Yeah, I'm on. Probably going to think about it while showering, though...
More people have been to Berlin than I have.
|
The Quarterdeck - Turn Discussion Thread
|
|
Well, it's about 1:30am here so I've got to get some sleep. I'm setting my alarm clock half an hour earlier in the morning so I'll have plenty of time to finish the turn. Since we've decided that we are at worst only bluffing we can go ahead and return those cities to their orriginal builds (I think I added the axes to the beginning of the build queues, so just go through and remove them).
Even if we decide not to play aggressive with our diplo let's still move the axes from San Juan onto the gold. That will still convey the message that we are not pleased and at least cause them to think twice.
January 13th, 2013, 01:06
(This post was last modified: January 13th, 2013, 01:08 by thestick.)
I still vote for staying at peace and cottaging/building. I doubt we can bluff when we're last in Power, whipping out more Axes when we're last in economy to gain land we can't settle for a while doesn't seem smart, yadda yadda yadda.As for Marcabalio (sp?)... what about shifting it 1W of its current location? It still grabs Furs, can share San Juan's Corn, and grabs another Cows.
You know... we could always just ask TEAM if they could retreat.
More people have been to Berlin than I have.
January 13th, 2013, 07:41
(This post was last modified: January 13th, 2013, 07:50 by Cornflakes.)
Done. Removed axes from the queues and returned builds and tile-configuration back to their originals. Sent the following message to Lewwyn and the TEAM account.
Sent to TEAM Wrote:TEAM Here's another shot of the east. We'll need to decide by next turn so that our settler can move into position. It's currently located in Santiago. 
Quick response from TEAM just came in.
Quote:I don't want you settling up on me. I don't want your gold, but I also can't afford to move the settler back one space. To do so will make it impossible to dotmap behind it. The settler's current position is 6 tiles from my capital. Your city that we will be "in cultural contact with" is also 6 tiles from your capital. They are equidistant. Its as fair as its going to get. This turn I will settle the city.
Yeah, 'aggressive' wouldn't work. Send a message saying 'fair enough' to TEAM?
How about 2N1E of Santiago's Corn? Lets us share the Corn, gives us Cows and Furs first ring and Horses second ring, and still lets us settle Green Dot 1N. Ivory can be obtained from Blue Dot.
More people have been to Berlin than I have.
I don't think a reply is necessary. It's just a situation where we shrug our shoulders and move on.
I think that's what we'll have to do with our dots. Although here's another option to consider: we could also settle ON the furs. That grabs the wheat, but looses the corn for the quick start. On the other hand, we do have the workforce in the area to chop out the terrace on the 3rd turn after settlement (that's as quick as the missionary can arrive). With the missionary I think we'd also overflow about 20-hammers into the library. The tactical advantage of planting on furs is that the peak protects our vulnerable SE diagonal. if we keep our borders at BFC levels we can never be 1-moved if we're planted on furs.
Posting from mobile as I run out the door. In out all day until pare this evening. I'll periodically be able to check the forum. TEAM sent another message and we need to draft a response before playing/ending turn. They mentioned not actually settling this turn, but instead whipping a couple more units first. We need to reply something like.
• we really aren't interested in war as long as we can guarantee a good front • we have a settler of our own already en route heading for the hill S of furs (settling T101) but we are willing to compromise and move that site 2NW [not entirely true, but as far as a front I do think the hill site is still better. We can at still gain some diplomatic good-will by agreeing to compromise. • we propose an NAP of XXX I've got to run but I'll check back when I can. |
