Which rock to settle first? One factor can be fog-gazing to see hills in the second border expansion that are likely to defog two tiles distant. Marble has one hill at 2E, I think, and may have one at 2W. Of course, that's going to be partly speculation since we cannot fog-gaze the northernmost and southernmost tiles. In any case, we need the REAL SAVE in hand to do this fog-gazing properly.
I think we should move the settler first in any case, but assuming he goes to the stone, I'm thinking it's probably more useful to send the warrior SE-SE (to Marble-2E) because it appears that will expose only one less tile of the Marble-FC. Then the warrior could begin going SW to trace the southern river for a while.
That's assuming we want to defog the Marble FC for sure. If not, the warrior could go straight southwest and along that western river because that path looks flatter for the first 6 turns.
xpost
Interesting stuff, ZPV. Where is it specified where animals can spawn?
pPlot = GC.getMapINLINE().syncRandPlot((RANDPLOT_NOT_VISIBLE_TO_CIV | RANDPLOT_PASSIBLE), pLoopArea->getID(), GC.getDefineINT("MIN_ANIMAL_STARTING_DISTANCE"))
I cleaned out my PM a bit, my undertaker will have to clean out my room...@LC
Clean out your PM folder... and clean your room while you're at it.
Most of the rules look fine. I think that we agreed last game that it was more of a hindrance than it was helpful to pause the game before uploading it.babybluepants said:Pause the game before uploading/examining it.
Generally, this advice is good, but sometimes you want to choose to use the City Governor, since you know that when the City grows in Size during your turnset, the City Governor will do the right thing (since you tested that fact in a test game). So, I might instead say "Do not use city governors except when you have explicitly determined that doing so is the best thing to do for a particular city." Typical Dhoom wordiness for ya there.babybluepants said:Do not use city governors
It may feel silly, but trust me, it will feel far sillier to have our Warrior die and then either be unable to risk settling our second City unescorted or else risk settling it and losing the Settler to a Barb Animal.babybluepants said:It feels silly to sit the warrior for very long.
Those two Barb Animal types are the scariest. Perhaps we should even aim to maximize the number of Forest squares that we are spawn-busting near the Marble or Stone Resource that we don't aim to settle on, at least maximizing the spawn-busting on the turn that Barb Animals first appear.ZPV said:Bears spawn in Forests.
Panthers spawn in Jungles.
I don't do it myself, but it seems like a good rule in principle.Most of the rules look fine. I think that we agreed last game that it was more of a hindrance than it was helpful to pause the game before uploading it.
No, I won't abuse my powers that way. Not least 'cause I'm too lazy to.it would be nice if someone (bbp?) with access to reviewing uploaded saved games could test out such a scenario and see if it gets logged as having performed an action or not...
Ok. I think it could be a matter for team consensus, since we typically outline every city action in the PPP anyway.Generally, this advice is good, but sometimes you want to choose to use the City Governor, since you know that when the City grows in Size during your turnset, the City Governor will do the right thing (since you tested that fact in a test game). So, I might instead say "Do not use city governors except when you have explicitly determined that doing so is the best thing to do for a particular city." Typical Dhoom wordiness for ya there.
I agree. It's safety first if we go for the immediate settler. I'm just wondering how many turns of exploring we get, and I think we should pre-establish it. It may seem like more than it really is, but a bad lion injury can really cut it down.It may feel silly, but trust me, it will feel far sillier to have our Warrior die and then either be unable to risk settling our second City unescorted or else risk settling it and losing the Settler to a Barb Animal.
In other words, I'm okay with our Warrior fortififying for as many turns as it takes (even for 15+ turns) just so that he has the greatest chance of staying alive to protect the settling of City #2.
Ensuring that we can settle City #2 ASAP is our initial Warriors primary job... anything else comes secondary, in my mind, even if that fact makes for a boring first turnset (the first player could always do 2 turnsets, in that case).
Eh? Well, maybe we can ask Neilmeister to do it... it's more about finding out if pausing actually works or not. If, however, you pause the game, misclick, and the game still "records" the misclick, then pausing is dangerous, as you won't know about a misclick that got recorded as happening but never actually happens since you will close the game down.No, I won't abuse my powers that way. Not least 'cause I'm too lazy to.
