Cannot check the save until late tonight, so I reserve my :goodjob: ;)

Main question for me is Elephants vs Longbows: do we have a chance ? Do we need more Cats ?
And if there is no 3rd continent, is Conquest easier ? I would think so, but this should be discussed probably before zyxy's turnset.

From the log, Saladin switched to Police State, so he has the Mids (I doubt he teched through Fascism yet...).

Main question for me is Elephants vs Longbows: do we have a chance ? Do we need more Cats ?

For bombarding, or for collateral damage? I've mostly only seen one longbow per city, in that case I don't think investing in a lot of catapults necessarily makes sense. If we saw stacks of several longbows, we would need catapults for collateral damage, but we can swap in some builds in front line cities. Also, if we decide to write off domination in favor of conquest then we can immediatelyt start cranking catapults in all of our interior cities, although it will take a while for them to get where they are useful.

My main impression is that we should just power through. If we're only facing one longbow per city (which is all I've seen so far), we can lose an elephant or two per city and still make good progress.

P.S. As we've seen with Athens, opponents in this version will build/rush additional defenders pretty aggressively once we show up. That could become a problem, it's another reason for just going in with lots of elephants and attacking quickly.

P.S. As we've seen with Athens, opponents in this version will build/rush additional defenders pretty aggressively once we show up. That could become a problem, it's another reason for just going in with lots of elephants and attacking quickly.

We saw the same thing with Mansa in Timbuktu.

Alright, nice going, glad to see the game moving again. :)

Current Roster and Schedule:
zyxy - UP! (Feb 18)
Wotan - On Deck! (Feb 21)
Niklas - Warming up (Feb 24)
ChrisShaffer (Feb 27) (?)
unkle (Mar 1) (?)
DaviddesJ (Mar 4)

Since zyxy is up in our Civ3 SGOTM as well, he may want a swap. Wotan, would you be ready to play if needed?

I'll chip in with more comments once I've gotten a real good look at the save, i.e. tomorrow morning.

I had a good long look at the save, checking what domination would mean. We currently have 210 tiles, and need (by my count) 781 to win. If I count all unclaimed territory on our home continent, including tiles visible in the fog but excluding any beyond that, and add in the three larger islands we can see (5+7+16 tiles) that's a total of 310 -- 520 together with what we already have. That leaves 261 to be claimed on the other continent. Our opponents have 267 together. There's a lot of unclaimed land over there though, but we would need to send a lot of settlers over there, we can't rely only on conquest.

With this in mind, and considering that all remaining AIs seem to be reachable via the closer western passage, I'm now more inclined to go for Conquest after all.

zyxy, Wotan?

I'm inclined to agree with Niklas.

Can someone post screenshots? I'm away from my home computer for the weekend.

Our opponents have 267 together.

How do you know that?

I know since there are three left, and their average land area according to the demographics screen is 89,000. We can also calculate exactly what each has - the least is listed as 47,000 and the highest as 129,000, so the remaining one must have 91,000.

Since zyxy is up in our Civ3 SGOTM as well, he may want a swap.

Yes, please :).

Alright, I figured as much. If Wotan hasn't posted a got it by tomorrow morning, I'll take it myself.

Just home from a trip. Have a huge pile of work on my agenda so would appreciate not playing until after tuesday. So can niklas take the turn set now it woudl be great. If not I will make sure to find the time for it.

Alright, I'll take it, no problem. It's been long enough that I feel the itch in my fingers. :D

I'll give my view on the situation tomorrow. I'd appreciate comments on the domination/conquest issue, what to do with accumulated hammers, and any thoughts on battle plans. Ragnar first doesn't really seem to me like the best option, at least not if we're going for Conquest.

Thanks Niklas, really appreciate this.

As usual, if going for conquest, start with the farthest away and work your way back. The last units built conquer the closest enemy.

I wish we knew how large the island to the NW is.

As usual, if going for conquest, start with the farthest away and work your way back. The last units built conquer the closest enemy.

I'm not so convinced by this. The limitation is transport capacity, as much as number of units. Currently, we have only a few galleons, and lots of units queued up, so we can send many units to attack nearby cities, or just a few units to far away cities. In the former case, by the time we conquer the nearby cities, we'll have transported most of the units from our continent, and we'll have transport chains set up that can whisk our units far along the coasts, very quickly.

A fair amount depends on the shape of the continent, i.e., how far inland do we have to go from the coast? Or is it even possible that there are multiple landmasses, with coastal connections between them? We should know quite a bit, in another 10 turns.

We do have one galleon ready to carry three units from our east coast, and another galleon that could carry more units if we have them available (but that will take a while, perhaps I should have queued up 3 more units in the east, but it wasn't so clear at the time). I don't think these ships will want to shuttle back and forth across the wide eastern ocean; rather, they will make one trip and then stay at the foreign lands to provide transport along the coast.

Here's a view of the whole world.

First tentative plan:

Towns:
Smurkzdon: dumbo->dumbo
Oxmurkz: dumbo->dumbo
Sparta: dumbo->dumbo
Corinth: cat->cat
Camsmurk: cat->cat
Carthage: settler->?cat?
Athens: galleon->galleon (rush in a few turns)
Djenne: switch to elephant(?) with 137 accumulated hammers, switch hill to grass for one turn
Cuman: galleon->galleon (rush in 4 turns)
Timbuktu: switch to elephant(?) with 160 accumulated hammers

Workers:
Chop forests everywhere. I see no point shipping any over at this point, might change if that continent is large.

Military:
So the big decision, where to attack? We have two galleons, one more next turn. On this turn we can unload two elephants and two cats S of Nidaros, with two more elephants on the turn after and another three the turn after that. Since we have lots and lots of units and not so many galleons, we probably can't afford sending those galleons away on long trips. So I'll go for Nidaros first, and hopefully I'll get some better intel from the caravels. Bombard for two turns, suicide a cat and roll over Nidaros with elephants. Keep the town, it'll take a while to get out of resistance but we should be able to whip out some units here. And we can afford it.

After Nidaros I'll move forces westwards, along the isthmus, leaving Uppsala for later.

Try to circumnavigate as fast as possible, to get 5 moves for our galleons. At some point start sending forces north towards Saladin, who is likely the farthest away from us.

Question, where/when did we meet Cyrus? I'm guessing he is west of Ragnar.

Some more comments:

The second galleon at Carthage could take the axe from Carthage and the WE that we would build in Djenne, the latter could board 3 turns from now. We could also wait for the WE from Timbuktu, who could board 5 turns from now. I think it would be worth the wait, we need this force to have a critical mass.

The settler from Carthage, off to claim the silver? I suppose we could settle on top of it for fastest connection, or I'm sure we could save a worker to go down there. I'd also send a chariot from Corinth to keep the barbs away, and possibly to clear the fog for a sea connection.

There's a sign on the map showing where the Cyrus worker was seen.

>>The Save<< (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/saves/civ4sgotm6/Smurkz_SG006_AD0620_01.CivWarlordsSave)

Not much to report. Or rather, a lot to report, but the autolog and a look at the save says all I could say here really. A few things though:

- I screwed up really badly with the settler from Carthage, no excuse other than cotton between my ears. I sent the chariot ahead to scout out the eastern peninsula and simply forgot to bring him back when more and more land became visible. I got what i deserved when the barbarian warrior showed up. I started building another one in Athens.

- I also screwed up with one of the caravels, no big deal probably, but still. I seem to have accidently pressed E on him, so he decided to head out into the unknown.

- At least I'm doing well with the military campaigns. From this point on we're more or less committed to Conquest, since I haven't built a single settler. But we're doing well so far so it's just a matter of pressing on. We should definitely have this in the bag in 30 turns.

- Cyrus is the one that is the trickiest to get to. I've started sending some galleons south past Uppsala, intending to get to Cyrus via sea that way. Red on the map marks where our land forces are currently.

- WW has set in, so it might be a good idea to take out Ragnar. He has longbows though, which makes him the most difficult. None of the other two have Feudalism.

- I've been fairly liberal with the whip, but I think we could probably whip like crazy during the next turnset, any units build later than that won't make a difference anyway.

http://xs224.xs.to/xs224/08070/198overview562.png

Here is your Session Turn Log from 470 AD to 620 AD:

Turn 198, 470 AD: Unload 2 dumbos and 2 cats S of Nidaros

Turn 199, 485 AD: 3 longbows in Nidaros now, likely two suicide cats then

Turn 200, 500 AD: Judaism has spread in Athens.

Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's Catapult (5.00) vs Ragnar's Longbowman (12.60)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Combat Odds: 0.0%
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Plot Defense: +35%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (City Defense: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Hills: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's Catapult is hit for 31 (69/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's Catapult is hit for 31 (38/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 12 (88/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's Catapult is hit for 31 (7/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's Catapult is hit for 31 (0/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman has defeated Churchill's Catapult!
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's Catapult (5.00) vs Ragnar's Longbowman (11.19)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Combat Odds: 0.8%
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Plot Defense: +35%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Fortify: +20%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (City Defense: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Hills: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's Catapult is hit for 30 (70/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's Catapult is hit for 30 (40/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's Catapult is hit for 30 (10/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 13 (78/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 13 (65/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (8.80) vs Ragnar's Longbowman (9.82)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Combat Odds: 36.6%
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Extra Combat: -10%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Plot Defense: +35%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (City Defense: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Hills: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 22 (78/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 22 (56/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 17 (61/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 22 (34/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 17 (44/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 22 (12/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 17 (27/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 17 (10/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 22 (0/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman has defeated Churchill's War Elephant!
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (8.80) vs Ragnar's Longbowman (9.23)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Combat Odds: 40.4%
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Extra Combat: -10%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Plot Defense: +35%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Fortify: +5%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (City Defense: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Hills: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 18 (63/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 21 (79/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 21 (58/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 21 (37/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 18 (45/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 18 (27/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 21 (16/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 21 (0/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman has defeated Churchill's War Elephant!
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (10.40) vs Ragnar's Longbowman (7.99)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Combat Odds: 82.0%
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Extra Combat: -30%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Plot Defense: +35%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Fortify: +20%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (City Defense: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Hills: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (81/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 20 (45/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (62/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (43/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (24/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 20 (25/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 20 (5/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 20 (0/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Ragnar's Longbowman!
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (8.80) vs Ragnar's Spearman (7.54)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Combat Odds: 81.7%
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Extra Combat: -10%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Extra Combat: +10%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Plot Defense: +35%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Combat: -25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Combat: +100%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (81/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (62/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Spearman is hit for 20 (57/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Spearman is hit for 20 (37/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (43/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Spearman is hit for 20 (17/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Spearman is hit for 20 (0/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Ragnar's Spearman!
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (11.20) vs Ragnar's Swordsman (8.26)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Combat Odds: 87.1%
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Extra Combat: -40%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Extra Combat: +10%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Plot Defense: +35%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman is hit for 22 (59/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman is hit for 22 (37/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 18 (82/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 18 (64/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 18 (46/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman is hit for 22 (15/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 18 (28/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 18 (10/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman is hit for 22 (0/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Ragnar's Swordsman!
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (10.40) vs Ragnar's Longbowman (3.07)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Combat Odds: 100.0%
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Extra Combat: -30%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Plot Defense: +35%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Fortify: +5%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (City Defense: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Hills: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 23 (4/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 16 (84/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 23 (0/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Ragnar's Longbowman!
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (8.00) vs Ragnar's Longbowman (1.26)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Combat Odds: 100.0%
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Plot Defense: +35%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (City Defense: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: (Hills: +25%)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 21 (0/100HP)
Turn 201, 515 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Ragnar's Longbowman!
Turn 201, 515 AD: You have captured Nidaros!!!
Turn 201, 515 AD: You have circumnavigated the Globe! Your ships receive a +1 Movement bonus!

