TheArchduke
Feeling at home..
Go around with the two settlers and if you don´t find any better food location, I would settle in place.
ALC Game 14: Mongolia/Kublai Khan
- Thread starter Sisiutil
- Start date
Harbourboy
Deity
If in doubt, ask yourself: What would Kublai Khan do in this position?
pigswill
fly (one day)
At the end of ALC13 there was talk of moving ALC to emperor. Now there's talk of abandoning the game or reloading from the start.
You started off with a high food low production site
; your initial exploration hasn't yet paid off: some gambles you win, some you lose. What's the problem?
At the end of ALC13 there was talk of moving ALC to emperor. Now there's talk of abandoning the game or reloading from the start.
You started off with a high food low production site
It's the problem of fractal maps. Sometimes you get isolated starts.
And when your UU is based on an early unit it's really wasteful.
I don't think there is a problem because of a few turns wasted.
Moving the settler towards a high production city near an AI capital has not yet been done in an ALC and is worth a try IMHO.
Lance of Llanwy
King
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 710
IMO, you looked a gift horse in the mouth with this one in pursuit of perfection and now suffer for it. Good thing you didn't move up, it would be a lot harder to cope with this on Emperor. In any case, 1N of the corn sounds good to me....
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
he'd be in for a wild ride no matter what with us for a peanut gallery! even if he was playing settler level using a modded .xml to give him every trait, and a resource on every tile within 20 squares of his start and none for the bad guys, we'd be full of conflicting advice and opinions
those fish still annoy me. the thought of my capital having more water squares than land tiles, only one of them having seafood, and not a single one of the land tiles looked like potential hills ... coming off a string of OCCs (where my capital was going to always and forever be my only city) i was just completely turned off by that idea. why oh why are those fish only reachable from that one single tile? grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
I thought the purpose of moving in land was for more production, if you move above the corn you will lose all those riverside hills and the Hefalumps. With the corn and a couple of riverside grasslands farmed, working the Hefalumps and a couple of hills should be no problem. For a second city, if nowhere better has been found you can go for the fish and cows. There are no problems here, quite the contrary, if all else fails (no other resources good for war) get construction and Bob's your uncle.
edit: for those not familiar with the meaning of 'Bob's your uncle'
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bob1.htm
edit: for those not familiar with the meaning of 'Bob's your uncle'
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bob1.htm
Excellent thread so far!
Playing from slightly behind will sort of simulate playing at the next higher difficulty level ... at least for the first 30 to 40 turns. In my games I rarely move the settler because I'm too nervous about losing turns.
We should proceed. We should follow the constraints of the Game of the Month, which basically means no regenerating and no reloading. If by chance this game does not lend itself to demonstrating the principles of the ALC series, then it might be worth abandoning it later. In other words, we should not start over due to being at a disadvantage, but we should start over if there is no opportunity to demonstrate the nuances of playing a leader based upon his traits, unique unit, or unique building.
Check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization
The main point is that the Mongols were consummate horsemen. Any Mongolian ALC match which does not feature Keshiks just wouldn't be true to the spirit of the series. Mostly I was looking forward to seeing Kublai played to take advantage of the Creative trait too.
- - - - - - - - - -
Many continuing thanks to Sisiutil and all the wise thread participants. In my own games I often think through the issues and concepts which are debated here.
- - - - - - - - - -
Playing from slightly behind will sort of simulate playing at the next higher difficulty level ... at least for the first 30 to 40 turns. In my games I rarely move the settler because I'm too nervous about losing turns.
We should proceed. We should follow the constraints of the Game of the Month, which basically means no regenerating and no reloading. If by chance this game does not lend itself to demonstrating the principles of the ALC series, then it might be worth abandoning it later. In other words, we should not start over due to being at a disadvantage, but we should start over if there is no opportunity to demonstrate the nuances of playing a leader based upon his traits, unique unit, or unique building.
Check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization
The main point is that the Mongols were consummate horsemen. Any Mongolian ALC match which does not feature Keshiks just wouldn't be true to the spirit of the series. Mostly I was looking forward to seeing Kublai played to take advantage of the Creative trait too.
- - - - - - - - - -
Many continuing thanks to Sisiutil and all the wise thread participants. In my own games I often think through the issues and concepts which are debated here.
- - - - - - - - - -
You should have settled in place Sisiutil! But now that you've moved, you might as well live with it. I think it could be interesting to see if you can settle this late and still do well. I wouldn't waste any more turns if I were you, though.
I admit it, I peeked at the save in Worldbuilder. I didn't study it too much, but I have to say that the way all the land is set up is kind of cool looking. Make of that what you will.
I admit it, I peeked at the save in Worldbuilder. I didn't study it too much, but I have to say that the way all the land is set up is kind of cool looking. Make of that what you will.
TheArchduke
Feeling at home..
Add to that, that the primary reason for moving was poor production.
If you settle 1N of the corn, you could have settled on the starting spot, more then that, the start would have been WAY better.
So settle on the spot and do with corn and ivory. And build the second city down there as a fishing village.
If you settle 1N of the corn, you could have settled on the starting spot, more then that, the start would have been WAY better.
So settle on the spot and do with corn and ivory. And build the second city down there as a fishing village.
Settling late is not a problem, you can take a look at Snaaty's threads : the basic idea is to move inland from a coastal start in order to save some space for later expansion and also to balance the distance to capitole price. Another thing is the hut popping that may be more efficient as : you won't pop barbs and the settler with its 2 moves is a good way to find some huts and explore faster.
As no early religion will be research rush, This is cleary not a problem to move the settler for a few turn ...
Another thing is to get closer to another civ as kelshik rush is the aim!!! I'm currently working on the incas (on Monarch normal map) : I spend many turn exploring the map and I settle right between 2 AI capitole and then queshua rush both!!
It does not work every time but it sure works well when I only attack one capitole!
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
Sheesh, regenerate the map? Already? At least in the Asoka game you let me play a few rounds before declaring the game lost. Cluck cluck cluck, you mother hens!
Frankly, this start kind of reminds me of the one in the Hatshepsut game, especially if I settle near the current location (I'm leaning towards Validator's suggestion of 1E of the Settler's current position). In the Hatty game I had 2 food sources (cows and rice) and tons of plains, so not the greatest commerce location, but good for production. The mistake I won't want to repeat from that game is neglecting my economy for too long.
Don't forget I now have my 2nd Scout several turns ahead of normal, which could also amount to a huge advantage, compensating for moving the Settler. I will likely get to more huts than any rivals, and map out the land far ahead of them as well. Yes, I know I have neighbours, because I had Welnic check the starting save for me just to confirm that I was not isolated, which as we agreed is no fun if you're Mongolia.
So in the next round I will (finally!) settle, explore with the Scouts, and research Agriculture and then Animal Husbandry. Once I know where the horses are, I'll end the round so we can discuss how to get them. That's assuming they don't pop up in the capital's fat cross, of course, but based upon what I've seen of the map so far, I don't expect anything to be easy.
Frankly, this start kind of reminds me of the one in the Hatshepsut game, especially if I settle near the current location (I'm leaning towards Validator's suggestion of 1E of the Settler's current position). In the Hatty game I had 2 food sources (cows and rice) and tons of plains, so not the greatest commerce location, but good for production. The mistake I won't want to repeat from that game is neglecting my economy for too long.
Don't forget I now have my 2nd Scout several turns ahead of normal, which could also amount to a huge advantage, compensating for moving the Settler. I will likely get to more huts than any rivals, and map out the land far ahead of them as well. Yes, I know I have neighbours, because I had Welnic check the starting save for me just to confirm that I was not isolated, which as we agreed is no fun if you're Mongolia.
So in the next round I will (finally!) settle, explore with the Scouts, and research Agriculture and then Animal Husbandry. Once I know where the horses are, I'll end the round so we can discuss how to get them. That's assuming they don't pop up in the capital's fat cross, of course, but based upon what I've seen of the map so far, I don't expect anything to be easy.
patagonia
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,025
Elephants really aren't that great a tile. I still think the best place for your capital in terms of maximizing early commerce and production is on the river and coast between furs and plains hill. It'll cost you another turn, but on epic that's hardly significant since you're not chasing religion. That'll mean leaving the cows to city 2 or 3 probably 2N of the lake, but they aren't in the greatest position anyway.
I think it would be highly advantageous to be working those two furs relatively early in the game. Settling 1E of where you are now means founding a city 1S of the cows to do so, which will have a lot of overlap with the capital and never amount to a great deal.
Of course, to a certain extent it depends on whether you want to beeline HBR and Keshik rush an opponent, or take the slower route to construction before starting an early cat/phant war. Which in turn depends on whether there are any horses or neighbours in the vicinity...
Mercenary82
King
How would settling 1 east be better than settling in the current position? you will lose 2 hills in the bfc that way.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Sheesh. A few turns at Epic does not translate to a lost game! I'd say keep moving. You've already made the "move-the-settler" investment, stick with it until it pays off. Now, with two scouts, you've got a better view, too. Rather than moving up a level, push the limits a bit and prove it can be won with a few turns traded to get a better capitol site. Getting away from the coast also helps with the inevitable distance maintenance, and you know there's nobody moving in on you from the southeast. Take advantage of it! Of course, by the last post, sounds like the decision's been made, but I'm still rooting for a ballsy move.
JackRules
incompertus vapulus
As an aspiring Prince player (and therefore not great with all the nuances of city placement), I am curious why the river grassland tile that the settler reached after his first move was not considered by anyone to be a decent site for the capitol. It had corn, river, both beavers, 3 hills, several forests and at least two tiles that could be farmed (with 1 chop). I know the fish would have been totally lost, and the cows would have to be picked up by a city up the east coast, so eliminating any 2nd city sites currently being considered. But to me it would have been a pretty decent capitol. Just curious...
JackRules
incompertus vapulus
Thanks. I guess I would have made the mistake of settling there and hoped for some better city sites to reveal themselves as my scouts got out and about. But like many here I don't like to waste more than a turn wandering around before I get my capitol down, especially as I'm not strong enough as a player to be able to afford too many turns spent exploring.
Structure
Chieftain
Sheesh. A few turns at Epic does not translate to a lost game! I'd say keep moving. You've already made the "move-the-settler" investment, stick with it until it pays off. Now, with two scouts, you've got a better view, too. Rather than moving up a level, push the limits a bit and prove it can be won with a few turns traded to get a better capitol site. Getting away from the coast also helps with the inevitable distance maintenance, and you know there's nobody moving in on you from the southeast. Take advantage of it! Of course, by the last post, sounds like the decision's been made, but I'm still rooting for a ballsy move.
Word. It's a game. Live dangerously, or well...you know. You do have TWO scouts...so there will never be a better time to experiment with moving the capital. (Yes, I know this conflicts with my earlier post, but I'm bothered by all the doom and gloom and run back where we come talk
)
