Welcome to your C_IV Warlords SGOTM 6 Team Thread. Please use it for all internal team communication, turn logs and discussions. Subscribe to it to receive notifications, and do not visit the other team threads for this game until you have finished. Please also subscribe to the Maintenance Thread for this game, where teams and staff may post non-spoiler information of general interest.

The Game

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

Teams will compete for up to four awards - the Gold, Silver and Bronze Laurels for the fastest finishes, and the Wooden Spoons for the lowest scoring finisher. The number of awards may be reduced, depending on the number of teams who sign up.

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

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


Enjoy your mystery tour of the World of Warlords.

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)

Dates listed are the expected last date for handoff by that player in the ongoing cycle. The closer it is to your turn, the more accurate that date is. Please ask for a skip or swap in good time if the date doesn't fit well.

Turnlogs:
4000 BC - 3580 BC (1-15) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6261670&postcount=76)
3580 BC - 3530 BC (15-19) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6275327&postcount=145)
3530 BC - 3310 BC (19-33) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6283772&postcount=222)
3310 BC - 2920 BC (33-36) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6287961&postcount=240)
2920 BC - 2650 BC (36-45) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6290265&postcount=256)
2650 BC - 2590 BC (45-47) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6292161&postcount=273)
2590 BC - 1870 BC (47-71) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6295045&postcount=285)
1870 BC - 1480 BC (71-84) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6305298&postcount=342)
1480 BC - 1030 BC (84-99) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6307304&postcount=361)
1030 BC - 925 BC (99-105) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6313319&postcount=378)
925 BC - 895 BC (105-107) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6315267&postcount=388)
895 BC - 745 BC (107-117) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6326668&postcount=460)
745 BC - 595 BC (117-127) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6339029&postcount=524)
595 BC - 445 BC (127-137) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6355901&postcount=608)
445 BC - 295 BC (137-147) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6381657&postcount=687)
295 BC - 145 BC (147-157) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6397074&postcount=755)
145 BC - 115 BC (157-159) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6410200&postcount=795)
115 BC - 10 BC (159-166) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6413748&postcount=814)
10 BC - 155 AD (166-177) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6420976&postcount=880)
155 AD - 215 AD (177-181) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6438629&postcount=925)
215 AD - 320 AD (181-188) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6441625&postcount=956)
320 AD - 470 AD (188-198) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6490973&postcount=998)
470 AD - 620 AD (198-208) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6502556&postcount=1021)
620 AD - 770 AD (208-218) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6520274&postcount=1041)

Should we reserve threads for indexing turn reports?

Well, I'm ready to start, so what the heck, here we go.

I've played about ten test games, mostly up to 0 AD or so. I don't know how to apply BtS scripts to Warlords maps, so it's mostly been continents with inland starts. Here's what I think I've learned:

Always War means:
* It will be difficult to steal workers - only two move units (mounted or with Woodsman II promotion) will have a chance, as the AI will run away on sight.
* The AI will pillage relentlessly.
* The AI will pillage fishing nets. It is probably counter productive to build them, as they are very difficult to defend.
* The AI will unite against a common enemy (us) if we meet them early enough in the game.
* If the capital is undefended very early in the game, the AI will take it. Keep the warrior close.

It hasn't been uncommon to see three AI warriors pressuring the capital and starting worker very early in the game.

War Weariness will cripple us, but probably not as much as you experienced in the 'team with barbarians' game. Since we can't sign peace treaties, the only way to reduce war weariness is time (very slow) or eliminating an enemy. We do have control of the situation, since we can choose where to fight - at least we won't be taking penalty points from the barbarians attacking the AI.
* http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=181512
* http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=139698

If we found our first city on a resource:
Starting city sites:
* Banana river: +1F
* Dye river: +1C
* Gold plains hill river: +1H +1C
* Cow: +1F

http://gesserit.net/smurkz/resourcecity.png

I think we should seriously consider building the first city on the Dye.

Here's my map of our starting location, with some fog gazing:

http://gesserit.net/smurkz/start.png

I suggest moving the warrior SW or E. SW should reveal more about the potential 'capital on dye' city. E should reveal a possible start on the east coast of the river.

Fellow Smurkzers, checking in !
Guess we'll once again love this new game :lol:

I am not experienced with the AW setting, so nice to see new Smurkz jumping in and giving advice on what to expect :goodjob: Welcome Chris, and I see that you already are talkative :p

Checking in! Welcome to the team Chris.

I remember the AW GOTM not long ago. I failed miserably to win that game. After killing hundreds of enemy units I just scrapped it. Will not happen this time I am sure with all the excellent skills present on the team.

Signing in.

Welcome to our new member, and good to see our old guard again!

Yes, I remember that GOTM as well. Even playing as the Romans with their excellent UU, it was extremely tough and I also gave up the struggle.

I think we should research archery first, especially since we are protective and have no early UU.

Settling 1S on the dyes gives more river tiles, so yeah, that seems a good choice. The only (minor) downside is that we miss the +4 gpt from the plantation later on.

Does anyone know what type of map this is?

ChrisShaffer, good to see you jump right into the discussion without hesitation. A true Smurkz character. :D

Regarding settlement, settling the dyes is certainly a possible option, and the +1C will help the early research. On the other hand, (assuming there's no magic resource SW of the grass) the only tile with 3 F+H that we can work until border expansion is the hills E and SE of the start, and they don't give any extra commerce. After the border expansion the +1C will be felt.

If we settle eastwards we could work the bananas from the start, giving us that commerce anyway, but would be equal only up to the border expansion. It would also give us more river tiles. Settling SE seems to give us a bunch of jungle tiles in the FC, though being on a hill might be nice if we expect to be defending our capitol from the AIs. It should also be the location that gives us the most river tiles of all in the FC, 8 vs 7 if we settle the dyes. It wastes a forest though, and loses one more forest in the FC in the west compared to settling the dyes.

Another possibility is to settle 2S, which seems to be coastal, in the hope of finding sea food, since we start with Fishing. This would also give us better scouting opportunities with workboats, though in AW the usefulness of that may be limited at best (and counterproductive at worst since we might want those shields used towards units instead). The warrior could be moved to uncover the sea if we think this is an option. We would lose the cows though, so the sea food had better be worth it. A second town could claim the cows and gold though. In this scenario we would have neither the +1C from the dyes or the +1C from the bananas though, but we could start by growing while building a WB, which would help our commerce over a longer perspective.

I'm leaning towards settling the dyes like Chris suggests. Just want to open up discussion for other options. I think the early gain from the +1C outweighs the loss of the later plantation, in particular since a riverside cottage beats a dyes plantation in not too many turns.

Regarding research, I'm with zyxy in that we want those protective archers as soon as possible. We certainly can't wait until after AH for the cows (which would speak for a coastal settlement), don't know about Agri for a farm on the bananas. The only other option I can see is BW, if we have copper, but axemen wouldn't get the protective bonus and we would likely need to protect a chopping worker anyway.

I would argue against any start that includes coastal resources as a selling point. In my tests, it cost more hammers to defend and rebuild fishing nets than they were worth. It also requires researching sailing early to build the defending ships.

I actually like the spots east of the river as described by Niklas. Maybe we should move the starting warrior east to see what else is there?

Seems like starting save is available here (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/saves/civ4sgotm6/Smurkz_SG006_BC4000_01.CivWarlordsSave)

I did some fog gazing and updated my map above. The most interesting item is the shoreline to the west of the NW gold.

The Info Screen shows six rivals. We are third in power with 3,000 troops. Rival strongest power has 6,000, rival average is 3,333 and rival low is 2,000. With an average of 3,333 and 6 rivals, the total enemy power is 20,000.

See this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=163098 for details.

Here are the relevant factors at 4,000 BC with no cities built. On Prince, the AI start with only one unit - a warrior or a scout.

2000 soldiers – Hunting, Mining
4000 soldiers- Wheel
1000 soldiers – Warrior, Quechua

We have 2,000 soldiers for mining and 1,000 soldiers for a warrior.

The AI does not get a technology bonus at Prince, so must have only starting technologies. So, the rival with 6,000 must have Wheel and Hunting and Scout. That's Mongolia. The rival with 2,000 has Hunting and Scout and (not Wheel not Mining). That's Aztec, Celts, Greece, Persia, Viking or Zulu.

Nobody has two innocuous technologies plus a warrior (for 1,000 power). That eliminates America, Inca and Spain. There is no rival with > 6,000. That eliminates Mali.

The remaining four rivals have 12,000 power to split four ways. We're in third place, so one of them has >= 3,000 and the rest have <= 3,000. That means only one of the four remaining rivals could possibly have the Wheel. Hunting and Mining are 4,000, so only one of the remaining four rivals could have both. So one, and only one of the remaining four rivals could be Arab, Egypt, France, Germany, Japan, Ottoman or Russia.

So, our enemies are:

Mongolia. (6,000)
One of Arab, Egypt, France, Germany, Japan, Ottoman, Russia (4,000-5,000), Carthage, China, India, Korea, Rome (3,000)
Three of Aztec, Celts, Greece, Persia, Viking, Zulu (2,000), Carthage, China, India, Korea, Rome (3,000)
One of Aztec, Celts, Greece, Persia, Viking, Zulu (2,000)
None of Mali (7,000) or America, Inca, Spain. (1,000)

If someone knows how ties are broken, we could divide the list of nations with exactly 3,000 soldiers (Carthage, China, India, Korea, Rome) into the "one of..." and "three of..." groups more accurately.

DaviddesJ in another thread says ties aren't broken - all tied players would be listed as third place. That lets us say this about our rivals:

Mongolia (6,000)
One of Arab, Egypt, France, Germany, Japan, Ottoman, Russia (4,000-5,000)
Three of Aztec, Celts, Greece, Persia, Viking, Zulu (2,000), Carthage, China, India, Korea, Rome (3,000)
One of Aztec, Celts, Greece, Persia, Viking, Zulu (2,000)
None of Mali (7,000) or America, Inca, Spain (1,000)

Gypsy Kings already have 63 posts!

