Welcome to your C_IV SGOTM 2 Team Thread. Please use it for all internal team communication, turn logs and discussions. Subscribe to it to receive notifications, and do not visit the other team threads for this game until you have finished. Please also subscribe to the Maintenance Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4354542) for this game, where teams and staff may post non-spoiler information of general interest.

This game will be played in Civ4, patched to v1.61.

You are cast in the role of Tokugawa, mighty leader of the Japanese. Tokugawa's brother has left the island city of Kyoto to avenge the death of his wife and only son. He has travelled to a distant land without finding their murderer. So the brother of Tokugawa will settle and found a new Japanese colony, and the Japanese have sworn to conquer the rest of civilization in order to hunt down and destroy their enemy.

The game is on a Standard size fractal map, modified as only Gyathaar knows how, at Epic speed. All victory conditions are enabled, but the laurels for this contest will be awarded to the fastest teams to achieve a Conquest victory. The number of AI rivals has not yet been revealed. It will be played using version 1.61 of Civ4 with locked modified assets.

Individual start files for all teams will be available on the SGOTM Progress and Results Page (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/submit/civ4sgotm_submission_list.php) at midnight, server local time, at the start of August 8th.

Here's the start position.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/images/SGOTM02_start.jpg

Map Parameters
Playable Civ - Tokugawa of Japan
World size - Standard
Difficulty - Monarch
Landform - Fractal, hand modified
Game Speed - Epic
AI Aggression - YES!
Barbarians - Raging!!

Please visit the following link to ensure that you are adequately prepared:
Civ4 SGOTM reference thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=168439)

Notes:

A. ONLY Civilization IV v1.61 is supported for this SGOTM. All teams will compete for up to four awards - the Gold, Silver and Bronze Laurels for the fastest finishes, and the Wooden Spoons for the lowest scoring finisher.

B. All teams must play the sponsored variant - victory will be awarded for the fastest victory by Conquest.

C. All saved game files uploaded to the server are parsed through software that extracts and archives data about your save, including reload count for each turn set.

I'm sure you'll enjoy this game :D

Hey - the discussion thread is open!

We have some things to decide:
1. Do we want to keep the name Memphis Blues, or ask AlanH to change it?
2. We need to work out early strategy
3. We need to decide a playing order

Let the discussion begin!

Starting position...

Not a whole lot in view in the way of resources. Just the rice and the fish. Moving 1 NW would get both, but what is to the east that we might miss? Moving the warrior to the hill to the east first would get us a view though there seems to be a forest east of that hill which would block the view going very far. There's a river mouth off that way (to the NE). I wonder if there's some flood plains to go with it?

Any thoughts?

Hey - the discussion thread is open!

We have some things to decide:
1. Do we want to keep the name Memphis Blues, or ask AlanH to change it?
2. We need to work out early strategy
3. We need to decide a playing order


:salute:

1. I don't really bother with the name, it's up to you.

2. it's going to be really, really hard this one...

3. Don't let me play first... i don't want to lose our second city to barbarians in the first 20 turns... :eek:

Hey - the discussion thread is open!

We have some things to decide:
1. Do we want to keep the name Memphis Blues, or ask AlanH to change it?
2. We need to work out early strategy
3. We need to decide a playing order


:salute:

1. I don't really bother with the name, it's up to you.

2. it's going to be really, really hard this one...

3. Don't let me play first... i don't want to lose our second city to barbarians in the first 20 turns... :eek:

Oops. The connection I have here gets a little "flaky" sometimes and things grind to a halt. When I tried to post my last post, that happened but it looks like I got through - a couple of times!

2. it's going to be really, really hard this one...


I never played a game with raging barbarians turned on. I presume it increases the number of barbarians spawned, but does it change the date? Like does it make them appear earlier?

I never played a game with raging barbarians turned on. I presume it increases the number of barbarians spawned, but does it change the date? Like does it make them appear earlier?

I don't know if they come earlier, but goody hut aren't that good...
I try to begin a game with the same settings, and I popped 3 hut, 2 of them give me 2 barbarians (that is not really good, when you popped it next to your new defenceless city...) and 1 tech :cool: .

Other point about my test, I'm not sure if we should settle directly... The maintenance cost really kill the science research... In my test game I'll have -7 gpt for my 2nd city, but it wasn't exactly the same distance as in this game probably...

I don't know if they come earlier, but goody hut aren't that good...
I try to begin a game with the same settings, and I popped 3 hut, 2 of them give me 2 barbarians (that is not really good, when you popped it next to your new defenceless city...) and 1 tech :cool: .

OK, so popping huts is not necessarily a good thing. Huts are more likely to be barbarians?

Other point about my test, I'm not sure if we should settle directly... The maintenance cost really kill the science research... In my test game I'll have -7 gpt for my 2nd city, but it wasn't exactly the same distance as in this game probably...

Ouch. That's a good point. But what can we do about commerce? Our city is a one tile island, and the work boat will take 23 turns to build, so no extra commerce until it grows in 17 turns time. Do we want the settler hanging around for that long? It may not survive the animals.

Mmmm. that's an aspect I hadn't thought of. This is a hard one!

Hi guys! Looking forward to some tough challenges!

1. Regarding name I'm fine with the one we have but changing to Kyoto Blues also has some logic to it.

2. It is indeed a challenging starting position. Like radiopill I did a few tests from similar opening positions and as he mentions our key difficulties are the huge number of barbs and the distance from palace maintenance cost. Other problems are the absence of trade routes due to the isolation of our capital. This means less gold and less happyness/health. We don't have to settle directly - waiting will cost us some turns of production but in terms of science we won't loose much since we already have the gold from the palace. So an initial search for a better spot might be an idea. As I see it our 2nd city should be a production city because it needs to produce a lot of archers to fend off the barbs. A plains hill spot with a grassland hill and some grassland forrests within the initial square border seems like a good choice to me. A mined hill will be easy to defend from barbs since a defending archer will be able to get the hills defense promotions. Ideally we would want to move closer to our capital if possible, so our initial search should be focused on the NE direction.

3. I don't mind going first.

A few more thoughts on early strategy/tech path:

1. Archery: We need this ASAP for defence.
2. Bronze Working: We need slavery (pop rush in Kyoto) and we need to locate bronze for Axemen.
3. Writing: Kyoto kan only grow to size 5 and it has lots of food so it's ideally suited for running specialists. We could pop rush a library here and hire two scientist. The first Great Scientist we use for Academy and the next we could use for researching a tech. We should note, that a GS will give us Astronomy if we have Optics and even CoL but NOT meditation so we might want to avoid researching Meditation to keep this option open.
4. Iron Working: If Bronze is too far away to be safely hooked we may have to go for IW.
5. Monarchy: This is the only way to increase happyness in Kyoto - remember that we won't have any happyness ressouces there before Astronomy and probably no religion either.
6. Move palace: When we have 4 cities we can contemplate building a Palace in one of our cities to get trade routes and reduced maintenance. We need a city with good production and either a loot of food (pop rush) or a lot of forrest (chop) to speed up the build. Ideally it should also have some tech city potential due to the benefits of Bureaucracy.

I think we can forget about building any wonders - we must concentrate on what we need to survive for the first 4000 years or so!!

Hi Guys - just checking in. I'll read the posts and respond in a bit.

Hello folks,

Checking in. Looks like I am the only new team member. Hope you all don't mind.

I've been playing around with some custom games. It seems like settling our settler right away could be disasterous. It looks like from the screen shot that the settler is about 35 tiles east and 6 tiles south of Kyoto. Settling in place puts us at -7 GPT and 50% average research. Ouch! It would be nice if we could find some gold or gems to the west, and maybe some bronze. So I like mining->BW as a research path. Of course if our settler gets eaten by a bear, it's game over.

As far as trade routes, any chance that Kyoto's first border expansion will connect it to the coast? The screen shot of Kyoto is cut off at the bottom so it's a possibility. And does the water look a little lighter at the top of that shot?

Hello folks,

Checking in. Looks like I am the only new team member. Hope you all don't mind.

I've been playing around with some custom games. It seems like settling our settler right away could be disasterous. It looks like from the screen shot that the settler is about 35 tiles east and 6 tiles south of Kyoto. Settling in place puts us at -7 GPT and 50% average research. Ouch! It would be nice if we could find some gold or gems to the west, and maybe some bronze. So I like mining->BW as a research path. Of course if our settler gets eaten by a bear, it's game over.

As far as trade routes, any chance that Kyoto's first border expansion will connect it to the coast? The screen shot of Kyoto is cut off at the bottom so it's a possibility. And does the water look a little lighter at the top of that shot?

Welcome to the team :)

When you measure the distance I guess it is across the small map in the corner of the screen shot. But what about the distance going in a NE direction from the settler towards Kyoto? Can we measure this or does it require Stonehenge or Calendar before the world is seen as round? I mention this because if this distance is shorter we should move NE with the settler and not west.

EDIT: We now the map size so we should be able to figure this out.

In my test games going directly for axemen (mining + BW) was a bit of a gamble because if copper is not very close you could be in trouble. Did you test with raging barbs? In my tests I was alone on an Island - that might make things even worse.

The water color does seems brighter to the north. I wouldn't bet that it's coast though.

Hello folks,

Checking in. Looks like I am the only new team member. Hope you all don't mind.

I've been playing around with some custom games. It seems like settling our settler right away could be disasterous. It looks like from the screen shot that the settler is about 35 tiles east and 6 tiles south of Kyoto. Settling in place puts us at -7 GPT and 50% average research. Ouch! It would be nice if we could find some gold or gems to the west, and maybe some bronze. So I like mining->BW as a research path. Of course if our settler gets eaten by a bear, it's game over.

Hello Shannon,

Welcome in the Memphis Blues team!

But what about the distance going in a NE direction from the settler towards Kyoto? Can we measure this or does it require Stonehenge or Calendar before the world is seen as round? I mention this because if this distance is shorter we should move NE with the settler and not west.

I agree with you, if we can rely on the short map, it will be better to move NE.

In my test games going directly for axemen (mining + BW) was a bit of a gamble because if copper is not very close you could be in trouble.

That's also true, I arrived at the same conclusion, BW is a bet we couldn't afford, and axemen are less good at city defence. Nevertheless we are aggressive, so our axemen receive a free combat promotion which is not the case of the archers...

As far as trade routes, any chance that Kyoto's first border expansion will connect it to the coast? The screen shot of Kyoto is cut off at the bottom so it's a possibility. And does the water look a little lighter at the top of that shot?

It's possible hopefully, but Gyathaar is a vicious :whipped:, it could also be a false hope...

