Conquest 03 Pre-Game Discussion

[denyd]

I was thinking that the new Civs in Conquests seemed to be set in pairs
Portugal-Dutch
Hittites-Sumerian
Inca-Maya
Byzantine- nobody to pair with

and based on the fact that we've played one from the first 2 sets, I'm thinking it might be one from the last 2. Since were on the the coast, I'm changing my guess from Portugal to Byzantines. The reason for removing the unit count ticks, would be to add confusion between the remaining seafaring tribes (Portugal & Byzantine). I somewhat agree with dmanakho in that Ainwood is unlikely to repeat traits in back to back months, yet I'm left with no choices from the new Civs when I do that since all the new ones are either seafaring or agricultural and the Dutch are both.

As for movement, I'm hoping for Portugal, then I'd have a chance to send the scout NW before having to make a settler movement decision.

One thing I've been kind of troubled by is the consistently crappy starting locations the last couple of GOTM & COTM's. I yearn for the bonus grassland, river & cow locations in the middle of a big patch of dirt. These coastal starts seem to emphasize the increased corruption as more cities are farther from the capital than usual.

 

[akots]

I would also hope for the small map size this time. Have not played a small map in ages. Always standard.

Regarding the civs: it is either Portugal or Byzantine and we start on an island similar to GOTM31 but not in the center of the map and with a river. And there are no horses, iron, saltpeter, coal, luxuries, food bonuses and it is Emperor difficulty. With and archipelago map and seafaring trait, seems to be OK.

 

[Denniz]

We had the agricultural trait last time as well. Maybe we get to try out one of the other new game features such as a unit with enslavement.

True, but I don't think the map utilized it as much as it did seafaring. More desert would have given us the other bonus of Agriculture.

As for Sumeria, they have the Enkidu Warrior which might make for an interesting Emperor level start with lots of barbs.

I do like the enslave UU thought as that would work pretty well on Emperor level game with lost of barbs, too

If you haven't noticed, I'm thinking another emperor game. Of cource, it could be warlord and he took away our worker to slow us down.

--------------------------------------

My other theory is that we are doing seafaring again on archipelo (sp?) map again all the other seafaring civs. Maybe Byzantines so we can try to rule the waves early to prevent communications between the other civs.

--------------------------------------

My final theory is that he put us on the coast to cross us up. We will be playing one of the orginal civs that we haven't seen in a while. Maybe the color is right and we are looking a India or Zulu.

 

[Singularity]

Most that's noteworthy about the pic has been said. Besides one thing. The cowleg might be an elephants leg? If so Ainwood might want us to toy around with The statue of Zeus, an interesting plot in the right map perhaps?

I like rivers, so i send my worker west to see more of it.

 

[predesad]

My final theory is that he put us on the coast to cross us up. We will be playing one of the orginal civs that we haven't seen in a while. Maybe the color is right and we are looking a India or Zulu.

I agree, we are not seafaring or one of the new civs. We are an old civ, but we are expansionists, the units (ticks) were removed so we could not tell. my guess is Russia, Zulu, or America. But, the real kicker is we have a no barbarians setting so the expansionist trait's value just plummetted.

 

[eldar]

I'll move the worker (if we have one) NW, to see if there's anywhere/thing better to settle near. If not, I'll settle in place.

As for the Civ... my money's on the Byzantines.

Neil.

 

[CarnDaWoods]

My money is on the Byzantines. The perfect (historical) civ to have on the bottleneck point between two evenly matched continents. We would be the meat in an AI sandwich.

Can someone provide a link to an article on select a site for building a city. In particular is it wasteful or beneficial to settle on bonus tiles? And does the form of government effect this choice?

 

[Tarkeel]

@CarnDaWoods: All bonus food is wasted if you settle on it, it will always produce 2 (3 for agricultural). Production isn't wasted, but it seems like it: Below size 7, the city square will always produce atleast 1 shield, no matter the terrain. If you settle on a square that has 1 production, the square will produce 1 at small size. Once you get to size 7+, city square produces 1 shield, in addition to what is under. So if you founded on standard grassland, it would still produce 1, but 2 on bonus grass and plains. Commerce is also added, but I can't remember if it's similiar to production in that the square has a minimum production, but I think it atleast produces some no matter what. Of course the despotism penalty exists in city square as well.

 

[SirPleb]

I will not settle without exploring even if we have no starting unit other than a settler. I just won't "settle" for a capital which will grow by just 1 food/turn for the first few turns without first looking for something better. (One thing which might change my mind is if we're Maya - agricultural for 2 food/turn at the start plus industrious to quickly irrigate and clear forests would make the start position look a lot better.)

If we have a scout I'll start with scout NW and then probably west (might change depending what the first step reveals.) If we don't have a scout then I'll start with worker west. If no scout and no worker, then start with settler west. If the first move reveals a good reason to head that way then the settler will follow. If the first move(s) reveal nothing particularly nice to the north/northwest then my settler will head southwest.

 

[gozpel]

I think it is at least important to settle in the ancient era, so we can get things moving. I've been training cow-sniffing, so hopefully I find that cow within those turns.

And since horses and iron will be approximately 20 tiles away from the starting point, I see that as another good excuse to move.

No seriously, I don't know what to do until I know what civ we're playing.

 

[ainwood]

Everyone will get their worker. Just don't feed him to that raging barbs.

 

[Tarkeel]

When was the last GOTM without raging barbs? Oh well, I hope they are as "raging" in COTM02, where I hardly noticed them. Good chance really, as barbs in C3C seems quite pathetic compared to PTW.

 

[eldar]

When was the last GOTM without raging barbs? Oh well, I hope they are as "raging" in COTM02, where I hardly noticed them. Good chance really, as barbs in C3C seems quite pathetic compared to PTW.

Barbs are, apparently, fairly well broken in C3C (in that they show some odd and quite predictable behaviour). As for COTM02 - well, I'm not really surprised most people didn't have trouble with them, given the map.

Neil.

 

[SniperDevil]

I hate those stupid barbarians!

 

[smackster]

Barbs are, apparently, fairly well broken in C3C (in that they show some odd and quite predictable behaviour). As for COTM02 - well, I'm not really surprised most people didn't have trouble with them, given the map.
Neil.

Raging barbs in conquests just means that there will be stacks of 32 horsemen that wait around for you to upgrade your troops. The challenge may be to stop the AI from destroying all the barb camps, I might end up fighting the AI just to protect my camps before we go to the MA

 

[Civgeek]

I'm with SirPleb; 1 food/turn growth is a killer for a good early game start. I think I'll go worker W and then decide what to do with the settler. If we have a scout then scout will start by going NW.

 

[MjM]

I hope were Mayans, with all those free slaves from those barbs AND the Industrious trtait the land will be cultivated extremely fast

 

[SniperDevil]

Im very confused on what i should do and i dont really think we can make any good decisions until we have more information

 

[Rustwork]

how is it possible to have an intelligent PRE-game discussion if we don't even know the civ? guess, guess, guess. move settler W, E, S, N; worker N etc... why even do this? after a few postings it all is repeated for five days! i check this thread to discuss early game strategy and so many posters conclude with questions about the civ. this month ainwood has been so graceful as to even take away our units, more guessing . ainwood, give up some of your control issues so that we may have a proper pre-game discussion! you have given us challenging and enjoyable games, but pre-game discussions are irrelevant with such limited information.

 

[ainwood]

Point well made, and point taken.

I was trying to encourage some trait-independent discussions, and have been playing-around for the last few games trying to get the balance right - along the lines of 'if we are agricultural, then staying next to the river is important, otherwise moving to better terrain is a must'. When I used to read the spoilers as a player, it was this that I got the value out of - the why rather than the what. If you know the traits, then the discussions become much more focused, so you have the potential to lose a bit of the "why" (granted that its an arguable point though).

The most value is in getting the starting map out early, and working the discussions from there, and there's always the catering for my somewhat sadistic nature, so I figure that giving the civ with three - four days to go is about right. Last couple of games I've been too late.

The civ we are playing this month is the byzantines, so you get to play with dromons. Having dromons on a pangea map would be a bit too mean, so you get to play on an archipelago.