Moves Discussion Thread

[Jon Miller]

crap, I think that they are probably the best team

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

have one troop gaurd our gate

have another start follwoing their troop arround

have a third go in the direction they did not come from (There is more likely to be a nonpopped goody hut, while where they came from will have no goody huts

Jon Miller

[Eli]

have one troop gaurd our gate

have another start follwoing their troop arround

have a third go in the direction they did not come from (There is more likely to be a nonpopped goody hut, while where they came from will have no goody huts

Agreed.

[Beta]

Agreed with one and three, most definitely.

But why the 2nd? To try and beat him to any goody huts he may come across, or to see if he leads us back to their civ?

I'm also thinking that when the settler pops and we don't need the fourt warrior to stave off disorder, maybe we should double up the guard on the chokepoint. JUst in case they get uppity early. Which is unlikely, but you never know.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
crap, I think that they are probably the best team

Jon Miller

Was thinking the same thing - Velocyrix, Theseus, Sir Ralph, Shiber, Meshelic, Arrian, and alva to name a few. Looks like the Apolytonian All-Star team. Hah - we'll show them.

But in saying that, Vel has written the most and some of the best strategy stuff on this site. His play style in deity has always involved early warfare. But how will their team style develop in a human vs human game.

Also, they know we are the Persians, and they know we will get immortals when we get iron workinging, and IF we can find iron and get it connected.

I would humbly suggest we be prepared for the possibility of an early rush by them. A city on the chokepoint, with spearmen.

The only drawback to the chokepoint city site is that an ooponent, if he was trying to force their way in, could sit on the hill just to the south.

I would also suggest we try to reach asap, any civ on the other side of GS. We may need allies, and we may need them soon.

AND - I would also suggest that as soon as we have a sufficient force of Immortals (and assuming we survive an early rush if there is one), we attack.

[Beta]

OK - here's what I'm thinking. And please tell me if you think this makes any sense. And sorry for the long posts - but hey, someone on this team has to do it.

So, in regular civ3, you could generally take two approaches - builder, or conqueror, with maybe different combinations of the two. The AI, in my opinion, only ever takes the builder route. Yes - it wages war every now and then, but not with the strategic purpose of taking over the world. Why? Because as we all know, the AI does not wage war very well. It relies on REXing, building, and trading.

In that style of game - culture building is key. First to protect your own cities, and second to try and take over their's via cultural takeover. And yes - with temples and cathedrals comes the happiness aspect.

Now, when facing human civs, everyone is going to be able to wage war reasonably well - at least better than the AI could. So - two possible outcomes -

1. with everyone knowing that, a sort of detente settles in and the game clearly becomes a building and culture race.

2. culture becomes insignificant, as civs wil resort to warfare long before they ever face the chance of losing territory to a culture flip. But that takes us back to 1. where your opponent is no longer some mindless AI who can't plan decent counter attacks, or cut off road approaches, and the like.

So - I suspect warfare, as usual, will be key - but will likely be restricted to two major situations - (i) alliances and (ii) the period when one civ has a technical and therefore military superiority over another.

I bring all this up, because I'm trying to deduce what GS will do in the early days. If they have come to similar conclusions about the technical superiority idea - well - that is the basis for me suggesting:

1. they may come at us early - before we have Immortals - knowing that....

2. when we do have Immortals, we may want to make the best of it. Will be a tough fight. On offence we will clearly be able to take out anything they will have to defend - (max of 2 on defence). But they will have chariots which will try and cut down the Immortals before they get a chance to attack. We will need spearmen to absorb the damage.

The other option is to REX like mad south of the chokepoint, claim as much of the territory as we can - and use the Immortals as our insurance for being able to settle in safely.

Anyways - that's what I was thinking. Reactions?

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by BetaHound
The other option is to REX like mad south of the chokepoint, claim as much of the territory as we can - and use the Immortals as our insurance for being able to settle in safely.

This is the option that I would prefer...but first we need a city at the chokepoint with at least two defending units....

[Beta]

I would agree with that!

[Beta]

Originally posted by BetaHound
But why the 2nd? To try and beat him to any goody huts he may come across, or to see if he leads us back to their civ?

What's your thinking behind this? Eli? Jon?

[Dis]

well we only have 2 warriors exploring the southern continent right now. The third is locked up on the isthmus right now. Although he did mention using the fourth warrior we have on garrison right now.

I think he meant to use the second warrior to explore as well as the first. And not have him follow GS around.

I think the point is moot anyways. I'm afraid we may not find more than 1 goody hut left.

I moved the warrior who made contact to the east. The next person to play should move him SE or something to get on the mountain for a better view. Since we met GS from the south I was hoping there might be something to the east.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by BetaHound


What's your thinking behind this? Eli? Jon?

well for one thing, I like to have an eye on all enemies (I want to know what they are up to)

Jon Miller

[Beta]

But he has no settler attached. And he is not going further than the chokepoint. What would we gain?

I would rather use our first two warriors to push south and discover new territory. In particular, send Willy, who is farthest south, down the east coast - I am assuming that the GS warrior came up the west coast, so we would have a better chance of hitting unopened goody huts down the other side. They may have a second warrior coming up that way anyways, so the quicker Willy gets there, the better.

And oops - just read Dissident's post. looks like we are thinking along the same lines.

[Beta]

Speaking of our early contact with GS, and what they might or might not do, check out this thread - the meat of it coming from Theseus and Velocyrix.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58720

"Know thy enemy."

[Dis]

Turn played. 3000 BC

I renamed the third warrior Thadeus. He is now fortified in the forest on the chokepoint.

I have moved the other settler into position 3A to build a city next turn.

The first warrior moved east onto the mountain to survey the terrain. He has spotted another Gathering Storm warrior moving north. And no goody huts were spotted.

Unfortunately the fact there are 2 gathering storm warriors moving north does not lead me to believe we will find any more goody huts on this continent. This continent is just not that big.

Next turn we can build the city on 3A. I propose that the next city be on the chokepoint. And after that we will have to do a land grab on the southern part of the continent. We can use warriors as escorts.

[Beta]

Thanks for the screenshot Diss. Well - the two warrior thing certainly sucks - but not unexpected I guess. And I agree - it probably means no more goody huts - but we should continue to explore south. And fortify the guy on the chokepoint next turn.

And what about the idea of bringing the other warrior down to the chokepoint as well and doubling up?

Also suggest the chokepoint city's first build is walls.