I think I found the answer to one of my own questions. A standard map size is 84 tiles horizontally and 52 tiles vertically Map Sizes (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/reference/map_scripts_guide.php). Using ShannoCT's estimate of 35 tiles between settler and Kyoto across the small map he is absolutely right that we need to move west with the settler - actually the settler is almost at the opposite side of the globe right now!! Fortunately it looks as if there is more land to the west and I definitely think we should explore this with our settler. Does anyone know when animals start to appear? Having our settler eaten is not a nice thougth :eek: .

EDIT: I did a few tests using the world builder and it seems that animals do not appear in the first 6 turns.

I count 84 tiles East-West also. So it's Westward Ho! all else being equal. The turns until wild animals is a nice number to know. Our settler could make a nice scout for a while. I tried popping some huts with a settler and I guess maybe 20% turned out to be barbs, which means likely death even if our warrior is defending. I wonder if certain units have better or worse success in popping huts (of course the huts may have been edited out of the game).

As far as our research path, if we go for hunting and archery first, I think we'll probably have to settle our first settler before finding the bronze, which isn't so bad if we can find some food near some gold/gems. But I did play a few practice games with a similair setup where I went for mining, BW, hunting, archery and was able to found cities on plains hills near bronze and defend it with an anti-archer upgraded warrior and then with the archers I built. Slightly risky but a bigger reward if it works.

Looks like BSouder is the only one not to check in yet.

Welcome ShannonCT!! :)

The more I think about this start the more horrifying scenarios I think of. Losing that settler is not an option. It would be a long way to astronomy with just Kyoto.

There is a tinge of lighter colour up north of Kyoto isn't there? I'll be looking for the first cultural expansion with great interest. If there is land there, getting a settler in a galley to the mainland is a real option.

We have good commerce near Kyoto so the idea of popping a library has good merit.

Going hunting->Archery would delay BW a little, but not many turns. We could have both fairly early couldn't we?

A good spot for defense from barbarians would be one that had hills at several points of the compass from the city. That way the extra defense bonus can be utilised (especially forested hills) and units stationed out from the city tend to draw barbarians like magnets, and that reduces the plunder damage done by the barbarians, which is something we might find very handy.

It's good that there's a few "safe" turns from animals, but once they start, if the city has not been settled, it will be a nervous existence for that settler.

I tried a couple of starts on raging barbarians and it seemed to me that producing military unit after military unit was the only way to survive. We need to think of ways to "Get ahead" too! Fog busting in the early stages unless you're on a small island, just means that you encounter the barbarians further from your city. That's not all bad, but they come anyhow.

In terms of settling, I believe we should do so ASAP, and that 1NW of our current location is the place to do it. We have to take the distance penalty for this settler at some point anyhow, not settling him immediately just costs us the extra hammers, food and commerce. If we were going for an early religion I’d argue differently, but with Fishing & The Wheel as starting techs, I don’t think this is a possibility. We should be able to grow to size 4 in 36 turns, by which point we’ll be generating 5 commerce in (what will be) Tokyo and almost self sufficient.

Thoughts?

There is a tinge of lighter colour up north of Kyoto isn't there? I'll be looking for the first cultural expansion with great interest. If there is land there, getting a settler in a galley to the mainland is a real option.

If there really is land in sight of Kyoto, then the other settler will probably want to settle as close as possible to Kyoto, since we could keep our palace there. Though it does seem like from the scenario description that the settler will ultimately control the action.



Going hunting->Archery would delay BW a little, but not many turns. We could have both fairly early couldn't we?

A good spot for defense from barbarians would be one that had hills at several points of the compass from the city. That way the extra defense bonus can be utilised (especially forested hills) and units stationed out from the city tend to draw barbarians like magnets, and that reduces the plunder damage done by the barbarians, which is something we might find very handy.

After playing around some more, I'm tending to agree about going for archery before BW. I think the key for the second city (Tokyo?) is defensibility. I would look for a nice piece of coastline to reduce the number of directions that the barbs can come from, and try to hook up bronze/iron/horses with the third city, once the second city is secure. Settling near another civ would be a plus for free fog busting and a good first target.

It's good that there's a few "safe" turns from animals, but once they start, if the city has not been settled, it will be a nervous existence for that settler.

If we try to settle around the time archery comes in, we're looking at 8-10 turns with the settler in potential danger. Escorting our settler with the warrior after turn 7, sticking mostly to forests and hills, and using some decent tactics (e.g., moving the warrior ahead before using the settlers last movement point in case a bear pops up) should minimize the danger.

I tried a couple of starts on raging barbarians and it seemed to me that producing military unit after military unit was the only way to survive. We need to think of ways to "Get ahead" too! Fog busting in the early stages unless you're on a small island, just means that you encounter the barbarians further from your city. That's not all bad, but they come anyhow.

I tried a few starts as well, one game settling in the middle of a landmass on a hill with Cathy to my south, and another game on the coast with water to my south and west and Monty to my north. On the first game, I got crushed. On the second, I easily held of the barbs with two archers on jungle hills.

I think the key for the second city (Tokyo?) is defensibility. I would look for a nice piece of coastline to reduce the number of directions that the barbs can come from, and try to hook up bronze/iron/horses with the third city, once the second city is secure. Settling near another civ would be a plus for free fog busting and a good first target.

I think ShannonCT's right here (welcome BTW :) ). On a river would be good too, as that would give a further penalty to any barbs getting in close enough to attack the city.

The more I think about this start the more horrifying scenarios I think of. Losing that settler is not an option. It would be a long way to astronomy with just Kyoto.

There is a tinge of lighter colour up north of Kyoto isn't there? I'll be looking for the first cultural expansion with great interest. If there is land there, getting a settler in a galley to the mainland is a real option.

I think there is a real possibility we'll be off this island after 2 or 3 cultural expansions. Perhaps not something we should count on, but I think we're likely to be looking at two separate empires. That would make CoL and the forbidden palace something essential early on.

After playing around some more, I'm tending to agree about going for archery before BW

I have no problem with this approach either. However if we settle where we are, I think it's a very defendable position with just warriors. There's coast, river and plenty of forest for the 50% bonus in. I am worried that if we didn't settle until we had archery that we'd still be producing our first or second archer when the barb axemen appear.

In terms of settling, I believe we should do so ASAP, and that 1NW of our current location is the place to do it. We have to take the distance penalty for this settler at some point anyhow, not settling him immediately just costs us the extra hammers, food and commerce. If we were going for an early religion I’d argue differently, but with Fishing & The Wheel as starting techs, I don’t think this is a possibility. We should be able to grow to size 4 in 36 turns, by which point we’ll be generating 5 commerce in (what will be) Tokyo and almost self sufficient.

Thoughts?

I think there are good reasons for moving the Settler. It's true that we loose some production and growth this way, but it's likely that we gain a lot of gold in the long run! The distance maintenance is dependent on the distance to the Palace. For every 4.5 tiles we move closer to the palace we save 1 gpt. If you multiply this with the time it will take before we can move the Palace you are bound to get a large sum. Loosing 6 or 7 turns worth of city growth and hammers seem less important to me. And our 3rd and 4th city will naturally be close to our second so the maintenance saved in these cities come on top of this saving.

I drew up a turn order based on who turned up when, which is what we did last time, although I swapped Frederiksberg & Radiopill over as Radiopill didn't want to start. Yell if you want to change anything, this just seemed a sensible first draft. Also anyone want the captain role - I'd be happy for Mad Prof to have it as first poster.

Mad Professor
Frederiksberg
Radiopill
KingdomBrunel
ShannonCT

I am worried that if we didn't settle until we had archery that we'd still be producing our first or second archer when the barb axemen appear.

Don't worry :). By waiting to settle we speed up the research time towards Archery so our first archer will actually come out earlier!! Settling earlier would only give us an extra warrior.

Don't worry :). By waiting to settle we speed up the research time towards Archery so our first archer will actually come out earlier!! Settling earlier would only give us an extra warrior.

That is exactly my worry. Taking our time to settle, and moving is a huge risk.

After playing around some more, I'm tending to agree about going for archery before BW. I think the key for the second city (Tokyo?) is defensibility. I would look for a nice piece of coastline to reduce the number of directions that the barbs can come from, and try to hook up bronze/iron/horses with the third city, once the second city is secure. Settling near another civ would be a plus for free fog busting and a good first target.


I agree! And I would add that a grassland hill inside the initial 3x3 border is also very nice because it is easy to defend a mine on a hill due to the hills defense promotion of the archers.

That is exactly my worry. Taking our time to settle, and moving is a huge risk.

You worry becuse we get the archer earlier :confused:

The early risk from moving comes from the animals only. Running at full research to archery before settling has given me time to build 1-2 archers in Tokyo before I saw any barb in my test games. Settling in place effectively doubles the research time to archery, in which case we're forced to mount a defense with warriors.

Is the animal risk worth taking? I would say yes. The risk can be minimized with tactical movement, and the danger period will only begin after turn 6-8. I am inclined to start off with a bolder opening than other teams may play because I dont think we can make a good showing playing it safe. I'm not sure we can even finish this game playing it safe. It's not like SGOTM1 where you were basically set up to win.

Sorry I am late checking in, I hadn't checked for the new threads in a couple of days.

This game is definately going to be interesting.

So far I agree with where the concensus appears to be going. Defense has to be our number one priority for a while, and to me that means going for the sure bet of archery first before taking the gamble for metals. However, after archery BW should still be a very high priority since Kyoto is the poster child for pop rushing (and also an excellent candidate for a GP farm later).

I don't really disagree with delaying settling, the maintenance cost would be a killer. But, to play devil's advocate a bit...delaying too long might be more of a gamble than we want. The longer we delay the longer we get to run at a decent science rate but also the longer before the city grows, before we produce more scouts, before we produce our first worker, etc. Also keep in mind that animals won't appear for a few turns (the 6-8 turns mentioned sounds about right) but animals won't attack a city while they have no problem eating a settler.

You worry becuse we get the archer earlier :confused:

No. I worry that we'll need the extra warrior, and that going for archery leaves us vulnerable.

The early risk from moving comes from the animals only. Running at full research to archery before settling has given me time to build 1-2 archers in Tokyo before I saw any barb in my test games. Settling in place effectively doubles the research time to archery, in which case we're forced to mount a defense with warriors.

That's reassuring :) .

Is the animal risk worth taking? I would say yes. The risk can be minimized with tactical movement, and the danger period will only begin after turn 6-8. I am inclined to start off with a bolder opening than other teams may play because I dont think we can make a good showing playing it safe. I'm not sure we can even finish this game playing it safe. It's not like SGOTM1 where you were basically set up to win.

