Welcome to your C_IV Warlords SGOTM 6 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 for this game, where teams and staff may post non-spoiler information of general interest.

The Game

Gyathaar is playing this one close to his chest. Here's all the intelligence I've been able to wring out of him:


Prince difficulty
Epic speed
You play as the Charismatic, Protective Churchill of the English Empire.
You start with Fishing and Mining.
Your unique unit is the Redcoat, replacing the Rifleman.
Your Unique building is the Stock Exchange, replacing the Bank.
The map is a highly modified Cylindrical Big And Small map, using the BtS map script. It is Standard, Temperate, Medium sea level.
Always war. All VCs are enabled. I think the barbs are at default setting.

Here's the start - click the picture for one a bit bigger.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/images/SGOTM06small.jpg (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/images/SGOTM06.jpg)

Versions
This game will be played in Warlords Version 2.13, on Windows only, with the DLLs as installed with BtS.

It will be played using the current version of the HoF Mod. This is version 2.13.002 for Windows. You will need to ensure that you can run the Asset Checker v2 before you attempt to load this game. Typlically, players who have upgraded to Beyond the Sword will have the right assets. Alternatively, you should be able to make your installation compliant by installing the new .DLLs released for WOTM 15 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=251044). If you have a Steam installation then you will need to look at this post by ArcadicGamer for inspiration.

If later versions of Warlords or the HoF Mod are released they cannot be used for this game, and you will need to maintain a copy of your installed software at these versions to complete the game.

Timetable
The game will start on December 14th. I recommend you plan for a 4 month deadline for completion.

You will be able to download your start save from the SGOTM Progress and Results Page (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/submit/civ4sgotm_submission_list.php) on December 14th, at midnight local server time.

Notes

Please visit the Civ4 SGOTM reference thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=168439) to check out the rules and procedures to ensure that you are adequately prepared for this game.

Warlords v.2.13 is supported for this SGOTM. No other versions can be used, and you will have to stick with the same version throughout the game.

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. The number of awards may be reduced, depending on the number of teams who sign up.

Awards will be given to teams who win in the least turns.

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.


Enjoy your mystery tour of the World of Warlords.

Reserved for Index

Reserved for turnset logs

Reserved for turnset logs 2

Team discussions were started through Personal Messages right after the map was revealed. This post through post #18 try to recreate the bulk of those messages.
I created a test game that was sent via PM to all of the team members. I actually created 3 before I got it right.:sad:

Original PM by Ronnie1
I have just run through 2 tests of the starting location. I only tested based on the KNOWN resources. I tested settling in place, and settling on the dyes. I did not test settling on the bananas because there are too many UNKNOWN factors at this point to make any real comparisons. When/if we move our warrior E/NE/SE, we may bring more resources into play that make the banana site more attractive.

Settling on the dyes is a better option IMO at this point, and hear are my reasons.
1.We bring the riverside gold into the FC for an extra coin when mined(over the other gold).
2.We get an extra coin in the center square from the dyes.
These 2 factors allows us to 2turn boost to research by T41(when I stopped my test).

The results by site.
1.Settle on dyes.
Research, at T41, we have researched Hunting, AH, and BW(T41).
Builds, worker, warrior,warrior,1T to warrior#3(#4 counting the one we start with)
Tile use, at size 1, work any 3 yield(F+H) tile until border pops, then work banana(3F+1C), until cows are pastured(4F+2H).
Size 2, pastured cows(4F+2H), + banana(3F+1C) until gold is mined(3H+8C).
On T41, we choose next tech, we have tile use totalling (6F+6H+10C/turn), we are 1T from warrior #4, we are 6 turns to pop 3.

2.Settle in place.
Research, at T41, we have researched Hunting, AH, and BW is 2 turns away, (start new tech on T43).
Builds, worker, warrior,warrior,1T to warrior#3(#4 counting the one we start with).SAME RESULT
Tile use, at size 1, work any 3 yield(F+H) tile until border pops, then work banana(3F+1C), until cows are pastured(4F+2H).
Size 2, pastured cows(4F+2H), + banana(3F+1C) until gold is mined(3H+7C).
On T41, 2 turns to next tech, we have tile use totalling (6F+6H+8C/turn), we are 1T from warrior #4, we are 8 turns to pop 3.

Originally PM by Munro
Very nice work Ronnie. Can we also run the same test on the bananas for comparison? I believe it is 0.25 unhealthy per jungle and we can see 4 definite jungle in the banana fat cross, and 3 unknown tiles that could be jungle - so it should be 1 unhealthy regardless of what the fog hides.

Disadvantage of banana site is:
- losing the cows (very strong uplift when improved)
- losing 1 initial turn.

Main benefit of banana is:
+1 food for the initial worker build (and a good potential for specialization of the capital for commerce)Wouldn't 5 food when improved be better long term?
- saving the hunting / AH beakers and worker moves - allowing earlier BW, chop second worker, warriors or settler, and beakers to spare for e.g. wheel / pottery etc.If we move away from the cows, skipping AH makes sense, but we need Hunting for Archery, which will make barb control much easier, and allow us to send early Archers instead of warriors out scouting. And if we get lucky, and horses appear close by, we could possibly Chariot rush early.
I seriously doubt improving the banana will be better than settling on it.. it is a calendar resource after all. As a charismatic leader it makes very much sense to heavily delay calendar(until we need astro) because of the happiness and the fact that it isn't actually heavy contributing to our warmongering either..
- option of warrior before worker, since we can grow to pop 2 more easily before switching to worker, and then benefit from the huts and exploration from the early second warrior (getting a good handle on our surroundings and situation quickly might help significantly in making good early decisions).I think we should be able to get in about 20 turns scouting with our free warrior. Another side benefit of moving to the dyes, you can't "see" into the capitol from across the lake. Does the AI still get to "cheat" and "see" non-visible squares?
20 turns of scouting is very very close to suicide with always war... We need a warrior in the capital because the AI will know.
- +1 food will also be helpful for working the 0food gold

Can anyone run a comparison with Ronnie's existing results?

Quote:
The biggest questions that come to mind here. What are our goals for the capitol city
Initial goals (initial thoughts):
1. early warriors for finding AI and copper (if both are nearby, we will probably have to hook-up and rush quickly in order to be competitive on speed with the teams that do - unless we successfully perform a warrior rush instead)?
Can we do a warrior rush? I doubt it is possible but someone should test it(if we could avoid meeting the AI before we have 3-4 warriors it is certainly possible as the AI won't build more than 1 defender when it is not at war
2. early worker for mining the gold
3. good commerce site if possible; with built-in +8 gold palace bonus, built-in trade-route bonus, and potential +50% from CS later, capitals are ideal commerce-specialized cities; (need at least one or two of these regardless of VC); => maximise access to dye, gold and river for short and long term commerce
Capitals are also the site that will produce our first settlers and workers so having good production and food is also important

Quote:
How many turns are we willing to scout for a better capitol site?
Not a big fan of this in general - generally prefer to make a decision on city location after the initial warrior move, since best resources are usually near the start position anyway... ?

Original PM by R1
On Prince, I don't think spending a turn or 2 will be overly costly in the long run to find a great location! Feel free to test the banana site, I didn't because of the UNKNOWNS in the fog which may make the test irrelevant after it is uncovered for real. As I said, I'm not opposed to the banana site, but...wouldn't it be better to get the 5 food from it later while getting 3F+1C from it early as I did in both tests. I guess I just might not see your point yet, ,but please keep pressing your argument if makes sense to you.

I've just played about 125 turns of a random game with these settings. Some initial results, I was able to get archers out quickly and keep the closest AI pinned in his cap until I could muster enough Chariots to take him out about T95, I've got the next closest AI stopped at 2 cities unconected by roads, and unimproved with chariots on the way. I've got a distant AI(with metals) banging on a promoted Archer(thank you barbs from the trip north) by sticking to the hills and forests, chariot on the way to help back him up. And the most distant AI still in the fog, but killed his scout before he could go very deep into my lines. This I did with NO gold! Resources in London FC include only cows and wheat, horses in second city, no metals anywhere near. Biggest problem is research is down to 20-30% from keeping distant capitol of conquered AI.

Original PM by Oyzar
Re: Confused
Quote:
From oyzar, "I seriously doubt improving the banana will be better than settling on it.. it is a calendar resource after all. As a charismatic leader it makes very much sense to heavily delay calendar(until we need astro) because of the happiness and the fact that it isn't actually heavy contributing to our warmongering either.."

I don't think I understand what you are talking about here. I get opening up Astro, but what does Charismatic leader have to do with NOT getting calendar. Won't we need happiness resources if we are warmongering?
Monuments expire with calendar. They are mostly useful for culture but as charismatic it is even less of a priority as calendar is base -1 happiness in all cities. Settling on the banana gives +1 food the entire game, in the early game that is quite alot and it doesn't stop beeing relevant. No matter if we beeline calendar(which because of the traits and the settings it isn't very smart to do imo) it will take quite a while to get to calendar or even put a basic farm on the spot. Assuming we are aiming for a fast finish settling on the banana might even give more food longterm not to mention the snowball effect from faster workers/settlers/faster growth which gives even more food.

The point about not scouting is that IF we want a warrior rush we might have to delay contact with AI as otherwise they WILL build defenders. If this is even doable(not meeting AI, warrior rush if we meet them, warrior rush if we don't meet them) all have to be determined by the eventual text games we run.

Original exchange between Oyzar and R1
Re: Confused

Quote:
From oyzar, "I seriously doubt improving the banana will be better than settling on it.. it is a calendar resource after all. As a charismatic leader it makes very much sense to heavily delay calendar(until we need astro) because of the happiness and the fact that it isn't actually heavy contributing to our warmongering either.."

Quote: from R1
I don't think I understand what you are talking about here. I get opening up Astro, but what does Charismatic leader have to do with NOT getting calendar. Won't we need happiness resources if we are warmongering?
Monuments expire with calendar. They are mostly useful for culture but as charismatic it is even less of a priority as calendar is base -1 happiness in all cities. Settling on the banana gives +1 food the entire game, in the early game that is quite alot and it doesn't stop beeing relevant. No matter if we beeline calendar(which because of the traits and the settings it isn't very smart to do imo) it will take quite a while to get to calendar or even put a basic farm on the spot. Assuming we are aiming for a fast finish settling on the banana might even give more food longterm not to mention the snowball effect from faster workers/settlers/faster growth which gives even more food.

Quote: from oyzar
The point about not scouting is that IF we want a warrior rush we might have to delay contact with AI as otherwise they WILL build defenders. If this is even doable(not meeting AI, warrior rush if we meet them, warrior rush if we don't meet them) all have to be determined by the eventual text games we run.

Quote:from R1
I'm not a big fan of Monuments anyway for those very reasons. I would rather beeline Pottery & Writing and pop rush Granaries and Libraries. We don't start with Mysticism so we would have to detour just to build Monuments.

