Case Pink.

[Harovan]

Re: Red and Blue City

Originally posted by notyoueither
Other cities built further away will be less effecient as settler factories due to higher corruption and be more vulnerable to enemies and Barbs.

This is true as long as we haven't enough of these corrupt cities. But generally, 95% corrupt cities with at least 2 tiles making 2 food, are darn good settler factories. True, they build settlers every 30 turns only, but 10 of them build a settler every 3 turns. 15 of them - every 2 turns. And so on. And if we REX, we'll quickly have many of them. Our core cities could be fixed on improvements, units and maybe 1-2 early wonders.

EDIT: For food/shield balance purists: True, 1 tile producing 2 food and 1 tile producing 1 food suffices as well.

[notyoueither]

Yes, but the core cities have to build the later cities before there are any later cities.

I usually follow the 2 friends theory. As each city builds it's second settler it is switched to develop itself. That gives exponential growth until all land is occupied.

Right now, Red city hasn't even had it's own founding settler built let alone supplied soldiers and settlers for our further expansion.

Blue city, given it's more restricted area might be an ideal settler factory for many more than 2 settlers after the first war.

/Edit. The key is time. Red and Blue will build everything faster due to lower waste. They must be settled first.

[mtgillespie]

I've seen a lotof talk in this thread about what to do when we've taken the first city (be it Paris or New York). Has anyone yet come up with a contingency plan for if the first wave fails , however unlikely this may be?

Should we sue for peace until we can have a second attack, try to rush units up in ones and two's as they are made? Or are we saying that the start is so bad that the whole game hinges on the first attack being successful?

I'm not trying to be a doom-monger here , i just think we should have a plan B.

[Harovan]

It's pretty unlikely that it fails, but if it fails, nothing is lost. The AI is always willing to make peace after 5-10 turns in the early game and they can't counterattack in this short period of time. We save our spearmen for sure, and the typical AI has no serious attack force in this period of time.

[mtgillespie]

So if it does fail, where do we retreat to? All the way back to Apolyton, with our tail between our legs? Or consolidate in the mountains until reinforcements can arrive?

[Harovan]

Highly depends on the situation. If we have forces to heal, we may fortify one spear on a mountain outside the French borders and let the archers heal, and the other go halfway back to Apolyton to protect approaching reinforcements. If not (although I never saw this happen), we may just pillage a bit with the spearmen and make peace then. Not the best outcome, but also slows down the French a bit.

Again, we're talking about a situation, I have seen maybe once in 20 cases.

[mtgillespie]

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure it had been thought about, even though it is unlikely. As someone once said, always state the obvious. That way, you know that everyone is thinking the same obvious

[kring]

Good point, I was wondering if anybody was going to bring up the point. After all, assuming we will prevail is first and foremost an assumption. You can quote all sorts of odds, but results are what count in the game. I have seen such attacks fail, and too many assumptions are being made about the French and American forces we would be facing.

Plan B's are always great to have, just in case. And a Plan B devised before it is needed is almost always better than one you have to think up under pressure.

[Theseus]

Hello all.

Q: Why 2 Spearmen for the attack?

I would be in favor instead of either another Archer, or even another Warrior to be used as a rover accompaniment.

I am in favor of attacking France, btw, simply because the approach on mountains is so good.

[Harovan]

Theseus: It was the SMC's request. In mine eyes it's ok, as if we take Paris and continue to attack, we'll have another spear to protect the stack. Btw, I have finetuned my Archer rush approach this way too.

Btw: Barracks are built to save some time. We could build more Warriors first and Barracks later, but we already have lost enough time.

Finally: Glad to see you here!

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by mtgillespie
I've seen a lotof talk in this thread about what to do when we've taken the first city (be it Paris or New York). Has anyone yet come up with a contingency plan for if the first wave fails , however unlikely this may be?

Should we sue for peace until we can have a second attack, try to rush units up in ones and two's as they are made? Or are we saying that the start is so bad that the whole game hinges on the first attack being successful?

I'm not trying to be a doom-monger here , i just think we should have a plan B.

in my version of the plan, we would produce 2 more archers as "base offensive defense" and spearman garrisons all around.

the 2 archers, if not needed for defense, could be used to "replenish" the main stack.

[Panag]

Re: re Apolyton production

Originally posted by notyoueither
Spiffor,

OK Poly builds Barracks in 7, grows in 9.

I believe the plan and the consensus calls for a settler after the barracks. We need to build Red City asap. It has already been delayed to complete the barracks first. Any further delay and Red City will not be on line to build reinforcements for the war.

The settler should take 8 turns. there will be a 6 turn period in which Apolyton will be 3 pop and require some action to keep out of disorder.

As suggested in the plan, the 3rd pop could be changed to a natural philosopher (scientist with Newton's) and then we can put research spending to 0 for those 6 turns.

After that, the plan would call for a Spearman to be built first (maybe second) and kept in garrison at Poly until the last archer is completed. That spearman will keep Apolyton out of disorder until it leaves with the last of the 6 archers required at the front for the war.

hi ,

, would it not be smart to let poly grow a bit first , then let them produce settlers , the bigger the city , the faster they build it , and the more money we have , ....

or do we simply dont have the time , ....



have a nice day

[Guardian]

Re: Re: re Apolyton production

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

, would it not be smart to let poly grow a bit first , then let them produce settlers , the bigger the city , the faster they build it , and the more money we have , ....

or do we simply dont have the time , ....



have a nice day

Well, the problem is that we'd need temple, luxuries, units, etc. to keep it out of civil disorder...
Even at size 3 we'll be in trouble once the garrison leaves...

So, for now we don't have time. Otherwise, you do have a point...

[Papa Chubby]

I like the plan, it assumes a short vicious war, which is exactly the kinds of war you need to fight in order to maintain growth in the cities.

[kring]

That is the problem with the plan: it assumes a lot of different things. Assumptions have a bad habit of not being accurate; and in this game, potentially fatal.