Strategy Discussion - Metagame

[Zeviz]

Thanks for bumping this thread. Here are my views on our options:

1. Continent-wide alliance isn't going to happen. We've already staked claim to more than a third of our continent, and the other two teams are likely to demand a change to this land allocation equation.

2. It's too late to try to ally with Templars. As roleplaying knights, they are likely to take their commitments seriously, and OB with Imperio is probably a sign of a long-term plan. Considering how slow both teams are to reply to diplomatic moves, the chances that they've negotiated OB treaty on the spot are pretty slim. An alliance with Imperio might also explain why they stopped replying to our messages. Remember our efforts to stall them until we were ready to attack? This is what their latest communication feels like, but done much more clumsily.

3. Imperio might have less roleplaying objections to betraying Templars, but they have no strategic reason to do so. An alliance with Templars gives them a much better chance to dominate our continent, considering that they could squash their ally like a bug whenever they get bored.

4. Alliance with PAL is most likely to succeede, especially if we explain to them that by supporting us they'll guarantee a lengthy war on our continent, while supporting Imperio will lead to our continent quickly falling into Imperio's hands.

So I prefer option 4.

As for victory conditions, conquest/domination looks like an obvious path, because we are unlikely to have enough spare resources to spread 3 religions and build tons of culture buildings while fighting for control of our continent. However, if culture looks achievable without slowing down overall growth and compromising security, we can invest in it as a backup plan.

[Swiss Pauli]

If we don't think we can turn Templars in the short term, then an alliance (formal or informal) with PAL seems to be the way forward in the medium term.

[Swiss Pauli]

From Sullla's post in the PAL thread:

Here's an ideal future for our team. In the immediate future, we concentrate on expanding and building up our economic infrastructure. We consolidate in the late classical and early middle ages, and look to make a move sometime in the latter middle ages/early renaissance period. We get to Nationalism first and begin drafting maces or Oromo warriors (muskets), we can take out a rival of our choice. Try to control the continent by the industrial age and then pick a victory condition from there. Easier said than done though!

I'd have to say that's pretty much how I see our best approach. Imperio has the better land, so they'd be my target of choice for the draft-rush (and I'd hope we'd be in control before the Industrial Age).

What do the rest of you guys think?

[mostly-harmless]

1.) I agree with Zeviz: Continent wide alliance is out. However the armistice part can be well combined with other strategies.

2.) It is unlikely in the light of recent Tmp-Imp OB agreement.

3.) This could be an option if we are strong enough to do it quick and fully on our own. Imperio might be bound by a NAP with Tmp.

4.) Looks good on first glance. However we are divided by a long distance. In case of conflict with a potential Tmp-Imp alliance we are cut off from trade and resource sharing until Astronomy. So the alliance is a paper tiger really. And, as I said before I want to assess and speak to Banana & Rabbits first before snuggling up to PAL too much. If we prematurely ally ourselves with PAL and then are faced with a Tmp-Imp alliance on our own continent and PAL is overrun by Ban-Rab alliance we are very lonely indeed!

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

Originally posted by mostly-harmless
4.) Looks good on first glance. However we are divided by a long distance. In case of conflict with a potential Tmp-Imp alliance we are cut off from trade and resource sharing until Astronomy. So the alliance is a paper tiger really. And, as I said before I want to assess and speak to Banana & Rabbits first before snuggling up to PAL too much. If we prematurely ally ourselves with PAL and then are faced with a Tmp-Imp alliance on our own continent and PAL is overrun by Ban-Rab alliance we are very lonely indeed!

As I mentioned elsewhere, a Templar-Imperio alliance is unlikely, unless we force them together by poor diplomacy.

[Swiss Pauli]

Originally posted by Zeviz
This has made a war with Templars inevitable. So the only question now is whether we fight them on our terms, or their terms. In light of this, I would take Swiss' thought even further: Instead of getting into cultural conflict over Templar borders, I'd suggest settling the best city sites we have, and beelining Maces. If we have to fight them anyway, we might as well do it after getting a much stronger economy, instead of wasting resources on culture conflicts.

The only reason to settle original Twin Peaks is for it to serve as forward base for our troops. However, we first need troops to deploy there, and before we start training troops, we need to found several good cities. So my suggested course of action is:

1. Settle the Marble spot. Templars can waste time clearing the jungle at Stone spot themselves. The stone city would be good in long run, but we want strong economy in the short run.

