[PB62 Mjmd] Let the Bullgine Run!

[Mjmd]

100%. I think I've made a good case.

And anyone who disagrees hereby relinquishes any beef with me settling intrusive cultural cities against them in future games. 

[naufragar]

And anyone who disagrees hereby relinquishes any beef with me settling intrusive cultural cities against them in future games. 

I haven't read your whole thread, but it's probably a safe bet that we'll have... creative differences about the narrative of this game. No comment (on anything  ) but I hope if anything I've written in my thread is offensive or hurtful, you understand that it's because I'm a bad person.

[Mjmd]

Rofl. I'll read your thread first Nauf; at the very least I hope its entertaining. I may have called you Naug in half my thread. I want you to know I didn't care enough to fix it.

[Amicalola]

100%. I think I've made a good case.

And anyone who disagrees hereby relinquishes any beef with me settling intrusive cultural cities against them in future games. 

If you want honest opinions, I'll give my hot take. Take it with a grain of salt, mind.

I think your city was the problem, not vanrober's or naufragar's spots. Maybe you wanted to get that spot/area because your land was bad, which necessitated going east. I get that. But why would you settle a non-Creative city in a contested region, with no food bonuses in the first ring, when you have Creative neighbours on both sides? For starters your city is just really slow to get going, but as far as diplo you also are creating conflict with that spot, because you KNOW they are going to take those resources from you. Expecting otherwise is ridiculously greedy, and I don't like the prisoner's dilemma that you seem to have created for everyone involved: "they took MY second ring resources with THEIR perfectly logical plants - guess I'll ruin all three of our games. Silly neighbours " (I'm paraphrasing, but this really is how it all reads to me). In Naufragar's case, he would have gotten the corn even without creative!

To give a specific example of what you could have done differently, why not just settle OakAshThorn 1N? That gets corn first-ring, locks Naufragar out of the corn entirely, and lets vanrober have the sheep conflict-free. It's better in virtually every way, including just for yourself in a vacuum (first-ring corn vs. first-ring nothing). If vanrober doesn't settle the sheep regardless, then you alternatively just get an extra city. 

This might come across as very harsh, for which I apologise. I still love you. I just really really disagree with that spot.

[Mjmd]

T62 

Naug is a crazy sob. I feel like a trip back in time is in order. Lets go way way way back to how this started, but more specifically to T15.



This was my original dot map. I fully intended to give Van the sheep and settle 1st ring wet corn. I had some spots I thought Van should settle, I wanted Van to settle, and spots that were not acceptable. So why did I grab the sheep?

Lets fast forward to T46

SOOOO Vanrober settled ON copper. This obvious creates a super awkward situation where in order to get the sheep he HAS to make his culture SUPER awkward for me.

The other balancing to my spot is Van could actually settle an INSANE spot towards former Fable which would take my wet rice. It would also grab the hill pig and the gold. Seems fair to me.

If Van settles 1N of copper this game is soooo different for me. Being creative gives him the sheep and we have a fairly stable border where he gets both sheep and gold. I would settle 1st ring wet corn and Naug would have to go elsewhere. Settling on the copper meant of course the only way to get the sheep was to settle a "no" spot. I think its pretty obvious why the "no" spots are bad. They basically isolate any city I place for 1st ring wet corn. Here is a picture from this turn showing eventual culture and how his city can basically threaten 3 of my cities at once............ Like lets set aside the fact he could have settled a better city that takes potential resources away from T/C. Current city has EGREGIOUS culture push into me. Van is basically betting I'll follow my normal logic of "play to win and need Van for ally". Like ya I could keep multiple scouts in there, but even with them 2 movers from the fog I would have 1 turn to defend 3 cities. Plus he is clearly stealing a sheep I wanted. As I stated I was very willing to trade a wet rice 4 tiles from my cap and 6 from his in return........... You know stable border, both get good cities, keep resources away from runaway civs......... Am I the crazy one or do those all seem like good things Van should want???



Whats that you say. Naugfrager tricked you into peace so he could resettle his city and now both food resources are under threat all because Van settled on copper and can't figure out what an aggressive city plant is and that there were better spots.

Now I'll note Naugs spot while giving great vision, isn't actually more invasive than Vanrobers. Am I confused why someone who took a capital and presumably has expansion spots not towards me available keeps inviting war. Sure sure that's a great question. I think the first time was a little more valid as there was a high chance he could get away with it. Doing it a second time is just conceding to C/T because you know I don't like it and want another war for some reason???  

So I see two options:
1) Burn the world. Reputations can do wonders in games. No one settles up on SD, because they know the consequences. I have the units in position to burn Vans city (unless he has a ton in the fog). Burn it try to get peace. Maybe we can be friends going forward and maybe not. I'm willing, but I doubt Van will be after. Anyways, then go to war vs Naug again. Note I'm pretty sure I can keep Naugs units from getting to that city in time.
2) Open borders gives me a chance for trade routes and a way out of horrid economy. Try to forge the alliance I described earlier to take down T/C. Take out Naug first with Vanrober. Naug has already slowed himself down from top contender so makes sense (again I'm very much a fan of make yourself stronger).

I think this game is just a loss. No one seems to want to settle anything towards T/C. They would rather settle towards me!!! I think burning the world and gaining a reputation for defending my stuff is good. Plus the units are there. Otherwise what else are they doing for 9 turns??? Gotta use what you got

I also really wish I had gone Charlemagne in perfect 20/20 hindsite. Mind if I had just had copper in a reasonable location I wouldn't have had to tech archery and would have had pottery turns and turns ago............ Speaking of copper it is finally hooked!!!! Plan is to send 2/3 workers south and chop out an army from Oak & Ash & Thorn. It also has 4 hammers into stonehenge from last turn, but I think we are past waiting for T/C to build for failgold and onto building a large army (note I'm already #1 in this category).

