 |
What should we research next?
This poll is closed. |
| Warrior Code then Wheel |
   |
19 |
95.00% |
| Something else (post below) |
   |
1 |
5.00% |
| abstain |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Total: |
20 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
wervdon
|
|
I voted to go for it, though my paranoi says that they are probally just offering us this deal to delay our getting either IW or map making or both.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Sigh, we should have gone for The Wheel first.
But the two deals with GCA and CDG (Iron Working and Writing for Warrior Code and The Wheel) are just awesome. I hope they go through.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Warrior Code first? Are we planning to build Archers? Will the visibility of Horses be so useless to us?
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:27
|
|
Trip, Fast Movers attack and retreat if losing, often. Chariots also upgrade to much better units soon, while Archers do not for a long time, and are always inferior to the alternates.
Warrior, 10 shields. 1.1.1
Archers, 20 shields. 2.1.1
Chariots, 20 shields. 1.1.2
Mercs, 30 shields. 2.3.1
Anyone who seriously suggests that we ever build an Archer, not having started as Militaristic and having spent 25 turns pursuing pacifism, is going to face some very serious questions re strategy.
Either go for masses with Warriors, or quality with Mercs. A very few Chariots (horsemen in training) may be useful. Archers are a done deal. Too late for them, and they should be discarded in our planning.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I'm not sure how many Immortals they can muster in the timeframe being discussed here, but let's say it's about 4 (maybe pop-rushed). Those Immortals then have to trek through the Jungle to get to us. By the time they come a-knockin', we'll have 2 (almost 3) Numidian Mercs. ready, and we'll have completed research on Warrior Code anyway (since a number of turns).
This said, I do not think we should waste any more Beakers on the switch. I would have preferred The Wheel first (since it seems more logical), but there is not that big of a difference between the two options to warrant wasting valuable research-time.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
 |
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Trip, Fast Movers attack and retreat if losing, often. Chariots also upgrade to much better units soon, while Archers do not for a long time, and are always inferior to the alternates.
Warrior, 10 shields. 1.1.1
Archers, 20 shields. 2.1.1
Chariots, 20 shields. 1.1.2
Mercs, 30 shields. 2.3.1
Anyone who seriously suggests that we ever build an Archer, not having started as Militaristic and having spent 25 turns pursuing pacifism, is going to face some very serious questions re strategy.
Either go for masses with Warriors, or quality with Mercs. A very few Chariots (horsemen in training) may be useful. Archers are a done deal. Too late for them, and they should be discarded in our planning. |
It's how you use the Archers that matters.
Even if our Horsemen/Chariots ( ) retreat from a battle, the Immortals will wipe them clean the next turn. Keeping them in reserve in the city will lose almost the entire advantage.
Keep in mind, also, that our entire focus for the next 25+ turns will be expansion. I don't see any Chariots or Horsemen in the build queue. It was hard enough to get the 3 NMs I feel we need to fit into it. 
The only time we'd be building Archers/Chariots/Horsemen would be if we found out that CDG was attacking. Chariots are useless, and Horsemen cost as much as NMs, meaning you can't easily pump them out as the Immortal stack approaches.
All that, and we would need to find horses to even make that tech useful. We will have both WC and Wheel by the time our NAP expires with CDG, so we can start building up Chariots from that point, should we feel the need.
Let me say again: Offensive units would only be necessary within the next 30 turns if CDG decides to attack us. If they do, we need to pump out as many units as fast as we can. Mounted units take much more long-term planning to be useful. Also, if we were going to have mounted units, I would want them all at least Veteran or above to maximize their retreat capability.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I hope those sentries will not be too well camouflaged in the Jungle, as they might perish from disease...
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I must look at all this more closely. I am very unhappy to see that we planned and sacrificed for on a granery, and yet will have fewer cities by turn 43 than we would have without one.
|
My reasoning has been as follows:
1. We need a skeleton standing army to stand (pardon the pun) in the way of CDG in case they are planning on rushing us with Immortals.
