 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
As you know it, Greece is now at war with England and Aztecs. This thread is dedicated to analyse the sitation, look for the possible outcome, and imagine what profit we could get from it.
1st, this war is likely not to change the maps drastically : Except England, nobody has iron connected. In England, this will lead to archers/horsemen vs. spearmen battles. In Greece, this will probably lead to English swordsmen vs Hoplites.
Overall, the odds are balanced enough for cities not to change hands too quickly. So far, the only change was Newcastle being conquered by the Greeks.
2nd, these coutries are far away from each other. Greece has a RoP with America and Germany, and thus can use their rods to get there more quickly. England has a RoP with Aztecs, but their road network is poor.
Hence, it's more likely the battlefield will take place in England.
Greeks will very probably use this war to trigger their golden age. If it's a good or bad is worth considering : if they trigger their GA now, they'll be a more attackable target in the future (we wouldn't have to fear triggering it).
OTOH, they could use it to strike England and Aztecs with unbearable force, and get much bigger. Worse, they could attack us, while we're completely unprepared : we have only 1 spearman in 8 cities out of 12 (and soon 9 cities out of 13), and all our offensive potential is next to France. They could conquer most of our non-core cities in a breeze with their swarms of 16-shields archers, protected by swarms of 16-shields spearmen.
In the immediate future (a few turns), we shouldn't fear a Greek attack, because they're in anarchy (like England and Russia). But once they're out of anarchy, their reduced corruption/waste from Republic, combined with their GA will make them able to produce units like hell.
How can we profit from the situation ? The profits aren't many. Mostly, we could get cheaper techs, gold and goodwill if we ally. We can't make any gold with a RoP.
For example, we could get Monotheism for 374 Lytons and 1 Lpt if we ally with the Greeks against the English. It's even cheaper (372 Lytons) if we ally against the Aztecs instead. If we ally with Greece against both England and Aztecs, monotheism will be sold 158 Lytons.
But I don't think we should choose between the 2 camps right now : if we side with Greece, Napoleton and Geofront are threatened by troops from England (6 squares NE of Napoleton)
If we side against Greece, well, we could say bye bye to our former American land. Plus, the available techs for trade (monotheism and republic) aren't immediately useful to us, and we could wait a few more turns before buying them, so that they devaluate.
So far, I don't see any advantage to the situation, but I mostly see risks from the Greek golden age. What is your analysis on this ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
If we side against Greece, well, we could say bye bye to our former American land. |
I don't see this. Would you care to back this statement with some facts? How should the Greeks be so strong to be able to fight against 3 enemies and conquer half of them?
quote:
In the immediate future (a few turns), we shouldn't fear a Greek attack, because they're in anarchy (like England and Russia). But once they're out of anarchy, their reduced corruption/waste from Republic, combined with their GA will make them able to produce units like hell. |
Two words. War weariness. They should go for Monarchy but, oh well, it's an AI.
quote:
So far, I don't see any advantage to the situation, but I mostly see risks from the Greek golden age. What is your analysis on this ? |
That is wonderful news. So one of the arguments of the whiners against a later war vs. the Greeks is already poof.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
Some AI moves, I understand : Troy, Amiens, Dijon, Brundisium, we could have done the same. But others seems strange : Leeds is at 8 tiles from Tenochtitlan and 16 from London !
Also, what is the purpose of the Greeks declaring war to England, so far away ? Only because it is the second power on the graph ?
BTW, do we know the Greeks forces sent to take Newcastle ?
Another thing : the Greeks declare war in 390, and two turns later Newcastle is taken : from Ephesus to the border of Newcastle, through Cologne, Konigsberg, Nuremberg, it takes 19 turns for infantry, and 16 for cavalry ; the AI takes care very early of the rivals ! Anyway, it would be interesting to know if they are still sending reinforcements.
Last edited by DAVOUT on 22-08-2002 at 15:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002
time: 02:21
|
|
I’m not a member, but I would like to say something about. I agree with Reddawg: we have our own WoN right now to fight. By other hand, I think we must reinforce our borders, especially because we don’t know what the Germans are planning. They are extremely aggressive, and very close to the conflict. Could they want a piece of this? And what side they would choose?
Btw, Greeks, Aztecs, British and Germans are ALL annoyed with us (as a matter of fact, everybody are annoyed with us, except Iroquois, Persians and… France! And the French will be furious with us in seven or eight turns…) . Scaring…
Edit: The first line in Reddawg's sign says all... (and the second too, in french...  )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
Shiber :
A very interesting analysis. You're right when you say we could profit from others republic by getting more money from our whorings.