Quote:from oyzar
You are joking right? Monuments is one of the most crucial buildings to get cities up and running. Of course granaries are important but they don't generate culture, libraries are nice but they are helluva expensive.. Aprox 5-10% of my cities in normal games(where i am not creative and don't have religion) get their first border pop from libraries. It is often very important to be able to work the best titles in a city asap. I though the fact that monuments were good was a forgone conclusion but apparently not.. I'll start a thread about it in strategy and tips forum(monuments that is) you can see what pops up there...

Original from R1
No, I wasn't joking at all. One of the very first spoilers I read after finding this site was written by Obormot. He did not favor Monuments because of there early obsolesence, (execpt under certain conditions). He preferred putting the turns and hammers into Monastaries or Libraries. I have been using the beeline for Alphabet (Writing included) for so long that I hardly ever consider Monuments, unless the Civ gets some other bonus from there construction. That is also why I love the succession games. I get to learn what others do first hand. And we all get our "say" as to how it should go.

oyzar responded,
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=254090
here is the thread. Myst is damn cheap though... They still generate culture after calendar(though not happiness). We obviously aren't going for alpha beeline in this game anyways. I almost always chop monuments if needed allowing the cities to get their first border pop alot of time before they would have if they didn't build monuments...

original PM by da_Vinci (dV)
First observation ... trying to discuss in PM's is REALLY cumbersome!

Now, re monuments ... didn't Snatty's BtS strategy post say build monumets in all cities? And Obormot says no. How to account for this difference?

Here is one idea. I am in a pitboss game playing Zulu, no barbs, noble, 16 human rivals. Normal speed I think ... I have built monuments in all cities except capital. Yet I almost never do in XOTM. Why?

Normal speed may make monument more useful, as units have less time before obsolescence, and the faster use of outer "ring" of fat cross may be worthwhile. Also, with human rivals, an early rush might come, so expanded border and cultural defense early is reassuring. And with noble difficulty, can get away with monument while perhaps not at higher levels?

I can say that the faster use of those really good tiles helps a lot ... so perhaps monuments are worth a second look?

Maybe the approach on typical pitboss is not the best for typical XOTM? Worth keeping these differences in game styles in mind as we discuss.

Hey oyzar ... klammi set up a whole forum for his pitboss teamer ... is that on a net site, or is he hosting that on his server? If a net site, couldn't we set up a pre-game forum with password protection (or other restricted access)? Might be easier than all this PM'ing ...

dV

Munro responded,
As a general point, I'm with oyzar here - some mechanism for popping borders is cruicial to making proper use of the best city sites, and libraries are a *really* expensive way of doing that. Since this is always war, there's no tech trading - so the usual practice of beelining for alphabet and back-trading for everything else is not going to work (though we might want to do it anyway for other reasons, e.g. beeline for Great Library).

In general, libraries in non-commerce specialized cities (for popping borders) is wasteful - monuments are the cheapest way of doing this. We want to invest the minimum resources / turns that are required to achieve our objectives. Hence monuments. For a charismatic leader, it becomes almost compuslory (unless we are planning on e.g. founding a religion - but doesn't look like that will be part of our plan).

In my games, I very rarely build granaries or libraries except in very specialized cities (e.g. where I am whipping, or running science specialists, or exerting cultural pressure etc). Definitely not "standard" build-in-every-city buildings.

It should be noted that even Obormot built stonehenge (for the momuments) in WOTM07 when he was playing charismatic cyrus. We will probably want to make extensive use of momuments as well for the same reasons (and he played a warmonger's game there too).

On scouting - I am generally against speculative scouting at the begining. Our start is already more than good enough. I think it unlikely we will find significantly better - and more importantly, if we don't, every turn lost at the start is one turn lost on our finish (remember, we're not playing against the prince AI, but against the deity humans in the other teams).

As a general rule, I think a small advantage early (e.g. +1 food in starting city spot from bananas) is much more significant in determining outcome than a larger advantage much later (e.g. when we discover calendar).

BTW - I think we can still run a fair comparison of settling on the bananas. Just don't use any of the obscured tiles in the initial 48 turns of the test (or set them all to jungle to simulate worse-case scenario). I think the +1 food will probably offset the lost turn of movement at the beginning very quickly, in almost all build / tech scenarios. One to test out though.

All that gold - anyone else have a sneaky suspicion that we are going to require astro...

Just some food for thought. Will be great when we get the discussion thread up and can start organising our thoughts a bit more efficiently!!!

R1 responded,
I'm competely with you on the need to pop borders if it gains resources for use. I am a FIRM believer in maximizing tile use. I also agree that Stonehenge is a better option, especially if stone is available, it makes it very cheap. The Granaries are another story!! I've come to the conclusion from following CRC's threads over the last 18 months that they use the WHIP early and often, and the humble granary makes whipping AT LEAST 50% faster. And even if you were to skip the whip, growth is obviously 50% faster anyway.

Yes please, someone take the last start file I sent out and test the Banana site. I won't have any time until tomorrow or Wed.

oyzar responded,
Basically if a city is every going to grow past pop 6 you want to get a granary asap. Unless i am heavy whipping in my capital at the start i often end up without a granary there until monarchy though... I don't have as much experience as you guys from sgotm and gotm but i have read alot in the strategy and tips forum as well as what i have discussed with others. I have some examns comming up so i don't have too much time to test right now but there are several tests we need to run before our first turnset. Settling the different places(before and after we move warrior?). What sort of rushes are doable and what sort of exploring we can do... Prince AI is seriously handicaped so we need to keep focus or the other teams will have beaten them before we can blink. Btw if we find stone we should seriously consider the stonhenge as it'll pay off after just 2 more cities and last most of the game(assuming we don't ever get to astro). It should be fairly quick to figure out how many titles we need for dom(just calc from the starting titles(and the % in the victory screen before and after first border pop and we should have a fairly accurate idea). Once we explore our continent(probably not before way into the game though...). We will have a good idea if astro for conquest, conquest without astro or dom on our continent is the way to go. Or if we are isolated we might be able to pull something wierd like a cultural win... If i remember correctly carismatic + gold + monument + prince on warlords means you already have above 6 happy which means that pretty much all the cities should get granaries...

munro PM'd test results for Banana site,
Here's a quick comparison from settling on the bananas instead. Main difference is that the initial worker is finished 5 turns earlier (18 turns instead of 23) and we make up the lost turn moving the settler, because the worker has only 1 turn to move onto the riverside gold, instead of 2 if settling on the dye.

Net result is that by turn 41,
- we are 2 turns ahead in tech (BW is completed T39)
- about 5 turns ahead in production (1 turn away from completing warrior #4 - ie. warrior 5 including starting unit).
- overall yield is lower; at pop 2, we're getting 4F 7H 10C; 20-30 turns from pop 3

However, with this approach, hunting / AH is not required for the first city site, which allows a more optimal banana scenario where we tech BW first, then chop a settler (while researching AH) allowing the second city site to be settled (with warrior garrison) between cows and gold on turn 45.

Need to test it out to see if this is faster than doing it the other way around (settling cows, teching AH then BW, and settling 2nd city on the bananas) - which would be a useful base test for comparing optimal early expansion.

R1 responded,
Did we tech anything before BW or was that the first tech? If not, are we really "ahead" at this point? Yes, we are quicker to city #2, but behind in techs to make it useful, and now we have more tiles to improve without another worker to do the work.

I think I would really like this if we can pick up almost any resources in the fog to the east. Have you thought about the initial warrior move for scanning resources. I think SW will reveal more tiles, but straight E will reveal tiles for the banana square. Except it looks to me that the tiles E of the E hill are either forest or jungle, which we wouldn't be able to see past.

Nice work Munro!

Munro responded,
Thanks. Yes - we really are ahead in techs. The results above were a 'fair' comparison where we tech hunting, AH, BW (in that order), finishing BW on turn 39, while building warriors (as in your test). This is possible because the initial worker is built 5 turns earlier when settling on the bananas (due to extra food from the city square).

Obviously still need to agree our initial early objectives (e.g. settle both golds, warrior rush, archer rush, axe rush etc) and optimise for that, but this shows that settling on the bananas will give us an early tech and production boost that might be helpful (as well as allowing a bit more initial flexibility in the tech tree).

I'm enjoying all the discussion - should be a good game!

R1 responded,
Excellent! So if we pick up ANY resources in the Banana FC we are well ahead of the Dye site! And yes, at this level, if we get our second city up quick, we should be well ahead of the AI's. What do you think about Archery early? Much better defenders, free promotions, ability to really hinder the AI's if we get into there territory early! Build fewer warriors who are basically outdated once the AI's get Archery (which they ALWAYS do early).

original PM by oyzar,
Settling on the banana is likely going to be pretty good... It doesn't actually matter how many turns it takes to settle the gold spot takes though, what matters is how we get both gold worked fastest possible(with food). And to do that it might not be optimal to just whip out a settler asap.. Before our first turn sets we can run some sims but the sims before our second turn set are going to be just as important if not more so because we will know the land better. The AI is going to behave more or less like barbs in the early game(ie nothing more than a nuisance) so getting our empire up and running might be paramount(of course if we need astro we need to optimize commerce, if we don't we are probably better off optimizing production(through working food early and growing). Optimizing production and hence expansion early might be best as it gives more cities faster which gives more commerce eventually anyways... This should be tested in test games where the starting position is placed in a realistic position(i see in the test game you placed us in the middle of tons off grassland off the rest of the continent, this might not be ideal for testing for expansion past the initial(ie how would 2 gold affect the traditional wisdom of expanding more = better compared to just getting the gold up the caring about the rest). As for archers they might be worth it given that we even get extra promotions, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=248435 something like this would give us enough protection to expand peacefully(astro conq or continent dom). If there aren't any more resources in the banana bfc(thinking of the title SEE of the warrior) we might have to farm grassland to speed up growth so we can work the gold...

For wonders both Stonehenge and oracle might be good under specific circumstances. Stonehenge is defiantly worth a shot if we have stone and oracle is probably worth it even if we don't have marble..

There is a description of what is hidden in the fog http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...=252883&page=6 here, notice my post under the picture as i fix a few of the mistakes. Looking to find jungle gems again eh Munro? This starting situation is actually quite similar to that one, though here we would get the gold anyways.

R1 responded,
That map is OK, but as you pointed out, not perfect. I see jungle/forest in the tile E of the gold. So as I said earlier, even if we move the warrior onto the gold, we wont see E. We will se SE of the gold, but no more than that.

oyzar responded,
Which is why we should move SE so we can get the possibility of seeing eventual hills. as well as see more titles total. Oh and we need to get all these pms into the thread eventually if others want to read, i assume as captain you'll do it? Which I am right now!

