Constructive criticism on my first Emperor Game please

Hey @ all, thanks for the responses

As far as i remember i didnt moved with my settler, maybe one move.. but maybe i am also not good recalling..

- (but will remember the point (not moving the 1st settler unless i see a very good food supply right away and
- the point settling on fresh water

i think i just got map making i will send out a galley. yes the settlers are going for the dyes since i can put my lux down a bit.. i am aiming to go to the war with zulus (to my right) North are the ottomans

just pumping out immortals as soon as i have enough i will go for the zulus
will check the point about Jinjan.. and if i can place cities near the capitol

ok i will just deal with the corruption.

How is it with my income am i earning enough for the time now and for the land under my control ?? Anything i can do to rise my income ??


I started the second game on my laptop windows Civ PTW 1.22 then at home i played further on my imac Civ3 complete 1.22.. is it a sort of mixed up now ?? :(
 
You can tell if the settler was moved by looking at the date the capitol was created. If it is not 4000BC, you moved. The date will tell you how many times moved, if any.

Can't speak to macs, but once I load a C3 into C3C and play the new save cannot be loaded into C3. I Load PTW with PTW, if I knew it was PTW. Can't recall, if I ever loaded into C3C and then PTW.
 
You can tell if the settler was moved by looking at the date the capitol was created. If it is not 4000BC, you moved. The date will tell you how many times moved, if any.

Oh, I noticed by the histograph curve. It should have occurred to me to look at the founding date to see the exact number of turns.

Can't speak to macs, but once I load a C3 into C3C and play the new save cannot be loaded into C3. I Load PTW with PTW, if I knew it was PTW. Can't recall, if I ever loaded into C3C and then PTW.

I think he's saying he created and started the game in PTW and then continued it in Conquests.

My analysis, which is almost certainly at least partially wrong: The game rules including what specialists do, the tech tree, buildings, wonders, civ traits and which units exist were set in the save file by PTW when he started the game, and game mechanics including corruption rules and possibly how armies behave are controlled by the current running executable. I don't think you can open the game in PTW after playing under Conquests without errors, so you're probably stuck with PTW rules and units under Conquests game mechanics for the remainder of the game.

If you (noni) only have PTW on Windows and Conquests (Complete) on Mac, you should be able to launch the PTW executable on the Mac, too, and then pass the file back and forth. *IF* Mac and PC are compatible in game saves, and I don't know that for sure. (Or you can buy Conquests or Complete for Win.)
 
How is it with my income am i earning enough for the time now and for the land under my control ?? Anything i can do to rise my income ??

Commerce is what is pulled from terrain tiles. Some goes to corruption in most cities. The rest is split between making citizens content, turning into gold and turning into research beakers depending on the sliders. Gold and beakers can also be directly produced by specialists. Expenses such as building maintenance and unit support are deducted from your civ-wide gold.

I suddenly realize that I've been talking a lot about corruption in the forums, and vmxa doesn't think about it. I suppose I also don't think about it in-game beyond understanding that improving the capital and cities closest to the capital first because improving those has more effect than improving more distant (=corrupt) cities. You have many workers which is good, but most of them are off in the outer parts of the empire when there is still plenty of work to do where it counts most.

Increasing income begins in the capital city, because no commerce is lost to corruption:
attachment.php

You do have some form of improvement on each worked tile, but some tiles aren't fully improved, and overall the tiles are not optimally improved, and you have no alternative tiles ready to switch to which is a shame because you're hitting max population / full food box next turn and will then be wasting 5 excess food per turn instead of working better shield- and commerce-producing tiles.

Notice that riverside tiles get one commerce, and a road increases a tiles commerce by one. I see 4 riverside tiles available to this city that aren't improved. Put a road on each and each will give you 2c per turn (when worked, of course). All four available river tiles are grassland, and two are bonus grassland. The riverside BG tiles would have been very high priority for me to mine and road.

The tile 1SE of the city is not roaded. It still gets 1c because it's riverside, but you're missing out on 1c per turn by not having a road here. For this tile also note that it is irrigated but not getting any more food than its neighboring mined bonus grassland tiles. The reason is the despotism penalty. Irrigated grass is worth 3f per turn, but the despotism penalty turns anything over 2 production factors per turn into one less production factor. So you spent 5 turns irrigating that tile (1 turn stepping on tile, 3 irrigating, 1 stepping off) for no benefit for the first 4000+ years of your game.

Growing the city to max pop also makes more commerce due to more tiles worked. Since this city is not on fresh water it is stuck at size 6 until you research Construction and build it an aqueduct.

Net income also depends heavily on expenses:

You have 11 barracks, so you are paying 11gpt maintenance for those. You have 8 more barracks under construction, so you will soon be paying 19gpt for barracks alone. You're currently clearing 22gpt after expenses and research. Let's look at Tyre and Tarsus: these cities are clearing 1spt due to corruption (or more specifically waste) but have barracks, and one of them is making a worker. Having barracks in these towns to produce vet Immortals every 40 turns is a poor return on investment and arguably a waste of gold supporting the barracks.

They are frontline cities in an upcoming war, so having barracks in one or both towns might be a good healing strategy, but as for production I would either build a long, slow courthouse, long slow catapults or workers out of a city like these. If planning to go to Monarchy I might make warriors for MP. These cities will be hard to keep happy past pop 3 or 4, so they can make workers to keep small or resort to specialists until they are more capable of maintaining themselves through future advancements.

You only have one temple and building three others, but you appear to be using them for specific culture battles, so I can't fault that overall. Good, limited strategic use of temples for culture purposes. Try to purpose-orient your barracks similarly. If the city can't build a unit in a reasonable amount of time, maybe it can build artillery, a courthouse or settler/worker and skip the barracks.

You have no granaries. With so many food bonuses one could argue you don't really need a settler pump on this map, but Perseopolis is a case study for a 4-turn despotic settler pump. Put a granary there, 5 extra food per turn grows 2 pop in 4 turns, and you have enough shield production already to collect 30 shields in 4 turns. There are enough food bonuses I think you could've managed a 2nd 4-turn pump and possibly 2 more 6-turn pumps (due to wasted shields, not lack of food). But the point is that controlling expenses while maximizing growth can be accomplished by granaries in select cities like you did with temples.

Unit support is another expense, but you do not have that problem in this game yet. Controlling that after despotism depends on smart positioning of troops and growing towns into cities size 7 or better to increase free unit support. (Unless you choose Feudalism as a government, then stay size 6 or smaller.)
 

Attachments

  • Pers-as-played.PNG
    Pers-as-played.PNG
    368.5 KB · Views: 261
I do not like to see workers/slaves working solo. Gang them up so they can do a task in one turn. You maybe cannot gang themearly in the game, but by now most should not be working alone.

I can see the point of getting things done quickly and i use especially when i need to mine mountains and other hightime required tasks in areas where I already have established road network.

Put it may in fact be very suboptimal to gang workers up when establishing your road network. If you move to an unroaded tile your out of movement and the worker turn is due to movement.

If you gang workers up and have them move to the same tile you actually end 2 instead of (maybee) possible 1 workers turn due to movement.

For example you have two workers standing in A, wanting to establishing roads to B and C which are both neighbouring tiles. Gang the workers would mean first take B and then C. WT is one workers turn

For gang the workers up we would need 2WT to move to B. 3WT to road it. 2 WT to move to C and last 3 WT to road it. Which gives a total of 10WT or with 2 workers the work done in 5 turns.

For splitting them up we would need 2WT for them to move to respectively tile, and then 3WT for them each to road them. Which gives a total of 8 WT and with 2 workers the work done in 4 turns.

When you already have roads in place i can see point much more beacause there might be no waste included that having 2 workers move to the same tile. And also same there might no exist no good way of splitting them up to complete your road network as you want roads between things finished fast as well.

It might be that I'm missing out on something or does not fully understand the impact of not roading the first tile one turn earlier. Or is it that this type of micromanaging is to complex to bother about?
 
t10000
These workers are going to be doing task for the rest of the game. So everytime they are done with a task they have to move. If we are talking about a roading project, then they will be moving to unroaded tiles after each road is complete.

The only time I would be making a long road, is to get to the next target and bring troops to the front. This is best done with a gang that can do a tile in one turn. Be that a road or a rail or both.

The gang will be large enough to do what is needed. This gang(s) I do not care so much about effeciencies as I do about speed.

It is core or near core work that I may be concerned about being efficent. The most important thing is likely to be speed. IOW I may have to lose some turns to get workers grouped, but hopefully not much.

I make it back with interest by getting tiles improved sooner. If I get the road up sooner I get the extra gold sooner. If I get the tile irrigated, I get the extra food sooner, same for mines and the shield.

If we have but one or two tiles to deal with, then not much to be concerned about. Early game roads often require 4 workers. If I have 4 workers alone they need 4 turns of none of the 4 tiles making the extra gold.

If 4 are on one tile I get the extra gold on the next turn. If you are fighting a lot, then it is freqently more important to get those roads up asap and not worry about saving worker turns. It is also easier to protect one stack, rather than 4 units on 4 different tiles.

Then I get to save my real time, by not looking around for 4 units in 4 places, multiplied by however many workers we have at that time.
 
t10000
These workers are going to be doing task for the rest of the game. So everytime they are done with a task they have to move. If we are talking about a roading project, then they will be moving to unroaded tiles after each road is complete.

The only time I would be making a long road, is to get to the next target and bring troops to the front. This is best done with a gang that can do a tile in one turn. Be that a road or a rail or both.

The gang will be large enough to do what is needed. This gang(s) I do not care so much about effeciencies as I do about speed.

It is core or near core work that I may be concerned about being efficent. The most important thing is likely to be speed. IOW I may have to lose some turns to get workers grouped, but hopefully not much.

I make it back with interest by getting tiles improved sooner. If I get the road up sooner I get the extra gold sooner. If I get the tile irrigated, I get the extra food sooner, same for mines and the shield.

If we have but one or two tiles to deal with, then not much to be concerned about. Early game roads often require 4 workers. If I have 4 workers alone they need 4 turns of none of the 4 tiles making the extra gold.

If 4 are on one tile I get the extra gold on the next turn. If you are fighting a lot, then it is freqently more important to get those roads up asap and not worry about saving worker turns. It is also easier to protect one stack, rather than 4 units on 4 different tiles.

Then I get to save my real time, by not looking around for 4 units in 4 places, multiplied by however many workers we have at that time.

This makes sense is really about what to optimize on and not really not just an application of laziness to bunch workers together.
In some cases it might make sense to optimize on workers efficiency but a more general approach might be to bunch them together and instead optimize on speed. As some earlier road might generate more income instead too and benefit the a more general objective of the game such as warfare.
 
Back
Top Bottom