2. Quickly settle any other good city sites we have. Don't bother with fishing villages, border outposts, etc. Just places that can help economy or train troops.

3. After Monarchy, research towards Machinery, buying CS from PAL. (Or research CS, buying Machinery from PAL.)

4. Upgrade axes to maces and come to get our Iron.

EDIT: The best thing about this situation is that it gives us casus beli(sp?) to attack Templars in the future. We were considering that course of action anyway, and this will help us decrease diplomatic fallout.

[Zeviz]

One more thought about the above plan: The good thing about capturing Iron with maces is that it makes lack of other sources of Iron irrelevant. Most Iron units such as Pikes and Knights are slightly higher on the tech tree, so by the time we get there, we might have the Iron site secured.

PPS Even if we decide not to beeline maces, playing peacefully on Templar border would be good, because it might lull them into a sense of security. If they are playing for cultural victory, they might get distracted by chasing wonders, while we build up economy and train troops.

[mostly-harmless]

I am not yet convinced on the beeline maces plan, but I am all for the spamming cities startegy.
Southern Marble next and a dot map discussion starting right now.

mh

[mostly-harmless]

Attempt on DotMap:


And the same with resources:


I would settle in the following order:
Blue (Southern Marble)
Red (Bad Ass aka. Twin Peaks)
White (Colored Mollusks)

The penciled in Desert Marble south on the Clam coast is a bit shaky (could also be moved 1S or 1E) and does not have high priority.

So, voice your opinion.

mh

[Kylearan]

/delurk

Hi,

quickly settling some more important city sites is essential, IMO. I find it frightening how many cities PAL already has - sure, they probably have some economic problems right now, but this will translate into an decisive advantage later on as their cities get improved. And seeing how well they are playing the trading game, we *have* to catch up as quickly as possible economically.

The only risk to overexpansion IMHO is that you might get attacked by a neighbour at the wrong time. Doesn't look like that will happen in their case, although we cannot tell for sure without all contacts. If they don't get attacked, they will come out ahead mid-game.


I also like the plan of beelining to maces to get our own source of iron. Trading for iron (or ivory) a) will be very expensive if our trading partner knows what they are doing, and b) will be unstable, i.e. we might not find a trading partner, or get a running deal canceled for diplomatic or other reasons.

So I'd say let's secure our own source of iron, the new city/cities also serving us economically. Whether the double move can really serve as a reasonable casus belli that the other teams can understand remains to be seen, though. The problem is that if we don't post a public note about it now, the war might not be easy to justify to the other teams in a couple of months when the war will actually start. If we do post a note about it now, we come along as whiners though, which is probably even worse...maybe a light note in jest without any real accusations, only the observation of the double move might work?

-Kylearan

[mostly-harmless]

If we decide on going for Maces to fight for the Iron, we have to plan our next city placements carefully.
I doubt we can hold Jericho against Templars culture, so it has to be razed to be replaced by our own Iron city nearby.
However, Pink Peaks is no longer available if we go for Twin Peaks.
The question is: do we hold back on Twin Peaks until we have razed Jericho?

I am a bit concerned that we will fall back in the next 30 turns or so, planning and conducting that war.

Also do we just want to raze Jericho and leaving Templars only little weaker than before or do we have more war objectives?

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

If we decide to fight Templars, we should use Jericho as a feint, and send an Armada to Jerusalem. Templars will likely over-protect Jericho and under-protect Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, we have too many fogged tiles at present to see whether or not this plan is realistic.

[mostly-harmless]

So are we aiming for a local struggle to wrest control of Iron from them or all out destruction?

Unfortunately, we have too many fogged tiles at present to see whether or not this plan is realistic.

The coast line south of Jerusalem is more or less know to us, as is most of the terrain from tile bleeding.

Anyway, in case of conflict, I suggest to move a couple of spies into their territory.

But lets get some more opinion in whether we go for war or not.
I am still undecided.

mh

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I think *if* we decide to attack Templars, we should do more than simply to secure iron, because all the war efforts which will set us back have to pay off. Securing iron is vital for our mid-term military survival; capturing one or two key cities is vital for our long-term economical competitiveness if we neglect our infrastructure. Otherwise the military buildup would cost us too much overall.

-"never thought to become a hawk" Kylearan

[mostly-harmless]

That makes sense.
Problem is, the only valid military target is Jerusalem (80% cultural defense), as all other gains will be dominated by Jerusalems culture.

mh