Guide to 500k+ scores through Huge map domination on Immortal difficulty

[killercane]

Now thats a 5 star post. Thanks for answering VM! I dont understand all you said but the conclusions seem spot on IME.

The next question is, what map size gives you the most bang for your buck out of sushi? Huge is .25 per resource, while standard is .5. Is there any map out there that we can use that to make standard>huge? In other words, how many more seafoods are there on huge than standard to get the free population and does that overcome the maxscore limitations? I would certainly rather play a smaller map than huge so I wish WT was correct.

 

[VirusMonster]

Well open up your algebra books to understand the math going on... use windows calculator The x^y function in the windows calculator is used to take exponents.

-------------------

Now, let's answer your question on Sushi food bonus for different map sizes.

Let's say there is a map type where Sushi gives more food on standard than Immortal. How much more food do you think you will get on standard?

I would say not more than 5 , because Huge map sizes have on high sea levels roughly 2x land mass compared to a standard map type, hence, roughly 2x more sushi resources. If you tweak the setttings and play a low sea level map with many small land masses, you will actually get more final sushi food bonus on Huge map sizes, because the total land mass for a Huge map could be potentially reach 4k, while the average standard map size maximum is 1k... 4 times more land will get roughly 4 times more sushi resources, even if less, I doubt it will be less than 2 times of standard map sushi resources.

Despite all this, say you are getting more sushi food on a standard map. How much more do you expect to get? 5 more food sounds reasonable to me. How much will this 5 extra food shorten your milking phase?

In my previous post, I had a total of 55 in calculating city excess food generation at size 20. 20x2 from farms + 15 from sushi = 55

Say you are getting 5 more for playing on standard and you get a total of 60

Well after you have spread your cities, your growth rate will be cut by roughy (1-(55/60))=91% for playing a huge map. How many turns will lose that for playing a huge map? In my earlier post, I assumed 100 turns would be enough to grow your empire to the happiness cap, well now on standard it should take you 90 turns to grow to the maximum limit.

These 10 turns are negligible compared to the huge 150-175 turns saving you get for playing a huge map and getting a higher population raw score.

Again, as discussed in earlier posts of this thread, if Sushi gives you 35-40 , consider yourself lucky. Based on my earlier counting on Sushi resources on a Huge Archi map, from roughly 200 Sushi resources there, i would say 50 is the maximum you can get from Sushi on any map type. The practical maximum will be lower than 50 , because:

1. the more resources Sushi consumes the more maintenance you will pay, and there is some difference between 20 vs. 40 sushi.

2. You might not have access to all sushi resources immediately due to diplomatic reasons, lack of settlers, etc..

---------------------

Conclusion:

Even if smaller map types could give you a bit more (1-10) for sushi, the resulting effect of growing your cities faster does not compansate the big scoring difference huge maps get for having higher population and land rawscores.

 

[WastinTime]

Good work VM, there are a lot of numbers there...and a lot of assumptions. The biggest one is that you assume a larger maxscore (a larger map) = larger rawscore. Not necessarily true.

the resulting effect of growing your cities faster does not compansate the big scoring difference huge maps get for having higher population and land rawscores

Let's be clear, a higher MAXscore for the larger size map will LOWER your final score if you get the exact same population, land, etc. Not the same percentages, the same raw numbers.

It's only the promise of higher RAWscores that could raise your score. So far, this promise (that a 2x larger map produces 2x larger population) is unfulfilled. KC had a population of 2755 on Huge. I had 4200 on Standard. Now I know I only got there because the easy difficulty, but that's not the point. The point is: a standard map could support a population of up to 5000 and this is plenty for a 2 million score. It doesn't matter that Huge could support a population of 10,000 or 20,000. You can't get that high in the turns you have to play the game.

Look at it this way: Let's say you wanted to beat my 600K score on chieftain. You've concluded that it can be done by playing a Huge/Chieftain map instead of the standard one I played. Now, an interesting calculation would be: What population would you need to beat 600K ? I'll take a rough estimate and say 7000. Do you really think you can get the same end date and grow your population that much higher?

Here's another way to look at it. Assuming you don't run out of space to grow on Standard or Large, there is nothing about Huge that will let you make settlers faster, or make corp execs faster, etc. Instead, Huge gets a slower tech pace AND a huge sushi penalty (I was not aware of that.)

I don't have a lot of numbers, but my gut is still telling me that Huge has no chance at the highest score. I think KC will prove that when he gets a chance to take his play strategy to other map sizes. I can't get up the desire to play it myself.

 

[killercane]

Good work VM, there are a lot of numbers there...and a lot of assumptions. The biggest one is that you assume a larger maxscore (a larger map) = larger rawscore. Not necessarily true.



Let's be clear, a higher MAXscore for the larger size map will LOWER your final score if you get the exact same population, land, etc. Not the same percentages, the same raw numbers.

It's only the promise of higher RAWscores that could raise your score. So far, this promise (that a 2x larger map produces 2x larger population) is unfulfilled. KC had a population of 2755 on Huge. I had 4200 on Standard. Now I know I only got there because the easy difficulty, but that's not the point. The point is: a standard map could support a population of up to 5000 and this is plenty for a 2 million score. It doesn't matter that Huge could support a population of 10,000 or 20,000. You can't get that high in the turns you have to play the game.

Look at it this way: Let's say you wanted to beat my 600K score on chieftain. You've concluded that it can be done by playing a Huge/Chieftain map instead of the standard one I played. Now, an interesting calculation would be: What population would you need to beat 600K ? I'll take a rough estimate and say 7000. Do you really think you can get the same end date and grow your population that much higher?

Here's another way to look at it. Assuming you don't run out of space to grow on Standard or Large, there is nothing about Huge that will let you make settlers faster, or make corp execs faster, etc. Instead, Huge gets a slower tech pace AND a huge sushi penalty (I was not aware of that.)

I don't have a lot of numbers, but my gut is still telling me that Huge has no chance at the highest score. I think KC will prove that when he gets a chance to take his play strategy to other map sizes. I can't get up the desire to play it myself.

Well maintenance is always the thing. On huge you will have less maintenance, and therefore can make settlers and executives more quickly. Once you get past point X, your tech pace is better than on a standard map.

Breaking it down into game turns, on marathon it takes roughly til turn 100 to produce a settler, and turn 125 to begin taking AI cities. This part goes quickly until you reach 0 research and have to build wealth. Huge will allow several more cities than standard and the building effects are then exponential. If we assume it takes 150-200 turns to take a new city from pop 1 to pop 25, the only way for standard to make 2 million is if your tech pace allows you biology and sushi considerably sooner on standard rather than huge.

But play some standard maps and prove me wrong! I havent yet played a late game on standard map but I suspect you can make 1.5 million, but I think 2 million will only be for huge maps.

One thing that has not been mentioned, does Maxscore take into account just 1 citizen per grassland or does it take into account biology's two citizens per grass?

 

[WastinTime]

I'm not sure why you two (KC and VM) seem so biased toward the conclusion that huge maps are better. Instead of trying to figure out which size is best, you both are trying to twist the numbers to make Huge sound better. Your analysis includes some crazy assumptions/conclusions

150-200 turns to grow from 1 to pop 25? That makes no sense. It's probably more like 50 turns or less. But more importantly, what is the point? How does that lead to your conclusion that standard maps are limited to 1.5 million.

Now (I think) you're claiming that on standard size maps you will run out of money and have to stop founding new cities. You say huge maps won't have this problem because of lower maint. I don't buy that. You'll have the same number of cites on standard or huge at turn 200, and at turn 300, etc.

It wouldn't help much for me to play. My play style would be so different it still wouldn't shed much light on the map size debate. It's best if KC does his same strategy on standard/Immortal.

 

[VirusMonster]

To KillerCane: max score only takes into accout pre-biology maximum possible sustainable population.


To WastinTime:

"Look at it this way: Let's say you wanted to beat my 600K score on chieftain. You've concluded that it can be done by playing a Huge/Chieftain map instead of the standard one I played. Now, an interesting calculation would be: What population would you need to beat 600K ? I'll take a rough estimate and say 7000. Do you really think you can get the same end date and grow your population that much higher?"

What you are missing is the rawscore/maxscore precentage for Huge does not have to be as high as a standard one for a huge map. For example, say a standard map has 1000 max score and a huge map has 3000 max score. And let's say you reach 3000 population on victory date for standard. For a huge map to score as high as your standard score, he does not have to reach 9000 population on the same victory date. He can get away with much less population to score just as high.

How much less? Say your turn for victory on Immortal is 600. Actually if we scale your 1520AD finish date on Epic to marathon speed, your end date would be like turn 650-700.. That is pretty late of a victory imho....

Anyway now let's turn back to your 3000 vs. 1000max score for huge and standard.

In the formula, the denominator would be:

For standard map size, 1000^(650/1500) = 20
For huge map size, 3000^(650/1500) = 32

Now the rawscores, for both mapsize will be divided by these values. Say on finish turn 650, standard map size has 3000 population score. The resulting value would be 3000/20=150. To reach same value on a huge map on 650 victory date, 150*32=4800 rawscore would be enough.

According to what you might be saying, you would expect a rawscore of 9000 to come even with the standard map score. But if you investigate the formula carefully, the denominator term is just an exponential term, whereas the nominator term is linear. Thus, you can get away with relatively much less rawscores on Hugemaps and still score just as high as standard.

In summary, to answer your question, yes I think if you can reach 3000 population on turn 650 for a standard size map, I can reach 4800 population at turn 650.

Even if I miss reaching 4800 population at turn 650. Due to the growth explosion after sushi and biology, when i reach 9000 population on turn 700, my score multiplier will be:

9000/(3000^(700/1500))=214

whereas your score multiplier for finish at turn 650 with 3000 popscore on a 1000maxpopscore standard map was: 3000/(1000^(650/1500))=150.

That is 214/150=1.42 higher popscore..... add the fact you get higher raw landscore... even if the remaining tech and wonder scores could be abit reduced for your 50 turn later finish date.... still a huge map finishing 50 turns later than a standard map would score higher....

How much higher? Roughly 1.2-1.5 times higher end score...

-----

Now, if what KillerCane saying about standard maps achieving 1.5M score is possible.... Then a huge map scoring 1.4 times higher would cross the 2.M barrier..

 

[VirusMonster]

I'm not sure why you two (KC and VM) seem so biased toward the conclusion that huge maps are better. Instead of trying to figure out which size is best, you both are trying to twist the numbers to make Huge sound better. Your analysis includes some crazy assumptions/conclusions

150-200 turns to grow from 1 to pop 25? That makes no sense. It's probably more like 50 turns or less. But more importantly, what is the point? How does that lead to your conclusion that standard maps are limited to 1.5 million.

Instead of calling my analysis crazy, I suggest you point out where you think there is a weak assumption. You play epic speed, and 50 turns might be good enough to achieve 25 population there. On Marathon, however, which should be the preferred playing speed for scoring high, 100-200 turns are just about right to reach 25 population. I had included a 3 part summary of why growing to 25 would take so long. First, you must build the settler, 2nd you must build the sushi executive, 3rd you must wait the city to grow..... How do you expect to grow to size 25 so quickly? If you see anything wrong, let me know.

In fact, if what you say is true even for marathon and growing size 25 takes less amount of time than 200 turns, then the better for a huge map to be able to support higher number of cities quicker.

---------------------------------

Now (I think) you're claiming that on standard size maps you will run out of money and have to stop founding new cities. You say huge maps won't have this problem because of lower maint. I don't buy that. You'll have the same number of cites on standard or huge at turn 200, and at turn 300, etc.

It wouldn't help much for me to play. My play style would be so different it still wouldn't shed much light on the map size debate. It's best if KC does his same strategy on standard/Immortal.

Alright, I have answered this question in my previous long reply. Even if you get same amount of cities for huge and standard on similar dates, being able to support a higher rawscore, despite finishing 50 turns later, would still score higher than a standard map score.

Say you had 100 cities at finish date on Standard, and say you want 300 cities on finish date on Huge. Then to build the settlers, to spread the sushi, and to grow to size 25 would, if you start building them earlier than your finish date, should not take more than 100-120 turns. You think you get lower score for finishing later on huge, but the resulting higher rawscore more than compensates the later finish, at least for 175 turns... look in the first long post where the 175 number comes from.

 

[WastinTime]

Your numbers look good. I did a similiar calculation in my head and used turn 750 instead of 650 (cus then it's just the square-root). So my 4200/7000 estimate is about the same as your 3000/4800. The problem is that you somehow think and extra 2000 population (give or take) is easy. And somehow the extra tiles on the huge map provide this miracle grow in spite of the other disadvantages of huge.

 

[WastinTime]

In fact, if what you say is true even for marathon and growing size 25 takes less amount of time than 200 turns, then the better for a huge map to be able to support higher number of cities quicker.

Sorry, that sounded a bit rude. When you plant a new city with sushi +30 food, it will grow almost every turn (even on marathon). It will be at size 15 in no time and then slow down a bit, but I don't see how any of that matters.

And even if it did matter, how does map size fit into that argument? It comes down to the point I made earlier. The map needs to be large enough so you don't run out of space. What if there was an "ultra huge" map that was 10 times bigger than huge? You would conclude that it is the best map for high scores, but it's not, because you can't fill that space in 700-ish turns.

 

[WastinTime]

Even if you get same amount of cities for huge and standard on similar dates...

Say you had 100 cities at finish date on Standard, and say you want 300 cities on finish date on Huge.

Ok, 1 more time. This is where you are getting lost. First you mention the case where you get the same # of cities on similar dates. Then you say that somehow you "want 300" cities on huge. Like they come free with the map. You still have to build them. I'm saying you can "want 300" on standard size too, just like you first mentioned: same # of cities at the similar dates.

Your score on standard will beat huge with those same 300 cities.

 

[VirusMonster]

I hope you understand that the extra 2000 population does not have to come at the finish date of the standard map score. It can come 50-100 turns later in the milking phase. You would still score more than a standard map would score.

More cities for huge map = higher number of settlers can be poprushed simultaneously.
More cities for huge map = higher number of executives can be poprushed simultaneously.
More cities for huge map = you get more gold to goldbuy the executives.
More cities for huge map = you get reduced maintenance costs and thus can support more cities at any date... The limiting factor to expansion in almost every civ4 game is not military, but rather economical. I am digging how much more % of cities you can sustain at any date on a huge map.

 

[WastinTime]

Ok, I'm done arguing. You are hell-bent on favoring huge maps. If you play a few games, maybe you'll see the light.

 

[VirusMonster]

WastinTime, I now fully understand your argument.

Let me put it this way. Since the rate of the milking phase score earnings are higher than the rate of score loss for finishing later, you would ideally want as big of a map as possible.

Your argument makes sense... say I had a 50 000 max score map (does not exist in current civIV game) and I finished at turn 1000 for reaching 150 000 popscore for such map. Then the score multiplier would be 110... slightly less than the 150 score multiplier for standard... Then we would have assumed such map should not be preferred for highest scores.

But as it happens, you can fill the extra citizens pretty quickly in the milking phase. The extra 100-200 cities can be built super quickly through poprushing and goldbuying. And growth can happen in less than 50 turns (ok, I assume you have a good sushi map) just as you claim with a +30 sushi.

How much extra time can you spend in this milking phase and still score as high as a standard map score? My analysis says roughly despite finishing 175 turns later on huge. you would still get same popscore...

In fact, for a huge map of max popscore 50 000, finishing 175 turns later than 600th turn standard date score: 150 000 / (50 000 ^ (775/1500)) = 602. Compare this popscore multiplier with the 150 standard score multiplier for finishing at turn 600. If you finish on turn 800, then score multiplier would be 400sh... still better than the 150 standard score multiplier for finishing at turn 600. finish on turn 900, and the multiplier would be 220... still better than the 150 standard popscore multipler....

If you finish too late however, your tech, wonder, and scores start to diminish to a great extent. They compose half of your score, thus you can't stay so much in the milking phase, and your popscore multiplier has to be at least 2 times higher than the relative standard earlier finish date score. So for a 50 000 max popscore huge map, somewhere between 800 and 850th turn should be the ideal finish date. Well, that is roughly 150-250 turns later than your 600th turn finish date. So my 175 turn later finish was a reasonable approximation.

I have been very conservative in my calculations and did everything to favor standard map sizes, yet

1. the way the formula is set with the exponential term in the denominator
2. the way milking takes roughly 100-150 turns to reach max pop size for any map.
3. the way you can afford more cities at any date for larger map sizes due to reduced maintenance costs

clearly favor huge map sizes for highest scores.... Not by much, maybe 1.2-1.5 times more score... but nevertheless significant.

 

[killercane]

I'm not sure why you two (KC and VM) seem so biased toward the conclusion that huge maps are better. Instead of trying to figure out which size is best, you both are trying to twist the numbers to make Huge sound better. Your analysis includes some crazy assumptions/conclusions

150-200 turns to grow from 1 to pop 25? That makes no sense. It's probably more like 50 turns or less. But more importantly, what is the point? How does that lead to your conclusion that standard maps are limited to 1.5 million.

Now (I think) you're claiming that on standard size maps you will run out of money and have to stop founding new cities. You say huge maps won't have this problem because of lower maint. I don't buy that. You'll have the same number of cites on standard or huge at turn 200, and at turn 300, etc.

It wouldn't help much for me to play. My play style would be so different it still wouldn't shed much light on the map size debate. It's best if KC does his same strategy on standard/Immortal.

I have tried some standard maps and didnt think the score was progressing as quickly. Therefore I didnt continue through the milking phase. I just didnt get the feeling that I was going to be able to score as high compared to huge. So Im the empirical guy not the numbers guy.

Based on that I think 1.5 million is the goal on standard and that you cant make 2 million there but you can on huge.

You wont have the same number of cities at turns 200 and 300, as they cost more. I dont know how MUCH more but definitely more. I would guess 20%. I dont know where you are getting I love huge maps, I dislike them and would rather play standard (or smaller!).

Mapsize debate is just a subset of the how the heck to score 2 million points debate so if you develop a strategy and do so, i think we would all like to hear about it. Im still trying to figure some new things out, such as archer rush the first civ and then build settler & Immortals, which should give 3 cities early. Also, I have yet to figure out how to use the initial scientist GP; academy is looking like a worse and worse choice as science rate gets so low in the midgame.

 

[VirusMonster]

What you are saying is we should play a map with as low of a maxscore as possible....

That is a true statement..... I totally agree with you..

If on preferred finish date, we still have some population to grow, but cannot because we have to finish at certain date or we would score less than our standard score, then the excess possible population to grow is a lost score and we must pay for having chosing a map size so large that we could not fill on time.... The higher max popscore will cut down on score.

So your argument has a point....

I hope this point was answered in my previous reply... Obviously there is a limit on how late you can finish the larger map.

And if the goal is not achieved within these limitations, you would be better off playing a smaller map size....

But I can poprush 150 settlers in 3-4 turns. Executives can be built and poprushed rather quickly (30 turns at max?!). Executives and settlers can be settled simultaneously within 15 turns. 50 turns for population growth. Total milking phase lasts 100 turns.

