The Case for Razing Jerusalem

[Sullla]

With the Templar stack at Pink gone, we can start thinking about moving against Jerusalem. (There will probably be a separate thread for that - Operation Vespasian? [Double bonus points to anyone who gets THAT obscure reference!]) Aside from the military considerations, we also have to decide whether or not to keep the city. I'm going to argue here that we should raze the city - not because Imperio wants us to do so, but because it allows us to get some better city spacing!



Here's what I would do in this area, assuming a post-Jerusalem world. We raze Jerusalem and replace it one tile NW on the pink dot indicated. This grabs us the rice tile and a third sugar tile in the west, as well as resulting in fewer wasted tiles between the new city and Pink Dot. Most importantly, it clears out space for a very nice coastal city on the green dot, which takes two clams and a rice tile for itself. The red dot has minimal overlap with Something fishy, grabs rice and banana tiles, and has the potential for 9 grassland cottages at some point in the future. Very nice!

Alternately, we can move the red dot one tile east to grab one of the clams resources and weakening the green dot location slightly. This is also a strong move, and opens up the stone resource as a tile to be worked, however we would probably have to delay its founding until after the Templars are gone, and I don't know whether we want to do that. Both spots are excellent, IMO, so I don't think it's that important of a decision.

In either case though, I think we're better off razing and replacing Jerusalem. There are no shrines in there, remember, and frankly not much infrastracture either. We get a better city by moving NW, better spacing with our other cities, and a more defensive location. And yes, Jerusalem is a double holy city, but again there's no shrines in there! (Stupid Templars. ) As an added bonus, Imperio wants us to raze the city anyway. Why not humor them and make it sound like we're sacrificing, when it's an action we'd take anyway?

Thoughts?

[ruff_hi]

With the Templar stack at Pink gone, we can start thinking about moving against Jerusalem. (There will probably be a separate thread for that - Operation Vespasian? [Double bonus points to anyone who gets THAT obscure reference!])

How many points?

Errr - it might not be that great a name.

Nero picked Titus Flavius Vespasian to put Israel back under Roman tribute and control. In the spring of 67AD Vespasian amassed an army of 50,000 fresh troops took all of Galilee and then wintered the troops eighty miles from Jerusalem. In the mean time anarchy broke out in Jerusalem and a civil war of Jew against Jew raged. Vespasian used this internal war of the Jews to his advantage. He allowed the strife to bring as much disunity to the Jews as possible. He in the mean time would take Samaria, Peraea, and all Idumaea. When spring of 68AD was ending, he laid siege against Jerusalem. As the city was being attacked, different army Generals attempted to dethrone Nero. According to history he fled and was either stabbed to death or committed suicide in June of 68. This brought all activity against Jerusalem to a halt. Vespasian waited for fresh orders from Rome. Three men were emperor in turn: Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. The Roman Empire was divided. The largest contingency of military was in Israel under Vespasian. Suddenly, the army placed Vespasian as Emperor and he abandoned the Jewish war. The Romans retreated back north and Jerusalem was again a city of great activity.

Finally in the spring of 70AD the emperor appointed his son Titus as General over the Roman troops still in Syrian and Israel. Another sizable army was organized and Titus swung down through Samaria and came to the walls of Jerusalem arriving in April. In a few short weeks there was a breach in the walls of the lower city. But the tower of Antonia and the temple fortifications offered great resistance. Titus decided to build a earthen wall around the city and starve the Jews. This failed and an assault was launched against the tower of Antonia which fell into Roman hands on July 5, 70AD. The Temple came immediately under attack and fell on August 10, 70AD. The upper city fell on September 7, 70AD and the capture of Jerusalem was over.

Maybe Operation Titus would be better. Unless you think that we will need two goes at it.

[mostly-harmless]

Interesting.
Just some comments from the top of my hat:
We lose access to the see with New Jerusalem. Not a big deal, but it would have been our best spot for building a field (close to the channel and good production (5 hills).
All other cities (SF, MY and the two new cities on the coast) will be less productive in terms of a naval base.
W
We still want to settle one city east of Jerusalem. The old Jerusalem would be more helpful in terms of projecting our culture in this direction.
We lose the chance to plant a filler city in between Jerusalem, Jericho & PD. Also not a big deal.

I would definately move Red Dot onto the hill 1E to avoid overlapping with SF and work the stones. I think we can start getting the settler for Red Dot lines up now (as we do in MY) and setlle as soon as he is in position. By then ~7 turns Templars will be in no position to threaten it.
Green Dot I think is pretty much a no-brainer.

