Turn Update - Page 15

Rokossovky · July 13, 2003, 01:12

Hey all,

Back after a bit! It looks as though this forum is getting rather... sparse. Well anywho, I really have been lacking in time lately, so I won't be having time to go searching through all of the other threads. If you want my expert opinion (which of course you do

), post anything important in here and I will respond. I think kody is taking the turns now, I trust he will keep us all informed with screens and turn update descriptions and any new relevations here on this thread (plz). Um, googlie, since i don't think anyone else is interested at the time, I can play by e-mail with you? give me 24 hours a turn we can do it. I will PM you the e-mail address to use.

Regarding the drones.... they are experienced players and will not hesitate to take us out if it appear in their best interest, we SHOULD NEVER let our defenses down. Also, we should seriously consider ~~trying~~ doing the same to them. But as for now, is say go for full pact, and split up the research so we can keep up with the loony or they will ownz0r us when we encounter them. Watch their troop movements, and INSIST they keep off our continent. If they move onto it we need to interpret that as a prelude to war.

- Rokossovky

Rokossovky · July 13, 2003, 01:18

Another post, I am resigning from all of my positions in government other than Marshal (I think that just means PAC... but I can't be sure).

More about the drones. Googlie, I was just reading your post regarding the naming, lol, interesting... though I didn't know naming it actually put any type of claim to it in our name (as they could just build a base there regardless of what it is called). I am hopeful they will want to go with some sort of treaty or pact however, in which case we can demand that one of the terms be that they stay off our continent. We would agree to stay off theirs likewise. What does everything think of this?

- Rokossovky

Snowflake · July 14, 2003, 09:41

Marshal, would you please look at what Kody has drafted in this post?

Googlie · July 14, 2003, 11:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Rokossovky
though I didn't know naming it actually put any type of claim to it in our name (as they could just build a base there regardless of what it is called

Very true - it's analagous to the US planting its flag on the Moon

It doesn't alter the game's mechanincs at all - indeed they can put a base there with impunity - but it does give "bragging rights' so to speak.

But you should consider moving that colony pod further - to the 8:20 tile, and backfilling with your next pod(s), just to establish your absolute right to the Mesa

G.

Kody · July 14, 2003, 17:45

It should be okay as long as we keep an eye on their foil and have a unit ready to remove the city if they decide to break the terms of the pact or treaty. Sovernity of our own land is something I'm going to be putting in.

Kody

Rokossovky · July 15, 2003, 09:32

Quote:

But you should consider moving that colony pod further - to the 8:20 tile, and backfilling with your next pod(s), just to establish your absolute right to the Mesa

I agree, that would be the prudent thing to do. Send it to the south of our scout, right behind it. Use the scout as a block against their scout (should the worst happen), and then as it moves to the southwest, pair that scout up with it. Also, you should move our two rovers to the northern shore to patrol, and move that one scout to the west back to the main area , prefferably to guard just north east of the sunny mesa, by the valley (send it on a looping, but short patrol). Also, see keep exploring that choke point with our southern scout, who knows, we may find some land for the drones afterall (or for ourselves). Also, we need to put serious consideration to upgrading our scout patrol to the light laser infantry I created in the design workshop (oh, what a complex design it was, :P~~). They are just laser infantry I guess (no, I am not going to do calculations), maybe 150 ec's to upgrade? Regardless, it'll more than we have now. Need to start saving our money. Also, we NEED to make doctrine flexibility a priority after PN, as well as synthmetal armour. Hopefully we will be in a pact with the drones and we can get them to research the base upgrades/useless stuff. We will need these techs even if we don't go to war with the drones, as if they do accept pact we will have to go war with someone else right away to help them get land. Right, I've gtg, ttyl later.

HongHu, Re: The conditions. They are good... other than I don't quite think we should go with a voting formula for interfaction decisions. It just needs to be each faction agrees to it using their own governmental structure.

- Rokossovky

(googlie you get my message)?

Snowflake · July 15, 2003, 10:05

I think we agreed that that voting formula needs to be changed to both faction have to agree.

For the territory right of Suny Mesa, I kind of think Kody was right in saying we can destroy their base if they dare to set up one. Isn't that right?

Kody · July 15, 2003, 10:05

Personally I think they're just whinging about land.

Googlie from his comments has put alot of thought into the map. I doubt that they'll be seriously disadvantaged by territory. That's why I've been rather liberal with promises. However, I've still been careful that we can fulfil the promises if push comes to shove.

We still got three turns to decide where the colony pod goes. In 4 turns voltigrad grows and well have another colony pod to finally claim the rest of the land. Personally I think that we're better off sticking with the original plan. If they decide to break our treaty or pact it's better they do it now when they're ill equipped to conquor our continent. Also we're going to be losing a large turn advantage moving the colony pod so far out.

Remember that the 2nd scout is required back at voltigrad as there's no units defending that city currently. If they move backwards our rover will arrive in time to destory them if they try anything tricky. I think 1 scout should be enough to escort their scout out if they decide to be peaceful. I agree one rover should head north. The other rover I intend to use for tracking that foil.

