End the war NOW

Shiber · August 31, 2002, 08:43

Honored Apolytonians,
If you consider every upside and downside to ending the war this turn you will probably come to the same conclusion I have come to: this turn is the best time to end the war and sign a peace treaty with France.
While I support and even encourage moves such as moving the archers stack to Rheims's doorstep and using the swordsman which has a movement point left to attack the French swordsman, I strongly believe we should end the war at the end of 210 BC.
The following reasons have led me to believe so:

* There is nothing more to gain from the French. We can't conquer any more of their cities, only raze them.
* If we raze Rheims Greece will surely settle there instead before we can send a settler of our own. Greece is in a golden age and Rheims is close to their core so it won't be long before a Greek settler shows up there. While it should be very easy to take Rheims from the French later, in a 2nd campaign, it will be ten times harder to take Rheims from the Greek.
* Our swordsmen are needed elsewhere. If we continue the war we are delaying the assault on Hamburg and the campaign to finish off the Americans.
* Many people have raised their concerns regarding the high price that the French are charging for Feudalism. But let's face it: if we execute Togas's techwhoring project (get Feudalism from France for 345 gold, sell Feudalism to Rome for Monarchy and 80-100 gold and sell Monarchy to France to regain up to 330 gold, according to my estimates which are based on the cost of the techs as mentioned in the civ3mod.bic file), which I am in favor of, we'll get nearly all of our money back anyway so there won't be much different whether the French sell Feudalism for 345 gold or 300 gold. For the risk involved and the delaying of the American campaign and the assault on Hamburg, it's simply not worth it.

Thank you for listening. Please share your thoughts on the subject.

OPD · August 31, 2002, 09:26

If we started building settlers now we could probably get any sites that we raze.

Epistax · August 31, 2002, 09:38

WAR! Good god yo! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say again?
WAR! Good god yo! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say again?
WAR! Good god yo! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say again?
WAR! Good god yo! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say again?

ok ok. We need to keep in mind what cities will culture flip towards us, and which might go away. I believe only the french capital has any culture at the moment, but I could be wrong. Temples are obviously a top priority no matter what the culture status of the french cities. Additionally, any cities we can raze and reconstruct over easily must be done. This would save tens or hundreds of turns waiting for a culture flip. I really doubt there will be a second save against the french unless we aren't the ones that start it, so we must take all that we can at the moment, but not be at war for too long.

Kuciwalker · August 31, 2002, 09:55

We should stop.

Duddha · August 31, 2002, 10:15

Damn DIA wimps.

Kuciwalker · August 31, 2002, 10:18

Duddha - I used to be UFC. I still think we should stop.

OPD · August 31, 2002, 10:33

I think Termina and BHQ may start building a settler each soon so that the gaps that are created can be filled.

Aggie · August 31, 2002, 10:57

Shiber I agree, but rememebr it is Aggie's Techwhoring plan.

Aggie

Aggie · August 31, 2002, 10:59

OPD, we need bigger cities to up our production. Except for uber isle isle I have no desire to make settlers again.
Aggie

Donal Graeme · August 31, 2002, 11:03

Right on target. We are rapidly approaching our limit on cities before we hit the corruption wall that will drastically hurt our commerce and production. Better a medium amount of well built cities, then a large number of medium built ones.

All that we're saying is give peace a chance...
All that we're saying is give peace a chance...
All that we're saying is give peace a chance...
All that we're saying is give peace a chance...

Reddawg · August 31, 2002, 11:08

I'm going to take this opportunity to stress what I think is currently most important.

I don't think people have really been listening when I've been saying to watch out for Germany. Now that they are more than double our size and are growing at a much higher rate, they will listen. End this war now, Germany is the only threat to our existence, and a growing one.

Secondly, I've concluded that reaching Uber Isle is an unbelievable advantage. The thought of some other civ getting a foothold there first is nearly devastating. We MUST reach that island ASAP.

OPD · August 31, 2002, 11:13

I know I too hate building settlers in core cities.

In an ideal world we'd have 1 or 2 cities with granaries which could produce all of our settlers and re-grow quickly.

But we don't have that luxury and we don't want our newly captured french cities to be cut off by other french ciites.

