Challenge #4 - The Mini-Me Challenge

[Raiser]

Welcome to The Mini-Me Challenge!

“Size is doesn’t matter.” – Anonymous.


What's this?
The latest in a series of informal strategy challenges which include:
Let's Get Cultural and Lust For ShrineGold.

What's the challenge?
To help Little-Guy-Genghis destroy as many cities as possible by 1600AD.

What's the catch?
You can't have more than three cities. Small is beautiful.
(i.e. You may build a total of two settlers, not including the original settler. Or you can capture 2 cities. Or any combination as long as your total cities never exceed a total of 3.)
edited at Sep 15, 2006 at 07:44 PM GMT.

How do I play?
It's easy! Same as usual:
- Download the 4000BC save at the bottom of this post.
- Play it until 1600AD. Razing many cities as you go.
- Post your 1600AD save here with a note stating the number of cities razed.

Victory goes to the player with the highest number of cities razed (that's destroyed, not raised ) by 1600AD,
as shown at the top of the Info Screen > Statistics page.

Can I look at other people’s saves and check other people’s tactics?
Sure. Or you can play it blind. If you did play blind let us know when you post your final save. Either way if you choose to post a guide to your build or tech route then stick it in a SPOILER. Thanks.

How long have I got?
This weekend and next weekend. And all the days in between. Last chance to post a winner is Sunday 24th September 2006. But the first person to reach 1600AD and post gets bonus Kudos.

Settings
Leader: Genghis Khan
Difficulty: Warlord
Build: Civ IV vanilla
World Size: Large
World type: Pangaea
Climate: Rocky
No. of Rivals: 10AI's
Options: No Barbarians


Let the Khan-age begin!






For the Fine Print see inside spoiler. You can skip this if you want. You know the deal, right?

Spoiler :

What do I win?: Nothing, except the begrudging respect of others. Plus the option to set the next challenge if you want. See this thread for rough guide lines.

Tie-Breaker: In the case of a 'Cities Razed' tie the winner will be the person with the largest number of enemy units killed. Info Scn>Stats page>4th column total.

What if I destroy all 10ai's before 1600AD?: With 3 cities, that's impressive. Even on Warlord diff. I guess, fastest annihilation get's a bonus prize, but total cities destroyed is what counts. You should have let them breed more.

Finish time: Midnight, your local time, on 24th September 2006. "Grrr, if he lives on the international date line he'll have an advantage!" Get over it, it's an informal game.

How many different attempts can I submit?: That depends if you have a life. The upper limit is infinite. But obviously start from the begining on each attempt.

About the Settings:
Game speed = normal,
Era = ancient,
Pangaea = a massive single continent,
Rocky = more hills and stuff,
Size = Large, but with a total of 11 nations, not the standard 9,
Sea level = low. Just means the 'wrap' distance across the sea is going to be closer.
Victory settings: Time and Conquest only. But cities razed is what counts.

Why 'No Barbarians'?: It takes a random factor out of the equation. If you want to score a 'city razed' your going to have to pick a fight with one of the big boys.

Why not use the Warlords expansion?: To be more inclusive.

Why Warlord difficulty?: See above. Plus the 3 cities rule and Rocky terrain might make it more like Noble.

Do I have to settle my first city in the start location?: No. You can do what ever you want, buddy.

Can my 3 cities be settled or captured?: Either or a mix of both.

Can I take a 4th city and abandon one of my original 3?: No. Sorry. Choose your 3 wisely.

Can I go way over 3 cities and gift the excess cities away at 1590AD?: No! Get with the spirit of the game, pal! I'll be checking the 'number of settlers built' and the Log of the winner.

Can I weaken a nation and gift him a city and instantly sack it before he gets his defences up, then rinse/repeat?: No.


Clarification: Edited: Sep 17, 2006 at 01:40 PM GMT.

- No gifting your settlers or cities to the AI's.

- Three cities maximum. Whether the cities are obtained by the original settler, or a built settler, or a settler popped from a goody hut, or a city capture it's all the same. Just stick to the limit of constructing only 3 cities between 4000BC and 1600AD.


If you have any reasonable questions post them below or PM me.



---

For what it's worth, here's a screenie of the start location. Trust me, it's better than it looks.

Good luck. And may the angriest little guy win!





---

 

[scherbchen]

yay! i was looking forward to the next one, been way too productive and social since the last one ended anyways so i´m going to give this a go tonight... first time ever on warlords difficulty so that´s gonna be odd.

game on!

PS: love the jpg

 

[carl corey]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaar!

Nice one. Hope I don't get lost in all the variant rules, although I doubt it will happen. I've pretty much "standardized" my games, but I think I'll really enjoy this. And hey, I can always play it a second time. Well thought about No Barbarians. It's too easy to abuse them in this kind of challenge.

P.S. Nice presentation too.

 

[PeteJ]

I'm game... bring it on

 

[Jet]

Can I weaken a nation and gift him a city and instantly sack it before he gets his defences up, then rinse/repeat?: No!

I don't think this is precisely correct. I think you may do this, as long as you never own more than 3 cities at once. Right, Raiser?

 

[scherbchen]

well at least it´s kudos for me. 55 razed by 1600 AD

this is going to be beaten by A LOT as this was my first try and i didn´t have much of a gameplan going in and i made at least one colossal blunder (yes, cavalry actually requires gunpowder to be researched).

Spoiler :

as far as i can tell the key is to get your 3 cities up soon (plenty of decent sites) and basically beeline for maceman (maybe make a sidestep to get siege engines which i did way too late).

on this level basically nothing can stop your 4/5 macemen and you´ll get some decent troops after some turns of warring.

probably one should then proceed to attack as many neighbours as one can handle and insert some peacefull times so that they´ll be able to resettle the razed lands (something i mostly neglected). this will allow you to assemble additional armies which should start doing the exact same thing in a farflung corner of trhe continent and refill any losses or shortcomings of your initial armies.

imho the low difficulty settings make this challenge a bit to easy vs the AIs and i guess it will come down to managing the AI into resettling, was still fun the first time aroung though

PS: whoops edit, save file didn´t show up

 

[Lynxx]

I think we should ad one more rule: You are not allowed to build more than three settlers.

If you all for some reason disagree with me then be prepared for me building up 10 settlers and gifing them away to the closest neighbour only to declare war shortly after and razing them all... Ofcourse I wouldnt do that , just giving you the reason to why three settlers should be the maximum.

But I lost one of my settlers to an angry neighbour you might say. Go capture one of his cities then is the answer...


The challange sounds fun. Might give my old computer a hard time as it is a large map but ill give it a try.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

I'll be checking the 'number of settlers built' and the Log of the winner.

Can I build a settler and gift it to the AI? That seems like it might be the best path to victory. Once you've built a few nice offensive units and gotten your economy up to the point where each city can build a settler in 10 turns, you should be able to average about one razing per 3.3 turns.

I'm thinking that after the first couple wars, the biggest obstacle is going to be the production penalties the AI suffers on Warlord difficulty. They just aren't going to be able to build cities as fast as you can raze them. Gifting settlers would be a good way to get around that.

 

[Raiser]

I think we should ad one more rule: You are not allowed to build more than three settlers.

Absolutely.

My communication skills aren't as good as I thought they were. I imagined this was implicit.

Clarification:
YOU MAY HAVE THE ORIGINAL SETTLER AND BUILD A MAXIMUM OF TWO MORE. BRINGING THE TOTAL TO THREE.

Apologises for the confusion. The intention is to produce a compact and efficient war machine combined with skilful target acquisition and then bully the locals. Not to find a loop hole to make the task easier.

Guy try guys.



---

 

[Raiser]

Well at least it´s kudos for me. 55 razed by 1600 AD

Kudos! Kudos!


Well done. 55 cities is a great start. I shall call you Mr Speedy.


---

 

[Raiser]

I'm thinking that after the first couple wars, the biggest obstacle is going to be the production penalties the AI suffers on Warlord difficulty. They just aren't going to be able to build cities as fast as you can raze them.

scherbchen's first attempt left 3 nations with cities, but your right you don't want to run out.

Possible suggestions if you hit this problem in the spoiler:

Spoiler :

Clearing space then pausing the assault and delaying your later attack runs might push the total.

Plus carefully gifting techs to your chosen late game neighbours might increase the targets yet further.

Rather than sweeping from one side of the map to the other, try alternating your victims geographically. Attack, leave to last, attack, leave to 2nd to last, attack, etc.

Also starting to destroying cities as early as possible might given them time to recover.

You can try anything, except giving them settlers or cities.

Good luck, Dr Jiggle.

---

 

[scherbchen]

I shall call you Mr Speedy.


---

Mr Euro would suffice, after all my evening begins before the US players even settle in for their afternoons. not really a *skill* on my part.

still taking those kudos though

 

[PeteJ]

Absolutely.

My communication skills aren't as good as I thought they were. I imagined this was implicit.

Clarification:
YOU MAY HAVE THE ORIGINAL SETTLER AND BUILD A MAXIMUM OF TWO MORE. BRINGING THE TOTAL TO THREE.

Apologises for the confusion. The intention is to produce a compact and efficient war machine combined with skilful target acquisition and then bully the locals. Not to find a loop hole to make the task easier.

Guy try guys.



---

What if you pop settlers from goody huts? Can you still build 2 more? BTW, my goody huts gave me 2 settlers, 3 workers, and a bunch of gold.... warlord difficulty is sweet.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

What if you pop settlers from goody huts? Can you still build 2 more? BTW, my goody huts gave me 2 settlers, 3 workers, and a bunch of gold.... warlord difficulty is sweet.

Wow! I think the rule on that should be that it's your choice whether to keep or delete settlers popped from huts, but if you do keep one, that counts toward your total. Some other options would be ...

A) If you pop a settler before you've built 2, then you must keep him. If you pop one after you've built 2, then you must delete him. What I don't like about this is that you can conceivably get cheated by the random number generator. If you pop a settler from a hut that's halfway across the world, you have to wait for him to walk back home and hope he doesn't get eaten on the way. If you pop a settler 1 turn before you were about to build one, then you wasted all those hammers, and you aren't going to get gold from them like you would from a wonder.

B) Always delete settlers that pop from huts. What I don't like about this is it means you never ever want to pop a settler in this game. If you have the choice of keeping or deleting him, then you at least have some options (at least until you've built that second settler). Most huts will probably be gone before the second settler is built anyway.

C) You can always build 2 settlers, no matter what. If you pop a settler from a hut, that means you can gift it to an AI. Or maybe it means you can save yourself 100 hammers and only build one (or none if you pop 2). Actually, I think I like this better than my original suggestion. This means you never get cheated by popping a settler. It also makes the verification easy, since all you need to check for is no more than 2 settlers built.

 

[scherbchen]

basically i don´t see a problem about the huts.

last challenge (the cultural one) i restarted that one so often that i basically knew which hut was going to give what (i only tangled 4 huts there though, one would give agri and that was it).

there are a lot of huts the AI won´t pop (i guess it´s because of the level). but as raiser said, it´s supposed to be a FUN challenge. not one for people fresh out of law-school :>

 

[DaviddesJ]

last challenge (the cultural one) i restarted that one so often that i basically knew which hut was going to give what

Isn't that cheating?

 

[Betafor]

No, replays are permitted, and all the knowlege that entails.

What scherbchen is finding is NOT that certain huts have to give X bonus.
What he is finding is that certain huts probably give one thign over another-This is based on the World seed, since it does not change through reload except if you put "randomize world seed on reload" as an option in cutom game (maybe we should do this for future challenges.

 

[mice]

Isn't that cheating?

No, in these challenges the rules are a bit different. Knowledge of the map is granted and your strategy choices from that point make a win or loss.

 

[scherbchen]

Isn't that cheating?

you got a point there, no doubt.

i wouldn´t call it cheating though, i guess.

you restart the challenge... say... about 50 times. you know when you send your first unit N-N-E you will get agriculture 8 out of 10 (note: if i didn´t get agri i did keep on playing). if you send it W you will pop low gold and if you continue N-W you will pop barbs.

after trying the start a lot of times you just know where these events are bound to occur. is that cheating? imho no, not unless you consider knowing the good places to settle a city after you gave a map a go to be cheating (oh so THERE is where the horse/bronze/iron/etc is going to pop).

one of the things i find thoroughly entertaining about these challenges or scenarios is that you have a *set* world. this allows you to revisit fixed parameters again and again in order so see what you can do about your gameplay. how to tweak it.

this imho includes the goody huts. i can not "unknow" the fact that goody hut 3 is going to pop "tech x" on turn y, i can not unknow the fact that position b is a good spot for my second city (and if you watch my save-games, you´d prolly throw your hands up in the air and ask yourselves why anybody would want to settle THERE 50 times in a row!!!1).

does that make sense? i´m tired.

 

[PeteJ]

Wow! I think the rule on that should be that it's your choice whether to keep or delete settlers popped from huts, but if you do keep one, that counts toward your total. Some other options would be ...

A) If you pop a settler before you've built 2, then you must keep him. If you pop one after you've built 2, then you must delete him. What I don't like about this is that you can conceivably get cheated by the random number generator. If you pop a settler from a hut that's halfway across the world, you have to wait for him to walk back home and hope he doesn't get eaten on the way. If you pop a settler 1 turn before you were about to build one, then you wasted all those hammers, and you aren't going to get gold from them like you would from a wonder.

B) Always delete settlers that pop from huts. What I don't like about this is it means you never ever want to pop a settler in this game. If you have the choice of keeping or deleting him, then you at least have some options (at least until you've built that second settler). Most huts will probably be gone before the second settler is built anyway.

C) You can always build 2 settlers, no matter what. If you pop a settler from a hut, that means you can gift it to an AI. Or maybe it means you can save yourself 100 hammers and only build one (or none if you pop 2). Actually, I think I like this better than my original suggestion. This means you never get cheated by popping a settler. It also makes the verification easy, since all you need to check for is no more than 2 settlers built.

Well I hope we don't decide on option B. That would ruin my game.
Btw, I popped both of those settlers pre-3000BC. I had 2 more cities by about 2700BC. I've been pretty dominant ever since.... Its 175 BC and I am 1 tech away from knights. I've built the Oracle and the Great Library and i've already eliminated 3 civs. Of course eliminating civs isn't all that hard when each of them only have 3 or 4 cities.