Indeed they do, even more now. Why don't we have that many? Chris is doing what he can, but where are the rest of you? :p

Chris, good analysis on our opponents, I didn't even know that was possible. :goodjob:

Now for some administration. In true Smurkz tradition, I'll start by assigning play order after sign-in order. That gives us the following tentative roster:
Niklas
ChrisShaffer
unkle
Wotan
zyxy
DaviddesJ (not signed in yet)
If you want up or down in the list then just say so, this list is by no means final. I'll try to keep an updated roster in my first sign-in post for easy access. I can put links to turn reports there as well if we feel we need them.

I'll also be a lot more heavy-handed with the :whipped: this game, so we don't drag it out like last game. I will expect a "got it" within 24 hours of the handoff, a turnset strategy plan within 48 hours, and a handoff within 72 hours. This can of course be extended on a per-need basis, but if you know in advance that for some outisde reason that you won't be able to stick to schedule, then please ask for a swap or a skip in good time.

This is Epic speed, but the AW can make things more touchy. I propose 20 turns for the first turnset, 15 turns for the following turnset until we've completed a cycle, then 10 turns per turnset in peace (well, relatively) and 5 turns per turnset in war (meaning active warring from our side).

I'll go first if no one else is really keen to, and I'll of course start by moving the warrior. Where, pray tell, should our Beowulf go?

I vote to move the warrior due East. Becuase it's a hill, it will expose NE of the banana, as well as the tiles E and SE of the gold. It should give us a good idea if a city site E of the river is better than the city on the dye site.

Going second is fine with me. I'll be traveling from December 23-January 2. I'll have email but no reliable access to a computer on which to play Civ.

Strange to see that DaviddesJ has not check-in yet :hmm: he seemed to be online recently. Oh well real life :D

Even if we are going to fight a lot, we do not really know yet what victory we'll be able to pull off fastest. I would guess Conquest>Dom>Diplo (back door) But that's just me (and redcoats)... And the heavily hand modified map makes me wonder. I would think culture is out of the way unless we are isolated (and even).

Going for a sea-side first city:
+ building ships
- seafood less attractive
- harbour less usefull than usual
so not that critical I think

First city on the dye... I never really enjoy "loosing" a river dye (2F5C) which is a river town (since we are not financial) but understand that early gains are better. So I agree it is a really good option. It may also help settling for the 2nd gold...

Warrior: SW ? opening sea shore (who knows) and checking possibility for settling 1S from settler. Settling on a hill is not that silly if we fear AI chasing us.

Archery is my first research choice. Bronze seems less useful.

Since I'm currently leaning towards settling the dyes, I agree with Chris that moving 1E is probably the best option. We would then know if there was something worth moving eastwards for. Anything we could find S or W wouldn't tell us if E is a better option for settling (and we sure don't want to move the settler W).

This is really hard! I want to just open the game and move the warrior and see what's there. The tension is killing me! :)

Looking forward to playing the game and learning better strategies. I've enjoyed reading the SGOTM threads, but it's already obvious (to me) that playing in one is better. :king:

Yes, nice analysis, Chris!

Roster is fine for me.

I also played a few test games and did not have a lot of trouble with the AI. Getting a few archers out to set up a perimeter defense seems to work wonders... against the barbs. Against the AI it was hardly needed, as I hardly ever saw AI units, unless I went to look for them.

Long term strategy

What is our preferred victory condition? I think Domination will be quickest. This means not too much infra builds.

If anyone has BtS, could you check what the maptype is and generate some example maps? In particular I would like to see whether we'll need Astronomy or not. If we do need it, then we should avoid Meditation so that we can bulb Astro (and possibly also Optics).

This is Prince level only, so we can probably conquer quite far with swords and cata's vs archers.

Short term strategy
I agree with research to archery, then I would go for AH. The build queue that I used with succes in my tests was warrior, worker, archer. Our initial warrior has to stay near the capital for defense until the second one is built. After that, the initial one can go scouting.

The main problem for our capital will be food I think. With Cow and Banana we can get up to +6 fpt (irrigated banana) or +7 fpt (plantation). That's enough to support, say, 3 grass hills and maintain a decent growth pace, but it is nothing stellar. So I would move the warrior SW, and if we see nothing nice, I would settle in place in the hope that our blue circle means that there is another food source in the north.

EDIT: sent a PM to David to notify him.

@zyxy: generating maps I can do, but there has been according to AlanH a fair amount of edit on the map, so...

Here is a ressource for map style:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=246788#bigsmall
tell me if we want more.

Food-wise in the capital, if think hoping for more ressources in the fatcross is a little optimistic :lol: 2options for settling: 2E and 2S are nearly eq as for ressources (ok loosing the cow changes, but that makes other gold city look better....) and beg for some more food. I prefere 2S for sea access and river connection, but I am fine with 2E which is a blue circle... Depending on this, warrior SW or warrior E.

I played my tests on Continents maps and often had 2-3 enemy warriors hanging out around the capital early. A few archers are enough to hold them off.

The AI doesn't like to declare a second war. That means if we meet them, they're likely to be buddy-buddy with the other AI. Then they'll get mutual struggle / common enemy points and become best friends. There's something to be said for avoiding meeting the AI and letting them fight each other before we provide them with a common enemy.

unkle, thanks for the link!

Unfortunately, it seems to depend on the subtype, and on chance, and on Gyathaar's editing whether a galley conquest is possible. So we have to keep in mind that we may need Astro.

Settling 2S loses the cow and that's not a good idea IMO. 2E might be better (depending on what lurks in the fog), but it's two turns to walk there. How much is warrior E going to reveal? He cannot look over the jungle, right?

How much is warrior E going to reveal? He cannot look over the jungle, right?

I vote to move the warrior due East. Because it's a hill, it will expose NE of the banana, as well as the tiles E and SE of the gold. It should give us a good idea if a city site E of the river is better than the city on the dye site.

Loosing the cow is not good unless we get something in exchange, imho (apart fom sea access)...
cow+gold makes a good second city site also.

If we rule out 2S (which I can understand) then warrior E is probably best (second :P) move

First a :goodjob: to Chris for his opponents analysis. Learnt an important thing there.

Then the research, agree we need Archers sooner rather than later. Developing the Cow seems to be the right choice after that so AH.

Warrior: E.

Settler: Remind me why settling in place is not an option? Is it the two river tiles gained? I would think there is an agrument for settling in place and focus on getting another town SE on the river (maybe 2S of gold or S/SE)to use those tiles and also use the SE gold. With coast W of the NW gold we can assume the forest hill 2W and the tile south of it will be lost to any cities.

Good point - if we settle on the dye, we might be giving up the gold to the NW.

Alright, warrior E seems to be the majority decision, so here we go:

http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07506/001warrioreast.png

Another food resource, but won't be available unless we move S-SE. And not really better than the cow, though available faster. Maybe settling in place is not such a bad idea then, and leaving those resources down there for the second town.

Thoughts?

Settle in place and work towards a second town either on the grassland S of Rice or SW of it depending on what is in the SW fog.

:agree:

xcl.

Alright, I feel I have the general outline for my turnset pretty clear.

Long term plan

Win the game, likely by Conquest or Domination. Conquest proved the fatest in the last game, and much of the setup here is similar.

Mid term plan

Tech to Archery and set up a defensive parameter of protective archers.
Explore our immediate surroundings to get a better overview.

My turnset

Settle in place, build warriors. A worker wouldn't have anything useful to do anyway. Barracks before Archery comes in?
Research Hunting, continue on Archery.
Explore the very immediate surroundings, keeping the warrior close until the second one is completed.

Comments would be most appreciated.

Barracks are less usefull for archers: we are protective.
Basic outline seems fine to me: settle in place, go for archers and build warriors. I would squeeze worker in the queue not too late though: we can mine.

Second thought: would a protective archer rush work ? If doable (doubtful but I am not experienced on this enough...), I may rethink barracks usefullness....

Protective doesn't really help much with the rush, except it will be harder to retake anything our archers take. But if we have a close neighbor we could definitely consider it, they won't be worse than normal archers at any rate.

Drill 2 archers would not help ? mmm I guess they are not that great. Does the AI starts with archers at prince ? At least we could stop the AI from improving their land..

We need some exploration first for sure. I doubt we are on main land, that would put domination easier but who knows.

Plan looks good. Though I think building one warrior is enough. After that a worker, who can improve the gold, and after AH comes in it can do the cow.

Rax definitely helps - we only need 4 exp for 2 promo's (charismatic). But it can wait a little bit, as the barbs will also provide training.

I think AI's start with warriors on Prince. But they will probably get archers before we can rush them.

Right, that's very interesting about the less xp, had forgotten about that. That makes an archer rush, or any rush for that matter, much more appealing. We can't give our archers CR, but they could get C1 + Cover for instance. We'd still need 2x the number of defenders, but archers are fairly cheap. Still, if no one is really close then finding copper or horses and rushing with axes or chariots will likely be more appealing.

I'll play roughly 12 hours from this post, so if you have any more comments then speak up. And since there have been no objections I consider the roster to be accepted, and I'll put it up on the first page shortly.

I also think warrior - worker is best. The warrior can mine the gold! And then pasture the cows!

On prince, the AI start with scout or warrior only.

Settle in place is fine, build a second city soon.

By the way, one other consideration is that there will be no technology trading. Unless there is a reason to beeline a particular tech, it will be better to research all the prerequisites first for the discount.

Sorry I have been distracted from this. I agree with settling in place. Try to build a second city soon, to use the gold and rice.

