personal rule is not to do something to the AI if it does do it to you. I have not seen AI use ICS.

I don't think we are at a low point, since there are 16 civs, and would prefer not to use ICS. From what I see, the layou is fine, and we can claim some of the land between Entremont and our borders, thus setting up our 2nd set of core cities.

A point on ICS, if other players feel fine about it, they can do so. But during my turns, I will not settle in an ICS fashion.

Regarding flipping, we can use heavy garrison to tackle the problem. Again, it comes from taking advantage of our lack of iron to make tons of wars.