Superslug Monarch #1 2B
- Thread starter superslug
- Start date
At least I haven't screwed up too bad with this game yet. I did miss construction of Leonardo's by two turns. And I probably should have stationed Cavalry right outside Umma and just ROP-raped Sumeria to get Leo's faster than plowing through their cities over several turns. I also should have taken Sun Tzu's from the Byzantines before starting crap with Germany.
But, hindsight is 20/20. I'm not really sure any of those qualify as mistakes in as much as they're things I could have done better/faster.
Thanks! This will likely be my last game on Monarch...
I have started a new game on Monarch. But it seems like EMan is the winner. I'm playing PTW1.27 on Egypt. Seems like EMan had a really great luck or otherwise masterful play, I cannot reach his score anyway. My game is now in about 1000 CE, I have conquerred all place, but I think, I"m still below his score
. I'll post detailed info if I ever finish this game. Now I'm thinking about abandoning it, altough I might score the second place... That remains to be seen, but at least I got 512 Megs of new memory to my computer, so the end turns might not last so long. 
I think it was a combination of both.
EMan says that the early GL he got to rush the Pyramids with in his game was luck. I believe his masterful play was what maxed out that luck to full effectiveness.
Darkness
Shadow creature
Let's wait with drawing that kind of conclusion until C3C is finally patched well, and the agricultural civs have seen some action on archipelago maps with huge domination limits.... (though I know from first hand experience EMan's score is very, very tough to beat...
)
I don't know if 1.15 is a 'good' patch, but I am counting on the other factors. My current game is archipelago (as obvious be the minimap). I'm also playing as the Netherlands (Seafaring, Agricultural). I don't recall my domination limit offhand, but Mapfinder was set for over 4200 tiles...No kidding! I wasn't really aiming for it with my China game, but during the milk phase I thought maybe, just maybe...Originally posted by Darkness
(though I know from first hand experience EMan's score is very, very tough to beat...
1240ad: The majority of Germany fell in two turns. All they have left is a remote tundra town on the Korean island. After taking their last continental town, I promptly negotiated a military alliance with Korea, so Germany may not last long.
I'm taking advantage of being at war with only one town by staying mobilized. I plan on building up my Cavalry forces as much as possible before starting the next conflict.
I'm taking advantage of being at war with only one town by staying mobilized. I plan on building up my Cavalry forces as much as possible before starting the next conflict.
1240ad: Doh! Good thing I shut the game down to watch the DS9 marathon on SpikeTV. I just remembered I should take over Sun Tzu's before setting all my towns to raw Cavalry. Guess I'll have to pay the Byzantine's a visit...
1260ad: I decided to go ahead and rid myself of Babylon before tackling the Byzantines. With the exception of a remote tundra town, I eliminated Babylon in one turn.
Precious sleep...
Precious sleep...
Svar
King
Originally posted by Darkness
Let's wait with drawing that kind of conclusion until C3C is finally patched well, and the agricultural civs have seen some action on archipelago maps with huge domination limits.... (though I know from first hand experience EMan's score is very, very tough to beat...
I think C3C will eventually yield a better score if the Pyramids are the key. In my current 20 K culture fastest finish Regent standard world game I got a SGL very early and built the Pyramids in 3300 BC. EMan built his in 2750 BC.
1265ad: Another long turn completed before work. 95% of my time on it was spent moving ever more workers around ever more territory. Getting all my Cavalry and Horsemen back to barracks towns took some time as well.
One note of interest: the 'last' German town, New Cologne, was taken out of commission, I'm guessing by the Koreans. Sadly, one of their former towns flipped back to them before this. This is the point of the game where I need to decide if I'm going to keep the six remaining scientific civs around on tundra or just eliminate them.
How much trouble is one free tech worth?
One note of interest: the 'last' German town, New Cologne, was taken out of commission, I'm guessing by the Koreans. Sadly, one of their former towns flipped back to them before this. This is the point of the game where I need to decide if I'm going to keep the six remaining scientific civs around on tundra or just eliminate them.
How much trouble is one free tech worth?
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
Depends how much effect tech from here on will have on your score. You certainly don't need more tech for military power
You're right about the military power. It's all a matter of quantity there as the AI won't be around long enough to hit Infantry.
For the time being I've abandoned research in order to spend money on upgrades. I do have a single scientist researching Electricity at 50 turns. In regards to the AI, I'm either tied for tech or have a lead.
The only difference it would make in the long run would be getting Longevity 4 turns earlier...
I think I am going to keep the Scientific ones around. 4 more turns of milking is 4 more turns of milking and I really shouldn't cut any corners that can help out score.
For the time being I've abandoned research in order to spend money on upgrades. I do have a single scientist researching Electricity at 50 turns. In regards to the AI, I'm either tied for tech or have a lead.
The only difference it would make in the long run would be getting Longevity 4 turns earlier...
I think I am going to keep the Scientific ones around. 4 more turns of milking is 4 more turns of milking and I really shouldn't cut any corners that can help out score.
Keep on slugging 'slug....glad to see you're playing out the game!
This GW Longevity: Are you in a position where you have enough food to support at least 2 more people when the food box fills AFTER you acquire Longevity?
