Next Turnthread/chat Times and Current Reports: term III part two (MrWIA back)

[MrWhereItsAt]

Latest report and save

Save for 170AD-260AD

Report for 170AD-260AD

The next and last turns will be set by OPD in the next term, which comes into power NOW.

Bye all.

Info on how to access the mIRC chat

Links to old savs and reports this term


Save for 70AD-170AD

Report for 70AD-170AD

Save for 30BC-70AD
Report for 30BC-70AD
Save for 130-30BC
Report for 130-30BC
Report and save for 210-130BC
Report and save for 430-350BC
Report for 350-290BC
Save for 350-290BC
Report for 290-210BC
Save for 210BC
Report and save for 210BC turnchat


This will hopefully make it all easier to find the reports and saves whilst still keeping this thread open for discussion.

El Presidente
MrWIA

[UnOrthOdOx]

For UnOrthO to use.

UnOrthO - man this is cool. I have to stop myself from reading a PM to you that popped up.


Yes, it is a bit odd seeing that I had somehow replied to this already...

(or maybe we are secretly the same person... )

Anyway, if I am left in charge again, I will post the times an links in this spot.

[Proserpine]

In the various threads there seems to be a little confusion about war aims vs the Germans. Are we going to take Hamburg or not? (I think we should prioritise this, & aim for Munich after or in the peace).

[wervdon]

I think we should prioritise this, & aim for Munich after or in the peace

There's a good chance they won't give it to us for peace because of the luxury. So we should be prepared to take it by force if we really care about it right now.

[Shiber]

I think we can culture-flip it in about 10 to 15 turns anyway. It might not be a good idea to march our military into Munich (unless we are unable to take Hamburg and we need to convince Germany to end the war).

[Proserpine]

Originally posted by wervdon


There's a good chance they won't give it to us for peace because of the luxury. So we should be prepared to take it by force if we really care about it right now.

I don't care. As Shiber says we may be able to flip it, but its practically worthless to Germany anyway. We should only take it as a last resort, we should attack Hamburg first.

[Aggie]

Well in my orders it is clear that we are to take munich 1st. One major reason was that after we take munich we will be able to ask for peace if things go bad. otherwise if a giant sword army comes at us we are in serious trouble and could get our N/NE "pruned". I decided that the war with germany was a limited war in that the goal was not to inflict heavy damage on germany, but to survive and make some gains. After munich we can always say "peace" if things go bad. The strategy against persia is simialr but that will be uber's decision.
Aggie

[BigFurryMonster]

Well, what happened after 290BC ??

[MrWhereItsAt]

My first turns as President - and after a while I started to have some fun! Some challenges, some total whitewashes, and some surprises.

UnOrthO described his last turns as "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", so I present to you:

The Blissfully Predictable
-we took 4 Persian slaves and 2 French slaves
-we captured Marseille and forced Jean to move house again
-we killed 6 French Spearmen, 2 or 3 French Swordmen, 2 Persian Archers and 1 Persian Spearman

The Unfortunately Unpredictable
-we lose Rheimsimmediately after capturing it
-Politics gets weirder with the Greek-German alliance against the Axtecs inked

The Totally Bizarre
-Jean proves to be a stubborn old b*tch - she refuses to give in after losing her capital again
-The Germans are almost nowhere to be seen
-My turns could be seen as a net success!

Here I only post what I did that varied in some way from the Ministers' orders. Most of what happened was covered in the orders from the Ministers of PW, City Planning and Deputy SMC.

290 BC

(various queue changes and troop movements etc. throughout, all covered by the Ministers' orders)

-Thebes renamed Chiquita (is that right?)
-Orleans renamed Port Rouge
-Paris renamed Here It Is (Yay!)
-the newly captured German slave from near Munich joins the worker stack E of Loveshack
-I moved the Gaia Spearman towards Del Monte with reservations - Gaia is now defenceless, but if it is evident that someone is approaching, I can reinforce the place before their Archer/Spearman gets there
-there were no orders given for the poor Warrior at Antioch (Persia)! I took the initiative to get him to pillage some Persian grassland road and irrigation

