Apolytonian Geographic Society- Back to Business - Page 3

Panag · December 31, 2002, 15:43

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
They don't have any cities bordering the ocean.

hi ,

"WE SHOULD GIVE" , .....

have a nice day

Panag · December 31, 2002, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
We've already taken over (and razed) the only coastal German city.

hi ,

"WE SHOULD GIVE" , .......

have a nice day

Kuciwalker · December 31, 2002, 16:07

Yea, BUT WHY SHOULD WE?!

I thought we were going to destroy them anyway.

Panag · December 31, 2002, 16:21

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Yea, BUT WHY SHOULD WE?!

I thought we were going to destroy them anyway.

hi ,

trade , let them build a naval force so they can fight wars , ....

we should make sure that every civ has at least one , possibly two seaside cities , its going to be intresting to see a couple naval battles , and our navy can use them for practice , so that we shall only have elite naval units , ...

have a nice day

Aro · January 1, 2003, 09:08

Our secondary targets are here.
A preview:

Vlad Antlerkov · January 1, 2003, 10:58

Did anyone else notice that the Roman-Russian border isn't what it was? (Go to the 1295 map, then the 1305 map-- Vladivostok is missing in the second one.)

Also, this is trivial, but why are some of the workers near Jerusalem working tiles outside of the radius of any city?

Kuciwalker · January 1, 2003, 11:40

Panag, since the point of fighting a naval battle is to help us eliminate them, it is more effective to just eliminate them than to give them harbors so we can have a MORE DIFFICULT TIME eliminating them from the sea. DUH.

Panag, there is NO POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE TO KEEPING THEM ALIVE AND WITH A PORT. NONE.

pikesfan · January 1, 2003, 12:32

What would be the point of a port on that giant inland sea, anyway?

Kuciwalker · January 1, 2003, 13:33

There wouldn't be one. Panag just thinks there would be.

Panag · January 1, 2003, 14:59

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
There wouldn't be one. Panag just thinks there would be.

hi ,

well its not hard to read some post's , ......

have a nice day

Panag · January 1, 2003, 15:01

Quote:

Originally posted by pikesfan
What would be the point of a port on that giant inland sea, anyway?

hi ,

WHO talks about a port on the inland sea , WHO

have a nice day

Panag · January 1, 2003, 15:08

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Panag, since the point of fighting a naval battle is to help us eliminate them, it is more effective to just eliminate them than to give them harbors so we can have a MORE DIFFICULT TIME eliminating them from the sea. DUH.

Panag, there is NO POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE TO KEEPING THEM ALIVE AND WITH A PORT. NONE.

hi ,

thats what you thing , we should let them be alive for the simple thing that is called money , money talks and BS walks , its that simple , ......

money so we can build what ever we want , money to pay for what ever we want , simple

we shall not have a difficult time killing of a couple ships , duh , how many ships could they build with one or two seaside cities , duh , and who knows what the future may hold , duh , and it would be nice to give our ships elite status before they are faced with a far bigger navy , duh

have a nice day

Kuciwalker · January 1, 2003, 15:09

HOW MUCH MONEY WILL THEY HAVE WITH TWO CITIES?!

We could get MORE money out of those cities. Panag, just shut up.

roadcage · January 1, 2003, 15:47

Forget about the bruhaha of the inland sea!

Quote:

Did anyone else notice that the Roman-Russian border isn't what it was? (Go to the 1295 map, then the 1305 map-- Vladivostok is missing in the second one.)

This is what is interesting about the maps. I confess. I was so absorbed with the northern front that this little gem of intelligence didn't register.

It now looks attractive to take Syracuse soonest and slip a settler down to where Vladivostok was. This will allow us to downsize Caesar without offending Catarina.

I know that we have no plans developed for this situation, but we need to be opportunistic here.

Thanks Vlad for pointing this out. I sense a special interest of the personal kind here. Vlad/Vladivostok

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

E_T · January 1, 2003, 16:04

It was noticed during the chat. You must have been on a timeout when we had noticed it.

We need to look at getting at least 2 more settlers built, so we can take advantage of both Cologne & Vladivostok. But that's up to the DM. We currently have 1 Settler, but he's presently headed to Frankfurt.

E_T

Panag · January 1, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
HOW MUCH MONEY WILL THEY HAVE WITH TWO CITIES?!

