COTM 05 Pre-Game Discussion

[Hannabir]

Regarding Horsemen or Swordsmen, the Horsemen have the additional advantage that because of their speed they can attack more enemy units in open terrain. So, on average, they are facing a weaker opposition.
It is also easier to make a co-ordinated attack on one city and take it before the enemy can move in and/or rush-build additional units. As a consequence, Horsemen will also face less opposing units.
Swordsmen, on the other hand, have a better chance to get as well as survive a counter-attack and thereby receive an automatic promotion.

 

[Roland Ehnström]

Is sending the scout to the hill definitely the right opening play? It seems like sending it E, E or E, SE might be better. It reveals only 10 total tiles instead of 17 (since we already know the sugar) to the hill, but it reveals a minimum of two more tiles adjacent to the river and the tiles it reveals are far more likely to be cows, wheat or BG's. It's certainly the most likely direction for our second city.

I've been thinking the same, E E specifically, but I'm still undecided. Would like to hear a word from a more experienced player on this.

-- Roland

 

[bradleyfeanor]

Doesn't this also suggest that it's not a good idea to settle in place on the furs, since you are sacrificing 1 shield and 1 commerce (at least once you get out of despotism)?

This is a good question. If you settle on the starting fur you do not lose the socond shield, because the despotism penalty would only "eat" a shield if there were three or more. Here is the tricky part: you don't lose the commerce either! I am not at all sure why that is. As Alan stated earlier, in despotism, anything that you have 3 or more of, you subtract one. But in this case the rule does not seem to apply. Anyone have some insight on this?

 

[Roland Ehnström]

Yeah, as far as I know, the despotism penalty simply does not apply to city tiles. Perhaps the reasoning behind this is that these tiles are not actually "worked" by any citizen. Or it may be just another case of lazy design/programming/whatever.

-- Roland

 

[ainwood]

However, the prolem is that sometimes Ainwood starts to move mountains and rivers around after publishing the map.

I don't tend to do that anywhere near the starting position - I did that for GOTM 35 because Civ 1.29f players can't irrigate across a hill on a city, whilst PTW players can.

I do tweak a few things on the maps, but I don't change anything with the starting position - I normally just change minor things around the AI locations (for example I might move a resource to improve the placement of AI cities).

 

[Xarin]

I'm not sure if you lose 1 commerce or not, but you definitely don't lose a shield by settling on the fur. If you irrigate a plains fur, you'd get 2 food & 2 shields whether you're in despotism or republic, and that's exactly what you'll get by building on it. (not counting the +1 Agri bonus) That's why it's so good.

 

[dmanakho]

I don't tend to do that anywhere near the starting position - I did that for GOTM 35 because Civ 1.29f players can't irrigate across a hill on a city, whilst PTW players can.

I do tweak a few things on the maps, but I don't change anything with the starting position - I normally just change minor things around the AI locations (for example I might move a resource to improve the placement of AI cities).

Which totally proves my theory of conspiracy

 

[ainwood]

Which totally proves my theory of conspiracy

Which is? That I leak info to people in advance to release in the discussion! Or that I see what the long-term strategies suggested in the pre-game discussion are and, and tweak the game map to foil them?

Well, I don't do either, but its a good suggestion that I'll store away for the future...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ainwood, did you "tweak" the important early resources or go with normal conquest distribution?

 

[Florian K]

I think if you have finished in the top 50% that you are not eligible for conquest level anymore.

Someone plz confirm?

Is there a time when you are no longer eligible for open class? Are there guidelines for when one should be playing at predator class?

 

[Lord British]

Is there a time when you are no longer eligible for open class? Are there guidelines for when one should be playing at predator class?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=53634

Here is the thread that details Predator class, but the short answer is no there is no time that you are no longer eligible to play open. I haven't been around very long but it looks as though predator was put in place just for an extra challenge to the top players, and you can chop and change as you like between it and open class from game to game.