R1 responded,
I have been forwarding them to everyone who will be active for the first few turnsets. C63 and Lehm are out of the loop until after Christmas and the first of the year respectively.

original PM by oyzar,
Well i meant so people could follow our thread later and understand anything..

R1 responded,
Now I know what you mean, you are right, I'll try to keep it in order when the thread opens, but I think I've deleated some of the first PM's. So, somebody please refrain from emptying your PM in box until we can check to see what I've missed.

I believe that is a fairly accurate recap of the PM messaging about early game options. If I've missed anything important, let me know and I'll insert it in the proper location.

R1 is now officially checking in, let the fun begin!:D :king:

Here are the basic "Rules" for how this team operates. I am the "captain" for no reason other than I am the oldest surviving member along with Conquistador 63. Unlike some teams, there is NO veto power associated with this postion. It is strictly a way for someone to maintain order. Along with C63 and myself, da_Vinci(dV) is the next in the line of succession, and the three of us make up the "old ones" for this team. We believe that the spirit of the competition is the single greatest factor influencing our participation. That being said, I expect all team members to strictly adhere to all of rules governing this competition. READ the rules that AlanH has posted for GOTM competitions. FOLLOW them to the letter. If there are ANY questions, please ask them BEFORE you do anything that may disqualify this team from the game. Your personal integrity as well as your teammates is at stake!

Here are the "basics"!
1. DO NOT under any circumstances open another teams thread until we have completed our game.
2. Only the person "playing" the turnset is allowed to "play" ANY turns. This includes replaying of PAST turns. No "shadow" games are allowed. We are free to "create" test maps that are similar in as many aspects as we know. That is why I told you all to save the test map that I PM'd. We can "update" it as more is revealed, this will be one of our best assets as we move forward.
3. NO reloading is permitted! Make sure your games are set to autosave EVERY turn. If you don't know how, ASK! If your game crashes, you MUST reload from the last autosave, REPLAY EXACTLY the moves you did on your first attempt. When your set is done, send a PM to AlanH explaining the circumstances, and beg for forgiveness.
4. That's it, play by the rules! If/when the day comes that we beat CRC and hopefully MW also, we want to know that we did it fair and square!

Now for the team rules!
1. No one is allowed to start their turnset until they have posted a detailed plan for that set. There must be a majority consensus FOR that plan for the turnset to proceed.
2. What does this mean? We obviously can't predict AI behavior, so defensive combat is best manipulted by putting ourselves in good postions. Be smart, don't take unnecessary risks, especially for little or no benefits.
3. A detailed plan includes research paths, Micro Managent (MM) of tile use AND worker actions. City builds, pop rushing, player initiated diplomacy all fall under these guidelines. AI initiated diplomacy is nomally a little trickier, except this is always war, so not a factor here at all.
4. Offensive military tactics in this game will be crucial, so I think as much detailed planning as we can get will be beneficial.
5. When your turn comes up, you have 24 hours to post a "got it" message so we know that you have "picked up" the latest save and that the game is progressing. We will try to get consensus as fast as possible, but we will not proceed until we have one. Make your arguments, back them up with facts, tests, math, etc....
6. When your turnset is complete, upload the saved game file to the server. Copy the "Upload log" to a notepad or word file so you can post it in the thread. Also, start and keep a copy of the "autolog file". I always cut and paste my autologs into a sinle file that I can refer back to.
7. Once the roster order is set, we will stay in that order as much as possible. We call them "innings", well, because dV likes baseball metaphors. If you need to skip your turn in an inning, for any reason, you will have an opportunity to make it up before the next inning starts. If you want to swap positions in an inning, ASK if will work, if the other player is ok with it, no problems.
8. If you are in the middle of your turnset, and something PROBLEMATIC arises, SAVE THE GAME and get some advise on how to proceed. There is no limit to the number of saves that can be uploaded. We'd rather be safe than sorry!
9. That's all I can think of right now. The main thing is ASK if you are not sure about something.
10. If ANYONE wants to contribute to these rules, please do so. As I said at the beginning, I'm the captain by default and for no other reason.

Munro checking in.

Note I am unfortunately away over christmas and new year (dec 19 - jan 8 inclusive) so I will miss the start.

I am hoping to have time for some test games and further analysis this weekend though, so should be able to provide some more detailed input before then that I hope will help.

Thanks Ronnie for posting all the initial PM discussion. Nice job!

The first order of business is to decide on where we are going to move the warrior to get a good look at the map. I normally would try to go for a hill. But it looks like we are leaning towards settling on the Banana's, and we won't be able to see East past any of the forest/jungle if we move to the gold hill. Moving SE will only reveal 1 tile, (maybe 2 if there is a hill 2 E of gold) of the banana site FC. Would it better to move SW to that hill for a look westerly? Is there anything that could sway us away from the banana site at this point?

TP here ; over and out. I'm just wrapping up GOTM25 right now. After that, I will attempt a warrior rush on R1's testmap. I haven't looked at that map yet, so it should be some indication as to whether it is possible.

The first order of business is to decide on where we are going to move the warrior to get a good look at the map. I normally would try to go for a hill. But it looks like we are leaning towards settling on the Banana's, and we won't be able to see East past any of the forest/jungle if we move to the gold hill. Moving SE will only reveal 1 tile, (maybe 2 if there is a hill 2 E of gold) of the banana site FC. Would it better to move SW to that hill for a look westerly? Is there anything that could sway us away from the banana site at this point?

My first thought was : move the warrior to the gold and then northeast, to see the entire fatcross of the banana before we settle. On the other hand, that would not be very likely to dissuade us from settling on the banana anyway. So maybe warrior to the southwest is actually the way to go, to give the dye-site a chance to beat the banana-site.

Prince da_Vinci reporting to the royal court. :king:

Any thoughts on settling on the hill 2S of the settler? Like the Banana, it loses the cows, but that is the point ... save the cows as a food resource to work the second gold in a later city. Also, hill for city defense ... might that come in handy? TP's warrior SW suggestion illuminates this option as well.

I just won my first game on emperor (GOTM 25), so I feel like I have taken another step forward! :goodjob: Now I can get focused on this game.

dV

Checking in. As for where to move i was thinking to move the settler S first as it still allows us to settle on the banana turn 2 but it gives us 1 extra title of information if we do so. Then move the warrior SE to see what is on that title without jungle. If nothing could be seen from dye move the settler towards the banana. Then move the warrior further NE to see more titles before settling on the banana...

Checking in. As for where to move i was thinking to move the settler S first as it still allows us to settle on the banana turn 2 but it gives us 1 extra title of information if we do so.

Very good, I think we have our first move : settler S. I would just add: then check back here to decide where to move the warrior :goodjob:

It is still a though question whether to move the warrior east or west though.. West we can see resources for the dye city which might that attractive but if there are resources to the east that makes the banana still better(assuming there isn't a grassland corn SW of the dye or something... Then again i always consider the blue spots and that suggest that there should be a resource to the north(though that will be claimed by our second city anyways i guess.. Do the resource markers tell us where in the world we are in warlords or did that change? Also i don't know how to do these technical things ronnie said we should do(autolog autosave etc...). Care to write a short guide how to do it or provide links?

To test for warrior rush you don't actually need to play this exact starting position as it is just the time frame we are curious about.. Playing more games(2-3+) is more important than getting the start right.

I have exams coming up(one tomorrow and one the 18th) and after that i will go home for Christmas so i might not have too much time to run test games but i will still contribute to the discussion and be able to play any turn sets if needed.

Also i don't know how to do these technical things ronnie said we should do(autolog autosave etc...). Care to write a short guide how to do it or provide links?

Autolog : load a testgame with version 2.13.002 of the HOF-mod (for example Ronnie's testgame). Go to options (Ctr-O) and check autolog on the first tab ; click OK, now this version of the HOF-mod will know that you want to autolog.

Autosave : open the warlords.ini file in the folder My Documents\Games\Warlords. Set the parameter autosave-interval=1. Now it will make an autosave each turn.

(the names might be slightly off as I am not at my civ-computer)

X = prized mystery resource that determines our settling
E = (south)east (settle on banana or gold)
W = southwest (settle on dye or hill)

Now let's say for argument's sake :
A. XE and not XW = 25 percent
B. XW and not XE = 25 percent
C. XE and XW = 25 percent
D. not XE and not XW = 25 percent

If A, B or D is the case, it will be the better decision to move W, because :

If A or D, we will settle on the banana anyway, so it won't matter where we moved the warrior
If B, we have profited from moving the warrior W

Only in the case of C will we regret moving W with the warrior, because then we will be swayed to settle W, which we would not have done had we known XE.

Sure but the settler reveals at least 1 title from moving S(maybe more if there are some hills). We already know about the lake/coast so that leaves the warrior to reveal 2 titles. Moving eastwards we get to reveal allot more titles.. Of course it might reveal something way better far away from moving W but i doubt it is worth it to move that many turns. Moving E will also reveal why there is a blue circle on the gold... First we need to move the settler though and then prolly move the warrior SW if there is nothing revealed by the settler(if there is something revealed we should probably move E). Before all that there needs to be a turn order though...

Any thoughts on settling on the hill 2S of the settler? Like the Banana, it loses the cows, but that is the point ... save the cows as a food resource to work the second gold in a later city. Also, hill for city defense ... might that come in handy? TP's warrior SW suggestion illuminates this option as well. dV OK ... just ignore me! :mad: (just kidding! :lol: )

Actually, I am going to ignore myself. New team members will soon learn that I like the brainstorming approach, which means putting unprocessed ideas on the table right away. Even if I come to reject them later. ;)

Looking more at the position, I think that we want two food resources in the capital at the start. So if we move such that the cow is not in the capital, maybe that requres that we guarantee a second food resource in captial FC.

After all, isn't the point of the banana to get more food in the capital fast? But if the banana city site loses the cows, does that not contradict its own justification (at least in some sense)?

We can always settle the second gold city to share the cows if there is no other food resource for the second gold. And if there is a second food resource for the second gold city, will we wish the capital had the cows?

Eventually, the capital on the dyes could farm the banana (4F) and pasture the cows (4F) allowing us to work lots of hills and still grow. Have we considered early agri with the dye start, farm the banana?

At size 2 on banana we are 3F capital, 2F dye or lake, and 0F gold, eating 4F, 1F surplus = very slow city growth.

But settle on dyes at size two we are 2F capital, 4F farmed banana, 0F gold, eating 4F for a surplus of 2F for growth. Later, we add the 4F cows, and the capital is a power house!

So I am thinking that unless there is another food resource for the FC of the banana settle option, we might come to regret it. A subsistence capital means fewer hills worked, and few if any specialists. Prince gives us a higher happy cap on pop (compared to higher levels, right?), and we need food to make use of that.

