[SPOILERS] - Tredje and Mardoc are Sheelba of the Clan of Embers

[Mardoc]

Welcome back, Tredje!

Our deal with Square Leg is simple: he pays 37 gpt, we don't attack him, expires end of T171. We have minor additions to that, like he gets to settle by the Standing Stones, but that's the heart of the deals.

With Iskender, we've got an NAP until EOT 150, we still owe him Orthus' Axe when we find it, and the gold from one of the last Balseraph cities when we get around to taking them. We also have whatever the world spell NAP requires.

Once Bob's resistance was broken, Iskender immediately became a lot cooler, backing off his forces rather than helping us mop up (although he did defend Coombe View against Bob's last gasp skeleton stack). He's made a point of mentioning the world spell NAP several times.

In terms of tech path at the moment - we finished Way of the Wicked at EOT, and are moving on to Corruption of Spirit (836 beaker). After that, we'll want Priesthood (836), maybe if we can afford it, Infernal Pact (1256), Warfare (336), Smelting (1672), and Iron Working (2717).

If I divide by 1.2 for prereq bonus, that becomes a total of 5470 beakers without Infernal Pact, ~6500 with. It's very hard to say how long that'll take, though. Our current breakeven rate is 114 beakers/turn, but we've been teching at a -50 gpt rate for a long while, funding that with city captures.

Plus, I expect that rate to skyrocket shortly as we finish Courthouses in the new acquisitions, build Markets and Elder Councils and Ashen Veil temples, and revolt to Military State. Half our cities are still in anarchy, we're getting gold from city captures still, and we still have at least one golden age in reserve - about all I know for a fact is that breakeven isn't really our research rate.

So I don't really know how long it'll take us to get to Iron Ogres and Ritualists. I think we can manage it in 20-30 turns, though. Military State will be worth a good 21 gpt, courthouses worth probably close to 50 gpt, elder council + market + AV temple - there's at least 50 gpt worth of those unbuilt as yet, too.

You may have a point on Iskender, but I'm not sure how precisely we'd want to handle him. I suppose the primary question becomes whether we want to try to extort him as well, into an NAP to last until T185ish, and spend that time getting our own civ into shape, or do we plan on hitting him around T160 with everything we've got.

Part of the problem with hitting him now is that he's still got those very promoted shock + combat (many) priests around, while we've got the Sons, sure, but aside from that, maybe 10 warriors + 5 axemen. Well, and 5 warrens cities.

You dealt with Iskender more than me - how do you think he'd respond to an extortion request?

[Tredje]

Hi Gaspar!

Mardoc, it's getting a bit late over here, and I'm not on a computer with FFH2 right now. I checked my RB-mail and I am still getting the saves from the tracker. I will take a look at the save tomorrow and try to form a plan on how we should proceed. The way I see it there are a couple of variables:

Who can utilize peacetime better? We or them? This includes a look on tech pace and possible unit composition in X turns time. Without looking at the save I'd say we have three windows of opportunity ourselves:

1: Right now. Sons + Warriors + Axemen + Adepts
2: After Priesthood. Same as above but with Ritualists
3: After IW. Both of the above but Ogres as well.

Against that we need to know what Iskender and/or SL can possibly field in X turns time. Need to figure that out.

Whatever we decide to do, we need to make sure that our NAPs with SL and Iskender do not end within 10 turns of each other. So if we decide to go for option 3, we need to get a NAP with Iskender until T180 at least.

How would Iskender respond to extortion? From my experience Iskender is clever and cool-headed and will do what betters his chances of winning.

You also bring up the question of using the Sons against Iskender. Let me show you the words that were exchanged when signing the agreement:

Do we want to make a detailed agreement about the world spells or follow to the spirit of not using one's world spell to harm the other? I think the latter is OK.

I am definitely okay with simply agreeing to not use our world spells to harm eachother.

As you can see the agreement is based upon good faith between me and Iskender. However, leading up to the agreement we only talked about using our world spells as a rush tool. What happens now, 100 turns later, is in my eyes a matter of interpretation. If we don't utilize the Sons, our reputations will remained untarnished, but we might lose. If we do use them, Iskender and probably some of the lurkers will be upset, but our chances of winning will be greatly increased.

[Mardoc]

Not using it to harm - that is a pretty general statement. I think I'd like to treat it as binding, at least for the Sons on offense. Using them on defense seems kosher, or close enough.

