ALC Game #8: Alexander/Greece

[Gnarfflinger]

That's why I found Conquest so hard on Vanilla. You raze cities, someone else settles in their place, you keep them, you get domination. That's why I like Warlords. Vassals gained through capitulation count towards conquest becuase they are conquered...

 

[pigswill]

Yes, you're playing below your current skill level which is why you could mess up strategy and still win comfortably. Very good demonstration of various tactics and strategems.
I'm also guessing that fast victory didn't really appeal to you and this game was more about having fun (and showing off a bit) before moving up to monarch.
Would you use nukes in a serious game?

 

[flamingzaroc121]

yeah hatty got nuked so HC it is, id say play on some interesting map like archipelago so you really have a challenge

 

[Sisiutil]

Would you use nukes in a serious game?

Almost never, though I could see myself using them if I find myself pursuing conquest in the modern era again.

I'm going to have to remember to NOT expect that I can pull off all those wonders on Monarch, at least not right away, if ever!

It occurred to me that I should thank everyone for their encouragement and suggestions regarding the starting position. I was despairing of the surrounding terrain, but everyone did a great job of showing how to get the most out of it. Despite all that desert, Sparta became an excellent military city and Corinth one of my best-ever science cities.

 

[Sisiutil]

yeah hatty got nuked so HC it is, id say play on some interesting map like archipelago so you really have a challenge

Well, since I'm moving up to Monarch, that will be the added challenge. All other settings will remain the same, so that means a continents map.

 

[Lucky Charms]

I enjoy your All Leader Challenges Sisiutil, they provide me with further insight and knowledge of the game.

Now, may I be so bold as to ask who you will be playing in the next challenge, or will it be random?

 

[flamingzaroc121]

he is playing as HC for his first monarch ALC game

 

[Sisiutil]

Speaking of which, the ALC Game #9 Pre-Game Show Thread is now up. Go to it, gang!

 

[Fetch]

Post-Mortem

Just out of interest, GNP (Gold) for the whole game:

Looks like Hatty had a stronger economy than mine in many respects for the last part of the game. Not that it did her much good, but if I'd been going for space race, she could have given me a run for my money. Pun fully intended.

I've always wondered, why does the gold graph jump so? What would cause such great swings for such a short time? Good game as always. See you in next game.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

I've always wondered, why does the gold graph jump so? What would cause such great swings for such a short time? Good game as always. See you in next game.

The massive, short term spikes are usually golden ages. Large changes that persist are usually civics changes or war. I've never been sure why there's so much turn to turn wavering. That graph does not include multiplying effects from buildings, so it can't be explained by building new markets, grocers, etc. Intuitively it seems like your economy should be mostly increasing from turn to turn with the exception of major events like civics changes and wars, particularly after you stop using slavery.

 

[cabert]

the GNP graph is broken, it doesn't take into account the specialists, the modifier buildings...
how could you have negative GNP anyway? It's really weird.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

the GNP graph is broken, it doesn't take into account the specialists, the modifier buildings...

Right, but even with those problems taken into account, it seems like the number ought to be increasing most of the time. In fact, those problems should make it an even more stable number, since by ignoring so many sources of income it removes that many variables from the equation.

how could you have negative GNP anyway? It's really weird.

That's easy. I'm sure we've all overexpand before to the point where the economy starts crashing and you need to dial back your research to an unacceptably low level. I've never taken it so far that I'm losing money even at 0% research, but I don't see why it's impossible.

GNP should be something like all gold income (from any source including buildings and specialists) minus all expenses (upkeep, maintenance, military supply, trades, etc.). That could certainly be negative if you do something stupid.

 

[cabert]

in real life, GNP isn't the money you make minus your expenses.
It's just the money you make.
Expenses are another thing, usually. So it can never be negative.

If for the game it's total commerce minus total expenses, it's ok for me. But I can't recall any moment in the above game where he would have been in the red at 0%science.
Since I can't seem to understand how to use this graph, i just don't look at it anymore

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

in real life, GNP isn't the money you make minus your expenses.
It's just the money you make.

Hmm. You're right. I'm not sure about the in game calculation. Like you, I also pay no attention to that graph anymore, so I really don't know or care much about what it means.

 

[Fetch]

Thanks for the posts on the graph.

 

[patagonia]

A quick question regarding the use of nukes:

I was under the impression (don't have a game I can test this on at the moment to be sure) that using two nukes on the same city in a single turn killed every unit within the blast radius. Firstly, is that true? And secondly, would doing so have made the conquest of Egypt quicker/easier?

Good luck on Monarch!

 

[Sisiutil]

A quick question regarding the use of nukes:

I was under the impression (don't have a game I can test this on at the moment to be sure) that using two nukes on the same city in a single turn killed every unit within the blast radius. Firstly, is that true? And secondly, would doing so have made the conquest of Egypt quicker/easier?

Good luck on Monarch!

Since my first nuke in each case reduced every unit's health by well over 50%, that sounds like it would work. Would it have been faster? I still would have had to send one unit to the city to capture/raze it. Egypt was already much weaker than me and I was pretty much capturing each city in the earliest turn possible. I don't think it would have sped things up very much; it just would have required me to use fewer units.

That being said, if I'd waited until I had 2 nukes per city, I could have positioned one fast-moving unit (say a gunship, or anything aboard transports) as close as possible to Egyptian territory the turn before attacking. Still, given how expensive nukes are, I still think this would have taken about the same amount of time.

Overall, you might be able to shave off a turn or two with nukes, but the big difference in my opinion is the number of units required for conquering, not any great burst of speed. Most of your units still move 1 tile at a time through hostile territory, even with no opposition.

 

[cabert]

i still think it would have been better to kill all units in 2 cities at turn 1 of the war = bombing down any possible counterattack task force

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think nukes are Actually better designed for a Space Race. Once you have your own Continent, and Fission being required anyways, it can be a good way to knock someone else out of the running (particularly if you get another power to start a War wioth them first.

 

[pax]

If I'd waited until I had 2 nukes per city, I could have positioned one fast-moving unit (say a gunship, or anything aboard transports) as close as possible to Egyptian territory the turn before attacking. Still, given how expensive nukes are, I still think this would have taken about the same amount of time.

Not with gunships, though. Gunships can't take cities. Only ground based units can take cities. Which increases the need for a transport 'copter unit.