The SMC's Total War Thread: 2950 BC

Inverse Icarus · June 23, 2002, 19:48

Before we get started, I shall provide a list of threads of interest:

Case Pink
Old SMC Report
City Plans
SMC's Math

now that we're all up to speed, i have created an single image (and hopefully a single thread) for the whole war effort.

Sir Ralph suggested that after the initial attack begins, we should capture workers and use them to build a road back to our cities. sounds like a great plan to me, althought i would like to have had it done earlier but i can see why we it wasn't done.

i have labeled the two cities we plan to build, as well as a probably location for the next french city (Orleans, the Second French City on the List).

Now that we have Warrior Code and Bronze Working, we can beging amassing the armies. before we start mass producing the units, we need to pop out the barracks in Apolyton, as well as a settler or to. Check out the "Case Pink" thread for the exact times.

any problems? questions? suggestions?

Kingof the Apes · June 23, 2002, 19:52

Good thing we traded for Warrior code, took off a few turns of the plan.

GePap · June 23, 2002, 21:59

Where exactly will the next city go? The only worthwhile spot is right there about where Orleans might go, since it looked to me that the french are moving towards the coast. Also, will we make any contingencies based on possible goody hut encounters (if we kept them in) and meetings with other civs, perhaps south of the mountains? Also, will Plan pink have to be put up for a vote or will War simply be decided and Plan pink, if judged the best plan, go into effect?

Inverse Icarus · June 23, 2002, 22:16

I FORGOT TO ATTACH! LOL

Jonny · June 23, 2002, 22:37

This plan looks good so far. I don't see any problems with the plan right now. I support your plan.

Kill the Frenchies!!!

Sirotnikov · June 23, 2002, 23:56

I have an alternate suggestion:

Why not, instead, instantly dispatch a settler unit to build an Apolytonian city where the expected French city will be.

This will no doubt halt their expansion in our direction, not to mention, their terrain is better.

Expected problems:

1) Corruption
2) Possible cultural assimilation.

Flip McWho · June 23, 2002, 23:59

sounds good.

remember a plan never lasts first contact with the enemy.

Inverse Icarus · June 24, 2002, 00:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I have an alternate suggestion:

Why not, instead, instantly dispatch a settler unit to build an Apolytonian city where the expected French city will be.

This will no doubt halt their expansion in our direction, not to mention, their terrain is better.

Expected problems:

1) Corruption
2) Possible cultural assimilation.

a french settler is already there. the city will be built in 2-3 turns tops.

Trevman · June 24, 2002, 00:54

It is my opinion that we need more information on France's position. It would be better, if the French are not in our path of expansion, to rather expand away from Notylopa. We could spend our resources building settlers and create a better military force in better terrrain. Our production cannot match the French. We will have much better chances in better terrain and I do not see victory without it. Still, if this is not possible, then we will have no choice but to create are army in our jungle.

Harovan · June 24, 2002, 01:54

What concerns the new French city: When attacking, I suggest to go with the stack straight to Paris, not violating the French borders in the new city. Paris for sure can be taken, the new city will be razed, since the AI keeps cities size 1 with poprushing and settler building and it won't have the culture to persist.

1st: Attack Paris and take it
2nd: Leave a spear and an (injured) archer in Paris, turn back with the stack and raze the new city
3rd: make peace, maybe for another city as prize.

Jon Shafer · June 24, 2002, 02:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
3rd: make peace, maybe for another city as prize.

Who're you kidding, we plan on wiping those Frogs out.

Inverse Icarus · June 24, 2002, 02:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

Who're you kidding, we plan on wiping those Frogs out.

if they give us a tech (especially the wheel

) i'd vote for keeping them alive a bit longer.

notyoueither · June 24, 2002, 03:26

The French will have more than 2 cities when we strike.

More than 1 of them may well be captured. Discussions of specific tactics may be premature.

Harovan · June 24, 2002, 03:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Who're you kidding, we plan on wiping those Frogs out.

Wipe them out before the late medieval age would not be wise. Here are the reasons:

Research: We need the French as research partners. They trade techs from other AIs for much less money than we can, and we can either trade, extort or beat the techs out of them, once they are weakened

Expansion: We want the French to found more cities and prepare the surrounding terrain. Cities built by a weak AI civ are practically ours and a settler less to build. And if they irrigate and mine (they are industrious too), we have less work with it.

Military: A weak AI civ is a good unit trainer and leader producer. Just attack them from time to time, cut their wings again, train your units (may be produce a GL), take a city or 2, and give them peace again for 20 turns. Don't violate peace treaties, vassals are valuable.

Finances: Every contact to another civ lowers the price for traded advances. To wipe them out, would hurt ourselves.

We still can wipe them out later, when we built up our own research and finished the initial expansion phase, with a bunch of cavalries.

civman2000 · June 24, 2002, 07:39

I agree, let em live for now (I mean after the first war).

Kuciwalker · June 24, 2002, 07:59

That sounds like a really good idea.

I proposed, in the turn chat, to attack the settler. I didn't know then that it was on a jungle tile, but I think if we wait until it moves onto grassland, it might be a good idea. Killing the warrior and taking the settler (which would become two workers!) would only have a 50% chance of success and would initiate hostilities early, but it might, MIGHT be a good idea. I'm not really advocating this course; I'm just putting it on the table.