I don't see the point in researching Archery first, if we are going to build warrior-worker. What good is Archery doing us, then?

I have not tried a test game, to work out the timing, but if we are going to build warrior-worker then I would think we should research AH or Agriculture-AH.

The warrior can mine the gold!

No it can't!

On second thought, I now suggest that we should settle on the bananas. Settling in place, we can work banana farm, cow pasture, gold mine, 3 grassland hill mines, for 13f/15h/19c at size 6. On the bananas, we can work dye farm, gold mine, rice farm, 3 grassland hill mines, for 14f/13h/22c at size 6.

I think the location is at least as good. We can build warrior-worker much faster, with the extra 1f/turn at start. If we settle in place, I think we're looking at 36 turns to build warrior then worker. On the bananas, I think it's 27 turns (including the 1 turn delay to move).

If we settle on the bananas, we don't need AH early, so we can research Agriculture then Archery and then decide between BW or AH. We can choose the optimal site for the 2nd city using the coastal gold and cows, after we have more information.

I think we should also seriously consider worker first, while researching Hunting-Archery, then start building archers while researching Agriculture and mining the gold, then farm the rice next. We could have worker in just 19 turns, if we settle on the bananas. Researching Hunting-Archery seems to be about 20 turns. Mining the gold 8 turns sooner is worth about 64 extra commerce. If the opponents just start with one warrior, we're unlikely to be threatened before we can get an archer out, as long as we keep our warrior very close to home.

Settling on the bananas is worse for health, but maybe not a lot worse. Is there a forest 4E of our start position? There seems to be something peeking out of the shadows, on Niklas's map, and it looks more like forest than jungle, but it's too fuzzy for me to be sure.

Settling in place with have two good solid city sites on rivers. Settling on the bananas will put the city in the middle of those nice resources. We will hopefully have two additional locations one in the NW and one in the South but both with a lot of uncertainty as to their value. I would rather take the two good locations over one slightly better locations and one definitely unsure location. That much better I would not rate the bananas as to allow for the added uncertainty of how the lands to the NW are laid out.

That much better I would not rate the bananas as to allow for the added uncertainty of how the lands to the NW are laid out.

The blue circle on the coastal gold suggests additional resources out there, which would probably be accessible to a 2nd city. But I agree there's some uncertainty. The main advantage of the bananas isn't that it is much better in the long run, but that we save 10+ turns at the beginning, which is pretty huge.

And here I was thinking I would be able to start playing. Silly me! :lol: :goodjob: (Go Smurkz!)

Yes, the tile 4E of our start is definitely a forest.

There's no question that the capitol is the most important town we have. It will define pretty much our entire early game, and later on it will play a big role in Bureaucracy, assuming we get to CS. I definitely don't see this game going so far as to make Free Speech ever coming into play, but even if it does it will be very late, and of questionable value without a ton of towns. So we should certainly strive to have the best possible site for our capitol.

So the question is, is settling on the Bananas better, and if so then how much? I'll do a turn-by-turn comparison and report back, this is important.

As for research, I haven't played any test games so I have no real experience. If we can expect to be unthreatened long enough, then the team that builds a worker first will definitely have an edge on the rest. I'm not so worried about our capitol so much as I'm worried about the worker. No good starting by building a worker only to have it stolen by an AI warrior.

No it can't!

Ha ha ha. I meant worker of course. :)

Alright, comparison between the two approaches shows a rather HUGE benefit for settling the bananas over the first 40 turns, BUT at a definite risk, delaying the warrior by a lot. We also need to go for Agriculture before Archery to build the rice farm in time.

Difference in numbers (in place / bananas):
Worker built on turn: 39 / 20
Warrior built on turn: 16 / 32
Agriculture on turn: 31 / 23
Archery on turn: 21 / 32
A+A on turn: 31 / 32
Size on turn 40: 2 (16f) / 3 (1f)
Food per turn on turn 40: 4 / 4
Hammers on turn 40 (after w+w): 3 / 53
Hammers per turn on turn 40: 1 / 4
Commerce on turn 40 (after A+A): 109 / 171
Commerce per turn on turn 40: 10 / 18

If we can stay safe until turn 36 in the banana scenario, we'll have our first archer then, compared to some 15 turns later if we settle in place.

I'm all for taking chances, no risk no gain. I vote settling on the bananas.

EDIT: Here's the comparison:
http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07500/comparison2.png
Note that the numbers in the Food, Hammers and Commerce columns are after the turn, and that the research for Archery has a 20% bonus for knowing Hunting.

Hmm, I just realized I made an error, you always get +1 beaker each turn which I haven't counted. That changes things a bit, hmm... EDIT: Updated above with the correct numbers. Please speak up if you see any errors.

Based on this analysis, I also favor building on the bananas and worker first. If you keep the starting warrior at the capital, it can protect the worker. The worst case scenario is two-three enemy warriors forcing our units back into the capital and pillaging.

The main thing we lose is early exploration, which I don't think matters as much on always war. The longer we wait to meet the enemy, the more likely they'll fight with each other.

I hate to suggest it, but to be fair to the "settle in place" option, shouldn't we calculate it with worker first also?

Alright, that opening isn't any better. Note that the comparison is between warrior and worker first, both settling in place. Research-wise they are exactly the same until after A+A, so I'm not counting that.

Difference in numbers (warrior first / worker first):
Worker built on turn: 39 / 25
Warrior built on turn: 16 / 37
Size on turn 40: 2 (16f) / 2 (4f)
Food per turn on turn 40: 4 / 1 (if we want to work gold)
Hammers on turn 40 (after w+w): 3 / 12
Hammers per turn on turn 40: 1 / 4
Commerce on turn 40 (after A+A): 109 / 137
Commerce per turn on turn 40: 10 / 17

That start is slightly better commerce-wise since we get the gold earlier, but without the rice farm we don't really have the food to work it so the comparison is not really correct. And we'd be even further from that first archer.

Shouldn't the settle in place option be able to work the bananas beginning turn 9?

OK, I've played with the numbers for settling on the dye and also for settling in place and farming banana/dye. I agree with Niklas. Settle on the banana.

I still advocate settling in place. I think it is to be prefered unless there is a huge upside of not doing so. I do not see that is the case here. Settling on bananas will still risk the area around to have less appealing secondary site(s) especially when considering a town in place and a second one south of the Rice. I think that combo outwheigh any benefit in the capital during the opening turns. We do agree settling on bananas still only benefit us at the beginning while it will cost us later.

Hi David, good to see you arrived as well! And just in time to stir up a discussion ;). You surely make a good case for settling on the bananas.

Nice analysis, Niklas! But like Chris, I would also compare two "worker first" strategies (with initial research of hunting -> AH in one case, and Agri in the other). (EDIT: now done, I see.) I think that the speed difference is -1 turn delay in settling, +5 turns on the worker build, and after that faster growth for the banana case. So this probably comes out in favor of bananas.
Of course there is the long term disadvantage of losing a 5 fpt tile - I'm still concerned about the lack of food in our capital.

And culture expands after 8 turns, not 15.

4Of course there is the long term disadvantage of losing a 5 fpt tile - I'm still concerned about the lack of food in our capital.

This is a very strong argument for sticking with the starting spot too. If we want the capital to be so important this will surely impact on its strength.

Right, palace makes +2 culture/turn and not 1. But that doesn't really mean any difference between the two, settling in place we get the bananas 7 turns earlier and settling on the bananas we get the rice 7 turns earlier.

The lack of food in the capitol is greater when settling in place, since the rice gives move fpt than the cows (but less hpt of course). So no, we don't agree that settling the bananas is only good in the early game, it will continue to be better a long time after. And we already know there'll be at least one good site for a second town in the NW, one that can use the cows and gold (as opposed to the rice and gold that the second town would get when settling capitol in place).

I really think the case is stronger for settling the bananas (and I must admit I'm also appealed to doing something that most others may not). Unless someone comes up with a strong argument against it, backed by numbers, that's the way I'll play. I should be able to get the turns in by tonight (unless we keep discussing of course ;)).

Just to further reinforce that point, settling in place will not yield more food. DaviddesJ said it already, with numbers. If we settle in place we can work CC (2f), farmed bananas (4f), cows (4f), gold (0f) and three other tiles for 10+others fpt. If we settle the bananas we can work CC (3f), rice (5f), dyes (3f), gold (0f) and three other tiles for 11+others fpt. When we get Calendar the bananas yield 5f, making the two approaches equal, but before that we get more food by settling the bananas.

Well, if you think everything should be backed by numbers why limit that requirement to a limited view on a single location? (The capital is important but still) How has your requirement on numbers to prove a case taken the expanded realm into account? I am just saying that I fear we lose out on excellent locations around our capital by suboptimizing the capital. Settling in place gives us an excellent location in the SE with rice and gold. Demanding "numbers" to prove my thinking while you neglect to look on any numbers but those directly related to the capital is a bit strong.

I agree that on a direct comparison between the two locations bananas win. But that is only if I disregard the fact we want more than one location. So show me how we do not lose out when expanding and I will back you. ;)

Personally, I still favor settling on the banana. However, Wotan is right - for the second city, rice+gold+river is definitely better than cow+gold+ocean.

Then again, don't listen to me about gut feeling calls. I am notoriously bad at guessing correctly in GOTMs. :lol: The first BtS game is definitely one such game. (I hope this comment is not to be considered as a spoiler.) And in an AW game we might not have too many locations to work anyway so the capital make be huge in comparison to our total assets. But I still feel that when the upside is not overwhelming better stick with what you know is a good solution. gambling for gamblings own sake is not a good call. The odds are definitely not in favour of it in this case.

