COTM 5 : First Spoiler (End of Ancient Age)

[socralynnek]

That's true, but I'm first trading off lux tax vs temple maintenance. Doesn't maintenance also come out at base rate, before market and bank multipliers?

No. Maintenance is paid on civ scale base (otherwise high corrupt cities couldn't have any buildings)
So, in a lot of cities, you could have 100% lux rate but still just one citizen happy because of corruption.
And taxes are multiplied.
And with happiness buildings you can give every city what it needs. If you need 20%lux just for one city, the others will give you less money/beakers.
And, not to forget, all happiness buildings give you culture.
So, it's always better to build happiness improvements instead of raising lux.

 

[Teshik]

Thanks a lot for this detailed description, AlanH !

I've edited my original post to include the screenshots now.

 

[Jason Fliegel]

And, not to forget, all happiness buildings give you culture.

Not marketplaces.

I agree with your main point, though -- I almost always make a Temple my first build in a new city.

 

[SirPleb]

SirPleb,
I am not sure that I understand this point .
1. Tech cost depends on how many civs know this tech. Therefore, the more you know the faster AI research is.
2. The probability of getting tech from goody hut is higher for expansionist civs. I think none of our rivals was expansionist.
3. If goody huts are taken by several different civs there is a good chance that they will be getting the same tech from different huts.

So in general, if all goody huts are taken by different non-expansionist civilizations less amount of tech will be obtained on this particular world.
In addition, AI is a lousy explorer, particularly on low levels. In other games I was noticing goody huts next to AI borders that they did not touch at all.

My question is: Are you sure that taking as many goody huts as possible is a right strategy to slow down research pace in this particular world?

I'm not sure of this. I don't think it hurt, at worst I would guess I broke even.

I got a few techs which I otherwise would have had to trade something for. I think that would have meant trading tech. In most cases I'd be able to trade a tech already known to other Civs but that's still a little help to the AIs which I was able to avoid.

Every hut I popped was also a possible settler for an AI which they didn't get and that's a direct help to conquest and to slowing their research.

The AIs poor exploration might actually improve the techs they get from huts. Because they leave some huts till late in the exploration phase, they might trade with other Civs and then get a "good" tech from those late huts.

I'm not positive how it all adds up but I'm happy with how it worked out for me. I wanted to explore quickly anyway, I think aggressively taking huts at the same time was a good thing.

 

[killerloop]

@Solenoozerec

I tend to agree with SirPleb, still there's the trading aspect to think about.

If I look at my game where I popped 7 techs from huts, AI research was very slow. Example: I traded in 1275 Alphabet with the Celts, a 1st level tech. I guess they still wouldn't have it if I didn't have traded for it.

My observation for this particular game is that there is very little trading between AI civs. My guess is that the high amount of barbs I saw, slow down the exploration ambitions of the AI considerably, they tend to prioritize killing a local barb (hut) over exploration. Guess it also has to do with the Regent level setting.
Did anyone notice the same?

Leaves the question open, what, if AI trading would be higher? Is it better to pop the huts yourself or have the AI pop them?

If the AI pops them, and trade them out immediately, definitely the research will be faster.
If you pop them, you can restrict the trading. You increase research speed a little, as the tech is known now, but not to a bunch of guys!

Hence, I guess popping them yourself is better. That's what I did.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Pre-game thoughts: Wanted to try AA Conquest (but changed my mind to MA domination). Planned on settler factory if the cow square was real (and set up two settler factories sharing the wheat). All core cities would be military factories. Far out cities would be workers or wealth.

Ancient Era: 4000BC-775BC

Cuzco production: 3750-ChScout, 3150-granary, 3050BC-worker, 2950-worker, 2800-settler, 2670-settler, 2430-barracks, 2310-settler, 2270-warrior; continue factory operations from 4.5-6.5 population

Found Tiwanaku(3SW) 2670: 2390-ChScout, then Barracks & military factory
Found MachuPicchu (2E/1SE) 2590: starts granary & becomes second ‘settler/worker’ factory; will share wheat after Monarchy found for 6/4 and 4/6 two turn population increases in Cuzco & MP respectively

GH: 2630-warrior, 2470-maps, 2350 – 25g, 1700 - Literacy

Meeting the enemy: 3050-Greeks, 2900-Aztec, 2470-Celts, 2350-India, 2070-Rome, 1150-Japan, 925-Carthage

