Conquest 06: First Spoiler

[bluebox]

If I manage to get the ToA in, I think I can risk a republic war with Spain using knights hopefully (since there is no iron except for the one Spain already has).

noxie, knights do need iron, too! so you won't be able to use them unless you already conquered Spain.
don't wait for TOA to get rid of the Spanish. put the production into troops. seems like you have to do it with Longbows! That's going to be funny . Keep your Longbows in stacks and have some Horsemen at hand to finish off units that survived your attacks. Move Longbows and Horsemen together simultaniously, so the Longbows can defend themselves and the Horsies at counterattacks.
War weariness comes slowly. you will eventually notice that some citizens become sad. then you can adjust the lux slider a notch if some cities are bound to fall into disorder. better pay lux and keep your citizens working building units than having too many lazy entertainers.

 

[Capt Buttkick]

I often find that in C3C, a min run on currency works well together with my first war after switching to Republic (I hardly ever make war in despotism). That leaves me with plenty of room for military expenses, lux spending and saving a few $s for upgrades.

 

[n0xie]

@bluebox

noxie, knights do need iron, too!

DOH! You're absolutely right

War weariness comes slowly.

That is one of the reasons I prefer Monarchy in the AA. You usually run into a minor war in order to get some resource and/or luxery or to establish more territory. Republic can me very hard to play if the war takes too long.

don't wait for TOA to get rid of the Spanish. put the production into troops

I followed your advice but that's for the next spoiler

Thanks for all the pointers. I really try to improve my game and the help is much appreciated.

 

[Florian K]

@wackenopenair:
I didn't get a settler either, but I still got 20 population I think. IMHO Ainwood's got it perfect like it is now. The removed GH close to the start provide some balance to the game (and the more remote ones benefit the players who take chances and go for max exploration), but the game would be a boring mathematics test if all chance-regulated parts were removed.

I despise maths, but I lke civ3. SO, please Ainwood, keep it like this!!!!

This is a competition, but I see it more like a chance to compare a game in which I have tried to play my best, with others who have done the same. I play for score (and I'm pretty decent at that, if I say so myself), but I don't mind being beaten by another player who's been a bit luckier. That's just the way a RNG based game is.
For me it's about performing my best and seeing where that gets me...
I didn't move the settler in COTM2 and I ended up 50th or so, whereas in the other COTMs so far I haven't finished below 4th (hope this doesn't sound to arrogant ), but I still had a great time playing COTM2. To me it was more fun than COTM5, where I ended up with a silver medal. Why? Because COTM2 taught me a lot and was far more difficult and it made me feel I had recovered well from a bad start (and I also got a few nasty surprises along the way), where COTM5 was just an easy breeze from a good start to a fast domination. There was no challenge, no surprises -> less fun...

Just my 2 cents...

I agree with Darkness. I did not get a settler either (I think I got a consript warrior, some maps and 25 gold). However my luck in the rest of the game was excellent. I got 4 armies (I'm usually lucky to get more than one), my second curragh managed to explore the whole world without sinking (my first one sunk after spending 3 turns in the sea/ocean), and most battles went my way (it almost felt like the AI was making up for not giving me that settler from a hut). My final score was fairly good as a result (although I'm sure it would have been much better with a second settler early in the game).

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a luck factor in any game and I don't feel this should be removed. Part of the fun is overcoming adversity even if it means you don't win a medal in this game.

 

[bradleyfeanor]

Lets go give runners in the Olympic games a backpack of random weight varying between 0 and 25 kilograms. Wouldn't that be fun ?

This sounds awfully familiar. Now where might I have heard this before? Oh yes! Right then.

I haven’t had the time to do my write-up yet, but I was one of the fortunate few in this game. I didn’t get the settler by the gems, but I did get a town on the far coast with ivory in its borders. The impact during the QSC period was marginal: 2 cities and 5 pop IIRC. After that, however, the free town began to have a significant impact on my game. I was able to easily get the SoZ, which in turn enabled me to go straight after the Spanish capitol. Of course, once I built a couple of harbors I also got the additional happy faces that the luxury provided. These things certainly helped my score. However, later in the game the Pyramids and the ToA were built by the worst AI (for me) that could possibly have built them. In the end, I expect this to impact my score far, far more than the early town did. I also had poor luck with my curragh's and have not seen a leader in over 40 elite wins. I don’t think I can complain about luck though: did I mention that I entered the MAs by popping Construction from a hut?

There are many “lucky” events in civ that we can only influence to a small degree: early settlers from huts, early leaders (especially in GOTM), which AIs build the Pyramids or the ToA (sometimes the Lighthouse). Even the battle odds of a player’s first small stack of military can have a huge impact on a game. If we could take the “luck” out of all these things—which we can’t—it would certainly lead to some very accurate game comparisons, but it would also lead to painfully boring, predictable games. Fortunately, there are always a few players that have a similar amount of “luck” to me, and I compare my game results to theirs.

On the other hand, I do enjoy those games where the huts are not within our reach or very far away. In fact, I favor them, so I agree with your preference for “hutless” games. But I do not want every single game to be that way, because having a few games with huts adds some variety. I suppose I will just take my lumps when I get unlucky, and do my little [dance] when fortune shines my way. I will combat the “luck” factor by using the law of averages: play as many games as possible. Some of the games are bound to end up being “lucky” ones.

 

[Florian K]

However, later in the game the Pyramids and the ToA were built by the worst AI (for me) that could possibly have built them. In the end, I expect this to impact my score far, far more than the early town did.

I never managed to capture these wonders either as they were built by the worst AI (for me) as well. I think this was by design more than luck as I believe Ainwood intentionally set them up in the location that they were.

Looks like fortune certainly smiled on you in this one (not only a settler but free construction as well ).

 

[Jason Fliegel]

Everyone's complaining about the luck involved in getting a settler from a Goody Hut, but nobody's complaining about the fact that one of my towns culture-flipped to Spain despite the fact that I had 20% more culture than them and the city was only marginally closer to their capital than mine. You want to complain about bad luck? That's bad luck!

 

[dmanakho]

Oh! quit whining you all!!!

That is what happened when Ainwood finally promised us a balanced game, or so he thought.
All we do is keep complaining...

BTW. My town also flipped to Spain, but i was happy it did, it helped me to start a succesful war earlier than i thought i was ready for.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

Well you know and this nothing to do directly with the issue, some happenings around here have learned me not to hold your breath when you have an oppinion. Not to hold your breath for any reason.

In this case that would be because people would say you are whining, ungrateful towards the organisers or any such reasons i am sure are the bases why people post the "oppinions" they do post.

Now i had already quit this discussion because it is merely a game and not am important issue to debate. However when i see you say "stop whining", i again realise how also here, so many people change the oppinions they give or simply don't give their oppinions at all because of what others will think of it.

So no, this has now nothing to do with the subject. I do not want this to be disregarded because you think i am still whining about this silly little subject.
I wan't to ask you never to hold your oppinions, to lie about them in the slightest way or state them any different than you truly mean them because it will cause others to think about you in a way you don't prefer.

I am a bit agrivated by recent happenings here that cause me to think about things going wrong in the world, politics and all people. I don't think it is world news and i know the situation in our country is not unique, and certainly nothing compared to what happened 9-11 and what happens in Israel every day, but it is enough to make me think about things. (way more than i would like to think about them because it darkens my views of the world)

I could write many more pages or even books about it, but that would quickly become a political discussion, which i am not gonna start on this game forum. Also would i need so many pages to make clear my political oppinions, i am sure noone would read them and it thus would be useless to type them.

Therefore i keep it at this and ask you to always state your true and unaltered oppinions. (without violence for those that think violence is needed to make clear their oppinions)

 

[Roland Ehnström]

Move Longbows and Horsemen together simultaniously, so the Longbows can defend themselves and the Horsies at counterattacks.

I would throw a Spearman or two into the mix. Those Longbowmen are no good at defending themselves...

-- Roland

 

[Roland Ehnström]

WackenOpenAir, I agree. If people always keep their opinions to themselves, these opinions will never be discussed, so they can never be proven wrong (or right).

-- Roland

 

[WackenOpenAir]

I have recieved some PM's from confused people, so for some extra explanation i will copy paste the reply i gave them:
========================================================
It was absolutely not against someone personal.

First about what happened:
A film maker who made a critical film about how muslim women are threated was killed by a radical muslim.

In reaction to that, some mosques are set to fire or attempted to be set to fire. And a bomb is exploded at a muslim elementary school. (no dead or wounded though)

Extremist Imams have been preaching Jihad in mosques for a long time. Also some muslim kids are going to seperate muslim schools. Many people have had their oppinions about issues like these. Only few of them dared to voise these oppinions. Most don't do so in fear of being called a racist. (While facing the fact there is a problem with a small part of the muslim community, not all of them, is hardly racism IMO)
This film maker was one of the people who did voice his oppinions. He was killed for it. Had people be honest and faced the problems much earlier, things like these may have been prevented.

When i see "stop whining" it makes me relate that comment to this. Stop whining is also what is usually said, though in more political words. when people want to voice their oppinions on difficult and touchy subjects like racism vs freedom of religion.

Also am i sure many people do not voice thier true opinions on insignificant subjects like the goody hut issue, afraid to be seen as a whiner or ungratefull towards ainwood.

As i say, an insignificant subject, but it does relate to the whole bigger picture in that it has the same psychological basis.

So this has nothing to do with anyone in particular, not with this insignificant subject either. It is just that i am rather continuously thinking too much and felt i needed to make this little post advising people to voice their true oppinions. Maybe every little bit can help to help change some things in the world.
========================================================

Now i don't need anyone to defend and say he DID state his true oppinion, of course that can be true for most people and for some it might only be a small change in the chosen wording, but as i said this is an insignificant and i don't care.
Also did i state 'game'(forum) in bold in my post. I think this is not the right place to start political, religious, psychology or philosophy debates. (yes i know that is what i just did....) If you want to start any of these debates, feel free to send me email.

Note however, i will be gone for work for one week, starting now and thus wont be able to reply during that time.

 

[ainwood]

Let me just add in a few thoughts on the discussions in this forum lately.

Firstly - I am pretty thick-skinned. I certainly do not take offense at criticisms, and in many cases I think I've deserved a lot more than I've got (eg. the problems requiring save files to be patched, trait muck-ups etc).

This goody-hut issue was raised because it was seen that around half the players were 'haves', the others 'have nots'. As you know, we try and keep this competition as equitable as possible. I was asked to comment / justify how I had designed the map, and that is only fair. If I don't share my thoughts / rationale then it looks like I am ignoring the issue. If I can't justify myself, then that's not really acceptable, and by sharing my thoughts the flaws can be exposed and (hopefully) we can identify a better way of doing things.

As such, I don't want to see anybody holding back on their opinions, however all that I ask is that they present them in a constructive way that will generate discussion (ie - don't just present the problem; present the issue for discussion so that it can be worked through and a consensus reached, or even present suggestions of solutions!). Please also be constructive when addressing people who are raising these issues - what one person sees as trivial, others may see as important and I'd hate to see people not posting what may be a different point of view, for fear of the reaction. This forum has a very good ambience, and we should try and keep it that way.

When it comes down to it, this little competition is a success because it is for the participants, not for the organisers. We will take notice of what the participants want, and adapt to the wishes of the majority (usually). Remember that its not always possible to please everybody, but we try.

So lets get this thread back on topic (its the spoiler thread, remember!) If someone wants to start a separate thread discussing goody huts and the impact that they have on a game, then go ahead.

Edit: X-posted with this:

Also am i sure many people do not voice thier true opinions on insignificant subjects like the goody hut issue, afraid to be seen as a whiner or ungratefull towards ainwood.

That sums it up.

 

[TheArchduke]

I am fairly new player to the GotM and CotM but I already like them. I think luck is always part of the game, and goodie huts should be in.

I hope i am not too OT here, just wanted to add praise for Ainwood and whoever else makes those, I love to play them.

Sadly I was inconsequent or not good enough not to reload in CotM 6 (Shame on me.) but hopefully next time.

 

[horragoth]

I don't see the point in playing gotm if you like lotteries.

Gotms are played to compare skill.
They are played for competetion.

Lets go give runners in the olympic games a backpack of random weight varying between 0 and 25 kilograms. Wouldn't that be fun ?

I would not rate GH so harshly. IMO the problem is that in this particular game the free settler has particularly great impact as it allows found a city in much better region quickly and eventually start an early FP prebuild. Also my QSC will not be competitive with those lucky ones (I got tech, 25GP, and maps). On the other hand I think the luck with settler from GH has no greater impact on final score than early Leader in PTW. Also I would like to note, that the GH are not a purely random thing. To get a settler in particular, you can't have another settler already, so it takes some optimization to have a chance at least.

 

[Dynamic]

PREDATOR

At start I move Scout E, Worker N and Settler NE for capture more shields. Lisbon founded in 3950BC started Granary. Because we have sedentary barbs and Monarch level in this game I didn’t build many warriors: “Pure expansion - Settler’s and Worker’s start”.
Worker irrigated Wines and then mined bonus grasslands.
Scout moved E direction searching other coast then S. In 3600BC scout find goody huts. I don’t expect to see GH I think ainwood removed it but I enter and pop the Settler! Now, after reading the spoiler I know that some other people got it also but at that time I was very surprised: it sign another civ has second city! In 3500BC I founded Oporto near the wheat. My opinion about GH I wrote in the Poll. Other 2 huts gave me Warrior and Warrior Code.
I met Spain in 3150BC and trade Ceremonial Burial for Pottery + 9g.
Then I didn’t trade until Republic.
In this game I won’t early war because it sign I must build barracks, many horse and so on but I want to reach Astronomy ASAP and need libraries and good economy.
Short steps:

Writing in 2590BC
First settler from Lisbon in 2550BC
First Curragh in 2430BC
Code of Laws in 1950BC
Philosophy and Republic in 1675BC
Got 4 turns of anarchy and set Republic in 1600BC
Gift Republic to 3 known civs, got every their techs
Mathematics in 1475BC
Trade Polytheism and Map Making in 1375BC
Currency in 1200BC
Literature in 1100BC
Trade Construction for Currency and Literature in 1100BC and enter in MA.

In 1000BC:
15 cities,
31 pop,
13 workers,
5 warriors,
2 curraghs,
2 granaries,
All AA techs accept Monarchy.
All contacts, no embassies.

 

[Dynamic]

Discover Construction and enter the Middle Ages in 825BC. Grant access to the scientific civs and trade for Monotheism and Feudalism. I then grant everyone access to the Middle Ages (including Republic) to give everyone enough cash to be meaningful trading partners.

I decided to first go for Astronomy to get Carracks and then for Military Tradition before starting the wars. Maybe not a good choice, I think I would have been better off by starting wars earlier on. And I thought the other civs would help me by researching a little bit on the invention branch while went for Astronomy. Did not happen and had to do it all myself, except for the scientific civs freebies.

I have the same plan.
May be I will start mini war before MT for trigger GA.

 

[MiniMe]

I have the same plan.
May be I will start mini war before MT for trigger GA.

Man, I was rather happy with my MA date until I saw your fantastic date 1100BC, never saw that before!!
Seems you made a smart choice researching Mathematics as early as you did and you probably traded it away so the other nitwits could get going on Construction for you.

 

[Roland Ehnström]

In 1000BC:
15 cities,
31 pop,
13 workers,
5 warriors,
2 curraghs,
2 granaries,
All AA techs accept Monarchy.
All contacts, no embassies.

-- Roland

 

[Dynamic]

Man, I was rather happy with my MA date until I saw your fantastic date 1100BC, never saw that before!!
Seems you made a smart choice researching Mathematics as early as you did and you probably traded it away so the other nitwits could get going on Construction for you.

Yes, I gift many knowledges to several civs in hope they research Construction for me. Spain did this. I decreased a tech gap from AI but got early MA.
May be it will be bad thing: AI will early discover Feodalism and I will have problem if start war against Spain before MT, At this time my infrastructure don't ready to war or fast science cost, my cities haven't anything and be small.

I was surprized with seafaring Curragh - both didn't sunk and cross ocean.

GH: If I hadn't settler from the hut I could have only 12 cities and reach MA several turns later.