Serdoa's SPOILER-Thread: I am legend?

[Serdoa]

As planned I took one of SDs cities this turn. Lost a HA against an Archer at 65% odds, oh well, you win some, you lose some. I've moved my HA stack in that city as I could not get my one-movers that I have with me for defense in time into the city. I assume he could counter-attack, but I doubt he has enough units to take it back / raze it. We will see. 

In the other city that I intend to take he has 5 units as of this turn. I assume he can get up to 10 into the city if he wants to spite me (assumption solely based on what I expect him to have in cities close-by and him emptying those even if it means Lew/Rusten can swoop in and take them for free). Which I assume he does, given his ... naming:



I did assume we'd play without diplo-messages via units, though I am not sure if insults do count as such. I did assume I play adults however...

Anyhow, I do definitely disagree that I throw the game away by attacking SD. It might not get me in a winning position, but making sure NoGas cannot win does not get me in one either. It just lets Lewwyn run away till the end - or maybe duke it out with Rusten. In both cases I do not gain anything with my attack, I just help others. As of now though, I do gain additional cities.

Obviously the counter-argument is that they will attack me next afterwards and before I can tech to anything that can counter Cataphracts. And that might very well be the case. But they had those units already, so this is nothing new due to me joining against SD. Attacking with him instead would only have gotten me already in that situation and not make it just a possibility.

Btw: I do have 5 (!) farms in my whole land - and I farmed every farmable resource I have and still those 5 farms include 2 on non-resource tiles... I do have a ton of plains and hills in my land, but not much grassland or floodplains (I think I have 2 or 3?). I did have two (!) islands to settle, both having no more than room for 1 city and my capital started on the farthest point south (the only direction without neighbours) it could without being ON an island. As far as I can see, the island-situation for me is definitely worse than for everyone else and also land quality seems to be worse, if you value food. 

I also have no expansion-trait to get going fast while being surrounded by 2 IMP and 1 EXP civ. Overall I think I did actually better than most would have in my position. I was pretty down at the start, seeing how I was boxed in and how the IMP-civs ran away, but there really was not much I could do differently. Looking at the land, even my 15ish-turn slog when I should have not played on autopilot has not changed much actually, as I took all the land I really could with how the IMP-civs boxed me in from the start and with cities I could not compete with on either front. I would have had to settle my second and third city each 6-7 tiles from my capital to take more land than I have - that is not going to happen if I plan to keep those cities.

I don't think the map is tilted too much in anyone direction though, so I still like the map. My issue this game was just the combination of a start that emphasizes my trait-weaknesses (no early game trait), neighbors that could abuse those weaknesses, lack of game understanding (I really forgot much of what I learned back some years ago) and my own mental weakness to not power through all that and search for solutions. I think analyzing what kind of tiles are available to me, how to best use them and which techs to get (and how to get them as fast as possible) needed to happen much earlier. Building buildings that are necessary and not just what is available would have been smart too... yeah, that Library build fast in that city that only has mines, not doing much there though...

[Amicalola]

Obviously the counter-argument is that they will attack me next afterwards and before I can tech to anything that can counter Cataphracts. And that might very well be the case. But they had those units already, so this is nothing new due to me joining against SD. Attacking with him instead would only have gotten me already in that situation and not make it just a possibility.

You don't think there is any difference between fighting cataphracts alongside SD and fighting them after he is partitioned? 

This is a serious question, if it sounds not. I just don't know how else to phrase it.

[Serdoa]

Obviously the counter-argument is that they will attack me next afterwards and before I can tech to anything that can counter Cataphracts. And that might very well be the case. But they had those units already, so this is nothing new due to me joining against SD. Attacking with him instead would only have gotten me already in that situation and not make it just a possibility.

You don't think there is any difference between fighting cataphracts alongside SD and fighting them after he is partitioned? 

This is a serious question, if it sounds not. I just don't know how else to phrase it.

So, that is an interesting question but the way you formulated it is problematic. Boiled down your question reads:

"Do you really believe it is better to fight an opponent alone than together with another player?"

which of course the answer would be "No, that is not better.".

But that presupposes several points:
a) NoGas are going to attack me with Cataphracts.
b) Earning another 10-15 turns for preparation isn't making a difference.
c) Attacking together with SD makes a difference.

