Securing the Isthmus

[Shiber]

I suggest the following:
We build a settler in EoTS after the granary is complete and send it along with a warrior (or two, if you prefer) to where Slash is currently standing, in order to found a city.
The immediate disadvantage is that we'll be sending a settler to a very long voyage, and when he finally arrives he'll found a very corrupt city. However, look at the advantages:
1. We secure the Isthmus in our hands, or we prevent Vox from securing it first (depends on how you prefer to look at it).
2. We create a valid reason to demand that Vox move their warrior that is currently blocking the Isthmus: they're sitting in our territory!
3. After we "convince" all Vox warriors to leave the territory South of the Isthmus, we'll have the rest of the charted world completely to ourselves.
4. We create the most easily defensible border that we could possibly ask for! We can concentrate all our military units in the Isthmus. Furthermore, we can move the city to the Isthmus itself so that our warriors will be able to defend our territory from the city! Think about it - we can defend ALL of our land just from one tile, with the added bonus of a city! In case of war we could build walls in there... to put it short, our territory would be practically impenetrable!

Yes, it may be crazy, but think of all the truly magnificent advantages of this plan! Don't look at it as wasting a settler on founding a corrupt city, look at it as using a settler to create the most perfect Stronghold on the most perfect border! Look at it as solving most of our security problems and allowing us to focus on REXing and building, all this at the ridiculous cost of a single settler.

[nbarclay]

That strategy only works if Vox lets the city survive long enough for us to defend it heavily. If you were Vox, would you permit such a thing?

[FrustratedPoet]

The chances of us
a) building a city there before Vox does and
b) keeping our city in one piece long enough to get a couple of spearmen there to defend it properly
are pretty slim I think.

If we suceed however, it would put us in a very strong position, I agree, but do we want to put all those resources aside for such a risk?

[Shiber]

We already have one warrior at the city site. The settler will come to the site accompanied by at least one additional warrior. The site itself is on a hill, providing us with a defensive bonus of 50%, plus the defensive bonus of 25% for fortifying our warriors. We can build an additional warrior in the city within 10 turns, and pop-rush walls after the warrior is complete.
We shouldn't fear Vox. On the contrary, we should wish that they would attack our city - the odds certainly favor us.

[FrustratedPoet]

Point taken about the defence Shiber, maybe it will be enough.

I still think that Vox will be able to get there first, but without knowing where their cities are it's impossible to tell.

[Shiber]

I forgot to mention that we'd also have the advantage of healing. Our forces will be able to heal inside the city, while Vox's troops will be unable to heal.
Regarding the chances for getting there first, can we look at the past scores and find out when Vox built their second city. We know that 'The Voice' dropped to 1 pop in 3000 BC (this first shows up in our 2950 BC save).
If it turns out that they've already spent their settler then I say we go for it. In such a case, we would have a much greater chance of getting there first than they do because it will take them significantly longer to build another settler than it would take us.

[FrustratedPoet]

A quick count from our latest screenshot tells me that it will take approx. 16 turns for a settler to move from one of our cities to the Isthmus where our warrior is standing.

That's a long time .... but I suppose no matter what happens we certainly don't want them founding other cities south of the isthmus.

[Harovan]

It's tempting to place a city there, but on this one I'm with Nathan and FP. Our chances to found the city there first are small, and at the moment we wouldn't take any advantage from it. The isthmus is certainly closer to VC than to our capital. We would lose the rush, and even if we win it, we would gain a corrupt and for a long period useless city. We should let VC waste the settler for the city and take it later.

As for preventing them to slip through with settlers: We have Grog there and Slash is on the way. In 4 turns we'll have our blockade up as well. If Grog steps back 2 turns, possibly even in 2.

[zeit]

Well, that city won't stop anyone completely- after all- we can't prevent them from landing from ships- but indeed- that would be a major victory in the isthmus conflict should we succeed in this operation. True- it holds our ealry growth, but mightbe worth it, and will definitely secure our hold over our peninsula (should name it soon- Estonia sucks- there sound of it and the connotation- a former soviet union state).

I vote yes for the plan- although the risk of Vox getting there first is no small risk- i have reason to suspect that Vox's capital is not very far to the north, but i may be wrong.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
As for preventing them to slip through with settlers: We have Grog there and Slash is on the way. In 4 turns we'll have our blockade up as well. If Grog steps back 2 turns, possibly even in 2.

IMHO that is not going to work as well as it sounds. We'd have to retreat once they set up their city on the Isthmus because we'd be sitting in their territory, and we'd have to retreat again, this time to a 3 tiles border, when their city expands (could happen earlier than we think, after all they have an interest in building a temple there).

Sir Ralph and others, you guys have more civ knowledge than I do. Surely one of you can look at Vox's score and tell if they already used the settler they built in 3000 BC, no?
This would be very useful information because if we find that they have already used their settler, this would mean that it would take them a very long time to grow back to size three and build another settler, whereas we can build a settler significantly faster than they will and tilt the chances in our favor.

[zeit]

Shiber's right- if they secure the isthmus witha city- which is surely a priority for them- then we lost the isthmus for good- and are chances of breaking out and keeping up with the rest of the teams are greatly reduced. This is a bold move, if we choose to take it, and i think we should- there might be a chance that Vox's next settler will take some time to get to the isthmus, and we might get there first.

[ManicStarSeed]

I support getting a city established up near the ismithus as well.

I personaly am in favor of eliminating the entire civ BEFORE they get iron hooked up. They are BANKING of the fact of getting their immortals to wipe us out.

Mss

[Harovan]

Originally posted by zeit
Shiber's right- if they secure the isthmus witha city- which is surely a priority for them- then we lost the isthmus for good- and are chances of breaking out and keeping up with the rest of the teams are greatly reduced.

No, wrong, because we have another 2 tiles wide defense line two tiles behind the present one. We'd just retreat 2 tiles and all would be well, till the city expands the second time. In this case we'd have to retreat to a 3 tiles wide line, but this is far in the future and at this time an extra warrior won't hurt us.

[zeit]

As Nathan said in some other thread- placing a city on an isthmus is like claiming it, but putting a fortified warrior is simply being bullies- we want to have an egge over them- we can't play along and say- they found it first, so they get it first. It's a risk worth taking- we can never safely REX when the Vox control the isthmus and push their way through with more and more cities. This window of opportunity is something we mustn't miss.

Having Vox in a convenient position to send their army through to our lands is a nightmare for us, why are we willing to put up with the possibilty of this happening- just because they found it first- we can tip the scale in our favor if we act quickly.

How long will it take us to bring a settler from Eots (building+movement)?

[Harovan]

Zeit, answer me a question: For what the hell do we need the isthmus right now? Is there uranium, or aluminium, or something I fail to see? If your answer is, because it's a place of strategical importance, my reply is yes, although right now we don't need it. We can take it later, after map making.