[Spoilers] Gavagai, Bacchus and Elizabeth Form a Romantic Trio

[Gavagai]

No horses as predicted:

[Bacchus]

In another news from the trade screen, Mali has gold. Sian and Kurumi have 3 cities, Mali has four.

[Gavagai]

What are our chances that barbs would attack Sian's warrior? Pretty high, AFAIK.

[Bacchus]

Ouch, poor old Sian. AFAIK, barbs will attack a nearby unit with 90% probability, but that might be different if they have targeted a specific tile that they are going towards in our cap.

Regarding the military, and remembering the horse gift to Azza in PB8, we should build a spear just in case. It's amazing how strategic resources can spring up out of nowhere.

[Bacchus]

(((

[Bacchus]

Sian's warrior took out the first barb and died to the second, taking off some HP, so now we are fine for defending the capital with just the existing garrison. Egyptian warrior sighted defenseless Croyden across the lake. Jester also brought up a worker and a warrior to improve the FP, I hope he is building a road to support an attack on Dover. Rival best GNP dropped off humongously, and we are now first again, despite saving gold.

Egyptian GNP and MFG improved a lot, they now have something like a 40% lead in production. Pretty scary and our power graph is probably enough to scare them into building units (we are now first in soldiers).

[Gavagai]

MFG doesn't mean much at this stage as the main sources of production are chops and whips (well, in most cases, ours included). And here we have a considerable advantage.
I really feel nervous about this Egyptian warrior near Croyden though. What if they decide to keep it in place for a couple of turns? A chariot will be completed in Croyden on T74, if they spot it, it will spoil our surprise.
And yes, regarding spears. I don't think we should build them. We know that Egypt has contacts with SC and Sian. Neither if them has horses. And, given the geography, it's extremely unlikely that they have contact with someone we don't know.
I feel uneasy without spears but without mounted units to kill they are just useless. And we are pretty short on hammers and, in fact, everything.

[Bacchus]

As we discussed, they should have a source of "their" horses somewhere, and now that we are arms racing and facing off on the border, I would think they will prioritise settling these supposed horses. Of course, we don't really know how the map was balanced, but it would seem rough to leave people without knights.

[Gavagai]

OK, we are attacking this turn but I will need some feedback on what exactly we should do.



This is our tactical situation. We have a stack of three axes 1NE from DV and they also have three axes 2NE. Wall St. is currently guarded by a warrior. We have an additional axe coming from the south (still has full movement points) and another axe will be finished next turn in DV via chop.
My idea is to move our axes 1N and move our fourth axe to a place where they currently stand. This way we will threaten him to cut Wall St. from his copper city by moving axes along the river.
Bacchus, we still have some time, so I'll wait for your feedback.

EDIT: also, next turn we will have an option to upgrade this warrior.

[Bacchus]

I will start off by re-iterating my point that Dover is not so much a forward base of operations as a liability once the war breaks. Another bitching point, what we should have done a turn ago, was send that southern axe to advance via the forests, rather than together with the others. Bitching over.

Now for the plan. The only alternative that comes to mind, as they might keep their stack in place, is to chop a chariot rather an axe in Dover. Yes, it will ruin surprise, but at the moment they are offering us to take an axe for free next turn (IIUC, chariot will still have excellent odds attacking across a river). The chariot will be protected after its attack by the southern axe that is yet to move. The following turn, after promoting, the chariot will threaten to raze Wall St. and their only defense is to keep axes in place, both of them, as leaving only one would mean risking the loss of the city on an unlucky, but not unfathomable die roll. With their axes thus fixed in place, our three can advance with impunity and fork the copper city/copper mine from the tile 1N of the cows. There is no realistic way to defend both.

If they retreat their stack to Wall St next turn, the chariot and the axe can move onto the central desert hill, which is quite good for sight and zone control.

Whatever we do, the tactical situation is hugely in our favour, there is actually no way for him to prevent our three axes from moving north and perhaps forking his copper city/copper mine. If he moves only 2 axes 1N, we will attack with our 3 at 50% odds, most likely overwhelming him, and if he moves all 3, we can step 1NE with the rearguard axe, threatening Wall St. If he moves to garrison Wall St., as he probably will, the garrison might be massacred on T77.

Having even one chariot will greatly reduce their tactical options, which is why I like it, but surprise is pretty painful to sacrifice. Do we really need surprise here, though? With their axes this far advanced, the copper is really fragile — with a chariot on the scene, 1 axe in Wall St is not enough to defend it, and 2 axes in Wall St overtax the defenses, nobody is then left to defend against the fork set up by our advancing stack. Regardless, chariots come onto the scene soon enough on T76 and can threaten Wall St. on T77, so that's fine. Also, not much point in defensive zonal control when we will be steamrolling ahead.