The Deity Challenge Line-up - Game #11 - Morocco

@consentient
I think as long as you have the happiness to support them, some tiles to work, and are able to plant 4-5 of them early, then yes, it is better to go 5-6 than 4 cities when going for SV. The only situation in which sticking to 4 is better is if more cities would result in too many turns of unhappiness, or if the extra cities weren't able to grow fast.

In this game I settled the last city around t205. An advantage of late timing is that national wonders are no longer an issue. The disadvantage is the increased science cost of each tech. With 1 trade route for hammers and one for food, the new city grew to size 12+ in around 30 turns (t235ish). With library, uni, school and research lab (purchased) it put out over 100 bpt. As long as the key is maxing your final science for when you start bulbing your GS'es, those 30 turns of higher tech cost are usually worth it. If you bulb 8 GS, the extra 100bpt in the endgame will provide 6400 beakers just from bulbing. 40 turns of the new city giving bpt is another 4000. That is over 10k total.

Meanwhile, the increased tech cost (5% for most maps), adds a cost of around 2200 beakers for the 8 techs in the atomic era, and around 3000 beakers for the 6 techs you need in the information era for an SV. That's 5.2k total, and those are high estimates, I didn't do the exact math:p Increased tech cost adds more if you plant the city in the modern era, but then you also get extra turns of bpt from the city, so I think it doesn't change the equation.

Unless I'm totally off, the math seems to say that an extra city is worth it, even if you plant it after 200 turns. On the other hand, if you have too little happiness, need the trade routes for growing other cities, the city cant work tiles, or don't have cash to buy tech buildings, then maybe the math changes.
 
My fastest science games have been w/ 5 cities mid-game and maybe, as InaneObserver says, a 6th if situation dictates. You get 5 trade routes before Industrial Age, and I want food going to every city in most games (others times I'll be more capital-centric….depends on the civ/map).

I played a recent Inca game where I did 3 city NC, and was building the next 2 expos while capital was building NC. Those 2 both had their Unis up in time so as not to delay Oxford. Didn't have to rush/buy any and everything was on pace. But….you gotta have the right terrain.
 
Reminder: if you have an interesting map you would like to submit for consideration for DCL #12, please do so by Wednesday evening, European time.

I will be making the final decision about the map then.

One question for all: what do you think about a Large map?

DingleBirdy's rules stated Ancient era and Standard speed, but not map size. I haven't played a Large map in a while, and was wondering what the level of support for it would be. Answers on a postcard please ;)
 
My initial reaction was @$%^ No!!!!!!

Please remember that I played countless hours on Huge/Marathon and since I've switched to Standard/Standard, I've enjoyed the game more and improved quite a bit (even if I play far less aggressively than I used to).

A few times, I did check out games on whatever they call the in-between speed, and found timing and tactics that worked in Marathon or Standard were skewed enough that it wasn't enjoyable (not to mention the different math).

Then I realized you were talking about map size, not game speed. I haven't tried this on Standard speed, and I can think of some ways it might be intriguing. You'd likely have more room to settle (strengthening Liberty) and a lot more goody huts. I'm also thinking that warfare would become easier with more room for tactics, just as it is on Huge maps.

I guess I'd be ok with it, but perhaps we should try it out on something like "Interesting Deity Starts" before we try it on DCL.

Just my thoughts.
 
I have never tried a Large or Huge Map. I know that it changes things a bit and makes the game longer than it already is. My vote goes with Stand/Stand. The way I understand it is if you go with a bigger map the AI is even more in trouble with wars because they can not rebuild its army fast enough.
 
consentient said:
Do you think that 6 cities is always faster than 4?
Click to expand...
I think so. I got a t288 SV with 4 cities. Could have been around t273, if I saved faith instead of buying a GE and Mosques+Pagodas during Renaissance through Modern and ever had cash to rush-buy any building at all. I am sure it would have been even faster with 5-6 cities. That is, if you grow your last 2 expos fast and they have good terrain. Obviously, 6 crappy cities won't make for a faster victory.

Spoiler :
Pretty meh game. I got bored and watched a TV show while playing, so there were a lot of weird things that I did. I also got upset when Alex hit Renaissance at t96 and soon thereafter controlled every CS, so at some point I denounced him and we kept harassing each other. He stayed hostile till the very end, but good guy Pocatello took care of Alex, Ahur, and Denmark. I think Harald smoked something because he DoW'ed Pocatello who had bombers, while Harald was stuck late Renaissance. Oh well. After he stole my El Dorado with a GG, I was overjoyed to see him getting wrecked.

Not sure if my city placement was that good because I had to avoid working specialists for the sake of growth in Fes and Casablanca for some time, but those cities did get Observatories.

