ALC Game #10: India/Asoka

Pre-Game Thread

Round 1: 4000 BC
Round 2: 2880 BC
Round 3: 2440 BC
Round 4: 1200 BC
Round 5: 550 BC
Round 6: 100 BC
Round 7: 640 AD
Round 8: 980 AD
Round 9: 1120 AD
Round 10: 1290 AD
Round 11: 1505 AD
Round 11: 1600 AD
Round 12: 1730 AD
Round 13: 1830 AD
Round 14: 1894 AD
Round 15: 1938 AD
Post-Mortem

The idea of the All Leaders Challenge is that I'm going to play a game with each of the Civ IV leaders--mostly the less popular ones--that I haven't tried before. With the help of all the posters who participate, I will attempt to make the most of the leader's unique characteristics: traits, starting techs, unit, and building. Aside from the leader, the other game settings are kept constant, at their defaults, for the sake of comparison. I will post the saved game files, screenshots, and status reports here as the game progresses. Everyone then has a chance to chime in with their strategy ideas, or voice their frustration (or glee) when I make a mistake.

Everyone is invited to offer opinions and advice, and to make your own attempt at playing the same game. But if you do play a "shadow game", I kindly request that you refrain from posting spoilers--i.e. any facts or even hints about the map, opponents, and so on--before I'm there myself. I'm trying to play the game as authentically as possible.

In this ALC game, I'm playing as Asoka, leader of India. This is the first of the ALC games that will be played using the Warlords expansion pack (complete with the recent patch). The difficulty level is Monarch, and the map and game settings remain at their defaults. Here's a look at them if you're curious about the details:



And here is the starting position:



Boy, the map generator certainly seems fond of giving me tons of flood plains for the ALCs. I usually don't get any in my off-line games--what's up with that?

Regardless, flood plains are both a boon and a problem, all the more so because Asoka is not Expansive (which has been nerfed in the health bonus regard anyway). I count 8 flood plains in the fat cross if I settle in place; the one the Settler's standing on would have the flood plain layer removed, and there would be two extra flood plains left over in the east for another city to use. So there are, in fact, 11 flood plain tiles visible in total. They each add a -0.4 health penalty, so the settle-in-place city would have a -3 health penalty, though it would be offset by +2 for fresh water and +1 for the piggies.

But here's the thing: look north. First off, there's plainly a river delta and coastline there. In addition, there's a plains hill, seemingly right on the coast, and yes, thanks to the Warlords patch, it now gets a fresh water bonus even though it's diagonal to the river mouth.

So we could move the Settler to the plains hill for the protection and especially for the hammer bonus, which I have found to be very advantageous in the early game. However, that would cost us two flood plains--though all 11 would be preserved, most for use by other cities. Moving to the hill also costs us the piggies, and we have no other food resources visible up there. Mind you, that's not a huge problem; we could always farm a floodplain, which makes for a decent food tile.

Another problem with moving the Settler to the hill is that we lose a turn, putting research of an early religion in jeapordy. If we don't like what we see from the hill and decide to move elsewhere, that's another turn lost, potentially. And by moving so far away we may be missing out on the additional hidden resource the map generator usually likes to put in a capital's fat cross.

But moving would allow us to split the flood plains (and the health demerit) between at least 2, possibly as many as 3 cities. ALC followers will know I'm fond of that approach and have used it to my advantage in several games in the series. It would also ensure that any hidden resources are likely to pop up in one of those cities' workable areas.

Or is there another better spot that I'm not seeing? Moving the Settler 1 NW would put 4 flood plains in the capital's fat cross, keep the piggies, and very likely be coastal. I also think any bonus resources are most likely to appear in the non-forested plains and grassland hidden in the W/SW/S fog, which that location would keep, for the most part. I don't think we want to head east--looks like there's desert tiles over there.

Hmmmmm...

I told you this start would generate a lot of debate!

So where to move the Warrior? He's not in a position to really help with the flood plain versus hill versus west delta debate. I'm thinking he should either go SW or NE to help reveal what we'd miss out on by moving--probably SW, NE looks like desert to me.

Obviously I'm thinking of letting the capital's borders pop the goody hut.

Oh, and remember that we don't know what hemisphere (north or south) we're in. The Warlords patch has also stopped the resource indicators from revealing that little factoid.

So! A promising start, but one with several potential challenges and discussion points. I look forward to hearing everyone's opinions. As I mentioned in the pre-game thread, I'll endeavor to play fewer turns each round so we can have more discussion surrounding how to use the patched Warlords gameplay features. In addition, remember that this is my very first Warlords game. Yes, I'm a virgin. Please be gentle.

