OK - Thank-you all for the feedback in the "planning games in advance" thread. I've distilled down the responses into a format that I hope will keep at least a few of you happy. We will not post civs and difficulties months in advance but we will:

Post most of the relevent details in the first post (As a minimum, screenshot, civ and difficulty). Other stuff will be posted too (world setup etc), but the class bonuses might be a bit later, 'cause I don't tend to set them until a day or two before release).
Oscillate difficulties, trying to keep the COTM and the Classic games out-of-sync.

So:

Conquest 05: INCA

Difficulty: Regent.
Map size: Standard.
World Age: 3 billion years.
Climate: Wet and temperate (IIRC).
barbs: Restless.
Land form: Pangaea.


Class Bonuses / Handicaps:
Conquest class: Start with a second scout (normal, not chasqui). They also get an extra 50 gold.

Predator class: AI Unit support increased to Monarch level, All AI Start with 4 defensive units and 2 offensive ones.


Starting Screenshot:
http://gotm.civfanatics.net/games/images/cotm05large.jpg

Minimap:
http://gotm.civfanatics.net/games/images/cotm05mini.jpg

First move: Scout goes to the hills. If he doesn't see anything very attractive, worker goes E. If worker doesn't see anything interesting, settle where we are.

Wow, Pangaea at Regent - will the winner's game end before 0 AD? :crazyeye:

I agree with solenoozerec's opening moves. Just remember that we are agricultural, so again we need just a single wheat or cattle to have a 4-turn settler factory, given that we stay on the river. So if I don't see any such bonus after moving the scout and the worker, I will fog-gaze a little longer than usual before settling in place.

What's that white stuff NW of the hill? Tundra? If so, perhaps scouting south is a better idea?

And with this nice start-position at Regent, I wonder what "surprises" Ainwood has come up with this time... :dubious: :yeah:

-- Roland

I believe that "white stuff" is sugar... it adds +1 gold I think.... in any case it would be nice to have it in the city radius.

Looks like sugar NW of the hill. And furs where we are standing. So unless the scout sees something strange or exciting from the hill, or the worker sees something of that nature in the east, I will probably settle to the north.

Interesting trade-off; stay on the river and waste either a BG or a forest tile OR move to the grassland (settling brings regular grassland to its max despotism value) but lose river benefits (extra food; commerce; and settler-factory advantage of being able to grow to 7 without Aqueduct).

I'm leaning towards staying on the river--actually if one of the squares two towards the NE are regular grassland, it might be worth it to spend 2 moves to get one--that would give us 3 BG + the starting spot's furs on expnasion. Playing Regent, we can afford to "waste" a couple tuns for a really good site.

Let's see if ainwood earns the :evil: he tried for last time...(Never bet against the game master---at least not till he Middle Ages).

I haven't played the Incans before. What are their traits? Is one of them agricultural?

Looks like sugar NW of the hill. And furs where we are standing. So unless the scout sees something strange or exciting from the hill, or the worker sees something of that nature in the east, I will probably settle to the north.

Sugar is more than +1 gold. It is +1 food, so if mined, it will be a very strong spot (2.2.1) even under despotism. I agree moving north makes sense based on what we see right now.

I haven't played the Incans before. What are their traits? Is one of them agricultural?

Expanionistic, Agricultural.

King of America, in my opinion the advantages of settling on the river outweigh almost any advantage of settling off a river, and it certainly appears to be so on this map. We have tons of forest tiles in the start, wasting one won't matter I would think. Especially with all those furs. This start has me salivating.

This start seems to good to be true. Maybe all the iron is sitting under the other civs' starting positions.

Do the Incas start with a regular scout or a Chasqui scoiut?

This start seems to good to be true. Maybe all the iron is sitting under the other civs' starting positions.

Do the Incas start with a regular scout or a Chasqui scoiut?

Regular scout

This start seems to good to be true.

Does it? Without food bonus resources it cannot guarantee us fast growth. From the terms of shield production it is indeed a good position. It also gives large amount of gold, but what we are going to do with gold on regent under despotism?

I think we need to build several scouts first to explore more. On regent, we will need to do all the research by ourselves, which means that we should use expansionist’s trait as much as possible.

Looks like sugar NW of the hill. And furs where we are standing. So unless the scout sees something strange or exciting from the hill, or the worker sees something of that nature in the east, I will probably settle to the north.

I am assuming you want the worker to look east because it lookd like plains north and west. I wish there were a way to look west. Moving north towards the sugar sounds good they usually come in bunches. There could be another one adjacent to the one we can see.

I am not too excited about the Incan UU:
Att. Def. Moves Shield Cost
Standard Scout 0 0 2 10
Chasqui Scout 1 1 2 20

It is twice as expensive as either a scout or a warrior and the same as an archer but upgrades to explorer.

Usually I build two scouts at the start and never again. It will take twice as long to get our second scout. I don't think I will build a third until later, if at all. It may be better to just build warriors.

Ag and Exp, so we get Pottery and Masonry to start.

With Pangea map and CSC having contacts & map trading in the MA, we are going to have to explore aggressively to contact all the other civs quickly. It may be worth setting up of a coast city for an Curragh an early priority.

Incan UU is quite lousy indeed, but I will build at least 2 or 3 to make sure I am the one who reaches all the goody huts.
If i have a neigbor AI close by i will try to implement early archer rush.

Regent level on a single landmass just asking for ultra fast victory.

Usually I build two scouts at the start and never again. It will take twice as long to get our second scout. I don't think I will build a third until later, if at all. It may be better to just build warriors.


why do you need to build any chasqui scout?
Build just normal ones (I hope we can, don't we? :confused: ), they are less expensive and they will not trigger GA in case of early military conflict.

why do you need to build any chasqui scout?
Build just normal ones (I hope we can, don't we? :confused: ), they are less expensive and they will not trigger GA in case of early military conflict.

We only get the one regular scout at the start. The Chasqui replace the regular one. It Chasqui or nothing. :(

why do you need to build any chasqui scout?
Build just normal ones (I hope we can, don't we? :confused: ), they are less expensive and they will not trigger GA in case of early military conflict.

Nope, that's the problem, Incas can't build normal scouts.... :sad:

Incan UU is quite lousy indeed, but I will build at least 2 or 3 to make sure I am the one who reaches all the goody huts.

You can build 4-6 warriors in the same time for the same cost. If you get a settler it might pay back but if you don't you will have slowed down your expansion. Not to mention the risk of any early GA, because those will be your only units, if you build them right from the start.

O, my :eek: ...too bad. then it is probably the worst UU ever. In GOTM34 the situation was simmilar, I didn't build any single impi. But here it is much more worse. Kinda have to buid it :(

The UU is just an over priced "Jaguar Warrior". I will settle in place to get a warrior out fast. Hopefully I will find the closest AI fast and just attack as soon as I get next to his worker.

The Chasqui also only requires 1 MP to move on mountains (and hills too, IIRC). :)

The Chasqui also only requires 1 MP to move on mountains (and hills too, IIRC). :)

And the world is young (lots of mountains)... and a lot of shields can be used for fast production... I see your point... You did what you can to make these guys useful. I think I will be building them. Thank you, Ainwood.

Interesting trade-off; stay on the river and waste either a BG or a forest tile OR move to the grassland. I'm leaning towards staying on the river...actually if one of the squares towards the NE are regular grassland, it might be worth it to spend 2 moves to get one

Providing that you like what information your scout gives you beforehand, would the hill north of the river not make a good settling point, as it's still on the river? You could take advantage of the sugar if that's what it is, then use your next settler on the furs?

Mmmm...decisions, decisions... :confused:

We're agricultural with a scout. All we need to find is one wheat/cow and get +5fpt. I think its worth moving 5-6 even 7 tunrs to find that bonus. With the scout we are sure to find what we need.

smackster

All we need to find is one wheat/cow and get +5fpt. I think its worth moving 5-6 even 7 tunrs to find that bonus. smackster
I hope there will be no situation like in COTM2. It is easy to reveal whole map without leaving any traces of doing that (just use another computer). But the worst part of COTM2 is that it cast doubts on those people who didn’t do anything wrong. I doubt that we will have a similar situation soon, so I do not think that we have a cow 6 turns away. It is either nearby or too far.

I hope there will be no situation like in COTM2. It is easy to reveal whole map without leaving any traces of doing that (just use another computer). But the worst part of COTM2 is that it cast doubts on those people who didn’t do anything wrong. I doubt that we will have a similar situation soon, so I do not think that we have a cow 6 turns away. It is either nearby or too far.

I didn't know about this. What happened with the scoring and how did that all come about?

I wondered why I was so far behind everyone else. And there's me thinking that I was just so rubbish compared to everyone else. :lol:

I'll have to have a good read of that thread - just out of curiosity, mind you - not to pick up any tips! :blush:

We're agricultural with a scout. All we need to find is one wheat/cow and get +5fpt. I think its worth moving 5-6 even 7 tunrs to find that bonus. With the scout we are sure to find what we need.

I agree, although am I that brave to do this for so long? I will probably end up moving the settler north, after moving the scout onto the hill and maybe the worker in the opposite direction, and taking the shield rich starting position. I have a week to persuade myself to be more adventurous though. :)

The Chasqui also only requires 1 MP to move on mountains (and hills too, IIRC).
I never knew this as I've never got around to playing the Inca. Thanks for the info; maybe I need to try out a couple of short games with them before October.

I didn't know about this. What happened with the scoring and how did that all come about?

Oh, personally I believe that nobody cheated (I have reasons to believe that nobody cheated at least among the best players). The problem is that some made such guess, because it was not obvious to move far away from the starting position. I do not think that Ainwood is likely to recreate a similar situation.

Oh, personally I believe that nobody cheated (I have reasons to believe that nobody cheated at least among the best players). The problem is that some made such guess, because it was not obvious to move far away from the starting position. I do not think that Ainwood is likely to recreate a similar situation.

I've got a guilt complex already - and I'd never consider doing this at all.
It is tantamount to cheating, I agree!

However, I have been (re)playing GOTM#35 that I failed miserably in, which I should have won but was tactically too slow. I have redressed my tactics and I have a gameplan in mind for this new game, COTM#05. I just hope that if I do well, it isn't conceived as coming up with some method of cheating as explained above.

I do think I have finally found (after losing so many GOTMs and COTMs), a winning (if not award-winning) strategy. It'll be one that so many of you guys will be very familiar with but it's one that's taken me ages to put into practise (learnt eventually and slowly).

I'm ready for the 1st of October, bring it on, Ainwood! :eek:

Anyway, back on subject...

...what are the best wonders to compliment these Inca traits?

(I could look them up, really but that doesn't help anyone else)

...what are the best wonders to compliment these Inca traits?


This is a personal and subjective opinion: I do not think that ANY great wonder is worth building it unless you go for 20K or diplomatic (obviously you would like to have UN).
If you are really want a particular great wonder for some reason, capture it.

Oh, personally I believe that nobody cheated (I have reasons to believe that nobody cheated at least among the best players). The problem is that some made such guess, because it was not obvious to move far away from the starting position. I do not think that Ainwood is likely to recreate a similar situation.

It was the obvious thing to do - unless you like founding your capital on some God-forsaken peninsula. As far as I'm aware a distance variable is still included in the corruption calculation for each settlement in conquests.

I think COTM2 was one of the easier move/or not move decisions. Its harder when you are in the middle of land mass with no obvious bonus tiles in sight such as in COTM 1 where you had more options to decide between in which direction you would scout before settling IMO. ( Sorry that sentence is pretty clunky. Hopefully you understand what I'm trying to write.)

Here's a crazy start idea:

Settler W to plains fur (2-shield city tile)
Worker chop,mine at start, then SW,chop
Using only the visible tiles, we get a granary at 3300BC and a settler at 3100BC.

It was the obvious thing to do

Agreed.
Correction to my previous message: it was not obvious for everybody.
At least not for me, I was playing my first GOTM.

Agreed.
Correction to my previous message: it was not obvious for everybody.
At least not for me, I was playing my first GOTM.
Not to me either, I stayed on the peninsula, learned my lesson though.

Settler W to plains fur (2-shield city tile)
Worker chop,mine at start, then SW,chop
Using only the visible tiles, we get a granary at 3300BC and a settler at 3100BC.

I like it!!
Regent + Luxury start position = no unhappiness worries for a while!

Looking forward to this game, it's great to have the occassional Regent game :goodjob:

Here's a crazy start idea:

Settler W to plains fur (2-shield city tile)
Worker chop,mine at start, then SW,chop
Using only the visible tiles, we get a granary at 3300BC and a settler at 3100BC.

I'm buying...!

Neil. :cool:

Interesting start Ainwood, but I've got a question:

Are you going to reveal if you manipulated the number of goody huts nearby?
I'm asking this 'cause this is quite influential on a strategy with an expansionist civ.
So, are there a lot of huts nearby, or very, very few?

Well, to reveal that would kind of spoil it, wouldn't it. :D

You have a choice: You can presume that I increased them, in which case a few extra scouts to go chase them; or you can assume I removed them, in which case you may want to alter your scout builds. You could always try the middle ground, or perhaps even build one or two and if there appear to be lots of goody huts then go build some more!

Or I might have left them alone....

The UU is just an over priced "Jaguar Warrior". I will settle in place to get a warrior out fast.

The Chasqui also only requires 1 MP to move on mountains (and hills too, IIRC). :)

I would have said that the main reason Chasqui are better then Jaguars is that they give better results from the huts. I'd still rather have ordinary scouts though.

Well, to reveal that would kind of spoil it, wouldn't it. :D

You have a choice: You can presume that I increased them, in which case a few extra scouts to go chase them; or you can assume I removed them, in which case you may want to alter your scout builds. You could always try the middle ground, or perhaps even build one or two and if there appear to be lots of goody huts then go build some more!

