COTM 12 Pre-Game Discussion
- Thread starter ainwood
- Start date
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Theoden said:Anyway, I'm still waiting for SirPleb's analysis so I know what my starting moves will be
Sir Pleb seems to be AWOL so you'll have to settle for DaveMcW.
Plenty good for me.Adding to his comments and Renata's:
Worker north-east. Assuming this doesn't discover anything remarkable (which I don't expect it to). Next the scout goes south then probably east. Finally settler south-east. I expect to settle on this spot. Two BG equivalents and a plains is good enough for me. That's 2 1/2 warriors + a settler every ten turns, going from size 2 to 4. Not so shabby.
However, as Dave says, the scout will get one more move before a final decision.
One point to mull over: workers popped from goody huts (who, by the way, are native) are not really very useful, especially when they are far from home. It may be a good idea to reverse the normal trick and put settlers into your build queue when popping a hut. This ensures you get something else.
Abegweit said:
I don't think building or having a settler blocks getting a worker from a hut. It hasn't in other games with this switch.
If you don't want to march a worker home, use it to explore until something kills it. Think of it as a slow scout.
Zelda's Man
A Link to Something
Does having a worker in the queue block getting a worker then?
solenoozerec
Stranger
CKS said:
I think we need some clarification here from the stuff. Does settler production in one of the cities block worker appearance from a hut or it does not?
If it does, than IMHO reverse trick suggested by Abegweit is a very good idea. I remember that in Mongol game, one of the workers had to move home about 20 turns and I paid gpt for this guy (I poped two or three workers in that game, I wish they were settlers). I did not like the idea of using a worker as a slow scout, I had enough fast ones.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
I can't see that building a worker would stop it. Consider that the rule would also kick in if you had a worker in the field.
Arrrr, DaveMcW, Moonsinger... I love playing against the champs, but they always defeat me horribly. Moderator Action: Deleted GOTM 42 spoiler info - AlanH I may take a lesson and try to be less hike-happy with the settler. Maybe I'll see what open does to my score... I don't think I've ever tried it!
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
I thought you had to actually have a settler to stop from popping one (I'm probably wrong here). And, like it's been said, would a worker prevent a worker from popping? Probably not if the game is not coded that way.
Iver-P
Monarch - AS IF!
I have found a method to peer just a bit further into the fog of the opening screen shots, and btw any screen shot of CIV3. I can't say it reveals anything astounding on COTM12. But it could be possible to reveal a resource that is not clearly visible without the technique. I assume others have figured this out. I'm usually not the first with anything around here.
Questions:
1. Is it documented?
2. Are people doing it?
3. Is it legal in GOTM?
4. Should this discussion even be here in pre-game?
Questions:
1. Is it documented?
2. Are people doing it?
3. Is it legal in GOTM?
4. Should this discussion even be here in pre-game?
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
resources don't show up until you get the the wheel or iron working, so do you mean luxuries?
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
@MeteorPunch
If you have a settler, whether in production or in the field, you will not get another settler from a GH. This has been confirmed by Firaxis.
M-B has discovered that it is possible to replace getting settlers from GHs by getting workers. OK. The question is how this change affects the rule.
Being a software engineer myself, I would say that there are only two possibilities (anything else would require deliberate - and strange - programmer coding). Given that X is some unit which is affected by opening a GH.
Either
a) having X in production and X in the field prevents X from being produced (where X is ether a settler or a worker or somethinelse...).
or
b) having settlers (or some unit with the settler flag) in production or settlers in the field prevents X from being produced.
As I clearly remember a violation of rule A and do not believe that any programmer would ever invent any rule other than these two, my conclusion is that workers cannot be produced while settlers are around. This means that CKS is wrong and that no workers have ever been gained by GHs while settlers existed. I could be wrong. I would welcome a counter-example.
If you have a settler, whether in production or in the field, you will not get another settler from a GH. This has been confirmed by Firaxis.
M-B has discovered that it is possible to replace getting settlers from GHs by getting workers. OK. The question is how this change affects the rule.
Being a software engineer myself, I would say that there are only two possibilities (anything else would require deliberate - and strange - programmer coding). Given that X is some unit which is affected by opening a GH.
Either
a) having X in production and X in the field prevents X from being produced (where X is ether a settler or a worker or somethinelse...).
or
b) having settlers (or some unit with the settler flag) in production or settlers in the field prevents X from being produced.
As I clearly remember a violation of rule A and do not believe that any programmer would ever invent any rule other than these two, my conclusion is that workers cannot be produced while settlers are around. This means that CKS is wrong and that no workers have ever been gained by GHs while settlers existed. I could be wrong. I would welcome a counter-example.
Iver-P
Monarch - AS IF!
oops - you are correct.MeteorPunch said:
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
Responding to Abegweit: There is 99% chance that we'll *have* a worker, so it seems the only option would be a switch to settler before popping the hut. Thanks for the info.
Well, since we don't know for sure, do both, and then you're guaranteed to get the effect, if it exists. Before you pop a hut, have a worker And a settler in a queue somewhere. Though you'll surely have a worker somewhere on the board.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
@Jove
This would work. However... remember that the rule is that you can't have an "X" in production or in the field.
When was the last game you played without a worker?
This would work. However... remember that the rule is that you can't have an "X" in production or in the field.
When was the last game you played without a worker?
namliaM
Deity
Well I have not figured that....so at the very least your not the last person too....Iver-P said:
Più Freddo
From space, earth is blue
Redbad said:
But in their absense, hairy creatures have grown strong!
Iver-P said:
Fog-gazing is a traditional part of the pre-game discussion. All you can do with the starting image is to manipulate the pixels that are there, and they are available to all players. So, yes, it's legal and you are free to discuss it if you wish.
I can't tell you whether your method is documented or if people are doing it your way, 'cos I don't know how you are doing it. But with Photoshop you can play with the pixels to enhance contrast or color or whatever. Better monitors are sufficient sometimes to show things that others don't. And some players have used the editor in the past to try to reproduce the exact pixel patterns they see on the edges of the fog.
BTW, if we are being pedantic, "resource" is a valid term to cover both "strategic resources" and "luxury resources". See the Civilopedia.
Abegweit said:
In SGOTM 5, huts gave workers, not settlers. We (team jeffelammar) inquired, and mad-bax replied that the hut workers were not the same as the regular workers. Since the hut worker unit can't be built, we couldn't keep from popping them. I don't know if having a hut worker already prevents popping a second one. I don't think we ever tried to test it, but mad-bax apparently has.
Here is the link to the thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105351
It is at the very end of the page.
Similar threads
