ALC Game #10: India/Asoka

[Lance of Llanwy]

Good point. Yeah, I'm leaning towards Izzy. Mind you, we're thinking way ahead, as I still have to even declare war on Ragnar!



It would also mean that I'm closer to being on par with Ragnar in tech--he'll only have Divine Right (which is useless to me at this point), Communism, and Rocketry. I don't think I should pause for peace with him just to get those techs. It's getting late in the game, the war with him will take long enough as it is, and then I still have to launch an inter-continental invasion! I think I should research them on my own or pick them up from Churchill.

And isn't it cool that Kyoto has a Military Academy? Once the Ironworks is complete, that city will be able to pump out Bombers and Tanks like there's no tomorrow...

Oh, I wasn't implying that you should wait, just pointing out that Artillery would be helpful by helping with Rocketry. How do you keep getting all these good starts....I got two straight penisular starts. The first, I was on the end of a long, desert penisula that had no food on it(except for my capital site and plains cows that my capital rendered practically unusable.) My second, copper was a long way away and capital had only 4 land tiles(not counting the city tile.)

In any case...I wish the cities I captured had so much stuff in them. I consider myself blessed if I so much as get a GRANARY out of 'em...

 

[flamingzaroc121]

for the war, the first cities i would attack (in this order) are:

Jellings
Birka
Uppsala
Nidros

 

[Rancid Sushi]

Just wanted to say thanks for this ALC series. As a certified noob, I'm learning a lot from them.

+1 post count.

 

[cabert]

farewell toku...

a few suggestions :
1) I wouldn't trade with churchill for now.
He might trade with ragnar, and you don't want to give your opponent planes.
2) build a lot of planes. 20 fighters 40 bombers (those numbers aren't relevant of course, but you get the idea)
3) I would go for one of those 20+ cities first. Why? because there is a nice statue in them, that gives a real advantage.
If you care for WW, you could indeed want to absorb his attack in your land. But you're running police state, have mountrushmore and jails all around. you don't care about WW!

What other techs do you plan to go for?
I'd go for the internet, just for fun

 

[SchpailsMan]

Noob question : I usually consider that burning GPs on techs seems like a waste when you have a very large empire and they can only help you scratch a couple of turns from expensive late-game techs. If I read well, you burnt two sciencists (biology and electricity), an artist (radio) and a general (settled in a city). In this sort of situation I'd usually try hard to save those GPs for golden ages, as I would expect the global benefit in hammers and commerce to be much more valuable.

So, did you use those GPs for seemingly short-term purposes because of the opportunity gain (getting techs faster for trading, getting better units for the incoming war) ? That would make sense, but I'd really like to hear a little more about the reasonning behind those moves. In the end game I then to get stuck into some sort of habits like "burning GPs for less than a tech or a wonder is a waste", i'd be very thankful if you'd elaborate a on that.

 

[carl corey]

You can't use the Great General for Golden Age purposes. As for the rest, late Golden Ages are indeed interesting, but keep in mind that while you only need two GPs for the first one, the subsequent ones gradually increase the needed number: three for the second, four for the third, five for the fourth, and they have to be all different to start a Golden Age.

Anyway, I'll let Sisiutil answer the specific question in relation to the game, but I just wanted to give some perspective.

 

[cabert]

Noob question : I usually consider that burning GPs on techs seems like a waste when you have a very large empire and they can only help you scratch a couple of turns from expensive late-game techs. If I read well, you burnt two sciencists (biology and electricity), an artist (radio) and a general (settled in a city). In this sort of situation I'd usually try hard to save those GPs for golden ages, as I would expect the global benefit in hammers and commerce to be much more valuable.

So, did you use those GPs for seemingly short-term purposes because of the opportunity gain (getting techs faster for trading, getting better units for the incoming war) ? That would make sense, but I'd really like to hear a little more about the reasonning behind those moves. In the end game I then to get stuck into some sort of habits like "burning GPs for less than a tech or a wonder is a waste", i'd be very thankful if you'd elaborate a on that.

not answering in place of Sisiutil, who will give his own reasons.
BUT
1) don't mix up great generals and other great people.
Not the same pool, not the same options.
No golden age from a general
2) golden ages are growing more and more expensive : 2 GP for the first one, 3 for the second one, then 4, then 5.
In a not quite large empire like this one, a golden age for 2 GP is not too bad. But burning 3 GP for this is really not worth it.
3) lightbulbing a scientist give 1600+ beakers. lightbulbing an artist gives 1000+ beakers.
A golden age for these 2 isn't going to bring more than 2800 beakers in the 4 turns it takes to research radio. So we wouldn't gain more this way. Of course the hammers are welcome too...

 

[Sisiutil]

Noob question : I usually consider that burning GPs on techs seems like a waste when you have a very large empire and they can only help you scratch a couple of turns from expensive late-game techs. If I read well, you burnt two sciencists (biology and electricity), an artist (radio) and a general (settled in a city). In this sort of situation I'd usually try hard to save those GPs for golden ages, as I would expect the global benefit in hammers and commerce to be much more valuable.

So, did you use those GPs for seemingly short-term purposes because of the opportunity gain (getting techs faster for trading, getting better units for the incoming war) ? That would make sense, but I'd really like to hear a little more about the reasonning behind those moves. In the end game I then to get stuck into some sort of habits like "burning GPs for less than a tech or a wonder is a waste", i'd be very thankful if you'd elaborate a on that.

I almost never burn Great People for a Golden Age unless I'm going after a Space Race victory. As cabert pointed out, the Golden Ages cost more Great People every time you use them to induce one. I like to reserve the option of burning two GP for a GA just in case I decide to go for a Space Race win, which I'm not completely ruling out at the moment.

Usually, however, I think the best option for Great People is to merge them into cities as super-specialists. (There are exceptions, such as using a Great Scientist for an Academy in a top-notch science city, or a Great Engineer to rush a Wonder.) That gives you the best long-term benefit. In this game, however, I'm racing to acquire and use military tech advantages on Ragnar, who has proven to be a tech monster. Thus the atypical (for me) use of GP for strategic techs.

 

[patagonia]

In this game, however, I'm racing to acquire and use military tech advantages on Ragnar, who has proven to be a tech monster. Thus the atypical (for me) use of GP for strategic techs.

I think it's worth pointing out that this is more a feature of the AI improvements than anything else.

In the past, the Monarch AI was strong early due to its initial advantages over the player, but was generally overhauled by the late-medieval era and petered out fairly significantly after that (in my less than optimally played games anyway).

Post-patch, when you catch and overtake them depends on your focus on warmongering, and they have the ability to remain competitive until the late industrial or early modern eras. Every time you war against one AI, the others who are at peace gain on you, exactly as we've seen in this game - the payoff is you finish the war bigger and badder enabling you to catch up and overtake again.

On a more general GP-related note, the later you get in the game, the smaller the benefit of settling them becomes and the more sensible an option lightbulbing with them is (and likewise, with a larger and larger empire and more multiplier buildings, the greater the global benefit of a golden age becomes). The "correct" use is highly situational.

Moving on to the game in hand, does Izzy have oil? It might be worth shipping a couple of spies over there to prevent her from hooking it up prior to the invasion, something which would speed up her demise fairly significantly (as with Ragnar, swarms of Conquistadores/Cavalry upgrading to gunships would be inconvenient to say the least).

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

I like to reserve the option of burning two GP for a GA just in case I decide to go for a Space Race win, which I'm not completely ruling out at the moment.

Good. I haven't been following this one very carefully, but my impression is that the technology race has you and Ragnar way out in front and then 3 also rans (I'm not certain about Churchill's status though). If that's the case, you'll definitely have a tough decision about midway through the war on Ragnar.

One option is to continue with the war, keep researching military technologies, keep building up your forces (particularly a navy), and then finish things off with an overseas war against Alexander and/or Isabella. The other alternative is to let him capitulate once you've knocked him out of contention, then switch to a more peaceful industrial/technological sort of economy, and use your superior empire to surge toward a space race victory.

The second option might actually be easier. Assuming the other continent is as far behind as I think it is, you should really just be able to cruise to the finish once Ragnar is under control.

 

[Sisiutil]

Moving on to the game in hand, does Izzy have oil? It might be worth shipping a couple of spies over there to prevent her from hooking it up prior to the invasion, something which would speed up her demise fairly significantly (as with Ragnar, swarms of Conquistadores/Cavalry upgrading to gunships would be inconvenient to say the least).

Oooh, good point, and a good idea. I'll have to wait until I have Communism, Scotland Yard, and Spies, but I might just do that.

I'm already nervous enough about Ragnar having oil--he has some Frigates and Galleons he could upgrade, too. Then he could ship some units around the coast to my more weakly-defended cities. Is the improved AI that smart? It's probably best to not underestimate it.

I'd love to rush in, declare war almost immediately, and pillage his one oil well, but I don't know if I have enough units to deal with an immediate counter-attack. I'm also thinking I should pillage that oil well south of Cuman myself--it's hovering around 50% Viking/Indian culture.

 

[jerVL/kg]

If I read well, you burnt two sciencists (biology and electricity), an artist (radio) and a general (settled in a city). In this sort of situation I'd usually try hard to save those GPs for golden ages, as I would expect the global benefit in hammers and commerce to be much more valuable.

I agree that burning a GP for tech in the late game is usually not worth it, since you only save 2 or 3 turns. However, in this case, Sisutil was racing to catch up with the tech leader -- or, more accurately, assuring himself a sickening military advantage -- so burning the GS for 2 turns of Electricity was definitely worth it. I'm less inclined to agree with burning the Artist for Radio, though...I would have saved him for culture bombing a newly captured city, perhaps on the new continent.

I'd love to rush in, declare war almost immediately, and pillage his one oil well, but I don't know if I have enough units to deal with an immediate counter-attack. I'm also thinking I should pillage that oil well south of Cuman myself--it's hovering around 50% Viking/Indian culture.

Can you invade & pillage the oil on the first turn of battle? If so, I would do that -- even if it's a suicide mission, there's no way Ragnar could rebuild the well in time to be of any use in the war. (Unless he trades for oil with someone else -- something to be wary of!)

I would also be careful trading Assembly Line to Churchill, since he's likely to trade it to Ragnar. See if he'll accept Railroad instead. If not, just stick with Democracy; you don't really need Artillery right now.

 

[gdgrimm]

[*]Tokugawa: I definitely think I should capture Kyoto, Nagasaki, and Kagoshima, maybe Nagoya as mentioned. Then what? Should I vassalize him when he's down to just Izumo and Yokohama? Should I let him keep Nagasaki, or will its culture interfere with Kyoto?

It's rather unnecessary advice at this point, but I believe the following is true:

Post patch, a capitulating vassal will not have it's cultural borders interfere with the fat cross of a city you own. This is a nice improvement over the previous situation where accepting capitulation tended to leave you with your newly conquered cities unable to support themselves due to cultural infringement from your capitulee (?). So the question, "Should I let him keep Nagasaki, or will its culture interfere with Kyoto," was mute.

In fact, this may be true for the general case of any vassal's (even voluntary ones) culture not being able to infringe on the fat cross of it's master's city.

 

[carl corey]

On the other hand, vassals can still make captured cities go into revolt and occasionally even flip one! It happened to me once... I didn't think to post enough troops there so that it wouldn't flip as I didn't think it was possible. Not a big loss for me, but still it's a bit embarrassing.

 

[Sisiutil]

It's rather unnecessary advice at this point, but I believe the following is true:

Post patch, a capitulating vassal will not have it's cultural borders interfere with the fat cross of a city you own. This is a nice improvement over the previous situation where accepting capitulation tended to leave you with your newly conquered cities unable to support themselves due to cultural infringement from your capitulee (?). So the question, "Should I let him keep Nagasaki, or will its culture interfere with Kyoto," was mute.

In fact, this may be true for the general case of any vassal's (even voluntary ones) culture not being able to infringe on the fat cross of it's master's city.

We may still get a chance to find out about this with the other continent. Another advantage is that you then get a few more tiles that count 100% towards your domination total, not just 50%.

I took all the Japanese cities because I saw that I'd need 100% of the land and population for a domination win.

Dr. EJ, It's tempting to sit back and pursue a space race win, but I'm more inclined to pursue domination. To take out Ragnar, the current power leader, I'm going to have to build a monstrously huge military. It doesn't make sense to me to leave them standing around for the rest of the game while space ship parts are built. The solution to cultural pressure on the other continent is to just keep taking cities!

 

[gdgrimm]

Sidebar--has everyone else noticed how the AI likes to put farms on grassland and cottages on plains? It's the opposite of what I and a lot of other players do. Does it make any sense? I guess you get a few more hammers that way, but it pretty much means you have to have one citizen working a farm in order for another one to work a cottage.

Doing grassland/farm with plains/cottage instead of grassland/cottage with plains/farm makes it easier to re-assign workers high food tiles speeding growth (but losing commerce) if you suddenly have an increased happy/health cap and want to grow quickly.

If all your tiles generate 2 food, you're stuck with a steady growth rate that can't be accelerated during periods when you'd like to.

I'm not sure if the difference is all that big of a deal, though. And it undoubtedly takes some micromanagement to reap any benefit from it.

 

[gdgrimm]

On the other hand, vassals can still make captured cities go into revolt and occasionally even flip one! It happened to me once... I didn't think to post enough troops there so that it wouldn't flip as I didn't think it was possible. Not a big loss for me, but still it's a bit embarrassing.

Hmmmm. I thought default game settings prevented a conquered city flipping back to it's previous owner?

Perhaps by playing with an alternate setting of allowing flip-backs, you also end up turning off the feature that protects the fat cross?

 

[Syndrome Zed]

I'll see what I can do with that. Trading for GPT has changed since the patch. I cancelled a 12 GPT-for-cows deal with Churchill when he apparently had 2 additional GPT. I went to see him and his total available had dropped to 9 GPT! I made one deal for that and then later added the other you see listed when I saw he had another 3 GPT available. I've since gone back and renegotiated the first deal. When I'm able to cancel both, I'll see what I can do. I had a similar experience where Isabella had 1 GPT, I cancelled our deal, and she had 0 GPT when I went to see her. 3 or 4 turns later, she was back up to 10 GPT.

I don't know what's up with that--maybe the AI is more sophisticated and is only willing to pay so much for one resource now, rather than spending all their available GPT on one. It makes trade renegotiations trickier and riskier.

Yeah, I would leave the deals with Winston intact - I don't know if it's sophistication or not, but the deals' values seem to drop over time sometimes. I think maybe as resources approach obsolescence, but I'm not positive. Strategic resources will stay valuable, but most resources seem to lose value in the AI's eyes over time. Plus I suspect the AI can rearrange its commerce, etc. "on the fly". So as soon as you change a deal, the AI opponents recalculate available money, etc., and recalc how much goes into research and stuff. This results in a different "X gpt available" number than you would expect if you just added back the gpt you were originally getting, and leaves you with usually a worse deal in the long run.

Ultimately, I think it's worth renegotiating small deals (2, 3 gpt for instance) when you see that the AI has about 50-60% more than the original deal available. That is, if I have a 3 gpt deal going, and I see my trade partner has 5 gpt available at the time, I'll renegotiate the deal with the expectation that 7 gpt will usually be available instead of the whole 8 I'd have originally expected. If I have a 6-7 gpt deal going already I usually won't renegotiate unless the AI suddenly has a lot of available gpt to snag.

As for the rest, it's looking good so far , and I'd pretty much agree with Cabert on the tech and other points. Skip vassaling Toku and just take him down completely and absorb Japan . Then go liberate Lady Liberty....

 

[carl corey]

I had no special options turned on. And yeah, I also thought it was impossible. Maybe I should report it as a bug? It might happen only with vassals, dunno... I don't think I have the save from it though, but it should be pretty easy to identify where the problem is.

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

For what it's worth, an option for invasion of the viking lands would be to have 2 stacks set up, 1 is a seaborne marine invasion force....take out the 4 cities on the west coast from Jellings downwards . The 2nd is a land invasion force that takes out the 2 cities in the upper eastern section of lands, they then both take out the 2 cities immediatly to the upper section of remaining viking land, leaving Ragnar with 3 cites in the inland section.

Benefits, healing on ships, marine invasion, experience for 2nd continential invasion force, bombers can mass in 1 city and support both invasion forces, concentrate any counter attack onto 1 stack, others will be annoying pillageres etc .

Also, with seaborne invasion, you can try milk the defenders , attack and destroy untill only 1 defender remaining, then move onto next city, repeat untill no longer fully reinforced, then take and hold cities...

Milk, cows, ragnar has horns on helmet, , Hmmm ok :