End of Turn
-Starvation at Here it Is (expected)
-A hitherto unseen German Archer moves out of Munich SE vaguely towards Ubergorsk
-A Persian stack threatens the workers E of Loveshack (expected)
-Persian stack W of Loveshack moves W
-Persian Archer moves NW out of Sidon
Persian stack ENE of Napoleton moves N and W - not mentioned again here as it is not a threat
-Persian Archer at Del Monte commences pillaging
-Over these turns, a Persian Archer and Warrior move N and S in and out of view N of Del Monte. They don't do much, and will not be mentioned again in this report
-2 Greek Workers emerge SSE of Washington
-Rheims pops some unit (pop drops from 3 to 2)

270 BC
-the Veteran Spearman is the first of AA (ARcher Army) to cross river near Rheims as ordered, finds a reg Swordman, I decide to send everything to join it anyway.
-Swordman from Tassagrad to BHQ (else BHQ defenceless! - not good with all those Persian stacks)
-SA2 (Sword Army) moves to Mt N of BHQ (Persian stack threatening to move there)
-Antioch Warrior continues moving to pillage away
-I try a trade with Greece - they will give us Monarchy (the cheapest tech) for 11gpt, all our gold and WM. I ever so politely decline. No-one else is any better - most offer the same deal
-Here it Is no longer has the population to poprush anything!

End of Turn
-Germany and Greece sign an alliance against the Aztecs
-Napoleton's border expands
-The Munich Archer is threateninng Geofront
-Persian stacks mill about - the one N of BHQ is within striking range of a coupla Swordmen
-A French regular Swordman appears N of SA1
-French regular Swordman attacks AA - kills veteran Spearman with only 1hp loss
-Port Rouge in Disorder (oops! )

250 BC
-AA vet Archer attacks and kills that damn French Swordman that just did our Spearman - only 1 hp loss
-SA kills French regular Swordman with 2hp damage
-Antioch Warrior is on the run from some Persian Archers. It will lead them N towards England
-Vet Swordman on Mt N of BHQ attacks and dies to the Archer in the Persian stack! We kill it with its remaining 1hp and take 2 Slaves
-Remaining Swordmen for SA2 move towards Loveshack
-Rheims Attacked
-it takes all our Archers, but we take Rheims by killing three regular Spearmen with the loss of one Archer, damage of 1hp to 2 Archers and 2hp to 1 Archer. We get no gold, and there is 1 resister.
-Regular French Warrior N of Rheims. I don't think much of it at the time, and there are no more units to move anyway...
-I contact France and they offer 2 workers and 11g, or ONE of Cherbourg, Grenoble and Rouen (mostly their holdings in Abananaba Minor) for peace. HA! I spit brandy in the emissary's eyes.

End of Turn
-Sh*t! That Warrior N of Rheims kills the damaged Archer in Rheims and retakes the city, with 10g in the bargain!
-Here It Is starves again (it would be MY city)
-The people want ME to improve the Palace? Maybe they really hated owning Rheims. Anyway, I choose the grass, as the choice of building style is worthy of a poll.
-French Archer appears SW of Port Rouge
-That idiot Perisan Archer attacks Del Monte and dies

230 BC
-A slight War Office miscalculation - we should be attacking Marseille this turn, but we are a turn away (no delays in moving there). I will play the extra turn, although no other orders exist for that turn. I can taste victory!
-SA2 moves into Loveshack, preparing for the assault on Munich
-The remainder of AA (3 Archers) heads for Marseille - stuff Rheims as we can only take it through a peace agreement now
-New Apolyton Spearman moves to (udefended) Tassagrad
-I stick a Spearman that was headed for Geofront with the stack of Workers W of Loveshack for protection (Geofront safe at the moment)

End of Turn
-A Greek Horseman appears near Chiquita
-French Archer near Port Rouge is moving away (phew!)
-A regular French Swordman appears W of SA1 (which is about to attack Marseilles)

210 BC
-A Swordman from SA2 attacks a Persian stack, kills the Spearman and takes 2 slaves
-SA1 attacks Marseille. 4 Vet Swordmen engage - 2hp is lost by one, 1hp is lost by 2, and one is promoted to Elite. We kill 3 regular Spearmen and 1 regular Swordman to take Marseille! We get 0 gold but 2 slaves. Jean moves her capital to a little village called Avignon, far to the West, on the coast of a desert.
- I contact France again - they only offer Rouen for peace - not good.

