Chairmen NobleHelium and Gaspar Demand Your Presence in the Collective

[NobleHelium]

Actually, if Lewwyn had attacked into our warrior on the forest hill his odds would have been closer to 4%. And we would have had an additional 2% odds or so to take out his warrior in retaliation.

[Ichabod]

This is the second time now he's pissed on me for no reason whatsoever when there were more logical targets available.

We are never the most logical target. :neenernee

[NobleHelium]

Are you part of the "we," Ichabod?

[Gaspar]

Finished the turn. We decided a worker rather than a Settler in The Hive. Here are EOT Demos:




Also, as NH and I were discussing the turn and future settling plans, I noticed this:



Was this intentional, Commodore, to allow us to boat each other like so? And if so, why bother with the ice?

[Commodore]

Was this intentional, Commodore, to allow us to boat each other like so? And if so, why bother with the ice?

What you describe is UNPOSSIBLE. Without a fort, at least.

[NobleHelium]

Obviously that's what we meant. Come on.

[Ceiliazul]

Obviously that's what we meant. Come on.

I haven't discussed the topic with Commodore, but it seems like the map prevents early galley/axe rape without blocking later galley/trireme conflict. I thought it was well done.

[Gaspar]

I just wanna say no7s views/post ratio is way too high. Are they really that more interesting than us?

Anyway, I have true entertainment for you lurkers right now...

First off, turn came in and I was greeted to this:



Apparently it takes a show of some [strike]steel[/strike] wooden clubs to get Lewwyn to have a change of heart. I suppose taking the treaty is the right course of action, but there's also a slice of me that says the damage has already been done - why not make him lose his warrior for the trouble? Since he moved to the flatland, I think I might be inclined to throw the two warriors at him and then offer a peace treaty. But I'm sure NH's cooler head will prevail.

Archery is in now, so we can build the UU if need be. I tentatively set research to Polytheism at 0%. But we can discuss this later as well.

Anyway, here's your "treat" - a dotmap discussion. Or rather, a picture for a dotmap discussion.



The issues here are really balancing defensibility with quality use of the land. The colors correspond to various settling patterns - i.e. if we settle red, then we settle all the reds, etc. I think ultimately red is the best use of the land, but yellow is the best combination of defensibility and use of the land. We welcome input from the lurkers. This is a collective, after all.

[Ilios]

We welcome input from the lurkers. This is a collective, after all.

Nice colours!

[Mardoc]

The issues here are really balancing defensibility with quality use of the land. The colors correspond to various settling patterns - i.e. if we settle red, then we settle all the reds, etc. I think ultimately red is the best use of the land, but yellow is the best combination of defensibility and use of the land. We welcome input from the lurkers. This is a collective, after all.

In my opinion - the best way to get defensibility is to have the strongest econ. If you have better cities, then you can afford more and newer units - and that's what will ultimately turn the tide.

My main question, actually, is why are you planning to expand to tundra before you expand to floodplains?