I don't think settling in place is playing it safe - as we'd effectively start with no science. My thoughts for suggesting it are based on if we can settle immediately or close to it, and we can survive until we have the city paying for itself, then we are in a stronger position than if we delayed settling for 30 or 35 turns (which is how long archery will take to get). Also, the gpt loss is only in effect until we get the forbidden palace, but the benefits of an early settle are forever. However, if we want to go west for a bit (up to say 10turns), and can bring the maintenance down to say, 5gpt, then I guess I have no big problem with that.

BTW: I calculate archery: 60beakers for hunting, 90 for archery.

Pop 1: 3 commerce* 17 turns = 51
Pop 2: 5 commerce* 13ish turns = 65 (food increase at 8? turns)
Pop 3: 7 commerce*5 turns = 35
Total = 35 turns.

Then (assuming 2hammers): 19 turns to build an archer.
Total = 54 turns.

Sorry I am late checking in, I hadn't checked for the new threads in a couple of days.

Good to see you back. :D

Defense has to be our number one priority for a while, and to me that means going for the sure bet of archery first before taking the gamble for metals. However, after archery BW should still be a very high priority since Kyoto is the poster child for pop rushing (and also an excellent candidate for a GP farm later).

I agree with all of that.

The early risk from moving comes from the animals only. Running at full research to archery before settling has given me time to build 1-2 archers in Tokyo before I saw any barb in my test games. Settling in place effectively doubles the research time to archery, in which case we're forced to mount a defense with warriors.

Is the animal risk worth taking? I would say yes. The risk can be minimized with tactical movement, and the danger period will only begin after turn 6-8. I am inclined to start off with a bolder opening than other teams may play because I dont think we can make a good showing playing it safe. I'm not sure we can even finish this game playing it safe. It's not like SGOTM1 where you were basically set up to win.

I don't really disagree with delaying settling, the maintenance cost would be a killer. But, to play devil's advocate a bit...delaying too long might be more of a gamble than we want. The longer we delay the longer we get to run at a decent science rate but also the longer before the city grows, before we produce more scouts, before we produce our first worker, etc. Also keep in mind that animals won't appear for a few turns (the 6-8 turns mentioned sounds about right) but animals won't attack a city while they have no problem eating a settler.

I'd say, let's scout "safely" a little with our settler during 6-8 turns then we can decide whether we settle (if we have found a good spot) or we keep running 5-10 more turns until we found a spot (or we have reached the closest point to kyoto).

However, if we want to go west for a bit (up to say 10turns), and can bring the maintenance down to say, 5gpt, then I guess I have no big problem with that.


You all talked to go west, and I don't understand why it is closer than by east..? :confused:

I just made this map using kyoto as a scale and for me it seems that going east is the fastest way to "home"...

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4615/map2gp2.png

You all talked to go west, and I don't understand why it is closer than by east..? :confused:

I just made this map using kyoto as a scale and for me it seems that going east is the fastest way to "home"...

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4615/map2gp2.png

By that map, the board would only be 51 tiles accross east-west. But it should actually be 84 for a standard map. So the minimap we see is incomplete. I think your map does verify that Kyoto is only 36 tiles to the west of the settler.

There are still too many unknowns to know the best course. There might be a great spot to settle within 8 turns reach (a gold hill and some flood plains would be nice). We might hit the end of the continent or an impassable border after going west for a while and have an obvious choice. Or Kyoto's border expansion might connect to the coast and make it better to save our settler to hook up a strategic resource and run at 100% research to BW so Kyoto can pop a settling party.

Mad Professor certainly will have an interesting first 20 turns. We should discuss further when we get some screenshots.

I'm going to play my broken record one last time for each team:


Please also subscribe to the Maintenance Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=180489) for this game, where teams and staff may post non-spoiler information of general interest.

Anything I post there will NOT be repeated individually in every team thread. You may even find some useful information there now :p

I'm going to play my broken record one last time for each team:



Anything I post there will NOT be repeated individually in every team thread. You may even find some useful information there now :p

For those who haven't checked yet, AlanH confirmed the calculation that the maintenance cost for the second city planted where the settler currently is would be 7gpt per turn.

I like the idea of trying to reduce this a little, but I don't like the idea of the settler wandering for too long. If we can reduce by 1gpt for each 4.5 tiles we get closer to Kyoto, it might be worth moving for a short while westwards. I'm not sure if we're all happy with one way or another on this subject yet...?

Does anyone have any objections to the playing order KingdomBrunel posted?

So we're going for Hunting->Archery first up for tech then? Then afterward mining->BW? Is this what I see people suggesting, or is this not settled yet?

Also anyone want the captain role - I'd be happy for Mad Prof to have it as first poster.

Captain? <chuckle> I could do that as long as no-one gets the idea that means I know more about this game than the rest of you! I won't argue if someone else wants the job.

By that map, the board would only be 51 tiles accross east-west. But it should actually be 84 for a standard map. So the minimap we see is incomplete. I think your map does verify that is Kyoto only 36 tiles to the west of the settler.

OK, now it's clearer for me. Thx


There are still too many unknowns to know the best course. There might be a great spot to settle within 8 turns reach (a gold hill and some flood plains would be nice). We might hit the end of the continent or an impassable border after going west for a while and have an obvious choice. Or Kyoto's border expansion might connect to the coast and make it better to save our settler to hook up a strategic resource and run at 100% research to BW so Kyoto can pop a settling party.

Mad Professor certainly will have an interesting first 20 turns. We should discuss further when we get some screenshots.

I agree with that, we should wait until deciding that to do with our settler. That's the reason why, I think MadProf should divide is turnset in 2 turnset of 10 turns... so we can have better overview of the situation...

Does anyone have any objections to the playing order KingdomBrunel posted?

Nope, that's fine, with me.

So we're going for Hunting->Archery first up for tech then? Then afterward mining->BW? Is this what I see people suggesting, or is this not settled yet?

It looks like the best way to survive. But we need to think about middle/long term research also... IMO we should aim for CS/machinery asap, so we can use of our (powerfull..?) UU. I never played Toku, so I don't know how usefull samuraïs are, but the 2 first strikes could be really handy in our conquest plan...

A samurai with the free Combat 1 and 2 first strikes is a significant improvement over a maceman. It can certainly tip the scales. For example, a Combat 1 Samurai is 79% to win over a unupgraded maceman in the open. Versus a crossbow, our Sam is 42.3% to win rather than 24.9% for a maceman. The sooner we get Sams the better. The one catch is that they require iron, but we might need to hook up iron anyway if we cant get bronze.

After hunting-archery-mining-BW, I like going for writing via pottery with a detour to iron working if necessary. Besides the techs leading up to machinery and CS, monarchy would help Kyoto run a lot more scientists (with caste system) and construction will be pretty crucial for any middle ages warfare. Agriculture, animal husbandry, masonry, and sailing seem like "maybes". Meditation, monotheism, horseback riding, literature, and drama seem pretty useless (ok, drama is always useless). What about alphabet? This isn't going to be a very peaceful game but if we meet several civs early on, we might want to be the first to alphabet.

I'm fine with the play order. 10 turns would be a good time for us to stop and discuss. Kyoto will get its border expansion by then and being 10 tiles closer to Kyoto should reduce maintenance to 5 GPT.

Does anyone have any objections to the playing order KingdomBrunel posted?

I am fine with the play order as long as I can assume I am tacked on to the end. :)

With the added twists of this game I would also suggest we just do 10 turn turnsets the first round with a minimum of 24 hours discussion between.

For short term research I agree wih Archery then Bronze as the first 2 beelines. After that we'll have more information to decide where to go next, although since conquest is the only valid winning option we do know where our focus will end up. My suspicion is that sailing type techs are also going to be key again also.

Right - I think we have a settled playing order for the moment (which we will then change, swap, etc. as needed. It looks like this:

Mad Professor (up next)
Frederiksberg
Radiopill
KingdomBrunel
ShannonCT
BSouder

I will play ten turns to begin with, and post results for discussion. Do we want to play ten turns each through the first round, or should I then play a second ten turns before handing it on for everyone to play 20 turns each?

I'll start with hunting and go to Archery.

I'll move the settler west to see if the land allows us to settle closer to Kyoto and scouting for good city positions. If there's a place, or game situation that requires settling before the end the ten turns I'll stop right there and ask your opinions before actually settling.

For medium/long term stragety I agree that samurais will be good, so CS/machinery should be a priority. And we'll need construction for cats, and if we have ivory and come accross a lot of horsemen in other civs, the elephants we get from construction will be very handy too.

I'd like alphabet in there somewhere fairly early if we can afford it, for the tech trading, but maybe we won't be able to afford it. Let's see and discuss that later. Let's get archery and BW and see where we're up to then and what's happening.

I'd like alphabet in there somewhere fairly early if we can afford it, for the tech trading, but maybe we won't be able to afford it. Let's see and discuss that later. Let's get archery and BW and see where we're up to then and what's happening.

As we have to go on early war, and as we wouldn't have a lot of time to make a lot of science search, we absolutely need Alphabet for "trading" peace with our victims...

After hunting-archery-mining-BW, I like going for writing via pottery with a detour to iron working if necessary. Besides the techs leading up to machinery and CS, monarchy would help Kyoto run a lot more scientists (with caste system) and construction will be pretty crucial for any middle ages warfare. Agriculture, animal husbandry, masonry, and sailing seem like "maybes". Meditation, monotheism, horseback riding, literature, and drama seem pretty useless (ok, drama is always useless). What about alphabet? This isn't going to be a very peaceful game but if we meet several civs early on, we might want to be the first to alphabet.


I agree with the main ideas stated above. I think Writing is important because it will enable us to speed up research in Kyoto by building a library and hiring scientist for beakers and Great Scientist points. If copper is not available I also agree that IW takes priority over Writing. As I said in a previous post this way of developing Kyoto will give us some Great Scientists in Kyoto. First one to build an Academy and the second (or third) may be used to discover Astronomy if certain conditions are met. One of them could be that we don't know Meditation so this tech should be avoided at least for a while even if we can get it for free! Regarding Alphabet and Sailing I would say we need those unless conquest can be achieved early without crossing the ocean. Even if we don't have many friends to trade with techs can be extorted from enemies in exchange for peace.

Right - I think we have a settled playing order for the moment (which we will then change, swap, etc. as needed. It looks like this:

Mad Professor (up next)
Frederiksberg
Radiopill
KingdomBrunel
ShannonCT
BSouder

I will play ten turns to begin with, and post results for discussion. Do we want to play ten turns each through the first round, or should I then play a second ten turns before handing it on for everyone to play 20 turns each?

I'll start with hunting and go to Archery.