From the graphs, it looks like CRC and The Real Ms. Beyond settled in place, while Geezers wandered for a bit.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/submit/civ4sgotm_submission_list.php?game=50006&displayteams=displayteams&all_0=&include%5B%5D=Chokonuts&include%5B%5D=CRC&include%5B%5D=Fifth+Element&include%5B%5D=Geezers&include%5B%5D=Gypsy+Kings&include%5B%5D=Misfits&include%5B%5D=Murky+Waters&include%5B%5D=One+Short+Straw&include%5B%5D=Smurkz&include%5B%5D=The+Real+Ms.+Beyond&include%5B%5D=Trash+Team&include%5B%5D=Xteam&format=culture&enddate=-2650&startdate=-4000&submit=Refresh#format

Well, if you think everything should be backed by numbers why limit that requirement to a limited view on a single location? (The capital is important but still) How has your requirement on numbers to prove a case taken the expanded realm into account? I am just saying that I fear we lose out on excellent locations around our capital by suboptimizing the capital. Settling in place gives us an excellent location in the SE with rice and gold. Demanding "numbers" to prove my thinking while you neglect to look on any numbers but those directly related to the capital is a bit strong.
My thinking is that I have provided numbers that clearly show the banana location to be better. If there are numbers that prove something else, I'd be the first to change my mind. If there's one thing I'm not, it's stubborn. But my gut feeling says there are no such numbers, and thus I'm not inclined to put down a lot more work to find them than I already did for the capitol. I'd like someone else to do some number crunching too. ;)

But really, the numbers I listed don't show a slight advantage for settling the bananas. Not only do we get the first Archer at least 15 turns earlier, we also from that point continue to outpace the start both in terms of growth, production and commerce. Already the advantages for the banana site are HUGE (1 pop larger, 40 more hammers, 30 more research, more improved tiles), but they will also continue to grow after the 40 turns I compared for. This is why I would actually see it as a gamble not to settle here. The advantages are obvious, whereas settling in place we are "chancing" that there are no more bonuses near the western gold for a second town there. And even if we're right, and the fog north of the gold uncovers only tundra, I'd still think it would be worth it to settle on the bananas for the MASSIVE early benefits.

I agree that on a direct comparison between the two locations bananas win. But that is only if I disregard the fact we want more than one location. So show me how we do not lose out when expanding and I will back you. ;)
Why not show me yourself? I already crunched a lot of numbers. :p

What I believe I could show you pretty easily is that we will have a second town up, location nonwithstanding, at least 20 turns (!) earlier than by settling in place, or at least 15 turns if we forgo the gold when settling in place and thus sacrificing nearly half our research. This assumes we build Worker->Warrior->Archer->Archer->Settler to have an archer protecting our settler. That my "guessed" numbers are correct should be pretty obvious just by looking at the numbers we already have. Forest chops will only do so much for speeding up the settler, and our worker will be able to chop sooner in the banana scenario. We're already 40 hammers ahead for the banana (meaning roughly one archer), and making more hpt and fpt. If you really want to see hard numbers on that I can show you, but I really think the numbers that we already have should speak for themselves.

The first BtS game is definitely one such game.
:lol: You and me both. :rolleyes: I've almost given that game up after only a handful of turns because of making that wrong decision, it will be a steady uphill climb. And no, I don't consider that spoilerish. I probably will complete it, but right now there are many more games that seem more interesting (the SGOTMs and COTM43 in particular).

A healthy debate, and I have already said my piece, so I will only add a few points. (Nothing in the discussion has changed my opinion that settling on the bananas is a lot better---indeed it has been reinforced.)

Until Calendar, the value of settling on the bananas is exactly the same as the value of settling elsewhere and working the banana tile. It gives +1 food to that city, in either case. After Calendar, the banana plantation will be worth more (+2 food, i.e., a normal grassland farm is only 3f but the banana plantation would be 5f). But that is a long time off, and the difference is not that great.

An advantage that I took into my calculations, but didn't explicitly call out, is that the river gold is +1 commerce compared to the coastal gold, this will make our research that much faster in the early game.

If we settle on the bananas, we don't know exactly how good the cow-gold city will be. As I understand it, this is Wotan's main criticism of the move. But we have a lot of flexibility in where to put that city (there are 8 different places to put a city that could work the cows and gold, including at least 2 with fresh water). I think it is extremely likely that we will be able to find a location with at least one additional resource, especially if we have revealed copper and/or horses by then. I also think it's pretty likely that we will be able to take out nearby opponents with archer rush or axeman rush, in which case it will be ok to develop seafood resources (once we don't have to protect them). So I am optimistic that we can end up with a very good second city.

Even if we don't add any new resources, our two gold cities will have access to exactly the same set of resources if we settle on the bananas as if we settle in place. So I don't really understand the argument that the combination is significantly worse one way, than the other.

My guess is that CRC would have settled on the bananas if they had spotted the rice, but they may have moved the warrior SW instead.

If we do settle on the bananas, I suggest using the warrior to explore the coast for the first several turns before animals appear, then camp at home.

If we do settle on the bananas, and delay Archery to get Agriculture first, should we research Agri-Hunting-AH so that we have the option of farming rice before mining gold? (I don't know yet which will actually be better, but it seems good to have the choice.)

This is a trivial but perhaps important point---if we are planning to settle on the bananas, then move settler S first. We get to see some extra tiles and, who knows, might change our mind again.

Oh, I guess I hit as far from the target I could ever manage. You completely misunderstood the objection I tried to raise. It was not whether bananas was the correct site or not. It was the way you rely on "hard numbers" for a single site and asking for the same for another site as the only argument you would acknowledge were you to change from the bananas site.

I tried to enter an argument for trying to look at things a bit broader. The game is not isolated to a single location and asking for hard numbers for a very isolated area and a very limited period of a full game is a bit futile in my mind. There are so many things influencing the game over the span of a full game thinking "hard numbers" as arguments for two isolated sites to be used to decide things are to put too much faith in "hard numbers". Until we have full info on the whole map and on our adversaries a lot of our decisions will by simple logics be influenced by so much more than hard numbers. Relying on hard numbers can be disastrous in my opinion. That is also why technocrats should not be allowed to make decisions based on hard numbers alone. ;)

EDIT: Forgot the most important piece of my reply. I am all in favour of settling the bananas too. Given what we have seen of the map and based on what output we get from that site compared to what we get from the original staring site. Just the blind faith in "hard numbers" I got a bit worried about.

I hear you Wotan, and it's good and healthy that you raise such objections. I certainly admit that I do have blind faith in hard numbers - when the numbers are as good as in this example. But I don't and won't use numbers as the only method of decision, promise. My gut feeling also tells me to settle the bananas ;). Seriously though, my main objection was not really about numbers, even if that's what I said. More that it is hard to argue with a "gut feeling". And since we did have numbers strongly suggesting one thing... What I really wanted was a stronger case, not necessarily hard numbers per se.

Anyway, since we seem to be more or less unanimously decided, I'll go ahead and play over the next few hours, when I can fit it in between the various household chores... Good point about the settler move DaviddesJ, I hadn't though about that myself. I can actually go ahead and move the settler S right away... be right back. :)

Ok, moved the settler S. The tile SW of the dyes is a grassland, and the tile W-SW of the dyes is coast. Definitely nothing to change the plans for. I'll settle the bananas when I play in a short while.

Is anyone else tempted to try Agri then BW? If we have copper (say on one of the two grassland hills) then we would really rule. If not, we can still research Hunting-Archery while building one or two warriors, plus barracks, to then churn out promoted archers.

Just a thought, I admit it is somewhat of a gamble. The value of building some early archers so we can explore, is also considerable.

:lol: I have considered exactly that, but I didn't think I would get anyone else in on the idea. Of course I should have said it anyway, all thoughts are good thoughts and the bad ones are easy to cut down. But again, I have very little (read none at all) experience with AW games and don't know how pressured we will be early on.

Hunting alone has no real value for us, so the only reason to go for it before Agri is that it gives us the flexibility to quickly switch research to Archery if we find ourselves under pressure. But since this is a SGOTM, and the staff generally don't want to kill anyone off early on, I tend to think that we will have at least some slack (call it gut feeling). So I would like to go for Agri first, that takes 14 turns, and stop after that to see what has happened. If we haven't seen anyone else at all by then, perhaps a run for BW could be worth it.... or?

So I would like to go for Agri first, that takes 14 turns, and stop after that to see what has happened.

Sounds good to me.

I do think we may well want to farm the rice before mining the gold. Problem with mining the gold first is that if we work it, we'll never grow to size 2. All that can be decided later, though.

Check the calculations I did on the previuos page. It will take 9 turns to grow after the worker is done, and with an 8 turns mine we can work it once we make size 2. But it's possible irrigating the rice first is still better. It will cost one extra movement though.

It will take 9 turns to grow after the worker is done

Sorry, I forgot we have extra food from the bananas! :blush:

Thought I was gonna be late for a "got it !", but I am glad to see we are still (well almost) talking about first move :lol: :lol:

Bananas are good (something to never forget :p) and I tend to like the BW gambling, except I think we already have a great start ressource-wise. I like Agri first and rediscussion after that. Mining gold early is still a premium since we will research everthing the hard way.

Niklas, I think you are pretty well packed for your first turns anyway. Of course you will probably come up in 2 hours with some different thoughts based on geography.

I was also thinking about going for BW before archery now. But we can decide after Niklas played the first 14 turns.

My experience with AW Prince sofar is that the AI will not enter our lands in the first stage of the game (except possibly with scouts), unless our capital is undefended or there is something to pillage. I don't know how long this stage lasts, but I got away with a single warrior defender per town while researching Agri, AH, BW, and having Izzy and Monty as neighbours.
In this game our research will go faster than in my test because of the gold mine. So I think it's reasonably safe to do BW before Hunting/Archery, even if we meet some opponents early.