Research: 3500-Ceremonial Burial, 3050 – Alphabet from Greeks, 2900-Warrior Code & Bronze Working from Aztec, 2800 – Mysticism, 2550 – TheWheel from Aztec, 2070? – Polytheism, 1700 – Writing, 1700- Literacy from GH, 1575 – Philosophy/Monarchy (4-turn revolt to Monarchy), 1475- Math from Greeks, 1100- Code of Laws, didn’t record? – Map Making, 775- Currency, trade Greeks Cur+CoL for Construction, then Literacy+Monachy for Monotheism

1075: declare War on Aztec

1000BC: 11 cities, 41 population, 3 settlers, 14 workers; 1 warrior, 2 archers, 14 swordsmen, 3 ChScout
missing 3 AA Techs (Currency, Construction, Map Making); 248 gold

Strategy: instead of fighting the Greeks, I’ll go through the Aztec to connect horses. As you can tell I’ve already given up on AA Conquest, but will be going for Chivalry Domination. Will try to Build Temple of Artemis for the cultural expansion. Although I’ve already finished, I’ll save the rest of the Post for the next Thread since it is all in the MA.

 

[Jove]

Arrrr, first I wan't to point out that, as an AAC player, I actually did go into the MA. I saw the challenge presented 2 ways: Only using Ancient Age units, and then, after I'd started, not learning the last Ancient tech. I stuck to AA units, never learned a MA tech, AND I got the cool headdress.
Anyway, it didn't matter. I really got whupped this time. I'll get back to that though.
I started out moving the settler NE to take advantage of the Wheat. I built a Chopsqui first thing, which came in handy this game with all the mountains. That guy did most of my exploring, got Ceremonial Burial, Horseback Riding, maps and a warrior from huts. He was a strategic failure though, when he met the Celts he looped to the west to meet the Indians and Romans, ending up north of the Greeks. The japanese and Carthaginians weren't discovered until later. However, he did help me pull off my favorite manouver of this game. Around 1790, I had traded techs for gold and Workers to all the civs I'd med except the Greeks, who I considered my worst enemy. I really wanted one of their workers, more to slow them down than anything. But I wasn't ready for war. As the Chopsqui came around the north side of Greece, he spied a worker doing his business outside Athens. So the Chopsqui invaded the territory, just kind of flexing muscles and saying 'hi' to the worker. The dude dropped his shovel and ran straight into Athens, allowing me to buy him from Alexander without starting a war! Maybe no big deal, but I thought I was being slick at that point
1050 I started a war with Greece by taking one of his settlers. I had mostly archers at this point, so I was thinking 'attrition'. 5 archers got lucky and killed 2 hoplites in Pharsalos in 875bc. I took the city, Greece traded 2 more cities and gold for peace. So, a greek settler, 3 cities, a couple workers, I thought Greece was whacked by this point, and kept the peace 20 turns while building up.

1000 BC, I had 14 cities, 10 workers, 1 scout, 17 warriors, 9 archers, 1 settler, 2 chopsqui, and 7 slaves of which I was so proud.

825 BC I started a similar war with Aztecs by attacking one of their settlers. This war is actually where I lost the competition this month. My army was small, my few swordsmen were slow, I succeeded in taking the first couple cities, then Tenochitlan. But Then I executed some ill-considered attacks on several Aztect cities with insufficient numbers and lost maybe 7 swordsmen without winning the cities. I drifted in strategy at this point, my empire was transitioning into one that could fight for elimination rather than just attrition. It was the wrong war at the wrong time!!
I entered the Golden Age in 550 BC, war with Greece again in 450 BC, got India and Celts and Rome as allies and RoP partners. So I set up a foolproof plan to abuse the RoP's by having 7 units stationed outside the 3 best cities each of Rome and India, and then perform the 'lights out!'(thx darkness) manouver, the day of infamy when empires fall all at once. It was effective, but...
410 BC I met Carthage. This is also where I lost the competition. First of all, what's a curraugh? I'm not used to C3C, I didn't even notice these guys! Still, I could've built a ton of galleys at this point, but did not, I was focused waaaay to much on the above strategy. Building tons of horses and swords, turn the crank, fight the Celts, geez, it wasn't until 350 AD that I had all the units set up to work my plot. (People had already won by this point). Japan just happens to declare war at this point, the Chasqui over there pillages key tiles that stay pillaged the rest of the game, Rome and India fall gloriously in 10 turns while the Celts are also getting creamed... I hope this doesn't sound too whiny, 'cause it was really a lot of fun, even though I got by butt kicked.
In 380 AD I set up the FP in Entremont with a GL. Whoops! Forbidden Palace apparently isn't any good in C3C!! I didn't know that!! Darn. At this point I have the bright idea to build a fleet of galleys to invade Carthage. 380 AD! What was I thinking? Why didn't I think of this sooner??? I just don't know!
At 510 AD the Celts are destroyed. I check- I have 237 units, all my home cities are set with distant rally points and horsemen, with occasional settlers for score, every turn I got hypnotized watching all those guys perform their automated moves. It was clear the AI had no chance, but there seemed to be something wrong with having 150 horsemen all marching to the same place. I knew there was a better way, and I'd missed it!
In 580 AD I captured Tokyo and the Temple of Artemis. I decided that moving 165+ horses and 50+ swordsmen on all these galleys was going to be just too much. I knew I was behind the competition. So I mopped up what I could and allowed ToA to give me a domination win in 630 AD. 5604 Firaxis points, 10802 jason score.