If not, perhaps you can explain the benefit of that GW!?
I know Moonsinger gave it a good plug! (One of her little "secrets"!)
This GW Longevity: Are you in a position where you have enough food to support at least 2 more people when the food box fills AFTER you acquire Longevity?
If not, perhaps you can explain the benefit of that GW!?
I know Moonsinger gave it a good plug! (One of her little "secrets"!)
Thanks! I'm hoping for a marathon session or two tonight and tomorrow since I've got a day off. The recent turn a day pace has been killing me...the thread may not show it, but I have played every day, even if I didn't finish a turn.Originally posted by EMan
Keep on slugging 'slug....glad to see you're playing out the game!
Two reasons I like Longevity:
1) Repositioned (i.e. new) cities grow twice as fast. More population, faster means more points, which is the whole point right?
2) During the milk phase, I always figured even if that second person starves off I had him/her for a point for a turn or so right?
I basically have to admit to being an ignorant dumbass: why is balancing the food box at 2 extra people better than getting an occasional extra person and just letting them die?
This is a GOOD question.......I don't think it is!
In fact, 2 cities of say 10 people with NO food excess will score BETTER than 2 cities of 10, one with +1 toast; the other with -1 toast! (Assuming there are plenty of turns to go.)....this would apply with or without Longevity.
1. YES, this would be the BIG advantage....the down-side would be the cost of reseaching the extra techs AND building the GW Longevity. The BIG question associated with this is:
Should you re-position your cities early on? If the answer is yes, they could easily be "max-ed" out on people by the time Longevity comes along!
2. NO....because a city with +1 toast, say, will be at x+1 people only 1/2 the time the city will be at x-1 people. This is because you will fill the WHOLE Food Box when the city is at x-1 people BUT only empty HALF the Food Box when the city is at x+1! (viz. For example where x=10: 40 turns at x-1 people, 20 turns at x+1 people!)
Does that make any sense?
@EMan: I'm obviously don't fully comprehend what you're saying yet, but just so I understand your notation, are we defining 'x' as the maximum number of citizens in a Longevity/Granary city with a balanced food box?
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
Here's another way to look at the Longevity and uneven city size questions:
Suppose we have Pyramids and start a cycle in a size 10 city with 1 extra food/turn and no food in the bin. Let's count the extra score gained by having citizens past size 10 with and without Longevity. Count each extra citizen for 1 point.
Without Longevity the city's cycle is:
40 turns at size 10 to fill the bin and grow
20 turns at size 11 to empty the 1/2 full bin and shrink
So without Longevity we get 1 point for 20 turns out of 60, or 0.33 points/turn on average.
With Longevity the cycle is:
40 turns at size 10 to fill the bin and grow to size 12
7 turns at size 12 to empty the 1/2 full bin and shrink
1 turn at size 11 to shrink again
So with Longevity we get 2 points per turn for 7 turns plus 1 for 1 turn, = 15 points per 51 turns, or 0.29 points/turn on average. (Or is it even less because the cycle has just 6 turns at size 12? I'm not sure but it doesn't change the conclusion.)
So it seems that Longevity will slightly reduce score (in steady state), as EMan says
And as EMan also said, two cities at constant size 10 are better than one 10 + 1/2 and one 10 - 1/2. Comparing those two cases, let's count each citizen above size 9 for one point:
The two cities at size ten obviously gain 2 points/turn.
The city at size 10 - 1/2 is the same thing as being at 9 + 1/2, and that gains 0.33 points/turn as described earlier.
The city at size 10 + 1/2 gains 1/turn + 0.33/turn.
The two cities total 1.67/turn, less than two steady state size 10 cities.
Suppose we have Pyramids and start a cycle in a size 10 city with 1 extra food/turn and no food in the bin. Let's count the extra score gained by having citizens past size 10 with and without Longevity. Count each extra citizen for 1 point.
Without Longevity the city's cycle is:
40 turns at size 10 to fill the bin and grow
20 turns at size 11 to empty the 1/2 full bin and shrink
So without Longevity we get 1 point for 20 turns out of 60, or 0.33 points/turn on average.
With Longevity the cycle is:
40 turns at size 10 to fill the bin and grow to size 12
7 turns at size 12 to empty the 1/2 full bin and shrink
1 turn at size 11 to shrink again
So with Longevity we get 2 points per turn for 7 turns plus 1 for 1 turn, = 15 points per 51 turns, or 0.29 points/turn on average. (Or is it even less because the cycle has just 6 turns at size 12? I'm not sure but it doesn't change the conclusion.)
So it seems that Longevity will slightly reduce score (in steady state), as EMan says
And as EMan also said, two cities at constant size 10 are better than one 10 + 1/2 and one 10 - 1/2. Comparing those two cases, let's count each citizen above size 9 for one point:
The two cities at size ten obviously gain 2 points/turn.
The city at size 10 - 1/2 is the same thing as being at 9 + 1/2, and that gains 0.33 points/turn as described earlier.
The city at size 10 + 1/2 gains 1/turn + 0.33/turn.
The two cities total 1.67/turn, less than two steady state size 10 cities.
Similar threads
