Securing the Isthmus

[Shiber]

1. If we take it now, we can REX without worrying about Vox.
2. Vox will most likely attack us with Immortals. If we take over this excellent line of defense before they attack, we can defend our territory a lot easier. Personally, I don't see any other option but settling the spot right now. I don't suppose anyone thinks that we can take this city with plain warriors, or with WCs because unfortunately, the latter can't cross unroaded jungle.

Now is our chance. Let's take this bold step, let's not blow this chance.

[Harovan]

Why waste a settler for what can be done with 2 warriors?

[Conqueror]

Even if we would like to waste a settler there, it would take nearly 20 turns for the settler to get up there, and there is no gurantees whatsoever that they wouldnt get there first, if its in their intentions to settle there.

I vote for not spending a valuable settler there. At least not yet.

[Conqueror]

Besides, if we settle there, guard the site with 2-3 warriors, even then it will be easy for them to destroy the city: its way too far from our core at the moment for us to feed the city with military units, and itself it cannot produce enough, even with pop-rushing.

We would need atleast 2 spearmen, walls, and barracks there to heal the spears. Even then the city would fall to immortal attack pretty easily. And all that we would have done would be spent a lot of resources for nothing.

[Meshelic]

I support the building of a city north near the Isthmus like the plan calls for. If the Voxians settle that area first then yes, we are lost to the isthmus, unless we build a trireme to sail across the sea in the west and plop some settlers, but that's way off.

We need to make a stand now. Maybe there aren't aluminum or uranium in that area eventually, but location-wise, it's very important to our expansion....

[Theseus]

Too far...

Better to build a SOLID empire around our core, properly defend key positions, and create kill zones for the possible (or should I say inevitable) Immortal attack.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by 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.

That analysis works against warriors. But when immortals show up, our warriors are toast. Even spearmen within city walls couldn't hold off a significantly larger force of immortals, although we could make them pay if we can survive long enough for them to have to attack on such terms.

We're two turns from Pottery, which means three turns from our granary and nine turns from the earliest we can build a settler. It's about 13 more turns (thanks to a road, the settler can move two the turn he's built) to get the settler up to the hill tile, and one turn beyond that to build the city. So unless Vox's second city has excellent food-producing capability and/or their travel distance is essentially trivial, odds are we can get there first.

I still maintain that building a city there would be a great way to start an early war. For them to build a city there would be par for the course: it's strategic land closer to their capital than to ours, so we would have no grounds whatsoever to object. But our building a city on strategic land closer to their capital than to ours, thereby largely cutting off their expansion in one direction, would almost have to be seen as a highly aggressive (and unfriendly) act on our part. If the situation were reversed, would we not regard it as an absolute imparative to wipe out the city?

Then again, it just occurred to me that we might be able to make that work in our favor. If we can get a spearman or two in place in addition to a couple warriors, they will almost have to use immortals if they want to take the city. Oops, there goes their GA. If we can make peace by conceding control of the isthmus to them after they capture our city, we have our GA left in front of us but they don't. If not, our GA will still come enough later, with enough more cities and growth within cities, to be worth a good bit more than theirs.

I still think the idea is a horrible one, if only because of how much it would set us back relative to everyone but Vox. But if they push things enough on the diplomatic front to make war essentially inevitable, it may possibly be less horrible than the alternatives. It may indeed be worth serious consideration.

Nathan

[DeepO]

Well, I don't like the idea because
a) it's too agressive at this point. We might want to do it in a few turns if things don't work out the way we want to.
b) We would be claiming the 1-tile neck after we said we are acknowledging their claim on it. Only in a war situation, as war will certainly erupt
c) it's too dangerous to move to there, and certainly too dangerous to hold it. We would need a lot of spears holding it against a horde of immortals, and the only convenient way to get spears so far up is by road (which we don't have atm)
d) there are less costly tactics, like blocking with 2 warriors, which will have about the same result.
e) Indeed, we stun initial growth in comparison with other civs, Vox doesn't seem the problem to me as other teams might become later on. If we would be in need for fertile land we should do it, but we aren't in any need.

So basically, I vote against it, for reasons that were in large already mentioned here

DeepO

[alva]

Something no-one mentioned, if vox settles on the 1 tile isthmus(important), no one else can get trough either.
So no alliances on us!!!

I liked the idea too of blocking them there. But am doing so less now..
We simply don't need it.
If we can the Island up to to NEck, we will have 12-13? cities, not bad IMO.(don't forget, We won't have a second front ever, we can direct all our militairy towards neck! Even Vox will have to defend at least two borders.

btw: I don't think they are able to get any alliance against us for now anyway.
What are they gonna pay the other team with?. Remember that it takes Vox allmost 20(if not more) turns to get to us, imagine how many tiles there are betweens us and another team...
It simply isn't worth it...

Another thing, hurting vox now, will
1. hurt us
2. hurt vox
3. the team behind vox will be laughing all the way to the bank. Let them settle towards us(not this side of neck), we will have more later, and at that time we can make it ours.
When rushing vox now, all we would be doing is destroying a few cities to limit their growth.

(slightly incorent, but then I just woke up,so )

[DeepO]

You just woke up? what happened, you should be heading to bed

You're right on the Ishtmus settling, it would be in our advantage if they settled it... after we get Grog across. We need to have the contact of that Civ (which will most likely be to the West, not to the North, otherwise there wouldn't be any need to call it Northern Estonia). They can't reach us until galleys appear, so no fear of an invasion from them, but what they could do is save some cash, and give it to Vox to let them mass-upgrade to immortals. I wouldn't do it, and Vox is not really a mercenary, but maybe they can be pursuaded...

