It's not that he disagrees, it's how he wrote it. And I'm not saying these need to be the next techs we research, just that they need to be part of the bigger picture. Never mind, I'll go back to lurking.
(June 20th, 2013, 11:02)pindicator Wrote: No, you'd need more than one stack. They could out-maneuver your troops with naval units and fork cities. Besides, why would we want to tie down twice as many hammers in units defending when we could challenge them in the seas?
Well, what I was trying to say was that we'd just let them burn most of the coastal cities. We'd have plenty of time to move back and defend the more important inland cities.
I know it sounds crazy to let them burn cities, but those are some very weak cities. I don't see how they could possibly build enough ships to win a naval war, unless for some reason CFC just ignores the sea.
Any reference to the Benny Hill theme song is welcome. That song cracks me up.
As for the issue itself, in general I think we have some agreement that our coastal cities should develop a decent production capacity to be able to counter a naval buildup, if necessary. So, contingency planning. That is sort of the point of this thread, right?
That said, CFC are not idiots, and they will likely prioritize land-based military techs as we will, because they are so much more important on this land-heavy map. So I think in the end, this becomes a mostly moot point. But, I still think production based coastal cities are a good idea. Even if we don't need the production to build a navy, we can put the hammers into whatever else we need, as well as draft off the population.
I think going forward, we should just plan for perhaps an industrial city on the coast.
(June 20th, 2013, 12:49)Ubercannon Wrote:
(June 20th, 2013, 11:02)pindicator Wrote: No, you'd need more than one stack. They could out-maneuver your troops with naval units and fork cities. Besides, why would we want to tie down twice as many hammers in units defending when we could challenge them in the seas?
Well, what I was trying to say was that we'd just let them burn most of the coastal cities. We'd have plenty of time to move back and defend the more important inland cities.
I know it sounds crazy to let them burn cities, but those are some very weak cities. I don't see how they could possibly build enough ships to win a naval war, unless for some reason CFC just ignores the sea.
Naval units are a faster way of moving units in enemy territory. It takes less to defend as well. So they could take a fairly decent stack and land it and go inland or go and land units to move with CP if that happens. Not to mention the fact that in a zero sum game (of territory control), denying us a subset of our land is GG if its not close to the end of the game.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
(June 20th, 2013, 12:37)pindicator Wrote: It's not that he disagrees, it's how he wrote it. And I'm not saying these need to be the next techs we research, just that they need to be part of the bigger picture. Never mind, I'll go back to lurking.
I don't know, I thought it was a short and simple counter to all the points being made, and I appreciated it. It's better than me or somebody else rambling in long paragraphs. I guess maybe the Benny Hill thing could be construed as rude, but it made me laugh. Obviously there's no way we're teching Astro in our next half dozen techs unless CFC decides to all-out beeline it (no signs of that right now and we're watching), so I'm not sure what specific change anybody actually wants with regards to Astro.
The city management issue is a separate one like someone (Zargon I think?) said. The concern seems to be that in a hypothetical world in the future where we are in an Astro naval battle with CFC, we'll want better production. Well first, you don't need great production to produce a bunch of boats quickly - I'd say our PB8 thread is a pretty good example of that . And that came on a game where slavery was nerfed. The best way to produce military is still via food. Not that a couple hammer-producing cities down south wouldn't be nice, but if I can steer the conversation to be more practical, what cities would you manage differently than how they've been laid out and why?
(June 20th, 2013, 12:37)pindicator Wrote: It's not that he disagrees, it's how he wrote it. And I'm not saying these need to be the next techs we research, just that they need to be part of the bigger picture. Never mind, I'll go back to lurking.
I don't know, I thought it was a short and simple counter to all the points being made, and I appreciated it. It's better than me or somebody else rambling in long paragraphs. I guess maybe the Benny Hill thing could be construed as rude, but it made me laugh.
The combination of mocking video reference and curt list came across as incredibly dismissive. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but I would encourage members who have a well-deserved reputation for skill to match that reputation in politeness and courtesy. If the offence was unintentional, I apologize for reacting.
Please, Pindicater, stay on. I think you've generally made good points here lately, and I'd hate to lose your input.
I think most everyone here have good points.
1. This game will be decided via land warfare, not naval warfare or the Sirian Doctrine
2. That said, we get more out of coastal cities and overseas holdings than anyone else currently
3. When a team is at a disadvantage, they are likely to turn to asymmetric warfare (eg naval)
So I see no reason to change our projected tech path to include Astronomy before Communism. At the same time, we should try to keep some naval presence down south (if only as pickets and to act as ferries to our island cities. And we should keep an eye out of any naval buildup from CFC or any other teams.
I also think it would be prudent to set up Catherine for naval production, and then we can probably support it with whippings from Let It Snow and Winter Wasteland.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
(June 20th, 2013, 14:49)TheHumanHydra Wrote: The combination of mocking video reference and curt list came across as incredibly dismissive. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but I would encourage members who have a well-deserved reputation for skill to match that reputation in politeness and courtesy. If the offence was unintentional, I apologize for reacting.
Scooter, good point on the naval whipping.
Pretty well sums up what I was thinking. Also a good point on whipping, but I can't help but think of pbem45 scooter, where you made me pay for not having a navy. Yes, my superior demos showed through, but not without a lot of whipping. As long as we avoid that scenario then I'm happy.
If we just want enough to defend against Galleons, then Caravels will do. They're also handy in spotting out stacks that are incoming. Astronomy can wait depending on what we see other teams doing.
To be constructive, Let It Snow is the only city where I think we have a concern, and it's mostly over (from what I can tell) two cottages, one of which is not even built yet.
I personally think that the commerce potential here is so marginal that this city would be of better use as a production city. We're getting to the point where workshops are very close to being awesome, so we should max out growth and get onto those workshops in preparation for Chemistry (soonish) and Communism/State Property (ultimate goal). The cottage should be a farm, then farm the other two grass tiles, as well as the plains tile NW of Let It Snow. I can't remember if this city is on a hill. If so, then we can't chain past it.
. And that came on a game where slavery was nerfed. The best way to produce military is still via food. Not that a couple hammer-producing cities down south wouldn't be nice, but if I can steer the conversation to be more practical, what cities would you manage differently than how they've been laid out and why?
