RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[Square Leg]

If I were in Rome's position I would be having none of it. It is threatening behaviour doing what Korea are doing and ultimately would be a -2 to relations! Especially if they do sit on the gold or the deer tile.

They should explore peaceful measures first - It may not have been Rome's intention to be aggressive towards Korea at all in the first place... it might be now - we all know she has Iron to hand...

I just think it is bad diplomacy - actions speak louder than words.

[zakalwe]

Hard to get the full picture, since I don't have access to the map (would be great if it was possible to log in to the game in some kind of spectator mode), but it seems like contacts are about to be made all over the place. With all the worker/workboat first builds it would almost be a wonder if everybody survives the next 10 turns.

[T-hawk]

OTOH, consider the situation that (didn't) happen in Pitboss 1. Dreylin could have whacked sunrise in the cradle, but decided not to. Doing so just paints a gigantic target on the aggressor; it doesn't help to have two cities when it galvanizes all your neighbors against you. Ask Lord Voldemort how that worked out.

[Cyneheard]

Fair point. Still, if you're, say, Rome, you've got a big target on your back already. And being able to get Praets 5-10 turns earlier, is huge.

[ZPVCSPLFUIFDPEF]

Of course, these cities which have never grown above size 1 will auto-raze (even with border pops) unless No City Razing is selected. I wonder if anyone will get burned by this.

[Jabah]

Given the choice, I would prefer burning Rome to the ground that having to deal with them in the future.
Razing the city also have the semi nice effect of not painting a too big target on your back as not everyone will realised that you did it (and you will have the same power/score as before and no 2nd city added)

[shadyforce]

Does auto-raze show up on civstats the same way a capture and choose to raze does? If so, everyone knows who did it.

Either way what difference does it make? You eliminated a dangerous neighbour. How is that going to pint a bulls-eye on you? And even if it does, it's still worth it since if you don't Rome WILL be a massive pain in Korea's side for the near future.

Making a play for LiPing's capital has to be the best play for Korea.

[Krill]

I'd disagree. Making a straight play at the capital means they have a 30% chance to win. That's a 70% chance that they lose and need to start building warriors right now, because LiPing will promote her warrior and send it straight at their capital to choke them. Korea will need 2 warriors before they can start chopping, and 3 warriors before they finish chopping...and even then, that's a little risky.

Just to deal with one aggressive warrior in 70% of the cases. They lose, and they are out of this game, because if LiPing adds in a second warrior she'll have settled towards them before they can even think of getting a second worker.

Any basic peace deal has to be better than that.

[Jabah]

I aggree that we are biased because we know that rome doesn't have the second warrior coming. From Korea perspective, if they think it is likely that Rome is bluffing and will have a 2nd warrior ready, it turns into a gamble with no good out.
But I have the feeling that Korea doesn't really believe in this possible 2nd warrior... (not sure if liping did try hard enough to put that doubt in their minds)

[novice]

A 60 turn Military Buildup Pact should be ideal for Rome's needs. They wouldn't be fielding a pretorian attack force before turn 66 anyway? In the same timespan they will probably settle two cities, one of which will go to their original capital site. Surely that will work out? Of course, we know that Rome has iron...