Also, another option might be that hill 2E of settler. Keeps all the same visible resources as the banana or dye settle, hill for defense, and that leaves the dye tile for later development ... maybe we cottage it?

But the commerce bonus in capital might be worth settling on the dye, esp with the anticipated late calendar.

I do worry that the short term benefit of 3F in capital at the start will be lost in either slow growth with a 1F surplus once gold is worked, or the need to delay working the gold mine. And I think we keep cows in capital FC unless we have a proven second food bonus for capital.

This of course is more brainstorming, and I am still digesting all the PM data and have still to run a sim of my own this weekend (damn that RL :lol: ). So tell me what I am missing here ...

dV

So I think the hill 2S is out ... even the blue circles are not impressed! :lol:

(BTE, has anyone ever seen blue circles on adjacent tiles? I haven't)

So the debate is settle dye, settle banana, settle 2E hill, as I see it.

I am guessing that a resource that adds to the dye spot would result in a blue circle on the 2S hill. So very unlikely we find one there in the fog.

Settler south makes sense first. Then post screenshot to review. In the (I think) very unlikely event that settler finds something interesting, maybe warrior needs to go SW. But I doubt it (but that is why we post the shot).

Most likely, nothing shows up. Settler could settle the dye this turn, or move to the hill east of dye, leaving all three options open.

So before settler finishes, we move warrior ... I think NE (depends on if I have talked you out of settling bananas or not). If warrior sees more resources, then settler to east hill. If not, maybe settle the dye on first turn? Post a second screen after the warrior move (to decide how setter finishes).

Or even if no new resources, settler to E hill to wait for one more warrior move ... could be NE (eval hill site), E (on a hill), or SE (evaluate banana site). To me, banana site REQUIRES a second food resource, so any settling there would need the warrior to go that way first to find it.

My two cents ...

dV

Sure but the settler reveals at least 1 title from moving S(maybe more if there are some hills).We move the settler S, then pause, and discuss which way to move the warrior. Then pause after the warrior move to determine where to move with the second movement point of the settler.

Is there anything that could sway us away from the banana site at this point? Yes, maybe my starving capital argument! :eek: Do we really want a capital that is only +1 food when working the gold? We need to feed those monkeys we hire to work the mine with bananas! :D Fresh from the farm (not fresh from city hall).

dV

#1 The cows are on plains which makes then only 3 food and aren't actually able to suport the gold and growth properly by themselves.. We can always farm the grassland in the case there is no food resources to the east. The banana speeds up early growth and production tremendously. If there are no resources in the dye spot and no in the banana spot then the banana spot is still better because of the enormous early production boost. Of course if this is the case there are prolly some resources to the north(although with dye banana gold and cows in bfc already i find this unlikely). and settling in place might be viable... As toller pretzel posted it is only better to settle the dye spot if there are resources there but no in the banana spot, to increase the like hood of us settling correctly we should move the settler S. If it doesn't see anything good we move the warrior SE to see the entire dyespot bfc. If this doesn't show anything we go for the banana. If the settler move shows a food resource(pigs, corn, wheat, rice, cows) then moving the warrior eastward is better since it shows us if the banana site have some resources(and if it does it is still better to settle there).

The point is not to lose the cows and save them for the second spot but rather you trade the early cows(given to the second city) for a faster initial development which gives a faster second city and hence faster both golds worked. Losing the cows just to lose them wouldn't be very good :p.

Edit also note that settling on the dye and working the farmed banana and the gold gives the same result as settling on the banana but working the farmed dye and the gold. With cows being 3 food that is the same as a farmed grassland in terms of food so the argument that we need the cows for the food they provide is not really valid(if we need them it is for the hammers, and they are a strong title because of that).

Edit: we still have almost 3 times as many posts as MW, keep up the good work people!

As toller pretzel posted it is only better to settle the dye spot if there are resources there but no in the banana spot, to increase the like hood of us settling correctly we should move the settler S. If it doesn't see anything good we move the warrior SE to see the entire dyespot bfc.I assume you mean SW to reveal the Dye site. And as I and oyzar said before, if we move the warrior easterly, he really needs to go SE to avoid being blocked by the jungles E of the gold.

Yes, maybe my starving capital argument! Do we really want a capital that is only +1 food when working the gold? We need to feed those monkeys we hire to work the mine with bananas! Fresh from the farm (not fresh from city hall).That's why I thought the dye site seemed a good spot originally.

#1 The cows are on plains which makes then only 3 food and aren't actually able to suport the gold and growth properly by themselves.. We can always farm the grassland in the case there is no food resources to the east. OK, in what parallel universe are the cows on plains? :confused: :crazyeye: Is the test map wrong (I have not been in it yet)? Starting screenshot in our thead is clearly grass ... 3F undeveloped, no hammer.

As to always can farm grass ... so we need to research agri early not to have the +1 food scenario ... so we are farming someting early to support the mine.

Have we simmed far enough ahead to be sure that adding the 4F cows to the capital is not long run better than the banana settle?

dV

Oh my bad it is on grassland :S. That makes it able to suport the gold then. And no Ronnie1 I ment S otherwise it can't settle on the banana site on turn 2. As for if the warrior is moving easterly it is pretty irrelevant if he moves E or SE because he'll reveal the southern part of the banana fat cross anyways. However moving E gives us the opportunity to go NE next turn to reveal the entire banana fat cross.

That is assuming he go east. The argument still remain that the banana fat cross is better than the dye one assuming there is nothing in the dye fat cross. This means that moving the warrior SW is the better move if moving the settler S doesn't reveal anything(and if we see something there we settle on the dye unless moving the warrior eastward reveals something of equal value or better). Of course there is always the fact to consider that this is a ghyntar map so the initial fat cross might have copper which makes it a huge favorite or something... Like in the last sgotm with the horses...

And no Ronnie1 I ment S otherwise it can't settle on the banana site on turn 2. As for if the warrior is moving easterly it is pretty irrelevant if he moves E or SE because he'll reveal the southern part of the banana fat cross anyways. However moving E gives us the opportunity to go NE next turn to reveal the entire banana fat cross.Yes the settler goes S with his first movement point and then sits to wait for the warrior move. You said move the warrior SE to reveal the dyes FC. I said SE won't help that much, but SW would help greatly! Now, IF we decide to move the warrior easterly, the jungles east of the gold hill will block MOST tiles. From the gold hill, we should see 3E of the settler start and SE of the gold hill, further if there are hills to view.

Yes of course.. SE if the settler doesn't spot a resource after moving S... If someone got time can they run some test games to test the viability of prince warrior rush on warlords always war big and small? :) I know it is viable without always war but is it with?

@ oyzar: studying for exams seems to be messing with your civ head. :lol:

We are in no rush, why not focus on the studies and come back to civ when the exam is over ... ;)

dV

Yes of course.. SE if the settler doesn't spot a resource after moving S... If someone got time can they run some test games to test the viability of prince warrior rush on warlords always war big and small? :) I know it is viable without always war but is it with? I assume that being at war changes the AI build behavior? More units? Only way I could imagine that working in AW is if you find AI border before he finds you. Otherwise, you will be warrior rushing archers, I fear.

Back to the settling question. Having now looked closely at the early sim reports, the dyes sim used AH and a pasture on the cows to feed the city, and the banana sim ... (from post 15) ...

"Net result is that by turn 41,
- we are 2 turns ahead in tech (BW is completed T39)
- about 5 turns ahead in production (1 turn away from completing warrior #4 - ie. warrior 5 including starting unit).
- overall yield is lower; at pop 2, we're getting 4F 7H 10C; 20-30 turns from pop 3"

Not sure how were are at 4F at pop 2 (that would be 0 growth, right?) ... but clearly early agri was not in the original plan. Maybe it should be?

The point of having the extra food from settling is to get the second city up fast ... but if captial suffers food lack in the meantime, are we really gaining?

If we settle on the hill 2E, that lets us work the banana from turn 1, so that is an extra commerce compared to the dye sim where it was any 3 item tile until border pop. We should sim how that plays into the mix.

Re losing later resources in the FC ... my observation is that Gyathaar is more likely to remove them than leave or add them! :lol:

dV

I didn't do either of the sims so maybe munro care to explain? On another note we have 6 rivals if anyone care(as posted in the maintenance thread). It is a fact that by settling on the banana the initial worker is at least sped up by 3 turns and you'll have more production while growing(assuming there are no 3 food titles nearby, in which case you'll just grow faster...).
By the time we warrior rush the AI won't have archers unless they start with hunting. The point is that they might have more than 1 warrior guarding the capital(they only have 1 warrior if you rush with 3-4 warriors most of the time). Getting an extra city and a worker for 60 hammers is pretty darn good if it is possible... Of course if we don't meet an AI before we send out our kill team this is obviously possible but then finding the AI will be pure luck.. And it might not be possible to rush if we do discover an AI before we are ready to rush... This is what needs to be determined. Is it possible to avoid early contact(just spawn some big and small map with 6 rivals)? If so what is the probability of finding and rushing them with always war on(before they get archers)? Can we rush if we discover them? To determine this you obviously don't need to mimic the starting position perfectly just start games build warriors, if you manage to take out an AI note it down, if you don't record is at well. The result of these tests should be able to determine if it is viable and how.

The only problem with testing as oyzar says, is detailed in the game parameters. This is a HIGHLY modified big and small. So we could be anywhere on the map. I have started and looked at maybe 6 maps so far. The CLOSEST an AI capitol appeared was about 17 squares. 2 of the maps I was isolated by water. That's why one of those first posts I said I thought we could get in about 20 turns of scouting. But even that could be way off, maybe highly modified means Gyaathar put someone right next to us. My GUESS is that a warrior rush won't work. But I'll run some more tests soon, and hopefully get some better details.

Excellent discussion here, great work everyone.

Apologies for the length below, but before I throw in my 2 cents on the opening moves, I'd like to step back and think for a second about how we are going to win the game (faster than anyone else).

Obviously on Prince, there are lots of ways to win, but there are two possible strategies for being the fastest:

(1) Identify the limiting factor in the fastest-possible victory (e.g. who discovers Astro first, for an ocean map conquest) and optimize our start (and the rest of the game) for that limiting factor.

OR

(2) Identify some initial advantage (e.g. successful warrior rush) that is so massive that any team NOT getting it cannot finish faster, regardless of strategy.

So far, I think (2) means a possible warrior / archer rush (unless we have any additional ideas) - and we just need to try that out to assess the risk, advantage and feasability. Let's come back to that once we've had a few test attemps with these settings. If we do go for it, we will probably want to play our opening moves completely differently (e.g. optimised purely for early production).

Tactic (1) is harder to assess, since we have no idea how Gyathaar has modified the map (and Big'n'Small is already fairly unpredicatble and varied). However, the various different options I see all have one thing in common -they require fair-to-significant commerce throughout the game, and at Prince difficultly, I suspect this will be the limiting factor. (The AI sure won't).

