[SPOILERS] Woden and ljubljana like boats

[Woden]

I'm sure you did not intend that as an allusion to the last archipelago game that went this late but that's where my mind immediately went  Now what does that say about my mind, I will pointedly decline to consider...

Random thought for Woden: if we do make it to The College Dropout, I should probably make the initial capture and then gift it to you once Australia is dead. That way, I can sail the Dreadnought into that little lake where it should be able to hit The Blueprint, as long as it is not on a hill.

We should do another diplo game, they are fun

Can't trade College Dropout because it is his capital and Firaxis doesn't think you should be able to trade capitals (probably because the AI is too stupid to not trade its capital away). 

I think we have made it pretty clear we are far from conceding. With MJW's involvement in the discussion, it might have something to do with rules. Him being the unofficial keeper of the Civ 6 ruleset, he seems to jump in when rules are discussed. The only rules I think we have had major discussion over the last few games are pillaging, city state abuse, and city trading (in this game). I think pillaging is pretty much a given in this game and no further discussion is needed. City States are pretty much dead and I can't really see any need for discussion unless Team Russia/Australia were talking about it for additional resources but what can an Industrial, a Military, and an unreachable Cultural City States have to offer in resources that pillaging can get. Now, city trading, that could be interesting. With Australia quickly losing ground, are they considering a life boat trade if we get close to killing him? Or now that they have peace with Indonesia/China are they considering shifting cities to Australia? Russia is hurting for amenities and getting rid of those worthless off-coast cities on the island that suboptimal settled could help reduce his amenities needs. Could they be discussing slowing us down by shifting those cities to Australia? That would delay his conquest but with battleships coming online soon, it would only slow us down a little bit. Could they be discussing some other form of city swapping that would make it hard to kill Australia, like all coastal cities to Russia, all interior cities to Australia? 

It could be something completely different for all I know but they are discussing something that has people interested.

Edit: Whatever it is, I hope it doesn't slow down the game. We have had a great last couple of turns and it looks like we can get it around again tonight.

[ljubljana]

You can't even trade someone else's capital? Wow, that's annoying. I guess we will have to see what the situation looks like at the time and decide whether my one frigate shot per turn is worth not being able to give you that city.

Yeah, MJW is a red flag for rules discussion for sure. If it is inter-team city trading related, I thought the rule was that it's allowed for captured cities only, exactly once per city, and must be done on the first turn the city becomes eligible for trading (via peace deal or on the turn of capture if it's a CS). They are one turn too late to shift the central island to Australia by the letter of the rules, so I can definitely see MJW getting involved if they are asking for special dispensation to do so anyways. Now that you mention it, I think that's most likely what it is.

If they are debating giving Australia self-founded inland cities to make it hard to kill him, that's pretty clearly outside of those rules IMO. If we can do that, I would have gifted you all my cities except for Cuneiform as soon as that became the best move for our joint odds to win, which I think was something like 50 turns ago once we committed to giving you all the TAD + Kaiser spoils + pillages to create a research power that could rival Russia.

On the other hand, here is a horrible thought - maybe they are going to offer China and Indonesia some or all of the cities on the central island in exchange for all their luxes (ie not just the surplus ones). Depending on just how bad the amenities situation is, that could be a great move that would fix or at least blunt the loyalty problems and substantially increase their odds in the rest of this war. Maybe we should consider an offer of our own for sub and Bruindane's luxes just to pre-empt Russia from doing something like that...

edit: How do you feel about Russia gifting the central island to Australia one turn late, if that is what's under discussion? Personally, I'm not inclined to nitpick about stuff like that and think it's probably fine. I also think it's probably a bad move as the cities will lose their urban defenses and stop contributing to Russia's research + production power...not that I would let that influence my willingness to let it slide, of course 

[Woden]

I am already trading any of my extra luxuries to China for his (2 of mine for 2 of his), which reminds me, I should check when that deal ends. With the slow turn pace, a deal I struck 3 months age could only be 10-20 in game turns. I can take a look again and see if I can trade anything and if they have anything I need.