The arguments in favor of razing are all valid. I am undecided at the moment. Lets hear some more thoughts.

mh

[Dreylin]

Re-reading some of the Imperio chats, they do not want to generate a culture clash between New Jerulsalem and Constantinople and want us to move it S, SW of current spot - i.e. 1NW of Green. If we considered that, it would give us a very strong Naval site - which as mh points out we do need on this coast - but it would leave Red as filler, and Pink moving NW (or NW, W?) and we lose the Cows.

[mostly-harmless]

Re-reading some of the Imperio chats, they do not want to generate a culture clash between New Jerulsalem and Constantinople and want us to move it S, SW of current spot - i.e. 1NW of Green. If we considered that, it would give us a very strong Naval site - which as mh points out we do need on this coast - but it would leave Red as filler, and Pink moving NW (or NW, W?) and we lose the Cows.

And we lose the potential city east of Jerusalem.
I cannot see us agreeing to that particular IMperio demand.

mh

[sunrise089]

I'm concerned about cultural pressure from Constantinople. I therefore favor razing Jerusalem and re-settling in place, planting Green on Sullla's spot, planting Red 1E on the hill, planting a filler city between Jericho and Jerusalem, and planting another city east of Jerusalem on the coast.

[darrelljs]

Red 1E definitely looks like a better spot (it also allows sharing the Clams although both sites are so food heavy that's not very important).

Its going to come down to whether or not we want to put Imperio in a snit over magenta dot's location. It will tick them off no doubt. Do we want to risk that for a plains mine, grassland river, and Rice tile we'll have trouble grabbing? I'd probably move pink dot one south. There is no BFC overlap with Constantinople at that point, and if we do get in a fight with them later we'll have less razing and replacing to do .

Darrell

[sooooo]

FWIW I like Sullla's plan.

No cultural pressure from constantinople after Imperio take the city - the city loses all of its cultural buildings, we are creative and have drama to whip a theatre. We'll steal its rice in no time

[sunrise089]

FWIW I like Sullla's plan.

No cultural pressure from constantinople after Imperio take the city - the city loses all of its cultural buildings, we are creative and have drama to whip a theatre. We'll steal its rice in no time

This is nice, but the dream situation is what Templars have at Jericho now. If we can combine culture between cities to take a first-ring tile at Constantinople, Imperio has to keep a large-enough garrison in that city all the time to handle a one-move attack with catapults.

[Swiss Pauli]

I think we'd win a culture battle with Constantinople seeing as we're CRE

I'd go with Sulla's location for Red & Green, but I'd resettle New Jerusalem in place, and have a filler city on the plains river 1S of the Templar CB to work a sugar and two grass mines.

[sooooo]

Other option is just to capture Jerusalem and plant a city 3W of Pink Dot.

[Dreylin]

FWIW I like Sullla's plan.

No cultural pressure from constantinople after Imperio take the city - the city loses all of its cultural buildings, we are creative and have drama to whip a theatre. We'll steal its rice in no time

We shouldn't forget that we actually want Imperio on our side at this point. Next target is PAL remember....

[MyOtherCar]

I'm more in favor of Sullla's plan. New Jerusalem is in a very good, defensible position. And, in a way, it is fitting:

New Jerusalem

When the Muslims invaded and took over Jerusalem from the Christians and Jews over a 1000 years ago. The Ethiopians Christians decided to build a New Jerusalem in the very high mountains of Northern Ethiopia, in a place called “Lalabela” named after one of Ethiopia’s famous Kings.

I'll provide the dutch toilets

[mostly-harmless]

If we decide to resettle in place, then why re-settle and not keep it. We have no obligation right now to raze.

Similar to sunrise and soooo, I am in favor of keeping Jerusalem (razing and resettling, only if we get a very good deal with Imperio in time!), red dot 1E, magenta as is, aiming for city east of Jerusalem and planting a late filler city 3w of PD (or so).

I am not concerned about cultural pressure from Const. First of all Imperio must take out the city. Then we will be well on our way to the 3rd ring from both Jericho and Jerusalem to make life in Const. miserable.

mh

[Dreylin]

I would prefer if we didn't settle in such a way as to threaten any of Constantinople's BFC tiles. Imperio are bound to react badly to that - just look at how they keep leaning back on their grudge about Cape Town.