November 5th, 2012, 17:39
Posts: 13,214
Threads: 25
Joined: Oct 2010
(November 5th, 2012, 16:29)luddite Wrote: (November 5th, 2012, 14:45)NobleHelium Wrote: Sure, it doesn't stop them. But keep in mind that they won't immediately know that we've settled the city in that location unless their quechua is still nearby. Most likely they will find out about the city when we get culture over the gems, and then they would still need to scramble to settle next to the gems and get culture going in their city. If we can get third ring before they can get second ring, we can likely hold the gems. How difficult will that be? I'm not sure.
Yes, if we settle next to the gems it will be a lot easier to hold the tile culturally. But it would be a much crappier city and also a lot more aggressive.
Well with a library and a monument it will take us 34 turns to get 3rd ring culture. They'll definitely get second ring before that- they're expansive inca and they already have a city nearby.
I agree that settling next to the gems would be a mistake, but I think we need to prepare for a serious Culture war there.
They already have a city nearby, yes. But depending on their rate of settling they may not be able to quickly plant another city next to the gems once they find out that we've settled in.
I agree with a diplomatic move on claiming the gems, but I would not mention it until we're at least closer to settling the city. The question is whether we want to give them notice before settling the city or after settling the city.
Before the city:
1) Less time for them to react and plant a city next to the gems if they are not happy with this development.
2) Less likely that they'll be pissed off.
After the city has the opposite pros/cons of that. Which is better? I don't know.
November 5th, 2012, 17:45
Posts: 6,141
Threads: 10
Joined: Mar 2012
(November 5th, 2012, 16:42)kalin Wrote: Can we try to use diplo to "claim" the gems?
Kalin
I think this is a case of "better to ask for forgiveness than permission"
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
November 5th, 2012, 17:57
Posts: 2,511
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2012
Not really. We don't want them to settle on the gems. We aren't asking if we can settle them. Ideally we'd have a sentry unit up that way to spot any incoming settlers and use diplo at the appropriate time.
--
Best dating advice on RB: When you can't hide your unit, go in fast and hard. -- Sullla
November 5th, 2012, 18:19
(This post was last modified: November 5th, 2012, 18:20 by Sullla.)
Posts: 6,663
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
The surest way to lose the gems site is to tell the German team we plan on settling there. Much better to let them think it's a "safe" location for now, and apologize later if they get offended. With all the jungle in the area, they will hopefully put if off for some time, not realizing that we plan to settle there in about 10 turns.
EDIT: We also have a NINETY TURN NAP with the German team.  So there's that too.
November 5th, 2012, 18:49
Posts: 15,281
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Yeah, we have a NAP til T150 with the German team. Also agree that telling them we want it is not worth it.
Also not worried about the lack of horses - copper is all you need to defend a city. And yes, a giant NAP that was agreed upon with no qualifiers helps too. 
November 5th, 2012, 19:25
Posts: 3,916
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2011
Counterpossibility: That German city was an aggressive plant in our face.
There's no guarantee that we'll be land leader this game for the first 150 turns. But food/pop/GNP leader, sure! All the better to knight rush with!
November 5th, 2012, 21:10
Posts: 3,199
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2010
I still have to say that as fan of other games like SC2, players here seem underrate scouting, as a general game concept, so very much for the sake of an extra beaker here or cottage turn there. Look at how close you were to moving the warrior back and not being aware of the gems there, and now immediately your long term thinking has changed. What is there in the south that would similarly change your thinking? Who knows, right?
November 5th, 2012, 21:33
(This post was last modified: November 5th, 2012, 21:36 by Tyrmith.)
Posts: 1,075
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2010
I disagree, while I don't have concrete numbers or anything, our scouting has to match our expanding. Scouting far ahead of our settling is irrelevant, and particularly when we're trying to pushing our snowball economy as much as possible we just get less bang for the buck.
November 5th, 2012, 21:42
Posts: 6,663
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
We do value scouting. But we don't value scouting over growth curve. You wouldn't send one of your starting 6 SCVs out to explore in Starcraft, would you? (Note: not counting cheese strats.) You get your initial builds up and running, and then send out a worker to explore. We're doing the same thing: we got our economy going, we're running #1 in the most important early game stats (Food and GNP), we know where our next two cities are going, and we've met three of our neighbors.
I don't see any point in time so far where we would have done better to build additional warriors/axes over workers or settlers. Those numbers on the Demographics screen don't appear out of nowhere.
I'll play the turn in a little bit.
November 5th, 2012, 22:51
Posts: 3,916
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2011
Well, what's the trade-off here? A few less cottage turns worked? I'd much rather have my axe built earlier.
Besides, we're well within the 20 SCV range, our economy is already roaring and hitting diminishing returns, I'd rather have more vision of what the hell our opponents are doing.
Not to mention that unlike starcraft, maps are randomised. The point of early scouting in SC2 is to spot and counter what our opponents are up to. Here, we want to scout to work out where to prioritise our expansion.
|