I decide this is far enough. 210 BC is not over yet, but I wanted to stop whilst Marseille was new.

And now, the save.


Any questions or specific movements not mentioned you want to ask about (based on the Ministers' orders), do so here.

I want the next set to be...

a turnchat! Thus I will update the top with this info.

That's it for now, i will be around for a bit before bed, so ask away...

El Presidente
MrWIA

[MrWhereItsAt]

Ker-PLUNK!

[Shiber]

I'm the first to download the save! Hurray!!

[Reddawg]

MR WIA, you said that we lost Chartres immediately after using it but then later on you talk about that happening to Reims... did it happen to both??

[Shiber]

Btw, when the people offer to improve your palace you can quit the palace view screen and return to it later and you'll still be able to improve it (in other words you can postpone palace improvements if you just quit the palace view screen).

[Shiber]

Question: why didn't we take the Persian worker NW of Sidon during 290 BC? I thought this was in the ministers' orders.

[Aggie]

I said ignore units that might counter attack. So we could attack with all forces, if you had done this as instructed at rheims it would be ours. Also why was the elite spear there. I instructed elite spear into orleans. You should have seen that the nw was a typo in the order, however that was my fault( I guess there is a disease called direction flipping disorder going around in our office(DFD) . I obviously wanted the straight path. No matter, I am upset at the AA attacking swordsmen. This was a serious error that kept us from winning an over whelming victory. I' haven't done the numbers but from the log it seems he couldn't have attacked the city for at least 2 turns. Yes it was a successful turn but it I believe it could have been so much greater.
Aggie

[GhengisFarb™]

Questions:
1)I still see Chartres, yet I had heard it was destroyed.

2)Why didn't the Antioch warrior move to and fortify on Persia's only potential source of iron as suggested?

3)Why are we still at war with France? I had thought everyone made it clear that if we couldn't take Rheims we would settle for Rouen so we could make Peace and cause the Persians and Germans to become irritated with the French and more likely to accept peace from us?

As it is it looks like we might take Rheims, but not for several turns, and we would probably destroy it in the process (as Chartres) so there isn't any other objective to achieve. We have Marseilles and Here it is which will give us all of the wine resources. I strongly oppose destroying Rhiems or Chartres as we can always take them from the French, but the Greeks might settle the empty areas and they would be harder to roust out.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Aggie: I think that attacking the Sword was the only choice. It attacked first. If he had just ignored it at that time, it would have picked off another archer.

re the movements...well, mistakes happen. I sure wouldn't have noticed a typo, I would have just followed what was written.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Questions:
2)Why didn't the Antioch warrior move to and fortify on Persia's only potential source of iron as suggested?

There were no new orders given for that warrior, and MrWIA was not around to hear the original plan. That one was my fault, I should have pointed that out to him, but didn't look too closely at the orders thread to see that it hadn't been ordered since I was not going to be playing those orders. Still, my fault for not pointing out all the relevent plans still being acted upon.

And I think he was MEANING Rheims everyone, but wrote Chartres in the post...he will be on later to confirm.

[Aggie]

Shiber, I decide that defensive units were at a premium in the east, so I decided sending that spear out could cause problems. I presumed(correctly) that the other spear could leave lovehsack and risk much. Though If I known about those an archer near there I might have reconsidered. MWIA, I apoligize for my outburst, it was uncalled for. I was just upset that people in Rheims lost there freedom so soon after tasting it, and who would have thought a @!## warrior would win. You did a real good job and we are in a better position today than yesterday.
Aggie

[Aggie]

Unorthodox,the sword probably would have but we could we have rheims now. Still I understand the logic. I've just learned that in instances like this you rush to take cities and make peace. Still a big victory and in reality we will never know what would have happened. If we hadn't attacked that sword we might have had bad random seeds next time. But since it was a gamble anyway it is ok. the odds were 8:7 in original plan anyway. Upon further thinking, if I had paid more attention to NW vs Ne, it also would have been better. Unortho the warrior mistake was mine and not yours. I just assumed he new we were going to the iron. Still I think it was no big deal.
Aggie

[UnOrthOdOx]

Eh, I should have told him about going after the Iron. He asked for important links when he returned, and I failed to provide that one. We can share the blame, if any.

