Game Session 1 coordination

Blkbird

Blkbird

King
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
860
Our game has been created but not yet played, the first game session is scheduled for Wed., 18 Jan. 2400 UTC (7pm EST). Usually 10 turns will be played in a session. The official Game Session Instruction Thread (which is *not* a discussion thread) is here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3579602#post3579602

This thread is to discuss what to do in the 10 turns. Every government official (Secretaries and Ministers) is probably going to open threads discussing issues related to their office. This thread here is to cover and coordinate those discussions, as issues of different departments need to be considered in relation to each other, to fit in the "big picture".

In other words, this thread is for short to mid-term general strategies and actions specificly for the 10 turns of Game Session 1. Any issue that causes major disputes here will be spun off to an dedicated thread. Any issue that already has a dedicated thread for discussion should be summarized here when that discussion reaches a conclusion.
 
Allow me to start the discussion by giving to the protocol that there has been a great consensus among those who participated in the Game Creation Chat to let our Settler settle in-place (right where he's positioned at the start). Anyone who would argument *against* that?
 
No screenshots? No analysis?

I'll withold comment for a bit.

-- Ravensfire
 
ravensfire said:
No screenshots? No analysis?
Click to expand...

Screenshot is in the Instruction Thread I've linked to. As for analysis, everybody is welcome.
 
Excellent - did not see that first time through. It would be nice, though, to provide a direct link to the SS for this discussion.

-- Ravensfire
 
From the screenshot, it looked like there some kind of water by the pig. From the chat, I remember someone saying that the tile did not say fresh water so that rules out river and lakes. Hopefully that the ocean.
 
I beleve we should settle where the settlers are currently. There is good access to forests and hills for shield (hammer) production. Once we settle down, we should build warriors first for a temporary garrison (untill we get archers) and exploration in the pre-scout era.
 
CivGeneral said:
I beleve we should settle where the settlers are currently. There is good access to forests and hills for shield (hammer) production. Once we settle down, we should build warriors first for a temporary garrison (untill we get archers) and exploration in the pre-scout era.
Click to expand...

After a garrison and explorer (or two) would you recommend a worker next, or straight to a settler?
 
Double Stack said:
From the screenshot, it looked like there some kind of water by the pig. From the chat, I remember someone saying that the tile did not say fresh water so that rules out river and lakes. Hopefully that the ocean.
Click to expand...

Hmm, sounds pretty logical. In that case, shall we consider move EE and settle S of the Pig?
 
DaveShack said:
After a garrison and explorer (or two) would you recommend a worker next, or straight to a settler?
Click to expand...

Excuse me, what do you mean by "explorer"? Explorer won't be available for millenia to come.

I suggest Warrior (1), Worker (1), Settler (chop-rush).
 
Blkbird said:
Excuse me, what do you mean by "explorer"? Explorer won't be available for millenia to come.

I suggest Warrior (1), Worker (1), Settler (chop-rush).
Click to expand...

You're confusing unit type with usage. To be more accurate, CivGeneral was suggesting Warrior (to explore), Warrior (to garrison). I was asking if the next unit should be a worker or setter.

The warrior / worker / settler build order either leaves our capitol undefended, or doesn't start exploration until turn 40 or later. Neither one seems a good idea to me.

Chop rushing settlers is overrated at best, and potentially destructive at worst. Analysis of the RBCiv Epic 1 reports showed that people who chop rushed got a slight early lead, but had signs of being health limited later on vs. players who left the forests and improved other plots. It also matters what kind of forests are chopped -- these are grass/forest 2f+1h plots, which when chopped drop to 2f+0h. We'd get plots to put cottages on, but if we cottage the floodplains we can keep the forest hammers and still have extra food to work the hills. A hammer per turn for 100+ turns beats 40 hammers from a chop. :)
 
DaveShack said:
The warrior / worker / settler build order either leaves our capitol undefended, or doesn't start exploration until turn 40 or later. Neither one seems a good idea to me.
Click to expand...

Now that's a confusing statement to me. We do have a Warrior now, do we not? So when we've built our first Warrior, we will be having two Warriors, one for garrison and one for exploration, am I wrong?
 
Blkbird said:
Hmm, sounds pretty logical. In that case, shall we consider move EE and settle S of the Pig?
Click to expand...



Is there an overwhelming advantage to be gained by moving two spaces? If we try for the religion then it's two turns of research lost, and turns of compound growth too. If we settle in place, a future city can go NE of the pigs and probably be on the coast.
 
Blkbird said:
Now that's a confusing statement to me. We do have a Warrior now, do we not? So when we've built our first Warrior, we will be having two Warriors, one for garrison and one for exploration, am I wrong?
Click to expand...

My preference is to explore two directions, so I should have said "full exploration". Also the time building a 2nd warrior is growth time, to allow us to grow to size 2 or 3. That way we're researching faster while the worker stalls growth.
 
DaveShack said:
Is there an overwhelming advantage to be gained by moving two spaces? If we try for the religion then it's two turns of research lost, and turns of compound growth too. If we settle in place, a future city can go NE of the pigs and probably be on the coast.
Click to expand...

First, we would only be losing 1, not 2 turns if we move. Second, I'm not sure why you ask for an "overwhelming" advantage, as the disadvantage doesn't appear "overwhelming" in any way to me, either.

As of the question if there is any advantage on start on coast. The thing is that the Capital is usually the most developed city, and more capable of building Wonders like the Great Lighthouse which can only be built coastal. Plus, the earlier we start sailing around, the more opportunities we will have to secure strategic city locations.

We do have more than one continent on this map, therefore coastal cities have great important.
 
DaveShack said:
Chop rushing settlers is overrated at best, and potentially destructive at worst. Analysis of the RBCiv Epic 1 reports showed that people who chop rushed got a slight early lead, but had signs of being health limited later on vs. players who left the forests and improved other plots.
Click to expand...

What and where are those dubious "RBCiv Epic 1 reports" and the analysis thereof?
 
IMO, it might be worthwhile to move E and have an extra hill. The trade off would also include more tiles on the river which gain us extra (instant) commerce. Moving further is risky because there might be several desert tiles
in the south of our city then.

Anyhow, the move for the warrior is either NW to support the idea of settling in place or moving E to discover possible advantages of any location in this direction.


I hope that there'll be some play sessions on weekends because I'm in GMT+1.
 
Blkbird said:
What and where are those dubious "RBCiv Epic 1 reports" and the analysis thereof?
Click to expand...

Dubious? :lol: I gather you're new to the online Civ community... Here's a link.
 
Blkbird said:
First, we would only be losing 1, not 2 turns if we move. Second, I'm not sure why you ask for an "overwhelming" advantage, as the disadvantage doesn't appear "overwhelming" in any way to me, either.

As of the question if there is any advantage on start on coast. The thing is that the Capital is usually the most developed city, and more capable of building Wonders like the Great Lighthouse which can only be built coastal. Plus, the earlier we start sailing around, the more opportunities we will have to secure strategic city locations.

We do have more than one continent on this map, therefore coastal cities have great important.
Click to expand...

Only move, even one turn's move, if there is something wrong where you're standing, or something really good about where you're moving to. I don't see a coastal site of unknown quality being better than what we already have, plus there is no way to know we won't have to move some more.

We can build a coastal city at any time. That spot might not even be the best coastal location available -- what if the good spot is a couple of plots further north, or to the south? Plus I've heard, but not seen with my own eyes, that animals could pop up that close to us. (seen them 4 plots away plenty of times) IIRC someone got their settler killed by trying to go into the fog, in a competition game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Recursive
Update on the Voting for Session #6 (& Cheating Discovery)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Blake00
Kings and Emperors (Civ5 like 4X browser game)
Replies
0
Views
792
Blake00
Blake00
V
TSG 240 Announcement
Replies
5
Views
946
gerishnakov
gerishnakov
Nizef
TSG 241 Announcement
Replies
9
Views
780
sebtanic
S
V
TSG 238 Announcement
Replies
5
Views
2K
lerrocco
L
Top Bottom