Sorry but no, this isn't my turnlog. Sadly it seems my wife will need to use the CIV-capable computer for the rest of the evening, so I'll have to play those turns tomorrow morning, roughly 10 hours from this post. That's a definite (unless someone upsets the discussion again ;)). Not setting a good standard I know, but it won't keep me from using the :whipped: later... ;)

EDIT: Scratch that, I got the chance and took it. Wait for the turnlog.

>>The Save<< (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/saves/civ4sgotm6/Smurkz_SG006_BC3580_01.CivWarlordsSave)

Turn 0 (4000 BC):
Warrior E. Lots of discussion. Settler S-E.

Turn 1 (3970 BC):
Warrior NE and spots dyes and spices. Those spices give one more reason for settling on the bananas.
Settle Smurkzdon on the bananas, start a worker.
Research to Agriculture.

Turn 2 (3940 BC):
Warrior NE.

Turn 3 (3910 BC):
Warrior NW.

Turn 4 (3880 BC):
Warrior NW.

Turn 5 (3850 BC):
Warrior W.

Turn 6 (3820 BC):
Warrior W and spots rice.

Turn 7 (3790 BC):
Warrior SW.

Turn 8 (3760 BC):
Warrior SW and finds more bananas.

Turn 9 (3730 BC):
Borders expand, start working rice. Spot first lion.
Warrior SE.

Turn 10 (3700 BC):
We have declared on Mansa Musa. Can't see his scout though.
Warrior SE, sticking close to the capitol.

Turn 11 (3670 BC):
Warrior SE.

Turn 12 (3640 BC):
Mansa's scout shows up on the dyes 2NE of Smurkzdon, apparently coming from the NW onto that tile.
Warrior S.

Turn 13 (3610 BC):
We declare on Hannibal, and his scout is SE of the warrior. 70.3% to attack him on that jungle hill, no thanks.
Warrior E.

Turn 14 (3580 BC):
http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07511/014agri.png

Save game without moving warrior. Screenshots of our surroundings:

http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07511/014north.png

http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07511/014south.png

I figure I might as well hand off here, the next player can complete the worker and the next tech. I've set research to Hunting but no beakers have been assigned to it yet so we can freely switch.

Roster and Schedule:
Niklas - Just played (Jan 3)
ChrisShaffer - UP! (Dec 19)
unkle - On Deck! (Dec 22)
Wotan - Warming up (Dec 25)
zyxy (Dec 28)
DaviddesJ (Dec 31)

Until Calendar, the value of settling on the bananas is exactly the same as the value of settling elsewhere and working the banana tile. It gives +1 food to that city, in either case. After Calendar, the banana plantation will be worth more (+2 food, i.e., a normal grassland farm is only 3f but the banana plantation would be 5f). But that is a long time off, and the difference is not that great.

I agree that settling on the bananas is the right choice. However, wouldn't it be true that a farmed banana is +2 food until calendar, when it goes to +3 food with a plantation?

Interesting - we have Mansa Musa of the Malinese. That shouldn't have been possible by the soldier counts. I wonder if I miscalculated, or if someone has been playing with the settings?

Nice to see the rice by the western gold - that'll be a decent city site. We could even build on the plains-hill-gold and get banana, rice, cow in the fat cross, though it would be slow going until the first border expansion. The spot NE of the gold is probably a better choice - gold, rice, cow in the first ring.

That cow island is funny! :lol: It might actually make a viable city spot with the banana. Too bad we can't build the Moai statues.

This is my official "got it." I've successfully opened the save file.

Despite the fact that both rivals found so far have scouts (and thus probably don't have warriors headed our way quite yet), I'm tempted to take the warrior back to the capital to defend, and use it to protect the worker and capital simultaneously. The next warrior won't be done until the following turn set at which time the next player could do some more scouting. Normally, I'd send the warrior off scouting and leave the city undefended, but always war is making me cautious (overcautious?).

It looks like the big question for my turn set is technology. I thought we were pretty set on the archery / animal husbandry branches of the tech tree, but several people have now spoken in favor of bronze working. It looks to me like we have enough to keep the worker busy until bronze working with the rice and gold and potentially even a farm on the dye. I have to admit I beeline bronze working in most of my games - the chop and whip are so, so tempting.

So, what does the team think? Protective archers and pastures for the second city's cows, or bronze working and the chop/whip, or some other combination?

OK, I checked. Mansa Musa of the Mali begins with the wheel, mining and a warrior. There's no way he should have a scout this early in a prince game. Someone has been fiddling with the game settings. Not really a surprise, but it means we can/should disregard the previous analysis I did on rival composition.

I agree that settling on the bananas is the right choice. However, wouldn't it be true that a farmed banana is +2 food until calendar, when it goes to +3 food with a plantation?

My point is that the bananas are +1 food pre-Calendar; i.e., a normal grassland farm is 3f, while the grassland farm with bananas will be 4f. So if we get 3f from the city center, and 3f from working a normal grassland farm, that's the same as if we get 2f from the city center, and 4f from working a banana farm.

My feeling is that with two known enemies already, and with such a good second city location, we want to get our second city down asap, and that means playing it safe and building some archers. And we'll need more than the usual number, to be safe from Mansa's skirmishers.

I definitely support putting our warrior in the city until we build at least one more unit. Aside from the dangers from our enemies, we wouldn't want to lose it to an animal.

I think there are a bunch of errors in post #46. E.g., building a mine takes 6 turns not 8, building an archer at 4 hpt takes a lot more than 4 turns, etc.

If we build the gold mine first, we can finish the mine on turn 25 (but we keep working rice until turn 27), grow to size 2 on turn 28, learn Archery on turn 30, finish 2nd warrior on turn 31, and 1st archer probably on turn 40. The rice farm is finished on turn 33, we grow to size 3 on turn 40.

If we build the rice farm first, we finish the farm on turn 27, grow to size 2 on turn 28, learn Archery on turn 31. At that point we only have about 15 hammers accumulated, let's say we leave them in the warrior but switch to archer immediately. We finish the gold mine on turn 34, and grow to size 3 on turn 34. We would have 1st archer on turn 40, then go back and finish the 2nd warrior on turn 42.

The rice farm first will get us to our first settler faster (particularly if we poprush it), at the cost of delaying research somewhat. We only lose about 40 beakers; given the value of getting the second city up and running, I'm inclined to improve the rice first.

After Archery, we would presumably research BW and AH, in some order. Then Wheel, Pottery, Writing? The strategies diverge at this point. I doubt we want to build more than 2 cities before fighting a war, unless we need a 3rd city to hook up a strategic resource. I'm much more enthusiastic about attacking Hannibal first, because of Mansa's skirmishers.

My point is that the bananas are +1 food pre-Calendar; i.e., a normal grassland farm is 3f, while the grassland farm with bananas will be 4f. So if we get 3f from the city center, and 3f from working a normal grassland farm, that's the same as if we get 2f from the city center, and 4f from working a banana farm.

Right - that makes sense. Thanks.

I think there are a bunch of errors in post #46. E.g., building a mine takes 6 turns not 8, building an archer at 4 hpt takes a lot more than 4 turns, etc.

I see two mistakes in post #46. Mines are 6 turns and farms are 8 - that was reversed. And melee units don't upgrade to archery units, so the hammers in the warrior won't be applied to the archer, which caused the 4hpt problem you noticed.

I did some testing with a worldbuilder map. If we research hunting->archery and build the rice farm first, we learn archery on turn 31 at which time we'll have 20/22 hammers in the second warrior. On turn 32, we finish the warrior and then have 13 turns to build the archer. Pop 3 happens at turn 36 and the best tiles to work are dye 2f/2c or forest 2f/1h.

If the second city is really important, I'd be tempted to skip building the archer and build the settler first - let the second warrior escort the settler. If we do that, then we could research bronze working first.

Aye, I note those errors too. I forgot to apply a -22 in the hammers box after the warrior so the archer will indeed come later - available on turn 39 to be precise.

With the mine finishing "too early", it does seem like farming the rice first is the better way to go. I'll see if I can make a rundown of the numbers up to our first settler.

I'm still tempted to go for BW first, but I agree that getting that second city up is important. But with Mansa as close neighbor it would be nice to have a unit that's stronger than the Skirmishers, in case they come pillaging. Also that settler could be sped up by chopping. No guarantee we have copper though, so those units may not be ours anyway. But put me down as a vote for BW, though I acknowledge that the case for Archery is strong and have no problem with going that route if that's the majority decision.

Is it just me, or is the Numidian Mercenary a pretty weak UU? Same cost as the HA but one less strength, offset by +50% against Melee (useless when taking cities but perhaps good when pillaging?) and Flanking I. Still, if Hannibal has these then an Axerush seems to be less likely to work in either direction...

EDIT: Crosspost with Chris.

First tests I did with Hannibal's UU show it is a great UU: Basically spears are not great against it, making it a unit without counters in the field... Especially when given shock. So I tend to not like Hannibal as a neighbor. Of course HBR is an expensive tech, so we should not see these beauties for a while.

Hmm, good point. Maybe we should make an effort to do something about Hannibal before he gets them then? At the very least we could send a few archers to pillage his horses...

OK, I'm at work so can't check, but shouldn't Agriculture have cost 90 hammers and completed research on turn 9 or 10? Why did it take until turn 14?

I assume you mean beakers not hammers ;), and it was 127 beakers. The base cost (60) is modified by Epic speed (x1.5) and difficulty level (x?), I guess you missed the difficulty modifier.

d'oh

Found an article that explains it:
Epic length = 1.5
Prince = 1.1
Standard Map = 1.3
Round down each multiplier

So agriculture costs 128. Perhaps we got a slight discount of 1 for a known AI having the tech?