I have nop intention of building a settler in poly and will let it grow to become a production power house.

Termina and BHQ will only build 1 settler each which won't significantly reduce their production as ATM our core cities have a lack of mined tiles.

Tass may also build a settler if needed. Hopefully when the cities grow back to the size they are now the surrounding lands will have been developed more.

Although the PW minister is desperately short of workers. Perhaps if Termina were to build a granary it could start pumping them out but there are more important things ATM

Shiber · August 31, 2002, 11:20

Well if my memory serves me right the City Planning department says the temple in Termina is late overdue and insist that we finish it first.
OPD, I agree with your idea, but since the city planners want a temple in Termina first perhaps we should plan for a granary someplace else.

Shiber · August 31, 2002, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
Shiber I agree, but rememebr it is Aggie's Techwhoring plan.

Aggie

No, I was referring to Togas's plan (it's pretty much like yours only he wants us to get Feudalism in the peace settlement whereas you want to buy Feudalism later, which is a bad idea IMHO).

OPD · August 31, 2002, 11:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
Well if my memory serves me right the City Planning department says the temple in Termina is late overdue and insist that we finish it first.
OPD, I agree with your idea, but since the city planners want a temple in Termina first perhaps we should plan for a granary someplace else.

Your memory does serve you right a temple will be built in Termia.

Whether or not any settlers are built it will not happen this turn as there are other priorities.

Also building a granary in one of the core cities is a idea that has been floating around for a while. If it is decided to build one then it won't be happening for a while as there are other things more important. It has yet to be decided whether it is feasable and worthwhile to do so. And so any thoughts you have on the matter would be appreciated.

Donal Graeme · August 31, 2002, 11:44

Until we manage to secure some more luxuries, such as Wines or something else, then we shouldn't build any granaries, becuase we won't have enough happy people to offset the unhappy ppl in a large city. Cathedrals are tough to build, but worth it, once we build one we can make a granary.

OPD · August 31, 2002, 11:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Donal Graeme
Until we manage to secure some more luxuries, such as Wines or something else, then we shouldn't build any granaries, becuase we won't have enough happy people to offset the unhappy ppl in a large city. Cathedrals are tough to build, but worth it, once we build one we can make a granary.

The intention is not to build a granary to let the city grow big it is too build a granary then let the city grow to 5 or 6 and then build a load of workers untill the city is a 1 pop. Then when it grows back to a 6 again another load of workers/settlers can be built. A granary means that growth from a 1 to a 6 will take 25 turns rather than the usual 50 turns.

This way wroker/settler prod could be achieved without significant loss to pop in other cities.

With a new gov and some irrigation growth from a 1 to a 6 could be as little as 15 turns.

Donal Graeme · August 31, 2002, 12:07

Termina would be the best city for the job, as it would be close to a river, have some minerals, and be able to construct a granary starting in 3 turns.

Shiber · August 31, 2002, 12:25

Does anyone have any more thoughts on the subject of ending the war this turn?

MrWhereItsAt · August 31, 2002, 12:47

This is highly difficult. Hopefully I can get some of the people who turn up in the chat to agree to whatever I decide re: ending the war and also on what to get through the chat.

My current feeling is to end it now, after moving units nearer to Chartres for impact, as well as getting the cities in the peace, with buying Feudalism afterwards. Or maybe I don't want to risk NOT getting Feudalism, and will get that instead of cities. I don't know!

THIS decision is f***ing hard. I will have to sleep on it. Fortunately I can - 3-5 hours before the chat.

If you're turning up, have good arguments to convinve me.

Shiber · August 31, 2002, 13:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
My current feeling is to end it now, after moving units nearer to Chartres for impact,

You mean Rheims right?

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
as well as getting the cities in the peace,

I'll give you an argument against that right now: Rouen and/or another (let's face it) crap town is not worth the extra 220+ gold we'll have to pay for Feudalism if we buy it later. We can easily culture-flip Rouen in a matter of 25-30 turns or conquer it in a 2nd campaign against the French in ~40 turns.

GhengisFarb™ · August 31, 2002, 13:28

This is not a hard decision. There hasn't been an intelligent argument for taking Rheims, Chartres, or Munich since the 210 BC save was uploaded. We have to let them grow a bit before they're ripe is all.

