Markus5
Code Monkey
So, are there any general strategies for playing an expansionist civ?
COTM 12 Pre-Game Discussion
- Thread starter ainwood
- Start date
solenoozerec
Stranger
Redbad said:Long time no see, Moonsinger.
Along with DaveMcW it looks like the old dinosaurs are returning
I agree. Moonsigner used to be a legend for me, it is wierd to see 'em in the real time.
solenoozerec
Stranger
Markus5 said:
General: Use scouts and do not afraid to step on goody huts.
There are some details too, like temporarely switching production of settlers to something else if you want to pop a settler. But this time we do not get even settelrs, but I guess workers popping should be effected in the same way.
Actualy there was a question, which seems to be unanswered: are popped workers arabians or slaves?
denyd
Emperor
The most important thing about expansionists to me is that it's primarily an Ancient Age trait. The biggest benefit is scouts. Once all of the goody huts are gone and all of the AI on the starting continent are met, you are reduced to being a single trait tribe. For my HOF games, I've started playing with no huts and using expansionist opponents as under those circumstances they are one dimensional opponents. So build at least 2 more scouts and get them out there ASAP. Meet as many AI as possible and try to be the tech broker for your continent. My intent is expand as fast as possible, building horseman in preparation for a mass Ansar upgrade (Ansars are cheaper and faster than standard knights) and then try to take over my continent. That should give me a large enough production & research base to assure victory whichever victory condition I select.
Iver-P
Monarch - AS IF!
Two thoughts:
1. What if this is a desert ISLAND! ARG!!! Could the COTM "gods" be that cruel to us?
2. Why not just settle 1N? Doesn't that make the desert tile productive. Then you've got the two oasis tiles plus at least one fresh water after the first expansion and the hills for production when you need it. Also the lands to NE and NW might have potential.
As you read this, remember that I rarely score in the top half of the rankings. So maybe I really don't know what I'm talking about.
1. What if this is a desert ISLAND! ARG!!! Could the COTM "gods" be that cruel to us?
2. Why not just settle 1N? Doesn't that make the desert tile productive. Then you've got the two oasis tiles plus at least one fresh water after the first expansion and the hills for production when you need it. Also the lands to NE and NW might have potential.
As you read this, remember that I rarely score in the top half of the rankings. So maybe I really don't know what I'm talking about.
If goody huts produce workers and not settlers it should slow down the tech race at the start and increase land development capability. Hmmm...could it be a jungle desert world where the key to success is getting your "house" in order with lots of irrigation and mines?
Darkness
Shadow creature
solenoozerec said:
Umm, Moonsinger is a "she", actually....
Though you got the legend part right!
Umm ... the only pronoun in Solen's post was " 'em ". which is short for "them", and is plural, neutral gender, implying neither male nor female. It was absolutely appropriate since solen was talking about DaveMcW and Moonsinger, who I think are probably male legend and female legend respectively
Darkness
Shadow creature
AlanH said:Umm ... the only pronoun in Solen's post was " 'em ". which is short for "them", and is plural, neutral gender, implying neither male nor female. It was absolutely appropriate since solen was talking about DaveMcW and Moonsinger, who I think are probably male legend and female legend respectively
That's what you get when English is not your native language and you still try to correct someone else's English...
I'll go hide in my corner now....
budweiser
King of the Beers
Iver-P said:
I dont think it's an island.
The problem with 1N is that you may be placing yourself on the coast with bad terrain to your north. This will not give a very productive core. If you move at least 1 tile S or E you are leaving yourself room for another city on the coast a cxxc with a slightly more productive core.
grahamiam
In debt to Mr. Geisel
actually, i can't see it being feasible to settle 1N or 1 SE.
@ 1N, we have at least 5 desert tiles, 6 hills, and possibly 2 coastal tiles. only the oasis tiles look good, but unless there's wines on those hills to the NE or a wheat over the N, NW hill, that spot looks very poor for a capitol
@1SE, we have at least 10 desert tiles, 3 hills, 2 oasis, and 1 lake. i don't see that as very productive either.
seems to me, that moving 2x SE at a minimum is required. my guess is that I'll move at least 3x, maybe 4 before settling (subject to change after the 1st turn
). it's a good thing we have a scout.
@ 1N, we have at least 5 desert tiles, 6 hills, and possibly 2 coastal tiles. only the oasis tiles look good, but unless there's wines on those hills to the NE or a wheat over the N, NW hill, that spot looks very poor for a capitol
@1SE, we have at least 10 desert tiles, 3 hills, 2 oasis, and 1 lake. i don't see that as very productive either.
seems to me, that moving 2x SE at a minimum is required. my guess is that I'll move at least 3x, maybe 4 before settling (subject to change after the 1st turn
). it's a good thing we have a scout.
SE gives the same two oases and the same two lakes as the starting position. I'm assuming the water tile 2 NW of the start is ocean, because it appears to be connected around that hill to the water 2 N of the start. SE there's also a forest to chop with what looks like plains under it, which would mean it could reach size 7 (no aqueduct necessary), unlike the starting position.
N looks like it would be coastal. It would have one grassland tile, ultimately allowing size 8, but only after the marsh is cleared. (Edit: it could get to size 12 with a harbor.) There's no forest, and it would need an aqueduct.
I can't say I like any of the options, but SE seems best to me so far of the options that include no more than a single settler move.
Of course, if the water NW and N turns out to be fresh after all, that changes things a bit.
Renata
N looks like it would be coastal. It would have one grassland tile, ultimately allowing size 8, but only after the marsh is cleared. (Edit: it could get to size 12 with a harbor.) There's no forest, and it would need an aqueduct.
I can't say I like any of the options, but SE seems best to me so far of the options that include no more than a single settler move.
Of course, if the water NW and N turns out to be fresh after all, that changes things a bit.
Renata
budweiser
King of the Beers
Is it proper, in this scenario to mine the oasis under despotism and possilby irrigate it after you change government?
solenoozerec
Stranger
Darkness said:Umm, Moonsinger is a "she", actually....
I know, she used to be called "civ queen", but where did you see me calling her he
?Edit: AlanH explained everything already
ionimplant
Prince
the problem is you need to settle in the desert sooner or later. if it isn't your capitol, it'll be one of your most productive cities that is going to take those dessert tiles Moderator Action: Deleted GOTM 42 spoiler info - AlanHgrahamiam said:
so my theory is that settle in the starting position or move once in a dessert to instantly improve that tile. we've got 2 bonus grasslands from the oasis and that's enough to run a (12-turn? or whatever) settler-warrior-pump. eventually if you hate your starting location too much, just abandon it so that your core city won't be a ring of cities surrounding a large dessert.
ionimplant
Prince
Renata said:
where is the river??? there's quite a lot of water (salty or not) arond but i am yet to see a river
btw, what's the bonus of insense? +1 commerce?
grahamiam
In debt to Mr. Geisel
settling next to an inland lake removes the requirement for a 'duct too
ionimplant
Prince
that's good to know! so inland lakes are the lakes not connected to ocean by rivers? ok. this will narrow down the possible 1st city sites a lot...grahamiam said:
grahamiam
In debt to Mr. Geisel
no, inland lakes are blobs of water (right click shows them as a coastal tile), that do not have sea or ocean tiles adjacent to them. rivers don't count as a connection. there's a rule that limits the size when it goes from an inland lake (no duct) to inland sea (duct required), but i don't recall what that is. as far as I can see from ainwood's pic, the lake to our E or SE is probably inland lake (single tile only)