Or I might have left them alone....

I'm not sure I like this much Ainwood... :(

I like playing games with everything on random (and I wouldn't mind COTM's in which the only things known are the civ and the difficulty level), but this is an artificially modded feature, which IMHO should be known to the players before starting the game.... :sad:

It seems to me best settling North. This would make very productive city. All those furs can be no worse than BG+ after they are cleared. Owing to the prohibitive price of Chasqui, I would even considered start chopping forest in the starting place in 1-st turn.
Settlers can be produced elsewhere.

Don't despair Darkness, so far in other games we got a fair amount of huts when we had scouts. The only reason ainwood would change that, would be the difficulty level.

Still, scouts also do what they are supposed to do, namely scout :) So a couple of scouts will reveal the land fairly quick.

Here's a crazy start idea:

Settler W to plains fur (2-shield city tile)
Worker chop,mine at start, then SW,chop
Using only the visible tiles, we get a granary at 3300BC and a settler at 3100BC.

DaveMcW, is there any way to be sure that it is plains under the forest? I know it looks like it but how can you be certain?

Well, to reveal that would kind of spoil it, wouldn't it. :D

You have a choice: You can presume that I increased them, in which case a few extra scouts to go chase them; or you can assume I removed them, in which case you may want to alter your scout builds. You could always try the middle ground, or perhaps even build one or two and if there appear to be lots of goody huts then go build some more!

Or I might have left them alone....
That's the ainwood we(I) like!!! A mysterious and evil person! :evil: :devil2: - :joke:

You know, the more I think of it about the information we get beforehand, IMHO, favours the Elite players more than the average-players, but I shouldn't complain about it; all would like to know everything :lol: .

I just miss the "mysterious atmosphere - :ninja: " of the unknown from your games.

P.S.: This would be a real challenge!: put a settler/worker pair onto a galley, leave it in some coastal square in the center of the map, and the player get's to choose the direction to *land/invade somewhere!*, and set the difficulty to SID :cool:

btw: enough said.

Here's a crazy start idea:

Settler W to plains fur (2-shield city tile)
Worker chop,mine at start, then SW,chop
Using only the visible tiles, we get a granary at 3300BC and a settler at 3100BC.

How about that:
Settler W and chop-a-chasqui first.
Delay growth by one turn.
If I didn't misscalculate still granary and settler only one turn delayed.

How about that:
Settler W and chop-a-chasqui first.
Delay growth by one turn.
If I didn't misscalculate still granary and settler only one turn delayed.

I just wonder why W and not N. Why wasting furs shield bonus by settling on it?

I just wonder why W and not N. Why wasting furs shield bonus by settling on it?
Because the shield is not wasted.
When settling on a natural 2sh tile (plains-fur, the other better known example is iron-hill), you get 2 sh in the city center.
At least I hope this is still true. It's quite some time since I had this case.

It is tantamount to cheating, I agree!
Just so that there's no misunderstanding. Revealing the map before playing is not just tantamount to cheating. It *is* cheating. No reloading is allowed in order to affect outcomes in your submitted game. Not on one computer. Not on multiple computers.

Because the shield is not wasted.
When settling on a natural 2sh tile (plains-fur, the other better known example is iron-hill), you get 2 sh in the city center.
At least I hope this is still true. It's quite some time since I had this case.

It is new knowledge to me. Also is it specific for shields or even for food and commerce? I think I will have to make some tests in both PTW and C3C to make sure, as I always taken for granted that any bonus you settle on is wasted.

I didn't realize the 2-shield city thing. Or the cheap mountain movement for the UU. Puts a different spin on building scouts. "chop-a-chasqui" :)

I didn't realize the 2-shield city thing. Or the cheap mountain movement for the UU. Puts a different spin on building scouts. "chop-a-chasqui" :)

3 billion years, pangaea, no hill/mountain movement penalty for Chopsquies, ... I think we are in the expansionist paradise.

Looks like another fast expanders dream! (now all I have to do is finish off COTM4).

The other downside of the UU (I agree its the worst one by a long way, particularly for an expansionist civ) is that because it has an attack strength they will be kicked out by AI civs, so you can't just keep exploring through AI territory like you can with scouts, curraghs and unloaded galleys.

Still, scouts also do what they are supposed to do, namely scout :) So a couple of scouts will reveal the land fairly quick.

Off course, but the possibility of a huge asset (settler from a GH nearby) tends to impact gameplay and planning quite a lot, whereas the deletion of nearby goody huts (by Ainwoods mighty mouse ;) ) without notice would be, IMHO, a game-changing factor, of which I think it is best to mention before the game starts. If otherwise, a gamble to do excessive scouting with an ultra high number of scouts is likely to be a deciding factor for all/most of the awards and medals.
If there are no nearby GHs and you built a lot of scouts in the anticipation of their presence, you'll be at a disadvantage against others who don't go scouting a lot.
And if there are nearby GHs and you don't built scouts, you'll miss out on bonusses that will put you at a disadvantage towards players who do built scouts a lot.

In short, because of the nature of this game aspect (modded/or unmodded by Ainwood), I think it'll be fair to make this known before the game starts, to prevent a gamble (Did Ainwood mod the GHs: yes or no?) from being a major aspect in the deciding factors of this game. To leave small thing up to chance is perfictly fine with me, but I don't like to see huge gamechanging factors like decided on a gamble...

Just my opinion, off course. :)

Wouldn't it be fairly obvious rather soon, before you even get the chance to build a lot of scouts? It is a standard size map, you know.

Wouldn't it be fairly obvious rather soon, before you even get the chance to build a lot of scouts? It is a standard size map, you know.

To a certain extent, yes. But the fact remains that there already has been an investment in a strategy, which could have been avoided if a man-made modification to the normal, standard civ-game had been revealed before the game started

Well, in this case it's probably sensible to build at least one scout, since it's the UU. And if push comes to shove, you can use it to start a Golden Age. Why not build it early? To 1. scout.. (doh) and 2. see if there are few or many GHs.

Why not build it early?

Because early in the game 20 shields are better used on other projects if there aren't any GH's. We already have a scout. If there are no GH's, there really is no urgent need to built more scouts, especially expensive scouts, like the Chasqui....

As for settling north or not, for me that depends on where on the map we are. It's clear by the pine trees that we are either far south or far north. If we are already far north, I will not move my capitol further north (in that case DaveMcW's start sounds very tempting). If we are far south, I will probably settle north. But any food bonus found by the initial scout and worker moves could change this.

However, I don't see what's good about moving 6 or 7 turns just to find a food bonus. I feel it's better to settle in a good spot at the start, and then find the food bonus, if there is one, and set up the second town as my settler pump.

-- Roland

Or I might have left them alone....

@Darkness notice the type size of the last sentence? ;) Ainwood much like God has ways of letting you know his divine will :) .

@Samildanach: Maybe, but that still leaves this factor at a gamble. Not a planned decision....

I just tested the start in C3C.
The plains fur tile still gives two shields in the city center (well one should trust Dave ;) ).
The chop-a-chasqui sequence ends up with 59sh for the granary :( , if there is no BG in the north.

As for settling north or not, for me that depends on where on the map we are. It's clear by the pine trees that we are either far south or far north. If we are already far north, I will not move my capitol further north (in that case DaveMcW's start sounds very tempting). If we are far south, I will probably settle north. But any food bonus found by the initial scout and worker moves could change this.


There is minimap posted. We are far south...

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/games/images/cotm05mini.jpg

Yep. Another good reason to send the scout northways.

Settling one tile north gives, from what we can see now, Warrior-Worker-Granary-Settler in 2850 BC or Scout-Worker-Granary-Settler in 2800 BC, if my calculations are correct.

Just so that there's no misunderstanding. Revealing the map before playing is not just tantamount to cheating. It *is* cheating. No reloading is allowed in order to affect outcomes in your submitted game. Not on one computer. Not on multiple computers.

I don't disagree here. But my guess is that the most effective form of cheating is using information or opportuinities that aren't available to other players. Such as reading through the spoilers before playing. Not only would you get map knowledge but you would have also gotten strategic and tactical advice on how to play that map from elite players. You would also find out the dates you need to beat in order to gasump someone out of a medal....
Cheating IMO is any behaviour that may give you an unfair advantage over your competitors. This is pertinent to GOTM 35 where because of the militaristic/scientific error some players were given opportuinities that were not available to players who downloaded the later scientific save. Now to be of any use the militaristic trait has to be used or as Sir Pleb said in the other thread - rax are just going to be sitting around adding to your support cost. The players that noticed the trait error straight away perhaps would have used it to build up a force of vet warriors for upgrade to invade the nearest civ and hopefully bag a GL or two before asking ainwood to "fix" their save. Or in my case, since I didn't notice it till libraries, build up a force of archers for future upgrade to LBW. Not as advantageous as the warrior upgrade but still better than sitting on my hands till sipahi.
My submitted save comes under the definition of cheating, I would say, because it had a reload and it did affect the outcome of the game. Now I knowingly chose to do that and it wasn't the result of a crash therefore my game should be excluded. But what of the players who got the switch and may or not have gotten an advantage but it still provided them with opportuinites that were simply not available to other players? Aren't these games still loaded ? Are we to believe all the protests of "I didn't notice!" Even I noticed eventually :) .
It looks to me that you may be prepared to tolerate one form of cheating or of gaining an unfair advantage because it spares blushes and doesn't upset people. :mischief:

IIRC, the advantage for Expansionist Civs popping huts is the same regardless of the unit popping the hut... so use a scout and 2 warriors, in that case.

2 warriors is, imho, a far better use of 20 shields.

This being Regent, though, with the huts being nice-r an' all, there's one thing to be careful of, and it's caught me out twice: popping Philosophy when you're still researching CoL! That REALLY bites.

Neil. :cool:

I don't disagree here. But my guess is that the most effective form of cheating is using information or opportuinities that aren't available to other players.

Maybe spoilers should be published later than they are right now?

I don't disagree here. But my guess is that the most effective form of cheating is using information or opportuinities that aren't available to other players. Such as reading through the spoilers before playing. Not only would you get map knowledge but you would have also gotten strategic and tactical advice on how to play that map from elite players. You would also find out the dates you need to beat in order to gasump someone out of a medal....True. And it's not allowed either.

Cheating IMO is any behaviour that may give you an unfair advantage over your competitors. This is pertinent to GOTM 35 where because of the militaristic/scientific error some players were given opportuinities that were not available to players who downloaded the later scientific save
....
My submitted save comes under the definition of cheating, I would say, because it had a reload and it did affect the outcome of the game.
It looks to me that you may be prepared to tolerate one form of cheating or of gaining an unfair advantage because it spares blushes and doesn't upset people. :mischief:

We had to respond to the error made by the game organisers, and your action was sanctioned by the decision we took to allow a switch. If you feel guilty about having taken that opportunity in an unfair way then we'll exclude your entry, and that invitation is open to anyone who feels they've played unfairly. But it's your decision. :mischief:

The gotm works to a significant extent on an honour system. We trust players not to break the rules and we don't have effective tools to detect all the possible breaches. Getting a high ranking or a medal or an award by cheating can happen, but will the player concerned get any satisfaction, other than that of a kid who rang a stranger's door bell and ran away without getting caught? I don't think so. But maybe that's enough for some people :hmm:

We had to respond to the error made by the game organisers, and your action was sanctioned by the decision we took to allow a switch. If you feel guilty about having taken that opportunity in an unfair way then we'll exclude your entry, and that invitation is open to anyone who feels they've played unfairly. But it's your decision. :mischief:


:lol: Rest assured Alan if I had scored a 10 K game you would not have heard a peep from me as I had guessed you would let it slide :) But since I did not, the only satisfaction I was going to get from my game was to stir up trouble :D . Guilt does not come into it.

Where there is an opportuinity for profit players will take it. I am kicking up a stink because I sensed the opportuinity but made a pigs ear of it ie . the opportuinity being sanctioned cheating. And now in my surly, petulant style I'm railing against those players who may have done a better job of it than me :) .

I'm happy for my game to be withdrawn but I'm fully aware that you are chickening out of taking the hard decision of excluding other games. Leaving it up to the individual players to decide, when you should be sharpening your axe. How will that be percieved by the players who have not had the potential advantages of a switched game? Badly! I hope. :mischief: ;)

If I were a chicken I'd have crossed the road and ignored your trouble-making ;)

So trying to take advantage of the opportunity backfired on you! :lol: My heart bleeds :rolleyes: Specially since you seem to be saying that you *would* get a kick out of ringing door bells if you could reach the bell push :hmm:

How can I, or any of the staff, tell whether the switch was made by each player as a genuine innocent action to get back onto the intended game plan, or as a deliberate decision to take an unfair advantage?

:lol:

Conversations like this are one of the many reasons I like civ: the community is about as quirky as they come.

The whole militaristic/scientific thing did give me a thought: I wonder if a game where the players were allowed to chose their starting traits would make for a good GOTM?

Quirky? :eek: Moi? :hmm:

So trying to take advantage of the opportunity backfired on you! :lol: My heart bleeds :rolleyes: Specially since you seem to be saying that you *would* get a kick out of ringing door bells if you could reach the bell push :hmm:

Thanks for your heart warming vote of sympathy :) . I reloaded to play the game I originally intended to play. No particularly great advantage was gained by doing so. As it happened the game I intended to play and then played resulted in an indifferent jason score. But in essence it is still cheating because it is a reload. I was very aware that the game had developed in such a way as to make it possible to score very well if I chose to pursue domination or conquest. But I really wanted to go for 100k and I wanted to go back to the point where I was about to implement my plan. I knew this was cheating, because it is reloading, but I thought it would be allowed to slide ( correctly as it appears) and I thought I would do well ( wrongly it turned out). :) Other players will almost certainly have made similar calculations to suit their particular purpose.

