Is this game winnable

wydon

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
83
Location
Maryland
I rolled a crazy Russian start like 1 hr ago. I just jumped to immortal. Is it as bad as I think or is this winnable. This fish resource placement is truly annoying....:cry:

Immortal
Standard Speed
Standard size
Default Civs

I have the initial save if anyone wants to play...
 

Attachments

  • 2014-06-28_00001.jpg
    2014-06-28_00001.jpg
    444.8 KB · Views: 758
  • 2014-06-28_00002.jpg
    2014-06-28_00002.jpg
    445.6 KB · Views: 600
  • AutoSave_Initial_0000 BC-4000.Civ5Save
    501 KB · Views: 96
While not ideal, it should be a pretty easy victory. You don't have to worry about anyone. And all that salt should net you some good growth and production. Getting Petra would be a nice boon, and faith with desert folk lore would be nice. All those desert plans may lack some hills, but they are mostly next to water for good food.
 
Since immortal I thought Petra was no go and grabbed faith from salt instead of folklore. Iye
 
Since immortal I thought Petra was no go and grabbed faith from salt instead of folklore. Iye

On Deity, it is a no go, on Immortal, you just have to be able to get it by turn 85ish most the time.
 
Novgorod has no reason to be there. It's northern half completely overlaps with Moscow's workable tile radius. That's going to cripple both cities.

And you're building another settler? For where? Gonna drop it right on the snow? You're gonna be plagued with unhappiness the entire game, because you're not going to cover enough of it with those cities.
 
I was gunna get whales to the north and then I was like better put this on the forums. When I start a game I try to get 4 cities the best way I can. Lux is my number one priority. I just had no idea where to settle the cities this game. Is an OCC a viable strategy to win a game?
 
You settle cities like the a.i. does.

What does this mean? Those look like good locations, or as good as possible considering it's an island.

Unless you people seriously think he should only have two cities? And let all those other resources out of the 3-tile radius go to waste, until some AI puts a city on them? Really?
 
OP, did you know it was island map when you SIP? Non-coastal cap is gonna hurt, but I don’t see a better spot.

I am pretty sure that the NW counts as a mountain. 2nd city should be right next to it for observatory.
 
What does this mean? Those look like good locations, or as good as possible considering it's an island.

Unless you people seriously think he should only have two cities? And let all those other resources out of the 3-tile radius go to waste, until some AI puts a city on them? Really?

Dude, look at Moscow and Novgorod. Now think about what you said about a 3 tile radius.

The 'waste' there is that half of a city's potential is down the toilet immediately.

You don't NEED 4 cities. You certainly don't need 4 cities on that island.
 
This was a standard continents game. I moved warrior SW so missed coast locale. If I saw the whole island I woulda done things differently. Novgard shoulda been settle near NW in retrospect but I was so tempted to work those salts (even though they are desert).

So how would a "good player" have settled this island (assuming capital is in place)? Maybe 3 cities putting novgrad near nw and hope I expand to the whales? Two unique resources until someone hits astronomy hurts. Plus CS is Hostile :cry: I really want to learn from this start to get better.
 
I think its more fun, and even more fair, to put whole think up for grabs. If warrior had gone either due west or due east, you would found coast, settled on salt, and left the other side open for an expo. Scouting turns up the NW and room for four very good cities, but maybe OCC until NC? St Petersburg is okay. It hurts to give up the river, but you knew it was continents, so really you needed to find ocean. SIP was a bad bet.
 
What does this mean? Those look like good locations, or as good as possible considering it's an island.

Unless you people seriously think he should only have two cities? And let all those other resources out of the 3-tile radius go to waste, until some AI puts a city on them? Really?

1) the distance

Settling cities on top of each other only flies if you're the ai. You should generally leave 6-7 tiles between cities so you aren't over lapping borders, gimping them both resource wise in the long run.

2) the location...

"Oh look coast! I'll just settle my city one tile inland."

On an island no less.

My advice to the OP is; when settling cities, completely ignore the little gold flags that pop up when your settler is selected. An optimal place to settle cities is on top of a hill (windmill) next to a river (watermill/hydro plant) and on the coast (obv reasons). Don't just blow your settlers because the ai tells you to. Try to picture how large the borders are going to be at 20-25 population.
 
Is 4 Salt and 2 Wheat winnable?

Plus 3 deer, a wine, a marble, and river. Of all that 11, only one deer in 3rd ring. It’s a nice spot. Still, I would give up some to be on the coast (since it’s continents). I am not clear where the settler spawned, but it would not have been on the marble.
 
The fact he is on an island to himself with any decent resources for growth should make it a cake walk. It might not be a speed record game, but it should be one that you can use to practice your build order in peace.
 
Plus 3 deer, a wine, a marble, and river

No marble friend, it's just wine & salt to start and whale if I can expand to it. BTW I'm in Frederick too...

No. You need at least 5 salt to win civz. 4 salt is an automatic rage quit.

I'm not saying the start is bad at all, I think it rather good.:goodjob: I meant that after I settle in place my capital I looked over the island and was like f*&^
 
Top Bottom