Protest - Page 2

UnOrthOdOx · August 2, 2002, 10:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Ninot
we have a potential tech-whore plan to get us into the Medieval era... next turnchat.

Where can I see that? Is it posted? I need to get that in the paper...

Shiber · August 2, 2002, 10:21

Oh well...
Hey, I guess it would be fun to attack France with four swordsmen and use the rest to attack Germany and take Munich and Hamburg. By the time we have those swordsmen Munich and Hamburg will grow to 2+ population and 6 swordsmen are certainly enough to get two lightly-defended cities (probably just one spearman in each) and defend them or maybe take on another city until the Germans agree to surrender.

What do you think? Sure, it's scary to engage in two wars at the same time, but I'm 100% certain we'll win both. Not France nor Germany have swordsmen. France doesn't even have archers so four swordsmen should be enough to defeat them. Germany may be slightly stronger, but to get two, maybe three fringe cities, six swordsmen will prove to be more than enough. And besides, we need to use these swordsmen NOW before the knights make them obsolete.

UnOrthOdOx · August 2, 2002, 10:24

While I'm all for taking Germany, best not seperate our forces yet. Send the four directly to paris, send our remaining archers and a few sword to orleans (or some other town), keep some sword back home just in case someone gets an idea.

Shiber · August 2, 2002, 11:37

I still think we should send two swordsmen to Munich. If both swordsmen survive the offensive then the spearman should stay and later be reinforced by another spearman while the two swordsmen continue to Hamburg.
If we choose to stop at Munich we can counter any German attacks from there and eventually force them to divulge some gold and maybe even a tech in the peace treaty.

It doesn't really count as separating our forces really. According to plan gold we only need four swordsmen for the French campaign. We can then move some of the rest to the German front.

OPD · August 2, 2002, 11:50

Although a dead end unit I the swordsmen still has a lot of life in it yet. Pikemen are on the way for sure but swordsmen are still viable against them swordsmen vs pike is exactly the same as archers vs spears.

As for knights would we really be able to build a large army of them in the near furure? considering they cost 70 shields or an 80gp upgrade.

As for Germany it is possible to have 20 swordsmen in 16 turns while only using poly (I think). Therefore it is plausable that we could send 10 to France and 10 to Germany. Although alot of people would probably be against this.

Shiber · August 2, 2002, 12:01

I don't think we can afford to upgrade 20 warriors to swordsmen. It would cost us 800gp (!!!). Upgrading 10 warriors will be a huge spend as well.
Still I don't see why we can't send two or three swordsmen to Germany. We only need four swordsmen to perform Uber's Maneuver (the rest of the work will be done by the archers/spearmen stack). We can keep three more swordsmen in some of our fringe cities to guard our borders and send the three remaining swordsmen to Germany where they can take two cities.

P.S. I think the Germans are going to give us good terms for peace if we attack them. Every nation, including the Germans, will be terrified of us since after we upgrade those warriors we'll have the strongest army in the known world by far.

OPD · August 2, 2002, 12:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
I don't think we can afford to upgrade 20 warriors to swordsmen. It would cost us 800gp (!!!). Upgrading 10 warriors will be a huge spend as well.

Yeah you're right Perhaps I'm getting a bit too caught up in an upgrade frenzy.

But we do need a large army and I think it will be a while before we can get a knight army together.

Can you really blame me for being exessivly pro plan gold?

Robber Baron · August 2, 2002, 12:32

Upgrading 10 sword would definitely be worth 400 gold, IMO. They would serve two compelling purposes:
1) subduing France and thereby securing us access to more iron and wines, as well as fertile, defendable, productive territory;
and 2) while they don't upgrade, they do make a very good deterent against immortals (3 to 1, sword attack to immortal defense), so we could station them in cities along our southeastern borders. I would station at least one, maybe two, in Ubergorsk soon, and send another three or so more over as soon as we bring France to terms.

UnOrthOdOx · August 2, 2002, 12:37

Immortals have 2 def.

Shiber · August 2, 2002, 13:01

We have a warrior in Ubergorsk. When we get iron we can upgrade that warrior as well and keep him there until we can divert more resources to garrisoning Ubergorsk (like you said, after France is subdued).

Spiffor · August 2, 2002, 13:24

We have no barracks in Ubergorsk, and we are building a temple there. A quick culture is essential, because the Persians are much less of a threat than you think : REX is unfinished, Persia has no Iron (and thus no immortals), Persia is cautious towards us, and not annoyed.

GodKing · August 2, 2002, 13:25

Never, never, NEVER attack anybody with less then your full might. If you attack, make Dam* shure that you can finish your objectives, and have a backup, and abackup backup. That is why we want to use all 10 swordmen in the attack, along with the archer stack. We can attack several targets at once, capture them quickly, then make peace.

If they do develop pikemen, all the more reason to have a large attacking army. We would need all the reserves we can get. Remember, we already had 4 or 5 warriors prior to this build up. Not all are in cities that have a barraks however. So not all will be available for immediate upgrade.