Turn 203, 545 AD: Carthage has grown to size 10

Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's Axeman (5.50) vs Ragnar's Spearman (2.35)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Combat Odds: 99.6%
Turn 204, 560 AD: (Extra Combat: -10%)
Turn 204, 560 AD: (Extra Combat: +10%)
Turn 204, 560 AD: (Plot Defense: +20%)
Turn 204, 560 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 204, 560 AD: (City Attack: -75%)
Turn 204, 560 AD: (Combat: -50%)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Ragnar's Spearman is hit for 30 (70/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's Axeman is hit for 13 (87/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Ragnar's Spearman is hit for 30 (40/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's Axeman is hit for 13 (74/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Ragnar's Spearman is hit for 30 (10/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Ragnar's Spearman is hit for 30 (0/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's Axeman has defeated Ragnar's Spearman!
Turn 204, 560 AD: You have captured Haithabu!!!
Turn 204, 560 AD: You have destroyed the city of Haithabu!!!
Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (9.60) vs Ragnar's Longbowman (7.50)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Combat Odds: 71.3%
Turn 204, 560 AD: (Extra Combat: -20%)
Turn 204, 560 AD: (City Defense: +25%)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 17 (83/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 22 (78/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 22 (56/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 17 (66/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 17 (49/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 17 (32/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 22 (34/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 17 (15/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 17 (0/100HP)
Turn 204, 560 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman has defeated Churchill's War Elephant!
Turn 204, 560 AD: Timbuktu will grow to size 9 on the next turn
Turn 204, 560 AD: Ragnar adopts Vassalage!

Turn 205, 575 AD: Clearing a Forest has created 44 ? for Corinth.
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (8.80) vs Ragnar's Swordsman (8.10)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Combat Odds: 67.4%
Turn 205, 575 AD: (Extra Combat: -10%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: (Extra Combat: +10%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman is hit for 20 (80/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman is hit for 20 (60/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (81/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (62/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (43/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman is hit for 20 (40/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (24/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (5/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (0/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman has defeated Churchill's War Elephant!
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (8.80) vs Ragnar's Longbowman (6.93)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Combat Odds: 81.0%
Turn 205, 575 AD: (Extra Combat: -10%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: (Fortify: +5%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: (City Defense: +45%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 21 (56/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (81/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 21 (35/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (62/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (43/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 21 (14/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (24/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (5/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Longbowman is hit for 21 (0/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Ragnar's Longbowman!
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's Catapult (5.00) vs Ragnar's Swordsman (3.24)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Combat Odds: 91.0%
Turn 205, 575 AD: (Extra Combat: +10%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman is hit for 18 (22/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's Catapult is hit for 21 (79/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman is hit for 18 (4/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Ragnar's Swordsman is hit for 18 (0/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's Catapult has defeated Ragnar's Swordsman!
Turn 205, 575 AD: You have captured Birka!!!
Turn 205, 575 AD: You have destroyed the city of Birka!!!
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (8.80) vs Saladin's Archer (7.20)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Combat Odds: 65.7%
Turn 205, 575 AD: (Extra Combat: -10%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: (Plot Defense: +20%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: (City Defense: +95%)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Saladin's Archer is hit for 22 (78/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Saladin's Archer is hit for 22 (56/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Saladin's Archer is hit for 22 (34/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Saladin's Archer is hit for 22 (12/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Saladin's Archer is hit for 22 (0/100HP)
Turn 205, 575 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Saladin's Archer!
Turn 205, 575 AD: You have captured Najran!!!
Turn 205, 575 AD: You have destroyed the city of Najran!!!
Turn 205, 575 AD: Athens has become unhappy
Turn 205, 575 AD: Timbuktu will grow to size 9 on the next turn
Turn 205, 575 AD: While defending, your Settler was destroyed by a Barbarian Warrior!

Turn 206, 590 AD: WW sets in
Turn 206, 590 AD: Your Catapult has reduced the defenses of Kufah to 17%!
Turn 206, 590 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (9.60) vs Saladin's Archer (8.61)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Combat Odds: 60.1%
Turn 206, 590 AD: (Extra Combat: -20%)
Turn 206, 590 AD: (Plot Defense: +42%)
Turn 206, 590 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 206, 590 AD: (City Defense: +95%)
Turn 206, 590 AD: (Hills: +25%)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Saladin's Archer is hit for 21 (79/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Saladin's Archer is hit for 21 (58/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 18 (82/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Saladin's Archer is hit for 21 (37/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 18 (64/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Saladin's Archer is hit for 21 (16/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Saladin's Archer is hit for 21 (0/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Saladin's Archer!
Turn 206, 590 AD: Your War Elephant has destroyed a Archer!
Turn 206, 590 AD: Churchill's Axeman (5.00) vs Saladin's Spearman (2.61)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Combat Odds: 99.0%
Turn 206, 590 AD: (Plot Defense: +42%)
Turn 206, 590 AD: (City Attack: -45%)
Turn 206, 590 AD: (Combat: -50%)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Saladin's Spearman is hit for 27 (73/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Saladin's Spearman is hit for 27 (46/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Saladin's Spearman is hit for 27 (19/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Saladin's Spearman is hit for 27 (0/100HP)
Turn 206, 590 AD: Churchill's Axeman has defeated Saladin's Spearman!
Turn 206, 590 AD: Your Axeman has destroyed a Spearman!
Turn 206, 590 AD: You have captured a Worker
Turn 206, 590 AD: You have captured Kufah!!!
Turn 206, 590 AD: You have destroyed the city of Kufah!!!
Turn 206, 590 AD: Clearing a Forest has created 44 ? for Corinth.
Turn 206, 590 AD: Clearing a Forest has created 36 ? for Djenne.
Turn 206, 590 AD: Carthage will grow to size 10 on the next turn
Turn 206, 590 AD: Carthage will become unhappy on the next turn
Turn 206, 590 AD: Cuman has grown to size 3
Turn 206, 590 AD: Timbuktu has grown to size 9
Turn 206, 590 AD: Timbuktu has become unhappy

Turn 207, 605 AD: Your Catapult has reduced the defenses of Mecca to 51%!
Turn 207, 605 AD: Your Catapult has reduced the defenses of Mecca to 42%!
Turn 207, 605 AD: Clearing a Forest has created 36 ? for Djenne.
Turn 207, 605 AD: Clearing a Forest has created 36 ? for Djenne.
Turn 207, 605 AD: You have plundered 16? from the Hamlet!
Turn 207, 605 AD: Carthage has grown to size 10
Turn 207, 605 AD: Carthage has become unhappy
Turn 207, 605 AD: Djenne will grow to size 9 on the next turn
Turn 207, 605 AD: Djenne will become unhappy on the next turn
Turn 207, 605 AD: While defending, your Worker was destroyed by a Arabian Spearman!
Turn 207, 605 AD: Saladin adopts Representation!
Turn 207, 605 AD: Corinth's cultural boundary is about to expand.

Turn 208, 620 AD: Your Catapult has reduced the defenses of Mecca to 33%!
Turn 208, 620 AD: Your Catapult has reduced the defenses of Mecca to 24%!
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (8.80) vs Cyrus's Swordsman (12.00)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Combat Odds: 20.9%
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Extra Combat: -10%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Plot Defense: +75%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Swordsman is hit for 17 (83/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Swordsman is hit for 17 (66/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Swordsman is hit for 17 (49/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 23 (77/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Swordsman is hit for 17 (32/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 23 (54/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 23 (31/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 23 (8/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Swordsman is hit for 17 (15/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Swordsman is hit for 17 (0/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Cyrus's Swordsman!
Turn 208, 620 AD: Your War Elephant has destroyed a Swordsman!
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (9.60) vs Cyrus's Axeman (9.25)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Combat Odds: 64.7%
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Extra Combat: -20%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Extra Combat: +10%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Plot Defense: +75%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Combat: -25%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Axeman is hit for 20 (80/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (81/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Axeman is hit for 20 (60/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (62/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (43/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (24/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (5/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Axeman is hit for 20 (40/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 19 (0/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Axeman has defeated Churchill's War Elephant!
Turn 208, 620 AD: Your War Elephant has died trying to attack a Axeman!
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (11.20) vs Cyrus's Catapult (5.50)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Combat Odds: 99.2%
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Extra Combat: -40%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Extra Combat: +10%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 14 (86/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Catapult is hit for 28 (72/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 14 (72/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Catapult is hit for 28 (44/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Catapult is hit for 28 (16/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 14 (58/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Catapult is hit for 28 (0/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Cyrus's Catapult!
Turn 208, 620 AD: Your War Elephant has destroyed a Catapult!
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant (8.80) vs Cyrus's Axeman (4.20)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Combat Odds: 99.4%
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Extra Combat: -10%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Extra Combat: +10%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Plot Defense: +75%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: (Fortify: +25%)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Axeman is hit for 21 (19/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant is hit for 18 (82/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Cyrus's Axeman is hit for 21 (0/100HP)
Turn 208, 620 AD: Churchill's War Elephant has defeated Cyrus's Axeman!
Turn 208, 620 AD: Your War Elephant has destroyed a Axeman!
Turn 208, 620 AD: You have captured Ecbatana!!!
Turn 208, 620 AD: You have destroyed the city of Ecbatana!!!
Turn 208, 620 AD: Clearing a Forest has created 20 ? for Athens.
Turn 208, 620 AD: Clearing a Forest has created 20 ? for Djenne.
Turn 208, 620 AD: Clearing a Forest has created 20 ? for Timbuktu.
Turn 208, 620 AD: Clearing a Forest has created 20 ? for Smurkzdon.