Ah right, forgot the map modifier. But no, there are no discounts to price, all modifiers are applied to the beakers you make, and the modifier for known AIs with tech are only a few % per AI so it would make no difference at this point. I've seen such discrepances before though, maybe something to do with realfloat representations. But the correct costs are all listed in game, so we don't have to guess it. :)

well, when I'm calculating at work when I should be working, I have to calculate/guess it :-)

Actually, I think I know what the discrepancy comes from.

60 x 1.1 = 66
66 x 1.3 = 85.8
85 x 1.5 = 127.5

Rounding down after each computation.

Unfortunately, my DSL is down, so I can only write briefly. Building settler super early is not too useful because our lone worker has other things to do, if we don't have AH yet then we can't improve cows anyway (our best tile) nor locate horses. I don't want to be overly cautious, but chance of copper in our fat cross is pretty low, and I am not enthusiastic about building a bunch of useless warriors. Also, chopping forests in our fat cross is unattractive for now, because we have health issues.

If we go farm first, then we have 9 turns at 1 hpt and 3 turns at 2 hpt before Archery, I still think that's 15 hammers. Or 18 if we work 1f2h instead of 2f1h as our 2nd tile (not recommended imho). But once we start the archer, our gold mine will boost our hpt pretty soon thereafter.

Yummy, spices. Nicely played.

I agree to bring our warrior home.

Concerning research: I think it would be beneficial to know the location of nearby bronze before we settle the second town. And I think that we won't need archers yet, because I didn't need them in my test games.

How long would it take to research BW? And how long would a reasonable build queue to a settler take? E.g. something like: (finish worker) - warrior - warrior - settler.

Ah, I see, it's the order in which you do the calculations that determines how the rounding down works.

In response to DaviddesJ, I see several options.

If we farm first, work farmed rice then unmined gold, we have 20 hammers stored when we finish Archery, and only need 2 more hammers to build the 2nd warrior.

1) Research hunting -> archery -> bronze working -> animal husbandry. Build 2nd warrior -> archer -> archer -> settler. The advantage here is that we have the 2nd warrior to explore and have bronze working (and potentially animal husbandry) complete before the second settler founds a city.

2) Same as #1, but invest the 20 hammers in a barracks instead of a 2nd warrior, start the archer one turn earlier.

3) Research bronze working -> hunting -> animal husbandry -> archery. Build 2nd warrior -> settler -> barracks -> archer. Chop the second city and barracks. Found the second city quickly, farm rice and pasture cows. Have the second city build a 3rd (and last) warrior to protect the worker / defend against pillagers.

Gotta go to a work meeting, will try to flesh these ideas out more tonight, looking forward to comments or other suggestions for research and builds.

Crossposted with zyxy. I'll do some spreadsheet analysis at home tonight.

BW is double the cost of Agri, but we get 50% bonus for knowing Mining. I'll sit down and do some calculations now.

Alright, using zyxy's sensible build queue, i.e. finish worker -> warrior x2 -> settler, and letting the worker farm rice -> mine gold -> farm dyes, and working rice -> rice + forest -> rice + forest + gold -> rice + dyes + gold, and not doing any forest chops, we would have the following numbers:

- Settler on turn 56.
- BW on turn 33 (if we go for it first).
- BW + Hunting + Archery + AH in any order on turn 51 (i.e. all of it before the settler).

So unless we want to chop (but David is right in that we have health issues with all the jungles), or we want to gamble on Copper in the capitol's FC, then there's absolutely no reason to go for BW before Archery.

On the other hand, if we research Archery first and build worker -> [something for 15 hammers] -> archer -> settler, we delay the settler by 1 turns, getting it on turn 57 instead.

And if we were to invest those 15 hammers + 7 more into a warrior, i.e. completing it, we would delay the archer by one turn and the settler by two turns, getting the settler on turn 59.

However, if we did that we would be stupid since we'd be at 37/39 food while building the settler, and by building something else for a turn (5+2 hammers) we could grow to size 4 and work rice + gold + dyes + forest for 10 hpt towards the settler. This actually saves us a turn, getting the settler out on turn 58.

Niklas, I'd like to see your charts, since by my calculations, we will have 20 and not 15 hammers when we finish archery.

I'll be the first to admit I'm learning a lot here and might be making mistakes in my calculations, so please check them carefully. :)

I don't see why we would work the forest before the gold. The unmodified gold produces 2h/2c (with a mine, it's 5h/8c) and the forest produces 2f/1h. It seems to me that early production and commerce win out over food, especially since we'll have a farmed river rice online soon.

My proposed research / build orders are:
bronze working -> hunting -> archery -> animal husbandry
worker -> warrior -> settler -> archer -> archer

I think we can have NewSmurkz settled on turn 49 and the second archer out by turn 54. This requires (1) the second warrior escorts the settler and (2) two forest chops. I think the two forest chops are worth it - at present, we have 6 happy / 6 healthy. Only 1 unhealthy is from jungle. With rice/gold we'll have 7 happy / 7 healthy. After the forest chops, that's 7 happy / 6 healthy. With the cows, it will be 7/7 again. By the time our capital is at 7 people, we should be able to chop the jungle.

Here's my spreadsheet showing zyxy's proposed build and my proposed build.

http://gesserit.net/smurkz/newsmurkz.png

Let me know if you see mistakes in my calculations. Also let everyone know if you agree/disagree with my analysis.

By the way, at this point I'm planning to play the next turnset on Tuesday evening CST (GMT+6) if we can reach consensus on the plan.

Nice sheet that, I'm going to copy that design if you don't mind. I did much of that by hand, should have automated more like you are doing. :)

But yes, you do have a few errors in there. The most blatant mistake in is that the gold mine won't add 3 hpt, only 1 hpt (compared to unmined gold). So for instance working farmed rice, mined gold and dyes we would make 4 hpt, not 6. That screws up your numbers quite a lot unfortunately.

A less influential mistake is that in some places you list a tech or build as completed a turn too early, for instance Agriculture in both lists, as well as the warrior(#2). Since the number in the "stored" columns are the numbers after the turn, the unit or tech isn't actually available until the beginning of the turn after you exceed its cost. I think you knew that since you've done it correctly in most places. I don't think it affects anything though, there seem to be no places where the one-turn-too-early stuff is crucial to what comes after. It doesn't affect subsequent numbers at all, it's just a question of at which turn you do the subtraction.

As a corollary to the above, standard turn numbering is from 0 (standard meaning autolog and the result page). I had this wrong too in my plans from before. This together with Agriculture listed one turn early might fool you to think we are at the wrong place in the list.

I'll post my sheets for comparison later, gotta do some other stuff first, and I want to tidy them up too. ;)

Drat, I left the spreadsheet at home. At any rate, I applied the corrections you listed, and I think they affect both options pretty much equally. I still think that researching bronze working first and building warrior#2 -> settler -> archer#1 -> archer#2 with two forest chops is better than building warrior#2 -> warrior#3 -> settler. NewSmurkz gets founded faster, we get our first two archers out faster and we build one less warrior.

Nice analysis.

So the order of research seems not so relevant, as BW, hunting and archery will all finish before we train any archers or settlers.

Main question seems to be whether we should grow to size 3 before starting a settler, and whether to chop. We don't have a really good third tile, so I see little reason to grow first.

Btw, hunting gets a discount of 20% in the right hand scenario, but not in the left.

Unfortunately, my internet connection is still down and I can't see the spreadsheets. I do agree that if we go BW first then it seems appealing to build the settler after just one more warrior. The health consequences of chopping 2 forests are manageable (although I disagree we will have IW and spare worker turns to chop jungles any time soon). I'm perhaps more worried about lost worker turns---we would really like to build at least a couple of mines before we found our 2nd city which will be a higher priority for our sole worker. Also, if we don't have improved tiles to work then the forest tiles are next best. The hammers from the forest chops are going to be offset down the road by the lost hammers from working unimproved tiles.

In your plan, when do we get AH relative to founding city #2? There are a lot of plains up there that could have horses. Has anyone discussed placement for city #2? We are not creative, expanding its cultural boundaries will not happen for quite a while, at least unless we research Mysticism. Do we put it between rice, cows, and gold, and give up the fresh water?

Miscellaneous corrections/comments:

Mining doesn't give 50% discount on BW.

Nothing gives 20% discount on Hunting.

Growing to size 3 before building settler is almost surely right.

Working unimproved gold hill rather than forest or dyes is almost surely wrong.

I'm fiddling with my spread sheets now. Another error I've spotted in yours, Chris, is that it seems you've forgotten the +1 free beaker per turn. And also you do get bitten by that one-turn-too-early completion of the warrior, since he completes one turn later than in your listing then the settler (and thus the food=>hammer conversion) starts one turn later.

I'll put mine up shortly.

I'm pretty sure I included the free beaker in the amount the city is producing - where you had 9 commerce and were adding 10 to the total, I just listed 10.

Aha, then the error is another. I listed 9 for my first 8 turns when we were working the forest (well 15 actually since I had the culture wrong). Working the rice after border expansion increased that to 10 (pre +1) since the rice is on river. So you should then have listed 11 from turn 9 on (and then 13, and 19, etc). :)

Alright, I've made three sheets "in the spirit of" the suggestions given by me, Chris and zyxy. Neither is a perfect fit to what has been proposed before, I've taken the liberty to make "sensible" changes to them, but feel free to disagree. All three use a forest chop to speed up the settler production, so the difference lies primarily in build order, and (as an effect of that) at what size the settler is produced.

Niklas: Worker -> Warrior -> Archer -> Settler
Chris: Worker -> Warrior -> Settler
zyxy: Worker -> Warrior -> Warrior -> Settler

Note that the names I've tagged them with don't necessarily mean that those people agree with it (not even that I prefer the one with my name), just that it is inspired by what they've proposed. So bash me, not them. ;)

Here goes:
http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07512/Niklasplan.png
http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07512/Chrisplan.png
http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07512/zyxyplan.png
Gotta run for a bit, I'll be back to comment on them in an hour maybe.