Funny things that happened that game: CS's taking AI cities. Also, Ashur got eliminated by France, but later revived by Alex. What did he do? He citadel-bombed Alex to snag territory adjacent to one of Alex's city. What ingratitude!
 
Shark Diver said:
I haven't tried this [Large map] on Standard speed, and I can think of some ways it might be intriguing. You'd likely have more room to settle (strengthening Liberty) and a lot more goody huts. I'm also thinking that warfare would become easier with more room for tactics...I guess I'd be ok with it, but perhaps we should try it out on something like "Interesting Deity Starts" before we try it on DCL.
Click to expand...

Fluphen Azine said:
I have never tried a Large or Huge Map. I know that it changes things a bit and makes the game longer than it already is. My vote goes with Stand/Stand.
Click to expand...

The reasons I asked were, as Shark Diver mentioned, there is more room, so it would allow more viable Liberty strategies for those people wanting something other than 3/4 city Tradition turtling and SV.

Unlike you two, I have played and beaten Deity on Large and actually, I think it's no easier, maybe even harder, since there are more capitals to take, more ground to cover, more possible CV runaways, and (on a continents map, which I'm leaning toward), more difficult-to-reach places. Those of you who won Domination on Rome and Polynesia obviously get a kick (as I do) out of extending an empire right across the world. For SV and CV it might possibly be easier, I'm not sure since I didn't really experiment with those yet. For Diplo it's MUCH harder.

So I think there are lots of reasons to try it, and personally, I think that the DCL is already informal enough so I don't think we need to 'pre-test' it on an IDS thread.

All that said, I am a democratic host, not an Autocrat (except in the game! :scan:) and if the vote goes against it, I have Standard/Standard maps which are almost as interesting.

TLDR: If people don't want Large maps, we won't have them.

AND remember: you can submit your suggestions!
 
consentient said:
One question for all: what do you think about a Large map?
Click to expand...

I don't mind Large maps and actually ignoring the related issues like time consuming etc I'd prefer Large maps over Standard - I used to play quite a few of those myself just to have more fun (& weird rules usually with Liberty) and unlike in vanilla it isn't necessarily easier than std 8/16 map. What it does is it most likely changes the early turns & slows the start in general but increases the likelihood of getting the nearby expo spots one desires.
Stealing workers is trickier, getting a caravan to anywhere might not happen without a 2nd city, barbs are much more of a problem and in later game capturing a capital might require taking quite a few other cities before that to mention few differencies

What I wouldn't like play is smaller maps while huge might be fine but it requires some additional time to play. I also seriously dislike the Policy Saving option. Fiddling with +/- 1(2) civ(s), sea level, raging barbs etc is also fine by me - the Rome DCL was such to have a recent example.
 
If we get a large map, I'll definitely play it.

I'm wondering if I might have a small advantage having probably logged more hours on Huge maps than most? There are strategies that I had semi-perfected that just don't apply to Standard, most particularly warfare. I ALWAYS played domination back then.

Some of my worst/fondest memories were of clearing my continent somewhat early, then rushing to astronomy and guessing "East or West" for the next invasion. Inevitably, I'd guess wrong……which really adds travel time.

One tip: your 2nd promotion for every bomber had better be range.
 
I have no problem with playing a Large/Huge map. Ofcourse I have no experience in it but I'll give it a go for sure. I just remeber everything that I have ever read suggests that they are easier than Stand/Stand. As I have said before something about once the AI loses troops they have no chance of rebuilding another army compared to Stand/Stand. I would think peaceful play would be eaiser since you have more room to expand and less tension. All this being said... it really does not matter to me. You post up a Large or Huge map and Im sure the regular players are gonna play it out. Now that we have two Deity Threads it makes sense to experiment since if I get crushed on a Large/Huge map I will just go over to the other game and play again! :)
 
Large maps automatically adjust the mix of Civs/CS (8/16) upward. you have wiggle room if you dont want to do 10 or 12 civs or 20-24 CSs and just want land mass. you could similarly constrain standard landmass with additional civs/CSs. If it remains standard speed, youll have more trading partners but also more needs for domination. also extra pressures from Ideologies later. 8/16 standard speed on a Large Map will also add some new dynamics for those not used to it.
 
If you go large, go continents so you get an east and a west. Then pick Spain or Portugal.
 
I was thinking about Spain, and rolled 30+ maps and tested them, but it's really hard to find a map that is balanced with that Civ. They're either super-strong or utterly mediocre.

I had more luck with Portugal. They are one of 4 cvs currently under consideration for a future DCL.
 
If it's possible to give some feedback, it would be nice if the map chosen lets the player cater to the strengths of the particular civ. This Morocco game was all right, but I couldn't help feel that it would have been more satisfying with more desert for kasbahs, and/or a more central location for trade.

