So, turn 115.
By now it is clear that this game is only mine to loose.
Emperor K has held the line as substantial persian forces are in the south. 1 Knight in the Encampment, 1 Knight enroute south, 1 Knight in the city.
And there are 1-2 crossbowmen and 1-2 archers from the glimpses I got.
Normally this is not a fight I want to take. The issue here is my knights are powered by 4! medieval GGs bringing their effective fighting strength to 68, thereby making crossbow bolts or city bombardment not that intimidating.
I would run over Alhambram if not for his Weedy Movement and its +Combat Strength coupled with defenders advantage. I would estimate my effective advantage at one GG.This is barely enough. Also the supposed soft underbelly of Persia has been hardened by an encampment, not only bringing up GG generation of Persia by a sizeable amount but also strengthening the weak point in the line.
Over the last turns my builds thus have been primarily economically in nature. I want to either force a concession through loss of morale or strike a decisive military blow.
I have a decisive naval advantage in the game. This is due to my decision to focus all 3 possible naval cities on harbours and conquering one of Valetta. The first Great Admiral is due in 6 turns.
The eastern half of Persia is not even bombard able. But the northern half.
Much better so.
With a single outlier. Maruf.
Silver, horses, cotton and protecting Hattua. With the GG power and even with the slow moving hypasist I could reach it in about 6-10 turns will my troops. The question now mainly is the following.
1. Do I risk an engagement near Sindbad with my current strength. It is another very risky maneuver but bold strikes have served me well before. He had a forewarning of about 3 turns though and the encampment build whilst probably built because of the GG race is a clear headache for me. My main worry is the battering ram. At speed 2 it is slow and a focused attack on an exposed knight could bring it down.
2. Do I make a bold encirclement move on Maruf? Not only strengthening my position in regards to Hattusa which I can conquer at my leisure, prevent a persian capture or keep around for the science. But I also take one city of Persia easily. My information over the past turns shows no units whatsoever there. The two hypasists would run back through the tundra or keep moving hoping to be upgraded to Musketman at Maruf.
3. Do I retreat and dig in relying on my size advantage to carry the day. I thought long about this one and I have decided that this is too risky. If I do not engage the persian army I will have to. As long as Emperor K and Alhambram stay at war this is not an option. 555 milpower would smash down on Poland and I am not sure he could prevail again. Now with civil service I could ally Emperor K and getting scouting info, but then he would see me retreat.
4. Do I build up a navy and strike the western half a move sure to suprise Alhambram. But many turns away. I would need to chop and build out quadriremes, probably about 6-7 of them.
5. Do I get my army back, support it with a fleet and make a big landfall at the persian western half.
6. Do I go and attack Emperor K. (Note that I should have gone that way about 5 turns ago over the seas.
It is a difficult decision. I am leaning towards 2 + 4 right now, by the way trying to snipe troops or pillage tiles.
Right now if I fight him and loose he is back into the game against Emperor K. So I will bide my time, run for 2, work on 4 and erect critical infrastructure and wonders to make my tech and economic lead unassailable.
Maybe even a 3rd settler push under a new government form.
Maybe the lurkers will think I am a pussy, but my gut feeling tells me that due to DotF a direct fight is not doable, especially with those 3 encampment and walls. There is no soft target which I could use to heal up and recover. If my forces are caught on the wrong foot they are all done for.
explodes to 63 per turn, soon to be higher, whilst Alhambram is still at 30
or the most brilliant tactical maneuver ever. 