Mistakes I hope not to make again:
-Built the Colossus. I like it, it is usually useless captured, it helped in this game, but the Lighthose would have been better. The Colossus itself isn't a mistake, but I need to make a better decision instead of just taking a shine to my favorite wonder all the time.
-Built cities in rings. Here's a SirPleb quote: 'RCP is gone(in C3C). Place your cities according to geography and don't worry about equidistant rings.' Well, I read that after my game was over. Now I know.
-Built the FP in Entremont. Here's another SirPleb quote:'It no longer makes sense to build the FP in a totally corrupt region...' Yeah, you're right, I found out the hard way.
-Got stuck on a mechanical strategy. I was so focused on the 'lights out!' thing that I wasn't paying attention to getting the fastest possible finish, or the highest score. I'll save the 'lights out!' manouver for a more tense situation, my score would've been higher had I just plowed though the other civs as soon as I could.
-I'm trying to milk the score once I have things under control. For example, I was putting settlers down as quick as I could for the land. I could have diverted more to use as workers to get to Japan more quickly. I did this to get to the Celts, and then kind of gave up on it. Gotta be more strategic next time.
-Short-rush. Never thought of that...
-Again, why didn't I start building galleys in 410BC?????

Whatever. Thanks to the staff, this was a fun game for me. Thanks to the AAC jockeys, this was a great challenge, I think you all beat me. Congats to the champs and everyone who was involved!!!

 

[Dynamic]

PREDATOR

This is my first Conquests game.
After moving scout to the hill I settled on the place and started granary.
My worker chop 2 forests with furs, irrigate plains with furs and go to the wheet.
At start I stopped research because I expected fast meeting another civs.
Scout moves north then west along coast. In 3750BC I met Greece and trade Alphabet.
Immediately start research Writing and got it in 2630BC.
Further my scout move around internal sea and met all civs except Carthage before was killed by barbs.
I built granary in 3450BC then warrior (Greece warrior appear near my capital) then in 3050BC settler.
Greece send 4 warriors and hoplite to me and I must change my building program for defence.
My first settler found Tiwanaku in 2900BC on the hill SW from Cuzco.
In 2750BC Greek's troup etred in my territory near Tiwanaku and in 2710BC attacked me!
My 2 warriors stay alive and Greek went out. Some turns further I got Sparta for peace!
After Writing I research Code of Laws and Philosophy in 1790BC. My free tech was Republic.
In 1700BC I finnaly switch to it.
After discovering Republic I give it to the other known civs for boost their research.
After Republic I learn Literature and Currency other tech I traded.
Entered in MA in 1050BC.
No other wars.
At this date massive barb troups cut off me from the dyes and my setter turn around.

1000BC Stats:
19 cities
48 pop
6 libraries
1 granary
1 barrack
266 points
All AA tech exept Monarchy
Feudalism in 6 turn

 

[klarius]

First of all, what's a curraugh?

Doesn't matter what a curragh is.
But as general rule for C3C build at least 2 of them as soon as you can, to map out the coastline.
Build more on any landmass other than Pangaea (or even on a Pangaea, if it looks like this one ) to upgrade to galleys later.

 

[horragoth]

Build more on any landmass other than Pangaea (or even on a Pangaea, if it looks like this one ) to upgrade to galleys later.

