That's probably a better plan - I had S instead of SE in, to put us in towards the river we'll want to explore, but you're right that that can wait until animals appear.
SGOTM 15 - One Short Straw
- Thread starter AlanH
- Start date
That's probably a better plan - I had S instead of SE in, to put us in towards the river we'll want to explore, but you're right that that can wait until animals appear.
Dhoomstriker
Girlie Builder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 13,453
Out of S and SE, I still prefer S, since, if the two starts mirror each other reasonably well, we're more likely to find a Food Resource in a square that isn't visible from standing on top of the Marble.
Without spotting a Food Resource, we aren't likely to consider going Settler-first.
Without spotting a Food Resource, we aren't likely to consider going Settler-first.
magnusmarcus
Prince
Cant the same be said about going SE?
Dhoomstriker
Girlie Builder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 13,453
Well, SE just reveals the same as what we would have seen had the Settler moved to the Marble on Turn 0. If what we see from the Stone is any indication of what we will see from the Marble, we will not reveal any Food Resources by moving to the Marble (aka moving SE).
It's a minor difference in terms of the total number of Marble City's fat cross squares revealed (1 less by going S) but one of those squares is not visible from the Marble, so it has a greater chance of containing a Food if we believe that the starts mirror each other. That's the only real difference.
Mitchum
Deity
I'm fine with S or SE. I don't think either has a major advantage.
Dhoomstriker
Girlie Builder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 13,453
In the end, it doesn't really matter, but it might. Chances are that no matter which direction we go, we won't find food and thus we won't even bother testing Worker versus Settler as our first build item and will just build a Worker first.
So, while it should be a quick decision, if there is one location that will reveal food and another that own't reveal food, this decision could have a big impact on how we will play out the following turns.
Thus, we could say "let's just get a move on and move SE," but if by doing so we don't find food, whereas if there is food on the square revealed by moving S or SW, then moving SE could make the next turns go really quickly without needing any testing by cutting out Settler-first as a possibility, while EDIT (typed SE when I meant SW): SW or S, if it does reveal food, puts Settler-first squarely on the table of possibilities.
So, while I'm tempted to just say "make a quick decision and live with it," it's a decision that could have a big impact, potentially big enough to alter the course of our game.
One option is to simply settle the Settler on the Stone before moving the Warrior.
I'm pretty sure that we're agreed we're settling on top of the Stone. We could then see if there is additional food revealed in the fat cross, and if there is, then a move SW or S with the Warrior would be more advisable.
If, on the other hand, by settling on the Stone, no further food is revealed, then all bets are off in terms of revealing squares that aren't revealed by moving to the Marble and we might as well just explore SE, since my theory about the possibility of food appearing in a square not visible from the Marble would hold a lot less weight and thus I wouldn't really care where we moved next, while others want to move SE, so we'd then go with SE under such circumstances (having revealed Stone City's fat cross by settling on the Stone).
I'm pretty sure that settling before moving the Warrior is fine since we're only interested in exploring with the Warrior to know about Settler-first as a possibility, rather than as a means of deciding where to settle our first City.
So, while it should be a quick decision, if there is one location that will reveal food and another that own't reveal food, this decision could have a big impact on how we will play out the following turns.
Thus, we could say "let's just get a move on and move SE," but if by doing so we don't find food, whereas if there is food on the square revealed by moving S or SW, then moving SE could make the next turns go really quickly without needing any testing by cutting out Settler-first as a possibility, while EDIT (typed SE when I meant SW): SW or S, if it does reveal food, puts Settler-first squarely on the table of possibilities.
So, while I'm tempted to just say "make a quick decision and live with it," it's a decision that could have a big impact, potentially big enough to alter the course of our game.
One option is to simply settle the Settler on the Stone before moving the Warrior.
I'm pretty sure that we're agreed we're settling on top of the Stone. We could then see if there is additional food revealed in the fat cross, and if there is, then a move SW or S with the Warrior would be more advisable.
If, on the other hand, by settling on the Stone, no further food is revealed, then all bets are off in terms of revealing squares that aren't revealed by moving to the Marble and we might as well just explore SE, since my theory about the possibility of food appearing in a square not visible from the Marble would hold a lot less weight and thus I wouldn't really care where we moved next, while others want to move SE, so we'd then go with SE under such circumstances (having revealed Stone City's fat cross by settling on the Stone).
I'm pretty sure that settling before moving the Warrior is fine since we're only interested in exploring with the Warrior to know about Settler-first as a possibility, rather than as a means of deciding where to settle our first City.
I don't mind settling first, since I don't see us not settling there.
LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,631
I'd definitely settle on the stone, so that could be first.
I'd like to say that to me building a settler first is still FULLY on the table, even without more food. I'd like to test both variants after we see the stone's full BFC and whatever we'll see of marble's after this next warrior move.
I'd like to say that to me building a settler first is still FULLY on the table, even without more food. I'd like to test both variants after we see the stone's full BFC and whatever we'll see of marble's after this next warrior move.
Ok, I'll give a couple more hours for responses, then settle Delhi and post another screenshot before the warrior move.
magnusmarcus
Prince
Not that my opinion should matter but that sounds good
Of course it matters. Just because some of us have done this before, doesn't mean we're never wrong (or even not wrong much
). If something occurs to you, don't be afraid to post it. 
Mitchum
Deity
Everyone's opinion matters!
I agree with settling now and posting a screenshot before deciding what to do with the warior... assuming my opinion matters.
Well, unless we want a team vote on whether Mitchum and magnusmarcus' opinions matter, I think we have a majority for settling first.
Nothing much new:
For reference:
Spoiler :
For reference:
Spoiler :
We can see / fog-gaze 7 mountain peaks NNW. Perhaps that confirms Global Highlands...
There's a bit of snow on the tree 3W of warrior and it's mostly coniferous trees, which confirms what we already know about the map position.
Top AI popped borders already
Makes sense with holy city and shrine.
Don't see what else we can ascertain at this point.
Warrior could go any which way now. I think I like marble (1SE) this turn, followed by a few turns of E-SE, then circle clockwise. In any case, I'll only play this turn for now, and we should do some planning now.
There's a bit of snow on the tree 3W of warrior and it's mostly coniferous trees, which confirms what we already know about the map position.
Top AI popped borders already
Makes sense with holy city and shrine.Don't see what else we can ascertain at this point.
Warrior could go any which way now. I think I like marble (1SE) this turn, followed by a few turns of E-SE, then circle clockwise. In any case, I'll only play this turn for now, and we should do some planning now.
Dhoomstriker
Girlie Builder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 13,453
Given the lack of food, I'll be okay with going SE instead of S if I can't convince anyone to head SW.
THAT SAID... I'm going to guess that Marble City's area is just as barren as Stone City's area. It would be rather unfair for Neilmeister to put an extra Food Resource in one fat cross and not another.
AS SUCH, I'd push for Warrior SW, so that our test games can test both:
a) us settling on the Marble with the assumption that the big fat cross will look much like Stone City's big fat cross (i.e. no extra visible Resources but possibly a Copper/Horse, probably 1 of each at both would be my guess)
AND
b) us settling to the west of Marble by some (hopefully) food Resource or Resources... which we'll only see for our test game if the Warrior goes SW right now.
THAT SAID... I'm going to guess that Marble City's area is just as barren as Stone City's area. It would be rather unfair for Neilmeister to put an extra Food Resource in one fat cross and not another.
AS SUCH, I'd push for Warrior SW, so that our test games can test both:
a) us settling on the Marble with the assumption that the big fat cross will look much like Stone City's big fat cross (i.e. no extra visible Resources but possibly a Copper/Horse, probably 1 of each at both would be my guess)
AND
b) us settling to the west of Marble by some (hopefully) food Resource or Resources... which we'll only see for our test game if the Warrior goes SW right now.
LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,631
The Mahabodhi must be spiritual to have switched religions and expanded borders.
There's some potentially valuable defog info to the SE revealed by settling Delhi, telling us:
1) how much terrain will get defogged by Delhi's 3rd border expansion on T24 and
2) what sort of protection our warrior can expect to the E/SE.
Bbp's screenshot doesn't give me that info, but I'm not sure that tells us enough to resolve the Dhoom Debate on warrior SE or SW. I'm thinking we just want to know about the Marble BFC rather than assume about it.
If ZPV's right about Highlands and it's a 64x40 cylindrical map, then our second city at distance = 4 tiles will immediately incur a 3gpt maintenance cost, and that maintenance will stay at 3gpt up to pop5/pop5 or pop6/pop4 for those two cities. That's a pretty expensive initial cost and Stone and Marbler not going to grow very fast at the same time. So that's an additional argument for worker first. It's also an argument for Pottery+granaries asap though that requires testing to confirm it's workable. (It's also another argument against Domination, since the cylindrical wrap doubles distance costs, as ZPV pointed out last SG.)
The basic difference between worker or settler first is food versus hammers, although the highland map adds 1gpt cost to the tests we've been running. From the looks of our land, that may boil down to how soon do we want to get 5 fogbusters out. Barbs are an argument for settler first. The mountains to the NE and E of Delhi might help fogbust some after T24. Otherwise, our land is still looking to be extensive and it won't be easy to fogbust adequately in a timely manner.
EDIT: ZPV, can you tell what the most powerful unit on the map is? Looking at the warrior's health bar, I'm thinking it might be 4 str, possibly meaning Mansa is in the game with skirmishers.
.
There's some potentially valuable defog info to the SE revealed by settling Delhi, telling us:
1) how much terrain will get defogged by Delhi's 3rd border expansion on T24 and
2) what sort of protection our warrior can expect to the E/SE.
Bbp's screenshot doesn't give me that info, but I'm not sure that tells us enough to resolve the Dhoom Debate on warrior SE or SW. I'm thinking we just want to know about the Marble BFC rather than assume about it.
If ZPV's right about Highlands and it's a 64x40 cylindrical map, then our second city at distance = 4 tiles will immediately incur a 3gpt maintenance cost, and that maintenance will stay at 3gpt up to pop5/pop5 or pop6/pop4 for those two cities. That's a pretty expensive initial cost and Stone and Marbler not going to grow very fast at the same time. So that's an additional argument for worker first. It's also an argument for Pottery+granaries asap though that requires testing to confirm it's workable. (It's also another argument against Domination, since the cylindrical wrap doubles distance costs, as ZPV pointed out last SG.)
The basic difference between worker or settler first is food versus hammers, although the highland map adds 1gpt cost to the tests we've been running. From the looks of our land, that may boil down to how soon do we want to get 5 fogbusters out. Barbs are an argument for settler first. The mountains to the NE and E of Delhi might help fogbust some after T24. Otherwise, our land is still looking to be extensive and it won't be easy to fogbust adequately in a timely manner.
EDIT: ZPV, can you tell what the most powerful unit on the map is? Looking at the warrior's health bar, I'm thinking it might be 4 str, possibly meaning Mansa is in the game with skirmishers.
.
LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,631
Top of the morning, Neilmeister!
Same to you LC 
