Dot mapping

[SevenSpirits]

Again, how does it actually help us defensively? As far as I can tell, our cities are in no danger from 1-movers in any case. And I don't see how this helps against 2-movers at all. In fact it hurts because it's another city we have to defend.

[SevenSpirits]

I would like someone to make an actual case for settling there, with specific arguments that consider opportunity cost. Right now there isn't even anything I can argue against, yet somehow we are still considering it.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

I would reserve settling the SW location until we allow the diplomatic process runs its course. If we fail to achieve our goal of having CivPlayers plant no cities further to their east, then we plant a city in a defensive location of our choosing. Rushing out and planting first without waiting for a diplomatic solution shows hostile intent, or at the very least a complete disregard for our opponent that will build resentment. Also, the "in their face" settlement comment from before is a reference to settling at the minimum distance from their new city, settling on the hill. Obviously I'm not saying that 1 tile outside of our borders is aggressive on our part, but settling right on top of their city with Stonehenge culture coming for free would not be well received by anyone and is not a good start to a relationship.

Having said that, C&D shows these guys as military weaklings. I'm not afraid to settle on the hill if we benefit from it in some way. However, I would like diplomacy to run its course before we adversely impact relations with an ill-advised, rushed city plant. If diplomacy fails to gain our goal, a settler, axe, and spear on that hill will secure our southern front and encourage our adversary to come to the negotiating table in the future if they want a say in the outcome. But I'd prefer Novice's blue dot next, if we can come to terms with CivPlayers.

[kjn]

I would reserve settling the SW location until we allow the diplomatic process runs its course.

If this was any of the weaker teams I'd agree. But this is the cut-throat MP team. Boots on the ground and culture on the tiles beats agreements on electrons.

If we fail to achieve our goal of having CivPlayers plant no cities further to their east, then we plant a city in a defensive location of our choosing.

Won't work. Any spot they place east of their dot will block of any defensive city of our own in the area.

Rushing out and planting first without waiting for a diplomatic solution shows hostile intent, or at the very least a complete disregard for our opponent that will build resentment. Also, the "in their face" settlement comment from before is a reference to settling at the minimum distance from their new city, settling on the hill. Obviously I'm not saying that 1 tile outside of our borders is aggressive on our part, but settling right on top of their city with Stonehenge culture coming for free would not be well received by anyone and is not a good start to a relationship.

I expect them to play to win, and control as much land as possible. That means I expect them to put a Buddhist missionary and monastery in their dot city first thing, and then continue to push culture in their cities in the area.

This is the opposite of CFC - they won't piggle around after talking a bit.

Having said that, C&D shows these guys as military weaklings.

That was as of T92, when they whipped three times. I fully expect them to have two more axes/chariots this turn, and at least one more the next. They have 3 SA's up, so they can whip out an army fast. Witness the Germans when WPC declared. These guys are better at whipping, have more pop and cities, and an UB built for it.

I'm not worried about them forking our hypothetical city on the southwest shore and Seven Tribes. They would have to move around to the south where we'd have tons of visibility and warning, and I'd treat the border city as eminently expendable - I'd just be happy if they raze it so we can raze their city on green dot and plant another city in a good location.

If they want to continue further onto our land and try to fork Gourmet Menu as well, then it's even better. They'd be far into our lands, and if there is one thing I've noted in MP play, it's that it the advantage lies in the tactical attack, due to the stupid power of catapults. Them moving deep into our lands just begs for being collateraled.

[SevenSpirits]

Unlike kjn, I expect CivPlayers to play well. As such I expect them to spend resources claiming actual good land. I expect them to not try to get into pissing contests with other teams.

I do not expect them to Commodore us. They are freaking Darius and they have run the least military of any team, so I think the facts back me up on this one.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

I don't expect CPers to plant a foodless city east of that current location. What I do expect is that they pump culture in it to cut off BbB and give themselves defensive depth.

The worry is, can we hold onto a source of horses until we're ready to whip out a wave of knights? Because they will be what we need to conquer the Germans and WPC. The question is, how best to do so?

In order to guarantee a southern route to BbB, we'll need that blocker city on the lake. If we do so, they we stick it on that hill for the defensive bonuses and invest in 2-movers to pin spears in place. Yet at the same time, it will be so aggressive that it will guarantee a response from CP. We'll need to stuff it with spears.

How will they respond to the southern lake blocker?

1) If we get a NAP now, then they will probably not renew a new NAP after we've founded that city.
2) If we don't get a NAP, then they will never give us one until they've cleared out that city.

Alternatively we simply concede that the area is a no-mans land, and aim for a northern land route to BbB. Some galleys can act as an impromptu road, but its expensive and ties down resources. However, I think we'll be better set to settle the northern route, considering our workers. Unfortunately, we can't see any food resources up there right now.

[SevenSpirits]

You are talking about settling a crap city, and stuffing it with horse archers and spears just to have a southern road to BbB. That doesn't even make any sense! What good does this road to BbB do? We should just be putting the defenders in BbB in the first place. It's not like we are going to be moving reinforcements along a 1-tile-wide strip of culture right next to their city during wartime. Nor does it even make sense for us to move troops from one of the two main places they border us to the other one, anyway.

The entire net effect of this city would be that we have to staff it with defenders, and in turn they have to keep military units in their nearby city. These military units of theirs are a threat to ALL of our nearby cities, and now we have to defend four cities. If we just put a few defenders into each of Gourmet Menu and Brick by Brick, there's no way they can mount an attack on us without hurting themselves and ruining their strong long-term economic strategy.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Yeah, the point of that rambling is that I'm not sure if a lake city south of BbB will keep BbB and its horses safe, and will instead invite an attack. Hence, concede it to become a no-man's land, and aim for a city north of BbB, and try to keep peace with CP until we can whip out a wave of knights and capture a safer source of horses from the germans.

[Tyrmith]

You guys keep acting like 20 turns from now they'll suddenly decide they want to declare war on us. They won't do it that way. If they decide to play nice, the border negotiations will drag out long enough so that they can get a settler into the area, they say "never mind", settle it, and then we'll be screwed. I just don't understand you sudden idealism about this. We are obviously the team in front. That means they have to do everything we were trying to do about PAL in the poly game, but never could. You don't wait till the end of the game and then deal with the problem. You deal with it when you have a maximum advantage before they power too far in front to deal with the problem. Their number 1 goal will be goad CFC into attacking us, preferably while we're munching on the Germans, and once we're distracted, backstabbing us, probably NAP or not.

You don't prepare for what you want, you prepare for what can go wrong, and in this case, it's just a crappy city that prevents them from boating us suddenly or forking our other cities.

[Fintourist]

Okay, about this site SW of the lake. Here is my breakdown of major items affecting the decision:

Advantages

• It blocks the lake from Civplayers
  
• We get a frontline city that we can afford to lose, which gives us more preparation time if we get attacked (assuming Civplayers are dum enough that they don't simply run past it and fork our core cities)
  

Disadvantages

• Increased border tensions
  
• Negative economic contribution to our civ
  
• Opportunity cost of delayed city in the NW
  

Feel free to add an item that I missed..