I'm not sure WW will be a big problem. We have a lot of potential for more happiness to offset WW, despite the silver screwup. We will get +3 from the Pyramids in Mecca, +1 from silk in Baghdad, +1 from gems in Jelling, at least. Maybe a source of incense as well.

Seems that we have plenty of units at Mecca to capture it next turn, so a quick switch to Representation will solve most of our current happiness problems.

Leaving aside the risk, when your chariot found the furs on the eastern peninsula, why didn't you send the settler to settle on those, instead? They are closer and easier to connect, than the silver. Connecting the silver will require workers, it seems (I think the easiest way would be to build the city on the west coast, and then we need a mine and road on the silver). The furs can be connected without workers, by sea, if we just settle on one of the furs on the north coast, and then clear the fog south of Corinth.

Thanks for being gentle with me. ;)

I did consider settling the furs - in fact when I discovered them I immediately decided to settle them instead. But then I recalled that silver would actually give +2 :) in our larger towns, and it didn't seem too much of an investment at the time to build a mine and a road there. In hindsight, getting furs that much faster would have been much more worth. And less risky.

I hadn't given the Pyramids any thought. We should definitely switch to Representation as fast as we're able. But to connect the luxuries there we need a town on the coast, which Mecca is not. And Nidaros is blocked by Bjorgvin currently.

I recalled that silver would actually give +2 :) in our larger towns

Why is that? Are you thinking that we built forges? We only have one, in Smurkzdon.

I hadn't given the Pyramids any thought. We should definitely switch to Representation as fast as we're able. But to connect the luxuries there we need a town on the coast, which Mecca is not. And Nidaros is blocked by Bjorgvin currently.

Baghdad and Mecca are connected by road to a river that flows into the ocean; they will be connected as soon as we capture them. Jelling seems to be connected to that same river, so it will be connected when we destroy the cities in between, or else when we destroy or capture Bjorgvin.

Right you are. Yes, I was thinking of forges, and obviously didn't stop to think, and look, properly.

I feel a bit frustrated with this turnset as a whole, it feels as if I was playing it in a rush, which certainly wasn't my intention. I checked all towns each turn, I meticulously counted moves for the galleons to drop that stack at Mecca a few turns after the catapults. And then I made mistakes stemming from simply not thinking clearly. I would have been angry with myself had I done them in a solo game too.

I try to console myself that these things will probably matter little in the end, but they chafe at my wish for perfection. I'm still pleased with the way the military campaign has turned out though, with 6 towns taken and two more besieged, few units lost, and plenty of troops in good locations and on their way.

I think we should aim to have this game done in 20 turns, it doesn't seem impossible to me. In particular not since Ragnar seems to be alone with Feudalism.

I think we should aim to have this game done in 20 turns, it doesn't seem impossible to me. In particular not since Ragnar seems to be alone with Feudalism.

Yes, that's definitely good news. I was expecting that the reason Ragnar was more advanced than I expected was that they had all een trading techs very freely.

But they could trade for it and upgrade their archers at any time. Common struggle is going to make them more friendly with one another. All the more reason to move as quickly as possible. Or to destroy Ragnar so he can't trade with them.

Our opponents seem to be at 117, 92, 35 land tiles. Uppsala, Bjorgvin, and Jelling seem to add up to 32. Not sure how to reconcile that. Does Ragnar have another city on a small island?

Wow, came back home after being offline for a day and you've already played. You went straight from "first tentative plan" to "the save" in less than 24 hours?

Yes. There was so little response to my original plan, and there were so few loose variables in it, that I felt I wanted to play on simply to give us back our momentum. I feel the enthusiasm has dropped from the long delays, so I'd rather give us some action, to try to win some of it back. My apologies if you feel I played too fast and you didn't get a chance to chime in with comments.

It's ok - we need to wrap this one up. I was just surprised.

Looks pretty straightforward from here. Attack, attack, attack.

Indeed, attack attack attack. :D

zyxy? Wotan?

I notice Cyrus, Saladin and Ragnar all have new techs to trade on the same turn 620 AD. I suspect Feudalism just traded hands.

Got it, I can play later this week.

Are we still going for conquest? I suppose it is quicker than domination. Most towns can be razed (but not Mecca)

War planning:

The Mecca stack can take Mecca and then head SE to the hidden Persian town, and then further south.
The Jelling stack can take/raze Jelling and then head for the hidden Persian town to the S.
The elephant-cat naval group near Uppsala can raze it and then move on, probably to Arbela.
I am not sure what to do with the elephant stack on the east Persian border. The nearest Persian town is probably Persepolis, but we cannot really attack that without cat support (it has 60% culture defense). Marching to Arbela doesn't appeal to me. One option is to let the Uppsala naval group bypass Uppsala to join these guys. Uppsala is then to be besieged by fresh forces. Arbela becoems a problem.
We need another attack group for Susa, and one for Baghdad. Some elephants are on their way, but no catapults.
Bjorgvin can be taken by a smallish group from the mainland.


It would be bad if Feudalism has spread, because we severely lack catapult support.

Switch to representation sounds fine. But perhaps police state or US is even better? We have lots of money, cashrushing might help.

I would bypass Uppsala for now, we can take that with new troops from back home. Better send those naval forces towards Persia, since as you say we lack catapult support there.

But also, we can lose a few elephants every now and then, so the catapults should only be used where really needed, and then possibly for collateral damage rather than bombardment (if there are many defenders). Ecbatana (which that stack just razed) had 50% defense, I still only lost one elephant there. Without longbows in the towns our elephants have an edge. An archer fortified in a hill town with 60% defense bonus has a modified value of 8.65, even a fresh C1 elephant beats that number. Swordsmen and spears are worse, but not that much worse than that our losses wouldn't be managable if we just attacked outright. I would definitely sacrifice a few elephants if it sped us up.

We would not get a message about new techs to trade for Feudalism, since we don't have its prerequisite techs. So it wasn't that tech that switched hands in 620 AD. That doesn't mean it can't switch hands soon, or even has already, but we won't know when it does. I believe the 620 AD message was for CoL - I could check though.

I was wondering whether we might switch to US to rush a couple of units, then to Representation. Or maybe Police State but I suspect that we will never have enough WW that that's better. Our form of government will be mostly irrelevant soon; if we're going for conquest in 20 turns, who cares if we have 1 or 2 unhappy in Smurkzdon?

Indeed, US might be the best option available to us. We'd better not end up on the negative though, but towards the end we should be able to run wealth in all towns back home.

Sorry for being so silent, work is drowning me out of civ...
I agree that in the end we can always build wealth, plus cash rushing cats from the battlefield could be an option too. So no real need switching out US I think. Unless we need the anarchy :rolleyes:

If Feudalism could switch hands soon, then this favors an attack on Ragnar. But probably the others are close to it as well... if we think we cannot prevent them from getting Feudalism, then Ragnars coastal towns can wait.

I am currently leaning to a switch to US. The ability to cashrush seems very useful. Does anyone know the gold -> hammer rate?

I'm pretty sure that US is 3 gold per hammer in all versions including this one, but I can't check it right now. You can check it by mousing over the cash rush button in a city to see how much cash rushing would cost. It will show you the cost even though the ability to actually do it is grayed out.

Turn 208, 620AD: switch some builds to catapult. Rush a lot of stuff.

Turn 209, 635AD:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b293/zyxy/SGOTM4_6_AD0635_Jelling0000.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b293/zyxy/SGOTM4_6_AD635_Mecca0000.jpg
we keep it because of the gems. Switching to US costs 2 turns but I think it is still worth it.

Turn 210, 650AD: bummer. I rushed some things on the previous turn but they don't get built because we are in anarchy.
Cyrus now has longbows :(.

Turn 211, 665AD: settle London on furs.

Turn 212, 680AD: raze Basra.

Turn 213, 695AD: raze Gordium. Found Ragnars last town.

Turn 214, 710AD: raze Bjorgvin.

Turn 215, 725AD: zzz.

Turn 216, 740AD: zzz.

Turn 217, 755AD: attacks on Uppsala and Arbela. Longbows are tough, rng is unkind, and we fail.

Turn 218, 770AD: Christianity founded. Burn Arbela. Burn Persepolis. Burn Uppsala. Burn Medina.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b293/zyxy/SGOTM4_6_AD0770_Persepolis0000.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b293/zyxy/SGOTM4_6_AD0770_Uppsala0000.jpg

I left movement on some units.
There are partial ship chains on the east and west coasts.
It looks like Ragnar has 1 town left, Saladin 2, Cyrus 3.
Baghdad should fall next turn.
We have a GG near CamSmurkz.

The save (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/saves/civ4sgotm6/Smurkz_SG006_AD0770_01.CivWarlordsSave)

Without looking at the game, a definite :goodjob: for the military advance. This baby won't last long now!

A quick look at the submissions page, coupled with some (very legal) detective work, shows that we are definitely in the running for the bronze here. Murky Waters and One Short Straw will take the gold and silver, but there are four teams competing for the bronze. Our last submitted turn is 218, Gypsy Kings and XTeam have both submitted turn 211. None of them have finished yet. CRC has finished, and there last non-victory save is turn 223, i.e. 5 turns ahead of us. So if we win in 5 turns (which we won't) we beat them, if we win in 15 turns they beat us. Anything in between is unknown.

