SGOTM 13 - Smurkz

Preflight discussion.

00 4000 BC
The World as We Know It 4000 BC


This is almost a redo of Niklas' Post #32, but it is our offical turn, and has the save attached.

I will play to Turn 10 tomorrow, post for discussion, and then continue on to Turn 20.

I am also Turnplayer for Team FREE in the Multi-Team Demo Game 2, and we are over 12 hours behind in getting our turn played. I would rather play that one turn badly than forge ahead here and play 10 turns badly.

My thoughts...

I'm not really in favour of joining the worker, especially if there is a narrow neck of land leading south - a road towards our neighbours will be more helpful in the long run. We'll lose 2g by moving the worker up the mountain to see if the land does, indeed, go on - will that break our schedule?

I don't think we need to move onto the mountain. The plan is not to join the worker until way after the first warrior is built anyway, so if we're decided to settle in place anyway then it only means a slight delay in knowing whether the land goes on or not. We can decide if we want to join the worker or not after we know if there's more land.

I'm still tempted to move the settler SE but I guess that's just my want to do things differently . I have no problem with settling in place, and that's probably the wisest move. zyxy's turnplan looks good to me.

I think zyxy's plan looks good for at least the first 10 turns, so how 'bout CB play those and then when he does his scheduled 10-turn break, we can revise as needed.

A little pre-revising brainstorm session...

If there isn't anymore land, I think we should consider putting the 2nd city on the BG in the southeast. We lose 1 turn in moving the settler and also lose +1spt (until the city gets to size 7, right??), but we gain more coastal tiles for the 2nd city. I'm guessing that if we are indeed isolated, we'll probably get aqueducts and harbors in our starting cities before we're able to jump to another landmass. Perhaps we won't be able to spare the shields, but the ducts and harbors--together with plenty of coastal tiles--should gives us a fair bit of commerce. I'm hoping for whales or fishies in the fog to the south.

Also, if we place the 2nd city on the BG, we save our worker from having to build one more road. Truth be told, I'm still a little hesitant about joining the worker. I know joining will keep our capital above size 1 always and speeds the research at first glance.

If we join the worker: According to zyxy's sheet...

We'll have 73 spare shields post-building the settler until we get alpha. Those 73 shields could be:

• Seven warriors- Dubious. No $$ for upgrades, only possible iron nearby, unit support issues
• A temple plus "other stuff"- Maybe decent
• Granary- good if more land, but we need Pottery.
• Wealth- Possibly.

Wealth intrigues me. Pre-Economics, I think C3C gives 1gpt for every 4spt. That means we'd make 18gp extra with those 73 shields. That would speed Alpha at least 1 turn, maybe two.

IF we didn't join the worker, but instead had him mine like a fiend, we could have him mine the cow, the capital's BG, and one other flatland tile after doing his roading work (assuming we settled the second city on the other BG). That would translate into +2 or 3spt and if we built wealth, more gpt.

My calcs are very rough, admittedly. I don't generally like the idea of building wealth in the capital , but in this case it might payoff the most, better than a temple.

Basically, I'm thinking IF we settled our second city of the BG and IF we didn't join the worker but had him mine instead, we might make up the gpt we lose by NOT joining the worker. I think we still lose a bit, but it's pretty close. Plus, we'll be in much better shape improvement-wise when the time comes for us to pump units. We do lose out on a temple build, but we'd still have a worker around, saving us 10 shields in the future.

Of course, if there's more land we could have the worker build a big road to somewhere. That would kinda negate some of the "don't join / mine instead and build wealth" argument.

If we do join the worker, I think the second city needs to make a worker as the first build.

00 4000 BC (continued)
[IBT]

01 3950 BC
[IBT]

02 3900 BC
[IBT]

03 3850 BC
[IBT]

Sensei Smurkz rWarrior (01) -> rWarrior in 4.

04 3800 BC
[IBT]

05 3750 BC
[IBT]

06 3700 BC
[IBT]
Sensei Smurkz rWarrior (02) -> rWarrior in 4.

07 3650 BC
[IBT]

08 3600 BC
[IBT]

09 3550 BC
[IBT]
Sensei Smurkz rWarrior (03) -> rWarrior in 3.
Border expansion.

10 3500 BC
[IBT]

Our World at 3500 BC



And the save is >>HERE<<.

Current plan is to build a fourth warrior (due on Turn 12), followed by a settler (due on Turn 20) and joining the worker back into Sensei Smurkz on Turn 18.

So an island it is, sigh. Let's just hope we have coastal access to the SW, otherwise this game will be a game of chance.

Anyway, well played so far CB . But don't we have enough warriors by now? Another unit and we'll start paying upkeep, not good.