I'll move the settler west to see if the land allows us to settle closer to Kyoto and scouting for good city positions. If there's a place, or game situation that requires settling before the end the ten turns I'll stop right there and ask your opinions before actually settling.

Sounds good to me! We could probably let the settler move unescorted the first 6 turns. After that animals start to appear and it's probably required to wait for the warrior to catch up before moving further. Another - but riskier - way of advancing would be to use only a single step at a time so that there is always a spare move allowing us to either settle on the spot if we see a double move animal like panther or wolf or move out of reach if we see a single move animal like lion or bear.

How do we identify a good spot for settling? Of course we want to move as close as possible to Kyoto. Settling on a plains hill has the merit of an extra hammer in the city tile thus doubling speed of production of the first military unit. The city would also be more difficult to capture. A hill inside the square 3x3 cultural borders would allow for an easily defensible improvement since archers can get hills defense promotions. Gold or silver would be a very nice bonus and a river is also nice for extra commerce. Settling at the coast would make it easier to set up a defensíve perimeter around the city to defend improvements. Any improved sea ressources would also be easier to defend.

I agree with the main ideas stated above. I think Writing is important because it will enable us to speed up research in Kyoto by building a library and hiring scientist for beakers and Great Scientist points. If copper is not available I also agree that IW takes priority over Writing. As I said in a previous post this way of developing Kyoto will give us some Great Scientists in Kyoto. First one to build an Academy and the second (or third) may be used to discover Astronomy if certain conditions are met. One of them could be that we don't know Meditation so this tech should be avoided at least for a while even if we can get it for free! Regarding Alphabet and Sailing I would say we need those unless conquest can be achieved early without crossing the ocean. Even if we don't have many friends to trade with techs can be extorted from enemies in exchange for peace.

As far as sailing goes, I'm operating under the assumption that we will have several rivals to conquer on the original continent and that we will probably need the samurais to do so. In that case, we will already have the most expensive prerequisites to astronomy (metal casting, machinery) and can start on the astronomy path while our samurai are avenging Tokugawa's brother. The "maybes" I can see for getting sailing earlier are 1) Kyoto is within reach of coast, 2) barbarian galleys are pillaging valuable seafood, 3) we want to connect two coastal cities on the continent and roads are too slow or vulnerable. If we just want to explore, work boats are cheaper.

Sounds good to me! We could probably let the settler move unescorted the first 6 turns. After that animals start to appear and it's probably required to wait for the warrior to catch up before moving further. Another - but riskier - way of advancing would be to use only a single step at a time so that there is always a spare move allowing us to either settle on the spot if we see a double move animal like panther or wolf or move out of reach if we see a single move animal like lion or bear.

I think the Professor should work it out so that the settler is joined by the warrior by the end of the 6th turn (if that is indeed the magic number). If the settler were going to move one step at a time, he might as well be joined by the warrior. Even the single steps are no guarantee that a wolf or panther that is out of his field of vision wont get him. We can combine the single steps with the warrior escort for greater protection though (i.e., the settler makes one move onto plains/grass/desert, then backs off if he sees something bad, then the warrior rejoins the settler).

About the magic number 6, I ran the setup 10 times with my settler and warrior wandering around and recorded the number of the turn where I saw the first animal. The numbers were: 13,9,7,13,8,8,9,12,11,11. Has anyone actually seen an animal after 6 turns? Does anyone know how to find it in the game code?

I ran the same test for the appearance of barbarians. I settled near the coast as early as possible and then waited for the barbs. Number of turns to barbarians were: 45,50,47,61,68,54,43,47,45,47.

How do we identify a good spot for settling? Of course we want to move as close as possible to Kyoto. Settling on a plains hill has the merit of an extra hammer in the city tile thus doubling speed of production of the first military unit. The city would also be more difficult to capture. A hill inside the square 3x3 cultural borders would allow for an easily defensible improvement since archers can get hills defense promotions. Gold or silver would be a very nice bonus and a river is also nice for extra commerce. Settling at the coast would make it easier to set up a defensíve perimeter around the city to defend improvements. Any improved sea ressources would also be easier to defend.

Yes, I'll take all of those, thank you!

As far as sailing goes, I'm operating under the assumption that we will have several rivals to conquer on the original continent and that we will probably need the samurais to do so. In that case, we will already have the most expensive prerequisites to astronomy (metal casting, machinery) and can start on the astronomy path while our samurai are avenging Tokugawa's brother. The "maybes" I can see for getting sailing earlier are 1) Kyoto is within reach of coast, 2) barbarian galleys are pillaging valuable seafood, 3) we want to connect two coastal cities on the continent and roads are too slow or vulnerable. If we just want to explore, work boats are cheaper.

I see your point. I think we can decide about sailing later. Light houses may come in handy, but it's hard to tell with the info we have now.

About the magic number 6, I ran the setup 10 times with my settler and warrior wandering around and recorded the number of the turn where I saw the first animal. The numbers were: 13,9,7,13,8,8,9,12,11,11. Has anyone actually seen an animal after 6 turns? Does anyone know how to find it in the game code?

I ran the same test for the appearance of barbarians. I settled near the coast as early as possible and then waited for the barbs. Number of turns to barbarians were: 45,50,47,61,68,54,43,47,45,47.

In my test game I entered the world builder after each turn and what I saw was that animals appeared after 6 turns simultaneously in many different places. What I didn't do was to create different test games so the number could of course be varying from game to game.

I think the Professor should work it out so that the settler is joined by the warrior by the end of the 6th turn (if that is indeed the magic number). If the settler were going to move one step at a time, he might as well be joined by the warrior. And even the single steps are no guarantee that a wolf or panther that is out of his field of vision wont get him. We can combine the single steps with the warrior escort for greater protection though (i.e., the settler makes one move onto plains/grass/desert, then backs off if he sees something bad, then the warrior rejoins the settler).

If we are willing to take a small risk we could rush the settler west for the first 6 turns and then place him on a hill where he could wait for the warrior. From the hill he should be able to see any approaching animal. Of course it would be annoying to be forced to settle the city but we would never loose the settler this way. The idea with the westward rush would be that we migth encounter a coastline that stops further progress west. In that case we might be able to find a spot for settling before 6 turns. Or we might find another civ blocking the west of our continent. As soon as we have found a spot that seems optimal on this continent I think we should found our 2nd city.

Regarding the number of turns I think 20 is fine but with a "breakpoint" in the first turnset so that we can discuss the placement of our 2nd city. Like Mad Professor already suggested.

In my test game I entered the world builder after each turn and what I saw was that animals appeared after 6 turns simultaneously in many different places. What I didn't do was to create different test games so the number could of course be varying from game to game.

Ah, good idea. I wish I had thought of it. So animals do appear on turn 6. I guess my numbers still give an idea of when to expect to actually see a beast. Using your idea, I checked that barbs appear on turn 42. I think these numbers are in the code.

If we are willing to take a small risk we could rush the settler west for the first 6 turns and then place him on a hill where he could wait for the warrior. From the hill he should be able to see any approaching animal. Of course it would be annoying to be forced to settle the city but we would never loose the settler this way. The idea with the westward rush would be that we migth encounter a coastline that stops further progress west. In that case we might be able to find a spot for settling before 6 turns. Or we might find another civ blocking the west of our continent. As soon as we have found a spot that seems optimal on this continent I think we should found our 2nd city.

We would have to hope there was a hill to stand on at turn 6 though and even then it might force us to settle somewhere pretty bad. I would still vote for using the warrior escort after turn 6 and finding a prime spot. I'm not sure we want to settle as early as turn 6 even if we did find a good spot from the settler's westward rush. Every turn we wait is 5-6 more beakers, which means getting archers earlier, being able to pop rush in Kyoto earlier, getting a library and scientists in Kyoto earlier, etc...

I was working out the specifics of the distance penalty in the worldbuilder. Every step to the north and west has an effect on the distance penalty. The distance to the capital seems to be calculated as the north/south distance + the east/west distance, rather than the straight line pythagorean distance. Our settler is starting at a total distance of around 42 tiles (6 south and 36 east). One step to the NW would reduce the distance by 2, while one step to the SW would have 0 effect (I'm not suggesting that the settler should never move south). I started playing around with cities at different distances from the capital at different populations (yes, maintenance does increase with population). Here's the results:

Maintenance of 2nd city as a function of distance to capital and population of 2nd city:

Distance......Pop1.....Pop2......Pop3.....Pop4.... ..Pop5
27..............-5.........-6.........-7.........-7.........-8
28..............-5.........-6.........-7.........-8.........-8
29..............-5.........-7.........-7.........-8.........-9
30..............-5.........-7.........-8.........-8.........-9
31..............-5.........-7.........-8.........-8.........-9
32..............-5.........-7.........-8.........-8.........-9
33..............-6.........-7.........-8.........-9.........-10
34..............-6.........-7.........-8.........-9.........-10
35..............-6.........-8.........-9.........-9.........-10
36..............-6.........-8.........-9.........-10........-10

So for the most part, when population is factored in, every step closer to Kyoto will reduce maintenance. It's not as if crossing some magic line will reduce maintenance a lot. But the difference between being 35 tiles away and 32 tiles away is 1 beaker per turn for every turn until we move our palace.

If we are willing to take a small risk we could rush the settler west for the first 6 turns and then place him on a hill where he could wait for the warrior. From the hill he should be able to see any approaching animal. Of course it would be annoying to be forced to settle the city but we would never loose the settler this way. The idea with the westward rush would be that we migth encounter a coastline that stops further progress west. In that case we might be able to find a spot for settling before 6 turns. Or we might find another civ blocking the west of our continent. As soon as we have found a spot that seems optimal on this continent I think we should found our 2nd city.


You pointed out a really interessant fact, what is the behavior of an Aggressive AI's archer in front of a lonely settler or a defenceless city??? :confused:

You pointed out a really interessant fact, what is the behavior of an Aggressive AI's archer in front of a lonely settler or a defenceless city??? :confused:

I've played several tests, including ones with defenseless settlers and defenseless cities and the AI has never attacked. As far as I can tell, aggressive AI affects their attitude toward you. In a normal game, if an AI's attitude points toward you added up to 0, they would be Cautious, but with aggressive AIs, 0 = Annoyed. So that's going to hurt trading, but I dont see it having much affect on their likelihood to declare war.

Ah, good idea. I wish I had thought of it. So animals do appear on turn 6. I guess my numbers still give an idea of when to expect to actually see a beast. Using your idea, I checked that barbs appear on turn 42. I think these numbers are in the code.