I.e. the teams that raise the most cash the fastest will win the quickest.

Specifically, I see the following ways to win (fastest):

a) Galley Conquest; water wars = extra commerce needed for supporting distant armies (and extra water units for transport) that spend a lot of time in transit, plus higher maintenace costs from cities on different continents (this is true in warlords?)

b) Astro Conquest; as above, but even more costly due to cost of researching or lightbulbing Astro

c) Domination (galley or land based); if we start on the 'Big' continent (or accessible via galley), early domination might be faster through war than last turn settler spamming (plus 4 turns of running artist specialists at size 1 - requires CoL for Caste System, plus courthouses / forbidden palace + large cash reserves for running a deficit these 4 turns).

At Prince, I don't think we can count on plundering much gold from city captures - Prince AI won't build many, plus at always war, they won't be worth so much anyway, correct? (Is it based on culture generated in the city or something similar)? Which again makes commerce at home, to support the army, the limiting factor.

I think this means that unless we go for the warrior / archer rush (or other early headstart), we should optimise our opening moves for commerce - probably comparing up until the point that we have 2 cities and the 2 golds hooked up. We should be able to determine this purely scientifically through test sims of the opening moves, based on what we can see (refined later if opening moves reveal anything of interest).

We can then pretty much ignore the AI at the beginning (except send an archer to camp outside any accessible capitols).

Let me post a couple of test runs based on the various options suggested above and hopefully this will help explain what I mean... ? :confused: :confused: :confused: :D

Note this is a completely different strategy than I would normally use for Emperor / Immortal games (where getting ahead of the next AI is usually the limiting factor..) but feels like a different analysis is needed here. Thoughts welcome... :)

Back to the settling question. Having now looked closely at the early sim reports, the dyes sim used AH and a pasture on the cows to feed the city, and the banana sim ... (from post 15) ...

"Net result is that by turn 41,
- we are 2 turns ahead in tech (BW is completed T39)
- about 5 turns ahead in production (1 turn away from completing warrior #4 - ie. warrior 5 including starting unit).
- overall yield is lower; at pop 2, we're getting 4F 7H 10C; 20-30 turns from pop 3"

Not sure how were are at 4F at pop 2 (that would be 0 growth, right?) ... but clearly early agri was not in the original plan. Maybe it should be?

The point of having the extra food from settling is to get the second city up fast ... but if captial suffers food lack in the meantime, are we really gaining?

Yep - zero food. (Working gold + mined river hill maximizes food+hammer count for the early settler build for 2nd gold site).

Whether or not we are gaining depends on what our initial objectives are, e.g. hammers for early warrior rush, commerce from double gold, early settlers for possible copper site and early axe rush etc etc... A food-lean capital is not necessarily a problem if it is specializing as a commerce and hammer rich city (and of course if that also happens to be what we want...).

Winning fastest (or winning at the hardest difficultly levels) won't be about just maximising 'gain', it'll be about having a clear plan and objectives, and doing only what helps us most towards those objectives. Not that I speak from experience mind.. ;) but just my 2 cents.

I.e. you are probably right, but we need to consider more than just what seems 'best' in broad terms, but what helps best in achieving our defined goals. (Of course, defining those goals is the hard bit :D).


If we settle on the hill 2E, that lets us work the banana from turn 1, so that is an extra commerce compared to the dye sim where it was any 3 item tile until border pop. We should sim how that plays into the mix.


Good suggestion. We do lose 2 extra turns with this start, compared to dye site - so the extra 8 coin we get from working bananas for +1 coin before border pop is prob. outweighed by the 16 coin we would have got in 2 turns from the palace... I'll test it out though.

Edit: and of course we were already getting an extra +1 commerce by settling on the dye itself! Which we lose by settling on the hill 2E of the settler (in addition to the 2 lost turns moving the settler)... so probably not so attractive after all.

- settling on bananas
- both golds connected turn 57
- techs: BW (256 :science:), hunting (85), archery (127), AH (214), writing (256) = 938 :science: total
- builds: worker, settler (incl. 3 chops) archer, archer, library (34 turns)
- builds (york): warrior, library (23 turns remaining)
- total production: +3F, 10H, 27C
- london - pop 2; (35 turns to pop 3)
- york - pop 2; (13 turns to pop 3)
- units: 2 warrior, 2 archer

165695 165696

Advantages:
- banana settle gives first worker 3 turns earlier (and first gold, and first settler etc etc - snowball effect)
- can delay AH, e.g. tech BW first, for chopping settler, then archery for defence (note - tech order optimized to allow hammer overflow from chopped settler into first archer)
- bananas... yum

Disadvantages:
- 1 turn delay in settling
- capital has slow pop growth
- no chance of plantation in the long term (though we would prob. cottage this tile anyways if we don't settle there..)
- bananas are for chimps..

Notes:
- AI warrior showed up early in some of my tests, and could interfere with early settler / worker activity if we start on either of the continents ('Big' or 'Small'); I suspect we will want archery early (unless copper shows up from an initial BW); early AI pillaging (or lost units) would be a significant setback (that the fastest teams will avoid).

Also, unlike 'normal' games were we can trade, we will never, ever get archery here except by teching ourselves (or lucky hut pop) - and with our protective trait, it's even more beneficial to get it.

- settling on dye
- both golds connected turn 58
- techs: hunting (85), AH (214), BW (256), archery (127), writing (256) = 938 total
- builds: worker, settler (incl. 1 chop) archer (incl. 1 chop), warrior, archer (partial), library (34 turns)
- builds (york): archer (5 turns remaining)
- total production: +5F, 7H, 20C (but increases to 3/10/27 on next turn)
- london - pop 2; (20 turns to pop 3)
- york - pop 1; (1 turn to pop 2)
- units: 3 warrior, 1 archer

165697 165698

Notes:
- as for the banana test, I've not assumed or worked any tiles or resources not visible in the initial screenshot;
- after founding York, we work the cows in york (required so we can also work the 2nd gold in york)

Disadvantages:
- we end up 1 turn behind in techs
- we are at least 1 turn behind in production (3 warrior, 1 archer v. 2 warrior, 2 archer)
- our cities are several turns behind in size / growth

Advantages:
- Hmm....
- Edit: we've only chopped 2 forests so far, instead of 3 in the banana case; (though admitedly only because the worker took longer to build and BW came later, so we've had less time to chop...)

No tangible advantages here since at turn 59 we have identical productivity, but we are behind by a few turns in every other measure...

HOWEVER, if there's a food resource SW of the dye (could see after initial settler move 1S) AND there's no food resource SE of the gold (neither seem that likely though), the dye site will probably work out better.

Even if not, we could still gamble on something tasty north of the cows, and settle on dye anyway... (Equally well though, there might be more food in the fogged tiles NE of the banana site, which would again make that the better option).

Any arguments for settling on dye that would sufficiently make up for losing a turn compared to bananas? Thoughts?

- settling on the hill 2E of the settler
- both golds connected turn 62
- techs: same as settling on dye
- builds: same as settling on dye
- builds (york): archer (6 turns remaining)
- total production: 3/10/26
- london - pop 2; (15 turns to pop 3)
- york - pop 1; (17 turns to pop 2)
- units: 2 warrior, 2 archer

Results included mostly just for completeness - pretty clearly slower all round...

165700

Nice work Munro! So, as our intuitions were somewhat correct, the deciding factors may lie in the fog. Extra food resources for either the Banana or Dye sites might prove to be the difference.

Other tests:
I just generated 15 random maps in addition to the few I had done before. I kept some better notes this time, here are the details.

10 of 15 we were placed on the Big continent. But 1 time we were isolated by an impassable peak, 1 map we were not isolated but connected by a 1 tile wide isthmus, 1 the big looked more like an Archipelago(very snakey), 1 there was no "big". 5 times we were on a small and isolated 3 of the 5 times.
The 2 small when not isolated, we were 13 & 14 tiles to closest AI. 1 of these maps had NO big by my standards.

When on the Big, 1 we were isolated by the peak but that was the closest to the AI at 7 tiles. The other tile counts to the nearest AI Cap were, 13,15,15,15,10,8,21,8,13.

So it is very possible to have near neighbors or not.

But these maps got me thinking as I was going through them. What would cause us problems in "always war"? Rome as a near neighbor with access to iron could be problematic. If I have that situation in my games I try to whack them early, or wait till Maces to even out the odds. Capac very close makes for a difficult challenge as well, as even archers are vulnerable to the Quecha. Persia close with access to horses = same as Praetorians but not quite as bad.

Are we sure about the fastest victory conditions possible? I don't think it was an accident that we are playing as a civ with a relatively late UU & UB. I could be dead wrong, but I don't think so.

Is everyone done with GOTM25? I have some points I'd like to make using that as an example, but I don't want to spoil anything for someone else.

Not having much luck with this yet.

Attempt 1:
- settled bananas; tech hunting, archery;
- by turn 35, 3 warriors in raiding party (1 reqd to garrison back home)
- Julius Caesar has 2 warriors fortified on 20% hill capital; no chance...

165704

- by turn 46, I now have 3 warriors + 1 archer;
- tokugawa has 2 combat-1 warriors fortified in 20% hill capital; ~30% chance of winning overall

165705

Attempt 2:
- settle bananas; tech BW, hunting, archery; improve gold; chop forests
- by turn 50 I have 2 archers + 2 warriors ten tiles away in Rome...
- Julius now has 2 archers fortified in his 20% hill capital!! less than no chance...

165706

Looking around the map in worldbuilder, I see that
- 3 of 6 AI have founded on hills;
- 1 more has founded Budhism and already has 40% defence
- the other 2 aren't nearby

Need to retest on some random maps but at first blush this looks like quite a long shot. ??

(TP - you did this successfully in WOTM15; do you have time to give it a go on Ronnie's test map, or some other random maps with these settings and compare to your experience)? (I am probably just doing it badly... :crazyeye: )

BTW - starting save has been posted and I have been able to download and open it.

At first pass, start location is as expected, except that we can see water / ocean 1W of the NW gold. Not sure yet if that makes much difference to the start, but it's there..

165707

The Roster order should be determined soon. In the past I have done random orders. I usually put the names of the old guys in 1 hat and the new guys in a different hat and alternate draws to balance it out. But because of the christmas holidays, and people being unavailable, I don't really like that plan very well this time.

This is a "PRELIMINARY" order:

Munro - Leading off
oyzar - on deck
da_Vinci - in the hole
toller pretzl - waiting
Ronnie1 - waiting
Lehm - waiting
Scout214 - waiting
Thrallia - waiting

I determined this order through the little known but well respected, semi-random, it felt good to me method! :D This may change based on holiday/vacation needs, Thrallia's lack of power in Tulsa,OK dropped him down the list. :sad:

As I've already said, (you'll find I do repeat myself occasionally):rolleyes: , I have a feeling this won't be over in 200 turns. Let us hope we can prove me wrong! GO KINGS!!!:king:

The start file is up! Remember, we can all open it and LOOK ONLY! NO MOVES UNTIL WE HAVE A CONSENSUS! NO MOVES UNTIL I POST THE FINAL ROSTER ORDER!!