So finishing later by 100 turns is still good for scoring, because not too much time is wasted in the milking phase. If we had spent 250-300 turns in the milking phase, then it could be said that standard size maps are the better choice.

 

[VirusMonster]

Mapsize debate is just a subset of the how the heck to score 2 million points debate so if you develop a strategy and do so, i think we would all like to hear about it. Im still trying to figure some new things out, such as archer rush the first civ and then build settler & Immortals, which should give 3 cities early. Also, I have yet to figure out how to use the initial scientist GP; academy is looking like a worse and worse choice as science rate gets so low in the midgame.

I already figured the strategy you talk about: Shaka Warrior rush... Capture the first capital when it only has 1 archer defender right after the first AI settler is sent out of the capital with 2 protecting archers. You need 5-6warriors to beat a single non-hill archer at 20% cultural defense.

I have also experimented with 1 temple priest and Oracle Gp generation to get an early shrine, but spreading this shrine religion requires too much focus on producing the missionaries, thus it might not be the best idea to get a priest instead of a scientists as first GP... I still think your early academy idea is best.

With Shaka warrior rush, and a 3 gold 1 gem capital, I have managed to get Bureaucracy at 1400BC on Immortal Huge. Rest was going really well, but I had not managed to capture as many cities as I would want, so I abandoned the game. With Bureaucracy at 1400BC and an academy, most of your research problems would be solved.... Currency will be discovered rather quickly with Bureaucracy.

Capturing cities will be more problematic with the Zulu UU, but you can just use the UU to pillage strategic resources, and the city captures can be done with your axeman or swordsman army.

 

[killercane]

Well it is only experimentation when I pop archery from a hut, there is an enemy close within 12 tiles, can watch the AI city from a corner spot, and can produce some archers before turn 50 (when the aforementioned settler comes out). So very game specific.

Using an aggressive civ to rush warriors is interesting but it is a short term benefit for a long term negative IMO (replacing a more long term trait with aggressive).

I am going to try to prove WT correct this weekend on a standard map. We will see how it goes.

 

[killercane]

I really dont think there is any way to make 2 million on Immortal WT. Attached is a save to the game I just played. There is still room for pop growth but Washington just built HG and I dont want to continue. The score is about 800k at turn 615 or so. I reloaded after letting a colony loose on another continent, as a result domination % went from 62 to 60 and I accidently won. So another lesson learned.

I think buying Redentor and all the late wonders is the way to go. First build in island cities is going to be a courthouse, with Sushi and no court you pay 120 gpt maintenance on the things. Sushi produced 40 food per turn and was maximally spread.

Standard size is much nicer for micromanaging. I might try another to see about going all the way to future tech.

 

[VirusMonster]

I don't understand why people would vote 1 star for any article unless it is total philosophical garbage. 12 voters and rating was 4.75, and now 13 voters and rating 4.46.. someone voted a 1 star gotta respect his hidden identity...

 

[VirusMonster]

I really dont think there is any way to make 2 million on Immortal WT. Attached is a save to the game I just played. There is still room for pop growth but Washington just built HG and I dont want to continue. The score is about 800k at turn 615 or so. I reloaded after letting a colony loose on another continent, as a result domination % went from 62 to 60 and I accidently won. So another lesson learned.

I think buying Redentor and all the late wonders is the way to go. First build in island cities is going to be a courthouse, with Sushi and no court you pay 120 gpt maintenance on the things. Sushi produced 40 food per turn and was maximally spread.

Standard size is much nicer for micromanaging. I might try another to see about going all the way to future tech.

How large can you grow your cities through having unhappy citizens? 25? 30? 35? 40? WastingTime suggests one can grow his empire on standard just like he would on large, but I don't understand how a city can grow to size 40 in 25-50 turns despite happiness and health caps being around 25 near end game on the 600th turn?

Say you could squeeze 100 cities on a standard map.. Do you think it is possible to grow them to size 35-40 for a total of 3500-4000 population score around turn 600-700?