February 6th, 2010, 18:51
Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
Started a reply and saved it under drafts
Quote:Hi Ruff!
Well aren't you a sheep loving pillow biter? Because if you're not, I don't know that an alliance with us is going to work! Which is not to mention that if everyone else's capitals are similar to ours (with sheep in the BFC), a sheep lover could make out very well in this game!!!! :-D
<some more stuff - things we need to address, is there anyone we do or do not want to work with? talk about alliances and how we want them. Also mention that soooo has no problem working with ruff, assuming that's true>
Would you be willing to share which civ is to our west? Your point about an alliance of "squares" is a good one I think, and if so, we would seem to want to also get the 2 civs that are either directly north or south of us.
<do we want to share that we lost our warrior at 4.4%?>
And as for EP spending, you're right that we haven't found anyone yet. We will divert our EPs from you at our earliest opportunity - in the meantime perhaps you should just spend a few EPs on us - enough to keep our graphs.
February 6th, 2010, 22:32
Posts: 6,471
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
I think everything Ruff sent out is fine, but a 4-way alliance won't cut it. What may work is an inner 4-way alliance inside a 8-12 civ alliance. The outer alliance trades gold and tech, and the inner alliance cooperates closer and provides more military and resource support.
February 7th, 2010, 08:24
Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
sunrise089 Wrote:I think everything Ruff sent out is fine, but a 4-way alliance won't cut it. What may work is an inner 4-way alliance inside a 8-12 civ alliance. The outer alliance trades gold and tech, and the inner alliance cooperates closer and provides more military and resource support.
Agreed and I had the same exact thought.
February 7th, 2010, 16:34
Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
Okay T20 played. Chop came in and worker due in 1. We really need to figure out what we're doing here.
Here are the outstanding issues as I see them
1) Reply back to ruff. There's a draft saved in our email account, which is DJCivilization@Gmail.com - same password as the game. Feel free to edit your thoughts
2) What are we chopping out. Our first chop is due on T22. Here are the options as I see them
a) Warrior and 1 settler
b) 2 warriors and a settler
c) Stonehenge.
d) Another worker?
I think I lean toward a) or b), settling on the stone and chopping out Stonehenge in Wet T-Shirt Contest (2nd city)
3) Are we going for The Great Wall? Pyramids? Other wonders? If ruff's map musings are accurate, then the water wonders are probably not that useful (sucks to be Portugal or Carthage!!  ). So we need to revisit our wonder priorities.
February 7th, 2010, 16:39
Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
In demographics news, this is T20, which means that everyone who settled on the first turn got land points. Everyone got 4 except Byzantium who got 3, which means that they are the ones with the lake tile in the inner 9 tiles (and ruff has the full 9/21)
3000 global soldier points, which is 1000 for Carthage becoming the 6th civ to Pop 2 and a warrior.
Interestingly enough the increase of 2000 points dropped us from 3rd to 4th place, which means it has to be either Egypt or Mail - I'll guess Mali for now.
February 8th, 2010, 04:39
Posts: 8,244
Threads: 30
Joined: Jun 2004
regoarrarr Wrote:And I think we've been down the "aggressive 2nd city to claim copper" road before, don't you?
No you were not. Had you settled your city to claim copper you would still be playing PB2.
February 8th, 2010, 08:42
Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
Rowain Wrote:No you were not. Had you settled your city to claim copper you would still be playing PB2.
Well we settled to claim copper, just not very well
Okay, to at least give us some plan in case we need to play before we have the chance to hash this out, my suggestion for T21 (current turn!) would be:
1) Technotronic NE and chop
2) New worker (Ya Kid K?) SE to the same forest and chop
3) Build is settler (other option would be warrior but we need to make sure to not get more than 15 hammers overflow from the warrior as with 3.19 patch we lose those hammers. 3rd option is Henge if we aren't going to settle on the stone)
4) Warrior moves.... oh wait
February 8th, 2010, 08:51
Posts: 8,762
Threads: 75
Joined: Apr 2006
I'm pretty much against The Great Wall, with espionage so nerfed, but I guess I could be convinced. I think Pyramids and The Hanging Gardens are no brainers. I would not delay Stonehenge nor tech Masonry, but that's just me.
I think we need to build a couple of Warriors before building a Settler.
Darrell
February 8th, 2010, 09:47
Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
Okay a few thoughts
1) Agreed we need warrior(s) before the settler. The settler plan would have us do settler on T21 and T22, and then T23 we swap to warrior, the 2nd chop finishes, and warrior is available to move T24, overflow back into the settler and then we get another warrior out T26.
2) Settled Great Spy is 3bpt, 12ept. So that's not too bad, especially if we chase after representation / Pyramids. I checked the game settings and we are playing with "No Spies", but passive espionage can still be extremely useful, both from a C&D perspective as well as targeting your military enemies. I'm still not sure about GW, but it is only 60 real hammers with Ind/Stone. Still though I want to make sure not to go TOO wonder crazy. And we've already run into barb troubles, so that part of GW can be useful in the early game too
I will try to run some simulations about Henge in cap vs. Henge in a stone city to see what kind of delays we're talking about
February 8th, 2010, 10:17
Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
In demographics news - the 4 teams that settled on T1 got their land points, and Sumeria and Mali grew their capitals to size 2.
No techs researched. I haven't been in game yet to check if there was any increase to global soldier points (i.e. warriors built)
|