When aproximatly does this put me to play? I might have a somewhat harder time to play from home than here(though still manageable i imagine. Off to exam now. Is that a hill SE SE of the settler or is that just not possible cause of line of sight? Pretty easy to distinguish forest/jungle and grassland/plains in the fog in this at least.. off now. Oh and that is a floodplain down southeast in the fog!

When aproximatly does this put me to play? No way to determine at this point. That is why that is the PRELIMINARY roster!

Fog gazing 101!
Oh and that is a floodplain down south in the fog!Why do you say so? :confused: I cannot see anything S of the warrior that does not have forest or jungle, except SE of the gold, and that looks like grass.

I'm attaching a pic of my best guesses.

EDIT: And I believe a warrior rush will be very dificult. But I do think we could get an Archer or 2 out to the nearest neighbor and really hamper his development until stronger troops arrive.

The floodplain spot is the sport down to the south west.. it is not marked on your map(only corner showing). The titles with one side showing are easy to determine i am guessing at the corners :p. Oh and why are 2 of the jungle spots marked as forest? Upon further inspection it looks like what i thought was a floodplain is actually jungle :/

Is everyone done with GOTM25? I have some points I'd like to make using that as an example, but I don't want to spoil anything for someone else.

No, still not done - work and social life are intruding. If only they would give me a few hours :mischief:
Of course, this weekend I will have time, both for GOTM and SWOTM

Will do it after i finish my exam(or before if i find i need a break from studying...). So not yet done with it..

Need to retest on some random maps but at first blush this looks like quite a long shot. ??

(TP - you did this successfully in WOTM15; do you have time to give it a go on Ronnie's test map, or some other random maps with these settings and compare to your experience)? (I am probably just doing it badly... :crazyeye: )

Yes, I will give it my best shot this weekend. I agree that it seems a long shot but would like to have tried anyway.

The disadvantages of always war are, as has been pointed out :
- the need to keep one warrior at home
- the balance between wanting to know where the AI's are and not wanting them to know where you are too soon.

My best guess right now is : no exploring until you have three warriors in total. Then set off with these as if you were looking for a lost object in a field of corn :mischief: , while making sure that a fourth warrior will be produced very soon to defend the home front.

Basically we have to find an AI without hunting too right? Because if they have hunting they will beeline for archers and get them out faster than you can get 3 warriors together either... Sounds like a long shot to me but it would be nice to have it tested just in case... It can also be tested if a warrior rush after exploring would be viable as well...

Basically we have to find an AI without hunting too right? Because if they have hunting they will beeline for archers and get them out faster than you can get 3 warriors together either...

I think that's too pessimistic. The AI on Prince is pretty much like us : no way that they will have not only discovered archery but also built an archer in the time it takes us to build two warriors and discover them, provided that they are not too far away.

In WOTM15 the warrior-rush was a no-brainer, but then you knew roughly where the AI would be and it wasn't always war.

I still would like to see a sim that goes for early agri, settles dyes, farms banana ... do we get enough early growth to catch up in the long run?

Note that if we farm the banana, we get the river commerce from that tile, while if we settle banana, we lose the river commerce there ... but I suppose that is equally true of settling the dye (or any river tile for that matter). So maybe never mind on that point.

Might be that the early agri is worse, but I'd like to see the numbers rather than make the assumption. I can look at that this weekend perhaps.

And I am done with GOTM 15 (said that already I think, so just a reminder). Oh, but I still have to upload the save :crazyeye:

dV

The warrior rush is easy to test. Produce a/some random maps and try it. I have played 3 games past turn 200 already. Not only have I NOT been able to warrior rush, I have not been able to Archer rush either. On my most successful attempt, London was a production powerhouse, York settled next to horses and was production also. Archers kept Cyrus pinned in his Cap working unimproved tiles until 6-7 Chariots got there. He was 14 tiles from London. I had a Archers/Chariots all over the Map scouting and causing as much trouble as possible. I was able to raze a few 2nd and 3rd level cities of more distant AI's. But as soon as I kept a distant city I thought I could chop reinforcements from, my economy started to crash, by T197 I was 0% Sci, working as many cottages as I had, and barely breaking even. I think everyone NEEDS to play some random starts to get a "FEEL" for how this will go as well as the specific testing of our starting position.

Here is a random start, try it!

A picture say more than a thousand words.

A picture say more than a thousand words.

Nice work. Was this first attempt?

Would be intersesting to see if you are also able to do this successfully on Ronnie's original test map (that simulates the correct tiles for the start) - and if not, we should think about what makes the difference between successful conditions and unsuccessful conditions.

This proves that it is possible but we need to do more to figure out whether there are circumstances in which it is NOT possible (and how to spot them, and what the risk is of that happening)...

I still would like to see a sim that goes for early agri, settles dyes, farms banana ... do we get enough early growth to catch up in the long run?

I'll try to run a sim for this tonight, for comparison.

BTW - does anyone have any input / alternative suggestions on the initial build / tech order of the sims I ran so far; would anyone have played these starts differently?

Nice work. Was this first attempt?

Would be intersesting to see if you are also able to do this successfully on Ronnie's original test map (that simulates the correct tiles for the start) - and if not, we should think about what makes the difference between successful conditions and unsuccessful conditions.

This proves that it is possible but we need to do more to figure out whether there are circumstances in which it is NOT possible (and how to spot them, and what the risk is of that happening)... Munro, I love the way you think! :goodjob:

dV

Yes a picture can speak volumes. But let me play devils advocate for a few minutes. How did you find Paris? Was it by chance? How long was London unguarded, when another AI could show up and end our game early? Did you meet any other rivals? Did you use worldbuilder to reveal the map? Did you get lucky with the RNG, if you had gotten unlucky, how much difference would that have made? I played this start for 100 or so turns, I lost my first 3 Archers at better than 80% odds, very unlucky, but a valid result none the less. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against taking risks, but only calculated ones that yield the potential for great results.

Actually i was just doing this to show it is possible.. I did meet alex and finding paris was very lucky... 3 warriors of mine vs 1 of his so the rng was kinda neutral(first wound down to 1.4 second to .1 then die but i have also on other games failed at 3 warriors vs 1). I am not saying that this is a representative try just that it is possible. London was unguarded for 7 or 8 turns i think. I don't think it is very probable. To determine this we kinda need a massive amount of testgames with different aproaches though..

The circumstances where this doesn't work is obviously if the AI scout in the right direction or they are too far away... With the number of opponents on the map i don't figure having both happen be very likely... As for the titles i don't think that matters. I was just working a plains forest or something while producing warriors... So it just depends on the surroundings and probably a great deal of luck...

About archer rush i think it isn't viable at all and it is either warrior rush or axe/chariot rush that are the possibilities..

On another note i believe there are other teams out there with more experienced people there which makes a high risk reward strategy more likely to get laurels than going with a "safer" route... Of course if it fails it would be pretty bad...

As at turn 57 (for comparison with banana settle):
- settling on dye, farming bananas
- both golds will be connected at turn 61
- techs: agriculture (127), AH (214), BW (256), hunting (85), archery (127), writing (32 of 256) = 756 :science: total
- builds: worker, warrior, settler, warrior (1 turn remaining)
- builds (york): warrior (5 turns remaining)
- total production: +6F, 7H, 20C (production when 2nd gold hooked = 4/10/27)
- london - pop 2; (12 turns to pop 3)
- york - pop 1; (6 turns to pop 2)
- units: 2 warrior

165756

Overall, we're clearly behind compared to the banana start. Over the first 60 turns or so, nothing (that is visible in the initial tiles) is going to be able to compensate for that +1 food in the captial, and the resultant earlier worker, earlier gold etc etc.

Worth noting that although - by turn 62 - we have +1 food in this scenario compared to the banana start, that's purely because we have tech'd agri and farmed the banana tile here, at the cost of delaying BW, archery, writing etc.

We should be able to achieve better results by doing the same thing with the banana start - i.e. settle on bananas, tech agri before BW etc, farm the dye. Should give the same end results except 2-3 or more turns faster...

All that said, I still have reservations about settling on the bananas... working those 2 gold plains hills will really slow our population growth, so findig some more food resources could be a big help. (On the other hand, if there's copper in our starting area, and an AI nearby, it could be irrelevant, as we simply hook up the gold, then axe rush while tech'ing nicely in the background; no large pop reqd).

With ocean / lake now visible 1W of the NW gold, could there be ocean (and possible seafood resources) to the NW? What do these blue circles really mean? I'm going to try some experimentation in WB. We might be missing out on some key strategic info here otherwise...

The blue circles mostly aim to get most resources into the fat cross often without consideration for when the resources come online or the balance of food/other resources. Obviously an axerush(or chariot rush if we don't have copper). Is a much safer and surefireway to take out our first neighbour so unless our testing reveals something else i would say we should go for development before attacking(ie get 80% success on random warrior rushes or something with a comprehensive method for how to do it.

In the end i am guessing we end up with settling on the banana after moving the warrior and settler around a tiny bit before doing worker first but we'll see.

Here is a damn interesting test. I flung up one of ronnies test maps and built 4 warriors in a row. The 3 first headed out as soon as they were compleeted(i added in a hill where it should be to get faster warriors as the map wasn't 100% correct). This is what i found when i came to rome.

London founded
London begins: Worker (18 turns)
Research begun: Bronze Working (22 Turns)
London begins: Warrior (11 turns)
London's borders expand
London finishes: Warrior
London begins: Warrior (8 turns)
Buddhism founded in a distant land
London finishes: Warrior
London begins: Warrior (8 turns)
London grows: 2
Contact made: Roman Empire
London finishes: Warrior
London begins: Worker (15 turns)
Tech learned: Bronze Working
Research begun: Iron Working (36 Turns)
While defending in Roman territory at Rome, Warrior loses to: Roman Warrior (1.72/2) (Prob Victory: 99.0%)
While defending in Roman territory at Rome, Warrior loses to: Roman Warrior (1.16/2) (Prob Victory: 96.2%)
While defending in Roman territory at Rome, Warrior loses to: Roman Warrior (0.52/2) (Prob Victory: 43.1%)

I got pwned by the rng because rome was on a hill but the fact remains that i did find rome with a sole warrior defending it. Will the AI not build more defenders even when it is at war? Or did i just get lucky and it had just sent out for an expansion or something? Do we need 4 warriors to do this? Is it too probable that the nearest neighbour is far away and hence is not worth rushing?

Oh and why are there no turns in the autolog?