The saved game file:

Hello!

I'll just jump right in, if that's ok:


If you are looking to play thematically and do the religious schtick, then I would not move and jeopardize. OTOH, there may be a religous zealot out there in the dark with a slightly better commerce tile to snatch away whichever religion you choose to go fishing for.


I think the coastal site makes a lot of long term strategic sense since you are playing continents and may eventually need to get some Caravels out to meet other civs. I think beachfront property with immediate production increase to get out that first worker is worth the one movement point. The worker (if it is first build) still comes out earlier even after the turn burn.


I like gambits.

Edit to add: Conifers tend to be closer to the poles than do deciduous trees. I am guessing you/we are N of equator.

I would probably move Warrior NE to expose maximum tiles and then move Settler NW 1 tile to expose ocean squares (fishies would be nice to see) and then onto the hilltop. Nice defensive capital position to handle the more agressive AI (if that were to become a factor.)


One more thing.

Thanks for doing these great threads.

The move 1 NW makes the best sense, going off what you see now. Has your capitol ever been attacked by an AI in any of these ALC games? I can't recall, but if you follow typical form, the defense of your homeland hasn't exactly been a high priority. If you do settle the hill, though, it should'nt be a huge blow to the religious race-- the AI in Warlords doesn't seem to emphasize it as much, in my experience. It will be a gamble, but not as risky as it would be in Vanilla. (Whether the patch has changed this tendency I can't say yet.)

Splitting up the floood plains also gives you more flexibility when it comes to settle your second city, as you'll be going where the resources are, especially Bronze. OTOH, city placement is the biggest weakness in my game, so take that observation lightly.

I'll second drkodos on the great work as well, with the selfish happiness that you're playing Warlords and can help my game again . . .

yeah i say move NW it looks costal and you dont lose a turn on your religious gambit and you keep the piggies, the hill and some floodplains

Sisuitil,

damn you move through games fast!! as far as initial position, I would definately advocate moving ONLY 1N then settling there. keep the pigs and pick up a coastal tile. that way you have 5 river tiles for watermills (on floodplanes no less) and can take advantage of great lighthouse etc from that angle. Also you MUST keep the darn pigs to offset the negative health from the floodplains. hopefully there will be fish within those nearby tiles. I would honestly not settle on the hill it would make better use as a mine.. seing as how you have no other good production tiles nearby you'll need the hammers if you decide to shoot for the pyramids.

looking forward to seeing your opening micro

NaZ

If you planning to settle near the coast (it might not be a coast for all you know it could be a lake tile) move your warrior NE to check the tile NE,NE of the settler whether its a Desert tile or not.

If it is and you still want to settle on the coast settle NW of where you are.

If its not a desert tile settle noth of where you are.

If you don't want to settle near the coast Move your warriot SW to check out the terrain.

Definitely go NW with the Warrior, and move the settler one north. If you want to see more, then you can move onto the hill. If you don't like what you see, you move back. If you do, you found there. Seems straightforward....

1 NW is very tempting as it does appear to be coast. I don't like the idea of settling on the hill as this capital appears it will be hammer deficient.

Most usually, I settle in place, and rarely am I disappointed. For certain, you'll find better coastal cities for production. This appears to be a case where moving the capital might be a good idea. Settling in place will make this city a financial juggernaut, but little benefit will come of bureaucracy.

I wouldn't be too concerned with the health issues. Happiness will more than likely hold you back more. You can always farm a floodplain or two early, if needed, for extra food. Not to mention, you'll have five forests in the cross for a 2.5 health bonus and pig roasts for several millenia.

Let's face it. You're going to stomp on somebody before long and you'll find rice and wheat and corn and cows. With granaries and grocers, the unhealthiness demerits you'll experience from settling in place will soon vanish.

I'd shoot for settling 1NW as you will still have 4 FP, hill for production, pigs for health and hope for some other nice tiles. Perheps we won't have a super great city (though all that food will be great for whipping!!), but it looks like there are some hills S along the river which could make for a nice 2nd city (perhaps settling 2nd city 1S of the warrior, though we will have to see what the scouting shows). Settling in place just seems like too many FP for one city. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing at times. Settling 1N just seems like there are too many FP in the fat cross for one city to really take advantage of.

Thus far, with the ALC's, I've seen you exterminate lots of enemy civs on a game by game basis. With the introduction of the GG, I'm going to make a suggestion you found a nice production city on a coast (if you're very lucky, only one or two coastal tiles) for the following reason.

