I can say that odds are "more likely than not" (60/40), that if we place an overly aggressive/greedy city, AC will raze it. AC has military muscle at the moment and they will have at least some eagerness to flex it.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, the area is not really defensible, certainly not at this part of the game, and not really later either. We would, in my estimate, be better off to simply abandon any cities on the isthmus "to their fate" and use the mountain range as a defensive chokepoint.
The AC settling strategy, if it is to be believed, will actually be much the same, their cities in the area will not be terribly defensible.
The area will probably be, a demilitarized zone, with both sides keeping their armies back out of sight.
If we encourage them with their plan to settle a lot of coast, then it'll certainly make it easier later to double-team them .
That's my view.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, the area is not really defensible, certainly not at this part of the game, and not really later either. We would, in my estimate, be better off to simply abandon any cities on the isthmus "to their fate" and use the mountain range as a defensive chokepoint.
The AC settling strategy, if it is to be believed, will actually be much the same, their cities in the area will not be terribly defensible.
The area will probably be, a demilitarized zone, with both sides keeping their armies back out of sight.
If we encourage them with their plan to settle a lot of coast, then it'll certainly make it easier later to double-team them .
That's my view.
Comment