Having said that perhaps the rules could be more clearly defined and as a suggestion to Ainwood etc, how about making predator compulsory for the top X amout of players? Say those who are in the top 10 on the Global player ranking?

Just an idea anyway!

Others thoughts?

 

[solenoozerec]

I don't tend to do that anywhere near the starting position - I did that for GOTM 35 because Civ 1.29f players can't irrigate across a hill on a city, whilst PTW players can.

First of all I need to say that I admire and greatly appreciate your work (not only GOTM design, civassist and your patience with us on forum too. But most of all I appreciate your sacrifice of not playing GOTM, this might be the most difficult)
GOTM35 is exactly what I referred to as ‘sometimes’. Yes, indeed you had reasons to alter the starting position. But who can guarantee us that it will not happen again?
I didn’t mean that you are likely to alter starting position for some kind of pervert pleasure (even if I meant that, I meant it as a joke ).
As for GOTM35, I think it had a really bad luck and I am kind of glad that I decided not to play it before I knew about bad luck.

Is there a time when you are no longer eligible for open class? Are there guidelines for when one should be playing at predator class?

I have no idea, but suspect that it is voluntarily. Though, it might be an interesting idea to force people into predator class. For example, if you are missing just one award before getting eptathlon statue, you have to get it playing predator class.

Say those who are in the top 10 on the Global player ranking?

Just an idea anyway!

Others thoughts?

Should we make a poll about this?
I do suspect that majority of people will support such an idea, because it will handicap the best players somewhat (who are a minority). But this is a democracy, isn’t it ?

 

[Tone]

Having said that perhaps the rules could be more clearly defined and as a suggestion to Ainwood etc, how about making predator compulsory for the top X amout of players? Say those who are in the top 10 on the Global player ranking?

Global rankings do not always highlight the elite. Sometimes those people who have reasonably good games but submit a game pretty much every month creep in there and there are certainly many top players outside the top 10 who submit too infrequently to make it into the top 10. I'm close to your dividing line but nowhere near elite standard. Personally I'm happy with the predator class being optional for those that want the extra challenge; wasn't that the original idea?

BTW thanks Roland for the screen shots which show the plains+furs set up. It's amazing how many posts have been made since I posted yesterday and I clearly need to rethink my opening play.

 

[ainwood]

Well, to be honest there has been discussion that predator level may, in some instances, HELP the elite players! Because in some cases it helps the AI get established faster, and as such allows the player to tag-along.

BTW - I don't think its too much of a spoiler to confirm that the starting position is in fact plains forest.

However, I will neither confirm nor deny the rumours that cattle roam in the east....

Ainwood, did you "tweak" the important early resources or go with normal conquest distribution?

To be honest, I always tweak the resources, but the extent to which I do this varies. Sometimes I might shift luxury resources around, and sometimes I might shift strategic ones around. Sometimes I move both. For example, the GOTM 28 (India), the lack of iron and horses was pretty intentional! It is not necessarily always to the detriment of the human though - for example, in the demigod COTM (Byzantines?), I moved the ivory to near the player.

I don't tend to change the absolute appearance rates of the resources too much though - I normally move rather than delete resources. This is not a hard and fast rules though - I might delete or add one or two of a given type.

 

[Tone]

Well, to be honest there has been discussion that predator level may, in some instances, HELP the elite players!

...but not when they lose one of the two starting traits

To be honest, I always tweak the resources

I've no problem with this. I enjoy reading how players overcome the (sometimes engineered) problems in the subsequent spoilers. It helps me in attempting to improve my game play as well as making the games more interesting. If I want a game totally computer generated, I can play that any time I want.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

So to me the correct order would be:

Settler founds capital on the spot. Worker SW, chop and mine (unless it's a BG under the forest, in which case this tile cannot be improved in any way under despotism!). Then Worker NW, chop and irrigate (building road brings no bonus under despotism since fur+river already brings 2 commerce). This brings a Granary in 3350, a first Settler in 3200 and a second Settler in 2900, with a little micro-management (even earlier if there is a BG under the forest SW of the start-tile).-- Roland

Forgetting about the possibility of a cow. If I build a ChScout first, I can still do the above by 2750BC. Main difference for the worker is it builds a road E first so shields aren't wasted, then doesn't mine the first chopped forest to get the second chop done quicker. Also build city slower to have granery hit at size 2. At this point I'll be the equivalent of 9 'city turns' behind. (2 in capital, 4 in first settler, 3 in second settler.) Difference is I've had the ChScout for 19 turns.

