Next Turnthread/chat Times and Current Reports: term III part two (MrWIA back)

[GhengisFarb™]

Questions:
1)I still see Chartres, yet I had heard it was destroyed.

2)Why didn't the Antioch warrior move to and fortify on Persia's only potential source of iron as suggested?

3)Why are we still at war with France? I had thought everyone made it clear that if we couldn't take Rheims we would settle for Rouen so we could make Peace and cause the Persians and Germans to become irritated with the French and more likely to accept peace from us?

As it is it looks like we might take Rheims, but not for several turns, and we would probably destroy it in the process (as Chartres) so there isn't any other objective to achieve. We have Marseilles and Here it is which will give us all of the wine resources. I strongly oppose destroying Rhiems or Chartres as we can always take them from the French, but the Greeks might settle the empty areas and they would be harder to roust out.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Aggie: I think that attacking the Sword was the only choice. It attacked first. If he had just ignored it at that time, it would have picked off another archer.

re the movements...well, mistakes happen. I sure wouldn't have noticed a typo, I would have just followed what was written.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Questions:
2)Why didn't the Antioch warrior move to and fortify on Persia's only potential source of iron as suggested?

There were no new orders given for that warrior, and MrWIA was not around to hear the original plan. That one was my fault, I should have pointed that out to him, but didn't look too closely at the orders thread to see that it hadn't been ordered since I was not going to be playing those orders. Still, my fault for not pointing out all the relevent plans still being acted upon.

And I think he was MEANING Rheims everyone, but wrote Chartres in the post...he will be on later to confirm.

[Aggie]

Shiber, I decide that defensive units were at a premium in the east, so I decided sending that spear out could cause problems. I presumed(correctly) that the other spear could leave lovehsack and risk much. Though If I known about those an archer near there I might have reconsidered. MWIA, I apoligize for my outburst, it was uncalled for. I was just upset that people in Rheims lost there freedom so soon after tasting it, and who would have thought a @!## warrior would win. You did a real good job and we are in a better position today than yesterday.
Aggie

[Aggie]

Unorthodox,the sword probably would have but we could we have rheims now. Still I understand the logic. I've just learned that in instances like this you rush to take cities and make peace. Still a big victory and in reality we will never know what would have happened. If we hadn't attacked that sword we might have had bad random seeds next time. But since it was a gamble anyway it is ok. the odds were 8:7 in original plan anyway. Upon further thinking, if I had paid more attention to NW vs Ne, it also would have been better. Unortho the warrior mistake was mine and not yours. I just assumed he new we were going to the iron. Still I think it was no big deal.
Aggie

[UnOrthOdOx]

Eh, I should have told him about going after the Iron. He asked for important links when he returned, and I failed to provide that one. We can share the blame, if any.

I see where you are going with the attack on Rheims. We would have had two archers in the city, not one. Who knows if they would have attacked with both the swordsman and the warrior and taken the city anyway? Or if peace would have been signed with a stronger garrison in the city? Or if the sword would even attack since he was wounded? What is done is done, I suppose.

[Aggie]

Well I was thinking of attacking Rheims with the remainign archers,yes it will raze, but at least it won't be there.. Since they can't pop rush they will only have a warrior there. Of course this isn't my call. Though just moving there might help our case. when a city is under threat an AI will make deals.
On question left. Wht didn't the galleys set sail for uber Isle. I was all ready to wake up and see the island there(I hope its not a 1sq one).
Aggie

[Shiber]

Re: the warrior, I don't think it matters much now. This plan was made before Persia attacked. We planned to keep the warrior there so that the Persians will be unable to move a worker to their iron tile and dig a road but now it doesn't matter much.
Now we must face the fact that Persia will have iron in approximately 10 turns (unless we conquer Antioch).

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
3)Why are we still at war with France? I had thought everyone made it clear that if we couldn't take Rheims we would settle for Rouen so we could make Peace and cause the Persians and Germans to become irritated with the French and more likely to accept peace from us?

Where was this that everyone agreed? I checked the orders, and it only had a vague: For sufficient spoils. The original SMC plan had set objectives, which included more than settling for Rouen, but for taking (lost city names now...Chartres?) as well. Now, I haven't been as active this week, so I may have missed that discussion somewhere?

[Aggie]

One thing the warrir can do is lead some archers on a chase.
Aggie

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Where was this that everyone agreed? I checked the orders, and it only had a vague: For sufficient spoils. The original SMC plan had set objectives, which included more than settling for Rouen, but for taking (lost city names now...Chartres?) as well. Now, I haven't been as active this week, so I may have missed that discussion somewhere?

It was scattered over some 20 threads that popped up but I got the general idea towards the end of the week that most people had decided a 30+ turn war with France wasn't what they wanted...........

Besides there's nothing left to accomplish there. We can't take Rheims or Chartres, only destroy them, and I don't feel we're in a position to reduce our cities by two population points to build them back.

Anything past Here It Is and MarshaBrady is useless to us as they're so far from our core they'd be more a detriment than an asset IMHO.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I wasn't sure myself what the conditions people wanted for peace were. I just know that no Minister posted such conditions that I know of. I am not saying that we should try to take them, but perhaps taking some other city would net us those two in a peace deal. I don't really think it matters much at this point. Peace any time soon would be good, though. Give Paris a reputation knock, anger Persia and Germany towards them, and let's go attack the Germans.