Without the Sons, I don't think we can successfully fight Iskender right now; if we were going to, I should have been building axemen and shamans for the past 10-15 turns, and I haven't been. We still have profitable wars to fight in Sheaim and Balseraph lands, as well, that could keep us busy. I would prefer therefore to hit him at minimum with Ritualists, perhaps not until Ogres. With ritualists, well, we could be ready in, say, 10-15 turns, maybe 20...that's starting to get awfully close to T171 when our NAP with SL runs out. The tech shouldn't take that long, but going from tech to a built force, on his borders, that'll take longer.

Frankly, with us owning 3-4X as much land as either of our foes, I think we ought to be able to out tech them given a straight up economy focus. Even with Barbarian and no libraries. We just ought to be able to throw so many hammers at economic buildings, work so many gold-producing tiles, etc, that it drowns out the more efficient usage they get from their land. And I like that sort of game more, too .

I suppose I ought to approach Iskender about an NAP-extension, therefore. I just need to figure out how best to phrase it. Assuming you two don't talk me out of it, mind .

[NobleHelium]

I was going to offer advice but then I remembered it's not PBEM 7.

[Gaspar]

Not using it to harm - that is a pretty general statement. I think I'd like to treat it as binding, at least for the Sons on offense. Using them on defense seems kosher, or close enough.

Without the Sons, I don't think we can successfully fight Iskender right now; if we were going to, I should have been building axemen and shamans for the past 10-15 turns, and I haven't been. We still have profitable wars to fight in Sheaim and Balseraph lands, as well, that could keep us busy. I would prefer therefore to hit him at minimum with Ritualists, perhaps not until Ogres. With ritualists, well, we could be ready in, say, 10-15 turns, maybe 20...that's starting to get awfully close to T171 when our NAP with SL runs out. The tech shouldn't take that long, but going from tech to a built force, on his borders, that'll take longer.

Frankly, with us owning 3-4X as much land as either of our foes, I think we ought to be able to out tech them given a straight up economy focus. Even with Barbarian and no libraries. We just ought to be able to throw so many hammers at economic buildings, work so many gold-producing tiles, etc, that it drowns out the more efficient usage they get from their land. And I like that sort of game more, too .

I suppose I ought to approach Iskender about an NAP-extension, therefore. I just need to figure out how best to phrase it. Assuming you two don't talk me out of it, mind .

I personally would use the Sons on offense against the Sidar, but we really should have thought this through further before NAP'ing SL. Regardless, I still don't see why we should NAP Iskender, if he attacks, he attacks, and even you agree we can use the Sons on defense, which should be enough to neuter his stacks. The problem with NAP'ing these guys is we needed them to be building units so that they can't rush ahead economically. Do we have any idea where SL or Iskender is on tech? I'd assume one or both is going to aim for a tower victory - can they do that in time before we have Ogres on the field?

[Tredje]

I agree with Gaspar regarding the Sons and would use them against Iskender on the offensive as well. Yes, it's a somewhat dastardly act, but if we interpret the deal as a non-rush agreement, which is what I had in mind, then we are no longer bound by it on T150.

I'm not an expert on FFH2 mechanics, but I would say that with their GNP and production neither SL nor Iskender should be able to finish a Tower until well after T200, and by that time Ogres should be on the field.

Now, back to the discussion on what to do next.

Here is the GNP graph:

Here is the Power graph:

We can see that they are both well ahead of us in GNP right now. Obviously we have more room for growth than them, and should catch up within, say, 10-15 turns or so. After that we should pull ahead. But they are two, and likely to team up against us, so in the long run I'm not sure if we are better off in a tech race.

If we look at their armies, both are puny. We are ahead of them, and we barely have enough Warriors (17) to put one in each city. Added to that we have 7 Axemen and 6 Shamans and our four Sons. Let me reiterate: Our force is weak, but their armies are weaker. If I were to speculate, I would say that Iskender isn't likely to get a powerful unit within the next 15 turns or so.

Consequently my first instinct is to push for an attack on Iskender at the earliest time possible, preferably before T160. There are a couple of problems however. 1: Our Sons are in the east, and will struggle to reach our core area before the NAP runs out. 2: Our force in the west is non-existent. Iskender might capitalize on our current weakness and attack before we get a strong enough force in the area. We also lack Hawks to scout the front.