2. The best time to fit the Numidian Mercenaries that will make up this army (around 3-4 of them) is right after City1 and City2 have been founded.
3. City2 (the River one) builds a Granary immediately, to compensate for the fact that we've slowed our early growth.
4. Once our small army is up and running, we focus on pure growth unless we're certain an attack is imminent. The warmongers will not be happy about this, but we're going to have to build eventually, and sooner is better than later.
So, the idea of getting Mercs. and Archer oh my is a little much at this point. CDG has managed to scare us into a defensive stance. I want to play it safe, but I also want to call their bluff.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
2 settlers by 36. That is not easy to read. |
I would appreciate some suggestions on making it more readable. I would also like to know if the queue is generally very difficult to read, or is adequately functional.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fried-Psitalon
|
 |
Not just another pretty face.
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
(Lengthy Edit, sorry)
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
4. Once our small army is up and running, we focus on pure growth unless we're certain an attack is imminent. The warmongers will not be happy about this, but we're going to have to build eventually, and sooner is better than later.
Dominae |
Actually, I (probably one of the biggest warmongers) support this idea enthusiastically. War is best done when one has a significant advantage; and since we're deciding to forestall the immediate Pillage-and-Occupy possibilities of our Nummies, then absolutely we should use our development advantages, but as you said:
Once we have a small army up and running.
As soon as we have that, we need to grow like mad, and just keep our front line bolstered. If it were up to me, Apolyton would be set on "settler" and only turned off it when it would waste turns waiting for growth. The time wasted building not one but TWO warriors...ugh. Take a risk and accept the undefended capital briefly- it's not like we can't send one of our explorers on a slightly circuitous route to exploration which covers us for the few turns we'd need to get a defender back in there. As a big warmonger, I enthusiastically support aggressive growth- I just think we need to stop playing it so safe that we're afraid to take any risks at all. WE ARE NOT IN A WINNING POSITION RIGHT NOW- we need to take a few small risks or that won't change. I respectfully suggest that while past experiences (Yes, I direct this towards you, Trip) should temper our judgement, it should not rule it to the exclusion of other possibilities.
As far as "fear of the rush" goes, I'm inclined to trust our folks in Intelligence. If they see a sudden rise in the Power rating of Persia (which having a bunch of "1" attack values go to "4" or having new "4" attack values appearing would do) I'm sure they'll holler. Isn't that the whole JOB of our intelligence community? These guys have POWERFUL information tools at their disposal- let's trust them to use them! We'll then have as many turns as it takes them to get to us to prepare- which is a decent number, and that assumes they happen to start their rush EXACTLY when we're completely drained, which, while technically possible, is highly unlikely. This is also why I've been pushing for a slightly more thorough examination of the Persian border- so our math junkies can tell us what their production possibilites are; as I've mentioned to Trip, those hills to the west of our warrior sure would give us a nice look while staying legal..... We keep talking about an Immortal Rush, but I'm not even sure a significant Immortal rush is even POSSIBLE for them yet. They've been researching aggressively and that settler took 30 shields, not to mention the spear (x2?) and warrior we know they've built. There is a mathematical "high end" for what they can have done by now- I think the Intelligence folks combined with a few of our Domestic folks could probably get a REALLY close estimate on what that high end might be. It'd be a pain, but it'd be worth it.
It occurs to me that all of this is kind of "off the topic" but I just wanted to voice strong support as a warmonger for what Dominae is saying- wars are not won on the front as often as they are won before the war even begins... in the infrastructure of the warring nations.
Last edited by Fried-Psitalon on 27-03-2003 at 02:04
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2003 08:31
Lone Archers are losers but Mercs & Archers are a viable choice. Mercs could sometimes win on defence, esp on defensive terrian,but why use 30 shields if all we need in a situation is to attack. In a city that produces 7 shields a turn, we're usually better off building archers in 3 turns than Mercs in 5. 
|