Who will play our (hopefully) last turnset? Wotan, are you up for it? Or will Chris get to bring our ship to port?

One thought - since we are in a close race, should we play each turn that remains one by one, to maximize our chances?

Wotan can have the glory if he wants it. I'm super busy in the next week, with a job interview on Thursday.

I had a look at the game, and the situation is even better than I thought. 10 turns should be an absolute limit on victory IMO. It seems to me that the last Arabian town in the fog could well be the deciding factor. A pity we don't have a Medic up near Baghdad. Maybe send Timur up to meet the stack halfway?

- Baghdad falls next turn, 219.
- Tarsus should fall in two turns. Next turn bombard one more time, and bring in the elephants coming from NE as well as the two on the galleon south. On the second turn, 5 Elephants should handle the forces there, and the catapult can then be free to move towards Pasagardae (after Tarsus falls, to use the roads). The catapult on the ship can also move towards Pasagardae at the same time. Or we could move the cats to Susa, it has a larger defense bonus. In any case, Tarsus falls turn 220.
- Pasagardae should fall easily once the stack at Persepolis has healed up, that will take two turns. This town is in flatland, but has walls for 50% defense. If we want we could move Zhukov N to the hill this turn to get a peek at the defenses, and then move him back S again to heal the stack. We could get catapult support from Tarsus. Expected to fall on turn 223.
- Susa can be handled by the forces NW of it, plus survivors from Tarsus being shipped up the coast. Add to this three WE being ship-chained from near Carthage. Should fall on turn 223.
- Roskilde can be taken by the WE that just took the town on the peninsula E of it. No need to take it before turn 223 so we can let them heal up a bit first.
- The invisible Arabian town is located S-SE of the pigs. The Timur stack (minus the 6.4) could be outside its gates 4 turns from now, attack on turn 5 (this is turn 0). The Baghdad stack could be there at the same time, with one turn healing. Saladin doesn't have longbows yet, so we should be able to simply swarm the town. It should fall on turn 223.

So, turn 223 it is, 5 turns from now. Wotan, ready for play? Otherwise unkle is next in line, if Chris doesn't want it.

I should be able to handle this during the week-end if needed. I'll definitely plan to have a look at the save tonight.
In all case, if Wotan or Chris can play, that's great too :D

Btw I do not know why but I can't see spoilers from zyxy's post :(

Nice plan Niklas! I haven't checked, but it sounds correct. Just don't underestimate longbows - they did kill lots of WE's on my set, even without defense bonus. (Two units to Roskilde is no overkill.)

Btw I do not know why but I can't see spoilers from zyxy's post :(

They are pictures, maybe they take a while to download?

No word from Wotan, so I guess unkle is up. Take her away! :)

Oh, and I just realized I had the turn numbers wrong by 10 in my post above, fixed now.

Ok I am up that's an official got it.

Will most probably post a plan later today, I still need to assess the situation (ie open the save and check Niklas plan).
I should play either late tomorrow, or late monday.

I am still here though RL is taking it's toll. I thought I would have the weekend to play a turnset but surprise, surprise, today is our 7th anniversary (me and Nina) so no can play. Sorry had almost forgotten about it... ;) But early next week should be fairly calm so I should be able to take the next turn set.

There won't be a next turnset. :p

But happy anniversary! [party]

Plan sounds good. Wotan or unkle can take it, I'm too busy this week.

:bump: unkle?

I am late, was taken by unexpected buisness trip.
I do have open the save, Niklas' plan seems pretty straightforward, but I do want to clarify it though.
I *should* be able to post it tonight (hopefully).

Just home from a business trip. We seem to be a busy team. I can play tomorrow if Unkle does not play today. Taking at least tomorrow morning off work so should be able to fit this. Will do my Civ3 Multiplayer demo game now, Niklas. it is after all a very quick thing to do. a couple of minutes... ;)

Sorry for the delay. Trip was even worse than expected. But I am back, so I can plan tonight. Yet, if Wotan can take it earlier, he can for sure :)

No, you take it. I have been so busy with other things and hardly been able to keep up with this game. I think you should have the honour of ending this game rather than I.

:bump: UNKLE! :whipped: (soon I'll take it myself...)

Sorry my life is currently messier than I'd like... I should have asked for a swap :blush:

Anyway here is the plan:
Turn 0
* switch Mecca and Jelling to catapult, cashrush in Jelling
* regroup stack around Timur, moving towards
* peek at Pasgardea defense with Zukhov (heal back)
* lmove southern galleon towards Tarsus this turn (1cats,2WE)

By towns:
* Baghdad: WE attack on turn 1, raze turn 1
* Tarsus: Bombard, wait for galleon ship from the South on turn 1, attack with turn 2 (3WE,2Cat, one sacrificied)
* Susa: move our galleon troops on turn1, unload, start bombarding turn2. Troops north (3WE) can be shipped faster by galleon (load turn 1, chain turn 1, unload turn 2 NW of Susa)
* Roskilde: should be dealt with troops on the NE Galleon, with a galleon chain they should be there ready to attack on turn 3 (1WE, 1Cat)
* Pasgardae: move Zoukhov stack at turn 2, attack at turn 3. We'll have at least 5 WE and an axe. Add some of Tarsus troops on turn 4.
* Arabian town: Move Baghdad stack, arrival at turn 4. Add Timur stack, unfortunately on turn 5...

Main issue for me is cat support in Pasgardae Walls+Culture+Longbows. Delaying Tarsus fight might be a better option.
I am even wondering if we should not have delayed Baghdad.

I should play by tomorrow evening. I might play in 2 sessions if something unexpected happens. I agree with Niklas that 5/6 turns is probably all what is needed.

Side note: I would promote our phants in Tarsus to C1, since they may have to defend against the 2 axes.

Looks good in general. A few things though (and I don't have the save here now and can't remember the details, so some of this may be stupid questions):

The troops for Roskilde seem a bit on the short side though, did you count the ones on the peninsula?

Is it possible for Timur to meet up with the Baghdad stack, letting them heal for that one turn while the rest of Timur's bunch catch up?

If the Elephants have to defend against the axes, wouldn't we be better off using those promotions to heal them up afterwards?

From where do you get the catapult(s) for Susa?

The troops for Roskilde seem a bit on the short side though, did you count the ones on the peninsula?

No. I do not expect much from Roskilde, no culture expansion, so I thought I cat, one WE should be ok. We could bring in one more WE if you think that's better.


Is it possible for Timur to meet up with the Baghdad stack, letting them heal for that one turn while the rest of Timur's bunch catch up?


I do not see how, unless Pasgardae falls. Without roads that's not doable I think.


If the Elephants have to defend against the axes, wouldn't we be better off using those promotions to heal them up afterwards?


Sure. "Doh" on me ;)


From where do you get the catapult(s) for Susa?

A galleon iirc.

Why is the tile 3W1N of Susa in Persian territory, but not the tile 3N1W of Susa?

By the way, the population on the demographics screen indicates that Persia has 3 cities of pop 12, 10, 4; Arabia has 2 cities of pop 7, 6; Vikings have 1 city of pop 1. So I'm pretty confident there aren't any we're missing, although there's always a small chance that one of them has another settler we haven't seen, or could conquer a barbarian town.

Playing time (finally I made it... sorry again):

Turn 0:
Move troops, produce.
Defense in Pasgardae: 2 LB + 1 Spear...

Turn 1, 219, 785AD:
Mecca, Jelling: Cat->Cat.
Baghdad is razed (WE vs Archer)
Chain troops towards Roskilde. It is defended by 1 LB.
Susa is defended by 2LB+Cat+Axe, plus another 2 axes that are coming back, preventing my troops to unload... so i kill a worker, and unload 2cats+1phant. More are on the way, but cyrus will be painful.

Turn 2, 220, 800AD:
Troop chaining, 3 more elephants around Susa.
Battle for Tarsus starts:
* Bombard once (2% defense) then
* sacrifice 1WE against LB -> (0/1)
* WE vs Sword -> (1/1)
* WE vs Cat -> (2/1)
* WE vs LB -> (3/1) and Tarsus is razed !
Swarming Pasgardae right now seems best move, in order to release fresh troops towards our Arabian friend.
So move WE+Cat from Tarsus towards Pasgardae, plus our 2 stacks.
Defense known:
Pasgardae: 2LB, 1Spear (still)
Susa: 3LB, 3Axes, 1Cat.
Roskilde: 1LB
Last town: ??

Turn 3, 221, 815AD:
Battle for Roskilde starts (need its results to decide where I'sail Tarsus troops)
* WE vs LB, 40% -> (0/1)
* WE vs LB (91%) -> (1/1), Roskilde razed. Ragnar is over.
Move towards last arabian town. Defense is... archer+spear+cat :D Our local troops will handle it easily, so no need to sacrifice too many troops in Susa/Pasgardae to go fast. We may hope to finish everyone on turn 4. So no amphibious landing, no cat scrifice yet.
I am posting a save, but next turn seems pretty straightforward: we should finish Arabia, then swarm Cyrus. Only question is whether we can do it next turn or not. I believe it can be done on turn 222. If you can comment before tonight CET, that would be great. If not, I'll just try to finish next turn. I really believe it can be done next turn based on troops ready to attack cities. Maybe adding some amphibious attacks from Tarsus can be helpful in Susa ? At least it can be done.

I do not know how far are the other teams... Are we competing for being third or no longer ?

Antway the save (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/saves/civ4sgotm6/Smurkz_SG006_AD0815_01.CivWarlordsSave) before last 1 (my guess) or 2 turns.

If all other teams are finished (just speculating) then we're currently in 5th place.

I think if you can finish in 830 AD, you should go for it. Tying CRC at 845 AD is OK, but why not try to beat them?

I also want you to finish so we can go read the other team threads :-)

We're still in the run for 3rd. The saves posted on the progress page are the last before victory. X-Team seems to be the most difficult opponent, their last non-win save was turn 215, so they may have beaten us already. Gypsy Kings' last save was turn 219 so we may beat them yet. In any case, every single turn counts! I'm having a look at the save now.

