SGOTM 14 - Kakumeika

[shulec]

This choice seems to depend on what we think is our priority.
I think settling the silver site with Washington's settler would help our early research/commerce given the nice trade off of the gold with stone city and helping to get the silver up faster. Plus the city will be getting the extra trade routes from the GLH by the time they get settled. So this would offset the earlier increase maintenance that settling them earlier would cause. Additionally a settler from gems could possibly be produced to settle the horse site reasonably soon (although this might delay a great scientist assuming this is what we want next in terms of great people). What would the settling date be for a settler produced by gems? T82?

The horses site first does help guarantee access to the horses and bronze from both AI threats (which I would have to assume is quite low) and from barbarian threats. The barbarian city threat will be reduced significantly with the arrival of our warrior. However he could be driven off by a barbarian archer. A barbarian archer could possibly be avoided with a settler if one does appear, but I can see how a single archer would block us. The maintenance for this city will be somewhat greater. Not sure how much of a factor that will be since we clearly want to settle here soon. Guaranteeing access to horses and copper might have a significant impact.

I think if we can get a settler out of gems in a reasonably time frame I would vote to settle the settler from Washington near the silver first.

I think failure in securing the strategic resources is worse than the benefit of getting the silver site. It seems to be a small gamble, but if it all works out, the silver site 1st has a bigger payoff.

We should also have a great spy walking through that area and get to the horses at T83 or better.

 

[mabraham]

I agree with STW and believe we need to get the bronze site settled first for the following reasons:

1. Barb city spawn busting with a warrior and workboat won't last very long.
2. If the barbs spawn a city there, it will be difficult to take quickly without any strategic resources. We may not have IW anytime soon.
3. We want to get a strong unit (axeman) into the Hub ASAP to try to kill enough barbs to unlock the Heroic Epic (go Charismatic!)

I do agree it is important. If we go this way, we have to send a worker early also. We also want a settler for the southern culture bridge, and it needs a worker for some mines. That means we want at least two more workers ASAP. Stone city doesn't need one, but every other city does. How do we get this done?

The spawn busting I had envisioned would use the WB and warrior in these positions followed by an archer to secure the city site:

Spoiler :

That is fine for preventing unit spawn, but preventing barb city spawn relies on tile visibility. Perhaps there is a better arrangement for preventing city spawn. Presumably we can assume that barb city spawn will happen with a food resource in the BFC. There's a lot of such tiles that this suggestion leaves fogged...

The really important thing is keeping barb cities from spawning within two tiles of our intended city site.

On T61 there was an English archer that looked like it might have been heading up our spoke, so it might be helping us. We may need to rely on STW to evolve this plan dynamically.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I can't imagine an AI settling a site on our spoke yet. They have 2-5 cities at the moment.

I can; the scenario designer could have placed one or more AI very close to the hub; An AI Civ will prioritize settling near all (militarily) strategic resources whether or not they already have one of each (Horse, Copper, Iron); clearly more than one AI is aware of the Horse and Copper plot and will settle it when it is close enough to their borders.

Our information about the hub is 11t old and older. Frankly, the hub may already be settled by an AI or have an escorted settler moving to settle 2-W of the Horse plot, right on top of the Silver plot or even 1-E of the Horse where we want to settle a city.

Barbarians spawning a city there would be inconvenient; we may still be able to settle near Copper, but the ideal site for it would be lost or cost us at best several Axemen to take; if we are blocked from Copper too, we will have to wait for Iron Working and Iron may also be near the hub too; if so, we will need to wait for Gunpowder for a moderately effective attacking unit; Longbowmen aren't that great on the attack.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[bcool]

If we devote 2 workers to work down the spoke I can imagine getting a settler from Gems 1E of the horses by T81-2. This seems the best of both worlds to me. The 2 workers would built a road partially down the spoke. Plus the great spy would be down there by T82 I believe as well and could help fogbust/prevent barb cities from founding.

Getting a settler from gems means we might have to get a library in the capital instead if we want a Great scientist next before the next great spy/great merchant is born in stone city.
A library in the capital and getting GS from there would definitely delay the pyramids.