How can I, or any of the staff, tell whether the switch was made by each player as a genuine innocent action to get back onto the intended game plan, or as a deliberate decision to take an unfair advantage?

You can't. Therefore all should be excluded. Irrespective of whether the decisions made were deliberate, the fact some games were allowed to switch makes them unfair. In that other players did not get the same opportuinities.
I realise that decision to exclude these games will make you unpopular, but by being a Mac owner you should be used to that by now :D

If I was in the business of ringing door bells - it would be for gold medals :p

:lol:
The whole militaristic/scientific thing did give me a thought: I wonder if a game where the players were allowed to chose their starting traits would make for a good GOTM?
Or just giving us a choice of one of two civs for an upcoming GOTM. With a map tailored so that it gives advantages to both. Would certainly intensify the pre-game discussion.

Well, you don't actually know whether your reloaded game will be allowed or not yet :p. But we're not in the habit of reversing decisions if we can avoid it, and particularly not in a way that would exclude a significant number of innocent players whoso only crime was to accept Ainwood's invitation to have their saves switched.

I'm very popular with a lot of other Mac users, and some of my best friends suffer under the heel of M$. They *do* get my sympathy :D

Or just giving us a choice of one of two civs for an upcoming GOTM. With a map tailored so that it gives advantages to both. Would certainly intensify the pre-game discussion.
We already produce nine different game start files every month, not including SGOTMs :eek: I know Ainwood lives in New Zealand, and they have to make their own entertainment :p, but I doubt if he's actually looking for an opportunity to double this number just yet :hmm:

We already produce nine different game start files every month, not including SGOTMs :eek: I know Ainwood lives in New Zealand, and they have to make their own entertainment :p, but I doubt if he's actually looking for an opportunity to double this number just yet :hmm:
I thought you had it all automated now anyway, I'm sure your progams/scripts can handle a few more files :)

But seriously, its just a comment, for a one off game, might be an interesting diversion.

smackster

The submissions and results presentation are automated, but creating the game files and ensuring they have all the right civs and traits and .. and ... is manual labour. Hence the opportunities for error. Balancing a map to provide a level playing field for two different civs would require significant extra effort as well. But I'm sure Ainwood will be awake and along soon to give a better response on this.

But seriously, its just a comment, for a one off game, might be an interesting diversion.


I like this idea too. Give a map, then take a vote about which civ to play. Then create two saves with two most popular civs and then see which one will turnto be more popular and which will turn to be more succesful.
I do not think that it is a good idea on a regular basis, but once it should be fun.

Maybe spoilers should be published later than they are right now?

I think Mad-Bax is in favour of having no spoilers at all. I actually like the spoilers and can't wait for them to come out. Personally, if I ever play a possible medal winning game then I will just be a little circumspect about the information I give out in spoilers. So that I'm not gasumped by some yahoo who has been through the spoilers.

I do not think that it is a good idea on a regular basis, but once it should be fun.

Indeed, just a possibility for a single game. I think it would only be interesting once. As Smakster noted, it would probably make for a good pregame discussion: each player laying out their reasons for picking certain traits given the start pic and divination into Ainwood's brain. We would probably also see more players pick their victory condition at the start, and outline their strategy based on it.

Of course, everyone might just chose industrial and agricultural :rolleyes:, and their would be no need for additional start files!

Thanks DaveMcW, what a great idea to move the settler west! I think that a granary in 3350BC and settler in 3150BC is even possible, using only tiles which are fully visible at the start.

klarius, it is tempting to sneak in a "chopsqui" (thanks Horragoth :) ) before the granary. But I do think the delay is significant - it looks to me like a three turn delay in production of the settler, at 3000BC. Which might be worthwhile.

On the question of whether one Chasqui is as good as two warriors, I feel that the answer is yes for exploration. Two warriors cannot travel twice as far as one warrior. The Chasqui's greater speed should improve the odds of opening more huts. I've tested the Chasqui a bit and found something disappointing - although it can use its second movement point after moving onto a hill or mountain, it does get stuck in forest and jungle. This sure seems like an overpriced UU at 20 shields. And if there's a lot of forest/jungle then sending out warriors could be better.

On the issue of walking a long way for more bonus food: this start is a lot different from COTM02. There we were an agricultural Civ on a barren peninsula without a river. As we explored, each step we took improved our position by enough to at least break even on the time lost taking the step. And getting to a river alone is worth a few turns of walking for an agricultural Civ. Here we're an agricultural Civ with a fairly rich start position and we're already on a river. Unless each step the settler takes can be seen to be an improvement, why risk it?

I plan to start by moving the scout NE and (if nothing startling at that point) N to the hills. If that reveals something nice then I'll probably pause for a long time to compare the potential with DaveMcW's settler W idea. Might go for more food, might stick with the original plan. If the scout doesn't see food from the hills then I'll definitely move the settler west. And unless that reveals something startling my worker will clear the forest. In the next few turns I'll decide on whether to go straight for granary and settler in 3150BC or to do a chopsqui first. If the new tiles revealed to the north and west when settling create more options (even a BG in the town's initial radius might make a difference) then I may change to do a chopsqui, and if the first scout doesn't find a good location for a second town then an additional explorer will be a higher priority. I might even follow the granary or chopsqui by a worker before settler. All depends on what settling and the first bit of exploration reveals.

Research: I plan to research flat out, starting with Alphabet and taking the usual Conquests path to Republic, i.e. Writing, Code Of Laws, Philosophy, and free tech Republic. If the scout gets to pop a hut before my first turn of research I'll block a research path other than Alphabet while popping. I've never popped Alphabet at the start but I remain ever hopeful! :)

I've tested the Chasqui a bit and found something disappointing - although it can use its second movement point after moving onto a hill or mountain, it does get stuck in forest and jungle.
I have found the same, and it also get stuck in the marshes. How does the wet world effect the number of marsh tiles and jungle tiles?

How can I, or any of the staff, tell whether the switch was made by each player as a genuine innocent action to get back onto the intended game plan, or as a deliberate decision to take an unfair advantage?
While I am not suggesting you do it, I think that if the fixed save files were kept, then reviewing a players position at that point might shed some light on things. After all, if someone was doing enough to really benefit from it then it should be fairly obvious.

Or I might have left them alone....
@Darkness notice the type size of the last sentence? ;) Ainwood much like God has ways of letting you know his divine will :) .
I think you're reading a bit much into that little line ;)

Read as much or as little into this as you want (but please share your thoughts), but please note that I am trying my darndest to write this from an impartial view, without too much that is specific to this game. I hope you can just follow the logic of it:

There are two main benefits from scouts: Exploration / contacts and goodyhuts. There is also the indirect benefit that you start with pottery, and for an agricultural civ on a river, this gives you a pretty-good start.

For goody huts, Settlers from a hut very early on can be game-breaking, and we want to preserve game balance. You might even consider that pottery as a starting tech helps with game balance in respect of some popping it, some not. But look at the other issue: you are playing conquests where contact trading is deferred until printing press. It therefore makes sense to try and get as many contacts as you can as quickly as possible. On Pagaea, scouts are the best option for this.


@Sam: Yes you are stirring. ;) You make some valid points, but I am certainly not going to disqualify people for something that was essentially my fault. Its a good thing that door-bell ringing isn't an Olympic sport. :)

I plan to start by moving the scout NE and (if nothing startling at that point) N to the hills.

I didn’t even think about it, but yes indeed a path of scout NE-N sounds more favorable compared to N-NE.

But look at the other issue: you are playing conquests where contact trading is deferred until printing press. It therefore makes sense to try and get as many contacts as you can as quickly as possible.

On regent AI civs are poor and backwards. What can I trade from them? Why should I want even to know them? Sure, first few contacts will be useful, but then... I am not sure it is really that important.

On regent AI civs are poor and backwards. What can I trade from them? Why should I want even to know them? Sure, first few contacts will be useful, but then... I am not sure it is really that important.

You could get them into a war with your nerest AI, this will split the AI's troops to two or more fronts. This will help you on your front with the AI your at war with.

:goodjob: Regent, excellent. I was hoping my first COTM would be something I could handle. The Inca will win this time and defy history. I hope Spain is one of the nations :ar15:

Welcome Wheelock to your first COTM. :goodjob:

Best of luck, and try to eat and sleep occassionally :lol:

There is minimap posted. We are far south...

Christ, now I'm both blind and stupid, LOL! :blush:

I blame the fact that I've caught the flu, and wrote that post with a slight fever. :p Thanks for the heads up!

-- Roland

Welcome Wheelock to your first COTM. :goodjob:

Best of luck, and try to eat and sleep occassionally :lol:

Thanks, dude. No worries about the eating and sleeping; I'm selfish enough to make sure I get enough of both :D

Christ, now I'm both blind and stupid, LOL! :blush:

I blame the fact that I've caught the flu, and wrote that post with a slight fever. :p Thanks for the heads up!

-- Roland
I actually added the minimap in a few hours after I posted the main screenshot, so you might not be as blind as you thought. ;)

I actually added the minimap in a few hours after I posted the main screenshot, so you might not be as blind as you thought. ;)

O my god! :crazyeye: I just wanted to reply to Roland Enhstrom that I haven't notice a minimap from the first glance too. Apparently it wasn't there :lol:

Thanks DaveMcW, what a great idea to move the settler west! I think that a granary in 3350BC and settler in 3150BC is even possible, using only tiles which are fully visible at the start.
I think so, too.

After the first settler, and 4 tiles have been mined, I think I would let the capital grow to size 5 first, before starting on the next one. With so many shields, at size 4/5 you can build eg 5 Warriors, in addition to a Settler, every 8 turns. That would amount to over 30 veteran Swordsmen before 1000BC from the capital alone. :)

I noted Ainwood's other point in his first post. He's going to set contrastng difficulties each month. As a non-C3C player, I wonder what that says about GOTM36 :eek:

Aha, thanks ainwood, that makes me feel much better. :king:

-- Roland

Regent and pangea. The talk of quick wins smacks of a domination victory. By what date would you super stars expect to see knights?

Regent and pangea. The talk of quick wins smacks of a domination victory. By what date would you super stars expect to see knights?

2049AD...if I'm lucky! :lol:

Regent and pangea. The talk of quick wins smacks of a domination victory. By what date would you super stars expect to see knights?

IMHO 390-320 BC is a good date to enter the MA. (For me)

So if you are science and you gift an AI (both must get the correct tech). Study 4 turns and you could have it.

Or study 12 turns if no trade and not science.

IMHO 390-320 BC is a good date to enter the MA. (For me)

So if you are science and you gift an AI (both must get the correct tech). Study 4 turns and you could have it.

Or study 12 turns if no trade and not science.

4 turn research at the start of the MA, in 300 BC, is certainly in the realm of the elite superstars. Mere mortals struggle to achieve even half that rate.

IMHO 390-320 BC is a good date to enter the MA.
I started a practice game to see how I might do, and at 410 BC I have 3 turns until the MA. I'm pretty surprised; I'm not a great player. Regent is not very fast for tech I guess. My research cycle has been 10-15 turns. I am ahead in tech and thinking about my first war. People are sure close together on a standard map (which I rarely play). I had pretty good luck with GH and even got on free town very early.

I guess Sir Pleb will hit the MA about 1000 BC and win by 0.;)

On the question of whether one Chasqui is as good as two warriors, I feel that the answer is yes for exploration. Two warriors cannot travel twice as far as one warrior. The Chasqui's greater speed should improve the odds of opening more huts. I've tested the Chasqui a bit and found something disappointing - although it can use its second movement point after moving onto a hill or mountain, it does get stuck in forest and jungle. This sure seems like an overpriced UU at 20 shields. And if there's a lot of forest/jungle then sending out warriors could be better.
I'd say the answer is no for exploration. I’d argue two warriors can explore better than 1 Chasqui scout; if they move in opposite directions. Ignoring terrain and assuming corner moves, a scout will expose 10 new tiles per turn. Two warriors moving to opposite corners from the start tile will also expose 10 new tiles per turn. Factor in terrain and it gets worse for the scout; it can still expose 10 tiles if it runs in to hills/mountains, but so do the two warriors. Run in to forest/jungle and the warriors will still expose 10 new tiles, but the scout will drop to 5. The scout may get to a GH faster once it spots one, but over any extended period, the two warriors should always expose more new tiles (and hence more GH). I can’t see any reason to build a Chasqui scout except to trigger a golden age.

I guess Sir Pleb will hit the MA about 1000 BC and win by 0.;)

He might win it without knights before MA :cool:

That's a tall order; do you think he will take up the challenge?

On the question of whether one Chasqui is as good as two warriors, I feel that the answer is yes for exploration.


Since Typhoon Meari has me sitting indoors on a weekend, thought I'd do my first post. So far I've participated in C4 & G35.

CivGeek disagreed w/ SirPleb and stated 2 warriors is better, but I think we need to look at the map as given. We can get either set by 3750BC. (Assume Settler-W and Worker-Chop in place lets us get a ChScout in 3800BC. Alternate is to delay Chop to get 2 Warriors in 3800BC and 3750BC respectively. - I think.) Since Goody Huts aren't all local, I think the ChScout is better since it can find the distance ones even though 2 Warriors will find more local space. In the end, I can't make up my mind, wish I could get regular scouts. Maybe my first scout move will find hills/mountains or jungle which will make up my mind one way or the other.