We could get MORE money out of those cities. Panag, just shut up.

hi ,

TWO sea side cities , that cant be to hard to read above can it

and could you keep your nice language to yourself

have a nice day

Panag · January 1, 2003, 16:15

Quote:

Originally posted by E_T
It was noticed during the chat. You must have been on a timeout when we had noticed it.

We need to look at getting at least 2 more settlers built, so we can take advantage of both Cologne & Vladivostok. But that's up to the DM. We currently have 1 Settler, but he's presently headed to Frankfurt.

E_T

hi ,

we really have to get ourselfs a small stock of settlers ,
so that we are prepared when the events and needs for them arise

have a nice day

Kuciwalker · January 1, 2003, 16:27

Panag, however much money we happen to get from them when they have two sea cities, we would get AT LEAST as much if we owned those cities.

Shiber · January 1, 2003, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
we really have to get ourselfs a small stock of settlers ,

You said only days ago that we need to have 10 settlers. How many settlers do you really think we need?

IMHO we need to have 3 settlers on standby at all time as long as the war continues, but no more than that. More would simply be wasteful IMHO. What is your opinion?

Panag · January 1, 2003, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber

You said only days ago that we need to have 10 settlers. How many settlers do you really think we need?

IMHO we need to have 3 settlers on standby at all time as long as the war continues, but no more than that. More would simply be wasteful IMHO. What is your opinion?

hi ,

well actually since we started it was called to put some on the side , ten seems a good figure and should do it , it would cover what we need in terms of building new cities on "vacant" land , we could send a couple overseas if the need is there and we would have a couple to join cities that we keep but that have a large population of foreigners , for this we could always use workers , but if they are all occupied with works , ...

we dont have to keep ten at all times , but it seems that that number would be wise to keep on hand

have a nice day

Vlad Antlerkov · January 1, 2003, 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage
It now looks attractive to take Syracuse soonest and slip a settler down to where Vladivostok was. This will allow us to downsize Caesar without offending Catarina.

There's one problem. The tile in question where Vladivostok lay is in Russian territory, so we can't settle right on the former site-- and taking or razing Syracuse would put it further behind Russian lines. (OTOH, anything that helps Russia helps us right now; Russia will likely resettle the site as soon as they can.)

Quote:

I know that we have no plans developed for this situation, but we need to be opportunistic here.

Thanks Vlad for pointing this out. I sense a special interest of the personal kind here. Vlad/Vladivostok

None exists, in this case. I had noticed that Roman territory was divided into two parts, its main territory, and its northern holdings (Syracuse and, until recently, Brundisium). The fall of Vladivostok connected Syracuse with the rest of Rome (though the overland route still goes through Russian lands).

E_T: I didn't see Arnelos mention it in the reports, which is why I brought it up. I wasn't present at the turnchat, and only learned of this by looking at the maps.

Epistax · January 1, 2003, 20:39

great

Aro · January 2, 2003, 23:23

I'll be absent till monday. Family trip. I'll be with my laptop, but no cable modem...

Only few connections, one post or another...

roadcage · January 3, 2003, 01:02

Quote:

There's one problem. The tile in question where Vladivostok lay is in Russian territory, so we can't settle right on the former site-- and taking or razing Syracuse would put it further behind Russian lines. (OTOH, anything that helps Russia helps us right now; Russia will likely resettle the site as soon as they can.)

Look closely at the Save file. The original Vladivostok tile (the isolated rr tile) is on a single tile of neutral territory between Rome and Russia. Or atleast it is on my machine. After the strange happenings with the popcorn save, who knows.

We need to get an rop with Russia, Railroad thru their territory to the original Vladivostok tile and claim it with a settler/Infantry pair. Continue rr to minimize the gap to Syracuse. This will make Syracuse reachable with Cavalry this turn. Furthurmore, I sense that Syracuse is under defended much like Brundesium was and we need to press on in the southern theatre. Since our Artillery in the Northern theatre is misapplied, there will be no suitably weakened cities in Germany this turn and our Cav reserve needs something productive to do. The field Roman and Babylonian Field units near Syracuse as well as Syracuse itself appears to be that 'something'.

Germany is no longer a tech threat as they have secumbed to Communism. They have never been a real military threat, so our forces will be more effective by inflicting pain on Rome.