Which is to the north anyway. Our reasons are different but the only real difference with unit movement is voltigrad gets its defender back as it's currently empty.

Unless we go to war with the drones, I want to see non-linear mathematics first before making prototype units. 2 attack at this time only useful for defending ourselves, not launching an attack. When we prototype 4 attack weapons 2 attack is automatically prototyped too.

Kody

Kody · July 15, 2003, 10:09

After that issue was first raised you notice that either faction leader can change the issue to both factions had to agree.

Also people failed to notice that voting formula only applied to joint-faction wars and jointly-ending wars. I was hoping that the hive and drones could have a unified front when dealing with enemies.

Kody

Snowflake · July 15, 2003, 10:49

Marshal I think you said this is the only thread you'll be checking. But if you could please also check the Drones Negotiation thread because lots of important discussions have been included there.

Snowflake · July 15, 2003, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Kody
After that issue was first raised you notice that either faction leader can change the issue to both factions had to agree.

Also people failed to notice that voting formula only applied to joint-faction wars and jointly-ending wars. I was hoping that the hive and drones could have a unified front when dealing with enemies.

Kody

Kody, I have noticed this modification but I still think it is not necessary for the first step. We can not tell Drones how they should make their decision. Plus a joint vote where you need to count who's who (drones vs hives) is kind of difficult to manage. And then the result will be override by the second step. Why go through all the trouble to get something that won't count?

Kody · July 15, 2003, 11:01

I assumed there are cases that aren't that important and joint voting can be used there. While it means very little in decision in making with the amended pact, I left it in there as joint voting might help unity between the two factions. Maybe that's a silly idea trying to blur the line between our factions a little. The problem is without joint voting we will discuss the issues seperately in our private forums and then go up to the other faction expecting them to think the same way as us. Joint voting would help open dialogue between the factions.

Kody

Snowflake · July 15, 2003, 11:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Kody
I assumed there are cases that aren't that important and joint voting can be used there. While it means very little in decision in making with the amended pact, I left it in there as joint voting might help unity between the two factions. Maybe that's a silly idea trying to blur the line between our factions a little. The problem is without joint voting we will discuss the issues seperately in our private forums and then go up to the other faction expecting them to think the same way as us. Joint voting would help open dialogue between the factions.

Kody

I would agree that joint discussion in a bi-faction board is very helpful so that people can see each other's point. But joint voting may not be needed.

Kody · July 15, 2003, 11:32

Joint voting forces people out of their own forum to write arguments and effect the other team's votes. Joint discussion can result in people just performing a flame war as you're not really trying convince the other faction about anything. Joint discussions with opposing teams can just degrade to people trying to prove themselves right by how loud they are.

Kody

Snowflake · July 15, 2003, 12:07

Well won't a vote make them want to shout louder? Anyway let's just hope it is not joint discussions with opposing teams, instead it will be peaceful exchange of ideas.

Googlie · July 15, 2003, 20:07

The Drones now have the turn (by e-mail, at around 13:00 PST tiday), so maybe it will spur them on to do something re their negotiations with you

G.

Kody · July 15, 2003, 20:45

I know where you got that moat idea from googlie

Kody

Googlie · July 15, 2003, 21:20

Hmmm - yeah, Darsnan and I have swapped many a map idea (also got some good ones from Black Sunrise - remember him?)

Kody · July 15, 2003, 21:28

Sorry I don't.

I've only been reading a random posts at civgaming, while apolyton was down today.

Kody

Rokossovky · July 15, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Remember that the 2nd scout is required back at voltigrad as there's no units defending that city currently.

umm... last turn I played st. voltairesburg was the only one without defence... you may want to check up on that Kody.

Quote:

Unless we go to war with the drones, I want to see non-linear mathematics first before making prototype units. 2 attack at this time only useful for defending ourselves

Kody, remember, we WILL be defending ourselves if we go to war anytime soon. They are the only ones with transport capability, so until we get doctrine:flexibility, we will only be able to fight a defense war. Thus, we should upgrade our scouts soon to laser light infantry (basically just as a deterant to agression), then, when we get synthmetal, upgrade those to the synthmetal laser squads. This will provide all the defence we need for a while, even if we do go to war. When we get synthmetal it would actually be a good idea to replace all of our synthmetal laser squads (or whatever you want to call them), with synthmetal garrisons at the bases then use the squads as a standing army for an agressive war to help the drones in expansion. Even if we don't use them right away, we can keep them around and upgrade to impacts when we get them. (I don't know how this will play with the hive though, I am used to having energy grids and I go wild with solar collectors when I play so I always have lots of ec's floating around, use it to boost production and the such). But, my main point, for now until we get flexibilty, is we will be on the defensive. Even after that, for a while, they will still have the transport advantage, and we will be on the defensive. So, we need to concentrate on the defensive. lol

Re: Colony Pod.... meh, do what you want. Googlie's suggestion sounded intelligent. It would put a concrete claim to the land soon and dispell any ideas they had of taking it, even if we are in a treaty.

