ALC Game #7: Frederick/Germany

[UncleJJ]

I go away for 3 days and it's all over

Great game and a fascinating use of specialists that is so different from how I would have done it. Lots of good discussions and polite argument in this thread that has been well managed from beginning to end. I intend to replay that period upto 1500 AD using my approach to see what the differences are in a comparison game, but that will take a day of two for me to get round to...

Thank you Sisiutil for entertaining us

 

[uncarved block]

First off, congrats on the win, and I hope your move to Monarch goes just as well. This is all well over my head, so all I can do is watch and applaud. With that as preface, I have two questions/comments:

Panzers. Except for a couple lines referencing German military terms, the UU was hardly mentioned at all. This game seems to have done little to counteract the notion that the unit comes far too late in the game to have any significant impact. I know the emphasis turned early to the relative merits of the specialist economy, but I thought bringing up some of the pre-game discussion was a useful closing of the loop.

Has anyone tried these tactics with Warlords? Sisiutil has made it clear he's not going to get the expansion, but several of the commenters here have, so I'm asking them. All I could think of, reading through the early phases, is that I'd never be able to pull that off with the "Barbs on steroids" in Warlords. The AI also seems to be building larger armies, and less shy about using them, so I'm not sure neglecting the military for so long is a safe option. OTOH, the competition for wonders has eased up, so maybe the strict timetable Eggman laid out might loosen up a bit, especially with the cheaper Great Wall tempting others out of the race.

Just some questions, for anyone who might want to answer.

 

[Eqqman]

OTOH, the competition for wonders has eased up, so maybe the strict timetable Eggman laid out might loosen up a bit, especially with the cheaper Great Wall tempting others out of the race.

Just some questions, for anyone who might want to answer.

In Warlords I would skip MC/P and build the Geat Wall to produce the GE you would spend on Pyramids. From what I hear about the increased Barbarian activity Great Wall sounds like it might be a better deal than Oracle.

 

[sigmakan]

I've found that I can do the GW/Pyramid gambit quite a bit faster than the oracle version. It also seems less taxing on your early development. I usually go for my starting city: worker>warrior>warrior>settler>great wall and then have the worker chop it. 25 turns later out pops a GE and then the pyramids. I've completed the 'mids around 1200BC once and the other times have been 1000-900BC using this tactic.

 

[cabert]

congrats!
like uncleJJ, i've missed the last days, but it's nice to see you did it once again

About next ALC, i think it's time to try and not build the oracle, don't you think? That would be a change

 

[Sisiutil]

congrats!
like uncleJJ, i've missed the last days, but it's nice to see you did it once again

About next ALC, i think it's time to try and not build the oracle, don't you think? That would be a change

I already did that in the Hatty game. Whether I go for or pass on a particular game element, especially a wonder, depends very much on the game sitch, so we'll just have to see.

Please remember that the upcoming Alexander game will still be on Prince level; the Huayna game following that will move up to Monarch.

In response to UB, on Panzers: I did make extensive use of the Panzers in conquering Rome and Egypt. However, as neither of those civilizations had tanks, my use of the Panzers did not feature their unique characteristics. Had I taken on America, which had Industrialism and tanks, it would have better highlighted the Panzer's advantages.

So why didn't I? Well, that also meant America was a tougher nut to crack, and the geography for a domination win via Egypt was better: more coastal cities for my Marines to capture, less cultural pressure from other civs. I think by that stage of the game, like most players, I'm focused on the win.

 

[bigwillystyle]

In Warlords I would skip MC/P and build the Geat Wall to produce the GE you would spend on Pyramids. From what I hear about the increased Barbarian activity Great Wall sounds like it might be a better deal than Oracle.

This works really well, Eqqman. The GW --> Pyramids strategy is a significant improvement over the Oracle --> Pyramids strategy, in my opinion.

I took a few months off from Civ, and recently picked up Warlords and browsed some new strategies - I spent 6 or 7 hours last night trying to get the Oracle gambit to work on Monarch and it is very, very tough. I'm admittedly new to that strategy, but I had a lot of difficulty getting the Pyramids out before 600 BC - 700 BC was a pretty consistent date if I focused singlemindedly, as you advised earlier on in the thread.