Well, have we already decided on building a Settler first? I think that the testing done showed that Settler-first was the way to go; are we happy to go ahead with that or are we going to want to run some more tests once we see the fully-revealed big fat cross?I agree. It's safety first if we go for the immediate settler. I'm just wondering how many turns of exploring we get, and I think we should pre-establish it. It may seem like more than it really is, but a bad lion injury can really cut it down.
We shouldn't be revealing any information that the mod gives us on the back end, unless AlanH does it. If you wanna ask anyone - ask him.Eh? Well, maybe we can ask Neilmeister to do it... it's more about finding out if pausing actually works or not. If, however, you pause the game, misclick, and the game still "records" the misclick, then pausing is dangerous, as you won't know about a misclick that got recorded as happening but never actually happens since you will close the game down.
I didn't think so, at least not definitively. As far as I remember, ZPV and I are the only ones who've stated tested opinions on it so far.Well, have we already decided on building a Settler first? I think that the testing done showed that Settler-first was the way to go
Interesting. I use low resolution so I've never paid attention to this, so naturally I had to test it. What you said appears to be true when Sid makes the map. However, if the mapmaker worldbuilders the rivers, the flow direction is the direction he builds it. Regardless of coast, lake or anything else.I believe looking at the animation of the river will show us the direction to the coast (once we get the savegame of course).
^
!
<--o-->
!
v
!
v
-->o<--
^
!
Back to Square One for fog-gazing. We'll just have to open the save before we decide on our warrior moves. This might affect our choice of rock too, I guess, though I'm not sure how.you might want to wait for the actual save before gazing into the fog.
Fair enough. I shall set about doing just that.We shouldn't be revealing any information that the mod gives us on the back end, unless AlanH does it. If you wanna ask anyone - ask him.
I had only observed it before in a test game, but now I checked out the behaviour a bit more in detail.I'm actually not sure what you mean. I don't typically pause games myself. You're saying that buttons hit while paused are recorded as real actions, even though they wouldn't actually happen?
While we wait for the saved game, there is only so much to talk about in terms of the actual game.What you're describing seems pretty minor anyway.
The important part to keep in mind is that building one fast Settler (or Worker) only requires us to settle on top of ONE of the two 3-Hammer squares.beestar said:Are we definitely settling on both mineral resources? As I understand it, the argument is that these give us 3 hammers in the city tile(?), and we don't have anything better for a worker to do, so we might as well build settler first.
It seems to me that we are ruling out the possibility that a better site could be nearby -?
InterestingI had only observed it before in a test game, but now I checked out the behaviour a bit more in detail.
For example, if you pause the game, move a Worker, move a Warrior, and move a Settler, then unpause the game, all 3 units will simultaneously make their moves.
So, the game records the clicks but doesn't execute them until the game is unpaused.
Technically, the actions don't resolve themselves until you unpause the game, so the HOF Mod really SHOULDN'T be recording actions until you unpause.
It's more likely to come up by accident, if at all. For example, when the game is paused, units won't move, population won't be whipped, and even reasigning a citizen from a Grassland Farm to a Grassland Hills Mine won't actually take effect... so one could easily accidentally misclick and not even notice that one misclicked. If the HOF Mod's recording was set up correctly, then it shouldn't matter that you misclicked, as you should just be able to close the game and then whatever happened during the pausing won't ever happen, so you'll never gain extra info from it.
Rather than being a way to cheat, which it is not, it is more worrying about the HOF Mod being overly strict and potentially recording things that didn't actually end up happening.
The game keeps track of these things in memory but doesn't actually execute them until you unpause--if you close the game, those actions will never have occurred. As long as the HOF Mod treats actions in a similar manner, then there is no real issue with pausing the game.
I build them all the time. It's not that hard.As for LC's bit about building Rivers in the World Builder... it is hard to build Rivers effectively in the World Builder. I have done it but it takes a lot of work to figure out the interface. My gut instinct is that Neilmeister didn't change the Rivers but instead moved us to a place on the map where he liked the geography of the existing Rivers.
I'm not really comfortable with taking that level of risk. If our Warrior dies, then Settler-first is going to turn out terribly.Unless if we're willing to risk building a settler and looking for the best spot.
Well, here's an argument in favour of sending our Warrior toward the rock that we don't settle, with the goal of maximizing the visibility of the terrain around that other rock with two Warrior moves.What my T50 tests show is that settler-first isn't massively better than worker first, if at all. I was interested in that opening if it proves to be significantly faster in early production.