I see where you are going with the attack on Rheims. We would have had two archers in the city, not one. Who knows if they would have attacked with both the swordsman and the warrior and taken the city anyway? Or if peace would have been signed with a stronger garrison in the city? Or if the sword would even attack since he was wounded? What is done is done, I suppose.

[Aggie]

Well I was thinking of attacking Rheims with the remainign archers,yes it will raze, but at least it won't be there.. Since they can't pop rush they will only have a warrior there. Of course this isn't my call. Though just moving there might help our case. when a city is under threat an AI will make deals.
On question left. Wht didn't the galleys set sail for uber Isle. I was all ready to wake up and see the island there(I hope its not a 1sq one).
Aggie

[Shiber]

Re: the warrior, I don't think it matters much now. This plan was made before Persia attacked. We planned to keep the warrior there so that the Persians will be unable to move a worker to their iron tile and dig a road but now it doesn't matter much.
Now we must face the fact that Persia will have iron in approximately 10 turns (unless we conquer Antioch).

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
3)Why are we still at war with France? I had thought everyone made it clear that if we couldn't take Rheims we would settle for Rouen so we could make Peace and cause the Persians and Germans to become irritated with the French and more likely to accept peace from us?

Where was this that everyone agreed? I checked the orders, and it only had a vague: For sufficient spoils. The original SMC plan had set objectives, which included more than settling for Rouen, but for taking (lost city names now...Chartres?) as well. Now, I haven't been as active this week, so I may have missed that discussion somewhere?

[Aggie]

One thing the warrir can do is lead some archers on a chase.
Aggie

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Where was this that everyone agreed? I checked the orders, and it only had a vague: For sufficient spoils. The original SMC plan had set objectives, which included more than settling for Rouen, but for taking (lost city names now...Chartres?) as well. Now, I haven't been as active this week, so I may have missed that discussion somewhere?

It was scattered over some 20 threads that popped up but I got the general idea towards the end of the week that most people had decided a 30+ turn war with France wasn't what they wanted...........

Besides there's nothing left to accomplish there. We can't take Rheims or Chartres, only destroy them, and I don't feel we're in a position to reduce our cities by two population points to build them back.

Anything past Here It Is and MarshaBrady is useless to us as they're so far from our core they'd be more a detriment than an asset IMHO.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I wasn't sure myself what the conditions people wanted for peace were. I just know that no Minister posted such conditions that I know of. I am not saying that we should try to take them, but perhaps taking some other city would net us those two in a peace deal. I don't really think it matters much at this point. Peace any time soon would be good, though. Give Paris a reputation knock, anger Persia and Germany towards them, and let's go attack the Germans.

[Aggie]

I have decided that a continued war against france is not in our interest. There is little we can take. I guess we could pillage the iron, but that is all. By miving archers in a threatening manner we could perhaps make a deal slightly better. Another possibliity is the see if we can get a GL. One thing to note is the archer near port rouge. I know the odd are almost 2:1 in our favor, but a defeat there would undo much of our gains. So maybe it is peace time for france. If we had roads to route reenforcements etc, we could go for the kill on joan. But we don't so our forces there must suffice. I say we make peace for what cities we can and then leave a garrison and a small force and call France a victory, since it truly was.
PS for uber: is this deputy smc job a thing that will last even when you are back to help out and take your place when you are unable to make it or is it a one time deal.
Aggie

[MrWhereItsAt]

Get a decent night's sleep and see how much there is to do! This reply will be to posts as I see them, so it will be edited gradually to answer everyone who needs to be answered. This may take 30 min or more here.

Originally posted by Reddawg
MR WIA, you said that we lost Chartres immediately after using it but then later on you talk about that happening to Reims... did it happen to both??

Sorry, the mention of taking Chartres should say Rheims. That report was long, and I got a little confused at the end. I have editied the report, and all edits are in bold. Repeat, we did not get near Chartres.

Originally posted by Shiber
Question: why didn't we take the Persian worker NW of Sidon during 290 BC? I thought this was in the ministers' orders.

I thought of that too, but it wasn't in the orders that I saw, and I can only trust that there was a reason for that.