We would have to hope there was a hill to stand on at turn 6 though and even then it might force us to settle somewhere pretty bad. I would still vote for using the warrior escort after turn 6 and finding a prime spot. I'm not sure we want to settle as early as turn 6 even if we did find a good spot from the settler's westward rush. Every turn we wait is 5-6 more beakers, which means getting archers earlier, being able to pop rush in Kyoto earlier, getting a library and scientists in Kyoto earlier, etc...

I was working out the specifics of the distance penalty in the worldbuilder. Every step to the north and west has an effect on the distance penalty. The distance to the capital seems to be calculated as the north/south distance + the east/west distance, rather than the straight line pythagorean distance. Our settler is starting at a total distance of around 42 tiles (6 south and 36 east). One step to the NW would reduce the distance by 2, while one step to the SW would have 0 effect (I'm not suggesting that the settler should never move south). I started playing around with cities at different distances from the capital at different populations (yes, maintenance does increase with population). Here's the results:

Maintenance of 2nd city as a function of distance to capital and population of 2nd city:

Distance......Pop1.....Pop2......Pop3.....Pop4.... ..Pop5
27..............-5.........-6.........-7.........-7.........-8
28..............-5.........-6.........-7.........-8.........-8
29..............-5.........-7.........-7.........-8.........-9
30..............-5.........-7.........-8.........-8.........-9
31..............-5.........-7.........-8.........-8.........-9
32..............-5.........-7.........-8.........-8.........-9
33..............-6.........-7.........-8.........-9.........-10
34..............-6.........-7.........-8.........-9.........-10
35..............-6.........-8.........-9.........-9.........-10
36..............-6.........-8.........-9.........-10........-10

So for the most part, when population is factored in, every step closer to Kyoto will reduce maintenance. It's not as if crossing some magic line will reduce maintenance a lot. But the difference between being 35 tiles away and 32 tiles away is 1 beaker per turn for every turn until we move our palace.

:eek:
That's a great job tou have done here... :goodjob:

So, the aim of our settler is to find a good place to settle in the NW... but the more I think about it, the more I doubt we can go NW. With the small screenshot we have, it looks like we are almost in the north-west coast of our continent... and as I told earlier Gyathaar is a vicious... :lol: I'm pretty sure, he won't let us decrease our maintenance cost as easily... :sad:

:eek:
That's a great job tou have done here... :goodjob:

So, the aim of our settler is to find a good place to settle in the NW... but the more I think about it, the more I doubt we can go NW. With the small screenshot we have, it looks like we are almost in the north-west coast of our continent... and as I told earlier Gyathaar is a vicious... :lol: I'm pretty sure, he won't let us decrease our maintenance cost as easily... :sad:

Thanks. You may be right about the continent. Our settler can start the game by moving westward twice and verify if there is anywhere to go. If not, we will have to decide whether to start looking east. Kyoto is 48 tiles to the east of the settler. He would have to move 12 spaces north/east just to get back to the starting distance (14 including the initial 2 moves). This would require a commitment to waiting longer to settle (which I have no problem with). It might still be worth the risk to move. I will reiterate my point about the advantage of settling close to an AI's capital (fewer barbs, quick attack). I have to think Gyathaar has it set up to punish people who settle near the starting place.

There's some good analysis done here. It's good to have some real numbers to look at.

Thanks. You may be right about the continent. Our settler can start the game by moving westward twice and verify if there is anywhere to go. If not, we will have to decide whether to start looking east. Kyoto is 48 tiles to the east of the settler. He would have to move 12 spaces north/east just to get back to the starting distance (14 including the initial 2 moves). This would require a commitment to waiting longer to settle (which I have no problem with). It might still be worth the risk to move. I will reiterate my point about the advantage of settling close to an AI's capital (fewer barbs, quick attack). I have to think Gyathaar has it set up to punish people who settle near the starting place.

<chuckle> It's probably not wise to base decisions on guesses about what Gyathaar might or might not do, but you just might be right. :)

When I play, I'll try moving west, and if it becomes bvious there's nowhere to go, I can stop right there, even after one or two turns and check back in with you guys to discuss it if necessary. This thought doesn't bother me.

Since we absolutely cannot afford to lose the settler though, I'm nervous about it wandering around after animals are there. Is there some way of analysing the cost/benefit of delaying the settler? It's clear that our science will be better off with a delay, but how is that offset by delay in units produced in the second city, when we'll need them absolutely against barbarians which will certainly appear sooner than we want, and in numbers more than we want? That's a bit hard to measure I suspect, as it really depends on the exact location of the city for what you're sacrificing. I mean - whether that first unit would be produced with one hammer, two, three, etc.

When I play, I'll try moving west, and if it becomes obvious there's nowhere to go, I can stop right there, even after one or two turns and check back in with you guys to discuss it if necessary. This thought doesn't bother me.

Since we absolutely cannot afford to lose the settler though, I'm nervous about it wandering around after animals are there. Is there some way of analysing the cost/benefit of delaying the settler? It's clear that our science will be better off with a delay, but how is that offset by delay in units produced in the second city, when we'll need them absolutely against barbarians which will certainly appear sooner than we want, and in numbers more than we want? That's a bit hard to measure I suspect, as it really depends on the exact location of the city for what you're sacrificing. I mean - whether that first unit would be produced with one hammer, two, three, etc.

Well if it becomes clear from the settler's first move that there's no way west, the warrior can start moving NE. Actually, if we can move 6 tiles directly NE, we're still at 42 tiles away from Kyoto (42 east/west and 0 north/south). By the time the warrior moved 6 NE, the settler should be able to catch up and have an escort for any further movement. If the settler finds the end of the continent on the first turn, settling on that coast will mean 7 GPT maintenance and will also mean being farther away from the nearest AI.

If we (you) decide we need to go NE and settle after 6-10 turns, we will be completing our first archer earlier than if we had settled in the first couple turns. If you look at the probability of actually seeing an animal before turn 10 and then the probability of said animal being able to kill a smartly maneuvered combat 1 warrior, the danger is quite small.

I will play ten turns to begin with, and post results for discussion. Do we want to play ten turns each through the first round, or should I then play a second ten turns before handing it on for everyone to play 20 turns each?

Sounds good to me.

If we are willing to take a small risk we could rush the settler west for the first 6 turns and then place him on a hill where he could wait for the warrior. From the hill he should be able to see any approaching animal. Of course it would be annoying to be forced to settle the city but we would never loose the settler this way. The idea with the westward rush would be that we migth encounter a coastline that stops further progress west. In that case we might be able to find a spot for settling before 6 turns. Or we might find another civ blocking the west of our continent. As soon as we have found a spot that seems optimal on this continent I think we should found our 2nd city.

I agree wholeheartedly with this - if we can move quickly west, and then settle after those 6 or 7 turns, getting us a dozen squares closer to Kyoto, then that sounds very good. Although not moving that distance may not give the optimal site, there should still be a pretty good site somewhere close.


It's clear that our science will be better off with a delay, but how is that offset by delay in units produced in the second city, when we'll need them absolutely against barbarians which will certainly appear sooner than we want, and in numbers more than we want?


Our science is only better off in the short term - once the city is producing more commerce as its maintenance costs we're better off researchwise. In terms of dealing with the barbs - if we settle and can get two hammers straight off the bat (if I'm not mixing my metaphors), then a warrior will be out in 12 turns (15base cost * 1.5 for epic = 23). So settling on say, turn 7 means we could have two extra warriors by turn 31, useful for exploration, fog busting and defence. They might even have a chance to get a promotion or two on some animals.

Oh, and thanks ShannonCT for the work on the maintenance re distance and population - very useful.

In terms of research, I think we're all agreed on archery, and BW not long afterwards. I'd like to say I agree with Frederiksberg approach re writing - this would be a very useful tech for Kyoto, and the sooner we can get specialists in here the better, I think the idea (also Frederiksberg's I think) to have this as a GP farm is absolutely right.

Our science is only better off in the short term - once the city is producing more commerce as its maintenance costs we're better off researchwise. In terms of dealing with the barbs - if we settle and can get two hammers straight off the bat (if I'm not mixing my metaphors), then a warrior will be out in 12 turns (15base cost * 1.5 for epic = 23). So settling on say, turn 7 means we could have two extra warriors by turn 31, useful for exploration, fog busting and defence. They might even have a chance to get a promotion or two on some animals.


I think KingdomBrunel does have a point here. Postponing settling after we have found a good city site closer to Kyoto is to some extent just postponing the pain of the maintenance for a new city with little income. It's a phase we have to go through sooner or later. The main question here should be if we can use the extra food and hammers we get by settling early for any usefull purpose. In most of my testgames warriors were not all that usefull and most of them were eventually killed by barbarian archers or axemen. Barracks on the other hand might be useful and we can build them at reduced cost. Our 2nd city will only be able to pay for itself if we have some gold producing tiles available. Gold or silver bonus ressources are optimal but we may not be able to locate those and in that case coast tiles are probably the best since they produce 2gpt unimproved. One more reason for settling at the coast! And maybe a reason for researching sailing somewhere along the line and building lighthouses (Reduced cost). Building cottages is also an option, but not in the early phases before we have created a defensive perimeter around the city.
Assuming that Kyoto remains isolated until we learn astronomy I would say that an important goal is to build 3 cities on the continent our settler is on and build a Palace in one of them to cut down maintenance. After that we have a "normal" game and Kyoto will be the only city with an unusually high maintenance. In order to get there as fast as possible I would prefer not to delay founding our 2nd city for too long.

By the way - here's a thread discussing city maintenance:

City Maintenance (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=138473)

Our science is only better off in the short term - once the city is producing more commerce as its maintenance costs we're better off researchwise. In terms of dealing with the barbs - if we settle and can get two hammers straight off the bat (if I'm not mixing my metaphors), then a warrior will be out in 12 turns (15base cost * 1.5 for epic = 23). So settling on say, turn 7 means we could have two extra warriors by turn 31, useful for exploration, fog busting and defence. They might even have a chance to get a promotion or two on some animals.

Oh, and thanks ShannonCT for the work on the maintenance re distance and population - very useful.

I think it will be quite unlikely that our 2nd city (or 3rd or 4th) will be able to pay for itself until we move the palace. In order to produce more commerce the city will need more population, but population increases result in higher maintenance costs as my table shows. The only way I can see out of this problem is if we are lucky enough to get a gold or gems mine. Working a lot of coastal tiles for commerce sacrafices production, and our 2nd city will only be able to work 4 tiles unless it gets a luxury.

Warriors can be surprisingly useful for barb defense. A warrior who can get the cover promotion (anti-archer) and who fully fortifies on a forested hill is getting a 135% bonus against archers. 2 * 2.35 = 4.7. That's nothing to sneeze at. Regardless of how long we wait to settle, building a barracks and then 2 warriors to put on forested hills is not a bad opening.