I will definately do one of the above instead of the quick granery build. A few short test starts this morning yielded a settler or city EVERY time from my extra scout/s. Seems to make the delay worth it. I know its random and GH distro could be different, but 5 test starts in a row?!

I just downloaded some of the great assist and mod stuff (SnOOpy graphics mods, CivAssist and OCN calculator). Too bad I didn't use CivAssist in C4 and G35!! Are there any others I should be using for the C/GOTMs? Is there any consolidated statistics database that tells me the key things I need to know. (i.e. I know upgrade costs are 3x shield costs, but can't find that anywhere. Or how to calculate gp rush costs?)

Things I've learned from reading Posts (specific thanks to SirPleb as I actually printed out your QSC to analyze/study it). I've learned I don't need so many defensive units, that more than my settler factory should build settlers and republic is a viable military option (used to like Feudalism).

4 turn research at the start of the MA, in 300 BC, is certainly in the realm of the elite superstars. Mere mortals struggle to achieve even half that rate.

I never said I could do it, just that I thick thats about the fastest it could be done. 6 is about my record & most games about 8ish.

In the end, I can't make up my mind, wish I could get regular scouts.
Maybe I can throw in another factor to confuse you :). What about unit support? Building twice as many units to use Warriors rather than Chasqui Scouts means you're probably going to be paying unit support costs, whereas the Chasqui scouts could be free in Despotism.

He might win it without knights before MA :cool:
Extra condition for the challenge-deprived: you have to win by conquest, but can only build Chasqui's for your military. :p

Maybe I can throw in another factor to confuse you :). What about unit support? Building twice as many units to use Warriors rather than Chasqui Scouts means you're probably going to be paying unit support costs, whereas the Chasqui scouts could be free in Despotism.
I suppose that depends on how far you take the strategy. 1 scout or 2 warriors isn't a problem, 2 scouts or 4 warriors/3 scouts or 6 warriors would be advantage scouts until you get city #2. I can't see it going beyond that; would anybody spend 80 shields to build 4 C. scouts? Also with a warrior strategy, you do have the option of building 3 or 5 warriors and putting the saved shields (compared to another scout) elsewhere.

Maybe I can throw in another factor to confuse you :). What about unit support? Building twice as many units to use Warriors rather than Chasqui Scouts means you're probably going to be paying unit support costs, whereas the Chasqui scouts could be free in Despotism.

I suppose that depends on how far you take the strategy. 1 scout or 2 warriors isn't a problem, 2 scouts or 4 warriors/3 scouts or 6 warriors would be advantage scouts until you get city #2. I can't see it going beyond that; would anybody spend 80 shields to build 4 C. scouts? Also with a warrior strategy, you do have the option of building 3 or 5 warriors and putting the saved shields (compared to another scout) elsewhere.

There is one side effect of all those goodie huts. In a couple practice games, I found myself getting a fair number (5-6) of conscript warriors. The were useful on one hand to explore the jungle\forest\marsh but after the Republic slingshot, I had to disband alot of them to avoid the 2gpt support.

I've tested the Chasqui a bit and found something disappointing - although it can use its second movement point after moving onto a hill or mountain, it does get stuck in forest and jungle. This sure seems like an overpriced UU at 20 shields. And if there's a lot of forest/jungle then sending out warriors could be better.

Just in case anyone hasn't played the Inca (like me 24 hours ago) the Chasqui cannot use it's 2nd movement point after moving on volcanos either.

With the obvious move being sending the scout to the Northeast and North I believe our coveted Food bonus will be to the south. I may be going buggy-eyed but it seems to me that the tile 2 S of the current location is a river tile. My guess is that Ainwood has tricked us and is going to make the majority of the players move N or west when in fact our best starting position will be to the south. Ok...Maybe I need to cut down on the Caffine.

He might win it without knights before MA :cool:
That's a tall order; do you think he will take up the challenge?
I do plan to go for a conquest victory. If any one tile islands get claimed by AIs then I might change to domination. Trying for conquest with only Ancient Age units sounds like a fun idea. I'm going to wait till a while into the game before deciding whether to go for it. If there are a few Civs around with early defensive UUs (e.g. Hoplites, Impis, Numidian Mercenaries) then it will be less appealing. And the geography may have an impact. In either case (hurrying to Knights or Cavalry vs. making do with Horsemen and Swordsmen) I'd start out the same, going for Republic asap and exploring aggressively. I think the first time the two approaches diverge will be either a very tempting (or unavoidable) early war, or when most first tier techs are commonly known. At that point I'll want to choose between slowing AI research to stay in Ancient Times or speeding it to help reach Chivalry.

specific thanks to SirPleb as I actually printed out your QSC to analyze/study it
You're welcome, and thank you for mentioning it! I've been wondering whether it was still worthwhile to write and post QSC logs, now I know that it is and I'll keep doing it :)

PS, Welcome to CivFanatics!

I do plan to go for a conquest victory. If any one tile islands get claimed by AIs then I might change to domination. Trying for conquest with only Ancient Age units sounds like a fun idea. I'm going to wait till a while into the game before deciding whether to go for it. If there are a few Civs around with early defensive UUs (e.g. Hoplites, Impis, Numidian Mercenaries) then it will be less appealing. And the geography may have an impact. In either case (hurrying to Knights or Cavalry vs. making do with Horsemen and Swordsmen) I'd start out the same, going for Republic asap and exploring aggressively. I think the first time the two approaches diverge will be either a very tempting (or unavoidable) early war, or when most first tier techs are commonly known. At that point I'll want to choose between slowing AI research to stay in Ancient Times or speeding it to help reach Chivalry.
In my practice games the tech pace has been very out of balance. One or two civs might be at my pace and all the others are way behind. Some questions for you or others:
At regent, if going for an early conquest or domination win, would you build any improvements other than barracks?
Would you alter your "war in Republic" strategy if you see an early MA victory?
When do you turn your settler factory off?
Very early, would you send a settler 10-15 turns away to settle at luxuries or keep a tight build and get there 4-5 cities later?

Thanks :D

Trying for conquest with only Ancient Age units sounds like a fun idea.

It is and I suspect it is doable.At least, it was certainly possible in GOTM34 to get whole continent without knights.
I do not promise anything (everything depends on real conditions), however I do consider a variant to stop research after horseback riding. Maybe I will manage to win only around 1300AD or even after... but it will be before MA. :cooool:

In either case ... I'd start out the same, going for Republic asap...

Sure - republic, otherwise what for to stop research? ;)

At regent, if going for an early conquest or domination win, would you build any improvements other than barracks?
Probably one granary, maybe more. Perhaps also some temples if the production or pop rush capacity can be spared - building up some culture would allow casually holding captured cities. Possibly a couple of harbors, marketplaces, and/or aqueducts if the other Civs research the necessary techs and there seems to be value in them, i.e. the game will last long enough for them to pay off. Definitely not courthouses (game won't last long enough for them to pay off) nor libraries (ancient conquest implies too little research for these to matter.)

Would you alter your "war in Republic" strategy if you see an early MA victory?Probably not. The cost of getting Republic is not very high in Conquests due to the Philosophy free tech. The increased revenue and productivity, and the switch to cash rushing instead of pop rushing are big benefits which I think pay off in a very short time. Still (see solenoozerec quote below) it is tempting to consider a Despotic conquest. I think it is possible but is it better? Hmmm....

When do you turn your settler factory off?
Probably never. It helps score to keep filling in cleared land with new towns and it also helps revenue. For a fair part of the game, in Republic, each new town is immediately worth 3gpt - 2gpt for its unit support and 1 for the town. An additional 2gpt if its citizen is immediately changed to a taxman. If the beginning region is cramped then the settler factory may spend some time producing military but I expect it would still switch back to producing settlers later on.

Very early, would you send a settler 10-15 turns away to settle at luxuries or keep a tight build and get there 4-5 cities later?
Hmmm, like a lot of stuff this depends :) Mainly on how many luxuries we have closer to home. Zero or one and I'd say yes, I'd walk a settler some distance to make sure I claimed another luxury. Three or more and I wouldn't. Two, probably not. The other factor affecting this is whether the settler is heading in a direction which will be an early region of contention. If so then I'd hesitate to rush forward to claim the luxury - it might be better to wait a bit and then take the luxury in the normal flow of invasion than reach out earlier to a forward position which would end up requiring defense.

I do consider a variant to stop research after horseback riding.
Me too, that seems like a crazy idea but might work. I think I would want both Horseback Riding and Iron Working. Staying in Despotism might work with just these units. Horsemen and Swordsmen are 30 shields. So each captured corrupt town can pop rush one of these 10 turns later. Swordsmen would have a special value in a Despotic approach because they'd be the main way to usefully spend gold, building warriors and using gold to upgrade them.

I think one should give monarchy some consideration, if going for an AA conquest.
CoL may not be needed at all, so researching it is somehat wasteful.
Poly may even be available for trade, when writing is researched. In that case we could get philosophy-monarchy slingshot and get the expansion (agricultural 3-food city center) and production push quite a bit earlier.
Money from tiles will be not as important with rapid expansion and many corrupt cities.

Edit: With these considerations, I think early contacts are even more important.
I will definitely make a chasqui first and just suffer the few turns delay on granary and settler.

Thanks Sir Pleb!

Me too, that seems like a crazy idea but might work. I think I would want both Horseback Riding and Iron Working. Staying in Despotism might work with just these units.

Sorry, I probably didn't make it clear in my previous message. :blush: I am not going to stay in despotism. May be it is possible, but not for me, at least, not yet. I was planing to go to respublic as soon as possible, but then stop research after horseback riding. Saved money can be used for rushing units this way.
Under despotism I do not see benefits of stoping research.
I also prefer Respublic over Monarchy at this level. Monarchy is better when you cannot stop a war whenever you want.

Somthing I have seen the elite players mention doing is Pop Rushing units in Despotism. Is there a good article somewhere explaining the when and where this is used to it's fullest and the positive and negitive aspects of doing so? Or would one of you be willing to shed some light on this technique for me? I have never utilized this in game play.

Somthing I have seen the elite players mention doing is Pop Rushing units in Despotism. Is there a good article somewhere explaining the when and where this is used to it's fullest and the positive and negitive aspects of doing so? Or would one of you be willing to shed some light on this technique for me? I have never utilized this in game play.

I found the section on Flood Plain start in Cracker's Opening Plays article <link> (http://www.civfanatics.com/doc/civ3/cracker/civ3_starts/gotm8_russ_start.htm) very helpful in this aspect. It is not just about pop rushing but has some useful information.

Somthing I have seen the elite players mention doing is Pop Rushing units in Despotism. Is there a good article somewhere explaining the when and where this is used to it's fullest and the positive and negitive aspects of doing so? Or would one of you be willing to shed some light on this technique for me? I have never utilized this in game play.

I need to worn you that I am new to GOTM (COTM5 will be my 5th GOTM ever), so do not take my words as an expert’s opinion.
Major problems of pop rushing under despotism are shrinking population and unhappy people. Population is a major indicator of civilization power and productivity. Population and its moods are also a large component of your score.
It is probably possible to trade these components of to increase military forces and achieve a faster conquest. I do not know. I am very skeptical that such tactic will be good for domination, though. I am not going to risk and check this tactic in this game. Maybe in later games ;)

If you want to go the pop-rush route, you need a lot of cities. Best plop them as tight as possible outside your productive region.
They stay at size 1 and pop-rush a horse or sword every 10 turns.
You have only 2 unhappiness points at any given time by that, so two luxes offset this already. If you have more luxes the cities can be allowed to grow a little. Food bonuses if available can be used for specialists.

Score early in game comes mostly from territory, so you don't give up much.

Stupid question time -- is there any difference between a forrested plain and a forrested grassland in terms of shields/food/gold? And do forested furs produce more shields/food/gold than regular forests?

@Jason Fliegel: No and yes.

Forest is just forest until it's chopped.

All bonus resources add their food/shield/commerce bonuses to any terrain they lie on, including forest, subject only to the despot restrictions - three or more of anything is reduced by one while you are despotic.

@Mistfit: Pop rushing temples in border cities can be handy if you are religious. Often a new corrupt city will produce 2 fpt and 1 spt. After ten turns it's at pop 2 and has 10 shields, so it needs twenty shields to complete a temple, which costs one citizen - your new one. Pop rush the temple to increase territory and culture. The temple offsets the unhappiness produced by rushing.

Stupid question time -- is there any difference between a forrested plain and a forrested grassland in terms of shields/food/gold? And do forested furs produce more shields/food/gold than regular forests?

Furs add 1 shield and 1 commerce to the underlying terrain. So Forest with fur will produce 3 shields instead of 2, mined plains or mined regular grassland with fur will produce 2 shields instead of 1 (unmined will produce 1 instead of 0). As Alan pointed out, the tricky part is actually the government type you are under: in despotism, the 3rd shield on a forest-fur tile is eaten by the despotism penalty. The same goes for a 3rd commerce (road = 1 commerce, fur = 1 commerce, river = 1 commerce, for a total of 3). You will not get the third commerce until you get out of despotism.

It is probably a good idea to clear those forests on the fur tiles so that you can get the 2 food and 2 shields while in despotism. Also, only road the furs on a river under despotism if you want the movement bonus, because you will not get the 3rd commerce. Once you get out of despotism though, you will definitely want the roads, and you may even want to replant the forest if your city needs the shields.

Thinkin' of an early victory, imagine if the opponents were Greek (Hoplite), Cathage (Num Merc), Babylon (Bowman), Iroquois (Mounted Warrior), Roman (Legionary), Persia (Immortal), Maya (Jav Thrower), Hittite (TMC) and Celts (Gallic Swordsman). I know it would be unlikely to have 9 other civs, but this would not be good. A cool map would have only the American continent civs, all starting far from us so we can't do an early kill.

