slaze
Deity
That's 2000 BC on normal speed, not sure what it is on epic. Stonehenge is usually chopped, right?, or at least the hills. And the Pyramids comes in when, 600 BC maybe? That sounds like the third ring.
ALC Game #22 Take 2: Arabs/Saladin
- Thread starter Sisiutil
- Start date
Bandobras Took
Emperor
Yep, if there's an Agriculture resource in the BFC, I think I'd go Agri/AH/Mining/Bronze/Masonry.
If a second Settler grabs the corn, I'd stick with the original.
If a second Settler grabs the corn, I'd stick with the original.
dragomaster
Warlord
I'll join the 1N club. one more turn is not a massive loss. it's a plus 6 food capital and you will get decent production aswell. maybe save one or two plain forest for lumbermills later. start with worker and reserch agriculture -> mining -> masonry -> BW. now hunting or AH -> archery or pottery
I vote for returning to the original square and settle "in place". Losing a turn and a forest isn't worth it.
People are still discussing stone for Stonehenge. Haven't we concluded you need to finish it before anyone's got time to hook up even a BFC Stone? Corollary: Whether to build Stonehenge or not should not be influenced by the presence or absence of Stone. Whether you start with Mining and whether you start in a forest seems much more relevant.
For me, Stone is immensely helpful - for the Pyramids. But unlike Stonehenge, there's no mad rush. Even if we don't settle another city in that particular direction, the second border pop should make it easy to hook up the Stone by the time it's actually needed - when the capital is fully grown and has produced its essentials...
Thus, with this many trees, I vote for teching Bronze Working ASAP.
This might not have very much to do with Saladin's traits, you might ask?
But perhaps the ALC should in its wisdom teach us that some leaders really are poor, that their so-called strengths are only a siren's call, and that the wise choice is to actively ignore their strengths and synergies because the standard ways are better?
People are still discussing stone for Stonehenge. Haven't we concluded you need to finish it before anyone's got time to hook up even a BFC Stone? Corollary: Whether to build Stonehenge or not should not be influenced by the presence or absence of Stone. Whether you start with Mining and whether you start in a forest seems much more relevant.
For me, Stone is immensely helpful - for the Pyramids. But unlike Stonehenge, there's no mad rush. Even if we don't settle another city in that particular direction, the second border pop should make it easy to hook up the Stone by the time it's actually needed - when the capital is fully grown and has produced its essentials...
Thus, with this many trees, I vote for teching Bronze Working ASAP.
This might not have very much to do with Saladin's traits, you might ask?
But perhaps the ALC should in its wisdom teach us that some leaders really are poor, that their so-called strengths are only a siren's call, and that the wise choice is to actively ignore their strengths and synergies because the standard ways are better?
Indiansmoke
Deity
I would delay settling by 1 turn 1n order to get all 3 resources in BFC, so 1 N from where you are
Settle 1N - you're going to improve the stone asap anyway, so why not have it as a workable tile? Extra riverside grasslands are not to be sneezed at either. If you do go for a cultural win (which seems an obvious choice with Saladin), then that capital should coast to legendary, and provide a fair few Great Artists to settle or culture bomb in the other cities.
Ignore Stonehenge - imo, it loses some of its appeal with a Spiritual leader (especially one with easy access to prophet GPP).
Go for the Great Wall, so you can ignore military stuff while REXing and setting up your SE (inc. grabbing the Pyramids). An early GSpy would be very nice too (I'd settle him to take advantage of Representation and, a bit later on, a super-cheap Castle).
And although these wonders will pollute your GArtist generation, the odd GSpy or GEng would still be quite useful while going for culture. Great Prophets, on the other hand, will just be an irritation as the game goes on. And, thanks to the Madrassa, you can still grab one or two early Prophets for settling or religion-bulbing, without causing permanent pollution of the capital's GP-pool.
ps. With regards to your previous game, I know I said I prefer it when you struggle, but you didn't have to get your arse handed to you just for my benefit.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Ignore Stonehenge - imo, it loses some of its appeal with a Spiritual leader (especially one with easy access to prophet GPP).
Go for the Great Wall, so you can ignore military stuff while REXing and setting up your SE (inc. grabbing the Pyramids). An early GSpy would be very nice too (I'd settle him to take advantage of Representation and, a bit later on, a super-cheap Castle).
And although these wonders will pollute your GArtist generation, the odd GSpy or GEng would still be quite useful while going for culture. Great Prophets, on the other hand, will just be an irritation as the game goes on. And, thanks to the Madrassa, you can still grab one or two early Prophets for settling or religion-bulbing, without causing permanent pollution of the capital's GP-pool.
ps. With regards to your previous game, I know I said I prefer it when you struggle, but you didn't have to get your arse handed to you just for my benefit.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Arrgh, that's a tough choice there. I think I would lean towards going 1N, which would give us one beast of a city. It also plays right into the hands of the madrassa, with the two food sources capable of feeding 4 specialists at size 6...
To play Devil's Advocate though, what do people think about settling where the settler is right now so that we could save the corn for a second city? I'm thinking it's not worth it, especially since corn comes online much quicker than pigs, I was just thinking that it would be great if we could guarantee two solid cities with this start.
To play Devil's Advocate though, what do people think about settling where the settler is right now so that we could save the corn for a second city? I'm thinking it's not worth it, especially since corn comes online much quicker than pigs, I was just thinking that it would be great if we could guarantee two solid cities with this start.
Kev
Hired Goon
If we move 1N and settle it does not necessarily mean that later cities would be poor. Odds are still pretty good that we can find some other very good resources out there to pinpoint other great sites.
I usually don't mind having my capital hog the early good tiles that I can see. The reason being Bureaucracy later makes the city really hum.
I usually don't mind having my capital hog the early good tiles that I can see. The reason being Bureaucracy later makes the city really hum.
Artichoker
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,711
The Corn is a great asset to have. Settling in the original spot would have been a solid choice, if it had been done one turn ago.
For this turn, however, it's a choice between the Corn and the Stone. Comparing only the original location with this turn's location of the Settler,
I would still go with the original location of the Settler, since there are no flood plains nearby, and having only one Food resource with no flood plains would not lead to a great capital. But the Stone would still be accessible as a resource, even though it would not be in the BFC, if you chose to settle in the original location.
Now, if you consider the tile 1N of this turns's location of the Settler, it's a choice between gaining the hammer output of the Stone and losing a turn (because out of the two other choices, the Corn is the better choice). In this case, you're gaining the Stone purely for its hammer output, not its resource benefits.
It seems you could make up for the weaker hammer output for not having the Stone in the BFC, if you decided to forget about building Stonehenge. That way, you could save your hammers on more important things like...the Pyramids. Remember that working the Stone tile means only 1 Food for that tile...with so many forested plains in the BFC, I don't see that as a huge gain.
So, I'd say move to the original spot, with the intent of skipping an early wonder and focusing on building the Pyramids.
P.S. Also remember that moving to the original spot gives you access to some hills to the east, which can help towards construction of the Pyramids.
For this turn, however, it's a choice between the Corn and the Stone. Comparing only the original location with this turn's location of the Settler,
I would still go with the original location of the Settler, since there are no flood plains nearby, and having only one Food resource with no flood plains would not lead to a great capital. But the Stone would still be accessible as a resource, even though it would not be in the BFC, if you chose to settle in the original location.
Now, if you consider the tile 1N of this turns's location of the Settler, it's a choice between gaining the hammer output of the Stone and losing a turn (because out of the two other choices, the Corn is the better choice). In this case, you're gaining the Stone purely for its hammer output, not its resource benefits.
It seems you could make up for the weaker hammer output for not having the Stone in the BFC, if you decided to forget about building Stonehenge. That way, you could save your hammers on more important things like...the Pyramids. Remember that working the Stone tile means only 1 Food for that tile...with so many forested plains in the BFC, I don't see that as a huge gain.
So, I'd say move to the original spot, with the intent of skipping an early wonder and focusing on building the Pyramids.
P.S. Also remember that moving to the original spot gives you access to some hills to the east, which can help towards construction of the Pyramids.
Bandobras Took
Emperor
Why Spiritual? Stonehenge loses its appeal for me when I'm Creative.
Artichoker
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,711
Stonehenge is a nice wonder, but you still have to weigh the costs and benefits. Its hammer cost is 120 hammers, effectively reduced to 60 if you have Stone.
With Monuments, you're paying for 30 hammers per monument. Which, on the surface, seems expensive if you add up the cost of building one in every city.
However, there's a catch. You usually don't need to build a Monument in your capital (unless you're going for a cultural victory and/or you're Charismatic), in the case you don't build Stonehenge. Also, the cost of Stonehenge is being shouldered by a single city, and that city is your capital...with the building of Stonehenge happening so early in the game, its hammer cost can really suppress your expansion efforts.
With the Pyramids, even with its high hammer cost, at least you've given yourself the opportunity to settle a few cities before building it. So even though those new cities might require building Monuments, they can take a lot of the burden off of the capital by skipping Stonehenge.
Building Stonehenge, and then following up with the Pyramids...now you're really talking about suppressing your expansion efforts.
With Monuments, you're paying for 30 hammers per monument. Which, on the surface, seems expensive if you add up the cost of building one in every city.
However, there's a catch. You usually don't need to build a Monument in your capital (unless you're going for a cultural victory and/or you're Charismatic), in the case you don't build Stonehenge. Also, the cost of Stonehenge is being shouldered by a single city, and that city is your capital...with the building of Stonehenge happening so early in the game, its hammer cost can really suppress your expansion efforts.
With the Pyramids, even with its high hammer cost, at least you've given yourself the opportunity to settle a few cities before building it. So even though those new cities might require building Monuments, they can take a lot of the burden off of the capital by skipping Stonehenge.
Building Stonehenge, and then following up with the Pyramids...now you're really talking about suppressing your expansion efforts.
Indiansmoke
Deity
It does not mean that you will build wonders, it is just the best production tile you can have, why miss it? 1 turn will be made up plenty in the long term by the extra production.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
I'd say
1. Settle 1 N
2. Ignore stonehenge you have enough of a delay already
3. Get a Worker, Warrior, Worker, 2x Warrior, Settler, Pyramids (Archer/Settler)
4. get Agr, Hunting*, AH, Mining, Masonry, Archery, BW
*you will need this eventually; it cuts down the cost of AH and your worker(s) can do Corn first, then Pigs, then Quarry, then Chopping; and if things look dicey you can rush for Archery
G. Wall Might be Worth it
1. Settle 1 N
2. Ignore stonehenge you have enough of a delay already
3. Get a Worker, Warrior, Worker, 2x Warrior, Settler, Pyramids (Archer/Settler)
4. get Agr, Hunting*, AH, Mining, Masonry, Archery, BW
*you will need this eventually; it cuts down the cost of AH and your worker(s) can do Corn first, then Pigs, then Quarry, then Chopping; and if things look dicey you can rush for Archery
G. Wall Might be Worth it
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
I agree that Stonehenge is not important, I would rather chop the Great Wall in this start, we're not coastal and they both seem to go at the same time. 2000bc-ish for Stonehenge according to slaze, can't remember but it sounds about right, ca 2200 for both SH and TGW on immortal.
Pyramids is a given since it's so ridicuosly powerful but can wait for second border pop if you decide to settle in original spot. Just have some prechopping done. I don't see why we would settle in the original spot now though, a 1f5h tile is the main benefit of getting stone in the bfc and it's a good one, that it provides stone earlier has little effect.
Pyramids is a given since it's so ridicuosly powerful but can wait for second border pop if you decide to settle in original spot. Just have some prechopping done. I don't see why we would settle in the original spot now though, a 1f5h tile is the main benefit of getting stone in the bfc and it's a good one, that it provides stone earlier has little effect.
With a Spritual leader you'll want to get CoL for Caste System nice and early (or else you're wasting the trait, imo), after which you can use Artists to pop the borders.
So, Stonehenge will only help with the first few cities, many of which may not even need a quick border pop. Better just to whip monuments in those that do, and spend the early hammers in the capital on something else.
(Of course, if you're playing as Brennus or one of the Egyptians, then the Henge is attractive for other reasons)
Daedal
Prince
IMO you won't find a better city to use the stone, so settling 1N would be the best option. However, the slow start will probably cost you Stonehenge so I'd focus on getting the Great Wall + Pyramids. GW is a good choice for three reasons: no need to worry about barbarians, a settled GSpy is really nice, and GW boosts your power graph so you can REX more and defend less without getting DoWed out of nowhere.
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,083
1N
Winston Hughes justification for the GW is tempting, but I think the strongest opening is suggested by Krikkitone:
Getting out that settler before wonder building is a good idea.
Winston Hughes justification for the GW is tempting, but I think the strongest opening is suggested by Krikkitone:
Getting out that settler before wonder building is a good idea.
thefais
Chieftain
Go 1N, but avoid Stonehenge. Instead, chop the great wall. I assume barbs are extra annoying on Emperor, so not having to deal with them is very nice (hell, it's nice on Prince) Suggested tech path? Agr.->AH->Mining->Masonry->BW.
Of course, I play on prince, so feel free to take my advice well-salted.
Of course, I play on prince, so feel free to take my advice well-salted.
Bandobras Took
Emperor
I see. I don't have as much experience with Spiritual.
I would add Sitting Bull to the list of leaders for whom Stonehenge is attractive.