And none of them are certain even though your question suggests they are. So lets go through these:

a) NoGas are going to attack me with Cataphracts

I have built relations with them over the last 50 turns. They give me Gold and Spices for 1 gpt in return. I offered them now my Wines for 1 gpt. We all know that does not mean that they won't attack, but it also does not indicate that they will. Especially if they eat SD and have to incorporate 8ish cities in their empire.

b) Earning another 10-15 turns for preparation isn't making a difference

The attack on them was ill-timed. They just got Cataphracts while I am on my way to Machinery -> Engineering. Most of my cities are on hills and will have 40%+ culture defense. My pikes will be ~16 str. Which means he has to add Catapults to the mix, which are slow, which is good for me because I can then either catapult them myself or flank them away if he leaves them open.

Would I have invaded their territory right now, my stack would already be shredded, as happened to SD. And he had stronger units than I do.

c) Attacking together with SD makes a difference.

As I wrote before, if SD had taken a city from them I might have joined on his side. But he didn't. Had he if I had joined early? Maybe, because NoGas would have had to divert units to fend me off as well. But he would have had ample warning time as I described before, so it mostly would be him whipping even harder. That would set him back of course... but I don't gain anything.

Also please look back at the picture of my stack: That is ancient trash. I simmed the fight for Solaris Temple, with just 6 LBs and 3 Axes in the city and with all my units (except the HAs) I would not for certain take the city. I know that he had 3 archers, 2 axes and 1 spear in that city earlier when I still could see it - which is like 20 turns or more ago... 

I am pretty sure with 3+ turns advanced warning NoGas would have easily had what I described above in there. Add 2 Cataphracts and even adding all my HA makes it not certain to take it. And that is still one city. Important for him - but I can most likely not even hold it... I can just raze it.

---

So, to answer your question from the start: I actually think there is a difference between fighting NoGas with SD now or potentially having to fight them later alone, but I am reasonably certain that my chances alone are better than together with SD.

[Serdoa]

Maybe as an addendum: I get the feeling, also from other threads, that some players expect that one should do something against the leaders of the game, even if it is to the detriment of their own civilization. I don't subscribe to that idea. Whatever I do it has to benefit me in some way. If someone is running away with the game, I will not stop them just so others can win. I want to win myself and if that is not possible, do as good as I can. I however don't find it very fun - neither for me nor the leader - if I attack them just because they are doing well. That is just a form of kingmaking, but instead of deciding who becomes king, you decided who does not.

[Amicalola]

Informative and detailed answer, thankyou! 

And you're right, the question was phrased poorly. I even knew it was when I asked it, like I said, but couldn't think how to improve it with my sleep-deprived brain.

[Commodore]

Interesting answer. Mine would be the much more reductive "I'd rather fight with 30% of SD's empire under my control than with all of it under his".

Not saying fighting with Gasble is a given, naturally.

[Serdoa]

I like that reduction Comm and this part certainly does play a part in my decision as well. And Amica, I'm glad you asked, no matter the phrasing. It gave me the impression that you would act differently though and I would be interested why that is the case (if I'm right about it). Not sure if you can talk about it now though, as I assume you based your opinion on information from other players, as my thread certainly was not informative enough to come to an decision on that topic from the outside

As for the game itself, I'm at war and as is tradition these are the turns that I do actually report (a little bit). Last turn (T123) I took Nanjing and this turn it was time to take the city of Shanghai. While Nanjing was a clear-cut case with just an archer defending a non-hill, non-wall city and me having 10 HA in position to attack Shanghai proved to be much better defended. I faced 



I assumed he would get up to 10 units into the city, in the end it is 9, close enough. I was expecting some "thoughtful" unit names, but Creamer did actually throw me for a loop. I did have an initial idea what it meant but I actually found 4 different possibilities:

1) Wanker - my initial expectation
2) Nutcase
3) a very sexually aroused woman
4) sucker, ass-kisser

So, I'm at a loss. Maybe someone could ask SD what message he wanted to convey? If it is no. 3 please let him know that I'm married and not interested. On a serious note: I don't really care what he thinks of me but it is nonetheless uncalled for and also just in general improper behavior. 

