Posts: 3,143
Threads: 21
Joined: Oct 2009
[SIZE="5"]T127[/SIZE]
Ok, things look good. We can get Feudalism in 6 turns at 100%, but we need 3 turns of 0% before that. Making the ETA for Feudalism t136, 14 turns to build LB's.
I'll ask the Ottomans for a loan to see if we can get it 2 turns faster.
Worker in Seth is done, changed to another worker.
Going to chop a lot near Krondor/Sethanon to get everything in place. We might chop a Monastry in Seth and build some missionaries from there.
Land's End on Centralia will be founded next turn.
Posts: 1,508
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2009
I like how you said in your email that you expect Romali + India to attack us. I wonder how they'll react. 
Good thing we're teching towards Feudalism now.
I added a message to Whosit. Trying to negotiate a 2 worker - 3 promoted praetorian trade. It's not that bad - we'll get 1 worker out of sethanon quickly, and if we chop Sethanon's 2 remaining forests, we'll get the second one in no time. Well worth 3 8.8 strength with promotions available praetorians.
Quote:[COLOR="DarkOrange"]Dear Whosit,
This is another message added on to the one we sent before (and written by DMOC).
You're probably not interested in another settler - praet trade considering your maintenance costs, but have you thought about workers? We are chopping some workers now, and we would be very interested in giving you some workers in exchange for your 8.8 praetorians with a promotion available.
The advantage you get is that you get to grow your cities in the meantime while having a high power graph (momentarily) to deter Korea and Inca. Then, once you trade praets to us, you'll have extra workers to yourselves that could chop, road, and do all sorts of things to improve your civilization - without stunting your city growth at all.
A worker isn't as expensive as a praetorian, so what do you think about us giving you two workers in exchange for three of your praetorians? (Preferably with 1 promotion available, so we can add in a second combat promotion or a shock promotion.)
Sincerely,
DMOC[/COLOR]
Posts: 3,143
Threads: 21
Joined: Oct 2009
Okay, we'll see what the answer.
Just send a round of mails myself as well.
Posts: 1,508
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2009
Yes, I've been reading 'em all.
Wish I had more time for RBP3 though. 
EDIT: Nakor we should probably have a long naming system for our units, kind of like what Whosit has. This is so that our military looks more powerful because of how unit names take up 2 lines instead of 1. For instance:
Trooper Spearman AAA - 001
would take up 2 lines, so it "looks" like we have more units. Of course it probably won't matter in the end, but it's just another deterrent factor, kind of like beelining to Feudalism.
Posts: 3,143
Threads: 21
Joined: Oct 2009
I know! We're awfully busy there... that's what you get when you declare war... 
Posts: 1,508
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2009
You have? Huh, I've been out of the loop in that game. I'm not sure why, this game just seems a lot more interesting even if our situation isn't the best.
Posts: 3,143
Threads: 21
Joined: Oct 2009
Got a message from Sullla:
Quote:Dear Nakor and DMOC of Holy Rome,
Yes, we did ignore the previous message, but I'm sure you'll understand that we were a little occupied at that time.
Let's see, focus on the future together... well, a lot of that depends on what your team does going forward. We can see that you have a very strong research economy, and not the greatest military in the world. Given our past history, honestly, why shouldn't we join Dantski in an attack on your team after our treaty-enforced peace is up? Heck, we don't even have to wait that long: what's to stop us from gifting most of our army to Dantski and letting him tear you a new one? We'd pay less in unit maintenance, we'd see an ally get stronger, and the tech leader would be slowed dramatically.
Of course you could give us your word that you want to clear the waters and move forward together, but there are still some hurt feelings over here about what happened. So let me offer you guys a deal: we'd like some repayment for what happened earlier. Call it war reparations, call it a bribe, whatever - but we'd like a gift of, say, 100 gold. Your team seems pretty flush with cash right now, I don't think that would be a serious issue for you. In return, we promise that we will *NOT* do a massive gifting of units to Dantski, and we will wipe clean the slate of past actions to start over again diplomatically. Then you can start making your case on how to patch things up and work together.
That might sound like we're being jerks about this, and we sort of are, but then again your team was pretty unfriendly to us earlier as well. I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to expect some kind of compensation.
Sullla
The Killer Angels
What to do now?
I think we can gift them some money but we want a longer NAP for that as well.
Heck, we gave them a GG and free promotions when they attacked our stack.
Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
Nakor Wrote:Got a message from Sullla:
Heck, we gave them a GG and free promotions when they attacked our stack.
That's an .... interesting.... way to put that
Posts: 3,143
Threads: 21
Joined: Oct 2009
regoarrarr Wrote:That's an .... interesting.... way to put that
Well... if dantski hadn't made peace, our stack wouldn't be used for combat practice...  
But I think we should agree to some sort of deal....
Posts: 1,508
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2009
If we hadn't said that we wouldn't attack them when they asked us, then we wouldn't be in this situation at all.
We deserve to pay them something. I'll write up a response.
|
