Persia: Peace, Quick War, or Total Conquest? - Page 3

Togas · September 6, 2002, 18:25

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
And our "Archerers" are pretty tough too!

...freakin' typos. I'm sure you'll never let me live that down.

--Togas

kring · September 7, 2002, 01:12

Peace now.

We can't afford to get the Pyramids at this juncture. If you don't know why, it would be pointless to explain. We are overstretched now. We need to build up our infrastructure and our military. The long term risks outweigh the short term gains.

Donegeal · September 7, 2002, 02:12

Kring- The Pyramids, Incense and Spice are all long term. None of then ever where out. This cities in this lush land will grow fast (grassland and grainery) and be productive (if we put the FP there). We would also, undoughtedly great a couple of GLs in a long war. The long term gains GREATLY out weight the short term risks.

kring · September 7, 2002, 05:13

The long term gains of peace outweigh the short term goals of war more than greatly, but most of the people haven't considered them, and I am not going to waste my time proving the point since it would fall on deaf ears; and several have already made some good comments on why to end it. And GL's are not guaranteed, even in a long term war. I have a games where I didn't get any, even in several long term wars, and I have games where I have gotten them in short term wars.

astrologix · September 7, 2002, 05:34

I wonder how updated our worlds map are. If they aren't, the Germans could have potentially two sources of iron. I've seen an Aro's map with a german worker doing a road on the source of iron near Hambourg. The Persians could have iron by trade with them. In this case the Aggie's plan could be very risky.....

astrologix · September 7, 2002, 05:55

Please, don't attack Irak !.....er.....Persia !

Peace now !

GhengisFarb™ · September 7, 2002, 09:11

Quote:

Originally posted by kring
The long term gains of peace outweigh the short term goals of war more than greatly, but most of the people haven't considered them, and I am not going to waste my time proving the point since it would fall on deaf ears; and several have already made some good comments on why to end it. And GL's are not guaranteed, even in a long term war. I have a games where I didn't get any, even in several long term wars, and I have games where I have gotten them in short term wars.

The reason we advocate taking Persia now, is because it's our only chance until the Modern Era. They are using the AI "Turtle Strategy", which is to use other nations for bufferstates and build defense and infrastructure. If we don't attack them now, we won't be able to later.

I propose "Operation Onion", titled upon a 3-layer approach.

First, we peel Layer One off the Persians, if the war is bogging down or we feel we need to concentrate on infrastruture, we can sign a peace treaty and come back for Layer 2 later.

Likewise with Layer Two, once completed it gives us another chace to continue or sue for peace.

Layer One takes Tyre, Sidon, and Gordium. Leaving us with a strike position against the Persian heartland and within view of the Pyramids.

Layer Two takes the Pyramids and their Iron source.

Layer Three finishes them and seizes all the luxuries.

EDIT correction to the Layer Three image, I think we should keep Suza where it is, NOT move it one tile NW. Likewise with Layer Two, Antioch could be left in it's current location.

GhengisFarb™ · September 7, 2002, 09:12

Layer Two:

GhengisFarb™ · September 7, 2002, 09:13

Layer Three:

Robber Baron · September 7, 2002, 09:14

It's still too early to tell, really. If, for example, it proves costly taking Sidon or Tyre, then we will quickly overextend our still (admittedly) weak military.
If, on the other hand, we take these cities handily AND, by the grace of the Almighty Banana, get a great leader ... well, then we could possibly take and hold the Pyramids, by building our Forbidden Palace in the vicinity, perhaps. (A move that would probably require, eventually, moving our palace to a more central location in Central Abananaba.)
But then, if we get bogged down here, either Greece or Germany could seriously hurt us on other fronts.

The luxury of our current position is, we can afford to press forward and see how things go. We move against Tyre and Sidon, then wait for the Persians' counterattack. It will be archer -based, and we should be able to stave it off easily enough. Meanwhile, we hook up our roads, build a bit of culture. If neither Alexander nor Bismark feel themselves in position to take us on yet, (and if the Romans hold off as well), then we venture further into Persian territory. In the meantime, maybe we can manufacture a leader (swords against on-coming archers? I like the odds.

)

jdd2007 · September 7, 2002, 09:33

this is very close, 9-14-9-14!

might it be possible to get the english on our side?

Aggie · September 7, 2002, 10:33

I don't believe persia has a connection to germany, even if they did we can stop the war at anytime if immortals appear. So really the ONLY risk is an alliance against us. Togas has stated he doesn't believe persia has enough money to accomplish this. However as things proceed we might have to revaluate alliances. I thought of making alliance with all our neighbors and then just going full bore at persia. But at this stage(since we don't know how long we'll fight) such an allianace is not useful. I also thought of england alliance, but they are in a position to take several persian cities,no good. So we are left going it along right now. If this true the only danger of war is the lack of building of infrastructure. However as I have said before we have plenty of units for the intial phase of war so infrastructure doesn't get hurt. After that we can decide whats next. The war can always be stopped and their offer will only go up. Look how germany did and THEY had an army at the gates. However I think we will reevaluate after every stage.
Aggie

GhengisFarb™ · September 7, 2002, 10:55

No alliances! If we ally with someone we risk THEM taking the luxury cities as they're all on the coast where a naval landing might occur.

I say we take what we can and if its too much, make peace, consolidate and take up the war later. Persia will only be weaker from the loss of cities and we'll be stronger.

