Discussion 4.5: What is a cheaper move?

DeletedUser

Guest
Going into vacation mode when you start losing cities

-or-

Tearing down buildings in a city before it gets conquered?


The Russians effectively did the latter in WWII because vacation mode was not available ;)

My personal opinion is option 1 is a cheap move that is a miss use of a game function where option 2 is a valid military strategy.

Thoughts?
 

DeletedUser18700

Guest
Going into VC mode to avoid battle is a no no and only cowards use it for that reason and as for option 2 I find it not to be much use because (a) The most amount of time you have is 48 hours to demolish as much as possible before the CS hits and in that time you cannot demolish enough to make it worth while and (b) I'd rather keep my city nice for when I take it back :)

Question: Why do all crimsons ask why they are being attacked and then try and say they have a NAP with us, they seem to be convinced that we have a pact with them. Guess they'll learn the hard way
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think the Crimsons would be good to answer on this thread....they generally just start new cities from scratch....or take inactives. They have definitely reset research on me on several occasions.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
An alliance mate of mine was told it was a cheep move by a member of an alliance that misteriously have vacations after they start getting attacked by us.

King. You may know them ;) Intimately.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't see a problem in tearing down buildings, as it's the conqueror's own problem if he takes a terrible city.

However, using Vacation Mode to avoid conquer is an abuse of the system unless you are actually on vacation.
 

DeletedUser18132

Guest
Maybe they hope to repeat 1812. The Russians burned down Moscow completely and when the French came in, they starved to death and then the Russian soldiers killed the ones that didn't die.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
SjsharksBoy said:
Maybe they hope to repeat 1812. The Russians burned down Moscow completely and when the French came in, they starved to death and then the Russian soldiers killed the ones that didn't die.
Click to expand...

actually the french burned down Moscow.

read War and Peace.
 

DeletedUser18132

Guest
Read a history book!!!! The Russian soldiers burned down everything they could in Moscow and then evacuated the people! Then the French came and expected to find food and stuff. They didn't have such cold in France, so they weren't used to it. All they found was a a couple of stone buildings. There is a semi-famous quote(or is it a small poem) about Napoleon standing on the stone building while it is snowing and saying how he shouldn't have invaded Russia. The Russian soldiers said a little poem when General Kutuzov came: Idot Kutuzov bit Francuzov. (Sorry, don't know the russain keyboard). Literally, it means: Kutuzov is coming to beat the French!
Tolstoy, in War and Peace, claimed that the fire was not deliberately set, either by the Russians or the French; the natural result of placing a wooden city in the hands of strangers in wintertime is that they will make small fires to stay warm, to cook their food and for other benign purposes and that some of the fires will get out of control.
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia.

In case you have any more questions, say 'em!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
just going to highlight one word

Tolstoy, in War and Peace, claimed that the fire was not deliberately set, either by the Russians or the French; the natural result of placing a wooden city in the hands of strangers in wintertime is that they will make small fires to stay warm, to cook their food and for other benign purposes and that some of the fires will get out of control.
Click to expand...

moscow was under french control. (with russian civilians living there), the russian cossacks had long since cleared out. there was a small russian resistance but nothing else.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I would have to check with the person that started this thread but I think the original intent was to dicuss what is cheeper scorched earth or vacation mode.

Wait. I was the person that started it ;)
 

DeletedUser18132

Guest
sploggo said:
just going to highlight one word



moscow was under french control. (with russian civilians living there), the russian cossacks had long since cleared out. there was a small russian resistance but nothing else.
Click to expand...

It says that TOLSTOY wrote it. It doesn't say he is correct. The Russians burned down the city so that the French would starve.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I like how even when somebody mentions the original intent everybody ignores the post. :) And in addition to the burning the french were stupid. they didnt even bring heavy coats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top