Actually, I built only single curragh in this game. Chasquies are very capable of mapping coastline on hilly pangea map. Especialy if you sign ROPs.

 

[solenoozerec]

Actually, I built only single curragh in this game. Chasquies are very capable of mapping coastline on hilly pangea map. Especialy if you sign ROPs.

I agree, they were not very useful in this game. I built one and it brought me a contact with Carthage a few turns before game was over. No use.

 

[bradleyfeanor]

I finally finished my AAC (got delayed due to work) and I am writing up my game summary now. If my job continues to interfere with my Civing, I may just have to hand them my pink slip. Must keep my priorities straight, after all. It was most frustrating watching the spoiler thread grow and not being able to participate or see how everyone was doing. That was a side-effect of the AAC I didn’t think about!

Good news, bad news, good news:
Good--best game I have played yet
Bad--looks like I still will not get a medal.
Good--might get an award!
More good: you guys were right, a BC victory is definitely possible

Off to write my summary...

Dynamic: Glad to see you have Conquests now! Although that means its going to be that much tougher to get a medal for the rest of us…

 

[bradleyfeanor]

Open, going for the AAC

Pregame Plans
I wrote about two pages of notes before I ever took a turn. They are in my QSC Log if anyone is interested, although as others have mentioned regarding their logs, mine was extremely long for this game. Basically, I ended up being wrong on just about everything anyway: I planned to build a force of catapults if we faced Hoplites or similar ancient age units, I thought a good victory date would be around 400 AD, I wanted to build horses early, etc. Wrong, wrong and wrong. I really have little experience with ultra-early victories and variants, so I made some bad estimates. But my plans changed dramatically at a few key dates in the game, and as a result it didn’t go too badly. In fact, it was the best victory date I have ever had by far!

I wrote much of this summary as I was playing the game, so my impressions at several points are way off, but I tried to go back and add notes that indicated when this was the case. I decided to go ahead and post the summary as I initially wrote it, because although I was incorrect on many of my assumptions, I still ended up having a really good game.

Early Expansion
The first thing I checked was F10, and I discovered that my worst fears were a reality: Carthage, Greeks, Romans. Surely a bane to any AAC, as Denyd had prognosticated in the Pregame thread. I revised my estimated victory date OUT to 500 ad. (Poor analysis!) But I intended to plough ahead with an AAC anyway.

Exploring for huts was a priority, not only to get a few freebies myself, but to deny the AI free techs. So my initial build sequence was Chasqui, Chasqui (chopped), Granary (2 chops), worker, worker, settler, barracks, then 4-turn warrior/settler factory from there out, although it also did duty as a 2-turn warrior/worker factory quite often. The granary was not complete until 3000bc due to the early Chasquis, the first settler came out at 2590bc, and the warrior/settler factory went online in 2550. Pretty late for this map.

My second two cities each built a granary to help with getting settlers out. Other than that most cities built a catapult to join the force of warriors (future swords) being produced in the capitol, as I planned for my first strike to be against the strong Greek Hoplites. Several cities built a barracks or a few workers after the first catapult.

Early Exploration
Prioritizing the early Chasquis didn’t really pay off in huts, as several people who built them after their granary still managed to get more huts than me:

Hut summary
2950 Free village, but far to the north by the Romans. It is corrupt and can only generate +1fpt. I pop-rushed a settler as soon as it reached size three in order to move it.
2550 Mysticism
2510 Maps
2270 25g
1475 Maps
I think I got another map, but forgot to record the year.

My scouts did get a lot of exploring done and dispersed a great many barb camps. The exploration did not reveal much to make me happy though: we pretty much lived in Mordor, except with even more mountains and swamps. The slow troop movement that would result from this made me think the AAC would be nearly impossible (couldn’t have been more wrong), but I plodded on. I felt Conquest would probably allow for the earliest victory, so that was the direction I was leaning. Also, it appeared that Sir Pleb was going that route and I wanted to be able to compare my game decisions to his. I also decided not to use RoP abuse for the same reason.

I met all the civs except Carthage very early. Carthage contact did not come until 1000bc, when one of their workers finally stepped to the coast and my scout hailed him from across the channel south of Kyoto.

