Intersite Game - Turn Discussion Thread

[luddite]

Oh, and another thing I just noticed- there's wine on that western land! So getting monarchy would give us two happiness even without even building any extra units (1 from the winery, 1 from the basic MP unit if we switch to HR). Do we have time to tech masonry, monotheism, and monarchy, and still land the MoM?

[spacetyrantxenu]

if I am reading civstats correctly, WPC just took a german city ...

Code:

11/26/12 1:02 pm     RealmsBeyond    Logged in
11/26/12 12:53 pm    Inao            Logged in
11/26/12 12:45 pm    JerryDemmings   Score decreased to 122
11/26/12 12:36 pm    WPC             Logged in

... and as their score didn't increase ... does that mean they razed it?

That looks more like a whip to me. If you capture a city and raze it Civstats registers a decrease for the civ that loses the city and a simultaneous increase in score for the civ taking the city. Then when you raze the city you'll see a score decrease for your civ at whatever time you press the Burn it Down button. If someone understands Civstats as registering city razes differently please correct me.

Edit: I somehow missed that this was a new city and that it was an auto-raze. Since there was no option to keep the city Civstats only showed the score decrease and no increase for the civ capturing the city.

[Ruff_Hi]

That looks more like a whip to me. If you capture a city and raze it Civstats registers a decrease for the civ that loses the city and a simultaneous increase in score for the civ taking the city. Then when you raze the city you'll see a score decrease for your civ at whatever time you press the Burn it Down button. If someone understands Civstats as registering city razes differently please correct me.

Edit: I somehow missed that this was a new city and that it was an auto-raze. Since there was no option to keep the city Civstats only showed the score decrease and no increase for the civ capturing the city.

It cannot be a whip - the German's are locked out of the first half of the turn (as per the mod). From reading the diplo thread, it was a capture of a size 1 undefended city by WPC that auto-razed.

[mostly_harmless]

These are the options:



The current microplan completes the settler in AO on T75.
The red route shows the settler movement towards Spice City. I think all the workers are needed to hook up the gems, so I doubt we can complete a road 1E of Mansas Muse on T76 (which would speed up settlement by one turn).
Spice City founded on T78. No immediate bodyguards needed.
Mansas Muse border pop will unlock the southern floodplains shortly before Spice City pops its own 2nd ring.

The green route shows the path to Stone City. The terrain is even better for 2 movers than assumed a while back, hence we could settle Stone City on T79!
However, to provide cover for the settler, we would have to change the course of the scouting axe (blue route). Even then the T78 & 79 are a bit risky.
And that is basically why I am in favour of settling Spice City first followed up by a quick 2nd settler for Stone City. We need a second unit to at least cover the first half of the settler movement and giving the south western scouting Axe more time to check ahead.
BUT, while Spice City is a guaranteed spot for us, Stone City is not. As I said earlier, that spot is probably located in between two civs, like the oasis and the gems. Both the gems and the oasis sites have been settled or will be settled soon. So delaying Stone City is a huge risk. Just imagine a hostile city on the stones and a hostile fleet on that lake!

For completeness sake I also pencilled in the galley variant in pinkish. This assumes a settler ready on Turn X in AO and a galley completed on Turn X in Horse Feather. Given that we would have to tech Sailing first and then build/whip a galley, I think we might be looking at T81 for Turn X and then T83 for settling Stone City with the galley variant.

And just to make it double clear: I am not proposing a settler route through the northern jungle, which was never seriously on the table!

mh

[NobleHelium]

Well...the spices city is definitely going to be a better city but the stone city secures us very important resources that we may not be guaranteed to get as mentioned. Short term the stone city will be a drag because we'd have to walk a worker over there as well if we want to start improving the horses immediately, and the city would still only get to work the horse until the border pop.

I dunno. Would an axe in the area be sufficient to head off any short-term settlement attempts by our western neighbor?

[mostly_harmless]

Well...the spices city is definitely going to be a better city but the stone city secures us very important resources that we may not be guaranteed to get as mentioned. Short term the stone city will be a drag because we'd have to walk a worker over there as well if we want to start improving the horses immediately, and the city would still only get to work the horse until the border pop.

Yes. For the worker movements a galley (even better two for instant movements) would be preferable, which we might have in place by T81.

I dunno. Would an axe in the area be sufficient to head off any short-term settlement attempts by our western neighbor?

The first thing a western neighbour would do is propose a NAP!
Even if not, would we attack with a sole axe an approaching settler/axe pair to prevent settlement of that spot? I doubt it. Which basically makes settling that Stone City ourselves as soon as possible a priority.
Tough decision.

mh

[NobleHelium]

Minor point, but I doubt there's any value in two galleys. The worker runs out of movement when boarding regardless, and you can move the galley again next turn before unloading.

How quickly can we get a settler out of FP?

[kjn]

Minor point, but I doubt there's any value in two galleys. The worker runs out of movement when boarding regardless, and you can move the galley again next turn before unloading.

How quickly can we get a settler out of FP?

Under our current plan, FP will be size 6 on T78 and will start a settler the same turn. Whip T79, and ready to move T80.

FWIW, MM will also be size 6 on T78 with a possible settler or worker whip T79, but we should probably set up the cities on a staggered whip cycle, eg whip HF and MM on the "5" turns, and AO and FP on the "0" turns.

[mostly_harmless]

Minor point, but I doubt there's any value in two galleys. The worker runs out of movement when boarding regardless, and you can move the galley again next turn before unloading.

You can still swap the ships, though. So worker boards Galley1 in Horse Feathers, Galley moves to same tile as Galley2 (2W of HF), worker swaps ships, Galley2 moves into Stone City, worker can move freely next turn. Works a charm.

mh

[mostly_harmless]

Under our current plan, FP will be size 6 on T78 and will start a settler the same turn. Whip T79, and ready to move T80.

FP settler can then make it to HF by T81 and board a galley there. Settling of Stone City as city #8 on T83.
A worker from the gems site can accompany the settler on the galley, start improving the horses on T83 as well.

This delayed schedule will allow the south western scout axe to make wider sweep of the south western area and arrive at the Stone spot on T82.

This only works if we have a galley available in HF by T81.

I will draw up another sketch of this variant.

mh