Originally posted by Aggie
I said ignore units that might counter attack. So we could attack with all forces, if you had done this as instructed at rheims it would be ours. Also why was the elite spear there. I instructed elite spear into orleans. You should have seen that the nw was a typo in the order, however that was my fault( I guess there is a disease called direction flipping disorder going around in our office(DFD) . I obviously wanted the straight path. No matter, I am upset at the AA attacking swordsmen. This was a serious error that kept us from winning an over whelming victory. I' haven't done the numbers but from the log it seems he couldn't have attacked the city for at least 2 turns.

The Elite Spear did go to Orleans/Port Rouge (have a look - it is there ), it was a Veteran Spear that died. My little mistake, I have edited the report to show this, and all edits are in bold. That NW mistake I picked up - didn't think it needed mentioning as it was clear where you wanted things to go. By ignoring counter-attacking units, I thought you meant those that threatened random units or cities. With the Spearman gone, the Archers had no defence, and I thought it best to take out this aggressor as well as take Rheims (which I knew we could do with sufficient Archer victories) - that Warrior being there could not be forseen and that is why we lost the city. You could criticise my attacking that Swordman, but I had no reason to suspect any other units threatening Rheims, in which case the one Archer that moved in would have been sufficient garrison until the next turn. If we had not attacked the Swordman, we would have definitely lost an Archer - my way, if not for that damn Warrior, we would have both Rheims and all our Archers - what would you have done?

Originally posted by GenghisFarb
Questions:
1)I still see Chartres, yet I had heard it was destroyed.

2)Why didn't the Antioch warrior move to and fortify on Persia's only potential source of iron as suggested?

3)Why are we still at war with France? I had thought everyone made it clear that if we couldn't take Rheims we would settle for Rouen so we could make Peace and cause the Persians and Germans to become irritated with the French and more likely to accept peace from us?

1. has been answered - all the way through I meant Rheims. report has been edited to show this.
2. I had no idea what that Warrior was for, and spent 5 minutes searching around for orders on it when it looked at me at the end of 290 BC. It wasn't in any orders post, and since I have missed the detailed discussion the last week or so I guess I missed it, and everyone else assumed I knew about it. /shrug/ Just an allaround miscommunication, I suppose. I'm sorry if it helps, but I don't know what else to have done.
3. Again, all I read on the potential peace with France comes from the Ministers' orders and some posts from a little while ago (I've read so many I can't remember where they were ). However, I stopped immediately after taking Marseilles for the purposes of determining this. Having Marseilles is better than not (look at where their capital is now ), and we can get better terms than before.

Originally posted by Aggie
On question left. Wht didn't the galleys set sail for uber Isle. I was all ready to wake up and see the island there(I hope its not a 1sq one).

Well, I saw no orders on this, and I wasn't quite sure how to go about it seeing as the sea is more than one move wide here. I have seen discussion about getting a ship there, and then somehow meeting with another in the middle, and transferring the Settler over, losing the first ship. But this necessitates a ship not only to survive crossing the channel, but also to survive a turn in the sea/ocean so it can take the settler and return to UberIsle with enough movement points. I hoped this wasn't urgent enough to stop ALL turns for, and with no-one around (see how many people helped me in my URGENT help needed thread at the time), I just barrelled on elsewhere.

That's hopefully all your immediate questions answered. I just want to say that there are obviously problems that have emerged from my non-familiarity with every facet of the Empire - now I have played some turns I know what needs to be made clear and we can expect no such errors in the future. This time the President was (without knowing it) relying more than usual on the Ministers and people to make things abundantly clear to him and he did not ask for such clarification. Bygones are, well, bygone, and we are in a much better position than we started with. That everything is not quite perfectly efficient is obvious, but not inexcusably so (I hope). I apologise to the people for not fulfilling their will to the letter, but I believe I have certainly advanced their will, and I can look on things with the knowledge necessary for future successes.

El Presidente
MrWIA

[Shiber]

I think suing for peace in exchange for additional towns is a bad idea. Most of the towns France has to offer are of no real use for us. In fact, other than Chartres they're all pretty much useless to us.
We need to trade with France in exchange for Feudalism. If we can move our forces in a way that would threaten another French town the French might drop the price slightly but I believe we'd still have to pay for Feudalism in the end, even if we offer a RoP along with a peace treaty.