Research
My tech research was quite unimportant, but here is a summary:
3150 research TW. Trade Alex Mas and Pot for Alph and 10g, Trade Aztecs Mas and Alph for WC, BW and 10g.
2550 give Celts Masonry for CB, worker and 22g
2430 give Romans Masonry for worker and 10g. (I wanted everyone to have Masonry as soon as possible to start the pyramids for me. This was moderately successful, as the Aztecs started the Pyramids in their capitol in 1950bc.)
2390 give Greeks WC and Mys for IW. Also give Mys to Celts and India to try to get them to research Poly for me. Didn’t work.
2270 research writing
1700 research Poly
1550 research Phil and get Monarchy for my Free Tech.
1475 trade Alex writing and 19g for math.
1000 research MM and begin researching Currency for a few turns (have no idea why), then turn off research for the rest of the game.
750 get HR by demanding it from the Aztecs.

I tried to be stingy with everyone except the Greeks, because a fast tech pace would have made victory with ancient age units quite difficult.

The Greek War, 1125bc-690bc
I nearly met with disaster by trading with the Greeks: as a result of my gifts, they had construction before we went to war. They also popped a conscript warrior from a hut I had missed and marched him straight toward the Aztecs. I knew I needed to eliminate them quickly, if possible, so they would not be able to trade away construction. My cats were certainly helpful in this war, but the battle-odds still did not go in my favor. I took Thermopylae in 1075 bc. My cats redlined both hoplites in the city, but I still lost two veteran swords. Athens fell in 925bc, and I autorazed their other three cities over the next few hundred years. On the turn they were destroyed, they made contact with the Aztecs and gave them construction.

QSC Stats
15 cities
41 pop
3 granaries
2 barracks
1 temple
10 workers
1 scout
5 warriors
7 swordsmen
10 catapults
3 Chasqui Scouts
1 Curragh
4 slaves
Contact with everyone, no embassies
All techs except CoL, Lit, Const, Cur, HR, Republic
Score 209 (Japan is second with 162.)



Revolution, GA and FP
I formed a Monarchy at 1400 bc, after a 6 turn anarchy (re-revolt trick yielded no improvement). I kicked off my GA with a chasqui against a redlined hoplite in 925 bc. I had started my FP in Thermopylae, but I quickly realized it would be finished too late to do me any good in this game, so I switched a city right next to my palace to the FP. It was complete in 430bc (still too late, really).

Continued due to size limits...

 

[bradleyfeanor]

Reevaluating the Game at 750bc
I stopped at this time to give the game a long, hard look. I did some estimates to predict the size of my military at 200 year intervals, I inferred the size of the AIs military at these dates given the relative weakness of the Greeks, and I also took note of how backward the AI was on development. Took several hours. All AIs were light years behind in tech and had virtually no developed tiles at all (and thus no resources or luxuries). For instance, here is what the Romans looked like:



I realized that I was way off on my estimated victory date, probably because this is only my third time playing regent level. Like others noticed in their games, I began to see that this game could be won much, much earlier: possibly in the bc’s. Unfortunately, the development of my civ had been based on a later victory date estimation, and I knew I was probably behind many players as a result. If I had known how weak the AI would be, I would have built more early granaries and less military. I also would have built no catapults at all. They were a useless investment now, because I did not have enough workers to build the roads they would need to get through the mountains and swamps. The rest of my military would be in position to attack a dozen turns before them, at a minimum.

I had to make a firm decision on my means of victory at this point: conquest or domination. I looked ahead to see how long it would take me to get forces to Carthage, and it looked like I could get there with about 20 swords around 110bc. That was probably the quickest route to victory (I thought at the time—wrong again!). But I also evaluated domination victory. It looked like a tough challenge given my game: I only had 9% of the map, although 42% of the population. It would be difficult to balance settler builds against military builds in a way that would give me the earliest possible victory. And even if I balanced it perfectly, I didn’t see how I could win before 10ad. Given the state of my game, it looked like a much more interesting challenge than conquest, and I believed I would at least learn more if I tried it. Also, I had a pretty good idea that it would result in a higher score than conquest due to land area. I finally decided on domination.

The Mad Rush for Land (and a bit of AI thumping)
Given the time they started, I expected the Aztecs to be the first to complete the pyramids: around 450 bc (dead on target on that estimation). My military would be ready and waiting to capture them when that occurred. Unfortunately, no one was even close to the ToA. I immediately switched Cuzco to ToA and several other cities from military to settlers. I did not change my navy builds, because even with my new victory goal the boats would be needed: only against Japan instead of against Carthage. I antagonized the Aztecs, Japan and Carthage in an attempt to get them to declare war, but it didn’t work. I declared war on Japan myself. A few turns later, in 590 bc, I declared war on the Aztecs.

