December 30th, 2009, 16:22
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
Swiss Pauli Wrote:To be fair to Jowy, rego stitched him up with a NAP the settled aggressively in the other direction. If that were not enough, rego went on to declare that Jowy putting a city 4 tiles from his own capital would be aggressive  When it came to the choice of helping Byz or not, Jowy had a tough choice: anger Ottomans (who will be a major player) by propping up Byz, or not help and anger Spulla (with whom he realised there would be conflict at some point) & annoy the largely irrelevant Byz. For me, Jowy's decision was an understandable one (he needs a strong ally against Spulla) but his handling of the diplo was very poor, and has now been compounded by settling Thebes in a needlessly aggressive spot (in spite of recognizing the peril he's in  ).
I wasn't aware of Rego's strangeness so I guess that makes sense. Makes you wonder why he's yelling at Spullla settling 4 spaces away from his capitol. As for the Byz thing, well you're just trading one powerful faction for another. Except you are able to actually influence one militarily and territorially and not the other.
There are arguments made for both but I think that siding with Kathlete is a less good option to actually place well in the end.
December 30th, 2009, 16:25
Posts: 488
Threads: 10
Joined: Oct 2009
Good chance team Spullla and Jowy declare on same turn. 95 I think if Speaker gets his way. Am I right in thinking the team who declares gets a greater war weariness penalty?
Either way, beers are in the fridge  , and the popcorn is at the side of the microwave ready to go. Somethin tells me this is gonna be good 
December 30th, 2009, 16:31
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
Spullla seems to want to build... as is his way but I really do hope that Speaker wins out. They are running out of ground to improve aswell.
December 30th, 2009, 16:53
Posts: 2,788
Threads: 10
Joined: Oct 2009
Pegasus Wrote:Good chance team Spullla and Jowy declare on same turn. 95 I think if Speaker gets his way. Am I right in thinking the team who declares gets a greater war weariness penalty?
I don't believe so. However, the team that is generally the attacker will suffer more (more war weariness from war in the enemy's territory, more weariness from attacking than defending).
December 30th, 2009, 20:59
Posts: 6,754
Threads: 131
Joined: Mar 2004
Pegasus Wrote:Am I right in thinking the team who declares gets a greater war weariness penalty?
No. True in Civ 3 but not in Civ 4.
December 30th, 2009, 23:14
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
Shoot the Moon Wrote:I don't believe so. However, the team that is generally the attacker will suffer more (more war weariness from war in the enemy's territory, more weariness from attacking than defending).
That's offset by pillaging and other things when you expand your list of variables.
December 30th, 2009, 23:16
Posts: 2,788
Threads: 10
Joined: Oct 2009
antisocialmunky Wrote:That's offset by pillaging and other things when you expand your list of variables.
Oh, completely. I wasn't trying to imply that being the attacker is worse (I'd rather be in the position of attacking someone else than defending). That was only in regard to the mechanic of war weariness.
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
Quote:Greetings members of CoW!
It's with joy I bring you the news that I managed to negotiate a 20-turn NAP with Killer Angels. That should help us with our joined efforts to slow them down once we are ready to strike. As an extra intel it sounds like they'll go for Calendar tech soon. I haven't checked have they gone back to science or still at 100% commerce, but I'd imagine they would go back to science soon.
Things turned out better than expected. Sorry for my negativity in my last message, but I wanted everyone to take this threat seriously and I still do There's definately nothing negative in a strong alliance that will help us all in the long run, both by eliminating a huge threat and by improving our own relations. It's an honor to be partners with you guys. Let's make this work
As for the earlier voting to eliminate or to slow down Killer Angels, either is fine with me. But of course I have to say I would be more comfortable with them gone from the game. They've overcome bad odds before and can definately do it again if we give them the chance.
As for cities, I've got some new intel, they might not have as much as 10 like I said. They'll have around 7 instead, atleast if they plan to do what they told me they would. What slows them down is that they promised to settle a jungle area next instead of going towards me. My front city blocking them might have something to do with that.
Questions, comments?
Btw answer something if you got this message, I'm not sure if I'm doing the multi-messaging right, last time only got a reply from the first address not the rest.
~ Jowy
Kind of funny how he's trying to sell his most recent city as a strong move to the rest of the CoW. Also, his wild ramblings about future and current city counts make him seem pretty incompetent to his allies. Whosit already commented on the fact that Spulla had 4 cities when Jowy claimed they had 5. (They do have 5 cities now, but that's beside the point).
Posts: 8
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
I wonder what will happen to the CoW if they succesfully eliminate India, Korea, Byz and Inca (they are going after him, right?)
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 30
Joined: Apr 2009
Korea isn't going to be eliminated. I see Whosit's attack going up in smoke because he'll run into 4-6 axes and not being able to take a single city. I might be wrong, but with copper Praets won't crack Seoul. The Inca are not a target of the COW, even though they don't include the Inca.
Byz will die, ETA T82. India's going to be tough to wipe out, since Whosit's not going to be bringing enough to the party, and Dantski's progress has been slow. A few HAs from Kathlete, what Jowy can put together, and a few stragglers from the south will not kill India.
|