I just played a test game up to the Middle Ages and some friendly advice -- try to avoid popping Philosophy from a hut before discovering Code of Laws :crazyeye:

Cuivienen: Exception to this, if you've researched Polytheism and want to be in Monarchy for easier war waging, then go straight to Philosophy.

Hey isn't Ainwood due to pop in with another tibit of information to to further the discussion? IIRC he mentioned something about dropping clues about which civs will represent the AI and how he has constrained resources (ie all the iron at one end of the continent and all the horses at the other and the Inca on an island in a inland sea).;)

Hey isn't Ainwood due to pop in with another tibit of information to to further the discussion? IIRC he mentioned something about dropping clues about which civs will represent the AI and how he has constrained resources (ie all the iron at one end of the continent and all the horses at the other and the Inca on an island in a inland sea).;)

Actually, indeed, although we were given almost everything up front, there are bits of legitimate information that we may ask for before saves will be published.
1. How many rivals are there? 7 as usual?
2. What are predator and conquest class conditions? (Personally I do not care as I am still too afraid of predator :twitch:, but not eligible for conquest anymore).
3. What is percentage of water?

Here's a crazy start idea:

Settler W to plains fur (2-shield city tile)
Worker chop,mine at start, then SW,chop
Using only the visible tiles, we get a granary at 3300BC and a settler at 3100BC.

It looks to me like the starting tile is definately PLAINS-forest. So it is already a 2-shield city tile, and mining it would not improve it under despotism.

So to me the correct order would be:

Settler founds capital on the spot. Worker SW, chop and mine (unless it's a BG under the forest, in which case this tile cannot be improved in any way under despotism!). Then Worker NW, chop and irrigate (building road brings no bonus under despotism since fur+river already brings 2 commerce). This brings a Granary in 3350, a first Settler in 3200 and a second Settler in 2900, with a little micro-management (even earlier if there is a BG under the forest SW of the start-tile).

Then the worker moves on to mine and road two of the BG's, leaving us with a massive 10 shields per turn at size 4 under despotism, which for example equals a Warrior+Chasqui/Archer+Worker combo every 4 turns, with minimal unhappiness (just one Warrior needed as MP). :)

-- Roland

(Personally I do not care as I am still too afraid of predator :twitch:, but not eligible for conquest anymore).

You have to be eligible for conquest?

So next mounth if we have a diety game am I eligible for conquest class? :confused:

I think if you have finished in the top 50% that you are not eligible for conquest level anymore.

Someone plz confirm?

I think if you have finished in the top 50% that you are not eligible for conquest level anymore.

Someone plz confirm?
That is correct.
Players who have played previous GOTM games and finished in the upper 50% of the rankings should continue to play the Open Class games and will not have the option of recording scores for the Conquest Class versions of the game.


Its detailed in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=53303). :)

It looks to me like the starting tile is definately PLAINS-forest.
http://gotm.civfanatics.net/games/images/cotm05large.jpg
Can't see it. :confused:
If it is, that would certainly be advantageous.

IMO it looks as though the underlying terrain is definitely grass.

That is correct.
Its detailed in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=53303). :)

Why not to write it down in the pages announcing save files? I accidentally came across this information. Otherwise I would definitely choose conquest class in the next deity game. Apparently I am not the only one for whom this information came as a surprise.

IMO it looks as though the underlying terrain is definitely grass.

Building the capital on furs has also another advantage - no need to build a road. Furs and river give 2 gold, road doesn't change this, but you still need to connect a city to the lux. If you have a city on the lux, no need to build a road.

A'AbarachAmadan , How do you install the SnOOpy graphics mods with COTM ?
I've try and it is not working.
Please help me.
Thanks
LeSphinx

@ Hannabir and Tone, it's been a while since I used Snoopy's terrain graphics, but as far as I remember, brownish trees means plains underneath.

But looking around a bit, I find this: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3images/snoopy45c/snoopy%20terrains%20with%20normal%20gforests.jpg

Now I don't know what to think...

-- Roland

Building the capital on furs has also another advantage - no need to build a road. Furs and river give 2 gold, road doesn't change this, but you still need to connect a city to the lux. If you have a city on the lux, no need to build a road.

Yes, but you don't want to build a city on a grassland-forest-fur, 'cause in effect that would waste 1 shield per turn compared to building it on a plains-forest-fur and chop+mine the grassland-forest-fur. So it is pretty important to figure out if that starting tile is grassland-forest or plains-forest.

-- Roland

I don't play Conquests yet but it is interesting for me. :D
I made some modeling and I think there is a cattle on E,NE tile from start spot. ;)

A'AbarachAmadan , How do you install the SnOOpy graphics mods with COTM ? I've try and it is not working. Please help me.
Thanks
LeSphinx

I ignored the install directions. I created backup directory called 'Art2' and copied everything in the Civilization III / Conquests / Art directory into it. This is important in case you don't like and want to restore. Then I copied (overwrote) the files (not the whole directories, just the files as there are some files that must remain) in the respective Art directories with the ones SnOOpy provided in his download (used Snoopy45c3c).

Cool to see folks from around the world on here. Paris is one of my favorite cities! Of course, if France is in COTM5, Paris will be overrun before BC ends - I hope. ;)

Solenoozerec,

you want to build roads anyway, to get your units - especially your settlers - out faster. Also, you'll be in Republic or Monarchy soon enough so why waste time by taking two turns to enter those squares instead of just one.
In Conquests, I am noticing that I don't even mine all bonus grasslands of my core cities because the food bonus from irrigating them comes up so quickly and at a time that the city still needs to do a lot of growing.

I don't play Conquests yet but it is interesting for me. :D
I made some modeling and I think there is a cattle on E,NE tile from start spot. ;)

I can see a bit a pixel variation, but nothing to confirm the cow. That is normal for me though: I usually can't see things hiding under the fog until I get in the game and then blow up the start picture. Therefore, I am not going to map out my shield production for the first thirty turns until I get the start file and can see more.

If there is indeed a cow, then this will be an astronomical start on regent level! And SOME civ fanatics will almost certainly conquer the world with horsemen :).

Ideally, I would love to chop rush a Chasqui or two before starting my granary, but I will have to map out shields and growth for the first turns before I decide. I may also change my mind if my scout does not spot a hut by the time that first Chasqui is built. I don't want to delay my granary by too many turns, especially if there are no goody huts for my Chasqui's to pop. :rolleyes:

*This post was edited heavily, due to me trying to write it early, early in the morning :blush:. Thank god for Roland and Alan. :blush:

LOL, all I see is fog but the seers of civ3 are quite often right and if we wish hard enough.............Mooo! :crazyeye:
Then again, the map could be changed at any moment and we may find ourselves stranded on an arctic island - ring any bells? :lol:

bradleyfeanor, I think you have east and west mixed up somehow. :)

-- Roland

Great Scott!!! Thank you Roland. That's what I get for trying to strategize before :coffee:.

Can some kind moderator delete that post before it confuses someone? :help: :thanx:

*Edit complete as per Alan's post below. I shall now quit writing until I wake up, in order to spare this perfectly good thread from more damage! :blush:

The whole post? Can't it be edited to recover some information?

@ Hannabir and Tone, it's been a while since I used Snoopy's terrain graphics, but as far as I remember, brownish trees means plains underneath.

OK, I installed the Snoopy graphics, and made a copy of the start-location in the editor. Conclusion: The start-tile IS PLAINS-forest. :smug:

Grassland-forest:

http://www.ehnstrom.se/roland/diverse/cotm05_grassforest.jpg

Plains-forest:

http://www.ehnstrom.se/roland/diverse/cotm05_plainsforest.jpg

-- Roland

Good work Roland I would have never thought to do that. :goodjob:

I don't play Conquests yet but it is interesting for me. :D
I made some modeling and I think there is a cattle on E,NE tile from start spot. ;)

I think you may be right! I made some moddeling too, and as far as I can tell, there IS a very faint hint of the shadow of a cow in the grassland E, NE of the start. :eek:

How you found this, I do not know, 'cause it is VERY faint indeed! :goodjob:

-- Roland

For the non-believers. :) Do you see it?

-- Roland

I think you may be right! I made some moddeling too, and as far as I can tell, there IS a very faint hint of the shadow of a cow in the grassland E, NE of the start. :eek:

How you found this, I do not know, 'cause it is VERY faint indeed! :goodjob:

-- Roland

Yes, I see the cattle on your screenshots.
:goodjob:

The best scale is 200%.
On the LCD screen with own resolution 1024x768 it is seen at 80% probability. :)

Man, your eyes are better than mine. All I see is an arrow and a bunch of blurry pixels! :crazyeye: But with all the time spent looking in the mirror every day for the last X amount of years my eyes have suffered tremendous stress and aren't what they used to be. So I will take your word for it and hope it comes to pass as it would make for an excellent start! :goodjob:

Well, Ok if you say so.... I look forward to finding it when the game starts.

Well, the hill is the obvious place to send the Scout first up. So if there are cows there, we will know soon enough.

Neil. :cool:

:confused: What's wrong with Ainwood.
If there's indeed a cow, we have a 4-turn warrior-settler combo factory, which doesn't even need micromanagement.
Combined with regent, agricultural and pangaea, this should lead to record breaking results.
Or does the world consist only of mountains except the tiles we see and the 5-cow regions of the other civs. :crazyeye:

:confused: What's wrong with Ainwood.
If there's indeed a cow, we have a 4-turn warrior-settler combo factory, which doesn't even need micromanagement.
Combined with regent, agricultural and pangaea, this should lead to record breaking results.
Or does the world consist only of mountains except the tiles we see and the 5-cow regions of the other civs. :crazyeye:

It's reason why the horseman may be isn't good unit on this terrain.
:rolleyes:

It's reason why the horseman may be isn't good unit on this terrain.

Even so, I still prefer them over swordsman because of the chance they get to retreat in combat.

Horsemen in larger numbers are always better than swords if you are planning to spend most of your warfare attacking opponents.
They retreat, therefore better survival rate. You will have more elite horses than you would have elite swords, therefore more chances to get GLs
and overal faster war capmaign

dmanakho , are you sure about that.

HORSEMAN : (30 shields) 2/1/2
SWORDMAN : (30 shields) 3/2/1

I always use swordman. Endeed, few are promote to elite and very few to GL.
But the horseman are less good in attack. against :
IMPI 1/2/2
SEARPAN 1/2/1
HOPOLITE 1/3/1
they have less chance of success , no ?

LeSphinx

dmanakho , are you sure about that.

HORSEMAN : (30 shields) 2/1/2
SWORDMAN : (30 shields) 3/2/1

I always use swordman. Endeed, few are promote to elite and very few to GL.
But the horseman are less good in attack. against :
IMPI 1/2/2
SEARPAN 1/2/1
HOPOLITE 1/3/1
they have less chance of success , no ?

LeSphinx

I agree swordsman has better attack value, but Horseman can retreat and has extra movement and it makes HUUUUUUGE difference.
Please look at Smackster SGOTM3 Rome thread, you will learn how to use Horsemen to the full extend, that's how i learned...
I would always build swords before, but after playing that game i never build any swordsmen anymore, well maybe just few... Horses and more horses that is my new motto for any warfare.

Holy cow!
I mean, I still can't see it, but I will know for certain as soon as my scout moves. With a lot of training I have learned to see Dyes sticking out from under the fog, if someone points them out, but that's it for my eyes. ;)

Roland, great job with the plains/grassland forests. I think you have convinced me there!

So if there is a cow... we have to start discussion where we would settle all over again :)

You gentlemen are assuming that there are horses (or iron for that matter) on this continent !!!

It is worth having the scout check out if that is a cow. I'll have to rethink my original (DaveMcW's) plan of settler west. The fact that this is a panagea means to me that at least 2 more scouts are needed.

I'm thinking of alphabet->writing->code of laws->philosophy->free republic for research then literature for libraries - I'll probably leverage those in trade for the rest of the AA techs.

I'm hoping for an industrious (America, Ottoman & France preferred) for next door neighbors, so I can coax them into building the Pyramids for me. The Pyramids, Sun Tzu, Bach & Hoover should be very powerful in this game. I'm also hoping for a religious neighbor (India, Japan or Spain) to build the Temple of Artemis for me. Being able to have temples & granaries in new cities would allow for massive growth & expansion.

I still don't understand how people can see things in the fog. I didn't even believe it was anything else than completely black. I thought people see it by just a few pixels pointing out of the fog. So i edited the pictures collor settings a bit, and yes, i see something but how do you know it's a cow?

And about the swords vs horses:
I made the battle calculator do some calculations on veteran horses/swords vs both regular and veteran spears fortified without other bonusses.

The chance to die was roughly equal for both.
The chance to win was MUCH higher for swords. (the difference is the chance to retreat)

If a horse retreats, the enemy is not dead and another battle is needed, again providing chance to die. So horses should cause more losses.

If you kill x enemies, you have x promotion chances. It doesn't matter with what you kill them, so leader chances are equal.

Since horses need more battles, you need more horses as well to conquer a city or area.

Of course, the movement of the horses does make up for a lot of things.
A mix of both is best IMO, so you use swords when possible, horses when faster movement is required.
For the battles themselves, the swordsman is superior.

I think there is a serious flaw in your calculation Swordsmen vs Horsemen

Yes, single swordsman is always better than a single horse when fighting spear, but 10 horses are always better than 10 swordsmen and have higher survival rate when attacking a city with spears fortified inside.