DeepO

[alva]

they could do is save some cash, and give it to Vox to let them mass-upgrade to immortals.

ok, what would it cost to fight someone elses war. Afterall, you are in best position to answer this .

4 techs? 1000gold? 2 cities?

I hardly think you get a human to do thnigs like, like you can a AI to do (I know, you can't do this in civ3, but for argument sake)

(I'm actually trying to live during daylight hours, just takes awhile to adapt. Horeca mensen hé )

[DeepO]

For the sake of argument, let's pretend I'm Vox, and are bribeable. What would I need for a war, any war, in which at least one city gets conquered or destroyed? It would depend on how long I know the deal (or contract), as I want to have money, lots of money, so I can upgrade warriors in immortals. For any serious war, 8 immortals and a few spears should get me going (early on, of course). So, I want at least so much gold... 8*40=320 gold.

As I will get into a GA, and have to divert power to my military instead of expansion, I would very much like a tech too, or even 2 techs if they are on the way to Monarchy. Other deals will be possible (more tech, less gold, workers, or even cities(but cities would be my lesser choice), but 2 techs and 300 gold should be sufficient for me to start a war in which one city gets razed. 2 techs and 300 gold should be possible to get in 40 turns or so (1 initial tech, one researched in around 10 turns. 10 gold per turn whith a growing empire over 30 turns).

This isn't so much, don't you think? and by asking them to start a war, they can be sure they gain a trading partner, and leave two teams on near war for the rest of the game, as it is very unlikely that we will be forgetting what Vox did to us, and Vox won't start trading with us as they were the first to declare war.

Of course, I'm not Vox, but with immortals, I want to go to war anyway, so why not allow one civ to pay for the war...

Maybe we might consider this to offer them, BTW. In 30 turns, we can easily have 300 gold ready, they get some of the techs we already have, and we're sure they are no middleman anymore as the mystery civ won't trade with them as eagerly anymore. In 30 turns, we culd be starting the first WorldWar, without even being mentioned as the aggresors... meanwhile we can safely expand, and outproduce Vox, which gets killed some 20 turns later.

DeepO

[Shiber]

If I understand correctly the three primary arguments against sending a settler to secure the Isthmus were:
1. We won't be able to defend this city well.
2. Vox Controli will send their own settler to secure the landbridge before we do.
3. We'll waste a settler on founding a corrupt city.
I'd like to relate to those three arguments:

1. That is not true. First of all, that city would be on a hill, meaning a 50% defense bonus. Second, it will provide our units with a place to heal two points per turn in case they need to, while Vox's units will have to return to their cities to heal. Third, even a corrupt city can produce an additional warrior in 10 turns and city walls in the 11th turn (by pop-rushing it). Last, with the choke point secure we'll be able to send most of our forces to defend this single city (the rest will be watching the inner cities or keeping an eye on Vox's two warriors).
Even if they send immortals to take this city we'll be prepared. Warriors, on a hill, fortified, behind city walls have a defense value of 2.25. A spearman will have the defense value of 4.5. Against immortals with 3 attack points against this city, and given the fact that our warriors and spearmen will be able to heal two points per turn while Vox's immortals will heal none, this will not be a challenge.

2. If I understand correctly, Vox has already used the settler that they built in 3000 BC to found a city, which means that it would take them very long to (1) accumulate 30 shields for another settler and (2) grow back to size 3 in order to build it. This means that the odds favor us, even if the Isthmus is considerably closer to Vox's capital than to ours.

3. Yes, we will have to use a settler to found a corrupt city instead of a producing city, but think about it this way - we'll save tons in defense costs, and we'll be able to REX within our peninsula without worry. The prize is certainly worth the sacrifice.

I urge you all once again to accept this proposal and secure our control over the landbridge. Let's show Vox who they're messing with!

[Randolph]

Sorry to be the one to bring this up Shiber, I'm glad you put up an argument so this was fully discussed, but I think that if you haven't won any converts at this point that you're not going to. There's no way this will pass.

Settlers are just too valuable at this point, and no static defense we can put up in the near future will hold up against immortals. We should continue to block The Neck, but without a city.

Randy

[DeepO]

No convert here, I'm afraid

1. we can settle that city in 20 turns at the earliest. at that time, it can have at most 2 or 3 warriors for defense. In those same 20 turns, you can expect Vox to have build 4 or 5 archers (if they go for it), which can easily handle our 3 warriors on a hill. Never will they come for it and make it a dragging war: if they are bent on taking it, they will do it swift, in 1 turn. They are no AI.

2. Besides the point. It was already said that if we go for it, we can have a settler there before they are even able to reach it. Further, we have 2 warriors closeby, which can at least for a while block any settler party that would be trying to claim the Isthmus.

3. One of the disadvantages: we'll lose a settler. Also, by splitting our cities into two separate clusters, our defense budget willl go up, while if we make one cluster of cities it will stay lower for the same kind of defense. It isn't even said that we can defend both clusters, certainly not in the beginning (in 40 or 50 turns, things might be different. But by that time, we'll have settled over 12 cities already)

So, no thank you, no settler to the Neck. If you see how many discussions it has taken to move the order of the next cities, to take a less economical viable city for better security instead of the top production facility we'll likely are going to have, you can imagine what kind of discussion it would give to lose a settler on some questionable quest to corrupted insecurity.

DeepO