Exchange Map Proposal Rejected!!! - Page 2

Locutus · January 15, 2003, 06:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Pedrunn
If the city is low defended

That's a big if. If it's not, we loose our 4 Warriors and will have only 1 undefended city against a full-fledged empire and hordes of Barbarians...

H Tower,
And IW didn't appoint a delegate?

Oerdin · January 15, 2003, 07:35

Ok, then we don't go to war but we should still rush the next warrior (if we rush it once it's 50% done we get the unit in half the time and only have to pay 25% of the original unit cost) and explore like mad. With luck we'll find a goodie hut and get a unit or tech out of it.

BTW How many turns do we have until Attila is let lose?

Zaphod Beeblebrox · January 15, 2003, 09:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm starting to get the feeling I'm the only militarist in a room full of diplomats. Wouldn't it be better to go for the juggler early and try to eliminate a few civs while they're small; before they get big enough to cause us problems?

thats the problem: THEY ARE BIG ENOUGH NOT ONLY TO CAUSE US PROBLEMS BUT TO WHIPE US OUT!

(sorry for the shouting). we should try to make them friends, give them money, behave nice, give their leaders blo....

found a second city, rush our development of ballistic weapons, build up a real army with warriors (or even better hoplites) and archers and THEN we can seriously talk about crushing those damn bloody blasphemic aussies!

Martin Gühmann · January 15, 2003, 13:59

I say threat them actual we should have done it the last turn already to get their map.

-Martin

child of Thor · January 16, 2003, 16:14

Ok how about this then:

1. rush build if needed any new units to shore up our defences.

2. change our emipre sliders so we produce max science to finish researching ballistics asap.

3. once we have slingers, change sliders back to increase our production and start to churn out warriors and slingers untill we have an army that has a good chance at taking out one austrian city,and maybe a few others in quick succesion with just enough time between strikes to heal/replace fallen units.

We won't need to worry about settlers as we will be taking our new cities by force.
I just have a feeling that as they are so close to our borders trying to be diplomatic will be just a stalling motion untill they attack us, and one that may work in thier favour as they already have more cities than us to turn out units from. So lets reduce their capability by taking their cities - i bet we could grab two or three with just a nine strong army,maybe more with a few more units built as we advance.
Plus as we've already failed to get their maps and with their regaurd so low towards us we have nothing to lose by building up our armies as fast as possible.

Martin Gühmann · January 16, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by child of Thor
Plus as we've already failed to get their maps and with their regaurd so low towards us we have nothing to lose by building up our armies as fast as possible.

Actual we did not try to thread them for a map exange we should do this that is actual the only change anyway to get their map.

-Martin

child of Thor · January 16, 2003, 18:44

Ok Martin, i guess you really want to threaten them

So we could try this before going to war - it won't make much difference in the long run as their regard is so low any way. Won't they just laugh at us, as they are much stronger than us?

HuangShang · January 16, 2003, 21:56

no setter .

J Bytheway · January 17, 2003, 05:35

Surely by the time we have nine units we could have bilat a settler, and then 4 units in each city, so it wouldn't set back the production of our first army much and would speed later ones considerably.

ískallin · January 17, 2003, 08:31

I just tried 3 times to play with scotts in SAP onand i tried to do a settler but in all 3 times i was crushed not by hostile neighburs but barbs befor 2000BC
Then i tried the other way to pump out warriors and i did never loose a battle.

So this explains my point
Take on them now while they are not to much ahead of us

child of Thor · January 17, 2003, 17:40

Iskallin, Yep that's one thing i was thinking about - the barbs, not much heard from them so far it seems. Fortune favours the brave, He who dares wins, That which does not kill you makes you stronger....etc....
Lets be strong and impulsive - we can see the enemy, lets kill them and take their cities!

J bytheway, well yes i guess we could do that, alot depends on how long either path would take. I still think we should try to get the ballistics done asap(and again how long would that take?). Actually i just want war with these strangers that are causeing our tribe such problems.They are a threat, so lets do em.

ískallin · January 18, 2003, 06:39

AI don't knows a jack **** about tactick... we do
the best tactick KILL THEM KNOW

Martin Gühmann · January 18, 2003, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by child of Thor
Iskallin, Yep that's one thing i was thinking about - the barbs, not much heard from them so far it seems.

The reason why we did not hear anything from the Babarians is that the first Barbarian unit will appear on turn 20 in GoodMod for Apolyton Pack on the highest Barbarian setting.

Quote:

Originally posted by ískallin
AI don't knows a jack **** about tactick... we do
the best tactick KILL THEM KNOW

And how want you counquer 4 or 5 cities with just two warriors.

-Martin

HuangShang · January 18, 2003, 15:32

we take one (undefended) city first and then launch from there w/ 2 cities

Martin Gühmann · January 18, 2003, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by HuangShang
we take one (undefended) city first and then launch from there w/ 2 cities

I doubt their cities are undefended.

-Martin

HuangShang · January 18, 2003, 15:57

2 warriors should handle it anyway, just explore abit more