Using of swodsman or horseman depend on the game specific. If you haven't horse you must use some swords and archers to catch it. And don't forget: the sworsman can be made by upgrade of warrior (if you have enough money).
I think both swordsman end horsemen may be used for tactical purpose in the middle of AA. For example: killing nearest neighbors for grout; catching resources; getting the early leaders (actually for classic Civ). Better choice for global wars are Knights and Cavalries. ;)

...
The chance to die was roughly equal for both.
The chance to win was MUCH higher for swords. (the difference is the chance to retreat)

If a horse retreats, the enemy is not dead and another battle is needed, again providing chance to die. So horses should cause more losses.

If you kill x enemies, you have x promotion chances. It doesn't matter with what you kill them, so leader chances are equal.

...

Don't forget the horse that retreat can heal and rejoin the war which offsets the numbers needed. AND when they retreat they have still damaged the enemy. So subsequent horsemen will attack against weakened opponents. Increasing their chances to win and getting a GL. So while they have to fight more battles a percentage of those battles are more favorable than the raw stats would indicate. While swordmens may damage their opponent before they die, they do just that, die.

I have taken on Carthage both ways in recent GOTMs. Both were about the same in terms of casualties and time but in the game where I used Horsemen, I was in a much better strategic position to upgrade to Knights and Cav. With the Swordsmen, I ended up with a lot slow units Med. Inf only suitable for garrison. They just can't keep up with mounted units and it is not worth waiting for them.

K you are right, i have nood checked it good enough. I did so now however:

I enter the following info in 2 battle calculators
(http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=75765 and http://www.safalra.com/other/civilization.html)

Attackers always veteran (who builds regulars)
results are written as: Win - Loss - Retreat(calc1) -:- Win (calc2)


Defender1: normal spearman, fortified, grassland.
. Horsemen: 48.9 - 26.0 - 25.0 -:- 51
. Swordsmen: 70.4 - 29.6 -:- 70

Defender2: veteran spearman, fortified, grassland.
. Horsemen: 32.9 - 32.8 - 34.2 -:- 34
. Swordsmen: 55.7 - 44.3 -:- 56

Defender3: normal spearman, fortified, city.
. Horsemen: 40.8 - 32.2 - 27.0 -:- 35
. Swordsmen: 62.5 - 37.5 -:- 55

Defender4: veteran spearman, fortified, city.
. Horsemen: 25.2 - 33.7 - 41.1 -:- 20
. Swordsmen: 46.5 - 53.5 -:- 39

Defender5: normal spearman, fortified, city, hills.
. Horsemen: 30.7 - 34.9 - 34.4 -:- 27
. Swordsmen: 51.5 - 48.5 -:- 46

Defender6: veteran spearman, fortified, city, hills.
. Horsemen: 16.8 - 37.4 - 45.8 -:- 14
. Swordsmen: 34.7 - 65.3 -:- 29

Now to the conclusions:
-The combat calculators give different results. :s

-In easy battles, the chance to lose is almost equal for swords and horses while swords have a far greater chance to win.

-In harder battles, the chance to lose for swords becomes up to double that of horses. However, it's chance to win is equally increased. Therfore, horses will need many more battles before defeating the enemy. if we take the toughest example vs veteran fortified in city on hill, horses have 17% chance vs 35% for swords. It is difficult to calculate the exact numbers because the defender will be damaged after earlier battles and also might get upgrades after defeating an enemy. I will leave this to better math scientists, but my estimate is that loses will be about equal again, but the swords needing only half the amount of troops to take the city.

-the difference between regular and veteran defenders is bigger than one might expect. It makes it almost as tough as a city on a hill.


basically it looks like this:
if you need 2 swordsmen on average (1 will win, 1 will die) you need 3 horses for the same battle (1 will win, 1 will die, 1 will retreat)

I would like you to explain why a large group of horses would be better than a large group of swords if a single sword is better than a single horse. Of course, if you bring groups of 10 to 1 city defended by 2 spears, the horses will get their earlier and thus be better. (losses are equal)
if however you split your swords in 2 groups, you can take 2 cities with them while the horses take one city.

I have had a number of bad experiences with horsemen. Remember a horse won't roll back if the defender is red-lined. I have had a an elite fortified spear kill three vet. horses on numerous occassions. For a redlined spear to take at least one horse with him is so common place that it seems to happen virtually every turn when I'm on the war path. I may have 30-80 horses in combat but still - its vexing.

I have had a number of bad experiences with horsemen. Remember a horse won't roll back if the defender is red-lined. I have had a an elite fortified spear kill three vet. horses on numerous occassions. For a redlined spear to take at least one horse with him is so common place that it seems to happen virtually every turn when I'm on the war path. I may have 30-80 horses in combat but still - its vexing.

That is exactly what happens when you don't pay much attention to RNG gods. :lol:

I agree with Dynamic, and looking at his results so should everyone in this discussion.

Everygame is different, but assuming a standard start with both horses and iron available, I would start by building warriors until HBR is researched and horses are hooked up, and then switch to horsemen exclusively. Typically you find yourself with a good stack of 20 or so warriors built before the horses were hooked up therefore once the iron is hooked up I'll upgrade the warriors and invade my first opponent with swordsmen. As the horseman can move quickly they soon join the fight. As I build more horses and take more opponents land the swords start getting used for resistance busting and perimiter defence, as they are not fast enough to get to the front lines.

Once I get in range of Chivalry, I'll stop the fight, gather cash, and upgrade and continue with the same, through MT if needed. I'm sure this game will be won with Knights, and I think a Knight victory will beat any horseman conquest, SirPleb aside.

smackster

I agree with Dynamic, and looking at his results so should everyone in this discussion.

Everygame is different, but assuming a standard start with both horses and iron available, I would start by building warriors until HBR is researched and horses are hooked up, and then switch to horsemen exclusively. Typically you find yourself with a good stack of 20 or so warriors built before the horses were hooked up therefore once the iron is hooked up I'll upgrade the warriors and invade my first opponent with swordsmen. As the horseman can move quickly they soon join the fight. As I build more horses and take more opponents land the swords start getting used for resistance busting and perimiter defence, as they are not fast enough to get to the front lines.

Once I get in range of Chivalry, I'll stop the fight, gather cash, and upgrade and continue with the same, through MT if needed. I'm sure this game will be won with Knights, and I think a Knight victory will beat any horseman conquest, SirPleb aside.

smackster

I agree. This tactics is good for most games. But sometimes when you starting position is very good but opponents have strong defence the better way is no wars before Chivalry or MT and using horseman only for upgrade, like classic GOTM35. ;)

Of course, this might not be a 'traditional' Pangaea map. Remember the Roman choke point of GOTM33? Or there the one in the save file I've attached here (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/20K_20040921_Netherlands_1540AD.SAV)

Neil. :cool:

I agree. This tactics is good for most games. But sometimes when you starting position is very good but opponents have strong defence the better way is no wars before Chivalry or MT and using horseman only for upgrade, like classic GOTM35. ;)
Are you sure, I think our scores were very close and I didn't do that. But then that is still a spoiler game, so wont say anymore.

smackster

Are you sure, I think our scores were very close and I didn't do that. But then that is still a spoiler game, so wont say anymore.

smackster

Look at SirPleb's result.
;)

Look at SirPleb's result.
;)
Now that is unfair

edit:sorry my mind is going, I'm thinking of my COTM4 game.

Solenoozerec,

you want to build roads anyway, to get your units - especially your settlers - out faster. Also, you'll be in Republic or Monarchy soon enough so why waste time by taking two turns to enter those squares instead of just one.
In Conquests, I am noticing that I don't even mine all bonus grasslands of my core cities because the food bonus from irrigating them comes up so quickly and at a time that the city still needs to do a lot of growing.

It is just a matter of priorities. The question is not to build or not to build. Indeed eventually it will be built. The question is what to build first. If your city is not placed on furs, you would like to build a road to it after pop 3 if you do not want to pay money for entertainment or keep units in the city. Within few first turns there are a lot of other things to do for your worker (e.g. chop forest).
Plus your score comes from happy people. I know that one happy guy is not that much, but it so early ;)

Just finished my test game... domination at 410AD and the game ended before I got cavalries.

Somthing I have seen the elite players mention doing is Pop Rushing units in Despotism. Is there a good article somewhere explaining the when and where this is used to it's fullest and the positive and negitive aspects of doing so? Or would one of you be willing to shed some light on this technique for me? I have never utilized this in game play.
I don't know of an article on this subject. Here are my thoughts about it:

In general pop rushing in productive (i.e. not totally corrupt) cities is not worthwhile. The gain of at most 20 shields per citizen seldom outweighs the loss of what that citizen could have produced in subsequent turns. And sometimes the resulting unhappiness is also a problem, further reducing what is gained. But there are of course exceptions. Sometimes I pop rush a number of builds while in Despotism, sometimes none. On overall average I guess I pop rush one or two things per game.

Situations I can think of where it makes sense to pop rush:

1) A panic situation. Sometimes pop rushing a military unit is the best way to deal with an incoming threat such as a barbarian appearing from nowhere.

2) Hurrying a build which will be more effective the sooner it happens. E.g. I sometimes rush a galley or two immediately after learning Map Making - in some games the sooner they go out exploring the better.

3) Putting the population in corrupt towns to some use. This doesn't often apply - I don't often have corrupt towns before getting to Republic. But it sometimes happens. E.g. from popping a settler from a distant hut or from sending an early settler to claim a resource or luxury outside the core region. In these cases it can be useful to pop rush something in the town.

4) Reducing the population in a captured town. This is another rare one - I don't often capture towns while in Despotism and if I do they're likely to be small. But if the chance comes up it is worth taking - a captured town with four citizens can be reduced to two citizens at the same time as rushing 40 shields worth of production. One I really like when possible: if a captured town is size 5 or larger, pop rush a settler. That uses two citizens for the rush and two more for the settler. Warning: if the other Civ has high culture, don't use that settler for a while, the city it creates will have a foreign citizen.

5) Using a citizen in a town which has stopped growing or is growing slowly due to its size. (But not due to unhappiness and needing specialists! Rushing in such a case usually does as much harm as good because it increases unhappiness.) E.g. if a town has only two "food" tiles to work, everything else in its sphere being hills or tundra. When the town reaches size three it may be desirable to pop rush something - the town will then grow at a greater rate, replacing the whipped citizen.

6) Just before revolting from Despotism. This is a good time to review all towns and see if any last minute rushing makes sense.

I guess it also make sense to rush a harbor on an island with luxes or resources assuming you have map making, but no monarchy or republic.

Furs add 1 shield and 1 commerce to the underlying terrain. So Forest with fur will produce 3 shields instead of 2, mined plains or mined regular grassland with fur will produce 2 shields instead of 1 (unmined will produce 1 instead of 0). As Alan pointed out, the tricky part is actually the government type you are under: in despotism, the 3rd shield on a forest-fur tile is eaten by the despotism penalty. The same goes for a 3rd commerce (road = 1 commerce, fur = 1 commerce, river = 1 commerce, for a total of 3). You will not get the third commerce until you get out of despotism.

It is probably a good idea to clear those forests on the fur tiles so that you can get the 2 food and 2 shields while in despotism. Also, only road the furs on a river under despotism if you want the movement bonus, because you will not get the 3rd commerce. Once you get out of despotism though, you will definitely want the roads, and you may even want to replant the forest if your city needs the shields.

Doesn't this also suggest that it's not a good idea to settle in place on the furs, since you are sacrificing 1 shield and 1 commerce (at least once you get out of despotism)?

@ sirpleb As always thanks to you for your insight. Am I correct in saying that if you own a captured town with 3 foreign citizens and 2 native that pop rushing will take the native citizens first?

The discovery that we're starting on plains (under the forest) instead of grass sure changes things. I haven't worked out a build sequence but intuitively it seems better to settle at the start than to move west.

The discovery that there are cattle E,NE makes a huge difference! Do we know for sure that they're on grassland, or might that be plains they're on?

I will almost always move my settler to bring a food bonus inside the starting city radius if possible. This start may be a very rare exception to that rule. Being agricultural changes things, and having the chance to settle on a shield bonus is a very big factor. Assuming the cattle are on grassland, I think that we can grow to size 3 in 12 turns by settling at the start position. (7 turns for first growth, then 2 turns with 3 food/turn before border expansion, then 3 turns with 5 food/turn.) We can grow to size 3 in 10 turns by moving closer to the cattle. (1 turn to move, 5 turns for first growth, 4 turns for second growth.) So moving gains two turns toward growth. But it loses one shield per turn for a very long time and it uses up a BG. Before deciding I want to learn more about what else lies under the fog. If there are even more goodies perhaps even a two step move could make sense for the settler. All I'm sure of at this point is that there will be interesting decisions to make - the first thing is to scout NE and see what else is nearby.

Am I correct in saying that if you own a captured town with 3 foreign citizens and 2 native that pop rushing will take the native citizens first?
I don't know. And if a settler is made from one foreign and one native citizen, which nationality will it be? I don't know about that one either, does anyone have answers for these?

I don't know where I read it, but I seem to recall seeing it stated somewhere that native citizens are used up first when any citizen is called upon - whether it's for a pop rush, a mobilisation, a settler or worker build, a starvation or disease. I could have got it wrong though.:hmm:

A settler or worker takes the nationality of the citizen(s) that went into creating her. I've no idea which nationality a settler made from one native and one foreign citizen would be.

The discovery that we're starting on plains (under the forest) instead of grass sure changes things. I haven't worked out a build sequence but intuitively it seems better to settle at the start than to move west.

The discovery that there are cattle E,NE makes a huge difference! Do we know for sure that they're on grassland, or might that be plains they're on?

