Do we keep Cherbourg?

GodKing · September 1, 2002, 09:10

Look at a map.

-It is next to the new french capitol.
-There are 3 iroquios warriors next to it.
-There is a roman warrior next to it.
-We have no culture, and no defensive units. The closest unit is what, 10 turns away I guess (don't feel like counting now).
-This city is so far away from our center, that it is almost all corruption.

Thus, I pose the question. Do we give it away? Sell it?

To me, it does not appear to be of much benifit at the present. As a mater of fact, it appears to be a draw on our resources (the money we will have to spend to rush culture to keep it from flipping, and the defence we will have to provide). Worse, I see it as a very tempting target to those civs in Abanana Minor (Iroques, Babs, Romans & Russians) because of its isolation and the lack of defence.

So, if we give it away (I do not see anybody with large funds available to pay for it), who to and why? If we can get the persians or germans at the table, we may give it to them for peace. What is the skin off of our b@lls. If we give it to somebody local (down in Abanana Minor), we make them stronger. The babs have already culture swiped one russion city. But they are the weakest production wise. The russions look to be in the long run (if they get their act together) the biggest deterant to the romans, who look to dominate the area.

If we give it to England or Aztec, would the Greeks care? I don't think so, but better safe than sorry. Same goes vice virsa. Would they care if we gave it to the greeks.

I suspect that whoever gets it, will soon lose it to the french culturally.

So, what do you all think. Is this city worth the danger it presents? And if not, who do we give/sell it to? And why?

Shiber · September 1, 2002, 09:53

Currently we're making one gold per turn there. I say keep it, but don't rush a temple or garrisons - it's just not worth it. If it culture-flips then fine, it's not such a big loss anyway.
If an enemy marches into its territory and we ask that enemy to withdraw its unit, and he declares war on us then give it to another civilization, a strong one like Greece. The Greek will then get mad at that enemy for marching into their territory.

If we can trade it away in some peace negotiations for better terms then it's okay too.

GhengisFarb™ · September 1, 2002, 09:56

Why did we choose Cherburg over Grenoble? Cherburg is in the middle of desert and plains(not much better) while Grenoble has grassland and is already connected to our civ by roads so it could get the benefits from luxuries once the French territories are connected?

Personally, I think we should give Cherburg to the Iroquois.

Aggie · September 1, 2002, 10:02

Here's an idea, let it grow to size2, start buling settler, then rush settler and we bring him back to settle.
Aggie

Shiber · September 1, 2002, 10:15

I support Aggie's plan but it'll take 20 turns before the town grows so things could change... if the plan will still be viable in 19 turns (we need to finish the settler before the town grows to 2 citizens or it'll go into civil disorder) then I'll support it.

Aggie · September 1, 2002, 10:20

You knowe could also do this Rouen and move settler so we get iron.

Aro · September 1, 2002, 10:24

I don't know much about the behavior of AI in that level, But Cherbourg is practically asking for a ransack. Iroqs and Romans could not resist... The city has no garrison.
We can keep it, but if those troops (iroqs or romans) march into the city, we shouldn't risk a war with none of them. If we ask them to get out (specially the romans) I bet they will declare war to us. I don't want ANOTHER war right now.
Shiber, do you believe in our ability to keep that city for more that two turns? Without a garrison, with everybody around annoyed with us? I don’t think so.
I would prefer to give the city right before a possible declaration of war, to the Iroqs, for example.
What will happens if we just abandon the city? Could we gain a worker, at least?

GhengisFarb™ · September 1, 2002, 10:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
You knowe could also do this Rouen and move settler so we get iron.

That's a good plan.

Cherburg could move to form Port Vodka.

Shiber · September 1, 2002, 10:48

No Aro, I don't believe we can keep the town. That's why I said we shouldn't invest money in rushing garrisons.
Since the town is still a source of income, I prefer to keep it (meaning not to give it to another civ unless we can get something good in return, say during the peace negotiations with Persia or Germany) but if it's threatened we should give it to another civ instead.
At first I proposed to ask the Romans or the Iroquois to move their units out of our territory if they march in but your proposal sounds a lot better. We can give it to a relatively weak nation such as the Aztecs and since the Romans or Iroquois will still want it anyway they'll get mixed up in the war in Abananaba Major!

BigFurryMonster · September 1, 2002, 11:13

Give it to the Babylonians. They'll invest in culture, causing its borders to expand, and then it'll form an obstruction for anyone wanting to cross from Ab.Minor into our lands. We should do the same to Dijon, in time.

GhengisFarb™ · September 1, 2002, 11:16

I'm all for giving it away, I think that is the soundest strategy for Cherburg. Germany as the owners would be a hoot.

Shiber · September 1, 2002, 11:38

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I'm all for giving it away, I think that is the soundest strategy for Cherburg. Germany as the owners would be a hoot.

What's the rush.
IMHO we should keep it ours (since it provides an income) and only give it to another civilization when it's threatened or when we can get something good for it (e.g. if Germany would be willing to exchange a city or give us a nice sum of gold or gpt in return for Cherbourg).

Kuciwalker · September 1, 2002, 13:41

Give it to the Russians.

