 |
Do we attack "The Warning"?
This poll is closed. |
| attack it |
   |
1 |
6.25% |
| do not attack it |
   |
14 |
87.50% |
| abstain |
   |
1 |
6.25% |
| Total: |
16 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Kloreep
|
 |
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:37
|
|
I have the save open and I'm looking at how much damage I think taking their capital would do.
Assuming The Warning has a granary (and it likely does; the flood plains wheat brings the city up to +5 FPT, perfect for two-turn growth with a granary) we would deal a blow to their major food pump. However, there are quite some unknowns here. For one thing, is there another city out there that can work the wheat tile? (We don't see any, but the wheat tile itself only just came in to our sight.) If so, does it too have a granary, or one in the works? We don't know the answer. I'd bet there is a city that can share the tile, though, although it probably doesn't have a granary. Plus, they can always re-establish The Warning when we're gone and re-build. It would be a setback to their food production, nothing more.
However, The Warning is also their capital. By taking it we'd force it somewhere else (out of the current cities, Partytown) and change their whole corruption layout. This would certainly hurt cities they had founded near The Warning with the assumption they'd be low corruption; but we don't know what gains might counterbalance that. If the capital moved to Partytown, Nealcain's village, an up and coming city from the looks of it, would be fairly low corruption. And the cities on the losing end of the deal would only lose 3 or 4 tiles of distance; sort of like if Hypnos or Poseidon's Harbor got the corruption of Naked Aprodite; bad, but not crushing if the cities are large enough.
So, those are the two benefits I see to taking out The Warning. Nothing that will topple their empire, but it will shake it.
Now, what about consequences?
When CDG sees The Warning drop off the demographics screen, they're going to guess something happened. And then PAL is going to TELL them what happened. And tell them about our little alliance against CDG that we just tore up. The latter may not be believeable, but if they believe we tore up PAL's capital... how did we get forces right next to their capital, anyway?
They'd probably still want to team up with us anyway. We've turned our backs on PAL, clearly we need them; and they must realize they need us. It would be us and CDG against PAL. How that would turn out, I'm not exactly sure. We don't really know PAL's industrial capability; CDG's is measly at present. It might not be pretty. We may have Hoplites, but PAL might the traits and the early-game free settler to overcome that, and defense, however excellent, can only be in one place at a time if they bring in the horses.
I'm still thinking it over, but at present, I'm thinking no. I don't think a war against PAL would turn out well for us.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Octavian X
|
 |
Probably buried under piles of Literature, Biology, or Government homework
Jan 2002
time: 23:37
|
|
No. Pure and simple. We'd end up at the end of a CDG-PAL alliance, and be colored as the bad guys for the rest of the game for not only decieving CDG, but for breaking a long term alliance with PAL. If we were to survive this round, the reputation would carry over into round two.
GCA/GWT in the PTWISDG is my case in point. After GCA backstabbed CFC, and GWT took GCA under it's wing in full knowledge of what they'd done, both were villanized in the eyes of many Apolytonians.
Granted, under the circumstances, it's an interesting oppertunity, but it's not even close to being one that's worth it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
I'm voting yes.
First off, I did not factor in diplomatic things with CDG. I assume those better at diplomacy than myself could smooth this over in such a way as to paint PAL as an aggressor (which they really are). We can utilize several things to make the diplomatic landscape favor us. PAL had nearly half the continent to themselves, while CDG and Apolyton have to share land in the south. PAL Aggressively REXed in such a way as to cut off exploration/colonization. PAL has been acting icey towards them (and we can say us, if you feel like lying).
As for our reputation in the next game, come on. It will teach people not to let us explore their lands with an empty damn capital, which I assume is common sense. I don't see this as a "unforgivable diplomatic action" that will follow Apolyton into the next game. I simply see it as a comon sense attack.
By taking PAL's capital, we will destroy what I believe is their food pump. They have been expanding like weeds across this continent, and this will definately slow them down. If we take The Warning and raze it immediately, we'll not only destory 4 population points, the invested production (probably an almost-done settler) and the Granary (thats more than likely built there), it would also move their capital (presumably West), making them overall more corrupt.
If we wish to be, shell we say, ballsy, we could try to hold it. If the resistance ends quickly we can poprush a Hoplite, which would make taking back the city quite an investment.
As for the homefront, we will soon have our second Hoplite. We have a 40-turn plan that gets us a sizeable force, with many Hoplites in it. I am fairly sure that we can defend ourselves, the only question is wether or not we can move offensively on PAL after their capital is taken and razed/retaken.
To accurately answer that, we'd have to have another MI timeline. As I've said before this would throw our current plans into upheaval. It is not to be entered into lightly, but we should consider it fully before dismissing it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
I voted no before I even read the thread. At first I thought this was a joke, but I see its serious.
They shouldn't leave their capital undefended, but it speaks volumes for how much they trust us. It speaks volumes for how strong of a reputation Poly has for being honorable. It will likewise speak volumes for many, many games to come if we take advantage of that trust which is based solely on our reputation to this point.
No, its not worth it from that stand point alone.
I also don't think its worth it strategically (we are better off being allies than going to war now), but that argument doesn't even matter because even if it meant losing this game, I personally would still vote no to stabbing an ally displaying that much trust for us in the back like this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
I think w should send a notice to PAL about their undefended capital and make them believe us more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
|
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kloreep
This is exactly why I think betraying PAL would be fatal. This is definitely going to happen if we betray them; their economy is superior. |
I don't see how our current course of action is any different.
At this rate, we will crush CDG in less than 10 turns, taking the majority of it for ourselves I'd imagine. Then PAL would have horsemen right near our damned cities. You honestly expect them to march them home and sit there for the majority of the rest of the game? praying the other continent kills themselves?
It makes little sense to me. In my eyes, we are offering ourselves up to PAL. We're saying "Oh sure, we'll help you kill those guys, why don't you bring down your massive FASTER army anyway?"
I forsee a PAL sneak attack sometime during, or shortly after the war with CDG, and I don't think we can win a war if they get the first major shot in. Their horsemen may be weak compared to our Hoplites, but they're fast as hell. They could easily pillage any roads we build to CDG after the war, making the walk home for our units insanely slow. They could screw over our iron colony idea. They could do so much crap it makes me sick.
Imagine taking one og CDG's cities (say Minnesota), and then having PAL swoop in and kill all the wounded swordsmen that did the attack. That would be a devistating blow to us, and it's entirely concievable.
I don't like their logic. Either of us could take on CDG alone. Bringing two *big* armies right next to eachother is NEVER a good thing.
edit: I can see the points for not attacking PAL now. I do not agree but I am vastly outvoted, and such is a democracy. This rant for the PAL-huggers in general.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
Realisticly, if we attacked PAL, we'd have CDG as our ally. PAL has treated CDG very poorly and CDG sees us as their friends, while PAL has done nothing but intimiate them. If we went into a diplomacy "battle" to see who ended up with CDG, we'd beat out PAL easy. Other than FP, they're abissmal at it.
The problem, however, is that stabbing PAL would turn them psychotically against us, and we would be forced to eliminate them in this round, as any future ideas of cooperation would be burned, and they would burn us publicly at every opportunity.
CDG is not a strong ally. PAL is a very strong enemy. While I'm loathe to trust them and while I completely understand Uber's concerns about them stabbing us after the CDG war (that's what I might do in their shoes), continued cooperation is in our best interest IF they remain trustworthy...
But let us always remain watchful.
--Togas
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-06-2004 05:26
) we manage to fend them off, realize that very few other teams will be willing to work with us in this game and the next game.
too much at stake.
.
|
|