I will almost always move my settler to bring a food bonus inside the starting city radius if possible. This start may be a very rare exception to that rule. Being agricultural changes things, and having the chance to settle on a shield bonus is a very big factor. Assuming the cattle are on grassland, I think that we can grow to size 3 in 12 turns by settling at the start position. (7 turns for first growth, then 2 turns with 3 food/turn before border expansion, then 3 turns with 5 food/turn.) We can grow to size 3 in 10 turns by moving closer to the cattle. (1 turn to move, 5 turns for first growth, 4 turns for second growth.) So moving gains two turns toward growth. But it loses one shield per turn for a very long time and it uses up a BG. Before deciding I want to learn more about what else lies under the fog. If there are even more goodies perhaps even a two step move could make sense for the settler. All I'm sure of at this point is that there will be interesting decisions to make - the first thing is to scout NE and see what else is nearby.

Based on what we know, why isn't moving north the right move? Assuming there's a cow to the southeast of the hill and/or a sugar to the northwest of the hill (two hypotheses the fog-gazers have put forth, and who am I to argue?), it puts both food bonus tiles within our initial starting radius. It also provides a means to irrigate the sugar at our earliest convenience. We've still got one fur in our initial radius, and will grab two more on first expansion. Same for the bonus grasslands.

My initial plan is to move the scout northeast then north onto the hill. I suppose if the fog gazers are wrong and everything I see from the hill is desert, I might move the worker west. But probably, I'll move the settler north, road the fur, and then irrigate the hypothetical cow.

I made some modeling and I think there is a cattle on E,NE tile from start spot

I believe the reported cow spotting is 2 tiles SE of the hill. So you would not benifit from the cow until after the expansion of the borders.

Edit: deleted, Mistfit already answered

The discovery that there are cattle E,NE makes a huge difference! Do we know for sure that they're on grassland, or might that be plains they're on?

Let me put it this way: I am more sure that the tile in question is Grassland, than that there is in fact a Cow walking around on it. :crazyeye:

-- Roland

So i edited the pictures collor settings a bit, and yes, i see something but how do you know it's a cow?

You can't know for sure that it is a cow, and don't kill me if I am wrong (kill Dynamic, it's his discovery! ;) ). But you can tell it's most likely a cow, by using the editor. You build a number of different worlds (different bonuses in that tile), and compare the result in the game (the "shape" of the blurry pixels) to ainwood's initial screenshot. Doing this, the result I get is that it is most likely a cow there. Of course, it could well be something else, or worse: Nothing at all.

-- Roland

do you not alter the picture in some editing program before seeing any blury pixels ?

I don't have experience with picture editing, is there any program that will let you not just alter brightness,contrast and colors, but also alows you to specify a collor range and zoom in on that? (like you could turn the 10 darkest tints out to a white to black grayscale)

That could help a lot.

The Cow or not the cow :crazyeye:

Let me tell you how it really works. Ainwood has to keep the thread hot, so he is leaking information to the trusted parties, and those trusted parties in their turn masquerade information leaked from Ainwood as their abilities to look under the fog :lol: :lol: :lol:. Everybody else is getting fooled time after time after time :bounce:

WackenOpenAir, that would surely be helpful, but so far I've just used regular zoom. What I have done, however, is make sure I save my own screenshots with the same amount of jpg-compression as ainwood is using for the official pre-game screenshot (looks like it's around 40%).

-- Roland

The Cow or not the cow :crazyeye:

moo or not to moo.

Everybody else is getting fooled time after the time after the time :bounce:

I do not have sufficient data for statistic, but at least in COTM3 predicted caw existed.

However, the prolem is that sometimes Ainwood starts to move mountains and rivers around after publishing the map.

So I do suspect that the moo (or another creature) is likely to be there in fog right now, but... nobody garantees us that it still will be there when we startto play :(

Is sending the scout to the hill definitely the right opening play? It seems like sending it E, E or E, SE might be better. It reveals only 10 total tiles instead of 17 (since we already know the sugar) to the hill, but it reveals a minimum of two more tiles adjacent to the river and the tiles it reveals are far more likely to be cows, wheat or BG's. It's certainly the most likely direction for our second city.

Based on what we know, why isn't moving north the right move? Assuming there's a cow to the southeast of the hill and/or a sugar to the northwest of the hill (two hypotheses the fog-gazers have put forth, and who am I to argue?), it puts both food bonus tiles within our initial starting radius. It also provides a means to irrigate the sugar at our earliest convenience. We've still got one fur in our initial radius, and will grab two more on first expansion. Same for the bonus grasslands.

My initial plan is to move the scout northeast then north onto the hill. I suppose if the fog gazers are wrong and everything I see from the hill is desert, I might move the worker west. But probably, I'll move the settler north, road the fur, and then irrigate the hypothetical cow.

I don't think you can get a food bonus from sugar by irrigating in Depot since you take a -1 if >= 3. You can get 2f & 2s by mining, however.

I don't think you can get a food bonus from sugar by irrigating in Depot since you take a -1 if >= 3. You can get 2f & 2s by mining, however.

Really? Nuts. I thought you could get 3 food out of irrigated sugar in despotism.

Uh ... I mean ... you can irrigate the sugar once you get out of despotism. Yeah, that's what I meant!

Regarding Horsemen or Swordsmen, the Horsemen have the additional advantage that because of their speed they can attack more enemy units in open terrain. So, on average, they are facing a weaker opposition.
It is also easier to make a co-ordinated attack on one city and take it before the enemy can move in and/or rush-build additional units. As a consequence, Horsemen will also face less opposing units.
Swordsmen, on the other hand, have a better chance to get as well as survive a counter-attack and thereby receive an automatic promotion.

Is sending the scout to the hill definitely the right opening play? It seems like sending it E, E or E, SE might be better. It reveals only 10 total tiles instead of 17 (since we already know the sugar) to the hill, but it reveals a minimum of two more tiles adjacent to the river and the tiles it reveals are far more likely to be cows, wheat or BG's. It's certainly the most likely direction for our second city.

I've been thinking the same, E E specifically, but I'm still undecided. Would like to hear a word from a more experienced player on this.

-- Roland

Doesn't this also suggest that it's not a good idea to settle in place on the furs, since you are sacrificing 1 shield and 1 commerce (at least once you get out of despotism)?

This is a good question. If you settle on the starting fur you do not lose the socond shield, because the despotism penalty would only "eat" a shield if there were three or more. Here is the tricky part: you don't lose the commerce either! I am not at all sure why that is. As Alan stated earlier, in despotism, anything that you have 3 or more of, you subtract one. But in this case the rule does not seem to apply. Anyone have some insight on this?

Yeah, as far as I know, the despotism penalty simply does not apply to city tiles. Perhaps the reasoning behind this is that these tiles are not actually "worked" by any citizen. Or it may be just another case of lazy design/programming/whatever.

-- Roland

However, the prolem is that sometimes Ainwood starts to move mountains and rivers around after publishing the map.
I don't tend to do that anywhere near the starting position - I did that for GOTM 35 because Civ 1.29f players can't irrigate across a hill on a city, whilst PTW players can.

I do tweak a few things on the maps, but I don't change anything with the starting position - I normally just change minor things around the AI locations (for example I might move a resource to improve the placement of AI cities). :)

I'm not sure if you lose 1 commerce or not, but you definitely don't lose a shield by settling on the fur. If you irrigate a plains fur, you'd get 2 food & 2 shields whether you're in despotism or republic, and that's exactly what you'll get by building on it. (not counting the +1 Agri bonus) That's why it's so good.

I don't tend to do that anywhere near the starting position - I did that for GOTM 35 because Civ 1.29f players can't irrigate across a hill on a city, whilst PTW players can.

I do tweak a few things on the maps, but I don't change anything with the starting position - I normally just change minor things around the AI locations (for example I might move a resource to improve the placement of AI cities). :)

Which totally proves my theory of conspiracy :rolleyes:

Which totally proves my theory of conspiracy :rolleyes:
Which is? :lol: That I leak info to people in advance to release in the discussion! Or that I see what the long-term strategies suggested in the pre-game discussion are and, and tweak the game map to foil them?

Well, I don't do either, but its a good suggestion that I'll store away for the future... :mischief:







:joke:

Ainwood, did you "tweak" the important early resources or go with normal conquest distribution?

I think if you have finished in the top 50% that you are not eligible for conquest level anymore.

Someone plz confirm?

Is there a time when you are no longer eligible for open class? Are there guidelines for when one should be playing at predator class?

Is there a time when you are no longer eligible for open class? Are there guidelines for when one should be playing at predator class?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=53634

Here is the thread that details Predator class, but the short answer is no there is no time that you are no longer eligible to play open. I haven't been around very long but it looks as though predator was put in place just for an extra challenge to the top players, and you can chop and change as you like between it and open class from game to game. :)

Having said that perhaps the rules could be more clearly defined and as a suggestion to Ainwood etc, how about making predator compulsory for the top X amout of players? Say those who are in the top 10 on the Global player ranking?

Just an idea anyway!

Others thoughts?

I don't tend to do that anywhere near the starting position - I did that for GOTM 35 because Civ 1.29f players can't irrigate across a hill on a city, whilst PTW players can.

First of all I need to say that I admire and greatly appreciate your work (not only GOTM design, civassist and your patience with us on forum too. But most of all I appreciate your sacrifice of not playing GOTM, this might be the most difficult) :thanx:
GOTM35 is exactly what I referred to as ‘sometimes’. Yes, indeed you had reasons to alter the starting position. But who can guarantee us that it will not happen again?
I didn’t mean that you are likely to alter starting position for some kind of pervert pleasure (even if I meant that, I meant it as a joke:) ).
As for GOTM35, I think it had a really bad luck and I am kind of glad that I decided not to play it before I knew about bad luck.

Is there a time when you are no longer eligible for open class? Are there guidelines for when one should be playing at predator class?

I have no idea, but suspect that it is voluntarily. Though, it might be an interesting idea to force people into predator class. For example, if you are missing just one award before getting eptathlon statue, you have to get it playing predator class.


Say those who are in the top 10 on the Global player ranking?

Just an idea anyway!

Others thoughts?

Should we make a poll about this?
I do suspect that majority of people will support such an idea, because it will handicap the best players somewhat (who are a minority). But this is a democracy, isn’t it :mischief: ?

Having said that perhaps the rules could be more clearly defined and as a suggestion to Ainwood etc, how about making predator compulsory for the top X amout of players? Say those who are in the top 10 on the Global player ranking?

Global rankings do not always highlight the elite. Sometimes those people who have reasonably good games but submit a game pretty much every month creep in there and there are certainly many top players outside the top 10 who submit too infrequently to make it into the top 10. I'm close to your dividing line but nowhere near elite standard. Personally I'm happy with the predator class being optional for those that want the extra challenge; wasn't that the original idea?

BTW thanks Roland for the screen shots which show the plains+furs set up. It's amazing how many posts have been made since I posted yesterday and I clearly need to rethink my opening play. ;)

Well, to be honest there has been discussion that predator level may, in some instances, HELP the elite players! :eek: Because in some cases it helps the AI get established faster, and as such allows the player to tag-along.

BTW - I don't think its too much of a spoiler to confirm that the starting position is in fact plains forest.

However, I will neither confirm nor deny the rumours that cattle roam in the east....

Ainwood, did you "tweak" the important early resources or go with normal conquest distribution?
To be honest, I always tweak the resources, but the extent to which I do this varies. Sometimes I might shift luxury resources around, and sometimes I might shift strategic ones around. Sometimes I move both. For example, the GOTM 28 (India), the lack of iron and horses was pretty intentional! It is not necessarily always to the detriment of the human though - for example, in the demigod COTM (Byzantines?), I moved the ivory to near the player. :)

I don't tend to change the absolute appearance rates of the resources too much though - I normally move rather than delete resources. This is not a hard and fast rules though - I might delete or add one or two of a given type.

Well, to be honest there has been discussion that predator level may, in some instances, HELP the elite players! :eek:
...but not when they lose one of the two starting traits :)


To be honest, I always tweak the resources

I've no problem with this. I enjoy reading how players overcome the (sometimes engineered) problems in the subsequent spoilers. It helps me in attempting to improve my game play as well as making the games more interesting. If I want a game totally computer generated, I can play that any time I want.

So to me the correct order would be:

Settler founds capital on the spot. Worker SW, chop and mine (unless it's a BG under the forest, in which case this tile cannot be improved in any way under despotism!). Then Worker NW, chop and irrigate (building road brings no bonus under despotism since fur+river already brings 2 commerce). This brings a Granary in 3350, a first Settler in 3200 and a second Settler in 2900, with a little micro-management (even earlier if there is a BG under the forest SW of the start-tile).-- Roland

Forgetting about the possibility of a cow. If I build a ChScout first, I can still do the above by 2750BC. Main difference for the worker is it builds a road E first so shields aren't wasted, then doesn't mine the first chopped forest to get the second chop done quicker. Also build city slower to have granery hit at size 2. At this point I'll be the equivalent of 9 'city turns' behind. (2 in capital, 4 in first settler, 3 in second settler.) Difference is I've had the ChScout for 19 turns.

A great War Academy post about GH's was done today (Thanx Iseon!). Basically shows a 1/4 combined chance of getting a city/settler from a GH. (Also 1/3 chance of getting tech.) Is the expansion, contacts & chance at great GH stuff worth the delay?

I think 1 is worth it, but not 2. Also believe ChScout is better than 2 warriors as I may find some in a GH. The wet world bugs me. Why couldn't it be arid?!! :cry:

I can't imagine winning w/ horsemen/swordsmen, but am thinking of giving it a shot if no major defensive UU are around. Probably will end up doing it with Knights.

Well, to be honest there has been discussion that predator level may, in some instances, HELP the elite players!