I had a look at the save and I agree that winning next turn should be pretty safe. We have so many cats that can do collateral damage at Susa that the Elephants should be able to walk right in afterwards. But yes, bring as many troops as you can from Tarsus, and the catapult from Roskilde too. Amphibious landings are still attacks, and we should be able to wear him down completely. At Pasagardae I would bombard with the Accuracy cat and suicide the other, not enough defenders there to make suiciding both worthwhile.

Oh, and I'm not sure why you're razing the towns. We have more than enough gold to handle it, and score is a tie breaker if we finish on the same turn.

I did *not* thought for tie-breaks :( Sorry for that, clearly I could have kept cities... I'll keep the last 3 then. If we loose on score, that will be my fault (I hope not...).
I cannot play *right* now, but definitely will play last turn (Since we agree it will be last turn) in ~4 hours. See you then ;) I'll probably keep Susa last, since this is where I expect more losses, just in case I need to move troops from other locations.

Aargh, the suspense!!!

So let's do that !

Turn 3, 221, 815AD:
Move Tarsus troops towards Susa.

IBT: Lost one WE in Susa to a cat attack... Nice move by the AI. Collateral damage on the most touchy city... We'll see.

Turn 4, 222, 830AD:
1. Saladin is over, we keep Damascus.
(lost an axe and a cat though).
2. Pasgardae: bombard+suicide cat.
Then we loose some elephants. But Pasgardae falls...
3. Susa:
Attack with all cats (#+2 amphibious) then send WE.
We need to attack with our amphibious ones !!
But it is then over: Susa is ours, and game is over :D

Turn 5, 223, 845AD:
Score ~71000
the save (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/saves/civ4sgotm6/Smurkz_SG006_AD0845_01.CivWarlordsSave)
I guess our victory in on turn 223, 845 AD. Let's see if it works for us :mischief:

Are we allowed to lurk in other teams threads or not ? It is verrry uncluear to me, so I'll refrain for now. But I'd like to :D

Congrats all.

Edited because a quick scan of the rules does leave it unclear if we can read other teams' threads. I'll ask the mod.

Congrats! You are 4-th! :goodjob:

I do not see Alan' post. But I think there is no matter :D

Alan says "Yes, you can read other team threads, but please don't post in them until they too have completed the game."

Congratulations :goodjob:

Yes, you can go and read the other team threads now. Surely you guys have played this competition before, and know how it works? :hmm: Anyway, I've added a sentence or two to clarify the rules.

It is always unclear to me if we are allowed after victory, I thought so, but better safe than sorry :)

Thanks everyone in the team for the game, I loved it. Apparently we missed few points that top 3 teams used:
* Caste to speed up GS
* Gold chopping (which sems to be related to overfolw, I need to dig on that)

but all in all, it is not too bad. Of course, finishing 4th is well, hum, we'll beat them next time for sure :)

AlanH thanks again for making this possible, we'll be waiting for next game now :D

Nicely done unkle, speeding up the game by a turn! :goodjob:

But I can't help feel disappointed that we missed a medal, again, and especially the way it happened. I absolutely hate random events that can have such a huge impact on a game. It doesn't matter that they are "part of the game", I certainly don't mind them in a solo game for my own recreation, they help making each game a unique experience. But in a competition, which this is, I really feel they should be removed.

But all in all it was a fun game, thanks to the staff for the very fun variant and setup. Not your fault what happened to us (regardless of my furious ravings). I am nothing but grateful to the great work you do. :thanx:

And thanks team. Next time we will soooo get them! :D

EDIT: Beating CRC was fun though, always something. ;)

Congratulations on your win Smurkz!

Fourth is a frustrating place to get... but it will put a fire in your belly for the next game!

Niklas, what was the event that set you guys back?

Edit: Ouch, I see the jungle/rice set back. Sorry that happened to your team. If the next sgotm is BTS then the whole random events discussion is bound come up.

We built our first city on the banana and then jungle grew over the riverside rice.

Nice finish Unkle. And good job everyone (but me) ;) I have had a terrible RL period in the way work has infringed on my Civving. Hope it will lessen the impact in a few weeks time. Would be fun tohave the time to play GOTMs again,

I think the rice->jungle is a very small part of why we are fourth. Basically we missed some winning moves, like chopping for walls+gold (still unclear to me how it works, but if overflow is transferred to gold with production bonus, then well, you get some money back :) ).

Wotan, I do not know for other teams, but we all had our RL issues. I hope you will get more time next game, and were able to enjoy this one anyway. One of the nice things about playing together next game again is that we start to know each other better, and that helps a lot to avoid misinterpretations :lol:

Anyway back to HOF before next SGOTM. Will it be BtS ?

Congrats on finishing

Anyway back to HOF before next SGOTM. Will it be BtS ?
Will most likely be BtS yes..

Gyathaar, :thumbsup: for the SGOTM series, as already mentionned.

Now we are waiting for next one :D (you shouldn't make these games so enjoyable you know...;) )

Basically we missed some winning moves, like chopping for walls+gold (still unclear to me how it works, but if overflow is transferred to gold with production bonus, then well, you get some money back :) ).
For more info on chopping for gold, please read the first two posts in this thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=218272)

And good game Smurkz! :goodjob:

Interesting article, thanks a lot leif! :)

And thanks to the X-Teamers and others for the well-wishers. Don't you worry, we'll get you next time. :D

Well done, all!

It was a nice game. Thanks to the staff for organizing!

But I can't help feel disappointed that we missed a medal, again, and especially the way it happened. I absolutely hate random events that can have such a huge impact on a game. It doesn't matter that they are "part of the game", I certainly don't mind them in a solo game for my own recreation, they help making each game a unique experience. But in a competition, which this is, I really feel they should be removed.We built our first city on the banana and then jungle grew over the riverside rice.I wouldn't classify that as a random event, because it's not completely out of your control. You can either settle elsewhere or develop the tile before the jungle creeps. I don't know how soon the jungle creeped in your case, but you evidently included the developed rice tile in your strategy. Therefore, I'd classify it as risk-taking (on your part). (Sorry if this sounds harsh, but jungle creep plays a huge part in my early considerations. See my posts in SG5. We farmed/cottaged the southern tiles first just to block jungle creep.)

I don't know the likelihood of jungle creep, but it surely happens enough in my games that I'm leery of settling near such resources and if I do, I try to get them developed asap.

I wouldn't classify that as a random event, because it's not completely out of your control. You can either settle elsewhere or develop the tile before the jungle creeps. I don't know how soon the jungle creeped in your case, but you evidently included the developed rice tile in your strategy.
The jungle grew on turn 19, before we had the chance to do anything with it. Farming the rice was our first priority, jungle or no jungle.

Therefore, I'd classify it as risk-taking (on your part). (Sorry if this sounds harsh, but jungle creep plays a huge part in my early considerations. See my posts in SG5. We farmed/cottaged the southern tiles first just to block jungle creep.)

I don't know the likelihood of jungle creep, but it surely happens enough in my games that I'm leery of settling near such resources and if I do, I try to get them developed asap.
I guess here and now is a place as good as any to start this discussion. I don't really have time for it, but I feel strongly enough about it to grab that time anyway. :rolleyes:

Random event balance

IMO, there's a balance to be sought regarding randomness in a game like this. There should of course be some randomness, otherwise there would be no excitement. Battles in particular should include an element of randomness, otherwise it would be outright boring.

In general, I would say a random event can be categorized by three factors:
- Probability: In 1000 (or X) games, how many times does it happen?
- Randomness: Is it truly random, or can the probability be affected by actions of the player, and if yes how much?
- Impact: How big a difference does it make for the game overall?

The truly bad combination is, IMNSHO, an event with very low probability, complete (or close) randomness and a huge impact. Good or bad impact doesn't matter, either hurts competition by just as much. Lower impact events are not a big deal either way, regardless of their probability and randomness. Events that can be easily affected by the player are also no big deal, and at the extreme they wouldn't be random at all. And events with a high enough probability that all games would be more or less equally effected are also no big deal, from the POV of a competition.

A typical bad example drawn from Civ3 is Scientific Great Leaders. Every time you research a tech no one had researched before you, there is a 3% chance that an SGL pops for you (5% for scientific civs). And if you get one, you can rush a wonder for free. The probability here is obviously very low. You cannot affect the probability more than by deliberately going for techs no one has researched before you, but that still doesn't increase the overall probability by much. And there will always be that one game in 100 that pops two SGLs on their first two researched techs, getting the Pyramids and the Temple of Artemis for free. In Civ3 GOTMs this is clearly recognized as a bad thing, and SGLs are turned off for all GOTM games.

CIV and randomness

It is evident from the design of CIV compared to Civ3 that the designers have been well aware of this. Much of the blatant randomness from Civ3 has been removed or made much more predictable. Great People are now completely predictable instead of randomly occuring. The battle system has been revamped to make combat much more predictable too, with the hp system that strongly favors the stronger combattant (drastically reducing the spear vs tank problem, which at the core is a problem with unchecked randomness). Citizens dying at random from disease from flood plains or jungles have been transformed into a static unhealth penalty. Galleys can no longer travel open waters at all, and thus the random sinking of "suicide" ships has been removed.

The randomness that remains in CIV is, as noted, still mostly predictable. Battles are random, but you can easily calculate the exact probabilities of each combat, even if a larger battle containing several units on both sides is more difficult, and they are frequent enough to fall into the high-probability range, i.e. all games will be more or less equally affected. Apart from that, the only randomness (AFAIR, and that isn't tied to the actions of the AI) that remains in the game (pre-BTS) is forest and jungle spread, and the random popping of resources in a mine.

Forest spread is obviously not so bad, where bad is meant here on a blessing-curse scale. You only need BW to get rid of a badly placed forest, which is relatively cheap. You also get extra hammers when chopping it, so in most cases you would consider forest growth a small blessing, offsetting any negative effects it might have. The chances of spread are fairly low, low enough that you can't count on it happening, and there's very little you can do to affect it, but the impact on your game overall is also rather low. As random events go, this one is a decent one, because of the minor impact.

Jungle creep is obviously always a curse. You need IW to get rid of it, which is a lot more expensive. And you don't get any hammers, so there's no benefit of it whatsoever. Also, as demonstrated in our game, the impact can be really large. And the chances of spread are still relatively low, low enough that gambling would pay off in the vast majority of cases.

