 |
| |
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
Apolyton currently has 91 units costing us 91 gpt in upkeep. We also, as Trip pointed out in chat just now, have a barracks in Tripoli unlikely to see much use over the next 60 or so turns as it builds a wonder of the world, likely followed by improvements.
Here's the composition of our military:
Settlers: 5 (they should take care of themselves)
Workers: 24 (this is going to go up)
Warriors: 2
Horsemen: 3
Knights: 9
Catapults: 13
Galleys: 2 (we're building more of these)
Numidian Mercenaries: 15
Medieval Infantry: 18
Now, some of those units can be upgraded. Which is more efficient: keeping them around (paying upkeep on them) to upgrade them later (at gold expense) or disbanding them now (saving upkeep costs and upgrade costs) to build the next level of unit later (costing shields later and leaving us with less military in the interim)? Catapults will upgrade to cannons, MI to guerillas, Knights to Cavalry, Numidian Mercenaries to Musketmen and Riflemen.
Personally, I think the units we least need are the 18 Medieval Infantry, considering that their utility on both offense and defense is likely to become obsolete with the advent of Gunpowder and the already present existence of Knights. They also don't upgrade at all until Replaceable Parts, so that's a LOOOOOONG time to be paying upkeep on obsolete units before we can upgrade them.
By contrast, the knights are an absolute necessity. Not only do they provide us the best defense against amphibious attack and make the best reserve forces able to meet a variety of different threats quickly, but they'll upgrade to Cavalry in the not-too-distant future. They're well worth the upkeep cost in my opinion.
Numidian Mercenaries (and later Musketmen) are also worth keeping in my opinion. Those are the units (along with artillery) that we will stuff into the chokepoints and use as defenders in reserves in the core (in case of an amphibious landing in our core by GWT/GCA).
Our galley force is likely to be expanded in the future and it should be in my opinion.
What do others thinK about unit upkeep and force composition? What do you think about selling barracks unlikely to see use for a long time (since we can rebuild them at 40 shields later and the sheer amount of money saved could be quite useful)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
I agree with dumping any barracks we won't need for the forseeable future, but I would be very wary about disbanding units. CFC still poses a threat to us, no matter what the current relations are. If they became average or strong to us, they might seize the opening. (too bad Sir Ralph isn't on this team, he harped on us at GS so much about neglecting our defense/offense, and shortly thereafter Vox declared war)
At most I would do is disband a few med. inf. to speed production in certain cities, then replace them within a few turns. I would especially do this with all reg's left in the army, not sure if we have many. Cycle out the nm and mi regs, and cycle in vets.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zero
Workers: What about worker trades? Slave workers are great for us because we're industrial. Maybe CGN or CFC would agree to worker swapping. Theyre industrial too. |
do you mean us trading them our workers for their workers, thus no upkeep?
please let's not go there...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
I am loath to disband any unit, especially MI's, as we have paid an investment of not only sheilds but cash in their upgrades to their current status. There will be a time, relatively soon, when we will be going after GCA/GWT before RailRoads (or have to deal with them coming after us or both). We very much might need them then, if not on that front, but as a home researve.
Not long ago, we had a group of people who are not too trusting of CFC and in all reality, I will only trust them for as long as we don;t appear to be that much of a threat. But when they realize the fact that we are doing not only a super REX, but running a super worker tasking and growing very powerful, very quickly, that they will start to feel that we need to be taken down a notch or too. Especially if the CGN/GWT war boogs down to a stalemate.
Having those units when we need them, if we need them would be the best bet, in the long run. Having to stop other vital builds to reestablish our Military in the face of some unknown Offencive would derail a lot of other thing that we would be building.
Granted, as NYE had stated, Cats can be built in any city BUT, they still take time and it then will take further time to move them to the places that they are needed.
As we have seen in the GCA war, those Cats have been a great Defencive boon, especially against a determined attack.
And as for Metal being a ways away, It might be a lot sooner than everyone even realizes.
E_T
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
I don't personally trust CFC enough to disband any units. I'm ok with selling baracks though if we are sure we don't need them barring emegencies.
If we do disband units, it should only be because they are becoming obsolete and its cheaper to replace them than to upgrade them, or the upgrade is too far off to be effective (and if we do, we disband them as the replacements come online). I don't think we should scale back the relative power of our military for a few gpt though, especially not with a lucrative CFC deal that is going to be giving us a good bit of gold anyways.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
So how do we manage that? We would need to get them safely across, or have CGN come here to capture them and then have THEM safely transport the Cats across. |
hmm.
there was a certain GS-RP maneuver that comes to mind...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFree
|
 |
Acampo, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kloreep
 to teleporting cats
I do not see this as comparable to using the WW exploit (should it actually exist) to stop an exploit; for in this case, we would be using it not to stop an exploit, but to different ends: supporting CGN in their war against GCA.
It also fails the realism/reasonableness check. If two civs cannot reach each other to fight, they shouldn't be able to reach each other to trade units, now should they? |
I did not say it is comparable to using the WW exploit.
I did say it is comparable to GCA transporting it's whole Civilization to another continent.
Using your same argument, GCA should not have been able to run away. But, they did. And we now have to deal with that as does CGN. GWT gets a boost in it's efforts against CGN because of this tactic used by GCA and GWT. Why should CGN not get a chance at the same or simular benefit? Because we are better than that? Please... Just because you don't agree with a rule or a ruling does not mean you should ignore its' use.
quote:
Originally posted by civman2000
. If we want to maintain our credibility as the one who is "right" with regards to the rules, it is best to not do anything questionable.
|
Did we ever say it was 'questionable' for GCA to teleport it's entire Civ? No. In fact, GCA checked with mogoose to make sure it was 'legal' before they did it. mongoose gave them the go ahead. Now, since mongoose has already approved this manuever, as a legal game move, then why can't we do it regardless of how we feel about it. We are only cheating ourselves if we take the moral high road in every instance. Do we want to lose becuase we don't want to use a game mechanic in a simular way another team has been granted permission to use it? Like I said before...Fight Fire with FIRE! 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-01-2004 02:39
).
|