Shiber · September 1, 2002, 13:55

I just thought of another reason why we should keep Cherbourg (as I've stated, at least until it's under threat or until we can get a better deal if we give it to another nation): we're switching to Monarchy, right? Under Monarchy each town gives you 2 free support. When we switch from Despotism to Monarchy we'll start paying for some of our military units (under Despotism we receive 4 free support from each town, city or Metropolis. Under Monarchy we only receive 2 from towns), and having Cherbourg means we'll have to pay 2 gpt less.
Currently we have 72 free support. Once we switch to Monarchy we'll only have 36 free support, and since we have 46 units we'll be paying 10 gpt for upkeep. If we didn't have Cherbourg we would have had to pay 12 gpt.

So to sum up, Cherbourg will give us an income of 3 gpt (2 from support and 1 from the town). Therefore we should try to keep it instead of just throwing it away.

DAVOUT · September 1, 2002, 13:56

Do we still consider that the French should not be too much weakened after the war ? Can a city be given without a peace treaty ? If it can, give it back to the French. If it cant, make a settler, that would give a chance to the French to build a new city; they have almost no other room to expand.

DAVOUT · September 1, 2002, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber

So to sum up, Cherbourg will give us an income of 3 gpt (2 from support and 1 from the town). Therefore we should try to keep it instead of just throwing it away.

If we garrison Cherbourg with two units, we are left with one gpt.

Shiber · September 1, 2002, 14:41

I already said not to garrison Cherbourg. If Rome or the Iroquois decide they want it, two units will not suffice to protect it. They may stop the first wave of attackers but we cannot replenish the units (not without emptying our coffers with constant money-rushing of more garrisons).
No, I say do not garrison Cherbourg at all. If enemy troops march into its territory, give it to another nation (preferably one that would be really pissed off at the Romans for standing inside their territory). Until then keep it and enjoy the 3 gpt income.

Panag · September 1, 2002, 15:07

hi ,

things could change with the rush of a policestation and courthouse there , in the near future , who knows what rescource lays there , ....

keep it

have a nice day

DAVOUT · September 1, 2002, 16:59

Shiber,

In giving Cherbourg to the Romans or even the Iroquois (or in letting them take it), you open dangerously a door that will cost a lot to shut.

Shiber · September 1, 2002, 17:31

I did not even think about that for a minute Davout. I'd rather give it to the Russians for instance.

Panag · September 1, 2002, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
I did not even think about that for a minute Davout. I'd rather give it to the Russians for instance.

hi ,

intresting , this could be helpfull to provoke a WW and get rid of some of our enemies , .....

but we should keep it , ....

at least for now , ....

have a nice day

DAVOUT · September 1, 2002, 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
I did not even think about that for a minute Davout. I'd rather give it to the Russians for instance.

I appreciate it, but IMHO, in giving the city you loose control on it, except if you give it to the French.

Shiber · September 1, 2002, 18:25

Yes, we'll lose control of it, obviously. But it's better than to lose in it a war.
Here's the deal: the Iroquois and the Romans have units near Cherbourg. If they march into our territory (now or sometime in the future) this means they want to take it, and I'm afraid there won't be a darn thing we could do about it. Instead of giving them time to declare war against us and then take it, I suggest we give it to another nation, preferably one they'd rather not declare war against. This way we'll lose Cherbourg (which we would have lost anyway) but at least the Romans and the Iroquois won't declare war against us.

Togas · September 1, 2002, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
Here's the deal: the Iroquois and the Romans have units near Cherbourg. If they march into our territory (now or sometime in the future) this means they want to take it, and I'm afraid there won't be a darn thing we could do about it. Instead of giving them time to declare war against us and then take it, I suggest we give it to another nation, preferably one they'd rather not declare war against. This way we'll lose Cherbourg (which we would have lost anyway) but at least the Romans and the Iroquois won't declare war against us.

I agree. We give it away when and if we need to. Until then, it makes us money every turn.

It doesn't have much long term potential, but it could be useful to trade away later on.

We should consider who to give the city to. My hope is that the Germans will start talking to us and we can give the city to them before it is attacked.

--Togas

Shiber · September 1, 2002, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Togas
We should consider who to give the city to. My hope is that the Germans will start talking to us and we can give the city to them before it is attacked.
--Togas

Same here.

ProfessorChaos · September 1, 2002, 21:28

as far as I'm concerned cherbourg is a lost cause it is not helping us and it looks like it is going to be taken over anyway we might as well sell it and get something out of it

Darkness' Edge · September 2, 2002, 00:20

on reading this thread, i think we should dispose of cherbourg...

i like the idea someone (can't remember who) came up with of keeping it for the moment, but as soon as it's menaced, sell it to someone nasty, who'll get mad at them for having troops in their territory.

Panag · September 2, 2002, 04:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
on reading this thread, i think we should dispose of cherbourg...

i like the idea someone (can't remember who) came up with of keeping it for the moment, but as soon as it's menaced, sell it to someone nasty, who'll get mad at them for having troops in their territory.

hi ,

we should keep it , who knows what rescource may lay below , or near it that we need in the future , ...

and we can always disband it later , or give it to a civ in order to provoke a war or worldwar , ...

have a nice day