The popping of bonus resources in a mine is obviously a huge blessing with (almost) no drawbacks. Possibly you might curse popping gems/silver/gold in the radius of your production powerhouse, but in the vast majority of cases you'd bless your luck if you got an extra resource. The chances are low, but the impact could be huge.

IMO, the latter two are definite mis-features. CIV has done a tremendous job in reducing the unpredictable randomness, to make for a level playing field, but fails in those two cases. Both are highly random, meaning their is little or nothing you as a player can do to affect them. Yes, you can improve your land to avoid jungle spread, but obviously not if it happens early (as demostrated in our game here). And both can have a huge impact for the remainder of the game. Both are low probability, meaning that in a competition such as this it is highly unlikely that all games will be equally effected (indeed the most common case is that all games are totally unaffected). The low probability also means, in the jungle spread case, that a player that gambles will succeed more often than not, and beat the player that gambles and fails on randomness alone. Being leery of taking the risk is IMO not argument alone, since the player deciding to take the risk and succeeds (which is the common case) will have such a large benefit.

GOTM and Randomness

I would definitely like to see the GOTMs do something about these.

Regarding mine bonus resources, I think it should simply be removed for all (S)GOTM games. Not only does it hurt comparability between games, it can also seriously upset the balance that a map maker has tried to carefully construct. A map with no copper, to make for a fun change? Oops, I popped some, sorry to spoil the fun. I don't see any redeeming factors at all, and I don't see any way to change them so that they would be more palatable. Making them more common would obviously upset the game balance completely. There's no way to make players affect their appearance (and again, if there were it would upset game balance), and there's also no way to reduce their impact.

Regarding jungle spread, it obviously isn't so bad in most cases, and there are IMO good ways to change the event as such to make it a lot more palatable. Two things off the top of my head is to ensure that jungle never spreads over resources, or to remove jungle spread during the first X turns when it can do the most harm.

Am I alone with these opinions?


As an aside, AlanH asked me early on in this thread if I would have wanted him to reverse the effects of a good random event too. The answer is, in general, yes, though I can't say I would have been noble enough to step up and say that if it had happened in our game. But it would definitely have felt a bit cheap, it certainly did in BOTM02 where I popped gems in the capitol early on. I really don't like this kind of randomness in a game, regardless of what guise it comes in.


Leading question. I hate barbarians. And I think the random impact they can have on games is too large. I don't see what to do about it though, which is why I will simply air my frustration here and not propose anything to be done about it.

Yes, barbarians always appear, so the probability of that is high. Yes, you can do a lot about them, with a perimeter defense and good fog busting. But in the early game, losing a single against-the-odds battle (again, low probability random event) against a barbarian could be make or break. In one past game I played three test games with the same settings, never having barbarians getting anywhere close to my capitol or ever being more than a nuisance, and then in the actual game I lost two early battles against the odds and was swarmed. Huge impact, low probability and nothing more I could do.

I would like to see more games with No Barbarians turned on. In particular on the higher levels where the impact is larger. But this is all an aside, it's the other sections of this post that matter.

I think the rice->jungle is a very small part of why we are fourth.

I think it set us back about 10-15 turns. Being farther along economically also makes everyone else easier to conquer (plus it seems our opponents got Feudalism faster than everyone else's), so I think without the jungle growth, if we did everything else the same, we would have finished 15-20 turns sooner. I have no idea where that would put us relative to other teams.

We also delayed getting Astronomy by about 10 turns when we had to rush a defender in Corinth. However, that might mean less than 10 turns difference in conquest time (but it might not, if we had gotten to our enemies before we had to face longbows, that might have made up for having fewer units ourselves).

If our strategy could have gotten us a win 25-30 turns sooner, subject to these two issues, then it seems very competitive with the different approaches that other teams took.

I have no idea where that would put us relative to other teams.
If you are interested, I created a spreadsheet that shows the major events, by turn, for the top five finishers and posted it in XTeam's thread.

@Niklas: Read your post and I understand your points. I also read the first few pages of your thread, including the discussion you, DaviddesJ, and the others had on the jungle-on-rice event. For starters, maybe I overlooked it, but I didn't notice a single comment expressing concern for jungle creep on that rice. We're talking about a rice tile with 4 of the 9 adjacent tiles covered by jungle!!!

That said, I think DaviddesJ presents the most balanced view, in light of this being a competition of people playing CIV (as opposed to some variation). One reason people like CIV is that it attempts to resemble real life to some extent.

More specific to your above post, I can think of tons of examples of "random events" that drastically affect the outcome of a (S)GOTM. Nerf them all and what you have left is...a spreadsheet or something, rather than a game. For example:

0. SG6: Some teams were lucky enough to see the Alex workboat coming up from the south, so they knew the approximate location of ALex's coastal capital much sooner than Murky Waters. Along with Alex's power graphs, that was huge spoiler info for anyone who was clever enough to use it. I can guarantee you that if Murky Waters had been privy to that early bit of knowledge, ALex would have died sooner.
1. SG5: horses in the capital's FC. CFR wins because they researched AH first. Murky Waters researched BW, they lose. (yes, I'm exagerating a bit to make a point).
2. SG5: CFR settles city to the SE on the cape, they build a mine on the worthless desert hill, THEN they research IW and boom, they have iron already hooked up. Hello, Admins, can you delete that iron please?
3. SG2: CFR pops mining from the hut?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? Now that was ABSOLUTELY a game changer. While everyone else researched mining to mine the gems, they researhed polytheism and got automatic border expansion in their city... (this example was so bad that I doubt huts will ever be close to the atarting settler again, so maybe this example is a bit out of the loop).
4. I forget which GOTM I played. I settled 1W on the obviously most logical location. Others settled in place. Lo and behold, I settled on the copper. My capital's prodcution was pitiful compared to everyone else's.

In short, you omitted one of the biggest, most game-impacting 'random' factors--location of yet-to-be-revealed resources. So, should the admins just reveal all resources, including uranium, in advance?

Another huge factor is AI location. SHould we just remove that annoyance and know where all AIs are located? After all, if I go east and you go west, one of us may be drastically lucky to find AI-Joe first.

So what do you nerf? All, none, what? What I thought was particularly interesting about this SG was how many teams were actually in the running and how differently each played. You guys did great to overcome the rice jungle. In fact, you were kind of lucky that it was All War, because beelinging IW was potentially the best strategy anyway (i.e., the usual bee-lining Alpha was useless). As we played, I got the impression from some team power graphs that some people had bee-lined IW and I was worried that it might be a better strategy than ours.

I tend to agree on the fact that nerfing too many events is ruining the game. I understand Niklas's reaction though, because we were excited of having a great start and seing a potential medal. All in all that was a good game for us, a we now have a revenge to take on the RNG :-)

Remember that jungle expansion (as forest) is checked on the 4 neighbours. SO it had 2 neighbours with jungle. Tough to find the actual number, by my understanding was that with 4 neighbours, it was around 0.1% per turn ! At turn 17, just before we can get it, it was 1-(1-0.1/2)^17, which is still, mmm, lower than 1%.
So saying we should have planned for it is well, a litlle over stated :D

Anyway no point talking on that to much. We'll kick some a** on next SGOTM :mischief:

For starters, maybe I overlooked it, but I didn't notice a single comment expressing concern for jungle creep on that rice. We're talking about a rice tile with 4 of the 9 adjacent tiles covered by jungle!!!

I haven't paid attention to where the other teams founded their capitals (and the different teams might have had different information), but it's absolutely clear that we found the best spot. Indeed, I think this was a big advantage for us (right up to the bad luck). If you're trying to maximize your probability of winning, it's silly to be concerned about something that will happen less than 1% of the time, when the other 99% of the time you get a substantial benefit.

I have been through the games of Smurkz, Murky Waters, One Short Straw, CRC and our own. You were the only team to found on the Banana tile. Murky founded on the hill SE of the starting location while the other three teams founded on the Dye tile.

Checked each final save and the Rice tile had jungle grown over it in every one of the five except Murky's. As it didn't affect anyone besides Smurkz, there really isn't any note of when it happened and no team cleared it except Smurkz.

If XTeam had founded on the Banana tile and the rice grew over with jungle on turn 19, I would have been [pissed] :gripe: :badcomp:

However, I don't see any reasonable remedy for it. :dunno:
It certainly affected your finish date. I think you recovered very well from it, if that helps? :)

I haven't paid attention to where the other teams founded their capitals (and the different teams might have had different information), but it's absolutely clear that we found the best spot. Indeed, I think this was a big advantage for us (right up to the bad luck). If you're trying to maximize your probability of winning, it's silly to be concerned about something that will happen less than 1% of the time, when the other 99% of the time you get a substantial benefit.From the growth perspective, I can see what you're saying. But you're also saying that in hindsight, which none of us had at the beginning. THis was All War and our position on the hill between the rivers offered two things none of the rest of you had: 1) Extremely safe capital position because of the hill and river defense bonuses and 2) connection to both rivers without The Wheel. As it turned out, the defense bonuses weren't needed, but we could have had more AIs on our home continent. Maximizing our connection to rivers paid off. You guys couldn't connect to the copper without The Wheel. That's in addition the threat of jungle creep, which I consider a big risk. 1% up or down, I see jungle creeping sooner or later in most of my games.

In short, I don't see how any one starting position can be evaluated as having been the best. Too many factors involved. Unless...we try playing the game again, with hindsight...and see which one wins faster. I'd bank on early connection to copper...

I'll try to find the time to answer your main questions soon, I'm really busy now though. But I can answer this last one (which wasn't a question). We did not need TW to connect our copper, the rivers were already connected by being connected to the same tile. So I definitely agree with David that our starting position was the best. But that's irrelevant to the other questions...

That's in addition the threat of jungle creep, which I consider a big risk. 1% up or down, I see jungle creeping sooner or later in most of my games.

Jungle creep onto the rice is impossible after the farm is built, because jungle doesn't grow on tiles that are improved. There's only a (significantly less than) 1% chance of jungle growing before the farm is built; after that, it's safe for the rest of the game.

Jungle creep onto the rice is impossible after the farm is built, because jungle doesn't grow on tiles that are improved. There's only a (significantly less than) 1% chance of jungle growing before the farm is built; after that, it's safe for the rest of the game.Yes, I realize that. ONe thing I don't know, though, is whether jungle creep is prevented by a worker actively building a farm. Do you know? Because I think you guys were just two or three turns from starting the farm, weren't you?

