Classic GOTM 34: Final Spoiler
- Thread starter ainwood
- Start date
EMan said:Only deliver milk to the HOF...........BUT, since Aeson's not home right now, had to find another job!
Wish you hadn't asked, eh?
Of course I am glad I asked. Your naming strategy is brilliant, and very funny
. I am seriously tempted to try a much simpler version. It is of course great to have top players like yourself back in gotm, instead of holed out in HOF farmland. But I suppose the siren song of the lowing herds will drive you back there soon.
bradleyfeanor
King
Good game Shigella. The gifting of cities is a good idea: cash gifts are useless before the AI changes governments, so that is a good alternative. There were quite a few differences in our games, but it is pretty easy to spot the biggest one: I got almost three leaders for every one that you received! It looks like our luck ran to opposite extremes.
An update on the AI using cash gifts to rush units:
I found three saves that I could test and the results are below. Each line represents the total number of units I killed in two AI cities. In the first two tests, one city was attacked the turn after my DoW, the other city the turn after that. In the Arab test, both my attacks came one turn later because I had to land troops.
Civ Name/Attack without cash gift/attack after gift of 300g
Egypt: 3 spear, 1 sword/4 spear, 1 sword, 1 arch
Aztecs: 4 spear, 1 warrior/4 spear, 1 warrior, 2 archer
Arabs: 5 spear, 1 horse/6 spear, 2 horse
So, each gift resulted in an additional two units for me to kill. I suspect more units may have been rushed in other cities, but I couldn't determine that accurately. Now I wish I had done a lot more of this in my game!
In all three tests, the AIs spent the gold quickly, as their treasury went from 300g to 5-27g after their first turn (I used Dianthus' utility to check). I also note that there were no new technologies to purchase from other AIs in any of these tests, so I do not know if they would spend the money on a tech instead of units if a tech were available.
I also investigated the AI cities in each of the tests before my attack. They were all building various improvements or units, but, as luck would have it, they had from 0-12 shields in the box. Therefore, I am not sure if they would abandon an improvement if they had more invested in it.
There are still quite a few questions to answer: will the AI spend its money on a tech if one is available, will he abandon an improvement if many shields are in the box, etc. Also, this was a very tiny test sample, and it needs to be larger to be more reliable. I will try to do more analysis of this in the future, but, if you have noticed how long it takes me to play a game, you will know that I am pretty slow! If one of you speed-demons/editor experts wish to run better tests, then please do so!
That is really nice to hear, especially when I think on how much I have learned from your posts: they have played a huge role in improving my game.SirPleb said:
An update on the AI using cash gifts to rush units:
I found three saves that I could test and the results are below. Each line represents the total number of units I killed in two AI cities. In the first two tests, one city was attacked the turn after my DoW, the other city the turn after that. In the Arab test, both my attacks came one turn later because I had to land troops.
Civ Name/Attack without cash gift/attack after gift of 300g
Egypt: 3 spear, 1 sword/4 spear, 1 sword, 1 arch
Aztecs: 4 spear, 1 warrior/4 spear, 1 warrior, 2 archer
Arabs: 5 spear, 1 horse/6 spear, 2 horse
So, each gift resulted in an additional two units for me to kill. I suspect more units may have been rushed in other cities, but I couldn't determine that accurately. Now I wish I had done a lot more of this in my game!
In all three tests, the AIs spent the gold quickly, as their treasury went from 300g to 5-27g after their first turn (I used Dianthus' utility to check). I also note that there were no new technologies to purchase from other AIs in any of these tests, so I do not know if they would spend the money on a tech instead of units if a tech were available.
I also investigated the AI cities in each of the tests before my attack. They were all building various improvements or units, but, as luck would have it, they had from 0-12 shields in the box. Therefore, I am not sure if they would abandon an improvement if they had more invested in it.
There are still quite a few questions to answer: will the AI spend its money on a tech if one is available, will he abandon an improvement if many shields are in the box, etc. Also, this was a very tiny test sample, and it needs to be larger to be more reliable. I will try to do more analysis of this in the future, but, if you have noticed how long it takes me to play a game, you will know that I am pretty slow! If one of you speed-demons/editor experts wish to run better tests, then please do so!
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
I second that! I guess we're likely to see even more extreme leader rushing in future gamesbradleyfeanor said:
That's great information, thank you! Looks like there's still a fair bit to research if someone is inclined to. But the most important part is clear - the AI will rush units when it has the money and is under pressure.bradleyfeanor said:
SirPleb said:I second that! I guess we're likely to see even more extreme leader rushing in future games
Well, even though my leader farming didn't pan out too well in the last game, I'm not above another attempt down the road.
Here are a few more nuggets of info I gleaned from my game for those inclined to attempt extreme leader fishing.
As I described in my spoiler, I irrigated and railroaded all of the Iroquois and Aztec lands before re-gifting their cities the last time. The idea was to put them in a major food surplus (more citizens) and rob them of shields before gifting them up to Nationalism. Essentially, I wanted to face a bunch of conscript rifles.
I declared war on both the Iroquois and Aztecs within 2 turns of re-gifting their cities the final time. Since I didnt set up shipping lanes to the Aztecs, I had to conquer through Iroquois territory before putting the Aztecs under pressure. Here is a brief summary of the AI behavior.
1. The AI definitely will use gold to rush units, but the type of units depends upon how much pressure they are under.
I saw regular and veteran rifles in several Iroquois cities very early on. They either were rushing and upgrading spears (as I had pillaged all of their resources), or they were rushing rifles directly. Presumably, gifting gold to the AI before DOW (as illustrated by bradleyfeanor) would enhance their ability to rush even more units.
One lesson I learned here is to sell off the barracks from cities that I intend to re-gift to the AI. Vet rifles in a city have the potential to inflict serious harm even on elite tanks.
When I pushed through to the Aztec cities about 6-8 turns later, I captured a lot of slaves again. They were busy rushing settlers and some workers, even though I declared war on them the same turn that I declared on the Iroquois. There was plenty of open space on the map at this point, so it really isnt that surprising. It also isnt really all that counter-productive to the strategy, as you can just re-join their slaves back into their cities and start the cycle over again.
2. The AI only seems likely to draft defenders when their cities are under pressure. The AI drafted conscripts when I left attacking units outside their cities for one turn before attacking. I didnt see very many conscripts in cities that I attacked directly from a distance.
This also is fairly easy to address. All you have to do is leave attacking units outside their cities for a turn or two to allow the AI to draft citizens. Hypothetically, you could farm each size-12 city for 6 victims in this manner. In my game, the Iroquois and Aztecs were both in Republic at this stage of the game and could only draft one defender per turn. I could have increased my chances even more had I gifted them into Democracy earlier in the game. Then they could have drafted 2 victims (I mean defenders
) per turn.One could actually repeat the process of conquering and re-gifting cities to the AI for many cycles. The ultimate limiting factors might be AI war weariness and eventually running out of native slaves to join into their cities.
Perhaps this is starting to sound a bit exploitive?
Hergrom
Bushido Master
PTW 1.21f Open
Well, I see that my 20k attempt has been vastly over-shadowed by some other great 20k games. At least I learned alot from this exercise.
20k City
My Industrial Age began in 1340AD. Additions to Bapedi (20k city) as follows:
1340AD - Newton's - Leader
1380AD - Smith's - Leader
1450AD - Factory
1475AD - Military Academy
1505AD - Universal Suffrage - Leader
1520AD - Bank
1535AD - Courthouse
1550AD - Theory of Evolution - Leader
1565AD - Hoover's Dam - Leader
1625AD - Pentagon
1660AD - Intelligence Agency
1700AD - Stock Exchange
1756AD - Wall Street
1792AD - United Nations
1794AD - Manhattan Project - Leader
1804AD - SETI Program - Leader
1820AD - Internet - Leader
Great Leaders
1375AD - Mpande3 - rush Smith's
1475AD - Zwelinthi3 - rush Universal Suffrage
1520AD - Dingane3 - rush Theory of Evolution
1550AD - Cetswayo3 - rush Hoover's Dam
1605AD - Mpande4 - army
1605AD - Zwelinthi4 - army
1625AD - Dingane4 - rush Magellan's (on other continent)
1774AD - Cetswayo4 - rush Manhattan Project
1798AD - Mpande5 - rush SETI Program
1806AD - Zwelinthi5 - rush The Internet
Total of 18 Great Leaders for the game.
Overall
My notes are not exactly clear on this, but I estimate that I hit the domination limit somewhere around 1650AD. I chose not to build any hospitals because I did not want to deal with pollution. My finish date was 1830AD, with a pitiful 2844 Firaxis score, and a disappointing Jason score in the 6000 range. I do see some mistakes in my game, particularly after reading other spoilers here. But, this is a victory condition which may depend upon luck moreso than others. A couple of early leaders, and an early settler out of a hut can change things drastically.
What I did wrong:
- I shied away from a coastal city thinking it was a poor choice. Poor choice!
- Overall, my research selections were sound. But, the tech pace was too slow in the game. I should have tried to speed it up instead of slowing it down.
- Did not reach domination limit fast enough. I spent too much time farming instead of conquering.
- Probably should have built hospitals, as this type of game is, apprently, semi-milking.
What I did right:
- Can't argue with 18 leaders! But, was it at the expense of domination points?
- Played GOTM! That's always a good choice!
And one last note: Not to take away from anybody's games, but does anyone else find some of the domination scores to be a bit too high in the Jason department? Is a domination after 1300AD on Regent worth 10,000 jason points? Just wondering if there may be an error in the Jaoson scoring for this game.
Hergrom
Well, I see that my 20k attempt has been vastly over-shadowed by some other great 20k games. At least I learned alot from this exercise.
20k City
My Industrial Age began in 1340AD. Additions to Bapedi (20k city) as follows:
1340AD - Newton's - Leader
1380AD - Smith's - Leader
1450AD - Factory
1475AD - Military Academy
1505AD - Universal Suffrage - Leader
1520AD - Bank
1535AD - Courthouse
1550AD - Theory of Evolution - Leader
1565AD - Hoover's Dam - Leader
1625AD - Pentagon
1660AD - Intelligence Agency
1700AD - Stock Exchange
1756AD - Wall Street
1792AD - United Nations
1794AD - Manhattan Project - Leader
1804AD - SETI Program - Leader
1820AD - Internet - Leader
Great Leaders
1375AD - Mpande3 - rush Smith's
1475AD - Zwelinthi3 - rush Universal Suffrage
1520AD - Dingane3 - rush Theory of Evolution
1550AD - Cetswayo3 - rush Hoover's Dam
1605AD - Mpande4 - army
1605AD - Zwelinthi4 - army
1625AD - Dingane4 - rush Magellan's (on other continent)
1774AD - Cetswayo4 - rush Manhattan Project
1798AD - Mpande5 - rush SETI Program
1806AD - Zwelinthi5 - rush The Internet
Total of 18 Great Leaders for the game.
Overall
My notes are not exactly clear on this, but I estimate that I hit the domination limit somewhere around 1650AD. I chose not to build any hospitals because I did not want to deal with pollution. My finish date was 1830AD, with a pitiful 2844 Firaxis score, and a disappointing Jason score in the 6000 range. I do see some mistakes in my game, particularly after reading other spoilers here. But, this is a victory condition which may depend upon luck moreso than others. A couple of early leaders, and an early settler out of a hut can change things drastically.
What I did wrong:
- I shied away from a coastal city thinking it was a poor choice. Poor choice!
- Overall, my research selections were sound. But, the tech pace was too slow in the game. I should have tried to speed it up instead of slowing it down.
- Did not reach domination limit fast enough. I spent too much time farming instead of conquering.
- Probably should have built hospitals, as this type of game is, apprently, semi-milking.
What I did right:
- Can't argue with 18 leaders! But, was it at the expense of domination points?
- Played GOTM! That's always a good choice!
And one last note: Not to take away from anybody's games, but does anyone else find some of the domination scores to be a bit too high in the Jason department? Is a domination after 1300AD on Regent worth 10,000 jason points? Just wondering if there may be an error in the Jaoson scoring for this game.
Hergrom
Hergrom: I believe Jason scoring 'more or less' assigns a value of 10,000 to any game that matches the projected score growth due to milking. So a Domination victory in 500 AD or 1300 AD would both score 10,000ish if the later game followed the projected population and score growth.
My understanding is you can score greater than 10,000 by 1.) doing better than the projected best dates, or 2.) grow your population of Happy and Content people faster than the assumed growth rate for this type of map. (I'm super simplifying this to what I understand.)
Since there's been a lot of discussion regarding methods to do 20K victories in this game, I'd like to know if the Jason 'best date' for 20K victory in COTM accounts for the loss of any GL to rush wonders. Losing this capability puts the potential best date for 20K Victory in COTM considerably later than in GOTM.
My understanding is you can score greater than 10,000 by 1.) doing better than the projected best dates, or 2.) grow your population of Happy and Content people faster than the assumed growth rate for this type of map. (I'm super simplifying this to what I understand.)
Since there's been a lot of discussion regarding methods to do 20K victories in this game, I'd like to know if the Jason 'best date' for 20K victory in COTM accounts for the loss of any GL to rush wonders. Losing this capability puts the potential best date for 20K Victory in COTM considerably later than in GOTM.