I think KingdomBrunel does have a point here. Postponing settling after we have found a good city site closer to Kyoto is to some extent just postponing the pain of the maintenance for a new city with little income. It's a phase we have to go through sooner or later. The main question here should be if we can use the extra food and hammers we get by settling early for any usefull purpose. In most of my testgames warriors were not all that usefull and most of them were eventually killed by barbarian archers or axemen. Barracks on the other hand might be useful and we can build them at reduced cost. Our 2nd city will only be able to pay for itself if we have some gold producing tiles available. Gold or silver bonus ressources are optimal but we may not be able to locate those and in that case coast tiles are probably the best since they produce 2gpt unimproved. One more reason for settling at the coast! And maybe a reason for researching sailing somewhere along the line and building lighthouses (Reduced cost). Building cottages is also an option, but not in the early phases before we have created a defensive perimeter around the city.

Assuming that Kyoto remains isolated until we learn astronomy I would say that an important goal is to build 3 cities on the continent our settler is on and build a Palace in one of them to cut down maintenance. After that we have a "normal" game and Kyoto will be the only city with an unusually high maintenance. In order to get there as fast as possible I would prefer not to delay founding our 2nd city for too long.

Right, postponing after we have found a good site closer to Kyoto only has a temporary benefit. Let's not postpone just for the sake of postponing. Postponing for the sake of trying to get closer to Kyoto has a long-lasting science benefit. Maintenance for a city that is 38 tiles from the capital has maintenance of -7, -9, -10, -10, -11 at Populations of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively. That's two more per turn than a city 32 tiles from the capital, for every turn until we move the capital (which is going to take at least 100 turns).

Instead of building 3 cities on the continent, how about building 2 (or even 1 if we are lucky enough to get a metal on the first try) and then going for the nearest AI capital? The AI usually sends out parties of 1-2 archers and a settler at pretty predictable times and leaves the capital guarded by 2 archers. We could try to intercept one of the settling parties with some anti-archer axemen, level them up to get City Raider I, and then capture the capital. We can have three axemen for the price of a settler and capture a city that cold pop rush more axemen or a palace. And this would basically cripple our nearest rival and surely give us some workers.

I'm running some tests that I will write up later about the first 100 turns with various settling times.

Instead of building 3 cities on the continent, how about building 2 (or even 1 if we are lucky enough to get a metal on the first try) and then going for the nearest AI capital? The AI usually sends out parties of 1-2 archers and a settler at pretty predictable times and leaves the capital guarded by 2 archers. We could try to intercept one of the settling parties with some anti-archer axemen, level them up to get City Raider I, and then capture the capital. We can have three axemen for the price of a settler and capture a city that cold pop rush more axemen or a palace. And this would basically cripple our nearest rival and surely give us some workers.

I'm running some tests that I will write up later about the first 100 turns with various settling times.

Capturing our 3rd or 4th city is definitely something we should consider if the opportunity presents itself. I guess it will depend on the proximity and strength of our nearest neighbour.

Looking forward to your test results!

Instead of building 3 cities on the continent, how about building 2 (or even 1 if we are lucky enough to get a metal on the first try) and then going for the nearest AI capital? The AI usually sends out parties of 1 archer and a settler at pretty predictable times and leaves the capital guarded by 1-2 archers. We could try to intercept one of the settling parties with some anti-archer axemen, level them up to get City Raider I, and then capture the capital. We can have three axemen for the price of a settler and capture a city that cold pop rush more axemen or a palace. And this would basically cripple our nearest rival and surely give us some workers.

I'm running some tests that I will write up later about the first 100 turns with various settling times.

I tested out the AI's regular settling times to clarify the ambush option. Most AI's have their first settler leaving their borders around the 40th turn + or - 3 turns. There are occassional stragglers who didn't get good bonus resources. The AI then either prepares another settler which it sends out around the 67th turn + or - 3 turns, or builds an improvement and sends out a settler around the 82nd turn + or -, probably depending on the land competition it perceives. So if we settled close to an AI, I would expect a quick second settler.

The other question I asked myself was, How long can my warrior and settler explore before being eaten? I restricted myself to keeping the settler and warrior joined after the 6th turn, running away from anything dangerous, and sticking to safe terrain where possible but going out in the open when necessary. The number of turns before I was eaten (B means barbs showed up before I was eaten): 27,38,39,B,B,B,31,B,B,B.

OK, Here are a few 100 turn scenarios:

Scenario 1: Tokugawa's brother, let's call him Elvis, decides to explore west. After one turn, it looks like the continent is at its end and he decides to found Osaka on the spot on turn 2. It's not a great spot but it has a flood plain, a few grass forests and three coastal squares. He's 38 tiles from Kyoto and the maintenance will be -7, -9, -9, -10, for the first four population. He decides to start with a barracks and a couple warriors until archery comes in. The warrior escort goes exploring the countryside. Osaka works the flood plains and grows to size 3 quickly, and then works the forests. Osaka isn't generating much money. With a population of four, it can work a couple of coast squares and help a little. Hunting comes in after 13 turns, archery 32, mining 43, bronze working 62, pottery 78, and writing 96. Kyoto has a library and 2 scientists by turn 98. Osaka has managed to produce 2 warriors and 4 archers, which were all needed to defend (1 warrior was killed), since it wasn't getting any fog-busting help from a rival. Because of a lack of bonus resources, no worker or settler was produced.

Scenario 2: Elvis, with the help of his trusty warrior has found a more promising site to the NNE on a plains hill by a river. There are fish on the coast and some sheep and hills within the borders. Elvis exclaims, "Cool, I know how to fish!" and he settles on turn 2 at a distance of 39. Maintenance will be -7, -9, -10, -11 for the first four population. The warrior goes exploring and Osaka starts working the lone forest tile and building a work boat to get Osaka growing fast. Osaka's population grows to size 4 quickly after the fishnet is laid and it starts building defenses with as many as 6 hammers per turn before any improvements. After a warrior, a barracks, and 2 archers, Osaka thinks it can risk building a worker to build some mines. The barbs aren't quite as fierce as they were last time, and the worker is soon safely building two mines and later a cottage on the river. Hunting came in at turn 12, archery 26, mining 39, bronze working 58, pottery 76, and writing 94. Science was slightly better with this site generating a bit more gold. Osaka ends up producing 1 warrior, 5 archers, 1 worker, 1 settler, 1 work boat, a barracks, and improves the terrain with a fishing net, 2 mines, and a cottage. The settler could have settled by turn 85 but there was no bronze to be found. Bronze could have been online by turn 100. I might have detoured to iron working after seeing no bronze but I wanted to see when pottery and writing came in for comparisson.

Scenario 3: Elvis starts heading west and finds open country. He says, "see you later warrior. I'm outta here." After 7 turns, Elvis stops to rest on a forested hill and spies some fish on the coast, while his warrior has met Ghandi at a site south of Elvis. Elvis founds Osaka by the fish but on a useless grass tile in order to save the forested hill and to be next to a river and a flood plain. The Osakans will eat well. Osaka is only 28 tiles from the capital with maintenances of -5, -6, -7, -8. Elvis decides to get a barracks and a couple defenders up before building a fishing boat. A warrior and an archer are enough for now. With the ocean to the north and Ghandi to the south, there are only two approaches to Osaka. By the time the barbs start raging, Osaka will be able to whip archers. Hunting comes in at turn 9, archery 21, mining 32, BW 49, Pottery 65, Writing 81, and Sailing 98 (explained later). Bronze appears back east near the coast. Ghandi is settling like mad and puts Bombay east of Osaka but still west of the bronze. The barb threat is all but gone so Osaka whips a settler and skirts around Bombay to found Tokyo. Osaka whips a worker and heads straight for the bronze and begins a mine. Building a road around Bombay is too risky, so Elvis decides to learn how to ship the bronze along the coast. By turn 100, we have an axeman with two more a couple turns away. It looks like we've managed to snag the only metal in the area. Ghandi is screwed.

The :king: is alive :D

An example from one of my own test games...

Scenario 4: The kings half brother, let's call him Bob Dylan, takes the advice of the Village People and decides to Go West (http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/v/villagepeople7258/gowest483031.html). After a handful of turns he reaches the coast and decides to found Mobile. Unfortunately there is only one source of hammers - a grassland forrest - in the vicinity of the city. So allthough research is progressing fine building the first archer takes forever and he comes just in time to deny the first barb warrior access to the city. Barracks and more archers are slowly built and BW is researched - no copper is in sight :mad: . IW is put on the agenda by uncle Bob and after it is researched iron is discovered not far from Mobile. A worker is paving a way towards the valuable metal and a settler is nearly finished when a barb axeman appears to the north :eek: . So the settler has to stay at home with Mr. Zimmerman singing Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again (http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/memphis.html).

I don't remember the exact turn numbers, but this scenario as well as the other three shows that we should be somewhat picky about where we found our second city. Finding the optimal site can really tip the scales in our favor. Of course we would like to go as far west as possible. And since we already know fishing and since mining comes early in our tech path sea ressources and hills are probably a "must have" as clearly demonstrated in scenarios 2 & 3. Gold, rivers and floodplains would be nice to have on top of that but probably we won't be able to get all of it.

Thanks very much for these scenarios ShannonCT and Frederiksberg.

I don't remember the exact turn numbers, but this scenario as well as the other three shows that we should be somewhat picky about where we found our second city. Finding the optimal site can really tip the scales in our favor. Of course we would like to go as far west as possible. And since we already know fishing and since mining comes early in our tech path sea ressources and hills are probably a "must have" as clearly demonstrated in scenarios 2 & 3. Gold, rivers and floodplains would be nice to have on top of that but probably we won't be able to get all of it.

Absolutely right. the resources near the settled cities seemed make a considerable difference.

I've downloaded the start file. I'll play those first few turns sometime in the next 12 hours, and report.

I've played two turns. This game has started with a real eye opener. I've never seen a map like this before. Then I've probably never played one that Gyathaar specifically designed to surprise either... I need some input here.

I opened the file, it's 4000BC, the start looks just like the advertised starting position, that's no surprise, but it's the end of the non-surprising stuff.

I set research to hunting, it says it will take 8 turns. We have 11 commerce, 100% research, and hunting needs 88 beakers. 8 turns.

I move the warrior 1E to get a view eastwards from that hill. Wow!! There's sheep and gems next to the rice, and grassland and fresh water! I move the settler 1SW then 1W (getting around that forest to the west) to have a look west with the settler as agreed. End of turn.

Turn 2: 3970BC:
Move settler 1S then 1SW - going around forest again, and getting us a view from a hill. Looks like we're at the western end of a continent fellas.... That's not surprising - someone commented that's just what Gyathaar might do.