Also, I completely overlooked the future stance of Persia in my approach, which will be a very important element.
You're perfectly right when you say we should put as many civs in this war as possible, while keeping the Balance of Power. Doing so is pretty difficult in Civ3, in which we can't simply send a mercenary state (unlikeCiv2). However, I think there is a possible, non treacherous (but dangerous) way :
It's possible the AIs are on the same side, but don't ally with each other : for example, Brits and Aztecs are both against Greece and are RoPed, but they aren't allies.
If such a thing happens in the side we choose (if we choose one), we won't have to be trustworthy to all our "allies" ; because they won't technically be allies, but simply people who fight a separate war against a common foe.
Imagine England now allying with Rome against the Aztecs, while Liz and Monte are still fighting against Greece. That's what we could do.
Of course, this idea is requires to be extremely cautious. By doing this, we'd get as many temporary friends as long-lasting enemies.
The other, less risky method, will not depend entirely on us : we get into the war when it becomes unbalanced, and we drag oter Civs as soon as the other side gets stronger than us (not earlier).
These 2 methods will sadly need money. Much of it. Could we trade with other countries, our dyes could help buying allies. But we won't trade with any other than the Greeks for a long time, it seems.
With our treasury and our military being focused on other things, I suggest we wait before getting dragged in this war. If it lasts, choosing the right side might prove helpful for an easy (but limited) territory expansion and trade-bargains.
Sidenote : whatever the outcome, I think we should sue the French for peace the very same turn we take Paris and Orleans. If we don't, they might ally with one of our neighbours, and make the war last much longer than expected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
I am grateful to the Institute for already starting this discussion. We are now witnessing the first foreign war in our history and how we react will have long lasting effects on our nation.
In my games I often enjoy pulling other nations into a conflict to balance it out, or to wipe out a major foe. There are two drawbacks to this: First, you have to be in the war yourself. Second: Over time (if you do this enough) everyone's reputation plummets. However, the joy of seeing your main rival picked apart by weaker neighbors is delightfully satisfying.
After seeing this war break out, I explored the possibilities but, sad to say, I find little we can sucessfully exploit from this conflict. We have our own war to start. It would be foolish to get involved in two wars at once.
I would like to know what the opinion of the institute is on, perhaps, agreeing to a RoP with the nations involved in this war.
I would also like to know under what changed conditions we should reconsider getting involved in this war. Our war with France may be brief. The old plan was to use our remaining forces against America, but if we finish off France in a matter of turns (like our first American war), should we then consider attacking the Hopilites?
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
Togas : I don't think we can afford to fisih off France, or even to prune it insanely (what we've done with America). What we can is take Paris and Orleans in one turn, and maybe go for one or two other cities to conquer them, before our strike force becomes too weak. The obvious edge of this plan is that we could get Marseilles, that the French won't give away for peace (bc wines in its radius)
However, continuing the conquest after taking Paris and Orleans is pretty risky : we risk a counterattack on Paris (esp. if we move our swordsmen to another city), and we give more time to the French to sign an alliance against us.
Also, we shouldn't forget how useful the American war will be : Americans are'nt powerful at all, and the remnants of our conquest army could easily conquer them. Plus, the Yanks don't have much money, and no tech, to bribe an AI to go against us.
Lastly, compeltely conquering the Yanks will give us fragant valley, i.e more incense for our population and for future trades.
I think securing the wines near Paris (and securing the cities between Apolyton and Paris) will be enough for the French campaign. No need for more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Donal Graeme
I can't talk for long, but three questions need to be answered.
1. Will Germany get into the fight, and on whose side? If I were Bismark I would go with the Greeks, as I will weaken two closer rivals. |
I doubt the Germans will get too involved, but looking at what has happened, the Germans are morelikely to go agaisnt the greeks- they are the transgressors, and spreading like wildfire. Besides, the greeks have no money to pay out, Monty does/will
quote:
2. Will Persia get into the fight, and on whose side? Again, I say they go with the Greeks. |
I am very skeptical about Persia joining the wars on either side.
quote:
3. Will this affect our war with France any? I say yes, as it means that other nations will be les likely to join with France, as they have other things on their mind. Feel free to chip in. |
With our military, I don't think anyone was going to joijn Joan vs. us, any more than anyone helped Abe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Like Reddawg, I think we should currently keep out of this conflict, until our war with France ends, which should be very soon. After we get what we want from France, the situation changes greatly.
First, we will need to accelerate the camapaign vs. America, simply to put those crucial land under our control and out of any other hands, including Abes.