As for how I feel about Russia trading the Indonesia conquests, I am fine giving them a grace period of a few turns (no more than 5 and everybody is given it) since this only the 2nd teams game and we didn't start the first one with any rules on city trading and only came up because Russia was traded a city for the extra tiles. I think the discussion ended with the one-way trades. We added the conquests only part this go around, specifically because Dido could spam settlers like nobody else and why would I build settlers if you can do them for half cost. I could have built ships instead. And it is not like we have seen this in the game yet. We didn't traded any English cities. I would be bummed that it would take longer to conquer Australia but we did decide to allow it, as long as it was not cheesy. Now, if they are talking about a life boat trade or a defensive trade (I don't know if they could with conquest cities only), then I think that is moving into cheesiness.

[ljubljana]

Sounds good to me. And judging by the two different MJW posts, one immediately after my post and another immediately after yours, I'm guessing you were right on the money about what's going on

It warms my cold zombie civ heart to see that they are so worried about Australia that they would even consider something like that. I didn't think that war was at all decided yet, they still have a decent edge in ship numbers despite being way out of position. But maybe they are further from fleets and ironclads than I thought they were...

We should see if China has any 1-of luxes that Russia lacks and might be tempted to gift cities for. I would consider giving them Runic for all their luxes if there are several of those, since Russia can take it easily in 1 turn anyways. Plus it would either deny Russia one of my cities or draw them back into war with China if they decided to take it anyways. But then again, that is probably bordering on cheese on my end, so I think I had better not.

[Woden]

Sounds good to me. And judging by the two different MJW posts, one immediately after my post and another immediately after yours, I'm guessing you were right on the money about what's going on

It warms my cold zombie civ heart to see that they are so worried about Australia that they would even consider something like that. I didn't think that war was at all decided yet, they still have a decent edge in ship numbers despite being way out of position. But maybe they are further from fleets and ironclads than I thought they were...

It is a problem with such a small player group, you can get an idea of a discussion by who is posting. With MJW, it is usually about rules or maybe his guess on who will win. For Sullla, if you are not the clear winner, you are doing something wrong and he is pointing it out. For Thrawn, I don't have a good sense yet, as he has played in the last few games and I don't remember his comment style in games before those games, maybe tactical analysis?

I think this game is a ways from being definitively decided and teetering on a razor's edge. Williams482 and I are in a virtual race tech-wise and civic-wise, it really is going to depend on who can make the most in those short duration turns periods where someone has something the other doesn't. It was Russia with his extra movement and larger navy but the winds are changing. We will have the extra movement and hopefully reach Refining first, with enough time to get some battleships on the field before Russia can.

[ljubljana]

Old screenie:



It looks like there is an inland city in the fog between Vladimir Monomakh and A Church is Burning. If they gifted just that city to Australia, it would force us to go all the way around the central island and wade through a ton of Russian city defensive fire to finish them off, and judging by those forests and jungles it may not even be in battleship range once we get there. That is within the letter of the rules but would also be a lifeboat trade, and probably a pretty effective one, with only conquered cities...what do you think about that?

I guess my opinion is still to allow it because I don't like declaring things illegal mid-game that are within the letter of the rules. But I would also push for a change to make the rule more precise the next time a team game rolls around

[Woden]

The city center would have to be where the lines cross on the fogged part because the single ocean tile by the pearls (west side) would have to be 3rd ring. If it was 4th ring, the ocean tile in the cove on the east side of the island would be in Russia territory (would be 3rd ring). This means the ocean is third ring and you would have 3 or 4 5 ocean tiles to shoot it from. All you would need is a unit to get vision on the city center.

And since Berserkers don't pay a disembark cost, you could have one on the ocean tile that Russia currently owns and it could reach the city center (4 MP), you could blaster it, and take the city all on the same turn.

[ljubljana]

...right, I was worried that might not apply if the city was on a hill, but it looks like range 3 units use some kind of special lobbed shot rules that make it not matter. Ok, that's good to know.

As for lurker thread activity, this is the first game thrawn has not played in since coming to the forums, so I have no experience with his lurker thread style. But his interest would not be held by a game that he did not believe was competitive, so it's a good sign for us. And now maybe I should stop speculating about these things lest I prompt another rules change about trying to derive information from the lurker thread posts

[Woden]

...right, I was worried that might not apply if the city was on a hill, but it looks like range 3 units use some kind of special lobbed shot rules that make it not matter. Ok, that's good to know.

Yes, battleships can shoot over anything as long as you have vision on the target tile. Not 100% on mountains, it has been a while since I have came across that and don't remember if they can.

[ljubljana]

Civwiki claims that mountains are ok. I have been burned by them before, but I'd say probably a 90% chance they are right about this one.