Move warrior 1 SE to get a view from the next hill. Awesome!! Another gems, and some gold!! There's one spot we can settle which will give us 2 gems, gold, and rice within the fat cross as well as some grassland and good fresh water. There's even three forests around it at different points of the compass to help with defense! Incredible! It could only happen on a hand done map!

Here's some pictures of the situation at the end of these two turns:

135049

135050

What about settling among the gold, gems, rice and forest? Pros and cons? Maintenance will be high of course, but I don't think we're going to do much better without going east quite a distance, and the gems and gold will help pay the maintenance.

Let me hear your thoughts, and when we have some sort of agreement, I'll continue playing.

Looks like a plains hill that the warrior is standing on - can you confirm that?

It is surely a good city site in terms of early income, happyness and hammers and it would make a good capital as well when we move the Palace. Going west doesn't look like an option since we can only get a few tiles closer to Kyoto. I would suggest that you move the settler to the plains hill where the warrior is now and in the meantime push the warrior further to the NE. That would give us a little more info on the expansion possibilities in that direction.

So we have what looks like no place to go and a peach of a site created for us here. My vote is to settle so that we have 2 of the 3 gold & gems in our initial 9 squares (we won't get any culture or a fat cross for a little while). However, we need mining first, so I think we should switch to this now, and not settle until we've got it (science would drop to 0%). Our first build in the city should be a worker.

I'm open to other gambits though.

Looks like a plains hill that the warrior is standing on - can you confirm that?.

Yes, It's a plains hill that the warrior is standing on. It's a grassland hill to the NW of the warrior.

I had my eye on the plains to the NE of where the warrior is standing because it has both gems within one tile of it, and is in the middle of three forest tiles which would be good for drawing barbarians into fights to compensate for the fact that the city would not be on a hill. The downside of that is that archers defending the city would be much weaker not on a hill. That may be a good reason for settling on the plains hill which still gets the gold and one of the gems within one tile and stil lgets all those resources within the fat cross. In fact this might just make the plains hill the best spot.

If we want to settle on that plains hill where the warrior is, it would be two turns moving the settler back to the start position then two turns through the forest to the plains hill. Four turns movement, then settling any time from 5 turns from now onwards.

So we have what looks like no place to go and a peach of a site created for us here. My vote is to settle so that we have 2 of the 3 gold & gems in our initial 9 squares (we won't get any culture or a fat cross for a little while). However, we need mining first, so I think we should switch to this now, and not settle until we've got it (science would drop to 0%). Our first build in the city should be a worker.

I'm open to other gambits though.

We'd need mining as soon as we have a worker, but I wonder about producing a worker first? I'd prefer to have the warrior out exploring a little, so I'd like to produce a military unit first. The gems are on grassland tiles so they produce 2 food and 2 gold per turn without mines. This might be enough to go on with for a few turns.

I like the plains hill a lot. The extra hammer will be valuable if we decide to go for an early worker. The fat cross around the plains hill also looks good with all visible ressources (2 gems, 1 gold, 1 sheep, 1 rice) + 2 floodplain tiles and one oasis inside. At size one we would probably be working the oasis for 3 food and 2 gold. This means that science rate would be less than 100% but more than 50% - my guess would be 70%.

KingdomBrunels idea of switching to mining and going for an early worker is interesting. I don't think that we need to wait with settling until we have researched mining - we should be able to time it in such a way that the worker appears shortly after mining is discovered. We shouldn't forget, however, that we need archers to be able to defend our mines. I guess we might need to run a few tests before we can decide what is the best course of action. We need to convince ourselves that we still have time to produce a couple of archers before the first barbs appear.

I like the plains hill a lot. The extra hammer will be valuable if we decide to go for an early worker. The fat cross around the plains hill also looks good with all visible ressources (2 gems, 1 gold, 1 sheep, 1 rice) + 2 floodplain tiles and one oasis inside. At size one we would probably be working the oasis for 3 food and 2 gold. This means that science rate would be less than 100% but more than 50% - my guess would be 70%.

KingdomBrunels idea of switching to mining and going for an early worker is interesting. I don't think that we need to wait with settling until we have researched mining - we should be able to time it in such a way that the worker appears shortly after mining is discovered. We shouldn't forget, however, that we need archers to be able to defend our mines. I guess we might need to run a few tests before we can decide what is the best course of action. We need to convince ourselves that we still have time to produce a couple of archers before the first barbs appear.

I agree that the plains hill is best from a productivity and gold stanpoint. And I think Brunel is right about starting with mining and a worker. It will take longer to get the worker than to get mining so we should settle as soon as possible. I will run a test to see how fast we can get defenses up going for this strategy.

MadProfessor can you post us an overview screenshot of all the know land with the ressources, so I can have a better idea of the sitauation (and also do a dotmap... :mischief: ).

I agree that the plains hill is best from a productivity and gold stanpoint. And I think Brunel is right about starting with mining and a worker. It will take longer to get the worker than to get mining so we should settle as soon as possible. I will run a test to see how fast we can get defenses up going for this strategy.

I also vote for the plains hill, and for the research, mining seems to be a must, but it can probably wait, 'til hunting is finish (5 turns to let the settler reach the hill + the time for producing a worker)..?

I think we have to discover mining before we found the city if we're going to found it here. Unless I’m mistaken (and that never happens :p - umm I mean please point out if I am) when we found this city our research rate will drop to 0% - we simply won’t have enough commerce to support our maintenance costs. If we have mining and bang out a worker, then we should recover quite quickly – not only will the worker prevent any growth while it is being built (and therefore any growth related maintenance), but mining the gems should give us back some science, whilst growing, and then mining gold should put us in profit with a pop 2 city. We should have time to build more defense before turn 42 and the barbs come round.

If we found Tokyo and then research mining it'll take an age to research it won't it? Or am I missing something...

I also vote for the plains hill

Plains hill for me too.

I think we have to discover mining before we found the city if we're going to found it here. Unless I’m mistaken (and that never happens :p - umm I mean please point out if I am) when we found this city our research rate will drop to 0% - we simply won’t have enough commerce to support our maintenance costs. If we have mining and bang out a worker, then we should recover quite quickly – not only will the worker prevent any growth while it is being built (and therefore any growth related maintenance), but mining the gems should give us back some science, whilst growing, and then mining gold should put us in profit with a pop 2 city. We should have time to build more defense before turn 42 and the barbs come round.

If we found Tokyo and then research mining it'll take an age to research it won't it? Or am I missing something...

You're right :blush:, switching immediately to mining and waiting before settling, make more sense... Netvertheless I'm not sure our science rate will drop to zero if we settle.

I think we have to discover mining before we found the city if we're going to found it here. Unless I’m mistaken (and that never happens :p - umm I mean please point out if I am) when we found this city our research rate will drop to 0% - we simply won’t have enough commerce to support our maintenance costs. If we have mining and bang out a worker, then we should recover quite quickly – not only will the worker prevent any growth while it is being built (and therefore any growth related maintenance), but mining the gems should give us back some science, whilst growing, and then mining gold should put us in profit with a pop 2 city. We should have time to build more defense before turn 42 and the barbs come round.

If we found Tokyo and then research mining it'll take an age to research it won't it? Or am I missing something...

Allow me to point out (:D ) that allthough Tokyo will not pay for itself (mainenance of 7 or 8 gpt income of 4 gpt) we still have Kyoto to pay. I don't recall how much gold the Palace generates - is it 6 gpt? That would make it a total of 10 gpt in Kyoto and we would be able to run science at 50%-60%.
Im sure that ShannonCT will come back with some more accurate numbers ;) .

You're right :blush:, switching immediately to mining and waiting before settling, make more sense... Netvertheless I'm not sure our science rate will drop to zero if we settle.

No, just to 50%

I think we have to discover mining before we found the city if we're going to found it here. Unless I’m mistaken (and that never happens :p - umm I mean please point out if I am) when we found this city our research rate will drop to 0% - we simply won’t have enough commerce to support our maintenance costs. If we have mining and bang out a worker, then we should recover quite quickly – not only will the worker prevent any growth while it is being built (and therefore any growth related maintenance), but mining the gems should give us back some science, whilst growing, and then mining gold should put us in profit with a pop 2 city. We should have time to build more defense before turn 42 and the barbs come round.

If we found Tokyo and then research mining it'll take an age to research it won't it? Or am I missing something...

The limiting factor is actually the worker. I ran the test with the same 9 tiles:
1. Switched to mining right away (on turn 2)
2. Ran the settler back to the plains hill and settled on turn 5.
3. Maintenance is -8, work the oasis, 18 turns to produce a worker, 11 turns to mining.
4. Explore with the warrior.
5. Mining at turn 16.
6. Worker at turn 23, start building gems mine (to sustain growth).
7. Hunting at turn 25.
8. Worker finishes mine (I still chose to work the oasis until Pop2 but could work gems mine now for faster production and more money). Worker builds road to gems and then goes to mine the gold.
9. Warrior built on turn 34. Staying home. Original worker looks for a place to bust fog on the gems side.
10. Archery at turn 35. Start building archer.
11. First archer built on turn 43, just in time. Barbs expected soon.
12. Bronze Working at turn 48. Barbs start attacking. Using the warrior to move around to the different forest tiles in our borders to bait them.
13. As soon as gold mine is finished, shift from oasis to gold mine (still at Pop2). No growth but faster unit production for a few turns.
14. Second archer at turn 51, sent out for fog busting.
15. Pottery Turn 58.
16. Writing Turn 71!!! (10 turns faster than any of my previous tries)

After the second archer we can make a judgement call about whether we want barracks, more archers, or a scout.

So going for mining and a worker first, we can have an archer and a warrior in Osaka before the barbs attack. Their is little chance of them capturing Osaka. Their is some chance of having a mine pillaged. The one time in my test that a barb was sitting on my gem mine, he decided to attack rather than pillage. Even if it gets pillaged, the woker has plenty of time on his hands.


Edit: turn 9 should say: original warrior looks for a place to bust fog...

Edit: Looking more closely at the screenshot from Mad Professor, it will take 3 turns to get to either of the proposed settling sites, and settling will occur on turn 6, not 5. This will if anything speed up the ealry techs by 1 turn. And it will push back the worker and warrior 1 turn each. I dont think this affects our decision.

I forget, does the oasis count as fresh water for the city for health purposes? If not then the plains hill is giving up the medium and long term benefit of fresh water for city growth potential. Granted, hopefully we win before our cities get too big but that city will also have the potential to grow pretty fast with the oasis, flood plains, sheep and rice.

