Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
We should expect them to do what we did for the Germans with regards to treaty end dates.
Is it T175 EOT that the CFC NAP runs out? I thought we brought it up with them.
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: 4,090
Threads: 28
Joined: Jul 2008
We also have our elephants. I think they should all be sent to the CivPlayers front - they will be pretty useless against Apolyton.
Getting a pike or two for Starfall would also be good.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
August 8th, 2013, 15:38
(This post was last modified: August 8th, 2013, 15:40 by MWIN.)
Posts: 614
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2005
Here is the relavant diplo on this with CP on turn what turn NAP is expiring....Following this message from CP, scooter replied he is also not sure. Don't think we followed it up after that...
http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthrea...#pid392680
(August 8th, 2013, 15:22)sunrise089 Wrote: (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.
Mwin
Posts: 261
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2012
It looks like they asked us about which way to interpret it and we never got back to them?
Considering that we've always interpreted it as you can declare on the turn named, I don't know that I'd want to point blank tell them they can't declare until turn 171, but perhaps we could suggest it be interpreted that way since it wasn't made clear when the NAP was signed?
Posts: 6,471
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
(August 8th, 2013, 15:27)kjn Wrote: We also have our elephants. I think they should all be sent to the CivPlayers front - they will be pretty useless against Apolyton.
Getting a pike or two for Starfall would also be good.
The elephants should definitely go south. I don't think they'll make it in time for a T170 1-move, but they will be ideal units to whittle down or eventually kill the attacking stack.
Not sure about pikes in Starfall? Unless we decide to not hit the Poly stack until like 6t after the start of hostilities, Starfall's draftees won't make it to the west anyways after T170 or so, so we plan to keep them in the city. 10 muskets in a 40% city, with many of the muskets with fortification bonus, with walls (which I think are there already?) should have good odds even versus anti-gunpower knights. I'd rather evacuate muskets to fight another day than pikes.
Posts: 261
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2012
Starfall doesn't have walls, and I don't think it's worth building walls unless CFC decides not to go for cannons for some crazy reason.
Posts: 1,404
Threads: 53
Joined: Apr 2006
I've been looking through our empire and it's hard to give suggestions when the plan is to whip every city for units  . I'm actually looking forward to this big war, it should be exciting.
The only exception I can see is that at Gourmet Menu I think we should overflow into a bank. It's a very high commerce city (close to Adventure One in commerce).
Apart from that then sure let's overflow into knights and muskets in most cities this turn and whip them next turn as per speaker's advice. We have 27 catapults now which is close to being enough, so the ex-german cities that are still on catapults should probably be switched to muskets, knights or courthouses.
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2006
(August 8th, 2013, 15:44)sunrise089 Wrote: Starfall ... with walls (which I think are there already?)
It doesn't. They are about 22/60 hammers complete (IIRC).
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.
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
(August 8th, 2013, 15:42)Zargon Wrote: Considering that we've always interpreted it as you can declare on the turn named, I don't know that I'd want to point blank tell them they can't declare until turn 171, but perhaps we could suggest it be interpreted that way since it wasn't made clear when the NAP was signed?
Well on RB it typically means that war can be declared on the turn named, although we typically play without NAPs nowadays. But this is an ISDG and if it isn't specified in the deal, then why not lawyer it to our advantage.
Here's a spin:
Quote:Hey CivPlayers
We forgot to get back to you on our interpretation of when war can legally be declared. Since you are worried about your security you'll be happy to know that we consider the NAP to last until the end of turn 170, so war cannot be declared until turn 171 at the earliest.
Peace and love,
Realms Beyond
I have to run.
Posts: 261
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2012
Didn't we figure earlier that 36 cats (the ones we have plus all the ones currently in queue) would be about right for a low-ish optimistic stack from Poly? It sounded like we needed more, not less, though I admit we kind of need more of everything at this point.
---
Novice that response is hilarious and made me choke. I'm not sure if the snark is too thick for an official message, but I approve of the idea of citing their professed desires to interpret the agreement in our favor.
|