Anyways, Amica has given me permission to have a border that is super imposing. Anyone else? 

[Mjmd]

Amica do you remember PB58. I can't find it atm, but I remember you and Tarkeel not liking Thogs culture (because massive thread). Any Vanrober city isn't quite as bad as Thog was, but it is the same concept. I identified that issue the instant Tarkeel and you took some city; see quote from that lurker thread. I identified sites in this game with bad culture T15. 

Tarkeel taking that city is basically going to mean they 100% will need to deal with Thog at some point. AT can threaten multiple Tarkeel cities from there. AT's cultural presence and vision will be super annoying.

Like I always knew Vanrober would have vision with the gold hills on my horse city, but there is a large difference between having 1 exposed city and 3 exposed cities.

[vanrober]

I really cant understand how you didnt want me to settle a city 3 tiles far from my capitol when you settled a city 5 tiles from my capitol and 7 tiles far from your capitol. I tried all the game to be friendly with you to focus on NAu when you already told us that. We even delayed that city so that it was a filler... and kind of our last option, we couldnt allow you to settle one city closer to our capitol. I think Your hill city would have been much better 1NE on top of the ivory, we could have got a better border.

But we didnt know you had that sea there, nor the quality of your land. We were really worried about any atack from you early with your skirmishers so we settled on top of the copper for safety reasons. For the same logic we didnt make more scouts and we were with our scout locked for the copper settle, so we knew really little map.

Also about the city with rize and pigs and all that, the imp guys settled a city that denied any other city by our own in that area. We had really bad logistic to go to Fabled's land, since there were 2 lakes and a peak and we were needing a lot of infrastructure to get there. All our land were floodplains out of tundra and ice, taking ages to make any improvement, we were really slow in worker labour being unable to settle that spot fast enough.

We were really low on cities and spending tons of time to make anything and then you decided that a city 3 tiles far from our capitol wasnt acceptable... I really want to understand why. Beacuse if you feel we cannot make a city 3 tiles far from our capitol just because we can fork your cities easily... Maybe you had to get your cities better located? Maybe your 3rd city 1 W? WE wanted to settle in the desert hill so that our border would be more stable but then you settled in that hill avoinding us to settle there too... so yeah, do you wanted us to get that space completely empty for you? Because if you thought that.... I would say its kind of naive right?

I dont know, i would really love to understand your thoughts.

[pindicator]

Should have skirmisher rushed.

I've held off saying that, but I think the latter game is a great example why you had to

[Ginger()]

I think Amica is right about the city location because I think Nauf's Wolfstad was greedy and provocative*, but Vanrober's plant was not. In the picture of the larger diplo situation the city doesnt make sense because one doesnt usually find success in a two-front war, but that city poked both their eyes out.
Also Mjmd you based your border with Vanrober off some assumptions about what he would want- like the Rice/Pig/Gold spot, when if you wanted to avoid culture forking your cities, you could've just settled the rice yourself and it would've fit into your compact blob nicely. I mean that rice tile is 2 tiles closer to your start and the spot that you actually marked on the map for Van is a tile closer to you
I think this PB also showcases the power of Creative at creating situations that force other players to either accept the status quo or rely on some *ahem* expert Cartographers to make "readjustments"
*I mean purely based off distance, that contested Corn tile is closer to your capital and Nauf couldve settled a perfectly good one-corn city but instead got a sudden tingling of the ecstasy of food.

Should have skirmisher rushed.

I've held off saying that, but I think the latter game is a great example why you had to

Can you explain to me why Skirmishers are the way to rush when you start with Wheel/Mining? That always threw me off about Mali- how they have potentially the fastest Copper hook up of anyone but instead people prioritize the unique 2 techs deep? I know Hunting/Archery are cheap but BW is usually necessary early anyways. Is there something I'm missing, is it the fact that an Axe rush could get Chariot countered? is it the cheaper cost of the Skirmishers?

[superdeath]

I think Amica is right about the city location because I think Nauf's Wolfstad was greedy and provocative*, but Vanrober's plant was not. In the picture of the larger diplo situation the city doesnt make sense because one doesnt usually find success in a two-front war, but that city poked both their eyes out.
Also Mjmd you based your border with Vanrober off some assumptions about what he would want- like the Rice/Pig/Gold spot, when if you wanted to avoid culture forking your cities, you could've just settled the rice yourself and it would've fit into your compact blob nicely.
I think this PB also showcases the power of Creative at creating situations that force other players to either accept the status quo or rely on some *ahem* expert Cartographers to make "readjustments"
*I mean purely based off distance, that contested Corn tile is closer to your capital and Nauf couldve settled a perfectly good one-corn city but instead got a sudden tingling of the ecstasy of food.

Should have skirmisher rushed.

I've held off saying that, but I think the latter game is a great example why you had to

Can you explain to me why Skirmishers are the way to rush when you start with Wheel/Mining? That always threw me off about Mali- how they have potentially the fastest Copper hook up of anyone but instead people prioritize the unique 2 techs deep? I know Hunting/Archery are cheap but BW is usually necessary early anyways.

Well, you go BW to give your worker(s) something to do, and grab the very cheap hunting/archery techs and then you get access to a unit that cannot be dislodged from a hill, let alone a forested hill. You then send these fun little guys straight towards Mjmd(or someone you dislike) And it makes them hooking up and keeping copper a very hard process. ESPECIALLY if you have Pro-skirms.