Since you're playing continents, once you've conquered your continent, the need usually switches to naval units. What could be better at that time to have the HE/WP, several military instructors, and a dry dock. 14 XP naval units w/o vassalage or theocracy possibly, unless of course WP and the GG military instructors don't apply to naval units in which case this post is rubbish.

I'm curious to see the benefit of a medic 3 unit as well, if that is what you choose to do with your first GG. I usually just beef up an axeman who I upgrade and usually shoot for the mythical 65 XPsby end game, only done it once.

Try moving the settler one tile to NW. I don't know about you but I can see a little bit of the base of the hill two tiles to the left (next to the forest). Move the warrior to the forested hill to lift a large area of the fog of war in the SE.

My instinct would be to start by moving the warrior SE to the hill, because I want to evaluate the viability of that plains tile next to him as a city site. If it looks good, I might decide to settle there first, and worry about where to place a city at the river mouth later.

Bronzeworking is low leverage in this start, and Animal Husbandry isn't on the way anywhere useful, so I wouldn't feel terrible about punting the pigs in the first city. This pushes me back towards considering more religious starts.

Assuming the warrior doesn't spot anything interesting, I'd be really tempted to move the settler one tile SE and found the Temple of Doom, with an idea towards getting a shrine or two into the city and then running a priest based economy.

I agree with VOU about moving warrior se to the hill first. You have two potential city sites; one on the plains south of warrior, one on plains hill east of the delta. At this point you don't know what other resources are available but I'd reckon settle on plains hill first; health ain't an immediate concern if you're going to apply the whip early.

VoU's suggestion of checking the value of a city on the SE plain has a good appeal.
But for your capital, i really think there are 2 good options only.
1) right where you are. The map generator is nice so there can be no bad surprise (meaning no desert, no pike, no jungle) + pigs and probably 2 other resources (not yet seen)
2) on the hill to the north. Why? because it's on the river, it may be coastal, hills offer protection. I fear it's a desert hill, so no production bonus (city tile will be 2F1H1C, but you can check this (just click on the show tile output button, and you'll see if it's 2H1C or 1H1C). My screen isn't that grand for such tiny differences.

I don't like popping huts before my first city is settled, since you can't get a free tech. So for this not very important reason I favour settling on the hill. Going there by moving 1 NW then 1NE would allow you to see for yourself if it's coastal or not. If it isn't settling 1NW or moving on a forest (more exploration, for no price since you can't settle when you have moved twice) could be an option.

I disagree with Drkodos, I think we're on the southern desert strip. But it doesn't matter much right now.

The thing about the hill is it will probably have a lot of water tiles and few other hills.

N or NW seem worth checking out if desired.

With Asoka I've tended to do a little better starting with worker techs and Oracling to Confucianism. But if you did that it's not obvious whether Agr/AH, Hunting/AH, or BW is best here.

Move 1 NW first to check the status of the coast, then potentially move to hills if 1 NW doesn't prove enticing to settle on. If it's a plains hills then you'll probably not want to settle on it and instead mine it for production. You're going to be rather short of production otherwise.

=DOCTOR= said:

Move 1 NW first to check the status of the coast, then potentially move to hills if 1 NW doesn't prove enticing to settle on. If it's a plains hills then you'll probably not want to settle on it and instead mine it for production. You're going to be rather short of production otherwise.

Click to expand...

that's not a problem
build the oracle in city n°2

If it is really a coast line up there (can't check it) and not a delta in the mountains then there is a good chance that there is a food resource up there since there is only 1 resource in sight.

Settling 1NW will give you already a good second city site 1S of the Warrior. You can share the pigs for some extra growth and it will have also 6 possible flood plains and some plains hills.

About the warrior I would send him 1 SW first to see what else is up there. I would rather have seen him above the settler but alas one can't have it all. It is a very good start anyway. Good luck.

I think settling one tile north would be better than one tile to the northwest.

Both the NW site and the hill to the north would give you too many water tiles. Settling one tile to the north allows you to settle this turn, while still giving you access to the coast and the pigs. You also get seven floodplain tiles, which generates only two unhealthiness.

The warrior should climb the hill to the the southeast, to check out the lay of the land for a possible second city.

Second city scout can wait, first priority is where to found the capital. Waste one warrior move to uncover all about capital location. However there is also a possibility to make capital somewhere S-SW of warrior too I guess...

Is there a possibility that the delta NW leads to a lake rather than on ocean? What impact would that have on our strategy?

I'd agree that you do not need all those FPs in one (monster commerce) city. Splitting them up makes perfect sense. Often I find the capital location is so good that any cities around become poor in comparison. So share the wealth.