Settling in either place (on the hill or 1NE of it) it looks like we will need to be able support a population of 7 to be able to work all of the resource tiles in the fat cross, and that would mean either not working the oasis or a floodplain. We won't be able to count on the health resources in Kyoto for a while either.

The other factor I see that is making me strongly consider the square 1NE of the hill is...It's going to be a while before we get a culture expansion and the gems on the river will give us 1 more commerce than the gems not on a river or the oasis. The hill gets the river gems, but not until a border expansion where the plains tile gets both off the bat. The downside is that the non-hill site misses the oasis until a border expansion so misses the 3 food square and also loses the extra hammer in the city square. All in all I don't think it's a cut and dried decision.

After the second archer we can make a judgement call about whether we want barracks, more archers, or a scout.

So going for mining and a worker first, we can have an archer and a warrior in Osaka before the barbs attack. Their is little chance of them capturing Osaka. Their is some chance of having a mine pillaged. The one time in my test that a barb was sitting on my gem mine, he decided to attack rather than pillage. Even if it gets pillaged, the woker has plenty of time on his hands.

Nice work :goodjob: .

It looks like researching Mining early and building an early worker is feasible from a defensive point of view. Maybe we can allow Hunting to be discovered before switching since it's the building of the worker that limits the time before we have our first mine. Ideally we need one archer for city defense and one archer for defending the gold mine before the barbs attack. If we can manage that we will certainly survive the first wave of barbs and producing more archers will allow us to set up a defensive line of fortified archers around the city.

The limiting factor is actually the worker. I ran the test with the same 9 tiles:
1. Switched to mining right away (on turn 2)
2. Ran the settler back to the plains hill and settled on turn 5.
3. Maintenance is -8, work the oasis, 18 turns to produce a worker, 11 turns to mining.
4. Explore with the warrior.
5. Mining at turn 16.
6. Worker at turn 23, start building gems mine (to sustain growth).
7. Hunting at turn 25.
8. Worker finishes mine (I still chose to work the oasis until Pop2 but could work gems mine now for faster production and more money). Worker builds road to gems and then goes to mine the gold.
9. Warrior built on turn 34. Staying home. Original worker looks for a place to bust fog on the gems side.
10. Archery at turn 35. Start building archer.
11. First archer built on turn 43, just in time. Barbs expected soon.
12. Bronze Working at turn 48. Barbs start attacking. Using the warrior to move around to the different forest tiles in our borders to bait them.
13. As soon as gold mine is finished, shift from oasis to gold mine (still at Pop2). No growth but faster unit production for a few turns.
14. Second archer at turn 51, sent out for fog busting.
15. Pottery Turn 58.
16. Writing Turn 71!!! (10 turns faster than any of my previous tries)

After the second archer we can make a judgement call about whether we want barracks, more archers, or a scout.

So going for mining and a worker first, we can have an archer and a warrior in Osaka before the barbs attack. Their is little chance of them capturing Osaka. Their is some chance of having a mine pillaged. The one time in my test that a barb was sitting on my gem mine, he decided to attack rather than pillage. Even if it gets pillaged, the woker has plenty of time on his hands.


:goodjob: Great job (as always:) )

I think we have a good guideline for the coming turnset...

I forget, does the oasis count as fresh water for the city for health purposes? If not then the plains hill is giving up the medium and long term benefit of fresh water for city growth potential. Granted, hopefully we win before our cities get too big but that city will also have the potential to grow pretty fast with the oasis, flood plains, sheep and rice.

Settling in either place (on the hill or 1NE of it) it looks like we will need to be able support a population of 7 to be able to work all of the resource tiles in the fat cross, and that would mean either not working the oasis or a floodplain. We won't be able to count on the health resources in Kyoto for a while either.

The other factor I see that is making me strongly consider the square 1NE of the hill is...It's going to be a while before we get a culture expansion and the gems on the river will give us 1 more commerce than the gems not on a river or the oasis. The hill gets the river gems, but not until a border expansion where the plains tile gets both off the bat. The downside is that the non-hill site misses the oasis until a border expansion so misses the 3 food square and also loses the extra hammer in the city square. All in all I don't think it's a cut and dried decision.

I'm pretty sure that the oasis gives us fresh water - Mad Professor can verify this from the game. It will take a lot longer to build the worker if we move to the plains tile NE because we loose one hammer and one food. Furthermore I doubt that we will be able to defend the gem mine from pillaging in the early phase of the game whereas the gold mine is almost untouchable with a fortified archer on top. We also loose the extra city defense coming from the hill.

I forget, does the oasis count as fresh water for the city for health purposes? If not then the plains hill is giving up the medium and long term benefit of fresh water for city growth potential. Granted, hopefully we win before our cities get too big but that city will also have the potential to grow pretty fast with the oasis, flood plains, sheep and rice.

Settling in either place (on the hill or 1NE of it) it looks like we will need to be able support a population of 7 to be able to work all of the resource tiles in the fat cross, and that would mean either not working the oasis or a floodplain. We won't be able to count on the health resources in Kyoto for a while either.

The other factor I see that is making me strongly consider the square 1NE of the hill is...It's going to be a while before we get a culture expansion and the gems on the river will give us 1 more commerce than the gems not on a river or the oasis. The hill gets the river gems, but not until a border expansion where the plains tile gets both off the bat. The downside is that the non-hill site misses the oasis until a border expansion so misses the 3 food square and also loses the extra hammer in the city square. All in all I don't think it's a cut and dried decision.

The oasis does count as a fresh water source. Settling on the plains hill, we get +2 health from fresh water, +3 from forests, and +2 for free. If we settle on the hill, I doubt Osaka will grow to 7 before its cultural expansion because working the oasis, gems, and gold nets only 1 surplus food. If we go for the mysticism, polytheism, preisthood track after writing, we'll have the option to build an obelisk to get some of those growth resources.

The one thing I think the spot to the NE has going for it is that a city there can grow faster working the two gems and the sheep (2 surplus food), than a city on the hill working the oasis, gems, and gold (1 surplus). But the money is just as good or better on the hill with the 2 GPT from the oasis vs. 1 for the unimproved sheep, and the gold mine equaling the river gems mine. At pop3, the hill city gets 7 food (1 surplus), 6 hammers, and 17 GPT (2 + 2 + 6 + 7). The river plains city gets 8 food (2 surplus), 4 hammers, and 16 GPT (2 + 1 + 6 + 7). Admittedly, the river plains city could grow to size 4 (and 5 and 6) faster and add 1 more hammer with no change in food surplus or 2 hammers with a decrease of 1 in food surplus. But it will be hard for it to get any more GPT and then the higher maintenance actually makes growing a money loser.

The other big issue is the first 45 turns. The extra hammer from the plains hill with the oasis gets our worker out 5 turns sooner, our first warrior and archers out sooner, and our first population growth sooner. I haven't tested that site but I think that going for mining and a worker from the plains site might put us in serious risk of being overrun by barbs. Then we'd have to go for archery before mining.

I don't see why we should get hunting before mining since I don't think we will be building a scout in the first 25 turns. If we finish hunting first, then I believe mining comes in at turn 25, whereas our worker can be done on turn 23.

I'm pretty sure that the oasis gives us fresh water - Mad Professor can verify this from the game. It will take a lot longer to build the worker if we move to the plains tile NE because we loose one hammer and one food. Furthermore I doubt that we will be able to defend the gem mine from pillaging in the early phase of the game whereas the gold mine is almost untouchable with a fortified archer on top. We also loose the extra city defense coming from the hill.

In my test I went for the gems mine first to speed up growth to pop3, but it may be better to go for the gold mine first since it gives 2 more hammers and is more easily defended. The extra hammers would mean getting warriors/archers to fog bust earlier and then when the worker finish the gems mine, we could switch to that to get to pop3 faster. If it gets pillaged, we can switch back to the gold mine for a bit.

I don't recall how much gold the Palace generates - is it 6 gpt?

Thanks the palace was what I was missing - it's not listed as giving any commerce in the reference charts I have here. A search though gave me http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-144304.html which suggests 8gpt. If that's the case, then as far as I'm concerned go for it, settle ASAP.

In terms of the plains versus plains hill note that the site next to the river will cost any barbs a 50% penalty if they attack over it. Both are good sites I think. Don't mind which is chosen.

After Mad Professor settles on one of the two tiles we're debating, it seems like it would be fine for him to play out his turnset unless he discovers something else shocking. I dont think we need another debate at turn 10 now.

The oasis does count as a fresh water source. Settling on the plains hill, we get +2 health from fresh water, +3 from forests, and +2 for free. If we settle on the hill, I doubt Osaka will grow to 7 before its cultural expansion because working the oasis, gems, and gold nets only 1 surplus food. If we go for the mysticism, polytheism, preisthood track after writing, we'll have the option to build an obelisk to get some of those growth resources.

The one thing I think the spot to the NE has going for it is that a city there can grow faster working the two gems and the sheep (2 surplus food), than a city on the hill working the oasis, gems, and gold (1 surplus). But the money is just as good or better on the hill with the 2 GPT from the oasis vs. 1 for the unimproved sheep, and the gold mine equaling the river gems mine. At pop3, the hill city gets 7 food (1 surplus), 6 hammers, and 17 GPT (2 + 2 + 6 + 7). The river plains city gets 8 food (2 surplus), 4 hammers, and 16 GPT (2 + 1 + 6 + 7). Admittedly, the river plains city could grow to size 4 (and 5 and 6) faster and add 1 more hammer with no change in food surplus or 2 hammers with a decrease of 1 in food surplus. But it will be hard for it to get any more GPT and then the higher maintenance actually makes growing a money loser.

The other big issue is the first 45 turns. The extra hammer from the plains hill with the oasis gets our worker out 5 turns sooner, our first warrior and archers out sooner, and our first population growth sooner. I haven't tested that site but I think that going for mining and a worker from the plains site might put us in serious risk of being overrun by barbs. Then we'd have to go for archery before mining.


Good analysis. And might I add that the improved defensibility of the plains hill city and the gold mine should also be taken into account. The sheep tile is not important before we have researched AH and the pasture will not be easy to defend from pillaging early on.

I don't see why we should get hunting before mining since I don't think we will be building a scout in the first 25 turns. If we finish hunting first, then I believe mining comes in at turn 25, whereas our worker can be done on turn 23.

I think I read somewhere that switching away from a tech will cause some loss of beakers, but I have never tested this. Anyway it's probably more important that we get the mine as fast as possible.

After Mad Professor settles on one of the two tiles we're debating, it seems like it would be fine for him to play out his turnset unless he discovers something else shocking. I dont think we need another debate at turn 10 now.

:agree: - play your remaining 18 turns.