COTM 05 Pre-Game Discussion

[ainwood]

The Chasqui also only requires 1 MP to move on mountains (and hills too, IIRC).

 

[solenoozerec]

The Chasqui also only requires 1 MP to move on mountains (and hills too, IIRC).

And the world is young (lots of mountains)... and a lot of shields can be used for fast production... I see your point... You did what you can to make these guys useful. I think I will be building them. Thank you, Ainwood.

 

[deadloss]

Interesting trade-off; stay on the river and waste either a BG or a forest tile OR move to the grassland. I'm leaning towards staying on the river...actually if one of the squares towards the NE are regular grassland, it might be worth it to spend 2 moves to get one

Providing that you like what information your scout gives you beforehand, would the hill north of the river not make a good settling point, as it's still on the river? You could take advantage of the sugar if that's what it is, then use your next settler on the furs?

Mmmm...decisions, decisions...

 

[smackster]

We're agricultural with a scout. All we need to find is one wheat/cow and get +5fpt. I think its worth moving 5-6 even 7 tunrs to find that bonus. With the scout we are sure to find what we need.

smackster

 

[solenoozerec]

All we need to find is one wheat/cow and get +5fpt. I think its worth moving 5-6 even 7 tunrs to find that bonus. smackster

I hope there will be no situation like in COTM2. It is easy to reveal whole map without leaving any traces of doing that (just use another computer). But the worst part of COTM2 is that it cast doubts on those people who didn’t do anything wrong. I doubt that we will have a similar situation soon, so I do not think that we have a cow 6 turns away. It is either nearby or too far.

 

[deadloss]

I hope there will be no situation like in COTM2. It is easy to reveal whole map without leaving any traces of doing that (just use another computer). But the worst part of COTM2 is that it cast doubts on those people who didn’t do anything wrong. I doubt that we will have a similar situation soon, so I do not think that we have a cow 6 turns away. It is either nearby or too far.

I didn't know about this. What happened with the scoring and how did that all come about?

I wondered why I was so far behind everyone else. And there's me thinking that I was just so rubbish compared to everyone else.

I'll have to have a good read of that thread - just out of curiosity, mind you - not to pick up any tips!

 

[Tone]

We're agricultural with a scout. All we need to find is one wheat/cow and get +5fpt. I think its worth moving 5-6 even 7 tunrs to find that bonus. With the scout we are sure to find what we need.

I agree, although am I that brave to do this for so long? I will probably end up moving the settler north, after moving the scout onto the hill and maybe the worker in the opposite direction, and taking the shield rich starting position. I have a week to persuade myself to be more adventurous though.

The Chasqui also only requires 1 MP to move on mountains (and hills too, IIRC).

I never knew this as I've never got around to playing the Inca. Thanks for the info; maybe I need to try out a couple of short games with them before October.

 

[solenoozerec]

I didn't know about this. What happened with the scoring and how did that all come about?

Oh, personally I believe that nobody cheated (I have reasons to believe that nobody cheated at least among the best players). The problem is that some made such guess, because it was not obvious to move far away from the starting position. I do not think that Ainwood is likely to recreate a similar situation.

 

[deadloss]

Oh, personally I believe that nobody cheated (I have reasons to believe that nobody cheated at least among the best players). The problem is that some made such guess, because it was not obvious to move far away from the starting position. I do not think that Ainwood is likely to recreate a similar situation.

I've got a guilt complex already - and I'd never consider doing this at all.
It is tantamount to cheating, I agree!

However, I have been (re)playing GOTM#35 that I failed miserably in, which I should have won but was tactically too slow. I have redressed my tactics and I have a gameplan in mind for this new game, COTM#05. I just hope that if I do well, it isn't conceived as coming up with some method of cheating as explained above.

I do think I have finally found (after losing so many GOTMs and COTMs), a winning (if not award-winning) strategy. It'll be one that so many of you guys will be very familiar with but it's one that's taken me ages to put into practise (learnt eventually and slowly).

I'm ready for the 1st of October, bring it on, Ainwood!

Anyway, back on subject...

...what are the best wonders to compliment these Inca traits?

(I could look them up, really but that doesn't help anyone else)

 

[solenoozerec]

...what are the best wonders to compliment these Inca traits?

This is a personal and subjective opinion: I do not think that ANY great wonder is worth building it unless you go for 20K or diplomatic (obviously you would like to have UN).
If you are really want a particular great wonder for some reason, capture it.

 

[samildanach]

Oh, personally I believe that nobody cheated (I have reasons to believe that nobody cheated at least among the best players). The problem is that some made such guess, because it was not obvious to move far away from the starting position. I do not think that Ainwood is likely to recreate a similar situation.

It was the obvious thing to do - unless you like founding your capital on some God-forsaken peninsula. As far as I'm aware a distance variable is still included in the corruption calculation for each settlement in conquests.

I think COTM2 was one of the easier move/or not move decisions. Its harder when you are in the middle of land mass with no obvious bonus tiles in sight such as in COTM 1 where you had more options to decide between in which direction you would scout before settling IMO. ( Sorry that sentence is pretty clunky. Hopefully you understand what I'm trying to write.)

 

[DaveMcW]

Here's a crazy start idea:

Settler W to plains fur (2-shield city tile)
Worker chop,mine at start, then SW,chop
Using only the visible tiles, we get a granary at 3300BC and a settler at 3100BC.

 

[solenoozerec]

It was the obvious thing to do

Agreed.
Correction to my previous message: it was not obvious for everybody.
At least not for me, I was playing my first GOTM.

 

[smackster]

Agreed.
Correction to my previous message: it was not obvious for everybody.
At least not for me, I was playing my first GOTM.

Not to me either, I stayed on the peninsula, learned my lesson though.

 

[Lord British]

Settler W to plains fur (2-shield city tile)
Worker chop,mine at start, then SW,chop
Using only the visible tiles, we get a granary at 3300BC and a settler at 3100BC.

I like it!!
Regent + Luxury start position = no unhappiness worries for a while!

Looking forward to this game, it's great to have the occassional Regent game

 

[eldar]

Here's a crazy start idea:

Settler W to plains fur (2-shield city tile)
Worker chop,mine at start, then SW,chop
Using only the visible tiles, we get a granary at 3300BC and a settler at 3100BC.

I'm buying...!

Neil.

 

[Darkness]

Interesting start Ainwood, but I've got a question:

Are you going to reveal if you manipulated the number of goody huts nearby?
I'm asking this 'cause this is quite influential on a strategy with an expansionist civ.
So, are there a lot of huts nearby, or very, very few?

 

[ainwood]

Well, to reveal that would kind of spoil it, wouldn't it.

You have a choice: You can presume that I increased them, in which case a few extra scouts to go chase them; or you can assume I removed them, in which case you may want to alter your scout builds. You could always try the middle ground, or perhaps even build one or two and if there appear to be lots of goody huts then go build some more!

Or I might have left them alone....

 

[Timko]

The UU is just an over priced "Jaguar Warrior". I will settle in place to get a warrior out fast.

The Chasqui also only requires 1 MP to move on mountains (and hills too, IIRC).

I would have said that the main reason Chasqui are better then Jaguars is that they give better results from the huts. I'd still rather have ordinary scouts though.

 

[Darkness]

Well, to reveal that would kind of spoil it, wouldn't it.

You have a choice: You can presume that I increased them, in which case a few extra scouts to go chase them; or you can assume I removed them, in which case you may want to alter your scout builds. You could always try the middle ground, or perhaps even build one or two and if there appear to be lots of goody huts then go build some more!

Or I might have left them alone....

I'm not sure I like this much Ainwood...

I like playing games with everything on random (and I wouldn't mind COTM's in which the only things known are the civ and the difficulty level), but this is an artificially modded feature, which IMHO should be known to the players before starting the game....