Acronym's Bucket List Succession Game - sign-ups open!

[Lanzelot]

Germany, excellent, that's going to be a very interesting and instructive game! I'm curious to find out about Northern Pike's idea to use the MIL trait for capturing the necessary land for science farms quickly. Also one idea that just occured to me: with MIL we'll have more elites and consequently a better chance for an early MGL, which can get our FP up and running quickly!
And considering that two members of our team are from Germany, quite a fitting choice...
(But hey: you consistently misspelled "Bismarck"... )

In terms of deadlines, I think a fairly standard '24 hours to confirm' / '48 hours to play' should work, as long as no one minds if this slips every now and then.

Sounds fine with me. I want to announce already now, that I'll be on vacation June 9th - 15th. We are going to Baltrum Island, but I know already from previous years that there is an internet caffee, which I can use like every other day to check back here. So please be patient, if it takes 48h for my "got it" during that time.

And I want to make an additional suggestion: in my previous spaceship SG (BB-01), we were suffering a bit from "lack of discussions": people played their turnsets prematurely without paying attention to what the team had discussed/planned. (One example out of many: even though there was a prime first-ring city location only one turn away, the current player marched our third settler for 6 turns to a mediocre second-ring location, only because there was a furs resource, which however we were not able to connect for centuries anyway, because we did not yet have the necessary worker power to build such a long road. Some cows and wheats inside the core had to be improved first.)
In order to avoid things like that in our current game, I suggest the following procedure:

• Player posts his "got it".
• Then he has a day or so to post a short "action plan" of what he is going to do within his turnset. (Doesn't need to be detailed, just a general layout of the goals and the strategy to achieve these goals.)
• Then the team has a day or two to discuss this plan.
• When everything is settled, the player starts his turnset.
• If anything unexpected turns up, he pauses and gives the team a chance for additional feedback.
• At the end, the player posts the turn log and some handover notes for the next player: units, that still have movement, things that the next player needs to pay attention too, things that must not be forgotten longterm.

I started using that procedure in the BB-01 game, and I think it showed good results: dispite the many early blunders, we still managed a 1265 AD spaceship in that game!

So basically I would like to play more as "a team" instead of as "a series of single-players".

 

[Lanzelot]

Looks like a pretty difficult start position. (Floodplain starts are always difficult... ) I suggest that we discuss this thoroughly, before doing anything.

It could be that we have 3 floodplains in the BFC, which would be good as we would have the perfect +5fpt then:

However, I'm not sure about "3": that could as well be an ordinary plains tile. In any case I think moving on the western hill would not be good for two reasons:
a) we lose the floodplain "2"
b) the capital on a convex coast like this would allow only like 3 first-ring towns. In a long running science game I want a full first ring of at least 6 towns, so the capital should be moved inland.

Top priority for now should be to irrigate those floodplains for faster growth and expansion (neither the sugar nor the oasis give extra food under Despotism), therefore moving the worker to floodplain "1" now is a save move. It gives us a better view of "3" and the worker can already start irrigating next turn.
If "3" turns out to be an ordinary plain, it would be a good location for our capital. If it's indeed a floodplain, we need to assess the position again next turn. Perhaps settling on the eastern hill would be an option then, allthough I'd like to keep that hill for later production, considering that floodplain starts are notoriously short of shields.

Research: Pottery (unless we discover a wheat floodplain next turn. Then we could run with +7fpt and don't need a granary. We don't have the necessary shields for a despotic 4-turner anyway. By going for the sling asap, we could at least setup a 4-turner under Republic.)

Edit: perhaps settler 1SE on the hill would be good even before moving the worker: we want to move the capital upstream anyway, and it gives us a good view on the area.

 

[Lanzelot]

(unless we discover a wheat floodplain next turn. Then we could run with +7fpt and don't need a granary. We don't have the necessary shields for a despotic 4-turner anyway. By going for the sling asap, we could at least setup a 4-turner under Republic.)

Scratch that... With a floodplain wheat we would have 6 shields and +5fpt at size 5, so just enough for a perfect 4-turner!
Therefore: Pottery, no matter what...

 

[choxorn]

The thing is, if we settle close to the coast but not on it, we'll have water tiles within our BFC that we can't improve by building harbors that will just be a drain. Building cities one tile away from the coast is generally a bad idea.

 

[CommandoBob]

I have no desire to play a 20 turn turnset. For me, that seems a bit too long and too much can happen. I feel fine with a 10 turn turnset.

I do think that starting an SG with a 20 turner is a good idea, since not much happens early on.

I will confess to being a slow player. Time is the problem, not desire.

 

[choxorn]

At least until the Middle Ages or so, a 20 turn turnset should be fine.

 

[Lanzelot]

The thing is, if we settle close to the coast but not on it, we'll have water tiles within our BFC that we can't improve by building harbors that will just be a drain. Building cities one tile away from the coast is generally a bad idea.

Exactly. That's why I suggest moving inland - leaving enough space between the capital and the coast for a nice first ring. "3" would be perfect for that purpose. But I guess it depends on what else we see when moving onto the SE-hill.

 

[choxorn]

That would probably take at least two turns, and we don't want to wait to long before founding our capitol.

Besides, this is our core. We probably want to space our cities out here a bit, so I'm not sure if we'll have room for a ring on the coast even if we do move inland.

 

[Acronym]

Thanks for the suggestions so far, team - some really interesting ideas. Apologies to our German team-mates for my poor spelling of Chancellor Bismarck!

I like the turn format you suggest, Lanzelot - it might seem a bit pointless for the first turn, but let me claim my 'got it' now!

Can I ask for some clarification about the whole concept of Ring City Placement? I've read briefly about it a while ago now, but never really used it religiously. As far as I understand, it's related to corruption - something like each city founded has more corruption than the last, but is also related to how far they are from your capital, so that if all your cities are equally distant from your capital, they all have the same corruption. Is that right? If so, is the ideal spacing CxxxC or CxxC? It looks like it could get a little cramped this close to the coast.

If I have got that right, I can see the argument for moving inland; but choxorn makes a strong argument for settling on the coast and not wasting precious time trudging inland to find the perfect spot. Still, I think moving the settler to the hill SE is going to give us the best information, and allow us to decide if the worker should head for the floodplains or the sugar first - I think committing to the coast is a bit too much of a gamble with the limited information we have at the moment.

Lanzelot - could you clarify how you worked out the 6 shields and +5fpt at size 5? I struggle to visualise the exact food, commerce, and shield production without actually having citizens in a city to move around.

I'll maybe play the first turn or two tomorrow and put another screenshot up after that, but at the moment the plan is to move settler 1SE, and potentially worker 1E.

PS - I've reshuffled the play order; Choxorn, you're now at the end. I'm not entirely sure of everybody's skill-level, but I've tried to keep it fairly evenly mixed throughout. Lanzelot, you'd be up next after me, and MrRandomGuy after that - sound OK?

 

[choxorn]

Why not move the worker 1 SE, if you want to maximize information? That way we won't have to waste time moving the settler around unnecessarily.

 

[CommandoBob]

Can I ask for some clarification about the whole concept of Ring City Placement? I've read briefly about it a while ago now, but never really used it religiously. As far as I understand, it's related to corruption - something like each city founded has more corruption than the last, but is also related to how far they are from your capital, so that if all your cities are equally distant from your capital, they all have the same corruption. Is that right?

You have the basics of it pretty well understood. It has a major impact in vanilla and Play The World, but for Conquests the corruption model was redone and is no longer especially relevant.

Along with RCP was the concept/tactic of the Palace Jump. In vanilla and PTW, the Forbidden Palace acted as a second capital for corruption calculation. What would happen is that the core would be built up and somewhere far away another core would be started with its own RCP. The capital would be abandoned and the capital city would change. The game has a way to determine the next capital and it once this was discovered that formula could be used by the player to force the next capital to be in the middle of that second core. Then either the old capital location would be rebuilt and the Forbidden Palace rushed via an MGL or one city in the old core would have already built the FP. Either way, there were now two cores.

Read through Nero04: Skipping some levels? It's training day for discussions and examples of RCP and the palace jump, which happened in 780 AD.

In Conquests, the Forbidden Palace increases the number of cities you can have before corruption becomes a big problem.

 

[choxorn]

Along with RCP was the concept/tactic of the Palace Jump. In vanilla and PTW, the Forbidden Palace acted as a second capital for corruption calculation. What would happen is that the core would be built up and somewhere far away another core would be started with its own RCP. The capital would be abandoned and the capital city would change. The game has a way to determine the next capital and it once this was discovered that formula could be used by the player to force the next capital to be in the middle of that second core. Then either the old capital location would be rebuilt and the Forbidden Palace rushed via an MGL or one city in the old core would have already built the FP. Either way, there were now two cores.

Also, for the purposes of determining corruption, it made it so the first "ring" was based entirely off distance to palace, and cities closer to the FP than that ring would count as being in that ring- Which led to the silly "Put palace really really far away from the rest of the cities, put FP in the center of rest of cities, have stupid low corruption"

 

[Lanzelot]

That would probably take at least two turns, and we don't want to wait to long before founding our capitol.

Besides, this is our core. We probably want to space our cities out here a bit, so I'm not sure if we'll have room for a ring on the coast even if we do move inland.

Losing even 3-4 turns would be nothing compared to the huge gains we get:

• Capital grows much much faster. Already after a dozen turns it will have caught up and then leave the other start in the dust.
• We gain at least 2 low-corruption locations for excellent size 12-cities.

Let me illustrate these two points a bit. Assume we would move 1W (case a) and 3SE (or similar) up the river (case b). In case a we would have 2fpt forever, which means the capital grows every 10 turns:
T00: move
T10: size 2
T20: size 3
T30: size 4
T40: size 5
In case b we would have 2f in turn 3, 3f starting with turn 4, 4f with turn 9 and 5f on turn 14. (Though we don't need it that quickly - we'll probably have time for a road or two inbetween.)
T00: move
T01: move
T02: move
T09: size 2
T14: size 3
T18: size 4
T22: size 5

Do you see the difference? Even the first growth occurs earlier than in case a!! So don't be afraid of moving your settler a couple of turns in the beginning. If you move towards food boni, your start will be "exponential" instead of "linear", and exponential growth beats everything. (And note: if we find a wheat floodplain in the fog, The growth rate in case b will even be steeper! And it looks like the river flows through a big patch of desert, so there will be more floodplains, and the probability for one with a wheat resource is quite high.)

The second point can best be illustrated with a picture. If we settle on the coast (one of the blue circles in the first map), we'll have space for at most 4 cities at distance 4 from the capital. If we move inland (one of the blue circles on second map), we can easily fit 6 cities at distance 4. Even though the strict "Ring City Placement" mechanism explained by CommandoBob and choxorn applies only to Vanilla and PtW, in C3C it is still important to have many cities close to the capital, because already at distance 7-8 the corruption is so high, that a city needs a courthouse for some halfway decent research output. So by moving inland, our empire will be approx. 33% stronger than if we had our capital on the coast.

If so, is the ideal spacing CxxxC or CxxC? It looks like it could get a little cramped this close to the coast.

In a space game we want enough room for big size 12 cities in the core, so a loose spacing, CxxxC or even CxxxxC, depending on circumstances (rivers, food boni, etc.)

Lanzelot - could you clarify how you worked out the 6 shields and +5fpt at size 5? I struggle to visualise the exact food, commerce, and shield production without actually having citizens in a city to move around.

At size 5, the town could work the following tiles with the following food/shield output, even if we have to move 3 squares so that the oasis falls out of the BFC:
City center: 2/1
irrigated wheat floodplain: 5/0
Mined sugar plain: 2/2
3 irrigated plains: 6/3
Total: 15/6. 10 food are consumed by the 5 citizens, so we have the necessary +5fpt and 6spt for a despotic 4-turn settler factory!!

I'll maybe play the first turn or two tomorrow and put another screenshot up after that, but at the moment the plan is to move settler 1SE, and potentially worker 1E.

Sounds good. May I ask you to pause after the first turn, for the team to take a look at the new situation?

PS - I've reshuffled the play order; Choxorn, you're now at the end. I'm not entirely sure of everybody's skill-level, but I've tried to keep it fairly evenly mixed throughout. Lanzelot, you'd be up next after me, and MrRandomGuy after that - sound OK?

Ok with me.

 

[scoutsout]

LOTS of good discussion in this thread. I'm going to try to follow this one closely.

 

[LKendter]

Typical lurker mode = ON

 

[Acronym]

After much deliberation, the first move has been made! I am sure the game will pick up pace soon - but as these are crucial stages to laying the foundation for our empire, I'm playing it safe and uploading a screenshot for tonight. (Also, I'm on a run of 13-hour days and can't really think straight, so don't want to be making important decisions!).

So - the worker has ventured into the desert, and, unless he is hallucinating, has found another oasis! Does this change things? It certainly looks like we could have quite a good mix of shields and food, with those oases/hills and the flood plains, despite the desert setting.

Thoughts? If we move the settler to '3' on Lanzelot's map, both oases should fall within the BFC. I'm tempted to head him that way and unless anything else really surprising turns up, aim to settle there.

Lurkers, feel free to contribute freely, and/or jump in for a turn set if you get the time!

 

[tjs282]

Hi folks -- back home now, tired and sunburnt.

Based on the map so far, I think Lanzelot's Position 2 is the best bet -- it's on floodplains, all the bonuses will end up in Berlin's BFC (if we want them), and that plains tile on the coast SW of the forest will be distance 4 from Berlin.

If we settle on Postions 1 or 3, it's only Distance 3(.5) to the coastal plains, which makes our first ring that much smaller -- only 16 potential city sites, instead of 24.

 

[Acronym]

There's also a speck of green in the very far eastern edge of our visibility - perhaps a forest? I'm going to play a run of a few turns tonight - I'll move the settler 1SE onto the hill first and see what else emerges. I promise I won't stop and post a picture with every unit's move!

 

[Acronym]

OK, maybe got a bit carried away - I probably should have stopped for a bit of discussion, but I wanted to crack on.

Oasenstadt has been founded! Apologies to our German team-mates if I am crucifying your language with the name!

The screen grab is below - feel free to criticise the decision to found where I have, but the decision has been made. My rationale is not nearly as systematic as Lanzelot's, however the two oases, sugar plain, and two hills should provide a decent number of shields and the six (!) flood plains should provide plenty of food to churn out settlers. I appreciate there is a desert to the North which is pretty useless, but I figured it would be a while before we needed to start using every last tile around our capital - especially if it is to be a settler-factory.

I also liked tsj's point about keeping 4 tiles from the plains tile on the coast - city site number 2? It'd be good to get exploring along the coast ASAP, as I guess we want to get as many contacts as we can to start tech trading.

I'll hold back now and let you guys chip in - I'm currently researching Pottery and have the science set to max, but as soon as we grow I take it we'll need some money spent on entertainment?

 

[choxorn]

Eh. I guess I can live with moving two tiles before settling, given the goodness of that location...

I would say we should explore the area a bit before we decide where to settle.