To me, this is like loosing a fight with a Maceman against a fortified warrior. It may happen, but building your game around this fact is not competitive...
Of course getting such a bad luck in the 30 first turns is even bigger :)

Anyway what was good is that after this, we went less cautious about anything. I do think we need to be even more greedy next SGOTM, because we are still (probably our natural tendancy as single players) a quiet team :-)

Yes, I realize that. ONe thing I don't know, though, is whether jungle creep is prevented by a worker actively building a farm. Do you know?

If you know that jungle growth can't happen once the farm is built, then I don't understand why you say that it's a problem throughout the game. We really don't care if we get some jungle growth on some other tiles---it's just not a big deal.

I don't know the answer to the worker question. The probability would be even smaller if the jungle growth is blocked once we start building the farm.

If the jungle is not blocked, I don't know what would happen if it grows when you're in the process of building the improvement. It may be that jungle or forest growth is blocked on any space with a unit on it, at all? It would be interesting if someone would do a test to figure that out (make a map with lots of jungle adjacent to non-jungle, put workers/units on all of the non-jungle spaces, turn the jungle growth rate up way high, and see what happens).

If you know that jungle growth can't happen once the farm is built, then I don't understand why you say that it's a problem throughout the game.I said sooner or later, not throughout. I'm confident you know the difference.

But "later" isn't relevant in the context of this discussion, is it?

But "later" isn't relevant in the context of this discussion, is it?You guys are funny. Of course, I'm referring to sooner or later in the early game, when it counts. I'm not just blabbing away here. Of course jungle creep doesn't happen every early game, but SGs don't happen every month either, do they?

Okay, let me just go back to my point, which is that I prefer to avoid the risk of jungle creeping onto a resource that I'm counting on in the early game, if at all feasible. Instead of trying to (fruitlessly?) re-explain my point, permit me to quote akots and Balbes:Remember, teams who play it safe don't win - they finish in the top half. The winner is somebody who took a risk and it paid off. (Of course the bottom half are those who gambled and lost.)Top half sounds OK to me. I don't think that any gamble is worth a risk of losing the game. As I said previously, I try always to play the starting moves risk-free and not rely on chance and luck here. Let's try to discuss this on a rational basis and tomorrow when the heads are more clear and fog of opportunity can be replaced with a clear picture of the future and desire to gamble does calm down a little bit.In my book, risk-free means just that: risk-free. Not almost risk-free.Remember, teams who play it safe don't win - they finish in the top half. The winner is somebody who took a risk and it paid off. (Of course the bottom half are those who gambled and lost.)Let's try to discuss this on a rational basisBut this is on a completely rational basis:) I'm not preaching along the lines of "better lucky than good". What I mean to say one must be good and lucky in order to be gunning for the 1st place, which I believe we're trying to do. Suppose there's 20 teams and 10 of them chose to pass up the opportnity. Of the other 10 who gambled, 2 won and 8 lost. Now you have 2 teams doing great, 10 doing so-so, and 8 probably out of the race. You need to be one of the 2 successful teams. Personally, I hate taking this kind of risks, but there's no way around that, or the other guy who didn't hesitate is going to pull ahead. To sum it up, you must be willing to jump at opportunities, you must be lucky enough to have it pay off every time, and you must play skillfully in between.

OK, here we disagree. This is a non-reload game and we cannot know whether we succeed or not. Also, I don't think you have to be lucky to win this competition. I do belive that to win, we have to play like a team and discuss every move and try to convince the other team members that what is planned is a good thing to do and not just someting that we have to do in order to win. Believe me, I have played a lot of SGOTMs, sometimes won, sometimes lost but never gambled on something which cannot be properly controlled.To be clear, akots is discussing not hoping for 'good' luck and I'm suggesting that you guys were hoping for not 'bad' luck,* but the point remains the same. Evidently, I side with akots and you guys side with Balbes on this point.

*Assuming any of you guys even considered the very small possibility of jungle creep, which is not evident from your thread.

Bottom line, you guys played what I consider a risky strategy and you got snake-bit. I play most of my GOTMs risky and get snake-bit most of the time....

Hey guys, I do not think we disagree *that* much right ? Only think that really matters is to know when you start thinking you are gambling... Gambling is sending an early settler without too much exploration for instance. Or moving away from starting point *without* info,...

To me, you are not gambling when chance is ~1%. That's all :) But I do see your point. If risk-free is really risk-free, then you cannot do much unless protected by several warriors (bears do happen,...), etc. That's all. And I'll definitely play the same again.

Yes, I realize that. ONe thing I don't know, though, is whether jungle creep is prevented by a worker actively building a farm. Do you know? Because I think you guys were just two or three turns from starting the farm, weren't you?

Jungle growth is blocked by simply starting a productivity-enhancing improvement on a tile. So the probability of jungle creep on the rice tile should be zero after your first worker is built.

If the probability of jungle creep on the rice was indeed 1%, it would be foolish to not utilize a good starting spot for fear of this risk. You can't win a tournament playing with the fear of very unlikely events.

At Xteam, we were stung heavily by another unlikely event. Our initial capture of Carthage (Hannibal's only city) was thwarted despite being >98% to take it. Had we not had that bad luck, we would have been the first team to clear our starting continent, and would have gotten to Astro a good bit sooner.

I can think of at least one other team that had a painful roll of the die (RMB).

@LC:
I agree with akots too! Balbes is arguing that you should take a gamble that is expected to pay off 2 times out of 10. I would never argue that you should take such risks in a game like this.

It is totally impossible to play a risk-free game. You always run the risk of losing a fight even if your odds are brilliant. The team that brings in 3 attackers against 3 defenders and hope to win, when each attack is 50-50, is reckless and gambling. The team that brings 5-6 attackers against 3 defenders are probably close to the mark in terms of optimal outcome over the whole game. The team that brings 15 attackers against 3 defenders to get the chance of losing below 1% (I didn't do the maths) are no less stupid than the ones who brought only 3, and they will not win the game.

In our situation, we needed the rice to stay clear for <25 turns, which (by maths others have presented) means 1% risk over the whole game. The team that discards a great site for the capitol because of a 1% risk it might go awry are IMO just as stupid as the ones bringing 15 units in my example above. I can agree that there are other good replacement sites that may have been equally good, that's an orthogonal discussion. But to discard a site because of that 1% risk, no, I don't buy that argument, and like everyone else in our team has expressed, we would have done the same again and again.

You are right that we did not consider jungle creep when we decided where to settle. This is not because we were stupid, or not knowing about it, but simply because it was such an unlikely thing that it didn't even cross our minds. At least for me that's true, and I'm pretty sure that goes for the rest as well. And if in the next game we end up with a resource next to a jungle, and with this game fresh in mind, I'm sure we would still settle next to it and take that 1% risk.

To answer some of your comments in your earlier post: I totally agree that a game completely without randomness would be rather boring. The question is in what guise that randomness comes. There is good randomness, and there is bad randomness, I doubt even you would say otherwise. Clearly Firaxis have, as I argued before, realized this and taken measures to steer most of the randomness into the good category. I claim that they have failed in the cases I have listed.

But to be specific about your listed examples; the actions of the player are never never completely random, unless you literally flip a coin. The direction you send your scout, where you place your towns even before knowing resource locations, all such things can to a very large extent be affected by the player. They are perfect examples of the kind of good randomness (or not really randomness) that I think the game should contain. The actions of the AI are also not completely random, indeed if the AIs were programmed to act randomly we would have a boring game. We need predictability, and we need to be able to make educated choices based on that.

The case you list with a team popping a key tech from a hut, that's bad randomness too. And I think the GOTM staff have learnt something from that, since we never see huts close to the start any more. That's a very good move by the staff, and I'm asking something similar to be done for the cases of randomness I've listed here.

To repeat myself: a random event that is too unlikely to be accounted for, totally unaffectable, and has a large impact on the game, can IMO not be considered anything but a design flaw.

I'm also not arguing this for the sake of our game here and now (regardless of what I heatedly said when it happened). We played to the end, got the end date we got, and that's it. I'm arguing for the sake of future games, where I want as fair a competition as possible. I don't care if it happens to our own game or to some other team's, I strongly dislike it regardless. I wasn't particularly happy about popping gems in my capitol's BFC in BOTM02 for instance, that just felt cheesy. I truly think this is a design flaw in the game, and one that could and should be remedied by the GOTMs, just like SGLs were removed for Civ3 GOTM.


@ShannonT:
As I noted in my original post, I would argue that some randomness is "good" from a design perspective, while some is not good. We had pretty lousy luck failing to capture Athens, losing 2 elephants who each had >60% chance, without doing a single hp damage. But that kind of randomness is still something we can affect ourselves, so it's not truly completely random. We can choose to bring in one more unit to be safer. Or we can play it slightly less safe, as we both did, knowing that amortized over the course of the whole game we will likely win time by it rather than lose, even if we lose one crucial fight. And over the course of a whole game, all teams are bound to have some bad battle luck. We're not upset about our battle luck at Athens - c'est la vie. What we're upset with is a single, totally random event (totally meaning we could have done nothing to affect it), with ~1% probability (meaning it would be stupid to try to account for it), and with a direct impact of ~15 turns (David's estimate, I think it's more) on our end date.

@ShannonT:
As I noted in my original post, I would argue that some randomness is "good" from a design perspective, while some is not good. We had pretty lousy luck failing to capture Athens, losing 2 elephants who each had >60% chance, without doing a single hp damage. But that kind of randomness is still something we can affect ourselves, so it's not truly completely random. We can choose to bring in one more unit to be safer. Or we can play it slightly less safe, as we both did, knowing that amortized over the course of the whole game we will likely win time by it rather than lose, even if we lose one crucial fight. And over the course of a whole game, all teams are bound to have some bad battle luck. We're not upset about our battle luck at Athens - c'est la vie. What we're upset with is a single, totally random event (totally meaning we could have done nothing to affect it), with ~1% probability (meaning it would be stupid to try to account for it), and with a direct impact of ~15 turns (David's estimate, I think it's more) on our end date.

