What happens after the war?

[Cort Haus]

I think someone asked about upgrade costs.

Warrior = 15h. Axe = 35h:

((35-15)*3)+30=90g

I have to say that Blake's chart on post #59 showing the high possibility of failure even of a 2:1 ratio is quite compelling. It strongly suggests that this war cannot be won quickly with certainty.

I do like the idea of offering Vox an alternative to a slow, lingering, tedious death. Submit and Join Us!! The sooner they do that, the sooner we can all get on with winning the game, which makes it the best strat of all for this situation if (a) they go for it and (b) it's ethically OK for the game. I mean, the other teams probably wouldn't like it (unless they're busy doing the same thing themselves).

[Velociryx]

Well...I think we should just lay it out for them.

Mathematically we can prove that we'll soon have 3x their production (not the 2x that Blake's assessment on post 59 was built around, which only took our Capital into account--we've all pretty much agreed that our next build should be a settler, bound for the Wines site), and we have copper/they don't.

IMO, the best play we could make in that regard would be to switch to slavery (advertise it to them). Herd them down that same research path reflexively (in this way, we all but guarantee that we'll be first to know where the horses are, too), and offer them terms.

I don't see anything ethically wrong with it...diplomacy is diplomacy. We're offering them an easy out with their pride and honor intact. In many ways, this is superior to the offer that Lego made them in the last game (essentially making them slaves). We're offering an equal partnership, based on the facts at hand (with 3x production and a choke on, they're doomed....they can become partners, or they can die horribly).

We put the choice on them, and it's all good.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

I sincerely doubt Vox will surrender, even if we unzip our collective fly and explain all the math to them.

However, it may be worth a shot.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

You're probably right. OTOH, there's no downside to trying. It won't cost us anything to be upfront about it with them. If they bite, we walk away with a huge win, without firing a shot. If they don't, we pick one of the two plans fronted to bury them. Either way...we win.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Don't you think some of the other teams might feel cheated by such a resolution of this war?

I'm getting that "I'm not so sure this is kosher" feeling about this plan...

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Well, I'm personally not (bothered by it), but where ethical behavior is concerned, all it takes is one person's doubt to make me think we ought not even try it. I say this because I wouldn't want *any* member of the team feeling even the slightest bit tainted by anything we did, so if that's a risk, then we should drop the idea here and now, in my book.

IMO, it's on par with two teams making tech deals. In those cases, the team that is in isolation will feel "cheated" because he wasn't cut in, but was he? Was he really, or did two teams use diplomacy to come to an accord that benefitted them both? Sun Tzu teaches us that the BEST military commander is the one who can win without firing a shot...without even using the military...isn't that what we're attempting with this plan?

In our case, we approach them with factual information and present the data. Up to them if they want to surrender, and how (what terms and conditions they might place on it). It's not like we're forcing them, and it's not like we colluded before the game began...we had NO IDEA it'd end up like it has, true?

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

I'm ok with being convinced - I haven't made up my mind on this subject yet - but I would want us to get official sanction before pursuing the idea.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Sure...I would not hesitate to bring the idea up before the moderators, because I don't see it as being the least bit shady. Who would we need to contact?

-=Vel=-

[Krill]

I have one word for that practice:

NGoWD.

[Velociryx]

What's that?

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

The way the PTWDG ended, Vel. Glory of War (GoW) and Neu Demogyptica (ND) had an alliance throughout the game. In the end, rather than fight one another for an outright win, they declared team victory.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Yes, but their case was quite different. In that instance, we had two teams colluding in secret for the whole of the game, often ACTING as though they were at each other's throats for the benefit of those not "in the know."

Not the case here, or at least, not what I am proposing. They have one chance to surrdender. A final window of opportunity to get out of the game unbloodied, and with their honor and pride intact. To do so, they must surrender utterly and completely. Lower their shields and be boarded.

If they accept, we draft them into the team and play on. One voice. One team. We treat them as equals. No illusions or funny business for the masses.

If they don't, they die. Alpha and Omega. It doesn't matter to me which they pick, and that is the way we should present it to them.

Our victory is assured, no matter which. We're simply being gracious and offering them to join us intact, bearing their colors with pride. If they don't want to, that's fine too. We'll simply grind them into dust and take what was once theirs, but it's the gentlemanly thing to at least give them the option of surrender.

-=Vel=-

[vmxa1]

As to the idea that if they did surrender we would be cheating, I don't see how. No collusion is involved. If others feel we put one over on them, what are we to do about the way the cards we dealt?

We delcared a legit war and persued it. Once VOx saw the hand writing, they surrendered. Anyone could do the same. Yes it would be a break for us. Other breaks went the other way.