It just rockets the player into other eras, by the increased levels.

Open and Predator are different games, and even if an Open-player wins something, for the normal player the difference isn't fair. I've played both versions and I am happy with Open and will stay there forever. But sometimes I think Predators should have the 15% penalty as well, by the rate they research stuff. It isn't funny.

At this point I'll be the equivalent of 9 'city turns' behind. (2 in capital, 4 in first settler, 3 in second settler.) Difference is I've had the ChScout for 19 turns.

Yeah. Well, I'd still choose the "city turns" ahead of the ChScout I think, but it's good to have the option.

On my part, I have just completed some testing assuming that there IS a cow. The result was plain to see: The earlier you get the cow irrigated, the better you're off, simple as that. Specifically, compare these two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Worker SW, chop, mine. Then all the way up to the cow, irrigate, road. Then mine two of the BG's.

Scenario 2: Worker NE, mine. Then to the cow, irrigate, road. Then SW to the second BG, mine. Then SW W to the grass-forest-fur, chop, mine.

In both scenarios, the settler founds Cuzco in 4000 BC. The build-order is Granary (chopped in scenario 1), Settler, Barracks, Settler (chopped in scenario 2), and then a 4-turn 4.5-6.5 Warrior+Settler factory as soon as possible.

Result? In scenario 1, the Granary and the first Settler is produced 1 turn earlier than in scenario 2. BUT the Warrior+Settler factory is set up much earlier in scenario 2, so by 1990 BC, the town has produced 5 Vet Warriors and 6 Settlers in scenario 2, while only 3 Vet Warriors and 6 Settlers in scenario 1.

(Also note that once the Warrior+Settler factory is up and running, you can easily get a second Warrior and two Workers instead of the Settler, any time you want. Producing Warrior+Warrior+Worker+Worker in 4 turns, gives exactly the same end result as producing Warrior+Settler in 4 turns, and less unhappiness!)

-- Roland

I agree predator is a different game, in some cases it might help the player, in some cases it might be a disadvantage.

If predator is supposed to just make it extra difficult for the player (so he can have more honor and pride if he wins a medal) i think predator level should not have increased AI bonusses. Removing a trait, removing a worker, increasing AI starting militairy units is much better. Best would be decreasing the players OCN i think, but i don't know if that is possible.

Why not leave the predator level the way it is?

The challenge is greater (as is the 'risk' of losing), but the chances of reward (medal/reward) are also greater.

My point being: Some of the better players choose to play with the extra challenge and they are rewarded with medals/awards/higher Jason score.
Seems pretty fair to me. Bigger achievement results in bigger chance of reward. Just my opinion, off course.... :)

If it's possible to do what WackenOpenAir suggested then I think that would be good. I've been playing Predator for a while now, and would rather not have my submissions tainted by the "Predator is easier" perception :). Is it possible to give the human player production disadvantages rather than giving the AI production advantages? If not, maybe the human could be handicapped by making them only capable of building more expensive Settlers/Workers/other units/buildings (I.e. Settler costing 40 shields, Worker costing 2 pop or something).

If it's possible to do what WackenOpenAir suggested then I think that would be good. I've been playing Predator for a while now, and would rather not have my submissions tainted by the "Predator is easier" perception :). Is it possible to give the human player production disadvantages rather than giving the AI production advantages? If not, maybe the human could be handicapped by making them only capable of building more expensive Settlers/Workers/other units/buildings (I.e. Settler costing 40 shields, Worker costing 2 pop or something).

Predator is not easier! The AI is harder to defeat, only the human player can reap rewards from conquering or trading with a more advanced AI. It's like RL really: The higher the risk factor, the bigger the reward. Basically, predator is more difficult so if you play it you have a good chance you get a higher score or earlier finish date...


As for your suggestion: I am very much opposed to modding the COTM/GOTM games to the extent you're suggesting. This changes gameplay too much IMHO.
Besides, if a better comparison between open class and predator class is what people are looking for, I doubt that would be achieved by modding one of the classes in such a gamechanging way...

Predator is not easier! The AI is harder to defeat, only the human player can reap rewards from conquering or trading with a more advanced AI. It's like RL really: The higher the risk factor, the bigger the reward. Basically, predator is more difficult so if you play it you have a good chance you get a higher score or earlier finish date...

I thought the purpose of Predator was to give a greater challenge not greater rewards. If one can achieve a better finish date for a given victory condition on predator than on open then that is not a level play field. If you can't do the same on open then it is an unfair advantage.

Conquest class is penalized 15% to compensate for the advantages that would allow a better result. Why should it be different for any Predator advantages? Maybe the Jason Dates should take into consideration any unintented advantages from Predator AI bonuses.

Well, any Open player that thinks Predator is easier can always play Predator :mischief:.

I play about half my games Predator, and half open. To be honest I'm looking for the best advantage to achieving my victory goal, for time (RL time) purposes I don't want to prolong the game any longer than it is.

General rule is that I play Monarch and below at Predator, and Emperor and above at Open. However, I'll modify this and play Predator at Emperror/Demi/Diety if it looks like a good start position, or my intended victory goal requires fast tech pace.

However there are always times of risk playing civ, and playing at Predator increases the risk. If you look at my GOTM submissions you'll see a few missing results, and they were all Predator games that went bad, there were also a couple of medal games played at Predator where I really learned my lesson.

Personally I don't like playing with a unit or trait missing, and tend to avoid Predator if that is the case, as it feels I'm then playing a different game to others.

For this regent game, I'll certainly play Predator.

I think if the open player win a medal regularly he could be thinking about predator level. ;)

Conquest class is penalized 15% to compensate for the advantages that would allow a better result. Why should it be different for any Predator advantages? Maybe the Jason Dates should take into consideration any unintented advantages from Predator AI bonuses.


Predator class has no advantages! The Predator AI bonusses are AI bonusses only. The system can't help that a human player can twist that advantage, to a certain extent, to his/her own benefit. The consequence of the AI bonusses have the potential to create a more intense (and possibly shorter) game...
If you start penalizing the predator class for it's 'advantages', won't this only lengthen and intensify this argument? Then, IMHO it would be a better idea to abolish the predator class. And since I like the extra challenge, I don't support that idea either...

Well, any Open player that thinks Predator is easier can always play Predator :mischief:.

That is kind of a lame statement. It is not like other players cannot beat it at Predator. Certainly at regent, i am sure almost everyone can beat predator.

The point is, i do not think the idea behind predator was for the player to make a choise on wich of the 2 (open or pred) he thinks he can get the highest score.

Predator class has no advantages! The Predator AI bonusses are AI bonusses only. The system can't help that a human player can twist that advantage, to a certain extent, to his/her own benefit. The consequence of the AI bonusses have the potential to create a more intense (and possibly shorter) game...
If you start penalizing the predator class for it's 'advantages', won't this only lengthen and intensify this argument? Then, IMHO it would be a better idea to abolish the predator class. And since I like the extra challenge, I don't support that idea either...

You say there are no advantages but then you go on to describe how a player can gain a benefit on predator ("Predator AI bonusses are AI bonusses only. The system can't help that a human player can twist that advantage, to a certain extent, to his/her own benefit"). The assumption is that someone cannot get that same benefit or level of benefit playing on open as on predator.

I have not played a predator class game as yet. I am still trying to master open. I would like to think that I have the same chance to achieve a given victory date on open as I would on predator. Otherwise how are the two classes comparable?

I think the obvious solution has been mentioned already, make it harder for the human player instead of easier for the AI civs.
Removing the Zulu exp trait was an excellent way to do this. I'd like to see more predator penalties of this sort and less of the 'AI civs get an extra settler' setups (like cotm2).

I have not played a predator class game as yet. I am still trying to master open. I would like to think that I have the same chance to achieve a given victory date on open as I would on predator. Otherwise how are the two classes comparable?

I haven’t play it yet too, because I always was thinking about it as a handicap. It is only now I started to understand that indeed there are good reasons to play predator class in many cases. Predator class gives bonuses to AI as a result it researches faster (which means that human could research faster too), AI has more units (which increases chances of great leaders appearance) and so on.
And indeed, just look on the distribution of predator class in results, none of the COTM medals was given to an open class player :wow:
Now I am seriously thinking about trying predator class.

After reading this discussion, I made a conclusion that people mostly agree that predator class should exist and it should be voluntarily. However, I see a major controversy about what predator class should be. My understanding of this issue is that there are two alternatives:
1. If predator gives a bonus to AI it creates an additional challenge for the player, but it also rewards him with a higher score.
2. If predator class handicaps human player it is just an additional challenge for the human player.
So, what it should be?
The topic, however, is beyond COTM5 pre-game discussion, so I am thinking to start a new thread in a few minutes. I think it will be nice if people will participate in it, it may help us better understand what predator class is, should we play it and why. And I hope it may also help Ainwood to design predator class.

I think the obvious solution has been mentioned already, make it harder for the human player instead of easier for the AI civs.
Removing the Zulu exp trait was an excellent way to do this. I'd like to see more predator penalties of this sort and less of the 'AI civs get an extra settler' setups (like cotm2).

In GOTM34 (Zulu) removing expantionist trait give me the barbs from the hut and my warrior promoted to elite and produced an early leader. It was the rare case when I love the barbs. :)

In GOTM34 (Zulu) removing expantionist trait give me the barbs from the hut and my warrior promoted to elite and produced an early leader. It was the rare case when I love the barbs. :)

Uff, the issue is very difficult. Even removed trait can be beneficial. You do not want fast research because you go for conquest, but you want barbs because they will promote your units.
If I were Ainwood and had to design predator class I probably :suicide:

You say there are no advantages but then you go on to describe how a player can gain a benefit on predator ("Predator AI bonusses are AI bonusses only. The system can't help that a human player can twist that advantage, to a certain extent, to his/her own benefit"). The assumption is that someone cannot get that same benefit or level of benefit playing on open as on predator.


Yes, logically:
The bigger the AI advantage, the bigger the human gain if you manage to turn it around by beating the AI.
So predator class has bigger AI advantages, thus also bigger human advantages *if* the human manages to turn the game to his plans...

That's the way the predator class works. One could always argue for the removal of the predator class, so all players would play the same AI opposition...


PS. I would support that idea.

So predator class has bigger AI advantages, thus also bigger human advantages *if* the human manages to turn the game to his plans...
Would you play predator if you didn't think you could turn it to your advantage? :)

I know you didn't ask me, but yes! I'm not playing predator to get a better score. I'm playing to get a more difficult game. I would actually prefer predator to be a bit harder, but maybe I'm just a masochist ;).

Would you play predator if you didn't think you could turn it to your advantage? :)

Don't know...
Probably not an issue, as I doubt Ainwood will make predator class beyond Sid... :blush:


Hypothetically: Yes. Why? Because I love a good challenge. :)

Don't know...
Probably not an issue, as I doubt Ainwood will make predator class beyond Sid... :blush:


Hypothetically: Yes. Why? Because I love a good challenge. :)

I'm still being challenge enough by open class. (not to meantion by nature :cry: ) Maybe someday.

I am not a moderator :scan: , but I opened a special thread about predator class to remove this discussion from COTM5 pre-game discussion.
If you want to post something about predator class, go here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=101026
Lets leave this forum for cows on the East.

deleted, should have gone on solenoozerec's new thread

Things I can't decide:
Scout NE,N or E,E?
Do I build a ChScout first or go straight for the granery?
If ChScout, do I start Alphabet at max or another tech at zero hoping for a trade or GH find? (should be about a 20 turn max research)
Domination stategy - more conservative than Conquest? If so, Temples or more cities to cover territory?
Stop w/ Horsemen/Swordsmen or go for Knights?

Arrrr, I am back after a year's break, I hope that's OK with everyone. It is good to see that 'Fanatics' is still not a misnomer around here, and also good to see that SirPleb is still the final object of all civ-kudos. I tried to return with a spaceship victory in cotm4, but I only had a week to play. This regent game should move faster...

Hey Jove, good to see you back. We've missed your "Arrr"s (be careful how you say that ;)).

Arrrr, thanks, Dianthus. And I will be careful.

Hey Jove, good to see you back. We've missed your "Arrr"s (be careful how you say that ;)).
Not to mention "Originally Posted by Jove." It makes me want to put a comma after "posted" :lol:

CRpSuite 2.7.4 : CRpMapStat now shows resource/lux trades, turns till last deal expires and when towns grow/shrink.

Wow, I'd better upgrade, your tool just keeps getting better.

Thanks

smackster

Yesterday, I try to play INCA with : Wet and Temperate with 3 billion Years Old....
Ouille, ouille, there were a lot of mountains, a ton of mountains... and it was not mountains, it was jungle! I try 4 or 5 new game with these parameters and it was very difficult to found goods spot to settle with enough space to build more than 1 cities!
Hope ainwood will manage for us a very nice spot very lot of ressource, luxuries and river and space to expand!

LeSphinx

Just before I went to sleep tonight, I had a vision. It was horrible. It said that all those warriors we get from our lovely 4-turn Warrior+Settler factory, are going to be utterly worthless! Why? Because there is no iron on our side of the world, except under our closest neightbor's capital: Rome... :cry:

Actually, something like that could make this Regent game really interesting. Especially if there are no horses around either...

-- Roland

Have you been lurking our SGOTM4 thread? That way lies insanity :eek:

Just before I went to sleep tonight, I had a vision. It was horrible. It said that all those warriors we get from our lovely 4-turn Warrior+Settler factory, are going to be utterly worthless! Why? Because there is no iron on our side of the world, except under our closest neightbor's capital: Rome... :cry:

Actually, something like that could make this Regent game really interesting. Especially if there are no horses around either...

-- Roland
Rome? :confused: