SGOTM 14 - Kakumeika

[Manco Capac]

If we settle 1W and judge to spam settlers, then we can get two workers, four warriors and two settlers built before T47 with five forest chops, two pastures, a farm and two riverside mines and a size 5 capital. No revolt or whip yet. The first settler would have planted itself a few turns ago. Tech AH, Mining, BW, Wheel, Myst, and a bit of Pottery. Note that some delicacy with timing of city growths, tile improvements, and availability of chopping is required. See attached PDF for details.

Good one! I know why bcool is teaming with you: you look more professional. I suppose that would be the traditional path with the most efficient settling location.

 

[mabraham]

Good one! I know why bcool is teaming with you: you look more professional. I suppose that would be the traditional path with the most efficient settling location.

thanks. My weakness is in identifying the correct strategy. Once identified, I'm great for details. Perhaps that was a flaw in the Gypsy Kings' bronze-medal SGOTM13 game - others were pushing for more scouting and early warring, and I posted some plans that got some very nice wonders out pretty efficiently... but those wonders catered to rather isolated scenarios, which was not the case! I may have pushed the group decision towards the wonders merely by producing a detailed plan for that. The alternatives were necessarily free-form plans.

Anyway, I have learned and want to get scouting done properly! Whether this kind of settler spam is good will depend what land and/or neighbours our first and second warrior will see. Fortunately the start of AH->mining->BW caters reasonably well to REX, chariot rush and axe rush. The latter two are better if we settle 1W (more hammers in capital). I am curious to test whether settling on the coast for a single seafood actually leads to faster REX.

Also, settling 1W picks up the chance of horses or metal in the BFC across the lake. Should we choose to settle somewhere east, that might well be based on some of the uncovered tiles already having resources, so there might be fewer chances to get lucky with yet more resources. How many depends exactly where we scout and/or possibly settle.

 

[bcool]

Note that settling 1W at size 4 working sheep-cows-corn-spice with two pastures and a farm is 16 6 4 /turn. Settling 2E working oasis-corn-crab-coast fish (hypothetically) with farm and planted workboats is 14 1 8 before the lighthouse - and we'd have to build a worker and two workboats to even get into that position. I think settling 2E does get going faster. Each leaves open the possibility of settling the other site second, of course.

I believe pre-lighthouse size 4 city an oasis-corn-crab-coast fish (hypothetical & with 2 workboats) would be 19 (5 corn, 3 oasis, 5 fish, 4 crab, 2 center tile)
Post lighthouse it would be 21

1W at size 4 city would be 16 (5 sheep 3 cows 5 corn 1 spice 2 center tile) assuming no plantation for the spice.

Of course the delay in getting to the higher food total because we have to build the workboats might make it significantly worse. (also the city is founded 1 turn later.) If we go with Kaitzilla possibility of settling NE-E for fresh water then that would be a 2 turn delay in settling.

 

[Walter_Wolf]

Checking in
I was so inpatient about this thread starting, and the next thing I see is it having two pages already.

I think we shouldn't get distracted with Tachywaxon's optimistic test games (Optimistic = horses/bronze/iron in the BFC). If it's really a lakes map as Sun Tzu Wu assumes, maybe we should check how often those resources appear near lakes
idk if that's a clever thing to ask, but bcool said stupid questions are welcome here (expect those from me often)

 

[Manco Capac]

Checking in
I was so inpatient about this thread starting, and the next thing I see is it having two pages already.

I think we shouldn't get distracted with Tachywaxon's optimistic test games (Optimistic = horses/bronze/iron in the BFC). If it's really a lakes map as Sun Tzu Wu assumes, maybe we should check how often those resources appear near lakes
idk if that's a clever thing to ask, but bcool said stupid questions are welcome here (expect those from me often)

Well, the case with horses isn't that impertinent as everyone is agreeing to start with AH. If horses are found and we SIP (of course, SIP isn't optimal), my test game is a representation of we can do. But I do think that mabraham REX is better...
And the attachments aren't distraction, but a tool people can use for testing. Just get rid of unrevealed resource in worldbuilder.

 

[shulec]

Settling Site:

Just from the start image, my guess is still Lakes Map (10 plots of connected water is enough for a small Ocean).

STW, what makes you think this is a lakes map? If it is a lakes map, I would be very opposed to having our capitol on an ocean.

 

[mabraham]

STW, what makes you think this is a lakes map? If it is a lakes map, I would be very opposed to having our capitol on an ocean.

Really? What is the defect of having a capital on an ocean?

 

[mabraham]

I believe pre-lighthouse size 4 city an oasis-corn-crab-coast fish (hypothetical & with 2 workboats) would be 19 (5 corn, 3 oasis, 5 fish, 4 crab, 2 center tile)
Post lighthouse it would be 21

Ack, sorry, you're right. I thought 14 felt a bit low! I've edited my post accordingly.

 

[mabraham]

Checking in
I was so inpatient about this thread starting, and the next thing I see is it having two pages already.

I think we shouldn't get distracted with Tachywaxon's optimistic test games (Optimistic = horses/bronze/iron in the BFC).

Being aware of what is possible is a step along the road to choosing what is best I'm all in favour of people trying stuff out and reporting back. That way we can be confident the best idea is in the mix, and it remains for us to identify it.

If it's really a lakes map as Sun Tzu Wu assumes, maybe we should check how often those resources appear near lakes
idk if that's a clever thing to ask, but bcool said stupid questions are welcome here (expect those from me often)

That would be straightforward to assess, if tedious. Generate lakes maps and collect stats of where those resources appear in relation to lakes. My guess would be that the lakes have no effect.

 

[mabraham]

We can forget about scouting 1N with the warrior. Oases block vision, just like forests and jungles. So we can never see the tiles 3N and 2N-NW of the worker. So we might as well scout NE if we go north at all. That will reveal seven tiles, most of which will be water.

Scouting E reveals no tiles that are not revealed by scouting NE, so the only remaining reasonable option is SE. That reveals the land tile south of the desert hill, and two of the water tiles.

 

[mabraham]

I tried the case where we find a coastal fish for the 2E site. I got four warriors, a worker and two settlers out by T48, including 3 forest chops, a 2-pop whip and a 1-pop whip. I did the same tech as before, but have about 40% more of Pottery done, so the extra commerce from the second seafood (and maybe oasis) has been noticeable. The city is only at size 3, however.

Compared with my earlier test, we've swapped a 60 worker for two 30 workboats, and have a city 2 pop points smaller. So I think the lesson here is that we'd want to see seafood + something else to want to settle on the coast.

 

[Manco Capac]

That would be straightforward to assess, if tedious. Generate lakes maps and collect stats of where those resources appear in relation to lakes. My guess would be that the lakes have no effect.

Is there any use to know what kind of mapscript we are playing on? The map type is a mystery and Neil may have edited, for example, a Lakes mapscript in a way we are on an island, obliging the training of galleys. So why the expression: "Never trust the map maker"?

Unfortunately, without FCM and "go to" mode, we must rely on optimal method of exploration, nothing more.

I welcome any harsh replies.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

STW, what makes you think this is a lakes map? If it is a lakes map, I would be very opposed to having our capitol on an ocean.

I've played dozens of Lakes Maps and the SGOTM-14 start looks like a Lakes Map start where one lake just happened to be big enough (10+ water plots) to be a small ocean instead. This is quite likely on a Lakes Map with Medium or High Sea Level (even Low Sea Level Lakes Map can have a few small oceans).

Lakes Maps often have locally high density of Forests like this Start does.

Lakes Maps do have a few rivers too.

The Start is dominated by Land Plots; there are only a few Shore/Ocean plots visible.

I also know that the scenario designer has a had some experience playing on Lakes Maps and I believe that scenario designers are likely to use maps they are familiar with in designing scenarios. On this point though, it could just as easily be a Pangaea Map too.

Really? What is the defect of having a capital on an ocean?

It's only a disadvantage when the ocean is small, a sigificant amount of the BFC is that ocean and there's only 1 seafood to compensate for the loss of 1F. There's also no hope of +1 movement for discovering that the world is round via Work Boats or Caravels. There's also no chance (I believe) of gaining the overseas trading bonus on a flat land map (not sure about this one though).

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[frogdude]

Greetings all. Just checking in. I'm on a work computer at the moment so can't roll out CivIV for any testing yet, but I'll definitely be doing some this weekend.
This is of course based on the assumption that my computer can still run CivIV given that half my CPU doesn't work But worst case scenario, I'll just commandeer my partner's laptop.

Settling 1W is my strong instinct on this start, but of course warrior moves may affect things.
What could the warrior discover:
Move NE: Seafood in water + possible something on land to the NE. The downside is that to pick up any new land tile, we have to move the city E & NE, which means not settling till turn 3, so that would have to be a impressive set of tiles spotted by the warrior. Settling 2NE is also possible on turn 2, but we'd have to decide to move that way almost blind as the warrior won't have spotted anything yet, and most importantly we lose the corn.
Move SE: This allows the warrior to spy most of the relevant water squares, and could potentially allow us to discover something interesting on the E-2SE square (Gold, Gems, Pigs?). This might make the 2E settling spot go up in value.

So based of mabrahams deduction that oasis blocks vision, my gut feeling is: Move warrior SE. If impressive stuff found, consider settling 2E, otherwise settle 1W

One thing is that resources tend to be spaced out a little bit. They're often a knight's move away from each other, so I feel lucky about the 2W-SW tile.

My brain is also trying to dredge up memories from years ago about something about metals being less likely/impossible to (naturally) spawn on certain tiles next to rivers but I don't remember which ones. I could of course just be making that up....

 

[shulec]

I also know that the scenario designer has a had some experience playing on Lakes Maps and I believe that scenario designers are likely to use maps they are familiar with in designing scenarios.

I actually agree. This could be the most compelling reason to suspect that this is a lakes map! To offer insight to the rest of you, in a not so recent gauntlet, Sun Tzu Wu shared that he had discovered that Lakes maps are good for deity religious games. Neilmiester, STW, and I have recently played many lakes games for religious victories.

It's only a disadvantage when the ocean is small, a sigificant amount of the BFC is that ocean and there's only 1 seafood to compensate for the loss of 1F. There's also no hope of +1 movement for discovering that the world is round via Work Boats or Caravels. There's also no chance (I believe) of gaining the overseas trading bonus on a flat land map (not sure about this one though).

mabraham, I suspect you missed that my comment about a capitol on the ocean shore was with regards to oceans on a lakes map. STW sums it up well. Also, on lakes maps, I rarely see more than one seafood resource in these "inland seas/oceans".

 

[mabraham]

Settling 1W is my strong instinct on this start, but of course warrior moves may affect things.
What could the warrior discover:
Move NE: Seafood in water + possible something on land to the NE. The downside is that to pick up any new land tile, we have to move the city E & NE, which means not settling till turn 3, so that would have to be a impressive set of tiles spotted by the warrior. Settling 2NE is also possible on turn 2, but we'd have to decide to move that way almost blind as the warrior won't have spotted anything yet, and most importantly we lose the corn.

Yeah. Assuming my "single seafood is not enough" analysis is sound, scouting NE is more likely than scouting SE to reveal a sufficiently-tasty two-resource combo that we might wish to settle N-NE, but that city is settling two turns later than the site 1W.

Scouting NE also caters to uncovering the tile 1E of the desert hill - we can't tell yet whether that is land or not - but we'll know when we get the real save.

Move SE: This allows the warrior to spy most of the relevant water squares, and could potentially allow us to discover something interesting on the E-2SE square (Gold, Gems, Pigs?). This might make the 2E settling spot go up in value.

That 2E site has only one turn's delay in settling, but scouting SE reveals only two water tiles and one land tile, and hoping for two resources is a big parlay - and if we were to find double-seafood and settle 2E, then we may as well have scouted NE, because that sees that double seafood. So scouting SE caters only to two possible seafood+land two-resource settle-2E combinations. If the tile east of the desert hill is land, then scouting NE also caters to two possible seafood+land two-resource settle-2E combinations, as well as all of the combinations of two resources that can be found in the five newly-uncovered tiles in the BFC of settle NE-E.

So based of mabrahams deduction that oasis blocks vision, my gut feeling is: Move warrior SE. If impressive stuff found, consider settling 2E, otherwise settle 1W

I reach the opposite conclusion. If the tile east of the desert hill is land, then scouting SE has no advantages over scouting NE. If that tile is water, then scouting NE caters to the (naive?) "from 5 choose 2" = 10 two-resource possibilities for settling NE-E (except that one of the double-seafood cases would lead to settling 2E), as well as "from 3 choose 2" = 3 two-resource possibilities for settling 2E.

 

[mabraham]

Also, some of the two-resource combinations found by scouting NE might suggest settling NE-NE, which is only a one-turn delay.

 

[mabraham]

I gave us an ocean fish and plains cows to see if that was enough to want to settle NE-E. By T47 I got three warriors, a worker and two settlers, having improved both seafood, the cows and the corn. I did two 2-pop whips and a forest chop, and the capital is at size 2. The plains forest hill was nice for production early on.

So this is a warrior and one or three population behind the other test games. The 6-production cows is nice, but the need to whip twice to get the job done fast enough loses much of the value of the corn and crabs.

So I think I can just about conclude that settling 1W is best for REX scenarios regardless of what our scout might find. Does that suggest an initial warrior move that heads along one of the rivers to find alternative city sites? Would scouting NE and finding grassland gems plus seafood change our minds?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Everyone seems very enthusiastic!

My thoughts have been ringing from the starting screenshot, and it took a long while but I finally found this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=351380

For years I have seen references to plains cow bug and forest spam, and lo and behold there's a plains cow and lots of forests in our BFC. Now I'm not saying for sure that there are hidden resources, but we should give some thought to Tachy's practice games that include them.


Beyond Settling spots and warrior scouting, what are your guys' thoughts on the various game settings ?
From the few No vassal games I have played, I seem to remember the AI vs. AI wars lasting a loooongggg time. I have never done random AI personalities.

Also, is that "lots of good witches and wicked witches" a hint from the mapmaker of including all the female AI leaders? Wicked witch of north,south,east,west.
Poor Dorothy

 

[frogdude]

Scouting NE also caters to uncovering the tile 1E of the desert hill - we can't tell yet whether that is land or not - but we'll know when we get the real save.

I reach the opposite conclusion. If the tile east of the desert hill is land, then scouting SE has no advantages over scouting NE. If that tile is water, then scouting NE caters to the (naive?) "from 5 choose 2" = 10 two-resource possibilities for settling NE-E (except that one of the double-seafood cases would lead to settling 2E), as well as "from 3 choose 2" = 3 two-resource possibilities for settling 2E.

You make an excellent point about the 1E of desert hill tile. I had completely missed the fact that the NE move explored it. Possibly because it wasn't on the screenshot
If it is indeed land, then the SE warrior move has little going for it, as most of it's gain cases of spotting something 1S of desert hill are swapped for cases of spotting something 1E of hill. So we may as well move NE and see if we can spot sufficient goodies NE to encourage us to move E-NE for the turn 3 settle.

If the 1E of desert turns out to be water, then things may be different, as I feel that land goodie would be better than water goodie, simply because otherwise we're going to end up with a capital that makes humongous amounts of food, but very little on the hammer front.