The research costs on Monarch vs. Prince were the biggest hindrance to me - I just couldn't get the relevant techs researched in a timely manner. A little luck with goody huts can go a long way - but even playing Gandhi, who starts with two of the techs in the tree necessary ... its still very tricky.

I tried out the GW gambit later in the evening after losing the Pyramids to a civ that popped a Great Engineer just before I did - I saw the GW go up and thought "Self, I hope that wasn't a Philosophical civ ..." - sure enough, I met the civ in question (Frederick) a few turns later. He popped an engineer with three turns left to go on my engineer and beat me to the Pyramids. Glah. Tried the same leader (Gandhi) on a new map and beelined for the Great Wall. Money in the bank.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

This works really well, Eqqman. The GW --> Pyramids strategy is a significant improvement over the Oracle --> Pyramids strategy, in my opinion.

Several people have made this claim. Can you elaborate on why you think so?

At first glance, the hammer cost seems about the same (250 for The Great Wall vs. 150 + 120 for The Oracle and a forge). I guess you have more flexibility in your research path, since Masonry and either Mining or Mysticism are the only requirements compared with a whole laundry list of technologies for the MC/P approach.

I've seen claims that the barbarians are worse in Warlords, and I guess that might make The Great Wall's benefit more valuable than The Oracle's free technology, but honestly, I haven't noticed any real change in the barbarians myself. I've only played 2 games, so maybe I just haven't seen it yet, but I would argue that barbarians are easier, not harder, since the changes to chariots have turned them into the ultimate barbarian killing units.

You certainly aren't alone in saying that The Great Wall approach is better, but I guess I just don't see it. They seem about the same to me.

 

[sigmakan]

I've found that I can start/finish the GW much earlier than getting a Engineer Specialist running. Since the tech for GW is much much more accessible.

One thing I noticed with the MC/P gambit is that its very hard to get that forge up and running in your second city in 6 turns or less. 120 hammers is a lot to ask for in 6 turns. In that sense it makes it harder/more of a gamble. Also, running the engineer stunts the growth of your second city

 

[bigwillystyle]

Several people have made this claim. Can you elaborate on why you think so?

At first glance, the hammer cost seems about the same (250 for The Great Wall vs. 150 + 120 for The Oracle and a forge). I guess you have more flexibility in your research path, since Masonry and either Mining or Mysticism are the only requirements compared with a whole laundry list of technologies for the MC/P approach.

I've seen claims that the barbarians are worse in Warlords, and I guess that might make The Great Wall's benefit more valuable than The Oracle's free technology, but honestly, I haven't noticed any real change in the barbarians myself. I've only played 2 games, so maybe I just haven't seen it yet, but I would argue that barbarians are easier, not harder, since the changes to chariots have turned them into the ultimate barbarian killing units.

You certainly aren't alone in saying that The Great Wall approach is better, but I guess I just don't see it. They seem about the same to me.

You nailed why I like the Great Wall approach more - you can start work on it significantly sooner than the Oracle - 1 tech to Masonry vs. the larger lot required to get to both Priesthood and Metal Casting Prereqs.

It also basically only ties up one city, as opposed to two cities (one for Oracle, one for Forge), which helps the early expansion phase.

I have not noticed barbarians being noticeably tougher in Warlords, but I have found that I lack the time / resource allocation to get Axemen out quickly while running the Oracle/Metal Casting strategy - So the GW could potentially help there. I personally don't dig the visuals when you have a small culture empire, but YMMV.

 

[Eqqman]

Several people have made this claim. Can you elaborate on why you think so?

At first glance, the hammer cost seems about the same (250 for The Great Wall vs. 150 + 120 for The Oracle and a forge). I guess you have more flexibility in your research path, since Masonry and either Mining or Mysticism are the only requirements compared with a whole laundry list of technologies for the MC/P approach.

You certainly aren't alone in saying that The Great Wall approach is better, but I guess I just don't see it. They seem about the same to me.

• Less techs you are forced to research immediately. One good example- early Animal Husbandry is no longer verboten.
• Requirement for 2nd city to be very close to capital dropped.
• Forests available to cities past the capital dropped.
• Do not have to time progress of second city to coincide with finish of Oracle.
• Do not have to potentially stunt a city to run Engineer. If you built GW in capital, it is probably large enough now to handle the Engineer without too much effort.
• Barbarian protection from GW (or varying utility).
• Do not have to fanatically manage Worker turns to avoid all waste.

Not a 'proof' that it's better per se, since how much you value these points is up to you.

 

[UncleJJ]

Comparison Game Part 2

As Sisiutil requested here is my comparison game for the period 1200 AD until 1530 AD. This is a continuation from the Comparison Game in post 296 and follows the same philosophy of trying to achieve the same military and research goals that Sisiutil followed but implementing them in my way. The essential difference was I actively used the whip to install granaries, forges and economic buildings. The Caste System was not used and instead Slavery was run for the whole period from 720 AD I also founded Essen earlier than Sisutil (didn’t check his game narrative closely enough ) but it has little impact on anything representing more of a cost than an asset

Buildings

The numbers of key buildings in the 13 cities in my game, and 12 in Sisiutil's game in 1530 AD are:
Barracks me 8, Sisiutil 8
Granary me 11, Sisiutil 8
Forge me 10, Sisiutil 6
Library me 10, Sisiutil 8
University me 9, Sisiutil 7
Observatory me 5, Sisiutil 1
Monastries me 14, Sisiutil 12
Market me 9, Sisiutil 1
Grocer me 6, Sisiutil 1
Bank me 6, Sisiutil 1

Obviously I have invested many 1000's of more hammers

Religions

Taoism was founded in Munich which I made a holy shrine using the G Prohet and spreading the religion to all 13 cities. This will be where Wall Street will go and 2 GMs settled. Market, Grocer and Bank (MGB) have been built in Munich which is also a Merchant city.

Sisiutil founded a holy city in Arabela but it is poorly developed and needs lots of work to make much progress.

I plan to expand Christianity next and have a Great Prophet being produced in Persepolis and have started placing the MGB and spreading the religion. Religion can be a major source of revenue in the long term but you have to work at it.


Merchant Cities

The underlying reasoning of building MGB in some cities is to make them into what I call Merchant Cities. In these cities the gold multiplier is better than the science multiplier so it makes sense to run merchant specialists in them instead of scientists. This gives a big profit and the extra gold enables the science multiplier for commerce to be raised to 100% for a few turns and that more than recovers the science lost from not running scientists all the time. The secret is all in the differences in the gold and science multipliers

Currently 6 cities have MGB, Berlin (building Taj Mahal), Hamburg, Munich (Holy Shrine), Cologne, Frankfurt (Science City), Pasargadae. Only 3 of these are running a full set of merchant specialists and Frankfurt will obviously run scientists before merchants anyway. It is the Merchant Cities that enabled the commerce to be used for research rather than gold for at least 80% of the turns between 720 AD and 1530 AD. They are the key ingredient missing from Sisiutil’s game and what other people like futurehermit don’t seem to understand… hence the fallacy of running the Research slider at 0%. Here, I have clearly demonstrated that is both unnecessary and inefficient to run the slider at 0%.

Beaker and Gold income and Costs

Here is my game at 1530 AD
at 0% research
Research 363
Gold 456
Trade 27
Costs 189
net Gold/T +294

at 100% research
Research 732
Gold 131
Trade 27
Costs 189
net Gold/T -31

Total beakers and gold is 819 at 0% and 863 at 100%

For Sisiutil in 1530 AD
at 0% research
Research 408
Gold 348
Trade 18
Costs 190
net Gold/T + 176

Total beakers and gold is 756 at 0%

And if Sisiutil ran at 100% research at this point.
at 100% research
Research 816
Gold 18
Trade 18
Costs 190
net Gold/T -154

Note that Sisiutil’s economy is weaker per turn and he is in a Golden Age

Techs Researched and Gold stockpile

I did not check Sisiutils game properly and so I researched the following extra technologies ... all which are useful and put me far ahead of him militarily

Gunpowder 1716 beakers
Chemistry 2574
Military Tradition 2860
Accumulated Gold 583

Adding beakers and gold this totals 7733

Sisiutil has researched the following techs that I have not yet

Divine Right 1716
Printing Press 698 of 2288
Accumulated Gold 1844

Adding beakers and gold this totals 4258.

Therefore my game is 3475 beakers and gold ahead of Sisiutil which is a very significant lead, especially considering he has used 5 turns of a Golden Age that my economy will get in 4 turns or so (assuming I build Taj Mahal first). Furthermore, I could trade with the AI for Divine Right (which Sisiutil may have done )... that would add 1716 more beakers to my economy balance sheet.


Conclusions

I think that my way of playing and civic choice for a SE at this stage of the game is clearly superior to that of Sisiutil at least when judged on a strictly economic basis. There are 2 main lessons to be learned, one concerning Slavery and Caste System and the other concerning the Research Slider.

It clearly shows that Slavery is superior to the Caste System in this situation and by a large margin. Slavery has enabled a huge amount of extra hammers to be generated and turned into infrastructure that boosted the economy. The Caste System seems to have stagnated growth in many of Sisiutil’s cities. He had problems with unhappiness which Slavery solves easily.

I contend that the Caste System is not well suited to a SE and that Slavery should be the favoured civic for almost the whole game.

My game shows that it is totally unnecessary to run your Research Slider at 0% and that there are substantial benefits from running with the slider at 100% and rearranging your entire economy to make this assumption. The organisation of specialists and buildings and placement of cottages in a SE economy advocated by some other players is actually inverted or upside down. The way that some people use their commerce is inefficient and simply assuming that commerce will meet all your costs with a 0% slider is misguided and lazy thinking.

In my version of the SE the use of multiple Merchant Cities and development of one or more Holy Cities means that at least 8 out of 10 turns can have 100% rather than 0% thereby increasing the tech rate to one tech every 3 to 4 turns at this stage of the game.

I suggest loading both my game and Sisiutil’s original savegame at 1530 (end of Post 239 in this thread) and study the differences. I look forward to your comments on my comparative analysis, my conclusions and my game. It is always rewarding to learn more from others

 

[cabert]

don't brag too much uncleJJ, this was sisiutil's first SE try!
but i'm sure i could have used more markets, libraries and forges

 

[Betafor]

Very interesting and sound analysis - I know many would probably think of me one to immidiatly argue this, but i like it! Much of my 0% rule was based on running 100% scientists.

There is ONE thing i would LOVE to test- Using merchants exclusively and using the slider just like a commerce econ. This would only be superior to a pure scientist SE while running representation for both(merchants X gold(forgot how much exactly) plus 3 beakers vs scientists 6 beakers). It would, essentially, be a regular SE, but with a few differences

- Like a CE, both gold and science buldings are needed
- Like a CE, you use the slider to adjust gold/beaker ratings

While this would be fun, i'm thinking UncleJJ has the best strategy - I.E. - to run slavery while taknig up the science slack by running merchants - Provides more infastructure and you can run more specialists w/o caste system

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

For what it's worth (possibly not much), dropping out of Representation costs you about 30% of your science output with the slider at 100% and about 60% of your output when the slider is at 0%.

Of course, at this point you're about to learn Representation on your own, so your empire is developed to a different point than where the real Pyramids vs. no Pyramids question needs to be asked, but I do think it's worth noting that it seems to have a pretty substantial impact.

 

[UncleJJ]

don't brag too much uncleJJ, this was sisiutil's first SE try!
but i'm sure i could have used more markets, libraries and forges

I'm not bragging, this is not me versus Sisiutil. Rather it is following through on my own advice to him instead of the advice others were offering him, and demonstrating that there was a better way. Obviously I feel justified in saying my advice was better and hopefully he'll listen more to me in the future

 

[Eqqman]

My game shows that it is totally unnecessary to run your Research Slider at 0% and that there are substantial benefits from running with the slider at 100% and rearranging your entire economy to make this assumption. The organisation of specialists and buildings and placement of cottages in a SE economy advocated by some other players is actually inverted or upside down. The way that some people use their commerce is inefficient and simply assuming that commerce will meet all your costs with a 0% slider is misguided and lazy thinking.

The idea is actually that commerce does not meet your costs at 0% slider. War does. You are running at 0% solely to squeeze out enough gold so that you are never forced to stop fighting because the economy can't handle it anymore. While you are fighting you can still be using whatever means you have at hand to build up the infrastructure to fight deficits.

Futurehermit did not use caste system as a requirement when he ran his calculations on the SE. As you've shown you can also use the whip to make sure you have enough specialist slots in your cities to keep things going, although you lose some control of the Great People that get generated, and your highest-food city can't run as many scientists as it otherwise might.

Straight beaker comparisions are tough since you also need to account for bulbed techs and traded techs. You have an advatange here since you're directly competing with somebody who can't improve his score even though he could have with some extra trades or a bulbed Great Person instead of settled.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

I suggest loading both my game and Sisiutil’s original savegame at 1530 (end of Post 239 in this thread) and study the differences. I look forward to your comments on my comparative analysis, my conclusions and my game. It is always rewarding to learn more from others

As I looked through the cities in your save, I came up with a number of questions. In no particular order ...

For the most part you improved tiles with farms in the flatlands and mines on hills. Every now and then there's a cottage somewhere. Is there any particular rule of thumb you use to decide when to cottage? Are those just tiles that got cottages before Civil Service allowed them to be irrigated, so you didn't want to destroy them? Actually, Frankfurt has two cottages that are by a river.

If I understand the fundamental idea behind your strategy correctly, it looks like you're ultimately heading toward one science city (Frankfurt) that runs scientists, and all other cities will be merchant cities. Until they're fully developed with market, grocer, bank, you decide on scientist vs. merchant based on whichever currently has the highest multiplier. Is that correct? If not, what determines whether a city prioritizes scientists or merchants?

Along the same lines, in what order do you typically build the buildings in a new city? I would think you'd prioritize the gold multipliers and fill in with science buildings later, but when I look at a city like Arbela, it looks like you're doing the opposite. Is that just due to a side consideration like getting enough universities to build Oxford?

You have priests in a few cities. In Perseopolis I assume that's to get a prophet to build the Christian and/or Taoist shrine, but what about Hamburg and Munich? Are you just trying to squeeze out a few extra shields to accelerate the builds?

 

[UncleJJ]

The idea is actually that commerce does not meet your costs at 0% slider. War does. You are running at 0% solely to squeeze out enough gold so that you are never forced to stop fighting because the economy can't handle it anymore. While you are fighting you can still be using whatever means you have at hand to build up the infrastructure to fight deficits.

I understand the theory of conquest funded warfare and it will work nicely for a Conquest victory, but can't work for a Domination victory until a sufficient economic base has been built up. The city maintenance and civic cost grow enormously with extra cities and population unless a proper infrastructure is installed. The game has been designed to limit expansion in this way as otherwise it would be too easy and a single strategy of all out warfare would be all that is needed to win every game.

Straight beaker comparisions are tough since you also need to account for bulbed techs and traded techs. You have an advatange here since you're directly competing with somebody who can't improve his score even though he could have with some extra trades or a bulbed Great Person instead of settled.

I believe the beaker and gold comparisons are entirely valid as I only used the same traded techs and lightbulbed Philosophy to found Taoism (which Sisiutil also did). In no way was I competing with Sisiutil on a personal level and I never did anything to artifically boost my score / research over what is proper for playing out the game according to my own advice to him.

This is bourne out by 2 incidents. In my game I had a great engineer produced from Hamburg (or Berlin) while Sisiutil had a great scientist. Since he settled his GS in Frankfurt, I also settled my GE there although that is not something I would normally do. But it was as close as I could get to his decsision.

In 1420 AD I had another GS and I could have lightbulbed Printing Press for 1791 beakers, which if I had merely been trying to beat Sisiutil I could have done. Instead I settled it in Frankfurt which is what I believe he did and what is the better strategy for a long term game. The comparison between our two games will never be perfect but unless you can suggest a better way it seems the best that could reasonably be expected given our different playing styles and objectives.

 

[UncleJJ]

As I looked through the cities in your save, I came up with a number of questions. In no particular order ...

Some excellent questions that show you appreciate some of the subtleties of the game

For the most part you improved tiles with farms in the flatlands and mines on hills. Every now and then there's a cottage somewhere. Is there any particular rule of thumb you use to decide when to cottage? Are those just tiles that got cottages before Civil Service allowed them to be irrigated, so you didn't want to destroy them? Actually, Frankfurt has two cottages that are by a river.

I have no particular fixed set of rules for when I build cottages in a SE although I often do that early in the game. Farms on plains tiles are useless for running specialists before Biology and so if my workers have nothing better to do they build a few cottages that get worked when the city is recovering from a heavy whip. Also it is a way to use 1 food when you have no more specialists to run. I often build a grassland cottage if I already have 3 or 4 other grassland farms and decent other food sources. It just gives me an alternative type of tile to work and I enjoy the micromanagement

If I understand the fundamental idea behind your strategy correctly, it looks like you're ultimately heading toward one science city (Frankfurt) that runs scientists, and all other cities will be merchant cities. Until they're fully developed with market, grocer, bank, you decide on scientist vs. merchant based on whichever currently has the highest multiplier. Is that correct? If not, what determines whether a city prioritizes scientists or merchants?

Along the same lines, in what order do you typically build the buildings in a new city? I would think you'd prioritize the gold multipliers and fill in with science buildings later, but when I look at a city like Arbela, it looks like you're doing the opposite. Is that just due to a side consideration like getting enough universities to build Oxford?

My economic strategy certainly has one Science City which houses Oxford and where GS will be settled and that will have the very best science multipliers possible. Also I will try to turn one of my holy cities (self founded or captured) into my main Wealth City, where Wall Street will be built and GM and GP settled. But other holy cities will also be secondary wealth cities and hence Merchant cities with MGB. Since I intend to run my Research Slider at 100% as often as possible it makes sense to put cottages in my Science City and work them through the best multipliers. In my games I usually make my capital my Science City to get the Bureaucracy bonus. In Sisiutil's game it was Frankfurt that became the Science City and that was due to the assumption that the science slider would be at 0% for most of the game.

Now as to the build order. In newly conquered cities I usually build a library as the first economic building (after granary, forge and maybe theatre and courthouse) . That means that commerce and scientists all get a 25% bonus plus the library give a small cultural output that can be handy. Then I might build other science and cultural buildings such as multiple Monastries, University and Observatory. Obviously in this city it makes sense to run Scientist specialists as they have the best multipliers and they become mini science cities producing only beakers.

But your economy can't support too many of these ideal mini-science cities and so established cities that already have this infrastructure gradually build M for happiness too, then G also for health and then B to become the full blown Merchant City. If I then need more money (which is usually always ) I switch the city to run merchants and they produce gold and beakers from commerce and Representation. Susa is undergoing that development now.

That is an idealised growth strategy for city development but it gets modified depending on what buildings were captured with the city. Capturing an Academy would tend to make the science route favoured, while capturing M,G, or B might speed development of a Merchant City before science multiplers had been installed... but you can't build everything at once. Also the requirements of Oxford and Wall Street get factored in.

You have priests in a few cities. In Perseopolis I assume that's to get a prophet to build the Christian and/or Taoist shrine, but what about Hamburg and Munich? Are you just trying to squeeze out a few extra shields to accelerate the builds?

Ankor Wat makes Priests very effective at boosting production while still generating beakers from Representation and gold. They are in some ways the best type of specialist in some cities... imagine building wonders in a city with Ironworks, Factory, Forge and Power, plus Stone (or whatever)... thats +300% hammers....and a single priest with Ankor Wat then gives 8 hammers / turn as well as 3 base beakers and 1 base gold (=3 gold since Wall Street is here normally). A free priest from Mercantilism can also make a very valuable contribution in new cities with low food if you build a temple there.

In answer to your actual questions (sorry for rambling ) in Persepolis the priests are to boost prophet GPPs. In Munich it is indeed to boost production while giving 2 gold.


EDIT: Sisiutil, sorry for taking over your thread... but you had finished with it anyway