The previous Inca and Mongolia games in DCL were great examples. The maps really suited the civs, making the games feel varied.
 
consentient said:
I was thinking about Spain, and rolled 30+ maps and tested them, but it's really hard to find a map that is balanced with that Civ. They're either super-strong or utterly mediocre.

I had more luck with Portugal. They are one of 4 cvs currently under consideration for a future DCL.
Click to expand...

An unbalanced Spain could be fun here too, as I'd love to see how others take advantage of what "looks" like a great early start. Spain can go so many directions that it would be fun no matter how "super-strong" the start appears. We've all been proven wrong by assuming a map is too good to be true.

I don't recall the last time I played as Portugal, but she's a b*tch to play against at times.
 
InaneObserver said:
... it would be nice if the map chosen lets the player cater to the strengths of the particular civ. This Morocco game was all right, but I couldn't help feel that it would have been more satisfying with more desert for kasbahs, and/or a more central location for trade.

The previous Inca and Mongolia games in DCL were great examples. The maps really suited the civs, making the games feel varied.
Click to expand...

There's a fine balance between giving something for the UA and catering it and the Inca & the Mongols DCLs were of the latter case hence the Inca game was won on T0 and & the Mongols as soon as horses were revealed. For most of the cases I'd prefer something a bit less/worse like in case of Spain for example - preferably not a nearby NW with guaranteed 1st finder bonus or if that's the case then some additional rules as Spain is excellent for variable rule sets.
 
@InaneObserver:

Spoiler :
I definitely will try to find maps where the UA/UB/UUs can come more into play. I purposefully chose a map where it was a challenge to get ANYTHING out of Morocco's UA. Some people stayed inside the mountains and lost out on a lot of gold. I agree the Kasbah had few tiles, but I'm afraid you can't have everything.


I suppose I should indicate, for the benefit of the community, what my priorities are when choosing the map:-

1. Overall balance. This means 'too hard vs. too easy', 'nice dirt but not too nice', 'some challenging aspects (e.g. no trade partners) but not everything is challenging'. In short, I want a map that is playable and interesting, but not a walkover or rock solid. Remember, we have the opportunity every 3rd fortnight for Grendel to provide the rock-solid maps, if he still wants to. I will provide the other two at the medium-hard and 'accessible' levels (never 'easy').

2. Flexibility. I think Fluphen Azine was the one that said he wanted to have choices. I guess choices were a little limited in this (Morocco) map, but a really enthusiastic warmonger could still have gone out there (beyond the mountains) and given it a shot. When thinking about the next DCL, this is top of my mind, I assure you. You will have choices. I will find a map where VC, expo locations, etc, will vary more from playthrough to playthrough.

3. UA/UU/UB playability. It's kinda hard to think of all these things at once, but I really think that the first 2 (which include innumerable sub-factors) are more important, because as Grendel put it, there is little challenge when you've won on T0. I am a REALLY bad peaceful player on Deity and even I won the Inca game pretty easily. Mongolia was more difficult for me, as I screwed up the Medieval period, but it was recoverable. I want to have maps that are challenging, and I will choose maps that have increased unique flavor for the civ, I promise. ;)

TLDR: In my decision-making, I've so far prioritized overall balance and will elevate flexibility for future maps. Please tell me if UA/UU/UB are more important than these, FOR YOU.
 
Spoiler here

Spoiler :
You know if you march your starting warrior you are guaranteed to be able to discover El Dorado
 
First time posting here, figured I'd give this a shot. Ended up with a T364 science loss to Alex. Oh boy, this was a fun game. Lots of learning to do here.

T0

Spoiler :
SIP'd, could have gone one NW but figured I'd try to make use of the Kasbahs and maybe get Desert Folklore.


T16

Spoiler :
Going tradition. Found Boudicca to the east. Too tempting:





Got away with two workers.


T32

Spoiler :
Decided to go Desert Folklore and make a bid for a religion. This might have not been the right choice in retrospect, since I was busy cranking out settlers and the flood plains didn't get worked for a while.



T76

Spoiler :
Four city tradition. One city is within range of El Dorado (I wish I had gotten the 500 gold!). Making a bid for a religion, delayed the NC a little to get extra shrines and use El Dorado to get the sweet Tradition finisher.





T104

Spoiler :
Got the NC up. A bit late, but am finishing tradition early. Barely missed the religion and the GP, but Boudicca is spreading a pretty good religion to me (Cathedrals and Pagodas) so I use the 200 faith to buy a pagoda. Oh well, next time.


T149

Spoiler :
Denmark was marching towards Rabat, so I bribed him to DOW Boudicca instead, then executed a x-bow rush to take her capital. Dublin falls on T149.



Edinburgh falls on T165. Borobodur and Stonehenge, not bad. By this point, Pocatello seems to have the most land, and Alex has a monopoly on the city-states. Most victories will require control of the CS; I would much rather have Pocatello be dominant than Alex.