13% land area


Two turns later I also declared on the Celts. I started all these wars for two reasons: 1) I wanted them going slow in tech, and 2) I want them to send offensive units after me so I could get better leader opportunities. As it turned out, both were poor reasons, although it didn’t hurt me any to be at war.

I took a couple of Celt and Aztec cities in the next few turns, but then I ran into more frustration: they started pop-rushing their cities to size one as soon as my military got close. This was ok when I was going for conquest, but it was devastating for a domination goal. I let this go on for several turns before I realized I could put an end to it. In 410 bc (one turn after taking the Aztec capitol and the pyramids), I gifted poly and monarchy to both the Romans and the Indians, and in the next two turns they dutifully traded them to both the Aztecs and Celts. Better late than never I guess.

17% land area


Since I thought I couldn’t get a BC victory, I decided to delay my invasion of Japan by a few turns in order to take a few Celt cities. I took their capitol in 370 bc, and got my first leader, who formed a sword army. At that date I had 29 swords, 24 horse, 13 galleys, and a few warriors, chariots and chasquis. There were 11 catapults that had been mostly useless, but my workers had just finished a road through the formerly-Greek swamp to Roman lands, so my cats would at least be able to help in that battle. Several others were also loaded onto boats to help take coastal cities. Not that I really needed them, because Japan was the only AI that had iron. I got two more leaders in the next several turns. I also had 30 workers, 20 slaves, and 7 settlers—the latter running as fast as they could to found cities. Another 25 settlers were in production. It was an all out race to claim territory, and at several points I had undefended settlers risking barb attack or walking openly one tile away from an enemy city: a very, very odd game indeed.

By counting up shields, I determined my capitol would complete the ToA in 210bc. Therefore, my earliest possible victory date could theoretically be 110bc, the turn of cultural border expansion. (I was actually off by a turn, the temple gives the culture on the inter-turn that the ToA is built on.) 110bc was also a special date for another reason: no cities founded after that date would expand their borders before the AD’s. I then went over the map with a fine-toothed comb, locating every site that would need a city. (This took quite a bit of time also.) It looked like I would need about 28 new cities to reach domination, and they would all have to be founded in the next 15 turns. I thought this wasn’t possible given the production capacity of my civ and the distance my settlers needed to walk, but I gave it a shot anyway. I am glad I did, because I was wrong in my estimations. It looked like victory would not come until around 70 ad, but it actually came much sooner than that.

19% land area


27% land area


34 % land area: before the ToA culture expansions


54% land area: after TOA culture expansions. IMHO, pretty much shows how overpowered the ToA is, like many other things in Civ Conquests


66% land area (Domination victory)


At the end of the game I had 12 settlers, 20 workers (several joined cities near the end), 20 swords, 42 horsemen, 11 cats, 20 galleys (yes, I chained them!), 3 armies, a few sundry other units, and 38 slaves.

Although this game went much better than I expected when I decided to try the AAC, once I finished with a BC date, I expected to see a Jason score in the high 12k range. I actually only received 12,013. I am still thrilled, mind you! That’s the highest score I have ever received. But I was wondering, could the fact that I had 12 settlers running around at the time of my victory have lowered my score significantly? Anyone know?

It could just be that I was behind in pop for a long time, because Darkness was a bit ahead of me at the end of the QSC, and Florian K was absolutely smoking! Nice game guys!

 

[SirPleb]

Great game and great writeup bradleyfeanor!

 

[Memento]

