SGOTM 13 - Gypsy Kings

bcool · Feb 25, 2011

Is there some reason we can NOT make that decision BEFORE we start session #1? Alternatively, we can pause the 1st set after fishing. Basically to get to fishing you hit end turn 10 times after moving the warrior a bit, nothing that really effects those 10 turns IMO, or am I missing something?

I think we pause at least at the end of fishing, since we might reveal resources that will significantly change at least the possibilities for what a 2nd city could build.

We can also test what to do with the warrior build looking deep into the game. Like what difference does the warrior build make in terms of a oracle or pyramids build.

Since I think both the barracks and warrior build hammers go to waste in most of our current ideas, we might as well build a warrior since this is the only one that probably has a chance of being built.

Ronnie1 · Feb 25, 2011

bcool said:
snip...
Since I think both the barracks and warrior build hammers go to waste in most of our current ideas, we might as well build a warrior since this is the only one that probably has a chance of being built.

Funny...after your earlier post, I was leaning toward Barracks or not even giving a second thought to abandoning those hammers and focusing on faster growth, earlier settler production and earlier Oracle, :crazyeye:

....

I am also reading Plastic Ducks SG11 thread side by side with our SG11 thread to see how/where we differentiated our paths significantly. What I am getting from Duckweed and Kossin is that earlier settler generation and earlier tile improvement are the MOST important factors for the early part of the game. This leads me to think the Barracks gives us a longer time to decide if we are going to abandon those hammers.

da_Vinci · Feb 25, 2011

Ronnie1 said:
What I am getting from Duckweed and Kossin is that earlier settler generation and earlier tile improvement are the MOST important factors for the early part of the game. This leads me to think the Barracks gives us a longer time to decide if we are going to abandon those hammers.

If settlers and improved tiles are the key ...

I assume that worker first has been tested and discarded already?

Anyone looked at starting a settler from turn 0? Sounds ludicrous on the face of it even to me as I bring it up, but that is thinking way outside the box! :lol:

@ R1: time to change your name subscript from GK refugee to something else (GK repatriate, perhaps?)

dV

bcool · Feb 25, 2011

Funny...after your earlier post, I was leaning toward Barracks or not even giving a second thought to abandoning those hammers and focusing on faster growth, earlier settler production and earlier Oracle,....

barracks is fine, I doubt we use the hammers either way, but at least the warrior has an argument for it. I doubt the barracks will have a compelling argument for it over other builds.

Ronnie1 · Feb 25, 2011

Are the some benchmarks that we would like to test?

For example...

Fastest City #2 and City #3
Beaker value by a certain turn # maybe
# of tiles defogged by coastal scouting (I know not "really" possible with test game), maybe earliest scouting WB produced

I think if we better define WHAT we want to accomplish, we will have more success in actually meeting our goals/needs!

mabraham · Feb 25, 2011

Wow, great ideas and discussion guys.

So far I see R1, mab, bcool and dV have said they are happy with SIP. Grifftavian has implied he's happy with it by discussing the details of what happens next and talking about settling 3E also.

However, before I could SIP and maybe scout to the 3E site, we need some more consensus on what we'll build in the capital.

There is merit in the warrior build if we'll finish it after the first WB (else they start to rot). There's some merit in the barracks build if we might come back to it (e.g. very close neighbour and we pop bronze). Worker delays growth to size 2 and runs out of useful things to do far too fast (discussed a while ago). Settler is a thinking-out-of-the-square idea.

All of my tests worked corn until size two, and then GF+PFH to maximize the :hammers:

output on the theory that net ASAP had to be right. Now I think R1 is right, at size two PFH+corn is probably best. The two-turn delay on the WB costs 4 :food:

4

, but we gain 11 :food:

while building the WB. That :commerce:

"loss" will come good later when earlier regrowths will get more :commerce:

working more seafood earlier.

After that things become less clear. We have a strategic conflict between

exploring (i.e. getting a fourth WB ASAP),
improving tiles (i.e. getting a worker up... after which WB?),
improving the capital city (i.e. lighthouse for +2 or +3, or granary for roughly doubling the )
starting the whip cycle ASAP (i.e. working more unimproved clams)
building the second city (i.e. getting a settler), and
preparing for a critical wonder (whatever that is, if any).

We can't address 6 until we've started 1. It sounds like there's consensus that 5 is good. Everyone seems to think 1 is very important. IMO 3 is more important than 2 because we have so few tiles to improve. When we're :hammers:

-limited, 4 seems important (and influences the importance of 3).

I have gotten BW in T39 working corn, then corn+PFH to build WB, then net+clam, then at size 3 working net and switching around clam/PFH/GF to finish a WB T38 before maximally-fast BW T39, to whip the third WB on T41. At that point we are at a crossroads. We want to grow back to size 3, but we could sensibly build a warrior (biding our time before switching to a settler or worker) or a workboat (start exploring).

Ronnie1 · Feb 25, 2011

Why would you whip WB#3? I would grow to size 4 and switch to a settler, whip the settler and finish WB3 with the overflow!

I see what you did now...you put in worker....I would not build worker until AFTER the settler sometime.

WB>WB>WB(start-settler at size 4, then 2 pop whip)finish WB3>WB4(size 4 switch to worker 2 pop whip)>overflow Lighthouse(1T)>WB4 finish? Try this maybe

mabraham · Feb 25, 2011

da_Vinci said:
If settlers and improved tiles are the key ...

I assume that worker first has been tested and discarded already?

That got discussed early. Nobody made much of a case for it, and my testing on 1-city cases showed that the worker runs out of useful things to do far too early. All he can do is farm corn, mine PFH, maybe chop GF (costs :health:

) and put some roads up. Then we need a galley. With two cities, there's another GHmine to build, and less pressure to have something useful to work in Elba at size 6 (when the off-island GHmine is a pressing need in the 1-city case). Still I think several WBs before the worker is better.

da_Vinci said:
Anyone looked at starting a settler from turn 0? Sounds ludicrous on the face of it even to me as I bring it up, but that is thinking way outside the box!

I tried settler T0, switching to a WB working PFH after fishing (slows Wrist by 6 turns, but speeds Elba by 6 turns and provides 44 :commerce:

). Wrist was up T46. I whipped a T110 Oracle in Elba (size 4 after whip, granary/lighthouse/monument) with a settler one-quarter built in Wrist (size 4 granary/lighthouse and half a monument). I had a galley and a roving WB. I was more than a third of the way to CoL. I think this setup is too slow early to attempt an Oracle, but it is clearly a very useful springboard for future expansion from about this point. I don't think any of my previous game reports had two granaries up ever. Clearly I could have put out a settler and a half instead of the Oracle, or started a non-Duckweed-Pyramids due around T160.

mabraham · Feb 25, 2011

mabraham said:
I have gotten BW in T39 working corn, then corn+PFH to build WB, then net+clam, then at size 3 working net and switching around clam/PFH/GF to finish a WB T38 before maximally-fast BW T39, to whip the third WB on T41. At that point we are at a crossroads. We want to grow back to size 3, but we could sensibly build a warrior (biding our time before switching to a settler or worker) or a workboat (start exploring).

Ronnie1 said:
Why would you whip WB#3? I would grow to size 4 and switch to a settler, whip the settler and finish WB3 with the overflow!

You grow size 3 to 4, taking 5-6 turns. The 3rd and 4th population each contribute 1 :hammers:

net to the settler (2 nets and two GF is 9 :hammers:

/turn on the settler), which you 2-whip in 7 turns time for small overflow, or later for more overflow. That finishes the WB at some point, to bring in some extra food and commerce.

I 1-whip the third WB and regrow to 3 at about the time the nets are planted. Then about 5 turns to regrow to 4. Then I have about 10 turns working the three nets + GF (10 :hammers:

/turn on the settler) and 2 :commerce:

to the empire. I can then 2-whip for about 40 :hammers:

overflow onto that tasty-tasty granary.

IMO, you're at best about a half-whip-cycle ahead on timing, and had an earlier settler (5-8 turns?). I got 20 or more extra :commerce:

from the earlier third net, and have whipped one more population point for 45 :hammers:

. I think my profit comes from having a third good tile to work during the lengthy settler build, and faster entry to the whip cycle. Not whipping early defeats the point of the fast BW, IMO.

mabraham · Feb 25, 2011

Ronnie1 said:
I see what you did now...you put in worker....I would not build worker until AFTER the settler sometime.

No... my fast-BW report had no time for worker (nor did I want one). Are you talking about some other report I made?

mabraham · Feb 25, 2011

mabraham said:
However, before I could SIP and maybe scout to the 3E site, we need some more consensus on what we'll build in the capital.

I don't like walking away from 10 :hammers:

, but I do like the returns from settling cities or building wonders earlier. So I'd lean towards 10 turns on a barracks in case we have a very early war option (yeah, right!) but realistically planning to waste them whatever we built.

The T0 settler is growing on me. Elba would have had good play for Duckweeding or straight-building either Colossus or Pyramids instead of Oracle. Wrist would have eked along building warriors and workboats as required. Or, both cities are in good shape to whip and REX (e.g. there's a nice big empty continent nearby with lots of cottageable river lands)

Grifftavian · Feb 25, 2011

mabraham said:
Wow, great ideas and discussion guys.

So far I see R1, mab, bcool and dV have said they are happy with SIP. Grifftavian has implied he's happy with it by discussing the details of what happens next and talking about settling 3E also.<SNIP>

Moving the Warrior has revealed that there are no seafood resources on the eastern shore, but we're not sure yet about the north shore. Should we wait and not settle on turn 0, and move the Warrior 1N on turn 1 to investigate that possibility? If we had Crabs or Fish on the north shore, would that make settling on the FPH more advantageous in the long run? Only down side I see to waiting is that if we do find Seafood on the north shore, and decide to settle on the FPH, then we wouldn't be settling our Capitol until turn2. See attached screen shot.

Grifftavian · Feb 25, 2011

I was curious about how many hammers we would lose by switching builds, so I did some testing. All test were done with SIP & switching to a Work Boat with knowledge of fishing. I worked Corn until size 2, then worked Corn & FPH while completing 1st WB, then netted a northern Clam and worked the Clam Boat & FPH.

With both a Warrior (initial build time 22 turns) and a Worker (initial build time 23 turns) I started getting warnings about losing a hammer in 5 turns on the initial build at turn 16, but in each case I was able to complete the 1st WB and resume building the Warrior or Worker without losing any hammers. Warrior completed on T25, Worker completed on T32.

With a Barracks as the first build (initial build time 75 turns), I completed the 1st WB and never got a waring about losing hammers. So I started a 2nd WB, and completed it without getting a warning. I started a 3rd WB, and on turn 44 I got a warning saying I would lose 1 hammer on the Barracks in 19 turns. On turn 46, the 3rd WB was completed, and the Capitol grew to Size 4, but there were still 17 or 18 turns remaining before I would lose a hammer on the barracks build. So I started a Settler at Size 4, working 3 Clam Boats and the FPH (except for the first turn, where I worked 2 Clam Boats, unimproved Corn & FPH). On T56, I whipped the Settler for 2 pop w/ 42 :hammers:

overflow, and started completing the Barracks. City #2 founded on T59 and Barracks completed on T61 without losing any hammers.

Someone may want to try and verify these results, but it appears we can manage to not lose any hammers on our initial builds. With Warrior or Worker, it just requires completing the initial build after the 1st WB is complete. Also haven't looked at if its worth letting those 10 :hammers:

evaporate in order to get Work Boats out faster, but apparently if we go with a Barracks as the first build, we don't have to worry about that.

Haven't tried this with a Settler as the initial build.

mabraham · Feb 26, 2011

Grifftavian said:
Moving the Warrior has revealed that there are no seafood resources on the eastern shore, but we're not sure yet about the north shore. Should we wait and not settle on turn 0, and move the Warrior 1N on turn 1 to investigate that possibility? If we had Crabs or Fish on the north shore, would that make settling on the FPH more advantageous in the long run? Only down side I see to waiting is that if we do find Seafood on the north shore, and decide to settle on the FPH, then we wouldn't be settling our Capitol until turn2. See attached screen shot.

Perhaps you attached the wrong screenshot?

I'm not much of a fan of waiting in case we want to settle on the PFH. In the abstract, I'm all for moving (particularly at Epic/Marathon) if there's a clear gain, or any other site just has to be better, but I don't think that is the case here.

Reasons I don't like the speculative wait, in order of merit (IMO):

You also lose a further turn if you find seafood and then choose to move. So waiting, scouting north, finding the northern-food-dream is true, moving and then settling PFH is two turns slower than settling in place straight up. Waiting, scouting and settling in place is one turn slower. To show a profit, catering to settling PFH has got to mean we conquer the world more than two turns faster, and that the northern food will show up often enough for the one-turn premium to be worthwhile.
The second city in the settle-PFH scenario must be settled post-galley, which slows the empire expansion down a lot. Further, the only site that can share a food resource with the capital is the W-island hill. That site does have (at least) a second food, but its three land tiles are fairly forgettable. By comparison, the 3E city probably comes with two priceless mines, in due course.
Our two-city plus granary plan works very well off two food sources per city. The settle-PFH scenario will have three food sources that cannot be shared. So we will force ourselves into more worker/settler builds than perhaps will suit us at the time.
A further parlay is required before the delayed settlement on the PFH shows a clear profit. If there was seafood north and we settled in place and missed working it, then we don't accrue our full loss if there is an island site north of Elba that can usefully work work the northern seafood. Given the density of small islands we might have around us...
Settling PFH loses a chop

Settling on the plains hill is not a free :hammers:

/turn like one might suppose. Everybody's SIP work plans for the turns 10-60+ do a lot of working of the PFH when not regrowing from a whip. Settle-PFH doesn't come with a short-term replacement for that ability, so it must fall behind on the early workboat builds. That snowballs into slower food and growth. Yes, you get the free hammer every turn, not just when working a hammer tile, but if you SIP and work the PFH half the time, you get a central hammer every turn, and 3 hammers half the time. If you settle on the PFH, you get two central hammers every turn, and 1 hammer half the time when working a poxy grassland forest in lieu of a real hammer tile. That breaks about even. Both sites have the ability to build two mines. The PFH site does have an extra flat grassland tile (shared with another city).

Working the poxy grassland forest is not all bad - you get 2 :food:

off it as well. However with the 3 food resources always available to the settle-PFH city, the occasional extra two :food:

is only a small effect.

bcool · Feb 26, 2011

This post has the most promising strategy I think to date.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10250226&postcount=105

the hybrid pyramids build with 4-6 settlers seems like it expands our empire, gets us a wonder than can boost us past the AI enough for a musketeer and cannon conquest. (Need to test the game out after the pyramids build I suppose to confirm this)

I've been just trying to repeat mabraham's games without much success.

this for example is my first attempt at the pyramids hybrid game (I think I did 6 settlers that slowed the pyramids down (I think I am still 8 or so turns away from whipping the pyramids in this game) Again nothing special with this save but I post it just in case. I tried not teching mysticism and going for it without the monument but this seems worse than mab's best attempts.

I went for mathematics and currency instead of code of laws. Whether or not we meet the AI might determine our tech path in the real game.

I want to try to get perhaps the pyramids and the colossus and skip the oracle. That would mean teching metal casting ourselves. Not sure if that is realistic or not.

I should have time to try it with a early monument tomorrow morning and then maybe play out the pyramids game to see what it plays like against the AIs later.

mabraham · Feb 26, 2011

Grifftavian said:
I was curious about how many hammers we would lose by switching builds, so I did some testing. All test were done with SIP & switching to a Work Boat with knowledge of fishing. I worked Corn until size 2, then worked Corn & FPH while completing 1st WB, then netted a northern Clam and worked the Clam Boat & FPH.

With both a Warrior (initial build time 22 turns) and a Worker (initial build time 23 turns) I started getting warnings about losing a hammer in 5 turns on the initial build at turn 16, but in each case I was able to complete the 1st WB and resume building the Warrior or Worker without losing any hammers. Warrior completed on T25, Worker completed on T32.

With a Barracks as the first build (initial build time 75 turns), I completed the 1st WB and never got a waring about losing hammers. So I started a 2nd WB, and completed it without getting a warning. I started a 3rd WB, and on turn 44 I got a warning saying I would lose 1 hammer on the Barracks in 19 turns. On turn 46, the 3rd WB was completed, and the Capitol grew to Size 4, but there were still 17 or 18 turns remaining before I would lose a hammer on the barracks build. So I started a Settler at Size 4, working 3 Clam Boats and the FPH (except for the first turn, where I worked 2 Clam Boats, unimproved Corn & FPH). On T56, I whipped the Settler for 2 pop w/ 42 overflow, and started completing the Barracks. City #2 founded on T59 and Barracks completed on T61 without losing any hammers.

Someone may want to try and verify these results, but it appears we can manage to not lose any hammers on our initial builds. With Warrior or Worker, it just requires completing the initial build after the 1st WB is complete. Also haven't looked at if its worth letting those 10 evaporate in order to get Work Boats out faster, but apparently if we go with a Barracks as the first build, we don't have to worry about that.

Haven't tried this with a Settler as the initial build.

Yeah, the warnings about :hammers:

-loss are not accurate. I don't know what the mechanism is, but I have seen these effects in various of my test games.

Basically, I don't care about losing 10 :hammers:

on something that simply does not fit with our primary focus. At that time, our primary focus is expanding the economy with growth, workboats, settlers and workers in whatever order. Warriors and barracks and (to a lesser extent) workers have got next to nothing to do with these things.

If the free central :hammers:

magically didn't exist until we'd researched a tech, and we'd built our first workboat, we wouldn't be thinking "gee I'd better cash in my magic one-time discount of a 12 :hammers:

-warrior right now". We'd be thinking "Shipwrights! Three more of those!"

Ditto the barracks at about T60. That's when we want galleys, granaries and lighthouses and monuments and workers. A granary of 90 hammers in X turns is a lot more attractive than saving 10 :hammers:

with a barracks of 65-10=55 hammers in X*55/90 turns, and then a granary in X turns. (OK the maths is crap, but you get the idea!)

With suitable results, I could be sold on "worker-switch to WB-settler-finish worker", because the second settler gives the worker increased useful things to do, however we probably do some significant rotting on the worker.

I could see finishing an initial warrior if we were really going to need it as an MP in an early second city. However, having played a T0 settler build (which would be one where you'd think I'd want the extra early MP warrior), we spend so much time whipping down, and Wrist has only 3 good tiles to work early, that having a happy cap of 3 post-whip is really not a problem. Once the northern GHmine comes online, 22 :hammers:

for an MP to allow us to work four tiles is fairly cheap stuff. The initial warrior can shuttle back and forth for MP duty as required, too.

da_Vinci · Feb 26, 2011

Here is my run of worker first to turn 63 where I founded wrist. Long delay to BW really makes the early worker idle ... but I will see if worker WB finish worker might get enough commerce to speed BW to improve that.

How fast does the 3 WB approach get second city up with key tiles improved?

dV

Thorn · Feb 26, 2011

mabraham said:
Wow, great ideas and discussion guys.

So far I see R1, mab, bcool and dV have said they are happy with SIP.

You can add me to that list as well.

da_Vinci · Feb 26, 2011

OK, WKer, interrupt WB, finish Wker is smooth, I just miss losing any hammers, worker farms and roads corn, and gets to fph in time for BW to let him chop and mine it.

Wrist at T60 if I chop into 2nd wb ... 3 turns faster than my finish worker first try. Maybe I should chop into settler ... as that extra WB isn't getting worked after the settler whip.

Here is the turn 60 result.

dV

da_Vinci · Feb 26, 2011

Chopping into the settler gets Wrist at turn 58 (2 turns earlier), and the second WB is 1 turn away. Techs reserached are fishing, mining, BW, pottery, working on writing (maybe that should be sailing).

The worker gets road to Wrist done just in time for the settler to get there in one move.

This looks like the optimal early worker scenario, so how does this compare with all of the no worker tests (or no early worker tests)?

The worker is NEVER idle in this scenario, to this point. He can still chop the grass forest to speed Paris production.

I will have to try the 3 WB start later.

dV

SGOTM 13 - Gypsy Kings

Deity

Deity

Gypsy Prince

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Emperor

Emperor

Deity

Deity

Attachments

Deity

Gypsy Prince

Attachments

King

Gypsy Prince

Attachments

Gypsy Prince

Attachments

Similar threads