Anyhow, I attacked of course - with 30 units in range that really was never in question. 5 Catapults decreased the city defenses to 0. Then I ran catapults into the city to collateral the defenders. With that many in the city and me attacking with ancient units that certainly was worthwhile. After 5 catapults (4 dead, 1 withdraw) in go the Axes. At that point I had 69% odds on the first fight and between 85%-95% on the remaining fights. One can argue that sending in one more catapult would be better but with Catapults doing at most 50% collateral and the enemy units at 

2x 3.8 / 6
2x 3.3 / 6
1x 2.8 / 6 -> no collateral
1x 1.5 / 6 -> no collateral
1x 3.0 / 5
1x 2.5 / 5 -> no collateral
1x 2.0 / 4 -> no collateral

it didn't seem worth it. If I remembered Charrius educational post on it correctly it is possible that the collateral would choose units that cannot be hit by it anymore. With half of them not being able to be hit and my units already getting odds, it seemed better to me to lose an Axe than a Catapult. Especially as I will need the former on defense in the future.

So, my Axes attacked. With this as the end result:



No more losses! In total this war cost me now 250 hammers (4 cats, 1 HA) while SD lost 485 hammers (5x 60 Pikes, 1x 60 CKN, 1x 25 Archer, 2x 35 Axe and 1x 30 Chariot) in units plus two cities. 

The end result is this map now:



I have positioned 2 of the archers - upgraded to Longbows (ouch!) in the city of Shanghai as well as some other units. 2 movers together with cover are positioned 1W of the city. If I am right about him having a city on the indicated tile (culture suggests that) than I might be able to take it next turn. He does have two units on the hill 2N1W (next to the lake) of the city. They should be able to move back into that city, though that would be my preferred outcome as that means they are not defending the capital. I'm not sure if I go for that, I probably first take a look next turn what NoGas are up to, if they are already in range, I will not interfere. 

As of this turn SD has 7 cities left. That might very well be 5 next turn, depending if NoGas are taking his capital already or some of the island holdings. Being attacked by two players of course puts you at a disadvantage but this still illustrates what I feared: As soon as his attacking stack is done, there is not much left of SD. And Cataphracts were certain to do that. I think too many people just see them as a strong attacking unit but they are as strong on the defense, giving you units to counter-attack attackers with while they have to slowly slug through your culture. And instead of wasting your catapults to damage their stack you flank their catapults away with your 'Phracts. 

On another note: I also positioned some catapults and HAs in a way that I can attack any unit that SD moves out of his capital to counterattack me should NoGas not be close to it. SD should be unable to reach me but I should be able to reach his units on any spot that I consider a threat next turn. There are a few that would be ... not that great for me as I can't reach them, but it would also put his capital at risk so I somehow doubt that. But even if, I have enough units to keep all cities defended now if he does not have a dozen more CKNs in the fog (and probably even in that case...).

[Serdoa]

I offered peace to SD which he accepted. Makes sense to him I feel, as he can rebuild his stack and maybe attack me back or just defend against NoGas. And it made sense for me, as I really did not want to march my slow-movers to his capital while NoGas has his fast movers nearby and might very well swoop in after I bring defenses down with my catapults. Also, I think it helps me if NoGas are occupied with a SD with some teeth left

In the west Rusten has started putting EP on me. Not the standard 4 we have, but a considerable higher amount. He was up to 460 against my ~175. I've now started counter-spending as he could see in my cities and I really don't want him to. I just don't want him to become complacent - or find out at which spots I am weakly defended. 

In two turns our peace treaty will run out. I wonder if he will prolong it again - he did start building up units, but not that many. He should be aware that I have moved some units back from the SD-front and he himself does seem to not have that many units in the area, so maybe peace can continue?

On that matter: Charriu, can we somehow display what the opponent can see / achieve with his EP-spending? I've backwards calculated the EP that Rusten needs to get visibility on my cities and also what he needs to get research visibility. As far as I can tell the formulas only use data already available to me ingame (distance between his capital and my cities, difference between his total EP-spending and mine [overall, not just on each other], and his total EP on me). But to calculate what the numbers actually mean, I had to use an Excel-sheet. So it is not spoiler-knowledge to get that displayed directly in the game, it would just be a more convenient way for everyone and also bridge the gap between players with more time that can do these calculations by hand and those that do not have that time and have to act "blindly".

[Charriu]

I've put it on my todo list

[Serdoa]

Unexpectedly Lewwyn declared on Rusten. I have a few (~40) units nearby and will decide next turn what to do. Currently, it does not seem that Rusten has anything on Lewwyns side (I have a warrior there). If that holds true, Lewwyn will rampage through his lands and I might not even attack to not interfere with Lewwyn - I assume Rusten could lose 2-3 cities next turn already.