My conclusion is that not signing a NAP with Iskender puts us at a risk of him doing a preemptive strike. That could cost us a couple of core cities in the west. His Hawks can spot our weakness easily. We really need at least 10 turns to get a semblance of a defense ready in the area. What I would do is approach Iskender about a NAP extension. I'm not sure I would try to extort him, my main focus would be to get a NAP that lasts until T185 or so. If he refuses and tries to make it end simultaneously with our SL-NAP we refuse and say that in that case we would rather have no NAP. While the negotiation takes place we should build Warriors in our western cities, just in case. We should also leave only one unit in cities like Shazzak and Dirage, and move the remaining troops to the exposed cities in the northwest.

Getting a NAP with Iskender allows us to tech and prepare for war with SL on T171. No NAP means we need to build troops in every city with a Warren and hit Iskender as soon as possible.

By the way, you really need Sanitation Mardoc. Our new cities would catch up so much faster. I would prioritize it over anything else right now, even Priesthood. Also our happy cap is massive and all cities can afford to grow.

[Mardoc]

On the Sons - see, the test of integrity, from my perspective, is whether you hold to your agreements when it hurts. It's true, you didn't intend the worldspell NAP to end up quite as one-sided as it did. On the other hand - I think we can still win this from here, definitely, without depending on the Sons for more than what it did give us (4 civs worth of land + threat to Square Leg). I mean, really, if we can't win this with one measly restriction on the Sons, we've really messed up our game. Yeah, we can't win a war vs the Sidar at the moment without them, but that's not the same as saying we can't beat Iskender without them.

The main reason we're tempted to use them vs Iskender was me miscalculating how long it would take to handle the Sheaim - I set us up diplomatically so that we could have a clear shot at Serdoa without interference, but it turns out we didn't need as much peace as I arranged for.

I have to admit, part of me does wonder why we need an NAP with Iskender, again? His priests both cost maintenance now and would become significant profit if he Wanes them. That power graph combined with him potentially attacking alone says 'why would he?' Add in the fact that he'd be risking potential Shades in every combat.

The other part says 'you've just now gotten Sareln's land to have Warrens and plenty of profit, why risk losing that?' Besides, I'm still more concerned about Square Leg's financial teching ability than I am about Iskender's Defender/Industrious teching ability, even with adding in 4-5 Shades. Which means we can afford to let Iskender live longer, I think. And giving ourselves a period of peace makes it much more likely we can handle Square Leg when the time comes. Plus - if he wanes his priests, then suddenly he's got nothing capable of opposing a melee horde, not unless he builds it from scratch.

I do acknowledge that there'd be significant value in having him completely unable to help Square Leg, one way or the other. And I don't think we can kill him fast.

Maybe it's worth opening the discussion with him, and seeing where it leads. He may jump at the idea, in which case we introduce the idea of charging for it, or at least attaching conditions sufficient to prevent him from helping the Luchiurp. Or he may not want an NAP either, in which case we'd want to build some extra defenders.

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]Iskender,

Gaspar, Tredje and I are having debates in our thread about the idea of extending our NAP with you, and the general question of Clan strategy going forward. It finally occurs to me - are you actually interested in an NAP with the Clan? What would you be willing to offer to make it more palatable to the warmongers among us?[/COLOR]

On another subject:

Would we rather have Sanitation - or Sacrifice the Weak? Infernal Pact is only twice the cost, but would grant every citizen an extra food surplus instead of just those working farms. The real trouble is that I don't want to divert too far from our core military path, it'll be hard enough just to manage Ritualists + Ogres in 30 turns. Will that extra food really pay for the 600+ beaker cost? Warfare's an easier call, because it's both only 300 beakers and I can directly see how it pays for itself, by saving us a large chunk of maintenance.

[Tredje]

On the Sons - see, the test of integrity, from my perspective, is whether you hold to your agreements when it hurts.

I can understand your position, and I won't attempt to strongarm you into forsaking your integrity. I'll just say that I'm more a man of convenience than a man of integrity. A respectable loser is still a loser, but perhaps you will make us respectable winners :neenernee

If we decide to postpone an attack on Iskender, I would strongly advise you to sign a NAP with him. Not so much because he is a military threat, but because it stops him from intervening in a Clan-Luchuirp war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft
Iskender,

Gaspar, Tredje and I are having debates in our thread about the idea of extending our NAP with you, and the general question of Clan strategy going forward. It finally occurs to me - are you actually interested in an NAP with the Clan? What would you be willing to offer to make it more palatable to the warmongers among us?