But I don't see a big problem with this as another great spy would be better than a great scientist. I'm not sure what the best use of a great merchant would be. I'm not a huge fan of bulbing currency but maybe.
We do lack a nice bureaucracy capital so an academy isn't as big a benefit as it might have. Although starting to save several great scientist for bulbs might be the way to go depending our as yet undecided victory condition.

by the way, I did finish that cultural game using spies to get 2 american cities to legendary. A 1610 AD cultural win without ever using the slider for culture of course I did use it for espionage instead. Interesting. That was my first game that I ever played that way and I wasted ~6000 espionage. So it could have been significantly faster. Plus I didn't expand very well in that game.
If we want to try this untraditional cultural game I would imagine gifting 2 cities on our land mass to an AI, founding our own religion and spreading it to the AI cities. I was getting about 3 culture for every espionage I invested. So the espionage we would need to get 100,000 culture in 2 cities would be about 33,000. This could be reduced by getting several great artists to bomb those 2 espionage cities. I was able to raise the necessary espionage with 3 great spies and only constitution for jails, castles, and nationhood civic helping out.

 

[mabraham]

I can; the scenario designer could have placed one or more AI very close to the hub; An AI Civ will prioritize settling near all (militarily) strategic resources whether or not they already have one of each (Horse, Copper, Iron); clearly more than one AI is aware of the Horse and Copper plot and will settle it when it is close enough to their borders.

Yes, it is possible, but it would require a parlay of that chance with

• the chance that we've seen none of their culture yet, and
• the chance that they have no more attractive/nearby site for their third or fourth city.

Our information about the hub is 11t old and older. Frankly, the hub may already be settled by an AI or have an escorted settler moving to settle 2-W of the Horse plot, right on top of the Silver plot or even 1-E of the Horse where we want to settle a city.

Only one city from an AI team that we have met was settled in the last turn set. The AIs have not been settling fast this game. I think these counter-indicate the threat of AI settling our copper-horse site.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I took mabraham's test save with corrected forest features and corrected the revealed plots boundary which was off by several plots revealed that were not revealed in the current state of the real game. I added AI units that I observed in the real game, though the apparent leaders are different from those in the real game; I only did it, because I could; there's no way for us to force them to move the way the AIs in the real game do, but their mere presenece in the correct location will make the test game trivially more accurate in ways we can't really measure, prove or disprove. I also moved our Work Boat to its correct location which is obviously critically important as opposed to the presence of AI units in the appropriate plots.

Enjoy!

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Yes, it is possible, but it would require a parlay of that chance with

• the chance that we've seen none of their culture yet, and
• the chance that they have no more attractive/nearby site for their third or fourth city.

We have not had a unit down in the hub that can see the situation there, since our exploring Warrior died there 11t ago. Just because we didn't see AI Civ or Barbarian culture there 11t ago, doesn't mean it can't be there now.

Only one city from an AI team that we have met was settled in the last turn set. The AIs have not been settling fast this game. I think these counter-indicate the threat of AI settling our copper-horse site.

They AI Civs probably have 1-2 settlers each ready to go, especially since they haven't been settling many cities. If they aren't settling them, they probably aren't finding good locations for them. Maybe, the Horse and Copper site in the hub on our spoke is the best site some of them have found.

We can counter back and forth, but in my opinion, not settling a militarily importance strategic resource ASAP is not a prudent course of action. If we lost the Horse and Copper site to either an AI Civ or Barbarians, how do we wrest control of it from them? Perhaps, we can try an Archer rush?

Even if the chance of losing the Horse and Copper site is only 5%, is that risk really worth about 3t of working a gold mine? I'd say no to a 5% chance of losing the game. That's quite different than a 5% chance of losing a unit in combat that one could afford to lose.

Remember we need to destroy the Wizard and we have no idea of what it will take. However, the Wizard can presumably be destroyed by other Civs/Barbarians in the game, so it may not take much to destroy it beyond a moderate stack of units, but without Horse and Copper and possibly Iron how can we do it relatively early (before Gunpowder)?

Great Wonder Risk:

If the AI Civs aren't producing settlers and settling cities, they are producing other units, buildings or great wonders. Its the last item that concerns me the most. When is the expected finish turn of The Pyramids for the AI Civs? We should start building The Pyramids in Washington soon.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I will try to finish my PPP Tuesday evening. Please get your PPP ideas posted by around 21:00 server time (Central Daylight Time) for initial consideration/inclusion.

The basis will be mabraham post #967:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10892334&postcount=967

I can't promise I won't change some of the details, but it will come with a detailed explanation of why any change was made. Let's keep those wheels turning ... micromanagement is never done ... there's always another bit to save a Hammer, Food, Commerce, ... unit.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[bcool]

They AI Civs probably have 1-2 settlers each ready to go, especially since they haven't been settling many cities. If they aren't settling them, they probably aren't finding good locations for them. Maybe, the Horse and Copper site in the hub on our spoke is the best site some of them have found.

