War Academy - Plan Demain

[kring]

If Greece does ally with us, and attacks Paris, there is no guarantee, the Greeks won't take Paris, instead of just weakening it for us to take. I expect us to take more casualties than that. I hope we want, but I am not counting on it. Better to plan for higher losses, and have fewer than the other way around. I know there are all sorts of combat calculators out there, but in the games I have played, the odds don't always go the way they are supposed; sometimes good, sometimes bad.

I agree with the need for a Plan B; it can't hurt, and it is better to have a well thought out Plan B, than to come up with it in a hurry.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think attacking Germany is a good idea. The Aztecs are militaristic too (militaristic and religious, right?), and they have a much more powerful empire. We need Germany as a buffer.

[Robber Baron]

Even though (in another thread) I expressed interest in the idea of allying with Greece against France, I personally have come around on the issue. Any French city taken by the Greeks will then entrench with hoplite defenders -- making it all the harder for us to eventually take.

And I totally agree with GoodFella: we don't want to weaken Germany in any way. The suggestion we divert the Greeks and/or French by fomenting hostilities down in Abananaba (note spelling) Minor is cunning. It would have to be accomplished, however, without in any way eroding our reputation (meaning, we couldn't afford to set up an alliance, declare war with Rome and/or Russia, then put up a purely token display of support). Protecting our reputation is paramount.

[Jonny]

Originally posted by skywalker
I don't think attacking Germany is a good idea. The Aztecs are militaristic too (militaristic and religious, right?), and they have a much more powerful empire. We need Germany as a buffer.

I agree with you here. Aztecs are militaristic and religious, and they are usually very agressive. We should keep Germany as a barrier until we feel we are strong enough to be able to handle the Aztecs. (Assuming that Aztecs get strong like they usually do.)

[DAVOUT]

Many interesting ideas for tomorrow (and the day after). But it seems that we should first define the frame within which we set our final aim. A strong civ could say : I want Abnanaba all for me, and I will take the other civs in such and such order for such and such reasons.
We are weak, and nobody knows if our survival depends on the Ivory Coast or whatever. It is probable that we will be only able, after the archers rush, to seize opportunities as and when they appear, until we will be strong enough to adopt a high profile. In this respect, a key consideration is political not strategic : the government has to establish a policy with clear priorities ; the worst would be to do things turn after turn because we have no other choice.

[BigFurryMonster]

It might be an idea to ally/RoP with CivA and attack CivB that is not adjacent to us (but is to CivA). The good thing about this is that in case of a counter-strike, our cities will remain safe. All the fighting will take place in THEIR territories. The bad thing is that, when we conquer cities, they won't be adjacent to the rest of our empire.

Consider this when picking a target!

[Will 5001]

We have to make sure that we dont finish off the french, since this will damage our reputation, we should let the Greeks, or whoever take the blame for the loss of a cuture!!

[Robber Baron]

Does wiping out a civ do a lot of damage to one's reputation?

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think so. I've never experienced this.

[Captain]

What about leaving France alone for a while? They're not a threat to us (yet) and I think we'll have bigger things to worry about. Their UU is crappy and they're generally non-aggressive. The only reason we'd want to fight them is to gain that land for ourselves.

Don't ally with the Greeks. Why give them French cities that we'd want later? They'd only stack them with hoplites and make it harder for us to capture later. We don't need them, and allying with them would only make our lives more difficult. The French contending with the Greeks would be good to balance that side. Then we could concentrate on the north and push up against the German/Aztecs. If we wipe out the French and leave only the gReeks, they'll be boxed in the corner and have only one way out - through us!

What about making a major settler/spearman rush for the Fragrant Valley and the Ivory Coast?

Sure, we might not beat the Greeks there, but if we can keep our American war to less than 20 turns, we can switch emphasis to colonizing the north. We should be able to grab a lot of it.

Then, instead of immediate war, I suggest we road our empire next. At that point, if we do manage to get ot the northern coast, we'll be fairly large. Roads will be necessary to make use of those luxuries (v important to keep our cities productive) and strategic resources, and to ferry troops along quickly. At that size, and with our neighbours expanding too, we'd be butted up against them. It would be good for us to road up our interior to be able to muster a credible defense (otherwise our cities would get picked off). Also, it would help us concentrate our troops on the border quickly for an offense.

Bsides, the leftover troops from the american war will be useful to deterr other nations, but not really for a war. We don't have much use for archers after this time. Archer gambit really only works by surprise. A long drawn out war with archers is disaster for us.

After America and planting cities til we're full, we should road up. Then start with the swordsmen before the next war (unless it isn't our choice). Or get knights asap.

Let's get that iron.

[Aggie]

Captian, first congradulations on your new appointment. Now to answer your questions as I see it. IMHO we should attack france quickly for 3 reasons.
1) As you pointed out, the archer attachs will be useless soon. So I suggest we get as much mileage as possible from them. Will we take all of france with them. No. but we probably could take several cities and perhaps aquire some iron for ourselves.
2) We want their land and right now we are boxed in. After we beat america we could colonize the area nw of them. However such an area would be rife with corruption and we would also have a narrow nation, that would simply make us too vulnerable. Frenchland cities would be lower in corruption.
3) If we wait, france will produce swordsmen and one day will visit us with an army of them. Right now they are peaceful but the day will come with our weakness and their increasing strength that they will decide to attack. Without iron we can't stop such an invasion and would be doomed.
Lastly let me say I don't want any alliance with greece. As I've said several times before(others have too). Any cities they take with us will simply we ones we must take in the end.
Aggie

[BigFurryMonster]

I have read somewhere that France has one of the lowest aggression values of all Civs. If this is true, we might not see their armies for a long time...

[Robber Baron]

Though if we wait too long, then we're facing musketeers.

[BigRed515]

or facing the gigantic Aztecs to our north with only our original + (soon to have) American cities, which worries me more than musketeers ever will.

[Captain]

If push comes to shove, why not pre-empt against the Aztecs? by the time we consolidate AMerica, we'll be butted up against them.

The Greeks are too strong (hoplites) and the French are not a threat (I could be wrong but they've never been worrisome to me). The Germans and Aztecs will be bordering us next. They are dangerous. They should be the target of some kind fo action. Or at least we should plan some kind of defense plan in case of an attack.

The Persians and those other (orange?) guys are far away. There's a lot of juhgle between us and them. won't be bordering them for a while.

but the game itself will progress and we'll see whther or not these predictions are true or not. obviously we'll adjust in accordance ot the changing situation.