3950 settled Cuzco,--> granary
warroir code 100%
3??? i meet greece,trade pottery+masonary for alph+10g
3100 meet rome,trade pottery for bronze+10g,cuzco built archer-->settler
2950 my scout found a warrior
2900 warrior against warrior and rome +2 worker are mine
2750 cuzco settler-->archer
2590 settled tiwanaku-->granary,cuzco archer-->settler,
2550 scout found ceremonial burial
2470 meets india,trade pottery for 10g+1 worker
2430 cuzco settler-->chasqui scout, meets atztecs,trade masonary + ceremonial for the wheel+10g
2310 writing--->code of law,greece trade writing for iron working
2270 cuzco chasqui scout-->warrior,settled machu picchu
2190 cuzco warrior-->settler
2110 meet celts ,trade alpha for mystic+10g,war with atztecs,captured teotihuacan
2030 cuzco settler-->archer,
1950 peace with atztecs for tlateloco+1 worker
1910 cuzco archer--->worker
1870 settled ollantaytambo,rome settler--->settler
1830 col-->philo,cuzco worker-->settler
1790 settled corihua
1750 tiwanaku granary-->settler
1675 cuzco settler-->archer,war with greece
1650 philo,rep,anarchie,trade with celts writing for 25 g
1625 meet japan,trade alpha for 35 g,
1500 rep
1475 peace with greece for sparta
1450 settled huamanga
1425 cuzco archer-->spearmen
1350 poly-->literature,cuzco spearmen-->settler
1325 war with atztecs,settled vilcas,captured technochtitlan,
1275 trade with celts philo for 78g,with japan masonary for 25g,
1250 cuzco settler-->worker
1225 settled vilcabamba,peace with atztecs for tlaxcala,1 worker + 1g
1200 cuzco worker-->settler
1175 i become from indians bombay
1125 war with celts
1100 cuzco settler-->worker
1075 settled andahuaylas+vitcos
1050 cuzco worker-->archer
1000 17 citys, 45 pollution,3 settler,6 own worker,7 other workers,10 archer,2 spearmen,7 warriors and 1 scout,246 points
925 peace with celts for gergovia
900 trade with japan,col for horseback+ 69 g
875 japan razed 1 city from me grrr,give celts mathe for war with japan
750 i lost gergovia , found map making
730 war with india,captured madras
710 ga
690 peace with japan for nagoya
570 peace with india for 1 worker+2 g
510 war with celts
470 razed 1 celts city
410 machu pichu builds temple of artemis,war with atztecs
390 razed lugdunum
370 peace with celts for richborogh+57g,greece give me pharsalos
350 japan makes war
290 destroy atztecs
190 peace with japan for nara
170 war with celts
150 captured entremont with oracle
110 captured alesia
10 war with greece,captured athen+ dehli
10 ad lost 1 city by indians,war with japan,captured izumo,razed 1 celts city
30ad captured nagasaki,captured corinth
70ad captured tokyo,peace with greece for 9g
90ad capture verulamium
170ad a vulcan razed the celts
250ad domi

Game: COTM 05
Date submitted: 2004-10-17
Reference number: 5265
Your name: Memento
Your email: Moderator Action: Email Address deleted. Don't feed the spammers!
Software Version: C3C 1.22f for Windows
Entry class: open
Game status: Domination Victory for Inca
Game date: 250 AD
Firaxis score: 6544
Jason score: 11938
Time played: 27:11:10
Submitted save: cotm05_Memento_250ad.SAV
Renamed file: Memento_COTM005_C3C122_01.SAV

there are too many mistakes i made.
the biggest as that i made war with greece to late,i would waiting for pyras

sorry for the bad english

 

[Jove]

Congrats on your BC victory Bradleyfeanor! I don't recall ever seeing that...

 

[Dynamic]

Although this game went much better than I expected when I decided to try the AAC, once I finished with a BC date, I expected to see a Jason score in the high 12k range. I actually only received 12,013. I am still thrilled, mind you! That’s the highest score I have ever received. But I was wondering, could the fact that I had 12 settlers running around at the time of my victory have lowered my score significantly? Anyone know?

Congratulations, bradleyfeanor!
Very fast game!

May be you could get ahigher score if built ToA earlier?
I built it in 510BC, but lose to Darkness and Memento who ended later than me.
I think it was because I started mass war very late and my base score was small.

 

[Darkness]

Great game bradleyfeanor. I think a fastest domination award is a definate possiblity for you.

What was your Firaxis score? I had 6674 points. Maybe I just had more score than you did, 'cause your teritory growth was a bit slower than mine I think, and I think I had a very large population since 500 BC or so, after I built the Pyramids. Maybe that's the difference?

 

[bradleyfeanor]

Once the Jason calculator is updated for this game, I will go back, add in those extra settlers and workers, and recalculate, just to see if that can make a difference in the score. It would be good to know for the future.

I guess you guys are right though, it is probably just a matter of pop and happiness over many turns: although my Firaxis was 7031. I was kind of hoping we might have some kind of Y-minus-zero-K (Y-0K) bug in the Jason, but given that the Jason score is the playground of the mathmatically-minded Aeson an AlanH, probably not. Plus, Alan is a Mac user, so I don't think he is capable of making date errors.