We can counter back and forth, but in my opinion, not settling a militarily importance strategic resource ASAP is not a prudent course of action. If we lost the Horse and Copper site to either an AI Civ or Barbarians, how do we wrest control of it from them? Perhaps, we can try an Archer rush?

Even if the chance of losing the Horse and Copper site is only 5%, is that risk really worth about 3t of working a gold mine? I'd say no to a 5% chance of losing the game. That's quite different than a 5% chance of losing a unit in combat that one could afford to lose.

Remember we need to destroy the Wizard and we have no idea of what it will take. However, the Wizard can presumably be destroyed by other Civs/Barbarians in the game, so it may not take much to destroy it beyond a moderate stack of units, but without Horse and Copper and possibly Iron how can we do it relatively early (before Gunpowder)?

Great Wonder Risk:

If the AI Civs aren't producing settlers and settling cities, they are producing other units, buildings or great wonders. Its the last item that concerns me the most. When is the expected finish turn of The Pyramids for the AI Civs? We should start building The Pyramids in Washington soon.

Sun Tzu Wu

with 2 workers helping to build a road a settler from gems city can settle the horses and copper T81 instead of T80 with the settler from Washington.

Is settling the copper/horses site 1 turn later really going to reduce the risk of losing that site by a significant amount?

Settling a city 5 turns earlier has more benefits than just working the gold mine 3 more turns. Its borders pop faster, we get access to silver that much faster for the commerce and happiness. The city builds its granary that much faster, etc.

And if the worst really does happen, we have elephants.

edit: Okay, the decision isn't as clear cut. Since you can settle the copper/horses T79 with similar worker support. And if you use 2 workers to build a road to the copper/horses you can't build a road to speed up the settler from washington to the silver site.

 

[mabraham]

Settling a city 5 turns earlier has more benefits than just working the gold mine 3 more turns. Its borders pop faster, we get access to silver that much faster for the commerce and happiness. The city builds its granary that much faster, etc.

The difference might also affected a little by the acquisition of trade routes and maintenance. settling (say) T80 and T80 has produced (5+5)*3 commerce and cost 5*(x+y) gold by T85, where x and y are the whole-of-civ costs for the two new cities. Settling (say) T77 and T84 has produced (7+1)*3 commerce and cost 7x+1y, where x<y. Suppose x=3 and y=6 (pulling numbers out of the air - we can measure these if we need to). The first strategy produces +45-45. The second strategy produces +24-27. So maybe this breaks about even after all.

The important differences are in

• whether we want earlier working of tiles in one site or the other - either the commerce from the gold and later the silver, or the hammers from the (presumed) Heroic Epic (but the commerce we can use right now, the HE arrives much later - either could turn out to be relevant in determining the finish date of a military victory), and
• whether we are prepared to risk being denied the copper site from a barb city spawn (which I think will be possible whatever our scouts can do), or AI city placement (which STW rates about a 5% chance, and I rate about a 0.5% chance).

A minor issue is that settling the silver site T77 does require putting two worker turns on a road that might never be used again.

I'm leaning towards wanting the silver site fast, but my feelings are not that strong and would be swayed by a demonstration that we really can't fog-bust the copper site all that well...

And if the worst really does happen, we have elephants.

Yes, that's a good backup play, but relying on it too heavily does restrict our options quite a bit. Being pressured into Construction and HBR after Maths gives up legitimate alternatives like Aesthetics, Currency or CoL.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Just something for anyone interested in looking at my starting point, while I work through the test game till t80 for PPP data. You can run a test game from it yourselves if you want, but really how many players do we need running test games to get a near optimal plan. Its worth while for educational purposes at least. I actually encourage everyone to play a test game, but that's not required to have a good SGTOM result; however, everyone should try to stay involved in the discussions at least peripherally.

Regarding the Horse/Copper city, I'm fine with delaying settling it by a few turns (enough to give Silver City priority over it as long as we have a plan to settle no later than 5t after our earliest possible turn of settlement. Don't underestimate the scenario designer's ability to surprise us though with regard to the Horse/Copper city site being very close the capital of 2 or more AI Civs.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Working the improved, irrigated P Wheat appears to provide +5 Fpt by the food icon on wheat, but we are getting only +4 Fpt by working it. When I work the newly completed Deer also 5F1H, I get +5 Fpt. It seems as though the Wheat is improved, but not irrigated. but hovering over the plot verifies that it is irrigated. We will miss growth on t72 due to this bug's effect in t69-70 as well (we are short 2F at least according to the plan).

Can anyone else verify this issue with the test game and Gem's City?

