BB-01 open succession game--fast space race

[Cyc]

The questionable tile to the North was definitely Tundra. Figuring that the river originated in the mountains, I would have moved SW also (I didn't expect it to shoot off to a coast in the NE). But as it turned out that location wouldn't have given any REAL good core locations to the East.

Now I believe your best capital location is one tile South to the Grassland. Put the capitl there to give the tile a shield. You'll get your wheat with the initial expansion, so no big delay there. Go Warrior/Granary first, researching Pottery. I'm guessing moving South may well reveal a lux. You'll be on the river with 4/5 Forest tiles (at least) and two BGs, plus the wheat. And you'll have changed that Grassland to a BG automatically.

 

[Cyc]

Turnlog:

T000: Settler 1E, worker irrigates.
The good news are: two more BGs get into sight! The bad news: the eastern coast appears in distance 3. That'll be very tight for our first ring...

I'll pause now, because perhaps we want to invest a second settler move to go to the optimal capital site, see red cross:

Just bringing the picture to the second page.

 

[brasilbear]

that is bad news, we'd miss the river delta as a first core site. Settling on the x would give us all the power tiles we currently see, and preserve a first ring city on the river delta/coast.

i've never done spreadsheet calculations before while playing, funny since i teach math and preach the power of spreadsheets to problem solve. Maybe I'll mess a round a little since the wife is traveling and i'm done with my to-do list for the day.

 

[templar_x]

i would not worry to found where you stand and have one distance-2 core town to the northeast. it will be able to share some tiles with the capital early and work lots of sea tiles for commerce later on.
t_x

 

[Lanzelot]

Now I believe your best capital location is one tile South to the Grassland. Put the capitl there to give the tile a shield. You'll get your wheat with the initial expansion, so no big delay there.

I have moved twice on some rare occasions, but I have definitely never moved twice in order to move away from a food bonus... The location 1S is indeed a good capital site, but not so much better than the red cross, that I would move away from the wheat for it. It is a huge delay: we would grow on T12. If we stay where we are, we'd grow on turn T6, if we move to the red cross on T7. In both of the latter cases we would reach size 3 by the time the first case would hit size 2! That's a huge difference which would hurt the rest of the game. I think either settle where we are or take the red cross.
BTW: if we settle where we are there will be two core towns at distance two: I assume we want to settle the tundra tile in order to get rid of it. If we move to the red cross, the tundra will be distance 3. From the shape of the river it looks like the red cross would allow 3 further river towns at distance 3.

Usually I settle quite tight in the beginning (see the Asterix game), but in a long running science game we shouldn't settle too tight?! On the other hand, there must be enough space to the south, so perhaps we can rectify the situation by settling some of the southern cities at distance 4-5?

 

[brasilbear]

If we settle where we are, this is what a first ring might look. I'm not arguing for it, just saying its possible. The red dots are are between 3-4 rank away (I forget how to count that out). To save the river delta we could place the blue dot, but its only rank 2. Moving back to the red x might improve placements. We also don't know whats to the east yet, which will of course affect placements.

 

[Elephantium]

I definitely think we should move the settler to the red-x forest. Then we can make a "city on a hill" at the river delta without being CxC from the capital.

 

[Cyc]

I think either settle where we are or take the red cross.

Go for it. I would settle in place instead of taking the forest. What I meant by my post was the capital location looked best for the nation, not so much the best capital location. I will take a location away from the food bonus if it means better locations for my 1st ring. Waiting an extra 5 turns when you're building a Warrior followed by a Granary is not monumental to me. Because you're waiting so long to start the Settler, it will tend to even out over time.

BTW: if we settle where we are there will be two core towns at distance two: I assume we want to settle the tundra tile in order to get rid of it. If we move to the red cross, the tundra will be distance 3. From the shape of the river it looks like the red cross would allow 3 further river towns at distance 3.

This is basically what I am saying. With the move South, things wouldn't be so awkward. Plus it looks like the river may bend SW 2 tiles SW of that grassland. That would set us up for a well placed city to the SW.

But it looks like we'll settle in place, or not, so that's fine with me.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I agree with settling on the spot. We can't work all tiles anyway with Babylon.

 

[Lanzelot]

I think, the "active" players should decide. How does the roster look like at the moment? Brasilbear, Elephantium and me, I guess?
Elephantium strongly favors red-x. I'm still undecided. I also think the red-x would be better for the general layout, but I'm not sure whether it's enough to justify another move. Brasilbear, any strong opinion for one or the other?

Here is a picture how the first ring could look like, if we take red-x. Assuming the river flows like indicated, we would have at least 4 river cities out of the 8 core cities. Not so bad. But the same could also be reached by settling where we are.

 

[brasilbear]

playing a solo game, i would move to the x

(1) a good core will make up for a second settler move
(2) this is monarch, good play will make up for a second and IMO even a third settler move

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think, the "active" players should decide. How does the roster look like at the moment? Brasilbear, Elephantium and me, I guess?

Oh, I forgot. I guess you can count me in.

 

[Northern Pike]

(2) on monarch we can out research the AI by the Middle Ages, so how do we keep the AI research relevant?

It's pretty hard, at a level where you should crush the AI in research. But remember the trick of gifting any other scientific civs into each new Age you enter, and trading for their free techs.

Some people will not be surprised to see me advise this , but the best contribution non-scientific civs can make to your goal is as conquest victims, so that you have a large empire early.

 

[brasilbear]

It's pretty hard, at a level where you should crush the AI in research. But remember the trick of gifting any other scientific civs into each new Age you enter, and trading for their free techs.

Some people will not be surprised to see me advise this , but the best contribution non-scientific civs can make to your goal is as conquest victims, so that you have a large empire early.

another question along these lines:

in captured cites that won't be productive, do you use taxmen or scientists?

 

[Northern Pike]

Scientists if you're doing your own research, taxmen if you're trading for your techs, broadly speaking. When you're one turn away from discovering a tech, the most accurate play is to see how many scientists you can turn temporarily into taxmen without extending the time to two turns.

 

[brasilbear]

Scientists if you're doing your own research, taxmen if you're trading for your techs, broadly speaking. When you're one turn away from discovering a tech, the most accurate play is to see how many scientists you can turn temporarily into taxmen without extending the time to two turns.

\
I've played around with both in the past and lots of players seem to "always" use taxmen. I've always leaned toward scientists myself.

I know nothing about engineers or police. Any comments? tips?

 

[templar_x]

since you get 3 beakers from a scientist, and only 2 gold from a taxman, it is just too obvious that scientists are the obvious choice in situations, where both is useful to you and your game.
t_x

 

[Elephantium]

Police are great for situations where you're one shield away from a production breakpoint -- e.g. making 19spt in a city, you put in a policeman, and bam - you're now making 20spt, perfect for building cavalry!

Engineers are more situational. They're nice for speeding up builds in corrupt towns, but you usually don't NEED anything in those towns.

 

[Northern Pike]

Yes--if a productive city (as opposed to a corrupt science camp) has to run specialists, policemen are usually the right choice until they cease to reduce corruption.

Sometimes the player wants to build a granary, an aqueduct, and/or a cheap cultural structure in a corrupt town, and engineers are good for that.

 

[LKendter]

Depends how you want to win. Engineers are great for getting out one culture building in hopelessly corrupt cities.