Turn 131, 50 AD

[DeepO]

well, is Nathan awake already?

DeepO

[DeepO]

If we want to, we can set up another galley chain for next turn, meaning we can unload some pikes and MIs (knights will be all on Bob anyway) in Sirocco and use them to defend NM if that needs to be. This decision has to be made during RP's turn, of course... but since the number of troops we have to transport towards Bob is falling each turn, some more chaining to get them there faster can very well be beneficial.

DeepO

[nbarclay]

I'm back now. For the record, the tiles 2 and 2-3 from the GoW stack are both forest.

The issue with NM is that if we keep the city, we can rush the remaining shields (we have ten now) of a cat or a pike, thereby getting some use out of the shields we have there now. If we give it back, RP can get a lot more out of it, but if they have to give it back to us again next turn because GoW is threatening it, we throw away both our ten shields and the ten plus RP can get from it. Thus, if GoW doesn't threaten it, we're better off giving it to RP, but if they do, we're better off keeping it. And GoW moving to Toledo 2 for a fork is one of the moves that would threaten it.

The companion question is how our giving NM back to RP vs. keeping it might be likely to affect GoW's actions. If they go for NM, will they move straight in, move to Toledo 2 for a fork, or move 2-6 and try to sneak in from the north (in which case RP could keep the city long enough for walls or a cat before giving it back)? Do we want them to go after NM or go ahead and hit Toledo? And is keeping NM or giving it back more likely to get GoW to behave how we want them to?

Very complicated, and I don't have any clear answers myself even now (much less at 3 a.m. - it looks like NYE is a time zone west of me).

Regarding the Great Wall, I very definitely don't want GoW getting any ideas of switching to it themselves!


By the way, I just checked, and they've switched their prebuild to Sistine now, meaning the suspicion that they were going for Leo's was almost certainly correct. That could get very, very nasty for us if they use fake wars with ND to cut off their iron temporarily to build horsemen instead of riders and then upgrade them.

[nbarclay]

We don't have any galleys in a position to use chaining next turn; our galleys have been too busy maximizing our numbers of troops landed this turn and next turn. We have four that can make pickups next turn and unload in Sirocco the turn after.

[Randolph]

Wow, this has been quite the story catching up on. I'm way to far behind to even consider getting involved, but I'm still waiting with bated breath.

Certainly exciting

[Shiber]

Good to see you around.

Much of the driving forces that shape GoW's actions are emotional, we've seen that already. If we give NM to RP, in my opinion we very much increase the odds that GoW will go for a fork or directly to NM-8 instead.
My vote is to keep NM. Furthermore, I would like us to quickly send a note to RP explaining that we're considering keeping NM for the moment for these reasons, and asking whether that spoils their plans. I'll do it myself in half an hour if noone objects, since time is short.

[nbarclay]

I'll need to finish playing the turn in just a few minutes. Any more thoughts?

[DeepO]

I still favor giving NM to RP... even if it would waste 20 shields if we're wrong... but at least it would gain RP 20 gold (at expense of 5? for us?), it's not a total waste.

As to galley chaining: I thought it was possible with one galley, but it doesn't matter if it's not. And it's very diffcult to compute these paths from screenshots of previous turn, let me tell you

DeepO

[DeepO]

Oh, and welcome back, Randolph! I can imagine you have a lot of catching up to do, much has happened the past months. Let me know if you want a brief introduction...

DeepO

[Shiber]

I'd really rather play it safe with NM and keep it for now.
If we keep it, then to GoW, it's just another city. It has even greater defense bonuses (city defense bonus in addition to hill defense bonus, +40% more than Toledo), and it delays GoW's attack by a turn, during which we can catapult them and bring more forces. (of course they don't know that if they went for NM, it would make things much worse for us; hopefully these fears that I've listed will paralyse them and they will be unable to do anything original)
If we give it to RP, it suddenly becomes very very lucrative in the eyes of GoW, the team with the famous "thread of grudges"-based decision-making process. They will abandon all their fears of possibly miring 14 riders and charge into NM.

[nbarclay]

Okay, I'm out of time. I'm going to keep NM until we see what GoW does and rush a cat there (40 gold). If, at the beginning of next turn, GoW is poised to hit NM, I'll see if I can catch it in the build phase and switch to rushing a pike. I'll also hang onto Chivalry and our gold, since it's doubtful that RP will be able to use them in their turn.

[nbarclay]

Turn and shots sent.

[Shiber]

I started working on a message to let RP know, but thought better of it.
If indeed there is a mole, GoW will know where to go next turn.
We ought to see if we can get a hold of one of the prominent and trustworthy figures in the team (Arnie, BigFree, Togas) on IRC.

[Shiber]

I see we rushed a cat in NM
meow...

[DeepO]

Indeed, we need to let RP know why we did it. It could be sent in such a way that a possible mole would turn GoW to attack Toledo, though. By simply mentioning "we can defend NM for sure if it remains in our posession, and if the need is there" it should be clear that in case GoW goes for NM, they will not be able to take it. I'm not sure if we don't want to lure them, though.

DeepO