[SPOILERS] Semi-retired thread. yuris125, pitboss 50

[yuris125]

Cornflakes decided not to attack and just bombarded my defences this turn. However




Last turn he had 5 units in Medicine. Now there's only 1 bowman. The other 4 units are on galleys, and about to join the attack. I believe there's at least 2 longbows and 2 bowmen, maybe even 4 longbows if Cornflakes had enough money to upgrade them all

As you can see from the screenshot, I considered building walls in Heliopolis. However given these reinforcement, I think I have to dry whip another archer. An additional factor is that I have the CG3 archer from the start of the game + an axe on a galley (under the trireme), about to join the defence next turn. But if Cornflakes attacks with all units, including an amphibious attack by the units on galleys, I don't think the city will hold. Right now I can't afford a turn when the city produces nothing, and adding another defending unit might make a difference. Walls will have to wait

[yuris125]

The city went down with a whimper



I'll be honest, I thought archers would have better odds vs swords. City raider op?



I don't see a path to victory from here. I was ok with losing the city, but I needed a good trade to have a chance, and I didn't get it

[yuris125]

I'm happy to concede to Cornflakes if Scooter is. I'm also happy to play on and will do my best to find an opening and hurt Cornflakes, but after our two encounters he has about twice as much power as me, and I don't see what I can do to stop him from killing me as soon as he feels suitably prepared

[yuris125]

Before reading other threads, I wonder if I lost the game when I chose the location for Memphis




Before the game even started, I thought that the northern starts were better than the southern ones, thanks to having access to more islands. That's why I picked the start before the leader or the civ in the snake pick. However, having identified this, maybe the next step was to realise that blocking off expansion of the civs starting in the south was going to lead to conflict at a time when I would've preferred to avoid it. Maybe a better play would've been to claim the land between Cornflakes and myself and force him to go to the islands (presumably he would've preferred to avoid an early war against Egypt). To this end, settling the second city to claim the fish between us arguably would've been a better play

Instead I settled Memphis between us, and made it holy. There's no doubt it was a better second city than one between Cornflakes and myself would've been. It probably would've been the correct play in a single player game. But here it completely blocked Superdeath's expansion and made us fighting all but inevitable. The result - Cornflakes got to peacefully develop and run away with the game while I spent half the game furiously building units

I wonder if this is something I should've considered when choosing where to settle, or if it's just hindsight talking

[superdeath]

It certainly made me want to "try" and punish you, rather than eat the weak ( military wise ) Romans that were too happy to build wonders..

I, along with others, thought that the fish site was going to have alot more fighting for it, rather than a in-my face holy city that eats my extra copper.

[yuris125]

On the other hand, one might argue that Memphis was equidistant from our capitals, it was in a good defensible position (on a hill with a river between the city and your capital), and making it holy was the fastest way to raise its cultural defences. If my goal simply was to find the best possible spot for the second city, that was it, no question. The only reason to settle it elsewhere would've been because squeezing Cornflakes would've been less likely to lead to an early game conflict than squeezing you, because he had more land to expand to than you (islands)

[superdeath]

I was expecting a city there eventually from you, just not your first as i figured you'd want to not antagonize Boudicca of American Idiot rather than peaceful Cornflakes cereal is all.

[Cornflakes]

I was surprised that you didn’t try to contest the fish between us. I thought for sure that you would put a city on the grass hill 1N of the fish, also cutting me off from the 1-tile Banana Island. Maybe not as 2nd city but as 3rd. Ultimately I didn’t fear too much early conflict between us though. I saw conflict more likely north vs. south, especially once we both planted holy cities towards our southern neighbors.

[scooter]

Instead I settled Memphis between us, and made it holy. There's no doubt it was a better second city than one between Cornflakes and myself would've been. It probably would've been the correct play in a single player game. But here it completely blocked Superdeath's expansion and made us fighting all but inevitable. The result - Cornflakes got to peacefully develop and run away with the game while I spent half the game furiously building units

I wonder if this is something I should've considered when choosing where to settle, or if it's just hindsight talking

I postulated a couple times in my thread, including recently, that the Memphis decision had the biggest ripple effects of anything in the game. I was pretty surprised by it, mainly because it was settling straight into Boudica of America. I thought for sure you would take the Fish spot east first.

[yuris125]

Yeah I didn't realise just how much of an effect this decision had, and certainly didn't think through all the consequences. Reading through threads only reinforced this. When I picked the start, I said that the safe 2nd city spot to the east was one of its advantages. And yet in the actual game I decided to go for a more dangerous spot, got myself involved in a hot war, and never managed to get out a settler in time to found that 'safer' city