A great War Academy post about GH's was done today (Thanx Iseon!). Basically shows a 1/4 combined chance of getting a city/settler from a GH. (Also 1/3 chance of getting tech.) Is the expansion, contacts & chance at great GH stuff worth the delay?

I think 1 is worth it, but not 2. Also believe ChScout is better than 2 warriors as I may find some in a GH. The wet world bugs me. Why couldn't it be arid?!!

I can't imagine winning w/ horsemen/swordsmen, but am thinking of giving it a shot if no major defensive UU are around. Probably will end up doing it with Knights.

 

[gozpel]

Well, to be honest there has been discussion that predator level may, in some instances, HELP the elite players!

It just rockets the player into other eras, by the increased levels.

Open and Predator are different games, and even if an Open-player wins something, for the normal player the difference isn't fair. I've played both versions and I am happy with Open and will stay there forever. But sometimes I think Predators should have the 15% penalty as well, by the rate they research stuff. It isn't funny.

 

[Roland Ehnström]

At this point I'll be the equivalent of 9 'city turns' behind. (2 in capital, 4 in first settler, 3 in second settler.) Difference is I've had the ChScout for 19 turns.

Yeah. Well, I'd still choose the "city turns" ahead of the ChScout I think, but it's good to have the option.

On my part, I have just completed some testing assuming that there IS a cow. The result was plain to see: The earlier you get the cow irrigated, the better you're off, simple as that. Specifically, compare these two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Worker SW, chop, mine. Then all the way up to the cow, irrigate, road. Then mine two of the BG's.

Scenario 2: Worker NE, mine. Then to the cow, irrigate, road. Then SW to the second BG, mine. Then SW W to the grass-forest-fur, chop, mine.

In both scenarios, the settler founds Cuzco in 4000 BC. The build-order is Granary (chopped in scenario 1), Settler, Barracks, Settler (chopped in scenario 2), and then a 4-turn 4.5-6.5 Warrior+Settler factory as soon as possible.

Result? In scenario 1, the Granary and the first Settler is produced 1 turn earlier than in scenario 2. BUT the Warrior+Settler factory is set up much earlier in scenario 2, so by 1990 BC, the town has produced 5 Vet Warriors and 6 Settlers in scenario 2, while only 3 Vet Warriors and 6 Settlers in scenario 1.

(Also note that once the Warrior+Settler factory is up and running, you can easily get a second Warrior and two Workers instead of the Settler, any time you want. Producing Warrior+Warrior+Worker+Worker in 4 turns, gives exactly the same end result as producing Warrior+Settler in 4 turns, and less unhappiness!)

-- Roland

 

[WackenOpenAir]

I agree predator is a different game, in some cases it might help the player, in some cases it might be a disadvantage.

If predator is supposed to just make it extra difficult for the player (so he can have more honor and pride if he wins a medal) i think predator level should not have increased AI bonusses. Removing a trait, removing a worker, increasing AI starting militairy units is much better. Best would be decreasing the players OCN i think, but i don't know if that is possible.

 

[Darkness]

Why not leave the predator level the way it is?

The challenge is greater (as is the 'risk' of losing), but the chances of reward (medal/reward) are also greater.

My point being: Some of the better players choose to play with the extra challenge and they are rewarded with medals/awards/higher Jason score.
Seems pretty fair to me. Bigger achievement results in bigger chance of reward. Just my opinion, off course....