Perhaps it is possible to amend the left scenario to work the dyes instead of the gold on turn 29 and following, so that the completion of warrior 2 more or less coincides with growth to size 3. Then we can start the settler at size 3.

EDIT: x-post with Niklas. I was referring to Chris' sheets.

It seems possible to do as I suggest by modifying the "Chris" option from Niklas' sheets:

on turn 28 - 31, work rice + forest. On turn 32-33, work rice + gold. On turn 34 you'll grow to size 3 and have a warrior. The settler will still finish on turn 48, or perhaps even on turn 47.

EDIT2: the forest to chop is of course the one W of the capital, as it opens a riverside hill.

I would like to use our second warrior to scout the rice-gold region in the NW, in particular for seafood. Settling between rice and gold seems appealing. (I think we'll research mysticism soon enough, because of the extra happiness from monuments, so the cow will come into play).

Of course, the question is whether we dare to train a settler when we have only two defenders. With two defenders we can protect the capital and the settler, but not our resources. So a safer - but slower - option would be to train a third unit first.

I definitely disagree with building monuments just for +1 happy. Size 6 is plenty, and we're limited by health anyway. I see no gain to moving city #2 away from cows (our best tile!) unless it gets us seafood (even then I'm doubtful--building a workboat will also take a long time, and defending it is problematic).

I would love to post more detailed comments on various plans, but won't be able until tomorrow. I urge again to prioritize worker improvements, there's much less value in getting city #2 early if the cost is working unimproved tiles.

We can't protect much of anything with warriors. Even animals are a problem. If we go BW first, basically we're hoping no threats show up until we get our archers out.

If we do find copper, unless we can connect it very quickly, I think we'll still need to research Archery.

Here's a modified version of "Chris" with the changes proposed by zyxy.

http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07512/zyxyplan4.png

EDIT: I see it's not quite as zyxy proposed, I'm delaying the warrior one turn after growth by not working the gold. But this is actually better in the longer run. It doesn't delay the settler, and it speeds up the growth to size 4 by one turn.

EDIT#2: I found some errors in it, fixed them and uploaded a new version.

Ok, at long last, my own thoughts and preferences: I think we should choose to go with the plan labelled "Niklas". Here's why.

First, it's the one that gets the settler out the latest. Of course that's not inherently good, but there's a definite benefit to that in that we will get it after AH and BW, so we know if we should compensate for having horses and/or copper somewhere. In "zyxy" this is also true, and the settler comes out two turns earlier, but...

Second, we have an archer to protect the settler. It would be Not GoodTM if we lost that settler to a lion.

Third, that second town would be fairly weak until we can improve it's tiles, so the benefit of settling it two turns earlier is limited. The worker would be available for building a pasture equally early/late in both scenarios, which in "Niklas" is the same turn the town is settled.

Fourth, the pure numbers. Looking at the output from the capitol, it will be at size 4(27) compared to 4(21), clearly comparable to the six food we'll gain in the second town by settling it two turns earlier. It will have gathered 44 hammers after the settler, compared to 55 for "zyxy", but overall that's still more hammer since it already built an archer compared to the (relatively weak) warrior (15 hammer difference). Commerce-wise they are comparable, 213 (N) to 211 (z) raw beakers gathered after Archery + BW + AH. (The sheets I posted above give slightly different numbers, but there are some errors in them - 1.4 towards BW instead of AH for instance, and both must do BW before AH to be able to chop. I'll upload new ones that are correct.)

Comparing it to "Chris", or zyxy's modified version thereof (and correcting it so that we research BW first in time for the chop), the settler would come on turn 48, seven turns earlier. The drawbacks are then that we won't know where/if we have horses (unless we go for AH before Archery, in which case we can't build archers until 5 turns after the settler), and that we will only have one warrior to protect the settler. It will be at 4(23) pop, with 74 hammers collected (archer + 37 compared to archer + 44) and only slightly lower (201 vs 213) beaker count, nothing major.

So, if we don't have horses (or they happen to be in the right place), and our settler gets where it's supposed to safe and sound, we can benefit from those 7 turns earlier (still only working unimproved tiles, but still, that's 21 food). Is it worth it?

I'm willing to wait until Wednesday evening to take my turnset, as tonight it turns out I'm now busy until late evening and I'd rather not play it tired.

I'll take a look at the comments and spreadsheets again later tonight or early tomorrow morning. Please keep responding to Niklas proposals. What do unkle and Wotan think?

Here are the corrected versions of the spread sheets:

http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07513/Chrisplan2.png
Note that this version researches AH before Archery, meaning we know where the horses are when settling, but can't build archers when the settler is completed.
http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07513/zyxyplan2.png
http://xs222.xs.to/xs222/07513/Niklasplan2.png
The -4 comes from having invested 7 hammers into something before starting the settler, but 3 of those will decay.

Btw, since we have pretty large improvement needs, how about building another worker in the capitol once we've grown to size 5, i.e. after a few archers? Or is that a waste of time and hammers that could be spent on barracks and units?

@Chris
Sorry for low input, the usual RealLifeTM I guess... So I would not wait for me to be able to load and check what you guys are discussing.

Only thing I can say is that in SGOTM04, we lost our second settler (ok due to a mistake, but anyway). That killed our game AND our interest. Waiting for an archer to escort the guy really make sense to me. Taking risk I agree with, but potential killer risks THAT early are no good to me (I want to win for sure but I'd aslo like some fun).
My only wonder is that unless we get copper (which in all scenarios we'll know quickly enough) I thought settling between cow and gold was our best option (gold+cow early, then rice + bananas+mines=> good medium military city). In that case escorting with a warrior only (potentially delaying 1 move) is not that risky: AI is not coming that way either.

Can only join in with the comments from Unkle, have checked the spreadsheets but still have not downloaded any of the saves. I might agree we benefit from knowing the whereabouts of both Horses and Bronze when our Settler appears on the scene so the two spreadsheets having this in common might be to prefer. Between them I have no real opinion on which to go with. Those with strong opinions on this should make that decision and I will follow. ;) OTOH if we are firmly convinced the town should go between gold/cow I guess we could go with Chris plan since that would not use bronze/horse location as a prerequisite.

Finally: The spreadsheet looks like a nice tool, just like Offa's planner in Civ3. You seem to be using the same model, any chance of an upload to spare me the time to build it myself? I know I am lazy. ;)

OK, I'm going to disclaim responsibility for the plan with my name on it, since it has a build Warrior #3 which I definitely think we should avoid.

I assume Niklas' plan should have Archer #1 built on turn 42?

I can appreciate that sending the settler with just a warrior for protection is risky. I am glad that the bronze working -> chop is incorporated into all the plans.

OK, I've looked it over and actually think Niklas' plan is the best! My original plan had the settler built on turn 49 and NewSmurkz founded on turn 51. Niklas plan has the settler built on turn 55 and NewSmurkz founded on turn 57. That's a delay of only 6 turns -- and in trade for the short delay, our capital has a higher population, better developed tiles and the settler has an archer escort.

(Thanks for taking the time to discuss this and work it all out - I've learned a lot.)

What do people think of me playing until turn 34, Gold Mine? Since the warrior is staying home, it's mostly going to be matter of pushing "end turn." If anything threatens the worker or city, I could pause and post for discussion.

Heh, I never seem to get it completely right. :crazyeye:

The plan with your name on it doesn't build a Warrior#3 even if the Event log says so, I just forgot to remove it from there. Note that no hammers are deducted for it. And yes, the Niklas plan has Archer #1 built on turn 42 like you say.

I really think the chop fits well into our overall plan. We'll want that hill mined sooner or later anyway, and sooner better than later IMO since we will start working it as soon as the mine is completed. The other hills are farther away, and only one other is on the river.

Btw, completely off the topic, I'm disappointed that city names are restricted to so few characters. I tried naming our capitol Smurkzdon-upon-Thames but it wouldn't even let me finish 'upon'. :mad:

@Wotan: Sure, I can upload my spread sheet, in a few hours when I get to the right computer. No need to reinvent the wheel. I'm no Excel-wiz like Offa though, but I might have a look at his sheet for Civ3 to see how he does those automatic tile yield computations. Not now though.

EDIT: Crossposted with Chris' last post. I'm fine with you playing to turn 34.

Finally: The spreadsheet looks like a nice tool, just like Offa's planner in Civ3. You seem to be using the same model, any chance of an upload to spare me the time to build it myself? I know I am lazy. ;)

It's at http://gesserit.net/smurkz/Smurkz.xls

Note that the numbers past turn 30 or so aren't anywhere near accurate for our turnset. I just updated my version to match Niklas until I decided his was the greatest plan!

@Chris:
Sounds good to me. You could also stop if you think new ressources (cooper/horses) change something to our plans....

mmm second thought, these will appear later than turn 34... So no big deal.

OK, I plan to take the turn in approx 11 hours, at about 6:00 pm Wednesday, CST (GMT-6). If anyone has further suggestions or revisions, please post them.

Here are the CIV files I'm using:

Start planner (http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/54092/CIV_startup_plan.rar)

Combat probabilities (http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/54092/Win_chance.rar)

I'll probably keep working on both, and if you improve them then please pass the improved versions back to me. :)

We're "keeping up with the Joneses"

Gypsy Kings 242 posts
XTeam 200
Geezers 160
Smurkz 127

And surprisingly

CRC 18
Chokonuts 18

And CRC, with 18 posts, are the farthest along in their game at 1840 BC. Everyone is the same on culture. CRC are ahead in score and far behind on power.

One Short Straw has 35 posts but has not submitted a save. We're the next farthest back - everyone else has submitted newer saves than us.