What those teams did in the prior game was under handed. They played a locked alliance from the gitgo and act as if it was everyone for themselves.

When they joined forces in plains ight to kick us off of BoB, that we legit. If they had teamed up after we cleared the other land and had not been in cahoots, that would be fine.

If we had gotten Uranium and they did not, it would not hve mattered, they would have lost.

[Blake]

Mathematically we can prove that we'll soon have 3x their production (not the 2x that Blake's assessment on post 59 was built around, which only took our Capital into account--we've all pretty much agreed that our next build should be a settler, bound for the Wines site), and we have copper/they don't.

Vel! I think you still don't understand.
What I'm talking about is not hammers per turn - but "hammers at The Voice", because that's what counts. When it comes to HaTV then Vox have a definite advantage - since they are right there. We have something like 8 turns travel time which is enough time for Vox to build 2 more Archers.

With a second city, yes after 25 turns we might have 3x the hpt, but we'll still be FAR from 3x HaTV - to achieve that, it's nessecary to run at the higher hammer yield for quite a while.


Moving... up the thread:

I also disagree with the characterization of an attack that's guaranteed to win as being "stupidity." Perhaps not as efficient in terms of hammers (which I've already agreed with), but significantly faster, and speed has value that's not expressed in a simple hammers:hammers comparison.

IMO, the attack will play out like this:

Vox sees 4 Skirms and begins building archers.

They launch selected attacks when and where they can gain local tile superiority (battles occur outside the city...advantage US).

...

The problem is Vel, you are assuming that they will try to break the choke. This may be a reasonable assumption, but I fear that our forces will just appear too formidable (quite rightfully so, really). I'm assuming Vox WONT try to break the choke and will either hole up, or cautiously send their units in to dance with ours (not actually fight, just run around then retreat to The Voice). With this assumption, the risk-free strategy is the one which just lets Vox hide behind their cultural defenses and play silly games, while an axe rush is certain suicide.

I'm not going to base strategy on assumptions. We NEED to know how Vox plans to deal with our choke.

As far as I'm concerned our complete strategy should be this:

IF Vox are pussies:
Catapults ASAP, Axes will hurt us far too much.

IF Vox are braves:
Either catapults or axes.

I will NEVER condone using axes against them if they are pussies who will hole up in The Voice. That can end in a horrible cluster**** for us (ie we have 2.5x h, but then the RNG hates us), or a slow drawn-out stalemate with forces sitting idle because Vox have trained an unreasonable number of archers - I would say "unexpected" but no it wouldn't be.

And even if they are braves who will fight in spite of fighting being a lost cause, then I STILL think Catapults are better because it leaves us in a stronger position over all because we get more cities more quickly. That though would be like a personal preference thing rather than a vehemently held position on the issue, I wont be entirely happy (too RNG dependent and fewer cities) but I'll go along.

The only case when I'll happily support an axe rush is if they are crazy and suicide units on the slightest whim. It somehow wouldn't surprise me if they try and hit Wines with something like 6 archers, having concluded their position is hopeless and that it's the only window of oppurtunity to cause some damage. In that case a counter-attack on The Voice would make perfect sense.


Moving on to some kind of "lower your shields" agreement. I remain in full support of at least offering this. Not sure if they'll go for it though.

[Velociryx]

No, I get you, and you're right...it will take longer to get in excess of 2x hammers on scene (which would be necessary for the win) than it would be to get 3x total production, however, your initial plan (post 59) assumed only double total production, not triple, did it not?--I'm basing this on comments re: double production that immediately followed that post. (And even if it did not, it assumed 10 turns of travel time, which implies no roads, which could cut that time nearly in half and radically change the equation). And thus, it's hardly surprising that it didn't come out in our favor on paper, but that does not reflect the reality of the situation.

Further, I would argue that there's no such thing as perfect information. There's no way we can know with any degree of certainty what Vox will do, or how their play will change from now until the turn they die. We can't know that now with certainty, and fourteen turns from now, we STILL won't know, so if you are waiting for perfect information before proceeding, then I submit we will have a long wait indeed, and we may as well make peace now. (or, put another way, at some point, we either attack, or we do not, and in absense of perfect information, some assumptions will have to be made).

Mathematically, it's a simple thing for us to achieve three times raw production. Mathematically, with three times raw production it is a simple thing to craterize Vox, no matter what they do, and at least as cost effective as Oracle + Settler, to say nothing of the raw speed in ending the conflict with Axes vs. waiting a couple thousand years and ending it with Cats.

At this point, we've both made our cases. I've already agreed that I'll be happy to sign on with whatever plan the team goes with...I'm not sure what else you would have me do?

Let's call a vote and pick one.

-=Vel=-