bed_03 - RaR, Demigod, random civ
- Thread starter bed_head7
- Start date
romeothemonk
Order of the Engineer
I could agree to that LK, if you stop zipping the saves for me.
It is highly aggravating to try and load the game and not finding it because I forget to simply unzip it.
Following LK is good as he and I have similar ideas about city placement and MM as well, so that really reduces my inherited turns time.
To aggravate Bez and me both, you can put one of us after each other. We both love to pass off MM messes to the other. I get Zav2's mess, and he get's bez1's mess.
Anyway I am rambling.
It is highly aggravating to try and load the game and not finding it because I forget to simply unzip it.
Following LK is good as he and I have similar ideas about city placement and MM as well, so that really reduces my inherited turns time.
To aggravate Bez and me both, you can put one of us after each other. We both love to pass off MM messes to the other. I get Zav2's mess, and he get's bez1's mess.
Anyway I am rambling.
Oh right, game specs. Sorry, LK.
Deity level is what I think we decided. Random climate, random land type, and random water coverage. Barbs will be at roaming or restless. And probably a standard size map, though I think Bezhukov suggested huge at one point. Even if we were interested in huge, we have two players who will be missing most of May, so huge is out of the question.
Deity level is what I think we decided. Random climate, random land type, and random water coverage. Barbs will be at roaming or restless. And probably a standard size map, though I think Bezhukov suggested huge at one point. Even if we were interested in huge, we have two players who will be missing most of May, so huge is out of the question.
What I thought was fun was inheriting Romeo's unitless home continent in Bed3, then reading his latest contribution to Bez1. 
Romeo, it's more fun inheriting your messes than LK's buttoned-down perfection. And you often surprise me with the fruits of your audacity.
Romeo, it's more fun inheriting your messes than LK's buttoned-down perfection. And you often surprise me with the fruits of your audacity.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2001
- Messages
- 20,120
Sorry, that is one habit I will never stop. I have had more then one .sav attachment corrupted. I have one game I was in ages ago abandoned as that game was that badly corrupted to the point one square had workers from *2* different nations.Romeothemonk said:
I can live with that. Please make me number 6. Please remember my earlier roster order comments.bed_head7 said:
romeothemonk
Order of the Engineer
Hey it wasn't entirely unitless. I think I had 8 units on the continent. 
We were also the undisputed masters of the Sea, Technology, and ground. In Bez1, we are none of those. Plus, I have 40+ Demigod wins, and know what to expect at that point, yet I have never registered a Sid win, and do not know what to expect.
So, Audacity is good? I will remember that.
Rise and Rule has taught me that when you are in doubt as to what to do, Attack.
If we want a real fun challenge, we can try portugal, the near consenus worst civ in c3c.
I for one advocate early dotmapping, as city movement disturbs me on a fundamental level, as does really tight placement.
We were also the undisputed masters of the Sea, Technology, and ground. In Bez1, we are none of those. Plus, I have 40+ Demigod wins, and know what to expect at that point, yet I have never registered a Sid win, and do not know what to expect.So, Audacity is good? I will remember that.
Rise and Rule has taught me that when you are in doubt as to what to do, Attack.
If we want a real fun challenge, we can try portugal, the near consenus worst civ in c3c.
I for one advocate early dotmapping, as city movement disturbs me on a fundamental level, as does really tight placement.
We need to resolve this debate on city placement, and now, because in RandR it makes a huge difference. LK, are you unhappy with the results of Zav1? Didn't the vet units produced by Moscow allow the other cities to flourish, focusing on infra, while Moscow defended the realm without ever choking St. Pete, as you feared?
The downside to abandoning cities is losing the infrastructure therein, but if infra is not built in these cities (other than the cheap production boosters), what is lost?
What your analysis is missing is the divergence between optimal city sizes in the early and late game. In the early game, with the despo penalty, without irrigation, and with each citizen requiring three food, the free city square is HUGE. Every city without a food bonus hardly grows at all, and always grows slower the larger it is. In the early game, the optimal city size approaches one!
This gradually changes, but very gradually. Not until Sewer Systems (and even then the pollution can be annoying) does optimal size approach all available tiles worked. Given the knowledge that optimal city size increases, we can plan on this basis to begin with a tighter build that eventually becomes sparser. Knowing which cties are slated for the long-term, these cities can build infra, while the shorter term cities can build the units necessary to defend the realm or fight Romeo's audacious forays.
Complaints about crowding our best cities do not make sense, as when they become crowded, that signals the time for the temp cities to start bleeding workers on their way to disbandment, having served their purpose. Corruption effects are real, but with the various OCN boosters in RandR, greatly ameliorated.
The downside to abandoning cities is losing the infrastructure therein, but if infra is not built in these cities (other than the cheap production boosters), what is lost?
What your analysis is missing is the divergence between optimal city sizes in the early and late game. In the early game, with the despo penalty, without irrigation, and with each citizen requiring three food, the free city square is HUGE. Every city without a food bonus hardly grows at all, and always grows slower the larger it is. In the early game, the optimal city size approaches one!
This gradually changes, but very gradually. Not until Sewer Systems (and even then the pollution can be annoying) does optimal size approach all available tiles worked. Given the knowledge that optimal city size increases, we can plan on this basis to begin with a tighter build that eventually becomes sparser. Knowing which cties are slated for the long-term, these cities can build infra, while the shorter term cities can build the units necessary to defend the realm or fight Romeo's audacious forays.
Complaints about crowding our best cities do not make sense, as when they become crowded, that signals the time for the temp cities to start bleeding workers on their way to disbandment, having served their purpose. Corruption effects are real, but with the various OCN boosters in RandR, greatly ameliorated.
romeothemonk
Order of the Engineer
Yes, but I really hate having reg units. It makes 2:1 kill ratios seem really good, whereas with vets, I can almost always exceed 4:1.
While I agree with some of your points Bez, and we can even do that moving city business.
My point, and I think Lk's point, is that we want to know what/when/where are different towns going to be disbanded, and where they will be planted. That way we can all pull out our spreadsheets and TI's and crunch some numbers.
Also we can get some extra outside opinions, like DocT, on the corruption in RaR. I just want to be more informed before we found cities.
In Bez1, I founded sheeptown, as that is where Sanabas pointed it out with the infamous words of "found on spot." I want to make sure I can say stuff like found on teal dot, after some discussion. If we had discussed it, we wouldn't have had the problems we did. Ditto with LK96 and the city placement.
While I agree with some of your points Bez, and we can even do that moving city business.
My point, and I think Lk's point, is that we want to know what/when/where are different towns going to be disbanded, and where they will be planted. That way we can all pull out our spreadsheets and TI's and crunch some numbers.
Also we can get some extra outside opinions, like DocT, on the corruption in RaR. I just want to be more informed before we found cities.
In Bez1, I founded sheeptown, as that is where Sanabas pointed it out with the infamous words of "found on spot." I want to make sure I can say stuff like found on teal dot, after some discussion. If we had discussed it, we wouldn't have had the problems we did. Ditto with LK96 and the city placement.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2001
- Messages
- 20,120
The only time I will pack tightly is late game, away from the core to claim small gaps heading toward domination. If I can't claim at least 8 to 10 long-term tiles I don't want the city in the core.Bezhukov said:
Above all I refuse to squeeze cities in later that push our developed cities down in rank corruption. That is why I abandoned a late placement in LK94. It cost multiple cities at least one shield.
The results of Zav1 turned out good. However, I was constantly frustrated having to leave our lowest corruption city of Moscow small and useless. Nothing you can say will ever make be happy with Moscow being of limit size. The team being out of sync and letting it get to large was more annoying.
We won't agree on this issue. I am of the opinion that a city shouldn't be built just to be thrown away.Bezhukov said:
Well IMO the early game ends with Dynasticism. That should be gone quickly. I totally oppose ICS style city placement and this is what this would be.Bezhukov said:
I don't care if any city can break size 15. An overlap of 6 to 7 tiles is fine by me. Take a look at LK94 and you will see a total of 2 cities build sewers. Those were the capitol with Crystal Palace and the city with the International Port.Bezhukov said:
I agree 100% with this comment. I really need to get back to dot mapping again. LK96 would have went smoother, and we may have never had the wasted territory gap in LK94.Romeothemonk said:
I only have a couple of requests for civs to avoid - Iroquois (LK94), Polynesia (LK96) and Russia (Zav1). I would prefer to play a new civ.bed_head7 said:
Well, I am not sure of some of the issues addressed here, but I'll just give my impressions from this game as well as my preferences in general.
First off, I really hate regular units. In 90% of my games where I start with Alphabet, even those at Deity, I never build a single regular land unit. Just a couple of curraghs. In RaR, this is somewhat challenged by the fact that only the capital can produce veteran units for quite some time, but I would still like to stick to this as closely as possible. As such, the capital probably will be smallish. We got 10spt with forge and worker housing at size four in Kyoto, if I remember correctly. I liked that strategy, and would add shaving off a worker at size five (can't remember if we did that). If this means there are a few throwaways at the capital to use other decent tiles early on, as Tokyo (?) was in this game, so be it. That city was not intended to last, which we knew from the start, and it really took nothing from any other city in terms of tiles nor did it cause corruption.
However, methodical use of throwaways seems a bit much in most situation. If it makes sense to build a clan from somewhere because it is too big or has nothing to build at the moment, and there is a spot for a throwaway beyond our productive core, then it makes sense. I don't think they should interfere with corruption in our first ring, though. Nor should throwaway settlers be produced in cities where there are other improvement to be built, which I think we did a couple of times in this game.
Considering some differing opinions that we have, I think extensive dotmapping would be in good order early on the next game, and was color coding suggested as well? Having a color to long term spots, a color for short term spots, and then a number order to give priority that would apply to both, as there are situations where a throwaway city should actually come first, are there not?
First off, I really hate regular units. In 90% of my games where I start with Alphabet, even those at Deity, I never build a single regular land unit. Just a couple of curraghs. In RaR, this is somewhat challenged by the fact that only the capital can produce veteran units for quite some time, but I would still like to stick to this as closely as possible. As such, the capital probably will be smallish. We got 10spt with forge and worker housing at size four in Kyoto, if I remember correctly. I liked that strategy, and would add shaving off a worker at size five (can't remember if we did that). If this means there are a few throwaways at the capital to use other decent tiles early on, as Tokyo (?) was in this game, so be it. That city was not intended to last, which we knew from the start, and it really took nothing from any other city in terms of tiles nor did it cause corruption.
However, methodical use of throwaways seems a bit much in most situation. If it makes sense to build a clan from somewhere because it is too big or has nothing to build at the moment, and there is a spot for a throwaway beyond our productive core, then it makes sense. I don't think they should interfere with corruption in our first ring, though. Nor should throwaway settlers be produced in cities where there are other improvement to be built, which I think we did a couple of times in this game.
Considering some differing opinions that we have, I think extensive dotmapping would be in good order early on the next game, and was color coding suggested as well? Having a color to long term spots, a color for short term spots, and then a number order to give priority that would apply to both, as there are situations where a throwaway city should actually come first, are there not?
ThERat
Deity
dmanakho would be very happy since he could spend all the money I save for him as usual. I am known here as stingy.
as for our new member, LK, surely there will be heated discussion and agreements to disagree, just wait and see.
I am fine with anything, but a mil Civ won't be that bad
have a question playing RaR at deity and having had France with more than 40k gold. How do they do that with around 8 cities? Is that a bug? was nice netting 2000g every time I razed their cities and netting 20k for their last city, but that's a little buggy.
"Above all I refuse to squeeze cities in later that push our developed cities down in rank corruption."
Of course, this is the opposite of the course of action I suggest. Late game the extra cities are swallowed up by the big guys when they need the tiles. Look, I've had very good results with using 1-3 high-shield low-pop cities to produce units while my main cities focus on producing a crushing economic advantage. My high difficulty-level approach since Civ I has been to make sure my tiles are worked, so you'll need arguments to change my mind, not just edicts - this is not an LK game!
"I am of the opinion that a city shouldn't be built just to be thrown away."
See- this is what I'm talking about. This is just silly. The city isn't built just to be thrown away, the city is built to make sure shields within our borders are turned into units that can expand our borders. When other cities can grow to the necessary size to handle this task, yes, then the city is thrown away, but not before.
As for the preference for vet units, if we play a MIL civ, this is just not realistic, as our advantage comes at a time when barracks will not be widely available. See Bed3 for successful use of reg champs - quantity over quality. Of course, designating the capital as the main unit source is certainly a doable approach, although given the tremendous quantity of shields most capitals are capable of, an approach not unlike Zav1 might actually be optimal.
We need some city chasing wonders. If the capital is building units, it won't be that city.
Of course, this is the opposite of the course of action I suggest. Late game the extra cities are swallowed up by the big guys when they need the tiles. Look, I've had very good results with using 1-3 high-shield low-pop cities to produce units while my main cities focus on producing a crushing economic advantage. My high difficulty-level approach since Civ I has been to make sure my tiles are worked, so you'll need arguments to change my mind, not just edicts - this is not an LK game!
"I am of the opinion that a city shouldn't be built just to be thrown away."
See- this is what I'm talking about. This is just silly. The city isn't built just to be thrown away, the city is built to make sure shields within our borders are turned into units that can expand our borders. When other cities can grow to the necessary size to handle this task, yes, then the city is thrown away, but not before.
As for the preference for vet units, if we play a MIL civ, this is just not realistic, as our advantage comes at a time when barracks will not be widely available. See Bed3 for successful use of reg champs - quantity over quality. Of course, designating the capital as the main unit source is certainly a doable approach, although given the tremendous quantity of shields most capitals are capable of, an approach not unlike Zav1 might actually be optimal.
We need some city chasing wonders. If the capital is building units, it won't be that city.
"Nor should throwaway settlers be produced in cities where there are other improvement to be built, which I think we did a couple of times in this game."
This game was a toughie, as we were non-AGR, had no cows, pigs, or wheat, and were cut off from the civs we could have traded tech with to get to irrigation quickly. So we would have had very little growth at all had we not had cities on the (admittedly pathetic) 30-turn settler cycle. The only intentionally temporary city was Osaka, as we needed a city to share Kyoto's floodplains, but the only way to reach the flood plains was to found Osaka close enough to Kyoto to crowd it long term. If you'll review the game, I think you'll see that the units produced by Osaka were instrumental in the win, allowing us to whup up on a very dangerous MIL civ that started right next to us.
The other city moves were just suboptimal placement. I think there only ended up being one of those. Ironically, given the desert, jungle, and mountains in our core, in Bed3 we were forced into a pretty sparse city placement.
This game was a toughie, as we were non-AGR, had no cows, pigs, or wheat, and were cut off from the civs we could have traded tech with to get to irrigation quickly. So we would have had very little growth at all had we not had cities on the (admittedly pathetic) 30-turn settler cycle. The only intentionally temporary city was Osaka, as we needed a city to share Kyoto's floodplains, but the only way to reach the flood plains was to found Osaka close enough to Kyoto to crowd it long term. If you'll review the game, I think you'll see that the units produced by Osaka were instrumental in the win, allowing us to whup up on a very dangerous MIL civ that started right next to us.
The other city moves were just suboptimal placement. I think there only ended up being one of those. Ironically, given the desert, jungle, and mountains in our core, in Bed3 we were forced into a pretty sparse city placement.
Welcome Back, Romeo! (the city) was just poor dotmapping on my part. I don't remember building any other intentionally temporary cities in this game (the city built to steal the Inca incense ended up lasting the whole game, which was not my intent, but no harm done). There were a couple cities founded in suboptimal spots (lots of desert or near but not on coast) that we ended up moving, but these were not intentionally temporary cities.
Similar threads
