 |
| |
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
As we will very possibly be going to war, in 50 turns, it would be best, for our GA, to not be in Despitism when we do.
Granted, a defensive UU isn't the best for GA triggering, but it still gets the job done. And there will be ample opertunity for that to happen, if and when we go to war.
So, the government discussion was tabled, months ago, because it was just too soon to even consider what government we wanted, little alone as to when.
But the main thing is, that we will very likely, be in a war, around 50 turns from now. So, how do we go about getting that government change and what government do we want?
We are currently planning to research Wheel and WC, after IW. After those, very likely HBR (but might not, if someone else does it for us). CBR is going Philo route (most likely) and that's not far from Republic. CBR also has CB, which we could get via a trade. So that would leave us 2 other techs, before Monarchy. Or do we bit the GA bullet and wait for a Feudalism Government.
Personally, I don't kare much for Pop rushing and I do like to be able to cash shortrush a build, if need be.
discussion now reopened.
E_T
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RegentMan
|
|
Republic's unit support cost will kill us. I'm for monarchy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krill
|
 |
On a cold wet rock, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Dec 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
Republics unit support won't kill us, if the MOI plays the game correctly (adding workers to cities the turn we hit republic), so that most of the core cities are pop 7+, so we get 3 free units per city. Compared to Monarchys 4 free units, but reduced gold intake, a well run republic can usually have just as large an army as a monarchy, but research a hell of a lot faster. When we know the lay of the land better, I will start running my sims up to about run 70 or 80
---
So aim for republic. Personally I would love to try and get CBR and us to go for rep using the free philo tech, but I think that CDZ may do the same thing or just go for philo straight off.
Republic costs 28*30 = 840 beakers.
Monarchy costs 24*30 = 720 beakers.
Both are expensive, and take a long time to research. If we researched all the way there, we would likely just finish research as we finished the NAP, maybe a bit before, if we beelined straight there.
Almost perfect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sirleif
|
|
Berlin
Jun 2005
time: 05:37
|
|
Republic
War during despo is no problem if we hide our UU and don't use enkidu at the front.
for that we have to use our ressources very well - mean if possible we should build up our empire friendly first.
To get into a position that we have 15-20% more res. as the "enemy" .
That sould be possible in 50 turns.
sirleif
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moonbars
|
 |
Glasgow
Aug 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
Republics unit support won't kill us, if the MOI plays the game correctly (adding workers to cities the turn we hit republic), so that most of the core cities are pop 7+, so we get 3 free units per city.
|
Also don't forget that republic is 2 gold per unit, not 1 as in other governments. This quickly becomes a problem. Say you are 40 turns of research away from the next good unit, but your neighbour is a Monarchy or Feudalism, and is pumping out units. Your republic cannot compete - there is a point at which it has to cut research, then stop research, then start using up any gold it has stockpiled, and then it goes bankrupt. The feudalism wipes you out quick style, safe in the knowledge that it's "strong" compared to the republics military.
And disaster - the republic can't even rush it's pop into units the turn that stack pops up on the hills overlooking the capital. Republic should only be entered into if we do not fear a war, and we dont want to win by conquest - i've never seen this happen in an MP game.
quote:
Compared to Monarchys 4 free units, but reduced gold intake, a well run republic can usually have just as large an army as a monarchy, but research a hell of a lot faster. |
What evidence do you have of this? Republic IS the better government, as long as you dont plan on having more than a garrision in each of your towns. If you do, dont switch to Republic..
Last edited by Moonbars on 27-08-2005 at 18:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GodKing
|
 |
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Moonbars
that's a medium sized stack of 50 units.
Unit support for republic would be 60 gold per turn
Unit support for Monarchy would be 20 gold per turn.
|
Yep. Now, getting 10 cities, with 5 of them having a pop of 7+, is not likely to happen for a long time. More realistic is to have 10 cities, with 1 or 2 at 7+(because if they were good population / growing cities, we would be using them to make workers and settlers).
We have an extremely CHEEP defender. It pays to use it. Against an AI, I don't mind leaving some cities undefended on the front line, but not against a human, particularly when it can pop out a 10 shield defender.
Workers also count as unit support. We will probably have 1.5 to 2 workers per city. So, with 10 cities, 50 units to support, that is about 17 workers. Minus defenders (say 1.5 per city, higher in threat areas, lower in the non threat areas, and higher in the core as they have larger pop to keep happy) that is 15 defenders. Now, scouts, we will have 3 of them lets say.
So, of your 10 cities, and 50 units, you have 10 of them that can be used for offensive actions or as a moble reserve. That sucks.
It is clear, monarchy or feudalism. I prefer monarchy as it allows our cities to grow beyond 7 while maintaining good unit support, and is researched much earlier. Republic was a huge mistake in the last game. It crippled the domestic department as we had a huge military I was being forced to maintain while still trying to rex. The fact that most civs burn their own terratory behind them instead of letting it being captured is known, but we had to assume that we would capture it with our slow movers to justify our forces - and we didn't capture sh*t.
