Posts: 6,126
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2006
(August 8th, 2013, 10:12)NobleHelium Wrote: Anyway, T167 should be up tonight. I think I have a fair amount of material for the T167 report.
That is a good point. All of my screenshots were from T167. I considered asking for a reload back to T166 so I could get the right screenshots but decided against it.
I have finally decided to put down some cash and register a website. It is www.ruffhi.com. Now I remain free to move the hosting options without having to change the name of the site.
(October 22nd, 2014, 10:52)Caledorn Wrote: And ruff is officially banned from playing in my games as a reward for ruining my big surprise by posting silly and correct theories in the PB18 tech thread.
August 8th, 2013, 13:37
(This post was last modified: August 8th, 2013, 13:39 by antisocialmunky.)
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
(August 8th, 2013, 12:51)Ichabod Wrote: Considering the knights built by Civplayers, should we get walls + Castles in BbB and Ditchdigger? When can we get our stone back from WPC?
I sense a great disturbance in The Forum, as if all the posts by someone for the past two weeks have ended with 'Hey guys, we really should build castles in all our border cities,' screamed out for people to listen. I fear that someone is going to show up and say "I told you so." 
... speaking of which... we DO have our STONE back from WPC right?
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.”
Posts: 17,428
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
I don't think we do until t170
That said, we shouldn't wait if they're invading with knights
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
Posts: 261
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2012
Can we set things up so we're whipping the castles on turn 170 right after we cancel the stone deal? The only city we have to worry about on turn 170 is Mano, so we can load it with muskets that they can't profitably attack with only walls there.
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
Treaty runs out EOT170 right?
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.”
Posts: 1,801
Threads: 13
Joined: Apr 2013
The stone trade can be cancelled t169 IIRC
Posts: 614
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2005
Scooter, can you answer this please? This came up couple of times before too...
(August 8th, 2013, 14:14)antisocialmunky Wrote: Treaty runs out EOT170 right?
Mwin
Posts: 261
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2012
I looked it up. The stone trade was made on turn 159, so it should be cancellable on turn 169.
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
The NAPs are the more important treaties. We should just tell Apolyton and CivPlayers that we consider them to expire eot170, i.e. they can declare war on t171 if they want to.
I have to run.
August 8th, 2013, 15:22
(This post was last modified: August 8th, 2013, 15:22 by sunrise089.)
Posts: 6,471
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
(August 8th, 2013, 15:09)novice Wrote: The NAPs are the more important treaties. We should just tell Apolyton and CivPlayers that we consider them to expire eot170, i.e. they can declare war on t171 if they want to.
If we can swing this it would be amazing.
(August 8th, 2013, 12:24)Zargon Wrote: If everybody comes in on turn 175, then what we do will depend on how much of what everyone has.
Just keep in mind Starfall is our only city where we're going to have only a single turn window to protect a high-priority target. If we want to keep all options open for T176 (assuming late declarations from Poly and civplayers) we'll have tiles on T175, T174, etc. where our army has to be no further to Starfall from.
In general with the civplayers threat, it's going to depend on how many more whips they do, how many more drafts poly does, and what intel our spies show us. The civplayers front is much longer, and that plus 2-movers removes the guaranteed chance of our 1move stack being able to slam the invaders on the turn of our choosing. We may be forced to make a compromise of preventing a 1-move of Mano, having enough to cover Brick, and then counting on pike slaves and musket drafts if they decide to dance their stack around. The good news is as long as they can't take cities on the cheap during the first turn or two we should be able to have a good hammer exchange. Say we send 8 cats south, and have our own knights in range. We should probably be able to kill their stack with pretty low losses beyond the cats via the knights plus pikes and muskets we've hurried in the threatened cities. The bonus is our knights are our least hammer-efficient units to attack the Poly rifle stack.
|