The plan as I understand it calles for three attacking forces. One by sea to take out paris, our first attackers. Two by land, keeping close together and taking the cities closest to our homelands. All to join in paris, form a large single army, and secure the wine to the north. Then we make peace, get their tech, gold and a worthless (for now) city or two. This should be quick and decisive, for if it isn't we do not yet have the resources to make a reserve army, nor the infristructure to get them to the front quickly. Because of this we must be able to analize the situation as it developes, and if necessary quit the plan early, without all our objective, it is falls apart.

Hmmmmmm..... perhaps this would have been better to post in the plan gold thread.

Panag · August 3, 2002, 12:21

hi ,

since the start of the great banana (that is a looooong time ago !) there where 4 people pointing out the importance to build sea units , .......

and they are worth every penny , .....just imagine how fast we could move around that jungle , .....

have a nice day

kring · August 3, 2002, 15:33

They can also be used to transport Settlers, travelling faster than Settler teams that aren't on roads.

I support the building. Aren't there still undiscovered civs out there? Or have I been out of the loop too long?

Shiber · August 3, 2002, 15:56

There are, probably on another smaller continent. We don't have the technologies necessary for inter-continental travel yet.

kring · August 3, 2002, 18:25

Inter-continental travel may or may not require anything beyond Galley/Map Making, depending on how close the islands/continents are, and what kind of waters separate, and how wide the seas/oceans are. In some games I have played, they are close enough a Galley can make it without risk; in other games, you need advanced techs to reach. Maybe one of map trades will yield this info if we don't find it ourselves first.

Shiber · August 3, 2002, 18:47

Currently there's nothing in sight but the open sea.

UnOrthOdOx · August 3, 2002, 19:00

Not true, there is an island north of Greece and whales can be seen south, meaning an island is down there too.

Shiber · August 3, 2002, 19:18

You're right, I see them now.
That doesn't necessarily mean there's a large landmass there that we can call a continent... if there is another continent in the map at all.

Panag · August 4, 2002, 11:06

hi ,

every seatown should build at least one !

why , well to fight barb ships , to trans port units , to explore the sea , to visit our neigbors so we can trade with them , to do so many great things , ....

now , who ever is against them ought to explain why , because there are no drawbacks on this , only positive things !

have a nice day

DAVOUT · August 4, 2002, 13:52

I want to clarify my point : I protested, and I still protest, because resources are being spent without prior and specific approval by the people. Now tell me that all our laws, rights and constitution are just for the show, and that the minister can spent what amount they like on what project they choose, but stop explaining that galleys are useful.

Sorry to be upset, but that type of situation resembles too much for me to actual politics.

Kuciwalker · August 4, 2002, 15:35

DAVOUT - Again, I posted a petition for Galleys that received enough signatures to be enacted. It was not against the will of the people.

DAVOUT · August 4, 2002, 16:23

I understood a petition as a mean to raise a subject, not to settle it, all the more with only 15 yes. This is a strange decision process, but we are under despotism, after all.

I draw the attention of any rigorous citizen that in signing a petition, they can commit themselves for war transportation when they thought of exploration.

Panag · August 4, 2002, 16:37

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I want to clarify my point : I protested, and I still protest, because resources are being spent without prior and specific approval by the people. Now tell me that all our laws, rights and constitution are just for the show, and that the minister can spent what amount they like on what project they choose, but stop explaining that galleys are useful.

Sorry to be upset, but that type of situation resembles too much for me to actual politics.

hi ,

now , what is wrong , allas galleys are usefull , .....

two , resources are spend at will by the gov. , when one does not like it , he or she should vote oterwise in the next election , or take the matter to court , ......

have a nice day

Kuciwalker · August 4, 2002, 16:40

The petition was to build a galley. It mentioned that they could be used for exploration and possibly other purposes, but their use exploration was not a condition of their construction. Also, the petition can be considered a sort of poll, and far more people signed it than said they wouldn't sign it, which is really just like a poll.

DAVOUT · August 4, 2002, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

resources are spend at will by the gov. ,

OK, so dont make polls on production plans.

DAVOUT · August 4, 2002, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Also, the petition can be considered a sort of poll,

On that line, you have as well the deferential request, which is a sort of petition, the respectful suggestion which is a sort of deferential request, etc ..., but unfortunately, only the poll is mentionned in the COL.

Panag · August 5, 2002, 08:27

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT

OK, so dont make polls on production plans.

hi ,

yes you do , but not on every little single detail , .......

have a nice day

Kuciwalker · August 5, 2002, 12:43

The petition is a poll in the sense that a signature is a "yes" vote and someone posting that they don't agree is a "no" vote. I believe that only two or three people disagreed, and there were something like 15+ signatures.

DAVOUT · August 5, 2002, 13:37

With the difference that no one feels obliged to answer a petition, whereas a good citizen consider as a duty answering a poll. This is the meaning of the formal procedure of the polls.

Anyway, you will not convince me that a petition has the value of a poll, and I will not convince you that a democracy cannot live without a clear decision process. So, lets stop here. There are plenty of subjects which find us agreing.