EDIT: I have verified that the issue exists in mabraham's recently posted test save.

Thanks,

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[mabraham]

Working the improved, irrigated P Wheat appears to provide +5 Fpt by the food icon on wheat, but we are getting only +4 Fpt by working it. When I work the newly completed Deer also 5F1H, I get +5 Fpt. It seems as though the Wheat is improved, but not irrigated. but hovering over the plot verifies that it is irrigated. We will miss growth on t72 due to this bug's effect in t69-70 as well (we are short 2F at least according to the plan).

Can anyone else verify this issue with the test game and Gem's City?

EDIT: I have verified that the issue exists in mabraham's recently posted test save.

Thanks,

Sun Tzu Wu

Yeah I get it in your test saves. No idea why. WorldBuildering either the wheat out and in, or the farm out and in will fix it.

 

[mabraham]

Just something for anyone interested in looking at my starting point, while I work through the test game till t80 for PPP data.

I noticed you had the dye and ivory site labelled as priority #3, and a site south of Washington placed such that two border pops will be necessary for a culture bridge.

I think we will be after a southern culture bridge city as a third priority, and that it should be placed 2S1E of the mountain. Yes, this has no seafood in its BFC inner ring, but that's not important, since its job will be to spam out a monument to secure our trade routes to the Eastern witches, and once it has done that, the food issue is nearly moot.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Yeah I get it in your test saves. No idea why. WorldBuildering either the wheat out and in, or the farm out and in will fix it.

Probably caused by WorldBuilder.

I've also verified the issue exists in shulec's recently posted test save as well.

Gems City should have 14/26 food on t70, according to the real game. The test game has 7/26 food on t70.

I will correct the food box in Gems City by making the Wheat a Floods Plains on turn 70 for 2t, so it will grow to Pop 3 on schedule in t71, showing change in t72. I plan to leave it a Flood Plains in t72 surpassing the food box in the real game by 2 food; I will then follow up with a non-irrigated Wheat for 2t; then change it back to irrigated Wheat with matching food boxes in t75.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I noticed you had the dye and ivory site labelled as priority #3, and a site south of Washington placed such that two border pops will be necessary for a culture bridge.

I think we will be after a southern culture bridge city as a third priority, and that it should be placed 2S1E of the mountain. Yes, this has no seafood in its BFC, but that's not important, since its job will be to spam out a monument to secure our trade routes to the Eastern witches, and once it has done that, the food issue is nearly moot.

I'm not convinced that any of the cultural bridge plans will have the desired effect, but may not understand the concept well enough to judge. Wouldn't an AI also need its culture to stretch and become at least adjacent to ours? The use of a cultural bridge that I'm aware of allows a Galley to get to land that would otherwise be too far from land to bridge.

Of course, I'm willing to place Dot Maps on any plot the team would like.

The Dot Map in the south is simply a reminder that their is an unused site with two seafood; there's no priority sign attached, so please do not consider it a serious settling place (at least anytime soon).

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Under what conditions are we willing to open borders? My Preliminary (Unreleased) PPP says immediately, but I do not believe that is really quite the case yet.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[bcool]

Personally I think we should open borders with everyone we meet even if that means we run the risk of being asked to close borders with someone's worst enemy. Getting the diplo bonuses from having open borders a few turns earlier could make a significant difference in a critical tech trade, or diplomatic game vote. And of course we get trade routes as soon as a route appears (i.e. we don't run the risk of not realizing a trade route is possible).

There is only a chance that we get asked to close borders with someone and get a -1 diplo hit for denying them. I would rather take that risk so we can get the guranteed +x diplo bonus from having open borders with the various AI.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Personally I think we should open borders with everyone we meet even if that means we run the risk of being asked to close borders with someone's worst enemy. Getting the diplo bonuses from having open borders a few turns earlier could make a significant difference in a critical tech trade, or diplomatic game vote. And of course we get trade routes as soon as a route appears (i.e. we don't run the risk of not realizing a trade route is possible).

There is only a chance that we get asked to close borders with someone and get a -1 diplo hit for denying them. I would rather take that risk so we can get the guranteed +x diplo bonus from having open borders with the various AI.

I Agree that open borders should be done as soon as possible whenever increasing Diplomacy with at least some opponents is desirable, even when not pursuing a diplomatic victory such as a domination victory for that matter.

The PPP will include open borders immediately with all opponents.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

GP Farm starts a Work Boat on t71 and will take 15t to complete while growing the city at +2 Fpt. I assume we want growth, even slow growth now rather than no growth and a fast WB completion.

Please express your opinion.

Sun Tzu Wu