It turns out, I've discovered from testing, that you could have prevented jungle creep on the rice tile by placing your warrior there. (I have no idea how to verify this from the code itself, but my testing has convinced me that it's true.)

Is that case, the "bad randomness" you suffered was completely preventable. The tradeoff, of course, would be not being able to use your warrior for exploration. But it's now a tradeoff like one would make if one brought an extra unit to make the probability of winning a battle 99.99% instead of 99%.

It turns out, I've discovered from testing, that you could have prevented jungle creep on the rice tile by placing your warrior there. (I have no idea how to verify this from the code itself, but my testing has convinced me that it's true.)
How much testing? I could almost swear this was not the case, since I have strong memories of having a fog-busting warrior on a hill suddenly "grow a wall of trees". I could certainly be wrong though. Checking in the code would be nice, but I've already tried to dig there and failed.

Is that case, the "bad randomness" you suffered was completely preventable. The tradeoff, of course, would be not being able to use your warrior for exploration. But it's now a tradeoff like one would make if one brought an extra unit to make the probability of winning a battle 99.99% instead of 99%.
I agree. If it is indeed the case that placing the warrior there would have prevented the spread, then it changes things. It's no longer unpreventable (unless it happens before the warrior could get there of course). But still, I don't see any team that truly would do that. The cost of lost exploration is pretty dire to pay for that 99.99 instead of just 99. Sort of like the team bringing 15 units when 5-6 will do. For that reason I still think jungle creep is "bad" from the design POV, and I still want to see it remedied in some way. But your argument is certainly valid.

How much testing? I could almost swear this was not the case, since I have strong memories of having a fog-busting warrior on a hill suddenly "grow a wall of trees". I could certainly be wrong though. Checking in the code would be nice, but I've already tried to dig there and failed.

I placed three cities in the jungle, cleared some jungle so that 2/3 of the land in the BFC was jungle and 1/3 was grassland. That's ~40 jungle tiles and ~20 grassland in the BFCs. I then set down 6 warriors on grassland tiles. Then I hit enter 180 times. 10 of the grassland tiles without warriors turned to jungle. None of the grassland tiles with warriors turned to jungle. Based on that, it's highly unlikely that jungles can grow under the feet of warriors. You're welcome to test more and try to prove me wrong.

The game is probably coded differently for forests, since forest growth is considered a good thing in most situations. But it seems that the designers designed the game to allow players to eliminate the kind of bad luck you experienced. It's just one of the hundreds of little game features that not many people know about (including me until just now).

I agree. If it is indeed the case that placing the warrior there would have prevented the spread, then it changes things. It's no longer unpreventable (unless it happens before the warrior could get there of course). But still, I don't see any team that truly would do that. The cost of lost exploration is pretty dire to pay for that 99.99 instead of just 99. Sort of like the team bringing 15 units when 5-6 will do. For that reason I still think jungle creep is "bad" from the design POV, and I still want to see it remedied in some way. But your argument is certainly valid.

You could have moved your warrior onto the rice on the same turn that you founded London, so the creep was completely preventable. And keeping the warrior in your borders was a decent option anyway with it being an Always War game. Since you guys were planning to go Hunting->Archery after Agriculture, you weren't going to use your warrior to search for the nearest AI to rush. Granted, it's still nice to get exploring as early as possible, but you could have scouted a good second city location before your settler was finished if you had delayed scouting until after your worker had started on the rice.

Based on that, it's highly unlikely that jungles can grow under the feet of warriors. You're welcome to test more and try to prove me wrong.

Note, you can make such testing easier by increasing the jungle growth rate in Civ4.ini.

The game is probably coded differently for forests

I would give very long odds against it.

I placed three cities in the jungle, cleared some jungle so that 2/3 of the land in the BFC was jungle and 1/3 was grassland. That's ~40 jungle tiles and ~20 grassland in the BFCs. I then set down 6 warriors on grassland tiles. Then I hit enter 180 times. 10 of the grassland tiles without warriors turned to jungle. None of the grassland tiles with warriors turned to jungle. Based on that, it's highly unlikely that jungles can grow under the feet of warriors. You're welcome to test more and try to prove me wrong.
That's certainly a rather thorough test, and I will agree that you likely have it right. Jungles don't grow on trampled soil. That's very good to know.

The game is probably coded differently for forests, since forest growth is considered a good thing in most situations. But it seems that the designers designed the game to allow players to eliminate the kind of bad luck you experienced. It's just one of the hundreds of little game features that not many people know about (including me until just now).
I gotta agree with David that it's unlikely forest spread is coded differently. It's more likely that I remember wrong, wouldn't be the first time. But I agree with your conclusion that the designers have given us a way out, kudos to them for thinking that far.

You could have moved your warrior onto the rice on the same turn that you founded London, so the creep was completely preventable. And keeping the warrior in your borders was a decent option anyway with it being an Always War game. Since you guys were planning to go Hunting->Archery after Agriculture, you weren't going to use your warrior to search for the nearest AI to rush. Granted, it's still nice to get exploring as early as possible, but you could have scouted a good second city location before your settler was finished if you had delayed scouting until after your worker had started on the rice.
All true for this game, but in the general case? I agree though that this makes jungle creep a lot less dangerous, to the point where most of the design badness of this random event goes away. Most, but certainly not all. I no longer feel so strongly about it, though I'm still leaning towards nerfing it, as I said in my last post.

EDIT: I also suddenly remember the staff's seeming preference for removing the warrior for Challengers. Suddently that has a lot more implications...

I still don't see any redeeming features with popping a mine resource out of the blue though. What do the rest of you think about that?

I agree with your conclusion that the designers have given us a way out, kudos to them for thinking that far.

I'm sure they didn't code it this way in order to create a strategy of parking units on tiles to avoid jungle growth. They just wanted to avoid the awkward case where a jungle grows on a tile while a worker is improving it, or about to improve it. It's easier and simpler to check whether a unit is there, than to check whether an improvement is currently being built. That's what I'd code (which is why I suggested this as the likely implementation in the first place).

I still don't see any redeeming features with popping a mine resource out of the blue though. What do the rest of you think about that?

I like randomness. As I've said many times before, 99% of Civ4 games are not "competitive", and so I think the designers should give essentially zero weight to such concerns. But, even aside from that, I personally think the random element is just fine in the "competitive" games as well.

I think you could set the probability of discovering mine resources (and jungle growth) to zero in the GOTM mod, if you wanted.

This randomness that you're worried about is all way less than the random generation of leaders in Civ3, by the way.

I'm sure they didn't code it this way in order to create a strategy of parking units on tiles to avoid jungle growth. They just wanted to avoid the awkward case where a jungle grows on a tile while a worker is improving it, or about to improve it. It's easier and simpler to check whether a unit is there, than to check whether an improvement is currently being built. That's what I'd code (which is why I suggested this as the likely implementation in the first place).
In SGOTM2 I had this happen. A worker was just about to complete a rice paddy, but I needed to complete a road on an adjacent tile, and in that single turn a jungle crept onto the rice. So it's not just about having turns put into am improvement, you actually have to have a unit there.
I was under the impression that forest/jungle growth was more likely in the early turns of the game, due to more years passing per turn. Is this wrong?
My experience in SGOTM2 and my belief that jungle growth is more likely in the early turns(right or wrong), would make me reluctant to settle that spot. That being said, in this game, I didn't even see the possibility of doing so.
I agree that it was the best spot to settle if we disregard jungle creep.

Good game Smurkz!

TDK

I never thought jungle/forest growth would be linked to number of years rather than number of turns.
I tend to agree that we see it much more early in the game. Which could be due to:
* jungle growth rate is based on years
* we clear forest jungle so regrowth is less likely (missing seeds somehow)
* this is something that matters us only in the early years (so our perception is biased)

So since I estimated the ~1%, I may be wrong on the number (would doubt it would be much bigger though).

In all case your SGOTM2 experience is something very interesting to me...

To save you from some work...

This is the code in BtS (didnt check if it has changed much from warlords)
void CvPlot::doFeature()
{
PROFILE("CvPlot::doFeature()")

CvCity* pCity;
CvPlot* pLoopPlot;
CvWString szBuffer;
int iProbability;
int iI, iJ;

if (getFeatureType() != NO_FEATURE)
{
iProbability = GC.getFeatureInfo(getFeatureType()).getDisappearan ceProbability();

if (iProbability > 0)
{
if (GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(10000, "Feature Disappearance") < iProbability)
{
setFeatureType(NO_FEATURE);
}
}
}
else
{
if (!isUnit())
{
if (getImprovementType() == NO_IMPROVEMENT)
{
for (iI = 0; iI < GC.getNumFeatureInfos(); ++iI)
{
if (canHaveFeature((FeatureTypes)iI))
{
if ((getBonusType() == NO_BONUS) || (GC.getBonusInfo(getBonusType()).isFeature(iI)))
{
iProbability = 0;

for (iJ = 0; iJ < NUM_CARDINALDIRECTION_TYPES; iJ++)
{
pLoopPlot = plotCardinalDirection(getX_INLINE(), getY_INLINE(), ((CardinalDirectionTypes)iJ));

if (pLoopPlot != NULL)
{
if (pLoopPlot->getFeatureType() == ((FeatureTypes)iI))
{
if (pLoopPlot->getImprovementType() == NO_IMPROVEMENT)
{
iProbability += GC.getFeatureInfo((FeatureTypes)iI).getGrowthProba bility();
}
else
{
iProbability += GC.getImprovementInfo(pLoopPlot->getImprovementType()).getFeatureGrowthProbability( );
}
}
}
}

iProbability *= std::max(0, (GC.getFEATURE_GROWTH_MODIFIER() + 100));
iProbability /= 100;

if (isRoute())
{
iProbability *= std::max(0, (GC.getROUTE_FEATURE_GROWTH_MODIFIER() + 100));
iProbability /= 100;
}

if (iProbability > 0)
{
if (GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(10000, "Feature Growth") < iProbability)
{
setFeatureType((FeatureTypes)iI);

pCity = GC.getMapINLINE().findCity(getX_INLINE(), getY_INLINE(), getOwnerINLINE(), NO_TEAM, false);

if (pCity != NULL)
{
// Tell the owner of this city.
szBuffer = gDLL->getText(&qu