Kuciwalker · June 24, 2002, 08:01

Uber, if we move our guys N-W instead of NW (i.e. no diagonal), we can get the Archers there in the same amount of time and reveal more terrain.

Harovan · June 24, 2002, 08:40

To attack a wandering warrior/settler shuttle leads to nothing. First off, our chances are less than 50%, because grassland may have a low defense bonus, but it has one! Actually, our chances are about 45%. Second, we are not prepared to defend in a counterattack. To produce units now, before finishing barracks, would be the death blow for our Case Pink plan. Third, we are short of exploring warriors and would not want to risk one in that silly way. Case Pink will give us free workers. In due time!

Skywalker, I hope, with the hysterical attitude you have shown in the turnchat yesterday, you will never ever get a governmental office. This empire needs calm, thinking and calculating politicians and not suicidal warmongers. Note, this is not a vote for the DIA, but a plea to your own party to nominate another candidate.

Guardian · June 24, 2002, 09:11

Well, I'm DIA myself, but these days I find myself agreeing with Sir Ralph on many things...

MrWhereItsAt · June 24, 2002, 09:55

So far so good...

The next turnchat (if anything like the latest one) will have about 6-8 turns of play in it, so we won't need to worry about specifics (eg whether to eliminate the French, capture or raze cities etc) until we actually get there, in a week or more.

Let us stick with it as we have it, build those archers and when we see what the French have we can decide on where to start. It's all over there anyway, it makes little difference to us at the moment.

OPD · June 24, 2002, 18:18

IMO, attacking the settler should be given more consideration. Despite only a 45% chance of success the gain of two workers makes it an exellent gamble and it would be at least ten turns before the French could reach us. Although taking the settler would mean there would be less French to aid in our expansion.

Kuciwalker · June 24, 2002, 18:20

While we don't need to take the settler, we DO need to consider as an option. I'm not promoting it - just saying we need to think about everything.

OPD · June 24, 2002, 18:36

IMO, the way the idea was dismissed in the turn chat was unproductive and out of line.

Kuciwalker · June 24, 2002, 18:49

IMNSHO, OPD is right.

civman2000 · June 24, 2002, 18:49

well, it's not as if it's too late to get it (they might not make the city yet). skywalker was the only on (or maybe there was one other) supporting it in the chat so it was not out of line to not do something like that.

Guardian · June 25, 2002, 02:06

Nobody's saying it was out of line not to do it, they've merely stated that "the way the idea was dismissed" was unproductive and out of line, in their opinion. I wasn't there, so I obviously can't say anything about this.

As for my comment yesterday, I wasn't expressing any ill will against anyone, I was merely saying that I agree with Sir Ralph "on many things". That's all my post said and that's all it meant.

In this particular case, I was agreeing to his statement that

Quote:

This empire needs calm, thinking and calculating politicians and not suicidal warmongers.

I suppose I could have been clearer on this.

notyoueither · June 25, 2002, 02:20

How it was decided is... another arguement.

If we had triggered war then we would have France building units, not future cities for us.

France at war now could easily match our unit production. Stalemate very likely.

Peace with France means diplomatic contact. At this point Joan may very well contact other civs before we do. Purchasing contact with others may speed our own tech development.

Returning to the chat... In a turn chat I would have dismissed the idea as well. Did Uber say go? Did Ninot say go? Did Trip overrule the only other people with any kind of mandate to start a war without consulting the people? I doubt it.

Guardian · June 25, 2002, 03:57

Well, just for the record, I totally, utterly and completely agree with the decision not to attack at this time.

Jon Shafer · June 25, 2002, 03:58

In response to this issue I beg the question: did you elect me to play the game, or play the game while also making important decisions and help run this thing? If it's the former, then you should have elected the Banana, because anyone can listen to a bunch of people telling him what to do and punch buttons. I took the initiative when I felt it necessary. I feel that we simply can't stop every time someone thinks that we should, especially when it would be making a decision that goes against the course of action that we had previously determined. We had an in-chat vote (my system for determining on the fly decisions, for anyone who was wondering), and people chose to continue. If every time we see a French settler move, should we stop the turn chats (1 turn into it even) to make a poll about what to do? I don't think we should, and others agree. If we did that, then there would be no point to turn chats, because we would constantly be forced to make decisions that people would want the entire nation to decide on. I didn't choose to continue because I felt the person was stupid, I did it because I felt that the game needed to keep moving, and because we needed to proceed with the plan already determined by our ministers and populace.

Let me give you an example of a situation where I would have felt it necessary to stop. (Perhaps a few turns in the future) We see a stack of 5 French Archers moving east towards Apolytonia. Okay, there's something major which I'm sure everyone can agree is an important issue to address before things complicate, therefore it would be a wise decision to stop. We had/have a plan to exploit France's weaknesses, but it must come to fruition before we take such a great risk as what some were proposing. Yes, I would say I'm a risk-taking kind of guy. But not that time. Maybe I'm not enough for some people, but I like to use sound judgment at all times, especially when the situation warrants caution, as in the previous situation.

notyoueither · June 25, 2002, 04:04

In furtherance of what Trip just said.

We elect these guys. We put our faith in them. We must give them some lee-way to play the game. Things are always going to come up. That's why the ministers should be there to help the President reach the right decision for the moment.

At the end of the day though, it will be the President pushing the buttons. May Jupiter grant that person wisdom.