Are someone very good with RNG and able to calculate the chance of success for 3 warriors vs 1 with and without hill?

Here is a damn interesting test. I flung up one of ronnies test maps and built 4 warriors in a row. The 3 first headed out as soon as they were compleeted(i added in a hill where it should be to get faster warriors as the map wasn't 100% correct). This is what i found when i came to rome.

London founded
London begins: Worker (18 turns)
Research begun: Bronze Working (22 Turns)
London begins: Warrior (11 turns)
London's borders expand
London finishes: Warrior
London begins: Warrior (8 turns)
Buddhism founded in a distant land
London finishes: Warrior
London begins: Warrior (8 turns)
London grows: 2
Contact made: Roman Empire
London finishes: Warrior
London begins: Worker (15 turns)
Tech learned: Bronze Working
Research begun: Iron Working (36 Turns)
While defending in Roman territory at Rome, Warrior loses to: Roman Warrior (1.72/2) (Prob Victory: 99.0%)
While defending in Roman territory at Rome, Warrior loses to: Roman Warrior (1.16/2) (Prob Victory: 96.2%)
While defending in Roman territory at Rome, Warrior loses to: Roman Warrior (0.52/2) (Prob Victory: 43.1%)

I got pwned by the rng because rome was on a hill but the fact remains that i did find rome with a sole warrior defending it. Will the AI not build more defenders even when it is at war? Or did i just get lucky and it had just sent out for an expansion or something? Do we need 4 warriors to do this? Is it too probable that the nearest neighbour is far away and hence is not worth rushing?

Oh and why are there no turns in the autolog?

Are someone very good with RNG and able to calculate the chance of success for 3 warriors vs 1 with and without hill?

Not sure about the autolog turn text - are you copying this log out of a file in My Documents\My Games\Warlords\AutoLog\ ? Possibly you could enable the 'Show Clock Turn Text' in HOF3 options (worth doing anyway - useful to have this in the screenshots).

RNG should be easy enough to test out for a rough approximation anyway - just get a save from immediately before you attack, note whether you win or lose, and then reload and retry 10-20 times (make sure you have the 'generate new random seed' option checked so the result is different each time).

Then enter WorldBuilder (CTRL-W) and remove the hill, exit WB, save, and repeat...

(Shout if anyone wants more detail on this).

Also note you can use WB in this sort of scenario to look around and find where Rome's other warriors - and see whether they were off scouting, or just never built, or escorting a settler or whatever... that can help in figuring out why maybe there is only 1 warrior sometimes and not others... ?

Well so far i haven't encountered more than 1 warrior in any tests i have done... Dunno what other have done though...

All that said, I still have reservations about settling on the bananas... working those 2 gold plains hills will really slow our population growth, so findig some more food resources could be a big help. (On the other hand, if there's copper in our starting area, and an AI nearby, it could be irrelevant, as we simply hook up the gold, then axe rush while tech'ing nicely in the background; no large pop reqd). Well, what good is pop? Working a 2F 1H tile is only one net commodity. So the question is, whether the gold is so good it is worth two pop on other tiles? Your shot shows the gold producing 11 commodity units in capital ... you would be hard pressed to get that out of two pop anywhere else, I think.

That being said, if population numbers is the critical thing (for whipping? For max output of hammers or commerce?), then does it matter whether that pop is distributed between two cities? Settle dye allows working the cows and banana farm in capital for fast growth, and if working second gold is a drawback, then that settler is not urgent, and use those hammers for troops? Maybe that is the settling plan for the warrior rush or archer rush?

Maybe the goal of early rush is not city conquest (if too distant) but pillage and resource denial? Our protective archers might be ideal for that.

dV

Pillage and resource denial doesn't speed up our victory though... In fact if you spend time and resources on pillaging and resource denial i find that it often take longer to get the war over with compared to just building good enough troops to take what you want.. If astro of galley conquest is the goal we want to kill all the other civilizations. This is easiest done by taking all their cities, razing those we can't use effectively(if it is cost effectively or production effectively remains to be determined of course). If big continent dom is the goal then harassing the AI into oblivion might be viable as it allows us to spam alot of settlers without worrying about interference.

As i said earlier in worst case there are a ton of those grassland titles that are farmable(including the dye).

Food is often worth more than production btw because of the conversion rate for food/hammers with slavery(on smaller sizes and/or with granary). It can also be used 1:1 for settler/worker production.

Archers are generally inefficient in combat not dealing with defending cities and as such should probably mostly be used for this..

Hello everybody, old and new teammates alike!

I had to return from my vacations earlier than expected. :sad: On the bright side I'll be able to start performing my "official lurker" duties also earlier. :)

However, these duties might turn out harder than I expected. I have to admit I am shocked by the quality (and quantity ;) ) of the posts in this thread already. That been said, please allow me to throw my R$0.02 (yes, brazilian reais cents).

I've read somewhere that the discussion from which I quote a post below might have influenced this SGOTM.

In fact, one of my intentions in forbidding the human team from buildng galleons was to make the Cultural and Diplomatic (and Space) victories viable. I think that every VC will fall roughly into the same timeframe, now that you can't take over the world with medieval troops and have to tech to transports, and the teams will need to demonstrate deep understanding of all the victory conditions in order to select the quickest one.


Initial scouting might tell us how isolated we are. From the initial screenies (I fog gaze coast NW, SW and NE) I'm tempted to believe that we might be in the "small" area of the "big and small". If this is true, a "peaceful" VC could be faster than conquest or domination. AW, isolated start and a leader like Churchill (including traits, UU, UB) could make defensive play on the way to cultural a viable choice. I think this was the challenge to the mapmakers, but of course nothing warrants that their efforts will be successful.

The other issue I'd point out is that with such a nice starting area, and with Warlords AI always settling on hills, a warrior rush seems a long shot to me. I understand that current tests point to banana settling. I am ok with that provided we build a 2nd settler to grab bronze or horses (along with 2nd gold) soon , as settling on the banana could move us away from the unforested tiles in which the resources should be.

Archers are generally inefficient in combat not dealing with defending cities and as such should probably mostly be used for this..Except that we start with Drill I, and we get promos at 2, 4 and 8 XP. So it will be very easy to get higher level promotions. If we beeline Vassalage and Theocracy, our units come out of a barracks with 8XP, that's 3 promos before any combat on top of the Drill I and CG I. Longbows with Drill IV are very tough. I'm going to do some more random testing of the warrior rush, and see what I can produce.

EDIT: Welcome back C63! Sorry your down time was so short lived, but I'm very glad to have your input. What do you think about the possibility of fast Space or Diplo?

So I've just attempted a warrior rush on 2 more random starts. My conclusion is that we would need to get very lucky, and I don't think I'd like to base a strategy on that amount of luck.

So here is how I'd like to proceed!

I want Munro to lead off by moving the settler 1S, take a screen shot and post it so we can discuss. Make sure you save the game, and lets get a better feel for our surrounding terrain.

Here's another thought: if we wait awhile, won't we see from the other team's power graphs whether some have pulled off a warrior rush ? I realize this is a little close to cheating, but I've seen it described in earlier SGOTM's. Shoot me if I am out of line, though :rolleyes:

Hi from me too.

In always war the ww is reduces but not removed, am i right?

First attempt succesfull, on Ronnie's testmap for this game.

Don't worry, I will do a representative amount of tests, and post about my failures too.

But first I will try to take a second capitol in this game with warriors, just for the heck of it ;)



London's borders expand
While defending in the wild near London, Warrior defeats (2.00/2): Barbarian Lion (Prob Victory: 96.0%)
London grows: 2
London finishes: Warrior
London begins: Warrior (11 turns)
Tech learned: Bronze Working
Research begun: Hunting (7 Turns)
Research begun: Archery (7 Turns)
NEW Prince SWOTM6 GK Test(England) declares war on Julius Caesar(Rome)
Contact made: Roman Empire
London finishes: Warrior
London begins: Warrior (6 turns)
Buddhism founded in a distant land
London begins: Warrior (6 turns)
London finishes: Warrior
NEW Prince SWOTM6 GK Test(England) declares war on Tokugawa(Japan)
Contact made: Japanese Empire
Tech learned: Hunting
London begins: Warrior (6 turns)
London finishes: Warrior
Tech learned: Archery
Contact made: Korean Empire
Research begun: Animal Husbandry (13 Turns)
London begins: Warrior (6 turns)
London finishes: Warrior
While defending in Roman territory at Rome, Warrior loses to: Roman Warrior (1.16/2) (Prob Victory: 99.0%)
While defending in Roman territory at Rome, Warrior defeats (1.52/2): Roman Warrior (Prob Victory: 43.1%)
Captured Rome (Julius Caesar)
Roman Empire has been eliminated
Rome begins: Warrior (22 turns)

Hey, autolog is broken : no years. That seems to me a serious issue for this SGOTM.

Except that we start with Drill I, and we get promos at 2, 4 and 8 XP. So it will be very easy to get higher level promotions. If we beeline Vassalage and Theocracy, our units come out of a barracks with 8XP, that's 3 promos before any combat on top of the Drill I and CG I. Longbows with Drill IV are very tough. I'm going to do some more random testing of the warrior rush, and see what I can produce.

EDIT: Welcome back C63! Sorry your down time was so short lived, but I'm very glad to have your input. What do you think about the possibility of fast Space or Diplo?

It is only 5 xp from vassalage and barracks. We don't have totem poles. That said it is actually 4 promos but with one of them beeing CG1 it isn't as usefull as it sounds. drill3 or drill1c1cover are probably both somewhat viable. I am wondering why you can't pull off warrior rushes while me and toller pretzl seem able to do it? Maybe you are right and it is just luck. I'll try some more warrior rushes.

WW is about half of what it normally would be and there might be some other factors too but it is not completely removed.

Why wouldn't we be able to build galleons btw? This wasn't mentioned in the OP.

Getting a very fast diplo seems very hard as the AI wouldn't ever vote for us in allways war.. Space seems pretty slow too... Cultural might be viable...

Moving the settler at this point seem like a good idea.

No years for me in autolog either.

But first I will try to take a second capitol in this game with warriors, just for the heck of it ;)

Ok, that didn't work :p Took me forever to find the second capitol

Yeah finding the cities would likely be the main problem in this...

It would have to be a self electing Diplo win. The idea is to grow enough pop while beelining Mass Media. Play defense AFTER gaining enough fertile ground. If we are isolated by water, we could tech away from the military techs somewhat. The beeline to MM is not that long, the problem is having enough votes to get the win.

It is only 5 xp from vassalage and barracks. You are right, I forgot barracks only give 3xp in warlords. But having Theocracy adds 2 more for 7, and our next promo is at 8, so only 1 defensive win to get that.