If the goal is to discover his general position towards a NAP, I would not include that last sentence. If he is overly positive, we could try to extract concessions from him, but I wouldn't count on it. As I said earlier, the main objective is to make sure that our next war is fought 1v1, not 1v2.

I would value Sanitation above Sacrifice the Weak. One argument is the beaker cost. Another argument is that several cities are already at their health cap.

[Gaspar]

Still with Tredje, more because I think the spirit of the agreement has been upheld. I dislike the fact that because something neither side foresaw when the agreement was reached occurs, one side gets a fantastically better deal than the other. What scares you more, a few invisible str 4 units, or 4 Archmages? If we had attacked him T100, that would have been dastardly. T150, however? That's just logical. Anyway, there's no repercussions around here for breaking deals, that's just pride and guilt. I could rattle off a half-dozen people who've more blatantly broken agreements than this, and their reputation remains untarnished. And as Tredje said, second place is just first loser.

I'll stop arm-twisting now, ultimately its your call, Mardoc.

I also think Sanitation over StW, simply because of the beaker cost. Beakers are our biggest limiting factor, so we need as few diversions as possible. Ultimately, the Ogres are more important that the Priests, since once we have them, we still have the Sons for Collateral, while without the Ogres we've nothing better than Bronze Axes/Warriors. Though I understand that Priesthood has economic benefits as well (particularly warrens boosted Priest production to get temples up - for this reason, I prefer Jonas as a clan leader.)

Anyway, just my two cents. And Iskender NAP has to be at least 15T after SL with a clause that prohibits ANY assistance to any civ we're at war with. If he won't agree to that, kick up the war machine. Even if its not what we want, its what he wants less.

[Mardoc]

Well - maybe I'm being silly here. On the other hand, this occurs to me as something that spoiled lurkers could answer. Do you agree with the Gaspar/Tredje interpretation of the deal, and I'm being overly cautious? Is it reasonable to limit it to what both sides expected to be possible at the time they inked it?

One piece that makes me wonder a bit is whether Iskender would have treated the Bob war differently if he was interpreting the world spell NAP the way we are. On the other hand, he's got every incentive to believe it's as restrictive as possible.

Tactically, if we're going to treat the deal this way, we shouldn't attack until we have Hawks in play, to neuter Iskender's world spell. I've got a Hunting Lodge under construction in a Warrens city, so we'll have Hawks very soon.

In other news, we have a turn, and it's still quite obvious with what needs to be done - finish off Serdoa. The Iskender question can wait a bit.

So - on that front:

I used one elemental to take out the Pyre Zombie newly built at Galveholm, while the other three each took out a warrior in Tongurstad. The remaining Thane and Mobius Witch each were fodder for a Son, at ~99.9% odds. This way I didn't have to worry about the warrior who'd popped Seven Pines taking back PZ noob, since he died with the civ.

And...that's that for the Sheaim. Thanks for playing, Serdoa! Especially, thanks for sticking it out for so long after the rush failed!

On a side note - Tongurstad is a beautiful Heron Throne site - 14 coastal tiles and 1 ocean, and plenty of food to grow to use them all. The rest of Sheaim lands...well, no wonder Serdoa was in last place. Man, I really wish he'd gone south with his PZ rush, not west into the teeth of the Wood Golems. We might consider adding in Construction so all those farms he built away from any possible fresh water can be useful.

I think it makes sense to pop our golden age very soon (possibly next turn), as these whipped-to-the-ground cities won't benefit much from it, only having a couple citizens to boost. I swap us to Warfare, therefore, so we can get into MilState ASAP. After this, I'm thinking Corruption of Spirit followed by Sanitation (with a possible stop at Construction if we decide we want it for Serdoa's farms and to speed our troops walking across the empire). Because yes, I do want MilState/Nationalism/Warrens boosted Ritualists to build AV temples everywhere, that'll be something like 32 hammers/temple.

I agree Jonas is a better leader for the Clan, but I believe he wasn't an option the way this game was set up - it was all 'not been used' leaders allowed.

In other news - the demos are looking pretty good, now that Iskender's Bone Palace GA is over: