COTM 05 Pre-Game Discussion

[horragoth]

It seems to me best settling North. This would make very productive city. All those furs can be no worse than BG+ after they are cleared. Owing to the prohibitive price of Chasqui, I would even considered start chopping forest in the starting place in 1-st turn.
Settlers can be produced elsewhere.

 

[gozpel]

Don't despair Darkness, so far in other games we got a fair amount of huts when we had scouts. The only reason ainwood would change that, would be the difficulty level.

Still, scouts also do what they are supposed to do, namely scout So a couple of scouts will reveal the land fairly quick.

 

[Timko]

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.

DaveMcW, is there any way to be sure that it is plains under the forest? I know it looks like it but how can you be certain?

 

[King Alexander]

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....

That's the ainwood we(I) like!!! A mysterious and evil person! :devil2: -

You know, the more I think of it about the information we get beforehand, IMHO, favours the Elite players more than the average-players, but I shouldn't complain about it; all would like to know everything .

I just miss the "mysterious atmosphere - " of the unknown from your games.

P.S.: This would be a real challenge!: put a settler/worker pair onto a galley, leave it in some coastal square in the center of the map, and the player get's to choose the direction to *land/invade somewhere!*, and set the difficulty to SID

btw: enough said.

 

[klarius]

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.

How about that:
Settler W and chop-a-chasqui first.
Delay growth by one turn.
If I didn't misscalculate still granary and settler only one turn delayed.

 

[horragoth]

How about that:
Settler W and chop-a-chasqui first.
Delay growth by one turn.
If I didn't misscalculate still granary and settler only one turn delayed.

I just wonder why W and not N. Why wasting furs shield bonus by settling on it?

 

[klarius]

I just wonder why W and not N. Why wasting furs shield bonus by settling on it?

Because the shield is not wasted.
When settling on a natural 2sh tile (plains-fur, the other better known example is iron-hill), you get 2 sh in the city center.
At least I hope this is still true. It's quite some time since I had this case.

 

[AlanH]

It is tantamount to cheating, I agree!

Just so that there's no misunderstanding. Revealing the map before playing is not just tantamount to cheating. It *is* cheating. No reloading is allowed in order to affect outcomes in your submitted game. Not on one computer. Not on multiple computers.

 

[horragoth]

Because the shield is not wasted.
When settling on a natural 2sh tile (plains-fur, the other better known example is iron-hill), you get 2 sh in the city center.
At least I hope this is still true. It's quite some time since I had this case.

It is new knowledge to me. Also is it specific for shields or even for food and commerce? I think I will have to make some tests in both PTW and C3C to make sure, as I always taken for granted that any bonus you settle on is wasted.

 

[Denniz]

I didn't realize the 2-shield city thing. Or the cheap mountain movement for the UU. Puts a different spin on building scouts. "chop-a-chasqui"

 

[horragoth]

I didn't realize the 2-shield city thing. Or the cheap mountain movement for the UU. Puts a different spin on building scouts. "chop-a-chasqui"

3 billion years, pangaea, no hill/mountain movement penalty for Chopsquies, ... I think we are in the expansionist paradise.

 

[RFHolloway]

Looks like another fast expanders dream! (now all I have to do is finish off COTM4).

The other downside of the UU (I agree its the worst one by a long way, particularly for an expansionist civ) is that because it has an attack strength they will be kicked out by AI civs, so you can't just keep exploring through AI territory like you can with scouts, curraghs and unloaded galleys.

 

[Darkness]

Still, scouts also do what they are supposed to do, namely scout So a couple of scouts will reveal the land fairly quick.

Off course, but the possibility of a huge asset (settler from a GH nearby) tends to impact gameplay and planning quite a lot, whereas the deletion of nearby goody huts (by Ainwoods mighty mouse ) without notice would be, IMHO, a game-changing factor, of which I think it is best to mention before the game starts. If otherwise, a gamble to do excessive scouting with an ultra high number of scouts is likely to be a deciding factor for all/most of the awards and medals.
If there are no nearby GHs and you built a lot of scouts in the anticipation of their presence, you'll be at a disadvantage against others who don't go scouting a lot.
And if there are nearby GHs and you don't built scouts, you'll miss out on bonusses that will put you at a disadvantage towards players who do built scouts a lot.

In short, because of the nature of this game aspect (modded/or unmodded by Ainwood), I think it'll be fair to make this known before the game starts, to prevent a gamble (Did Ainwood mod the GHs: yes or no?) from being a major aspect in the deciding factors of this game. To leave small thing up to chance is perfictly fine with me, but I don't like to see huge gamechanging factors like decided on a gamble...

Just my opinion, off course.

 

[a space oddity]

Wouldn't it be fairly obvious rather soon, before you even get the chance to build a lot of scouts? It is a standard size map, you know.

 

[Darkness]

Wouldn't it be fairly obvious rather soon, before you even get the chance to build a lot of scouts? It is a standard size map, you know.

To a certain extent, yes. But the fact remains that there already has been an investment in a strategy, which could have been avoided if a man-made modification to the normal, standard civ-game had been revealed before the game started

 

[a space oddity]

Well, in this case it's probably sensible to build at least one scout, since it's the UU. And if push comes to shove, you can use it to start a Golden Age. Why not build it early? To 1. scout.. (doh) and 2. see if there are few or many GHs.

 

[Darkness]

Why not build it early?

Because early in the game 20 shields are better used on other projects if there aren't any GH's. We already have a scout. If there are no GH's, there really is no urgent need to built more scouts, especially expensive scouts, like the Chasqui....

 

[Roland Ehnström]

As for settling north or not, for me that depends on where on the map we are. It's clear by the pine trees that we are either far south or far north. If we are already far north, I will not move my capitol further north (in that case DaveMcW's start sounds very tempting). If we are far south, I will probably settle north. But any food bonus found by the initial scout and worker moves could change this.

However, I don't see what's good about moving 6 or 7 turns just to find a food bonus. I feel it's better to settle in a good spot at the start, and then find the food bonus, if there is one, and set up the second town as my settler pump.

-- Roland

 

[samildanach]

Or I might have left them alone....

@Darkness notice the type size of the last sentence? Ainwood much like God has ways of letting you know his divine will .

 

[Darkness]

@Samildanach: Maybe, but that still leaves this factor at a gamble. Not a planned decision....