This brings up a good point. Would our neighbor be willing to trade slaves? It means slower production, but no unit support. Might be worth looking into sometime in the future prior to us killing them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Krill
|
|
On a cold wet rock, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Dec 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Yep. Now, getting 10 cities, with 5 of them having a pop of 7+, is not likely to happen for a long time. More realistic is to have 10 cities, with 1 or 2 at 7+(because if they were good population / growing cities, we would be using them to make workers and settlers). |
Er, no.
Growth cities are used for making workers and settlers.
Not wonders, nor military units.
You add the workers back to cities that grow slowly but have a high spt to increase their pop quickly. It is more efficient.
And having Apolyton churn out settlers every four turns and the worker pump city providing the majority of the wokers, 5 cities and 5 towns is a conservative estimate.
Close to 5 Cities and 10 or so towns, I reckon, but that number of towns and the pop that they are at is variable.
Last edited by Krill on 28-08-2005 at 00:12
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Moonbars
|
|
Glasgow
Aug 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
Joncnun - exactly my point.
Another point that needs to be understood: If you get into a race to build units with a tribe in another "inferior" govmernment, you will always fail if you are in a republic, because adding extra units cripples first your science, then your lux slider, then you go broke, whislt the other tribe is hardly affected by adding units, and can keep researching away. Making units is not something you can do overnight, even if you cash rush things along, it takes time - and if your republic starts to fall behind a monarchy that is pumping out units, it can play along for a while, but eventually it'll reach the point where adding extra units cripples it.
Plus, consider that when your sci slider gets down to 10 or 20%, any libs you've built start to cost you more gold than they earn in beakers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moonbars
|
|
Glasgow
Aug 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by N35t0r
That's why the first strike is decisive.
If we revolt just as our troops start moving out towards them, and the only government we have availiable is Republic, they will probably not suspect that we are going to attack them.
Furthermore, if Republic is the only availiable government, then they'd need to research a bit before switching to monarchy, which would mean that they would need to switch to anarchy in the middle of a war. |
I fail to see how this relates to the discussion - can you explain for me?
They'll not expect us to attack them if we are going the republic route for one simple reason - not many people would consider republic as a suitable government from which to mount a war.
What happens if our inital attack is a success, and we capture a few cities ( we are talking about having 10 cities, they will have the same, or ballpark) but oh no! they beat us to the SoZ, or whilst we are in anarchy, they pop rush a few swords and turn the tables. Then we are a republic, that's just gotten into a war with a civ that has 6 ot 7 cities left, that is likely out exploring with curraghs long before us, and will possibly be recruiting allies long before us. We are likely in trouble - unless our inital low unit, possibly GA, Republic can get us a nice tech like Feudalism well before they get it - a possiblity. but if we at this point get drawn into the unit building game, we will not come out well.
If we suprise attack them and they are not ready in ancient times, sure, we'll likely win. Govmerent would be despotism for us both in this scenario. We win, we switch to Republic - no problem until we need to build units in the future, as is likely, when we discover we face an alliance of two tribes from another island pumping out units & equal to our tech (they can trade, whilst we have elimiated our only trading partner) Again in this scenario, Republic is the loser.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
|
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Moonbars
other big questions of the day include "Why had moonbars spelt "many" with a "t" twice in a post?  |
Because you had one too many Moonbeams??...
Seriously, Any sim should first look at where we are now, give us some conjectured terrain (conservatively, based on what we know and how map generation works) and see where we would be at, pop wise when we change.
We want to see several things, with this conjectured sim:
1) what forces we can build up, for a possible war
2) what infrastructure (especially in known areas) we have done.
3) What number of workers we have out, doing that infrastructure work
4) What number of workers we want (in % to number we will possibly have) to addd to cities, around the change my projection is not that many, with stuff still to be done
5) some of those cities will have been founded sooner than later, so their pop is also variable, depending on time of founding..Also, if workers being added, how many needed where?
Remember, that we are looking at PROJECTIONS of possibilities, depending on what we currently know. For one thing, city placements that you have might be changed, What we want are figures, based on our potential, for which is the better goverment. This isn't hard eco planing, but a very loose figuring, to get to where we will be in about 50 turns, and what we will be able to support/accomplish, depending on the type of government.
Basically, we want to know that, if we have sufficent forces to go to war, to be able to build infrastructure, and to be able to field possible War Settlers (and the number of worker that will be release to MoW for war useage); what will our economic health be like, if we were to change to a Republic or Monarcy Government (with some projections), This assumes that we don't capture any cities, that we don't capture any workers. Just straight up.
Is would it be better, atleast from first glance, to be in what government? We want to get the best from any possible GA, so it can't be Despotism that we look at, although having a comparison, at least under non-GA conditions, would be nice to have. Although, I know that we can work enough to make sure that we don't have a Despotic GA.
But we need some concrete figures, to help present our arguments. Just saying that we can do this and that isn't good enough, as the realitiies often overrule the wishes and what we can want to actually accomplish, in a particular time frame.
but having a basis, even though not entirely accurate, when that time does come, to draw off of, is what is needed.
MoI E_T
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-08-2005 11:44
|