England, no! The first cities they would go against would be the spice city and then the incense.

jdd2007 · September 7, 2002, 11:06

ok, ok. just wondering.

Aro · September 7, 2002, 12:42

That is a fantastic analysis (and amazing graphics!), Ghengis. I'll be busy today (RL, again), and I can't look deeply, but seems to be a very doable plan. The three layers allow us to conduct this war with flexibility.

adaMada · September 7, 2002, 12:52

Very nice graphics and analysis Ghengis.

Discussion on this topic should continue. After this next turn, I'll post a little update here which will address the way we'll be handling the next week (while Togas is gone and our first assults on Tyre and Sidon should be prepared.)

Keep putting out good plans like this, and if we do decide to continue the war with Persia, we'll be ready.

Aggie, if you're still around, I'd love to know how many military units you think you'd need for each of the phases of Ghengis' plan... Or if anyone else thinks they can take a guess, I'd love to hear it.

-- adaMada

kring · September 7, 2002, 13:44

People didn't think France had the money to get alliances either.

adaMada · September 7, 2002, 13:49

Quote:

Originally posted by kring
People didn't think France had the money to get alliances either.

Persia has much less money than France did -- only about twenty gold right now, if I recall correctly.

France had a bit over a hundred gold or so; We hoped that it would cost more, but the issue was brought up before the war. I think that the danger, at least for now, is less in this case.

-- adaMada

Panag · September 7, 2002, 13:50

hi ,

GF

we should take tyre and sidon , make peace and then start to focus on our infrastructure and Uber isle , ....

have a nice day

Donegeal · September 7, 2002, 13:58

I believe I read somewhere that AI's only draw alliances at the begining of a war. Remember, this was started because France brought Persia into the war several turns ago. IMHO, this would not be considered a new war by the Persian AI so they won't try to make alliances.

I cannot coberate this thought that AI's only draw at the beging, but there wasn't any objection to the idea back when it was first proposed.

Panag · September 7, 2002, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by donegeal
I believe I read somewhere that AI's only draw alliances at the begining of a war. Remember, this was started because France brought Persia into the war several turns ago. IMHO, this would not be considered a new war by the Persian AI so they won't try to make alliances.

I cannot coberate this thought that AI's only draw at the beging, but there wasn't any objection to the idea back when it was first proposed.

hi ,

dont bet your money on it , ...

the AI can get others in , normally at the start , but even after a long war he can certainly get some friends in , ....

at this stage the ai has no money , no so many techs , so we can be happy , but i a thousand years or so , it shall be different , ...

have a nice day

astrologix · September 7, 2002, 14:53

Alea jacta est !

We are proud of our valiant armies. Don't return without the heads of our enemies ! Banana bless you !

Good luck, generals !

kring · September 7, 2002, 18:37

I saw a war where Egypt got India involved (through a Military Alliance) in a war that had been on going for a number of turns, this with the 1.29 patch so it may not apply. And Egypt was about as poor as Persia is now. It is not always about money, though.

Shiber · September 7, 2002, 19:16

I posted this under the Dogs of War thread but I think this belongs here too:

All the people who support the idea of making a grab for the Great Pyramids seem to be neglecting two facts:
1. We are playing on Emperor. The AIs get HUGE production bonuses.
2. Persia has had time to prepare. It's been a while since they declared war on us and they had enough time to create a formidable army of archers. I expect they'll start marching into view in two turns.
Even if we are be able to take out those archers without suffering any serious losses, we won't be able to get any further into Persian territory than Tyre and Sidon (unless we waste all our money on rushing attackers) because the Persians will have more time to generate more forces while we fight their existing ones.

GodKing · September 7, 2002, 19:49

One thing about t he onion strategy. Instead of in the first layer taking the southeastern city (forgot all the names) take the northeastern city, as that is the one that could get iron in its radious. Cut off their balls first. Then take the choice cities.

Donegeal · September 8, 2002, 01:13

I would have to agree with GK on this one. Remove the threat of Iron and it should go more smoothly.

MrWhereItsAt · September 8, 2002, 01:46

It is clear that war, at least as far as Sidon and Tyre, is the preferred option here. Beyond this things are more controversial, and I agree we need a repoll and more discussion once we see the resistance Persia is putting up.

I voted for peace when we get decent terms, but I agree with GodKing that once we take their Iron we can make mincemeat out of them. Let's just hope they don't upgrade all their Warriors to Swordsmen should they connect Iron for a turn or two.

GhengisFarb™ · September 8, 2002, 09:24

Quote:

Originally posted by GodKing
One thing about t he onion strategy. Instead of in the first layer taking the southeastern city (forgot all the names) take the northeastern city, as that is the one that could get iron in its radious. Cut off their balls first. Then take the choice cities.

The Iron is a farther march, and with their luxuries they could always trade for iron. Taking Gordium puts in striking range of their most populous and productive cities (the ones they build wonders in) which is an excellent strategic position for bargaining and any subsequent attack.

History Guy · September 8, 2002, 11:30

So, it seems as if the preferred option here is really conquest. I think that destroying the whole civilization is overdoing it a bit, but I'd say at least heading to Persepolis to take the Pyramids would be a good idea, and if the Pyramids are taken, then, when we have the Persians where we want them, we can either sue for peace and reap the rewards of peace, or simply dive in for the kill.