CRC never post much here, they discuss everything on civfanatics.ru (in Russian) and only post the most important stuff here. I'm surprised by their low power rating though. If they settled in place, they might have gone for Hunting/Agri -> AH immediately, none of those techs add to the power rating right?

Hunting counts as 2,000 soldiers (equal to two warriors or one archer). CRC has about 17,000 soldiers, so a handful of units and some technologies, but not a lot of stuff.

Ah yes, I was looking at too short a graph. What I referred to was that after two turnsets, turn 27, they had only 5,000 soldiers. We start at 3000, so probably building a worker and Hunting research, just like we're planning to.

Going by the "Niklas" plan, we will change power values on the following turns (unless something is lost of course):
Turn 21: Hunting (+2000)
Turn 31: Archery (+?)
Turn 35: Warrior (+1000)
Turn 42: Archer (+2000)
Turn 44: Bronze Working (+?)
Turn 52: Animal Handling (+0?)

I think it would be really interesting to compare these values to the other teams, and see if we can figure out how they started out. I know we shouldn't be meta-gaming, but it's so fun! And it won't affect our own playing anyway. Chris, could you fill in the blanks for me? Or better yet, could you link to where these numbers are found?

I should be able to post my comments in about 3 hours. Still haven't read the plans in detail, sorry. :(

3 hours from your post, I should be awake still by then, and it's at least half an hour before Chris is planning to play... ;)

Home now, will wait for DaviddesJ and play later this evening.

Going by the "Niklas" plan, we will change power values on the following turns (unless something is lost of course):
Turn 21: Hunting (+2000)
Turn 31: Archery (+?)
Turn 35: Warrior (+1000)
Turn 42: Archer (+2000)
Turn 44: Bronze Working (+?)
Turn 52: Animal Handling (+0?)

An explanation of the numbers can be found here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=163098

Surprisingly, Animal Husbandry counts.

Turn 0: Mining 2,000 + Warrior 1,000 = 3,000
Turn 1: Pop1 0 (zero) = 3,000
Turn 21: Hunting 2,000 = 5,000
Turn 28: Pop2 1,000 = 6,000
Turn 31: Archery 6,000 = 12,000
Turn 34: Pop3 0 (zero) = 12,000
Turn 35: Warrior 1,000 = 13,000
Turn 43: Pop4 1,000 = 14,000
Turn 44: Bronze Working 8,000 = 22,000
Turn 52: Animal Husbandry 2,000 = 24,000

p.s. it looks like Niklas' plan has us becoming Animal Handlers instead of Animal Husbanders. So perhaps we'll raise tigers and lions?

:lol: Wonder where I got that from, I'm so used to calling it AH I guess I never reflect on it. But you gotta admit, wolf riders are much cooler than silly horse archers. ;)

Thanks for the numbers and link Chris, I'll sit down and do some silly calculations on our opponents now while waiting for DaviddesJ to drop by. :p

EDIT: Not so surprising that AH counts, since it reveals horses.

EDIT2: Hmm, at turn 57 CRC has only 16,000 soldiers to our 24,000. We are still pretty low on troops at that point, so I'm willing to bet quite a lot that the difference comes from them not having either BW or Archery at that point. Did we have proof that they settled in place (or on the first turn at least)? Maybe we are seeing the benefits of our chosen capitol location (or they just went for something else :p). Totally useless knowledge. :crazyeye:

Heh, looking over the power graphs of all teams that have played past turn 40, not many would be close to our rating at turn 44, and then we haven't really focused on our military. Murky Waters haven't played past that point yet though, and they seem to be tied with us on turn 30 (researched to Archery too?). But I'm not surprised we have a strong start. Let's hope we can maintain our momentum for a long time to come. :)

The "Niklas" plan in #119 seems generally ok to me. One comment/suggestion: is the dye farm better than another hill mine? After the gold mine, we could build the hill mine 1S2W of capital (finishing on t42), then chop the forest 1W, then build the mine 1W. We finish the settler one turn sooner (because the mine contributes +1h compared to the dye farm), and we get about a dozen more hammers over this time. Also, if we build archers or another worker or a barracks, those all come out faster. We will probably want a dye farm eventually (although cottage is also possible), but I think after 2nd worker would not be bad (especially if we're accelerating that worker).

Plus, imagine how happy we'll be if copper appears 2W1S the turn after we finish the mine. :band:

P.S. Given all of the discussion, I'm happy if you go ahead and play to the discovery of BW, unless unexpected events occur. We can use the 2nd warrior to explore very carefully....

:banana: Then Chris is all set to go go go! :D

Interesting point about the second mine. We can have a closer look at that after Chris' turnset though, if he plays up to the point where the gold mine is completed. Using that mine would speed up the settler, true, but the dyes help growth while we don't build a settler/worker (and give +1 commerce, though that seems negligible). That may not be enough reason though, and I can certainly see us going for that mine first. And if we do and later find copper there, I won't stop :D for a week at least.

We can have a closer look at that after Chris' turnset though, if he plays up to the point where the gold mine is completed.

Sure, that's fine too. He could play those 20 turns and then we can hopefully move to the next set very quickly.

Another comment on the "Niklas" plan. We can avoid the 4 hammer decay by changing "forest" to "dyes" on turns 39-41. This trades 3 hammers for 6 commerce, delaying the completion of the archer by one turn, so we don't have to build something else while waiting to grow to size 4.

If Chris only plays through the completion of the gold mine, this would be after his turnset.

Terrible news. On turn 18, a jungle grew near Smurkzdon. It covered the rice.

Well, that is certainly demotivating. Anyone for SGOTM 7? :mad:

I think we need to be making a plan to capture the wooden spoon now.

Turn 14 3580 BC Warrior N
Turn 15 3550 BC Alexander appears in the SE mountain pass; Warrior N
http://gesserit.net/smurkz/alexander.png
Turn 16 3520 BC Warrior N
Turn 17 3490 BC Warrior fortify; Jungle covers the rice. :mad: :mad: :mad:
http://gesserit.net/smurkz/jungle.png
Turn 18 3460 BC no action
Turn 19 3430 BC Worker built

Save uploaded. The worker has not moved.

Edited because I realized the jungle covered the rice in 3490. Actually, I suspect it was between 3490 and 3460, so it really only impacted our builds for one turn so far.

As far as strategy, I think we need to start figuring out how to get to Iron Working as fast as possible.

It won't be fast enough to keep us competitive, it's just the best we can do with the cards we're dealt.

P.S. And maybe try an archer rush while teching toward IW? At least we won't be following in any else's footsteps.

Well, I don't know if I'm ready to get excited by a spreadsheet yet... but I think we need to shift our thinking to the risky side of things now. As DaviddesJ says, let's change the technology goal to Iron Working. Then I would vote for chopping that second settler out ASAP and sending it to the gold/cows/rice/bananas with a lone warrior escort. I think we should take our chances with the animals. It looks like the mapmaker changed all the AI starting warriors into scouts, so we might have some freedom from AI warrior attacks for a few turns.

Oh WTF!!?! :gripe:

I'm actually inclined to ask the powers that be to actually go in and forcibly change this using world builder or whatever. This is SO incredibly unbalancing that it obviously removes all the fun we will have from this game. There's also absolutely NOTHING we could have done to prevent it, so it's not sloppy play from our side in any way (like the lost settler in SGOTM04).

AlanH, any luck? If not, we might as well give up. :mad: :mad: :mad:

That's a very defeatist attitude! Would you ask me to reverse unexpectedly beneficial events as well?

http://gesserit.net/smurkz/dotmap1.png

I don't deny it's a defeatist attitude - if this stands then we are, de facto, defeated. What's not to be defeatist about? We certainly had a lot of fun in this game up to this point, and this ruined it. There's really no other way to look at it. It's not a small inconvenience, it's the whole difference between a good game and a bad one.

In Civ3 GOTMs iron location is fixed, because if your iron disappears it's more or less impossible to play a competitive game. I don't see this as any less unbalancing - worse in fact. Compare it to being given a start in a Civ3 GOTM with a cow that allows everyone to build a 4-turn settler producer, except your cow gets mad cow disease and can't be worked at all. Unbalancing?

No, I wouldn't expect you to reverse beneficial events, though I'm definitely not a fan of them. But the are different in that they don't remove the fun from play. (Actually that's not entirely true, if we had a random copper pop up in our BFC where the game was designed not to have copper, I probably wouldn't have found it as enjoyable any more.) The other teams might (rightly so) be miffed after the game has completed, but they wouldn't know while playing so they would still have just as much fun as they otherwise would.

I don't think this is the same as losing a Civ3 cow or having your iron move. It only delays your access to the rice until you can chop the jungle. What is the actual cost of that?

@team+AlanH:
I am not denying that this is seriously unbalancing (basically gold mine will be nearly usless or prevent us from growing, which is similar), but I also think we need orthogonal thinking here, because giving up is not a true Smurkz attitude UNLESS there is no hope and fun ;) (SGOTM04 anyone...). We need IW quicker than expected, and also second town up earlier. Very risky for sure, since it will delay our ability to defend ourselves. Then rushing is our best shot at recovering. I know a game is decided usually in the very early turns, but who knows. If we finish top 3 on this one, I then would tend to consider it victory for myself, which is probably ok for all of us, right ?

I'll get the save later on today (in ~ 8hours) and will try to assess best path from here. We might want to risk more from here: more rewards, more killing issues....

I thought I was still up? My turnset isn't finished?

@Chris:
Sorry, my mistake :blush: Sure you are still up !
(guess I was willing to play soooo much :) )

OK, here's a new plan, building the settler as fast as possible, skipping archery, getting animal husbandry for the cows, then on to iron working.http://gesserit.net/smurkz/regroup.png

@Chris:
Sorry, my mistake :blush: Sure you are still up !
(guess I was willing to play sooo