I don't think razing Munich will help in peace negotiations with Germany. Munich's existing and potentially providing Germany with dyes would. They don't get those dyes unless they make peace with us.

Shiber · August 31, 2002, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I don't think razing Munich will help in peace negotiations with Germany. Munich's existing and potentially providing Germany with dyes would. They don't get those dyes unless they make peace with us.

Interesting thought. I hope the AI is smart enough to figure this out.
Anyway, I'm for not razing Munich as well.

Ghengis: so do you agree that we need to end the war with France this turn?

OPD · August 31, 2002, 14:14

Bhah I can't belive I'm the only one supporting the war effort.

1. Not taking the land of Rhiems/ Chartes will leave our new cities cut off from the rest of our empire. The whole French campaign will be a bit of a waste if the cities we've captured are left stranded.

2. It is possible for us to beat the greeks to settling the site of Rhiems if we start building a settler now after all the greeks are at war and not in REX.

3. It will be alot easier to take/raze the cities now when we have the upper hand.

4. A second campaing is a long way off as they will start building pikemen now.

5. It is highly unlikely that Chartes will flip too us. In fact Marsielles will flip to the Greeks first. (can't remember the new name for Marseilles.)

6. A serious campaign against the Germans is IMHO unfesable ATM. Although it would be nice to weaken them by taking Hamburg it will take alot and won't really benefit us that much. Wereas taking the land of Rheims/Chartes would be of use to us as they are close enough to our capital

Aro · August 31, 2002, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by OPD

The intention is not to build a granary to let the city grow big it is too build a granary then let the city grow to 5 or 6 and then build a load of workers untill the city is a 1 pop. Then when it grows back to a 6 again another load of workers/settlers can be built. A granary means that growth from a 1 to a 6 will take 25 turns rather than the usual 50 turns.

This way wroker/settler prod could be achieved without significant loss to pop in other cities.

With a new gov and some irrigation growth from a 1 to a 6 could be as little as 15 turns.

Agreed. We need those worker's factories, we have a lot of jungle to cut off (not to mention roads, mines, irrigation)...
And yes, stop the war now!

OPD · August 31, 2002, 14:16

We should raze Munich not because it will help in the negotiations but so that we can take the land. As it is surrounded by our borders we can put off settling it while we have other concerns too.

Also I wouldn't count on a culture flip to us and the Germans would be pissed if it did anyway.

Kuciwalker · August 31, 2002, 14:19

OPD - our cities will not be cut off. We're getting an RoP with the French, so we can trade on roads through their territory.

Aro · August 31, 2002, 14:20

Quote:

Originally posted by OPD
Bhah I can't belive I'm the only one supporting the war effort.

1. Not taking the land of Rhiems/ Chartes will leave our new cities cut off from the rest of our empire. The whole French campaign will be a bit of a waste if the cities we've captured are left stranded.

2. It is possible for us to beat the greeks to settling the site of Rhiems if we start building a settler now after all the greeks are at war and not in REX.

3. It will be alot easier to take/raze the cities now when we have the upper hand.

4. A second campaing is a long way off as they will start building pikemen now.

5. It is highly unlikely that Chartes will flip too us. In fact Marsielles will flip to the Greeks first. (can't remember the new name for Marseilles.)

6. A serious campaign against the Germans is IMHO unfesable ATM. Although it would be nice to weaken them by taking Hamburg it will take alot and won't really benefit us that much. Wereas taking the land of Rheims/Chartes would be of use to us as they are close enough to our capital

In this case, we need the settlers as soon as we can, to fill the gaps, 'cause Rheims and Chartres will be autorazed.

About Marseilles, could we built a temple or something to prevent the flip?

Aggie · August 31, 2002, 14:23

Germany will not make peace until we have taken a city or they have taken one of ours and also they are in republic. Munich will NOT we razed, they can't pop rush. By taking it we secure nothing less than a one city gain in the war. We can also attack later, but taking munich will make them come to the table if we need peace.
Aggie

OPD · August 31, 2002, 14:28

ROP? don't make me laugh

The cities of Rhiems and Chartes would be alot more useful to us than the other 3 cities considering their proximity.

Aro: building a temple won't make any difference.