- Rokossovky

EZRhino · July 16, 2003, 21:50

I agree, possesion is three fourths of the law. Personally I think we should make a poll, map included.

Kody · July 16, 2003, 23:02

I think we should counter what the drones do. Build decisions on if the drones do this and this then we do this. Rather than deciding on moves based on assumptions that we can find out later. If the treaty goes through we will waste 5 turns moving a colony pod to a site that is half the value.

Also there will only be a short delay before we claim the land with the next voltigrad colony pod (going to rush it). Not enough time for them to claim the land first I think.

Kody

Kody · July 17, 2003, 23:15

For next turn....

*note* - Base B4 has been moved north, north-west of displayed position. This is so it can use the mine and the farm making it a good colony pod generator.

Unit Moves
F1 - Move to Claire’s Deep Passages, “Ctrl-H”, north-west, “O”, cancel action (heading to new site B2 to build sensor)
F2 - Move to B3 to build sensor.
F3 - Move to B4 and build sensor.
F4 - When finish road - maybe move near B1 and start building mines and roads on the minerals.
F5 – When finished forest, move north and build another forest.

C1 - Colony pod moves to B1 and builds base.
C2 - Colony pod move to B2 and builds base.

S1 - Scout moves into Claire’s Deep Passages and protects them.
S2 - Scout Follows DS1 for a turn then goes to B1 base to protect new city.
S3 - Scout moves east one square. To intercept DS1if it tries to follow river north.

R2 - Predicted position of DT1 (drone transport) will be south, south-west of current position. Send Rover west then south-west to locate the drone transport.
R1 - Can either explore north or explore south. Suggested that Rover will explore south if the drones’ transport is heading that direction. North if the drones transport has not been found in the expected place.

Drone unit monitoring
DS1 - Predicted move north-west, north-west, north-west. Should be in fungus. Following turn either scout S3 or Rover R2 will be able to find it, if it is following the river. If it has not been following the river it couldn’t have gotten far.
DT1 - It was suggested to the drones to explore in the opposite direction of our bases. They appear to be following that suggestion. The transport was not north of current location of S3. The channels is one square wide so they don’t have much room to manoeuvre. It is assumed their transport is heading south since it was not found to the north. Rover R2 should be able to locate it next turn.
NOTE - If the drones pact all we need to do is monitor the west coast for colony pods. The scout will automatically be sent back to base if they break pact.

City Production
City “Claire’s Hall of Discipline” - producing colony pod 8 turns till completion, 8 turns until growth. Growth expected in 4 turns if drones give us Planetary networks and we switch to planned. The colony pod is destined for base site B3. The city will then construct a scout which will be moved to help police “Claire’s deep passages”.

City “Claire Hole of Aspiration” - finishes former next turn, will switch to colony pod. 9 turns till growth. Growth expected in 4 turns if drones give us Planetary networks and we switch to planned. Colony pod will go to base site B4. This city will construct a crawler that will be used at “Claire’s Deep passages” to crawl minerals from the mine nearby.
City “Claire’s Deep passages” - currently working on colony pod. Growth in 4 turns, may rush by colony pod. This colony pod will go to base site B6. The city will then begin work on the special project WP.

New city at B1 – in 2 more turns will rush a former. Former will farm west of B1 site. Then former will proceed to B6 site and build sensor array. City B1 will construct more colony pods.
__________________________________________________ __
Are there are arguments against base sites B4 and B5, or against base site B6. I also want to hear comments on long term former usage too. I'm trying to plan several turns in advance rather than a turn by turn basis. So if you want to make adjustments try and get them in early.

Kody

Snowflake · July 18, 2003, 01:07

Why don't we do turn chat any more? It used to be so much fun!

Vev · July 18, 2003, 01:08

I keep having the misfortune of being in the wrong time.

Kody · July 18, 2003, 01:17

Pre-Turn chat!!!!!!

Kody

Vev · July 18, 2003, 01:36

I still have the misfortune of being the in wrong time for pre-turn chats.

Snowflake · July 18, 2003, 09:52

I still would like to be involved in the turn chat though if it was at all possible.

Kody · July 18, 2003, 10:00

Well since at the moment we can pretty much predict everything that is going to happen. I don't see why we should hold the turn up for several hours. The drones currently sort out their moves beforehand. I reckon we should do the same.

Also I've noticed deciding things during the turn chat tends to get bad decisions. That farm near kommie city was a big waste of former time and was a result of a snap decision made during the turn chat.

We should have formered the land south of kommie city.

If it was done beforehand more people would have offered their ideas and we can have our 2nd thoughts and adjust the next turn.

Kody

Snowflake · July 18, 2003, 10:01

Ouch looks like you are seriously working on the Naughty base name year!

I hope you still remember all the formal names?

In fact I like the "Claire's Hall of Discipline", we should seriously consider using it, just not for the headquarter perhaps.

I remember reading that renaming base can give out your base location. Somebody confirm? Disconfirm?