[Aggie]

I have decided that a continued war against france is not in our interest. There is little we can take. I guess we could pillage the iron, but that is all. By miving archers in a threatening manner we could perhaps make a deal slightly better. Another possibliity is the see if we can get a GL. One thing to note is the archer near port rouge. I know the odd are almost 2:1 in our favor, but a defeat there would undo much of our gains. So maybe it is peace time for france. If we had roads to route reenforcements etc, we could go for the kill on joan. But we don't so our forces there must suffice. I say we make peace for what cities we can and then leave a garrison and a small force and call France a victory, since it truly was.
PS for uber: is this deputy smc job a thing that will last even when you are back to help out and take your place when you are unable to make it or is it a one time deal.
Aggie

[MrWhereItsAt]

Get a decent night's sleep and see how much there is to do! This reply will be to posts as I see them, so it will be edited gradually to answer everyone who needs to be answered. This may take 30 min or more here.

Originally posted by Reddawg
MR WIA, you said that we lost Chartres immediately after using it but then later on you talk about that happening to Reims... did it happen to both??

Sorry, the mention of taking Chartres should say Rheims. That report was long, and I got a little confused at the end. I have editied the report, and all edits are in bold. Repeat, we did not get near Chartres.

Originally posted by Shiber
Question: why didn't we take the Persian worker NW of Sidon during 290 BC? I thought this was in the ministers' orders.

I thought of that too, but it wasn't in the orders that I saw, and I can only trust that there was a reason for that.

Originally posted by Aggie
I said ignore units that might counter attack. So we could attack with all forces, if you had done this as instructed at rheims it would be ours. Also why was the elite spear there. I instructed elite spear into orleans. You should have seen that the nw was a typo in the order, however that was my fault( I guess there is a disease called direction flipping disorder going around in our office(DFD) . I obviously wanted the straight path. No matter, I am upset at the AA attacking swordsmen. This was a serious error that kept us from winning an over whelming victory. I' haven't done the numbers but from the log it seems he couldn't have attacked the city for at least 2 turns.

The Elite Spear did go to Orleans/Port Rouge (have a look - it is there ), it was a Veteran Spear that died. My little mistake, I have edited the report to show this, and all edits are in bold. That NW mistake I picked up - didn't think it needed mentioning as it was clear where you wanted things to go. By ignoring counter-attacking units, I thought you meant those that threatened random units or cities. With the Spearman gone, the Archers had no defence, and I thought it best to take out this aggressor as well as take Rheims (which I knew we could do with sufficient Archer victories) - that Warrior being there could not be forseen and that is why we lost the city. You could criticise my attacking that Swordman, but I had no reason to suspect any other units threatening Rheims, in which case the one Archer that moved in would have been sufficient garrison until the next turn. If we had not attacked the Swordman, we would have definitely lost an Archer - my way, if not for that damn Warrior, we would have both Rheims and all our Archers - what would you have done?

Originally posted by GenghisFarb
Questions:
1)I still see Chartres, yet I had heard it was destroyed.

2)Why didn't the Antioch warrior move to and fortify on Persia's only potential source of iron as suggested?

3)Why are we still at war with France? I had thought everyone made it clear that if we couldn't take Rheims we would settle for Rouen so we could make Peace and cause the Persians and Germans to become irritated with the French and more likely to accept peace from us?

1. has been answered - all the way through I meant Rheims. report has been edited to show this.
2. I had no idea what that Warrior was for, and spent 5 minutes searching around for orders on it when it looked at me at the end of 290 BC. It wasn't in any orders post, and since I have missed the detailed discussion the last week or so I guess I missed it, and everyone else assumed I knew about it. /shrug/ Just an allaround miscommunication, I suppose. I'm sorry if it helps, but I don't know what else to have done.
3. Again, all I read on the potential peace with France comes from the Ministers' orders and some posts from a little while ago (I've read so many I can't remember where they were ). However, I stopped immediately after taking Marseilles for the purposes of determining this. Having Marseilles is better than not (look at where their capital is now ), and we can get better terms than before.

Originally posted by Aggie
On question left. Wht didn't the galleys set sail for uber Isle. I was all ready to wake up and see the island there(I hope its not a 1sq one).

Well, I saw no orders on this, and I wasn't quite sure how to go about it seeing as the sea is more than one move wide here. I have seen discussion about getting a ship there, and then somehow meeting with another in the middle, and transferring the Settler over, losing the first ship. But this necessitates a ship not only to survive crossing the channel, but also to survive a turn in the sea/ocean so it can take the settler and return to UberIsle with enough movement points. I hoped this wasn't urgent enough to stop ALL turns for, and with no-one around (see how many people helped me in my URGENT help needed thread at the time), I just barrelled on elsewhere.

That's hopefully all your immediate questions answered. I just want to say that there are obviously problems that have emerged from my non-familiarity with every facet of the Empire - now I have played some turns I know what needs to be made clear and we can expect no such errors in the future. This time the President was (without knowing it) relying more than usual on the Ministers and people to make things abundantly clear to him and he did not ask for such clarification. Bygones are, well, bygone, and we are in a much better position than we started with. That everything is not quite perfectly efficient is obvious, but not inexcusably so (I hope). I apologise to the people for not fulfilling their will to the letter, but I believe I have certainly advanced their will, and I can look on things with the knowledge necessary for future successes.

El Presidente
MrWIA

[Shiber]

I think suing for peace in exchange for additional towns is a bad idea. Most of the towns France has to offer are of no real use for us. In fact, other than Chartres they're all pretty much useless to us.
We need to trade with France in exchange for Feudalism. If we can move our forces in a way that would threaten another French town the French might drop the price slightly but I believe we'd still have to pay for Feudalism in the end, even if we offer a RoP along with a peace treaty.