The 'No Trade, No Problem' Succession Game

[Bloody Monk]

Re: Seige tactics

Originally posted by Straybow
Ahem: you may notice that I did pillage most of their irrigation and cover most of the land tiles aroung Tlatelolco and some around other cities.

Stray,

What I noticed was that food was not important to deny; just shields. And not a little at a time. Get the invasion force gathered and then, all in one turn, cover his shield tiles. Like a denial of service attack, you will have shut down his 'server.' I brought a boat over from that nearby hut village about 12 clicks SE of the Aztec 'sphere of influence' to cover the backside areas on the other coast.

The one unit left (from the shield of the city hall) will still require 6 to 8 vet crooks, IIRC. The vet cats will make it go faster. I also gave some thought as to the order of the cities to attack and the best squares to make the attack from so as to be best able to move on to the next target.

In cracking Tlat' and Tex' I think I mustered 43 units. Non-vets work fine in the denial of service role, but, they die uselessly if pressed to attack walls. And attacking in dribs and drabs was not very pretty either. I did some of that too, before I had the brainstorm to besiege them.

It may not have been filled with glory, but still and all considered, I think it was a pretty good tactic.

[Scouse Gits]

No BM - no broadside from this Ironclad - a shild siege is a perfectly valid appoach and works almost every time - I recall one occasion when some Mongols turned royalist on me - I just don't have the siege mentality.

Remember - I am British - the blood of the generals that much preferred to send in the troops (preferably Irish, Welsh, Scottish, or ANZAC of course -- always assuming there were no native levies available) and watch them be butchered, flows in my veins -- - yes this is a 'joke'

The only real problem in this game is the awful logistics -- we have ample materiel to finish the job - by either siege or direct assault, they just aren't where they need to be - but they will arrive

SG[1]

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits

Remember - I am British - the blood of the generals that much preferred to send in the troops (preferably Irish, Welsh, Scottish, or ANZAC of course -- always assuming there were no native levies available) and watch them be butchered, flows in my veins -- - yes this is a 'joke'

SG[1]

Funny, when the head-on approach was initially advocated, my first thought was of Montgomery at Alamein.

[Straybow]

More like Patton. Saddled with hardware that was as plentiful as it was second rate, he accepted 4:1 losses if that's what it took to meet the objective.

[Bloody Monk]

After a few forays against the walls I too thought of a famous general.

One General George A. Custer, he of the long flowing golden mane.

Called Yellow Hair by the Souix (not as picturesque as Old Blood and Guts)

In his case, the losses were more like 1:4...and he was never heard from again.

4:1 can be forgiven... by circumstance... by winning.

Losing all your men senselessly is another story.

"The objective is not to die for your country, but to make the other dumb bastard die for his."--George C Scott as Patton.

[Straybow]

The real Patton (Old Blood and Guts in the UK) movie quote is a little different… anyway, are you trying to say that in Custer's final engagement his unit killed 4 Souix for each man? I thought the Souix showered them with arrows from cover and suffered comparatively light losses.

[Bloody Monk]

Stray,

Excellent site!! Thanks for the link. My memory of the quotation was actually better than I could hope.

There is another quote (that I won't get exactly) to the effect that "if I knew I was going to live so long, I would have taken better care of myself."

No, I was not saying "that", with 1:4. Maybe it was kinda lame, certainly confusing. And I took the 'ratio' to be a literary device, as I don't claim to know the actual numbers. In any case, my lack of clarity also warrants your construction.

Patton accepted losses of "4:1" in winning.

Custer inflicted the ultimate loss ratio on his own men; it simply doesn't matter how many Souix he killed.

It just seems to me that because Custer managed to get everyone killed, you could say he only killed one Souix for every four men he squandered. It's the same ratio, yes; but, derisive. I tried to put the emphasis on what a pathetic, wasteful tactic Custer blundered into. ( Turns out he was facing around 7,000, better armed, battle hardened, highly motivated and better led opponents.)

And to me the parallel to the game is striking. Because Custer's tactic makes about as much sense as throwing twelfth century crooks at eighteenth century musketeers behind walls...IMHO.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are these games much fun?

@ War4ever

[Scouse Gits]

Fairly obviously - we think so - but they are not to everyone's taste.

SG[1]


... and as his eyes close for the last time the dying eighteenth century musketeer sees his glorious city reduced to the stone age by the barbarous (but victorious) twelfth century Crooks...

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits

SG[1]


... and as his eyes close for the last time the dying eighteenth century musketeer sees his glorious city reduced to the stone age by the barbarous (but victorious) twelfth century Crooks...

Completely agree...the singular musketeer could not stand alone against the hoard of glorious Crooks....

But there seems to be no need to destroy "his", now our, glorious city, is there??

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Are these games much fun?

@ War4ever

These games are a blast, obiwan. Read through some of the past games to get a sense of it. Group mission, agreed-upon rules. Many players means a lot of different styles and levels of ability are involved.

And even when reading all the posts between your turns, it's pretty amazing sometimes to see how the game has morphed between your previous turn and your next.

I've played in 3 or 4 now, and have learned a LOT in the process.

[Scouse Gits]

Yay!!!!!

We now have our very own CivGroup!!!

Thanks, MarkG

SG[1]

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Yay!!!!!

We now have our very own CivGroup!!!

Thanks, MarkG

SG[1]

Very excited, I see; but, what's the dealeo??

Maybe MarkG hasn't yet set it up yet, or, more likely, I just don't know where to look. Is it listed under CivII in the forum list??

Monk

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

A CivGroup is a list of people who play the same game, for facilitating lists of players and the like. You can find them by clicking on the CS Forums root directory.

I see Hydey has joined the list... how's the game coming along?

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

Special Rules: No Caravans, Freight, or Spies allowed. Diplomats are allowed exclusively for the purpose of establishing embassies. Tech trading and other forms of diplomacy are permitted. Victory condition can be either conquest, or AC.

Play List:

1. STYOM
2. DaveV
3. SG(2)
4. Jrabbit
5. SG[1]
6. Straybow
7. Hydey
8. La Fayette

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Very excited, I see; but, what's the dealeo??

Maybe MarkG hasn't yet set it up yet, or, more likely, I just don't know where to look. Is it listed under CivII in the forum list??

Monk

It's listed under Multiplayer.

But I don't know if there's a "lurker" class...
(Seriously, you should enter and sign in.)