I am wondering why you can't pull off warrior rushes while me and toller pretzl seem able to do it?On my test map, I explored West first, by the time I found JC in the East, he had an Archer in Rome. Also, I built a worker to improve some land. I'm not sure I like a plan that does not involve early development. All the top players seem to favor worker as the first build to get there capitols up and running quickly. I'm not saying it is the only or right way, just what I'm comfortable doing. Sometimes I'll build workboat if I start with fishing and have a juicy resource begging to get worked, especially if I'm financial giving 3 coins from a coast tile.

I just think if we were to try a warrior rush, (with no worker build early), and fail, we would be very far behind.

Ok i read the graph even though it might be somewhat cheesy... 2 teams have played so far and both have done very similar things(despite a bit dissimilar graphs due to different turn set lengths). CRC and TRMB(the real ms beyond). Both have moved the settler one turn(as shown by the power graph they are both squarly along the (x-1)*2 line in the culture graph. Both of them had gotten to 5 power by turn 27-29(CRC was still 3 power turn 12). What does this mean? CRC had not teched any techs giving power at the first point(BW, hunting, AH) and both had most likely teched one of either AH or hunting(notice that if you don't work any commerce it will take 31 turns to tech both AG and AH so there are some factors that are a bit wierd since TRMB ended at turn 29 and CRC at turn 27). If i knew what the score represented(score values for AG AH pop and for a BFC city) i could prolly get what exactly they did. The power graph also tells us that they both have a size 1 city(or TRMB could have a size 4 city and no AH or hunting or a size 2 city and an extra warrior, which would make perfectly sense i guess, that would also somewhat explain the score).

Warrior rush is a very high risk reward, You invest 3/4 of the hammers of a worker(about half of a settler) to get an extra city. Of course you have to do this before you build your worker or it will be way too late... Initial development might be better in any case because of the great titles near our starting position though... On normal maps where you can explore fast and assuming somewhat crowded an early warrior rush is a very likely possibility since all you need to do is find a nearby AI and you'll be able to take his capital(of course if it is not always war you won't even have to build the 4 warrior...).

My plan was to use "regenerate map" to spawn a bunch of test games from R1's testmap. But every time I tried that, the game froze.

Then I made a testgame myself, using archipelago, snaky continents. (How do I get "big and small" in warlords ?) But I was alone on the continent. This taught me a lesson: it doesn't feel much like always war, when you are alone ;)
I am not counting that as attempt #2. If we are alone, it will show fairly quickly no ? The first builds won't be optimal, but it seems like a minor risk.

My second attempt with snaky continents was very entertaining. Wang Kong sent two warriors at me, and I had to stay behind for safety reasons. But even when I was careless and moved a warrior into my capital only just in time for his two warriors to arrive, he didn't attack. I think that is typical of the AI.

When I finally arrived at his capital, he had two warriors there against my three, so I didn't attack. I waited for my first archer to arrive, and then took his capital. So not a pure warrior rush, but still a succesful very early rush.

Turn 42/660 (2740 BC) [15-Dec-2007 17:56:50]
While attacking in Korean territory at Seoul, Archer defeats (3.00/3): Korean Warrior (Prob Victory: 39.1%)
While attacking in Korean territory at Seoul, Warrior loses to: Korean Warrior (0.20/2) (Prob Victory: 3.6%)
While attacking in Korean territory at Seoul, Warrior defeats (1.62/2): Korean Warrior (Prob Victory: 100.0%)
Captured Seoul (Wang Kon)
Korean Empire has been eliminated
Seoul begins: Work Boat (45 turns)

Drag and drop the big and small map from the bts directory to the warlords directory. C/P. How did you turn on timestamps in the log? C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Beyond the Sword\PublicMaps to C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Warlords\PublicMaps

Thanks, I will try again later with a proper big&small map.

How did you turn on timestamps in the log?

I have no idea :confused:

In my GOTM 25, my first session autolog has no dates, but later ones do. see if opening the game, play one turn, save , close, resume from that save somehow puts the date stamps back in?

dV

Hello everybody, old and new teammates alike!

I've read somewhere that the discussion from which I quote a post below might have influenced this SGOTM.



Originally Posted by Balbes
In fact, one of my intentions in forbidding the human team from buildng galleons was to make the Cultural and Diplomatic (and Space) victories viable. I think that every VC will fall roughly into the same timeframe, now that you can't take over the world with medieval troops and have to tech to transports, and the teams will need to demonstrate deep understanding of all the victory conditions in order to select the quickest one.


Hello C63! Thanks for the welcome.

Do you have a link to the thread that this quote came from? What is Balbes taking about re: no Galleons?


Initial scouting might tell us how isolated we are. From the initial screenies (I fog gaze coast NW, SW and NE) I'm tempted to believe that we might be in the "small" area of the "big and small". If this is true, a "peaceful" VC could be faster than conquest or domination. AW, isolated start and a leader like Churchill (including traits, UU, UB) could make defensive play on the way to cultural a viable choice. I think this was the challenge to the mapmakers, but of course nothing warrants that their efforts will be successful.

Having loaded the starting save, I can't see any water NE, although it is definitely NW and SW. We could be about anywhere... (though maybe less likely a small archipelago by ourselves?)
[/QUOTE]


The other issue I'd point out is that with such a nice starting area, and with Warlords AI always settling on hills, a warrior rush seems a long shot to me. I understand that current tests point to banana settling. I am ok with that provided we build a 2nd settler to grab bronze or horses (along with 2nd gold) soon , as settling on the banana could move us away from the unforested tiles in which the resources should be.

Agree with this. My current feeling is to avoid warrior rush as just too risky, and the particular settings do not favour it; (Always-War, unpredictable map type, no guarantee of nearby AI, no aggressive leader, favourable start, and should be plenty of room to expand).

I think the signs are pointing increasinly aginst a possible BW-era galley / axe conquest (or even sword / cat conquest).

- This was what we had in SGOTM05 (which was apparently modified to allow galley conquest).
- The starting Big/Small script requires Astro anyway for conquest
- There are possible signs that the map may have been designed to prevent early military victory (according to clues from Balbes / C63).
- Even galley-based domination will require moderately teching (CoL etc)

My gut feel therefore for this game is that we should focus on fast early development and expansion, making use of the gold and other starting resources, (with early military military expansion if possible, but not at the cost of a solid economy).

1. Settle bananas. Gives the fastest possible start, and a strong commerce-specializied capital.
2. 2nd city between cows and gold. Reinforces strong economy.
3. 3rd city will then be our first hammer- / unit-specialized city (hopefully near copper or horses).

Techs focus on early development and protection (pillaging AI will massively slow us down):
- BW (for chopping AND checking if copper nearby)
- hunting / AH (for cows AND checking for horses nearby)
- archery; essential early defence; too much of a gamble to skip this
- then either writing, wheel, pottery, or IW (if no copper / horses near).

[Note this is more or less how I played the settling-banana sim earlier - see that post for a clearer picture of how that would look].

That should cover at least the first early turnsets, by when we will have a much better idea of what type of game we're going to have to play, and exactly what tech/hammer balance we want (and whether we want a GP city and lightbulb-optimized beeline for Astro; is that still as useful on Prince, where the techs are cheaper anyway, and we have 2 gold?)

Thoughts on this opening strategy? Anyone thinking we should trying a warrior rush? (I'm just concerned that if we have to abort it, or it fails, we will be too far behind... and that either seems quite possible). :confused:

BTW, I ran some tests on the Blue Circles (starting settler recommendations) in Worldbuilder, with some interesting results.

- Blue Circles DO take into account hidden (by fog) resources.
- However, if you modify a map in worldbuilder to add / remove change resources, the blue circle recommendations remain the same until the next turn.

We have to assume Gyathaar may have modified the start location, so these blue circles cannot be trusted. Until our second turn, they tell us nothing that we can trust. (E.g. they may be based on great food resources hidden by the fog, that Gyathaar removed during modification).

I don't think this changes any of our decisions / planning so far, but equally, it's not going to either (at least until the 2nd turn, if we haven't settled already)...

I am curious why you wouldn't go for early AG? Getting the city up and growing faster seem more important to me than getting the second city up? Or are grassland farms just not worth it? Of course all this change if there is a good resource hidden by the fog somewhere...

On another note Geezers have now also started and they chose to move the settler around quite a few turns before settling it seems. Waiting 3 turns before settling!! They went with worker first and haven't researched hunting or BW after 14 turns(though admittedly they have only had like 11 turns of research...). Lets not go look if there are goodies nearby cause there seems there aren't...

New test game log. I'm not having any issues. In my HoF settings I turn on logging, turn counter, max turns, and the clock.
New Log Entries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn 0/660 (4000 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:34:06]
London founded
London begins: Warrior (22 turns)
Research begun: Hunting (9 Turns)

Turn 1/660 (3970 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:34:46]

Turn 2/660 (3940 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:34:55]

Turn 3/660 (3910 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:35:02]

Turn 4/660 (3880 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:35:12]

Turn 5/660 (3850 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:35:19]

Turn 6/660 (3820 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:35:29]

Turn 7/660 (3790 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:35:46]
Ronnie1(England) declares war on Montezuma(Aztec)
Contact made: Aztec Empire
London's borders expand
Attitude Change: Montezuma(Aztec) towards Ronnie1(England), from 'Cautious' to 'Annoyed'

Turn 8/660 (3760 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:35:55]
While attacking in the wild, Warrior defeats (1.44/2): Aztec Scout (Prob Victory: 99.1%)
Tech learned: Hunting

Turn 9/660 (3730 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:36:16]
Research begun: Archery (11 Turns)

Turn 10/660 (3700 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:36:34]
London finishes: Warrior

Turn 11/660 (3670 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:36:41]
London begins: Warrior (11 turns)
Contact made: Persian Empire
Attitude Change: Montezuma(Aztec) towards Cyrus(Persia), from 'Cautious' to 'Pleased'
Attitude Change: Cyrus(Persia) towards Ronnie1(England), from 'Cautious' to 'Annoyed'
Attitude Change: Cyrus(Persia) towards Montezuma(Aztec), from 'Cautious' to 'Pleased'

Turn 12/660 (3640 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:37:00]

Turn 13/660 (3610 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:37:18]

Turn 14/660 (3580 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:37:48]

Turn 15/660 (3550 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:38:04]
Ronnie1(England) declares war on Peter(Russia)
Contact made: Russian Empire
Attitude Change: Peter(Russia) towards Ronnie1(England), from 'Cautious' to 'Annoyed'

Turn 16/660 (3520 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:38:27]
London grows: 2

Turn 17/660 (3490 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:38:44]

Turn 18/660 (3460 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:38:56]
Tech learned: Archery
Buddhism founded in a distant land
While defending in the wild, Warrior defeats (2.00/2): Barbarian Panther (Prob Victory: 98.8%)

Turn 19/660 (3430 BC) [15-Dec-2007 13:39:17]
Research beg