T183
Spoiler :
Oxford complete, and I bulb industrialization. I have coal within range, so I start production of three factories. I decide to go Freedom, which is Pocatello's ideology. Alex has autocracy. Alex and Pocatello are way ahead in culture, and Alex has all the CS; Domination or Science look like the best choices at this point. Either way, I'll have to do some damage to the dominant civs to slow them down. My plan is to bribe Denmark to declare war on Polynesia, then immediately DOW and march on his capital, since he has the Statue of Zeus which will be crucial for taking cities.


T232

Spoiler :
Pre-built a bunch of cannons and knights, upgraded them to berber cavalry and artillery, then DOW'd Denmark. I had to bribe him early to attack Polynesia since he had started marching on me; in that time, he took Honolulu. I start my artillery push, and Ribe falls (with the Louvre!)



Copenhagen falls on T243 and I sue for peace.



In the midst of this, however, Alex has started destroying Pocatello and is threatening to run away. The unhappiness from public opinion is becoming crippling; Alex has way too much tourism. Without Pocatello's influence, I'll go into Revolutionary Wave. I have to switch to Autocracy. One social policy wasted.





T322
Spoiler :
I finish off Denmark and take Honolulu and his good cities. I'm behind in science, and Alex is really running away. I bribed him to declare war on everyone to try to get some people to take his CS and cities, but this ended up backfiring as he took Assur and is now locked in a nuclear war with France. My plan at this point is to tech to stealth bombers and to try to do as much damage to Alex as possible while teching for a SV. I get the Hubble through a faith-bought engineer.





T351
Spoiler :
I DOW Alex and take two of his CS. After clawing my way through former Shoshone territory, I nuke Moson Kahni and paradrop in with X-com infantry. My stealth bombers are cleaning up anything that approaches, but he nukes my troops and cities as well. I can't keep up in the war of attrition, and sue for peace after taking Moson Kahni, which has the GW, Globe Theater, Notre Dame, and a few others OK wonders.





T364

Spoiler :
Alex wins a SV. I had all the spaceship components four turns away from being complete, but he really ran away with this one. He had a stranglehold on all the CS with Gunboat diplomacy. I think I did the right thing in declaring war, to prevent him from getting the other CS, but I should have prioritized my own SV instead of trying to deal damage to him, which was ultimately futile in that I never got to his core cities.

Few final comments and mistakes that I made.

1. I should have made more use of the trade route special early in the game (even though it still kind of sucks).
2. Don't sink a policy into an ideology until it's clear that your ideology is winning.
3. I usually play epic speed, which favors domination. In standard, the SV comes a lot faster, so I need to prioritize that by pre-building spaceship factories, etc.
4. I think I should have spent some money to nuke Athens and some of the core cities to slow his down his SV.

Comments and feedback would be appreciated!

 
@pythonic

Spoiler :
I sincerely salute you for playing this map and for getting so close! Sorry you had to lose to probably the most annoying leader (although on my game he was crushed out of existence)!

Well done for taking on the challenge of Deity, and since I only started playing Deity not so long ago myself, I know what it's like to be learning. I still AM learning, all the time. :)

I REALLY like how detailed your write-up is, and like the idea of naming the cities as what you will do with them, as a reminder. A great idea in what is a long game, even on Standard.

I think the major reason you lost was trying to do too many things. Looks like you did pretty well between NC and T183 when you took Freedom. But after that, you should have turtled and tech-ed to victory if you wanted science, or gone all-out on war if you wanted domination. I think it's risky to try a mixed strategy, since the AI has so many benefits to help them win.

It was actually quite a hard map for domination because being in one corner, everyone else is so far away, and Nappy especially was on a peninsula, etc. So props for giving it a go whereas most others went strict science.

But again, at T183 you either needed to already be battering down cities with artillery and bombers and horses, or switching everything to ensure the science win. You probably made a good assessment that CV was going to be impractical since you had some runaways, and diplo is always difficult with Alex around.

As for needing to war with the AI to slow them down, actually they pretty much suck at science, so if you concentrate on it, provided you have the tech-lead, you will win (assuming also you can stave off or deal with DoWs. But this map had good defense compared with many others).

So, well done for an excellent play through and write-up, and better luck next time. Good to see some new faces trying the maps. :)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nizef
Quest for Glory - Deity Challenge #1
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
billby
billby
Nizef
Quest for Glory - Deity Challenge #2
Replies
7
Views
1K
Megalou
Megalou
Nizef
Quest for Glory - Deity Challenge #3
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
fiddlesticks
fiddlesticks
aafritz17
  • Locked
  • Sticky
The Enjoyable Deity Game Experience (EDGE) Index
Replies
0
Views
4K
aafritz17
aafritz17
Nizef
Quest for Glory - Deity Challenge #5
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Rhodro
R
Top Bottom