I think we do have enough, but I was following the spreadsheet. It shows warriors being produced on Turn 4 and 10 but the reality was Turn 4, 7 and 10.

If we start the settler now it looks like it will finish on Turn 17 or so (based on eyeball calculations, not pen and paper).

Build our second city on the BG 3SE of Sensei Smurkz or the coastal pennisula?

Or should we start a curragh before we expand?

I'd be willing to bet there is accessable land nearby. The real Japan consists of more than one island close together and this map probably has the same flavor.

Shouldn't we make a settler before the curragh? With 4 warriors, a worker and a curragh wouldn't we pay 2gpt upkeep while we build our settler?

In particular we want Alphabet before we build a curragh.

Well done CB!

There seems to be a problem with the spreadsheet - somehow shields are lost on turn 6 in the sheet.

We could start training the settler now, or switch to wealth for a few turns. The first case goes like this:


Where do we settle the second town? Where the warrior is right now?

Do we want one or two more towns on our landmass? I don't think two is unreasonable, one on each grassland tile.

Niklas said:

In particular we want Alphabet before we build a curragh.

Click to expand...

Oh, my goodness. I have a terrible time rating/remembering the Ancient Age Techs!

zyxy said:

Where do we settle the second town? Where the warrior is right now?

Click to expand...

I favor where our warrior stands right now. I don't recall the land type. But building here allows the grassland-only tile to be swapped by both cities.

If I read the spreadsheet right, the settler will complete on Turn 17 and be born on Turn 18. Also on Turn 18 we will join Worker01 to Sensei Smurkz.

On Turn 18 our settler would move S, E and SE onto the 2nd BG. On Turn 19 it would move S and join Warrior02. On Turn 20 it would become a city, and start a warrior as a prebuild to something better.

After the settler, what do we build in Sensei Smurkz (SS)?

I second settling where the warrior is right now.

I think we can make one more warrior there for MP duty, which will take 5 turns. We'd still be 15? turns away from Alphabet though. We could then join the worker to SS, and start a worker from the second city.

As for what to do with SS: I think we can work out what Klarius decided to do (Temple). So it's either Temple, or Wealth. I think we need to work out how a Temple will benefit us (in the long run, I reckon it will), and when it will start benefiting us.

I second settling where the warrior is right now.

I think we can make one more warrior there for MP duty, which will take 5 turns. We'd still be 15? turns away from Alphabet though. We could then join the worker to SS, and start a worker from the second city.

As for what to do with SS: I think we can work out what Klarius decided to do (Temple). So it's either Temple, or Wealth. I think we need to work out how a Temple will benefit us (in the long run, I reckon it will), and when it will start benefiting us.

If we settle the second city where the warrior is now, that city will be very shield-poor. It could work a mined grass tile and a mined BG tile for 3spt. Add in the city center and it would have a permanent max of 4spt.

If we just go with two cities total, I favor settling on the BG. It costs us 1spt for now, but that way we can swap around the hill and mountain tiles for extra shields when needed. More flexible MM that way.

I also like the idea of doing three cities. More cramped, but we'll have better unit support and maybe we wouldn't need to build aqueducts to fully utilize all our tiles. It will be critical to maximize our use of every tile since we have so few to begin with.

I like the idea to build three cities. They will certainly provide more commerce - and free support - than 2. Hence, we can train a second settler right after the first.

We're stuck on this island until we get MapMaking, which is a long ways off. We'll need commerce much more than shields.

With three cities, we'll have to MM our food bonuses closely, especially that wonderful oyster. A city on the peninsula could be commerce-rich, but especially before harbors it will grow slowly.

I whole-heartedly agree that for now our bottleneck is getting enough commerce to speed to Map Making. Once we get galleys, though, I think the big issue will be getting enough shields to make the necessary units for taking over better lands. IMO that's why we need to be extra-conscious of how we're setting ourselves up for shield production.

P.S. It's getting harder to express anger on the forum. Adding a Santa cap to the smiley just makes it hard to be taken seriously.

Good thing the left the free then.

I think the case for two towns is strong. Do we have a spreadsheet incorporating that?

Niklas said:

Good thing the left the free then.

Click to expand...

True that.

Ok, so we have three votes (unofficially) for making three towns. I'd work up a spreadsheet right now, but I'm not sure my boss would be appreciative.

I'm still some hours away from playing the next 10 turns and my biggest concern is where to plant the next city. I don't want to stifle discussion, so if we need to take some time to resolve 2 cities vs. 3 cities or where to place our second city, that's okay with me. I can play tomorrow also.

With three cities, we have only two locations: 2SE of SS (grass) and 3SE-S of SS (probably plains).
With two cities, we have only three locations: 2SE of SS (grass), 3SE of SS (BG) and 3SE-S of SS (probably plains).