How we hande this war, IF it is still ragging in a few turns, becomes a much more difficult question.
I am not afraid of the Greeks. in just 4 turns we jumped 2 spots on the histograph: our true power is finally showing. The greeks have finally reurn to some sort of military equity with us, though they lack iron. NBow, war with them means upgrading those 5 warriors we have to swordmen, replacing them with spearmen, and getting horsemen (to upgrade to knights later also) to give us moblity. If we get involved then it must be against the greeks. They are obviously the transgressors in this war, and if we want to gain browny points, then becomeing the leaders of a grand coolition against the greeks, not only allying with Elizabth and Monty, but also Bismarck and Xerxes, would give us a great diplomatic cover for territorial expansion. The Greeks by their actions have shown themselves aggressive and transgressors against world peace (so have we, but we are only human!) and obviously we must work to stop them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I think securing the wines near Paris (and securing the cities between Apolyton and Paris) will be enough for the French campaign. No need for more. |
Problem - when we conquer Paris it will have zero culture. Since the French will probably sell the Colosseum they're about to complete before we take Paris and since there are no other cultural buildigs there we'll have to build a temple if we want to reach the wines.
However if things turn out bad for us and we lose too many of our swordsmen then I'll support building a spearman unit first.
EDIT: Oops, sorry, it's OT.
Last edited by Shiber on 23-08-2002 at 00:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
 |
of España
May 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
This is interesting....
After war with France, if we are to gear up for another war, should it be America or Greece?
You indicate your preference for America. I assume because its already weak or because there is not much left of it. Also, there are four incense, one iron, one horse, and potentially very big populations in Boston and Washington. Are there any downsides....? I have trouble thinking of any, so why not then?
Attacking Greece, assuming a plan for Eastern Greece, i.e Sparta and Herakleia and East. (five cities all together), provides only horses and lots of jungle (blech).
So why am I going to propose Greece over America?
Because America is already weak and has no room to grow (there is some land north of them, but to get that they have to vie with the Greeks, Germans and the Aztecs. So, the Americans will be weak in the future too.....but the Greeks, they are a power. Right now, the Aztecs and the Brits are at war with them, which hopefully will wear down their defense and army somewhat, and as mentioned trigger their GA, getting it out of our way.
The question then would be do we want to form an alliance with England and the Aztecs now or wait until after war with France, when such an alliance will probably not be possible? I say wait until after war with France. I think we need time to further build our forces and plan the invasion, and so the Greeks do not have any extra time to prepare for us.
I would say we continue as planned in France with plans to continue our victorious armies north past Marseilles & Rheims, consolidating them, and then send them into Sparta, then Herakleia...cutting off the other three eastern Greek cities, fortify and prepare for a counter attack on Sparta. Meanwhile, we will have to Form a second army in North Apolyton, and send it west into Mycenae, Argos & Delphi. The problem is how much time do we need to form this second Army, and get it to Greece. I would suggest 15-20 to build more reinforcements, finish off the French... too many turns may mean time for the Greeks to rebuild their own forces
Specifics would be a matter for the War Academy experts, of course. But, that would be my thoughts on choosing the Greeks instead of the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
all I really have to offer is that since they're starting wars with each other, the ai is moved out of REX phase (despite a few more settler stacks) and into military buildup. Seeing the large distance involved, the ais might not "use up" all their units in these wars, but instead will have a lot left sitting around when peace is declared - whoever the "winner" is.
That means, as much I 'd like to build up, we can't afford to let our military go slack. And we need not only defense, but a high number of mobile offensive troops - which will be an even better defense since we can cut them down before they hit our cities, and we can take the fight to them.
A strong military will ensure we can keep diplomatic options open. These AIs in their war phase will soon catch up to our present military unit advantage, and then watch as our "friends" start making "requests" of us.
Eventually the basin must be ours if we want hegemony, so whatever advantage we can gain against the greeks we should take. A pile-on Greece with other allies would not be as bad as feared. Even if our allies captured cities, they'd be so corrupt and the cultural reset would make them easy targets for us in the future.
If we used to Americans as allies agains thte Greeks, the GReeks might take some American cities for us, and we could then "liberate" those. Only thing is, America is close enough and weak enough that they might get wiped out.
Are we assuming possession of knights by the time ourwar with Greece comes?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Col. Emil Furst
|
|
The otherspace.
Aug 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
I am of the opinion we should stay out of these foreign wars at all costs. After the French war, and perhaps the destruction of America, we will still be in dire need of an internal build up. Having to fight in this war will only delay our badly needed building phase.
Devoting ourselves to war too often is folly.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-08-2002 12:54
|