Dhoomstriker
Girlie Builder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 13,452
Okay, that is my misunderstanding. Still, I think it isn't necessarily realistic to count on being able to Chop a Forest. However, I think that it is realistic to assume that we can improve at least one square in our initial 9-square radius for City 2, otherwise why would we settle City 2 at such a poor short-term location in the first place?I don't recall forcing a settling location for the island to the west. The only constraint was that the Fish tile couldn't be used. LC, did chop the forest into the granary, as did many PH starts. I don't see an issue with this. It shows that the worker has spare turns and can be available to make improvements in City #2, even if it is settled circa T70.
An early Forest Chop = 30 Hammers. Instead of settling on the GH and Mining it, we can get those same Hammers after 10 turns. So, I guess in the short run, it doesn't really matter all that much (i.e. for T82 comparisons). Either method (chopping a GFor or Mining a GH) will get us a whippable Granary at City Size 2. Still, I find it kind of weird that we would waste a GH in the real game by settling on it, even at the cost of a Forest. But, if that's what the team decides to do, it's not really an game-ending decision, so I won't get too upset either way.
That point is not an issue for Dh #247, since part of that test's theme is an early Worker for SIP. We get our Worker on Turn 37, 3075 BC. The Corn is Farmed and the PH is Mined by Turn 56, 2600 BC, freeing up the Worker to do whatever it wants from that point on, such as Chopping the second Forest, building Roads, or heading off of our initial continent.IIRC, with SIP, the worker will still be busy around Paris since it comes a bit later. So, if city #2 is off continent and not 3E, sending the worker with the settler could prove problematic.
Maybe the AVERAGE SIP test run has this issue with the Worker, but Dh #247 does not suffer from this issue.
Absolutely. We gain in production at the cost of more than 50 Flasks' worth of research and less exploration.2. LC #257 already has a galley and already has settler #3 out. Dh #247 still has to whip the galley and settler, moving Paris back to 2 pops and Orleans back to 1 pop. When LC #257 does crack the whip in Orleans next turn (or there about), it will be to complete a granary, not a galley. So, in a sense, LC #257 is ahead a granary in Orleans and a lot of hammers in Paris (settler #3 already whipped). Paris is also, in effect, larger since it has already whipped the settler and is growing back to pop 4/5. Dh #247 Paris will be whipped back to 2 pops shortly and thus be behind about 2 pops.
30 Hammers of that City #2's Granary come from a Forest that we are not guaranteed to use, since we keep talking about wanting to explore for a "better location" for City #2. Chances are very great that we will not settle next to a Forest, so we won't really be "up a Granary" at all... we will have more production in the way of a couple of more whippable people, but unless we plan to put City #2 next to that GFor NO MATTER HOW GOOD OF A BETTER LOCATION WE CAN FIND, then I think it is misleading to count that Forest Chop. Far better is to settle on the GFor, Mine that GH, and work the Mine, since it IS feasible that we will settle City #2 next to at least one improveable Resource... isn't it? Or is that assumption too much to make and you'd consider settling City 2 such that its initial 9-square radius will have a 1 Food + 2 Commerce square as its best square?
If we qualify the exploration, meeting the AIs 11 turns sooner is an important factor. Sure, with the sooner Galley, localized exploration for City #3 can be a bit better, but we'll still be meeting the AIs 11 turns slower--and more than 11 turns' worth if we settle City #2 3E with Dh #247, since that means that we won't need to use any turns with Work Boat Explorer #1 to look for a City #2 location.4. Exploration is about a wash. Dh #247 gets WB#1 out sooner but WB#2 out later. LC #257 does get some "free" exploration with the galley that Dh #247 does not.
And behind in production. That's the trade-off that we discussed above.5. Dh #247 is ahead 53 beakers, or about 3 turns of research.
A reasonable point. I 1-pop-whipped a Lighthouse. It seemed to be a good trade-off to work 1 less square in exchange for +1 Food on 3 different squares.6. In LC #257, Paris has already whipped settler #3. Dh #247 has not, so we can effectively add +15 to Dh #247.
Working 1 extra square, such as a GH Mine, when building a Settler, gives +2 Hammers. Instead, working one less GH Mine but getting +3 Food from a Lighthouse, gives +3 - +2 = 3 - 2 = +1 Food. So, I gained a Food per turn by being at one City Size smaller... a good rate of return, if you ask me.
If we don't whip the Lighthouse, we can be one City Size larger but will actually make less Hammers when building a Settler. I think that I made the right call here, don't you?
Those 11 turns of initial Work Boat exploration, the factor that most of the team seems to care about the most, were glazed over...7. Most other points are farily similar (e.g. clams netted, etc.)
Let's not generalize here. A few PH test runs get Settler #2 out early, settling City #2 in the Turn 64 to Turn 69 range, but LC #257 is not one of these saves.If we find a really juicy off-island location, any PH start is ready to take advantage of it since PH starts from the beginning with the idea of needing to settle off-island.
What compromises?For any SIP test that "plans" on settling 3E, some compromises would have to be made to settle that location as city #2.
Giving up the 4th Food Resource (the Corn)? Well, PH only has 3 Food Resources itself, so SIP having 3 Clam Food Resources is better than PH's 2 Clam Resources plus 1 Corn (SIP gets 2 more Commerce from these Food Resources in the long run). That's not much of a compromise.
The ability to get more exploration since we can delay finding a City #2 settling location? That "compromise" actually sounds like an advantage of SIP.
Lower Maintenance for City #2? Once again, 3E sounds like it has an advantage, not a compromise.
Worse Trade Routes? Maybe... but we solve this issue with Dh #247 by getting Writing quicker and by meeting the AIs faster than in any other test run, gaining us the Foreign International Trade Routes the fastest. Besides, the saved 1 Commerce on Maintenance makes the Trade Route difference only equal a difference of 1 Commerce per turn, while the earlier Foreign Trade Routes will make up that difference plus gain 2 additional Commerce per turn.
So, it sounds like the "compromises" of settling 3E are actually in many ways benefits, particularly when combined with Dh #247's early Work Boat Explorer #1 and fast Writing (for Open Borders).
Again, we're generalizing. LC #257 does offer more production at the cost of early exploration and research. That's not really "balanced" as much as it is trade-offs. However, since the team seems to care more about early exploration and research, it seems to be making trade-offs in the wrong direction.As many have said, I think a PH start is a bit more balanced as will allow us to better capitalize on things as our exploration progresses.
Like I said, if we want to go production-heavy, then let's go even more extreme and take a game like Dh #269. I don't like that game, since I disagree that going for heavy production is the most important factor, but if you value production as the most important factor, then it's looking like the saved game to pick.