Delayed Bronze Working Start

[Cusanus]

I stopped at around turn 60. A barbarian archer had just entered my territory and defeated a warrior defending Hamburg (at ~25% chance).

Luckily, I had already whipped another warrior when the archer had entered my land. Had I not been in Slavery, I would have lost my first city right that moment because of 1 unlucky RNG. For my game at least, it's safe to say that delaying BW would have been worse than getting and using it right away.

[Please: only talk about "better spawn busting" if you really managed to suppress *all* barbarian archers. Because this was the only one to enter my land.]

 

[cseanny]

@ Brennus

Spoiler :

TGL helped quite a bit because I got it around mid 600BC range and with REP/Library bonus probably added 20+ raw , not to mention it expedited my GP generation during my GA. TBH, I don't typically even complete the Oxford in most of my games, or even get more than a single University in my Capital. Of course, with PHI leaders that changes as does how close the game is.

My settled cities are geared at whip potential once my war tech is online. I've always felt it much more important to focus on food/production/whip and settle/conquer that much more land early which translates into a stronger position. After whipping Cuirs the next phase would be to transition everything over to farms/ws/caste while heading up to Comnunism.....pre 1200AD for sure with some more key bulbs.

As far as cottages go, I don't really use them much, for better or worse. In a typical game, w/out the Mids I'll have my Capital with an early Academy with cottages while most other cities focus on farms/mines/ws/specialist while building research/wealth and some key bulbs working my way to a war tech. In my case it's almost always trebs/anything or Cuirs.

Suppose what I"m trying to say is I feel its much better to have stronger units, in mass, A LOT sooner so that I can have that many more cities sooner which translates into much more production/commerce/science that if I had took the time to build up my own settled cities with infrastructure like univ/oxford/markets/etc and then war.

 

[Brennus.Quigley]

I stopped at around turn 60. A barbarian archer had just entered my territory and defeated a warrior defending Hamburg (at ~25% chance).

Luckily, I had already whipped another warrior when the archer had entered my land. Had I not been in Slavery, I would have lost my first city right that moment because of 1 unlucky RNG. For my game at least, it's safe to say that delaying BW would have been worse than getting and using it right away.

[Please: only talk about "better spawn busting" if you really managed to suppress *all* barbarian archers. Because this was the only one to enter my land.]

Thanks for playing. Where did that barbarian archer come from? East, West, North? My first Great Person was a Great Scientist before I ever started the stone wonders and I used him for an academy in Berlin. The culture out of Berlin was so strong that the whole area was soon fog busted by itself, with maybe 1 or 2 warriors positioned in the corners. Positioned the scout on a hill in the desert between Suliaman and I to fog bust there and see if any surprise attacks where coming. No unit supply costs. I will say that not having Bronze Working does mean that you need to have a good defensive plan since you can't rely on enslaving a defender. And I wouldn't call ~25% unlucky. That's a high percentage. I would never want any of my cities to have a 25% chance of being destroyed. That's too risky.

 

[Revent]

Fine. But what does that have to do with Bronze Working? I turned my Berlin into a commerce/production/oxford/ironworks/universal suffrage powerhouse too, and did so by delaying Bronze Working for the Liberalism bulb.

Makes the effectiveness of this strategy a lot less viable on an immortal map where the AI actually have good land to expand to and (some) aren't isolated. Nevertheless, it is an impressive feat to manage without BW until Lib and be in a decent position. Why don't you play this start and this time not delay BW? You will see for yourself whether or not it is better to delay BW providing you limit the bias of your opinion to a minimum (which involves efficiently utilising the whip and chop rather than for example revolting into slavery and doing no whipping).

Problems I see: GE's are just so hard to come across early game that I think wasting one on a bulb just doesn't seem worth it. I think their full benefit is to rush an important wonder such as MoM but these times are just so limited. I find settling them has a lot more power because hammers become more and more important in the late game and that 3 base could be turned into 12 raw hammers per turn. This map is not suitable for BW because although the capital isn't exactly rich in food sources, it's got lots of floodplains which make up for the lack of corn or rice or wheat. Nearby cities have lots of fish food with low production, so whipping is clearly a lot more optimal.

Edit: I've been taking a bit of a break from playing Civ for a small while but I did pick up this game since I told myself I would play it when you posted that article. It was fun at first, but I quickly got bored when I realised the AI were not doing as well as Immortal AI normally do!

 

[Brennus.Quigley]

Why don't you play this start and this time not delay BW?

Maybe, but I already accept cseanny's strong position as evidence that Bronze Working is viable on this map. (I also have a strong position though, and indeed a more well-rounded civilization, although he is better positioned for a Cuirassier rush and he should be able to steamroll from there).

Problems I see: GE's are just so hard to come across early game that I think wasting one on a bulb just doesn't seem worth it.

This map is not an example of the GE bulb. That would be a different kind of map. I used my GE here for the Parthenon, although cseanny's use for the Great Library is most likely better. And besides, isn't the GE Machinery bulb already popular? Machinery and Feudalism are the same value, but again, this map has nothing to do with that.

It was fun at first, but I quickly got bored when I realised the AI were not doing as well as Immortal AI normally do!

What was your position when you stopped? And what is the consensus? Is high sea levels more difficult on Immortal/Deity because you get boxed in easier, or is low sea levels more difficult because the AI expands too much? If I get a map where you're the one isolated on a high sea levels map, would that be considered difficult?

 

[krikav]

Huts and Events are part of the game. I'm always going to play with Huts and Events on, so that's the reality I care about. I would guess that >90% of games are played with Huts and Events on since that is the default setting. Granted, most of you here turn huts and events off, but you are an exceptionally dedicated and small percentage of Civ 4 players worried about comparing scores and all that. Anyway you dice it, you guys are altering the game from its default settings, not me. By taking Huts and Events out, you guys are empowering slavery and making the games less comparable, not me.

WTH?
Are you seriously trying to troll me and everyone else?

I am deeply hurt by your superior attitude, and your rude suggestion that I alter the gameplay to compare scores.

I remove huts/events since i LOVE this game, and I wish to gain a greater understanding of the mechanics at work. Not for such a mundane detail as the scoreboard.
The scoreboard is just a very crude tool, to get a quick assessment of a players situatoin relative to the AIs.

Now, if it was your intent to put forward a case for delaying slavery until liberalism, wouldn't it be NICE for you to MENTION this in the long so called "strategy" guide you wrote?
It's a total gamebreaker.
Events are known to skew the favourability of slavery one way or another.

I have had quite enough of your arrogance.

 

[bhavv]

I don't think you understand that huts and events are 100% RNG based.

So are barbs?

[Please: only talk about "better spawn busting" if you really managed to suppress *all* barbarian archers. Because this was the only one to enter my land.]

Spawn busting isnt ever a reliable barb defense. The only 100% reliable barb defense is Archery, which as we all know - according to the pros - is a useless tech that should be skipped.

I had a weakened barbarian Archer at 2.6 str capture a hilltop city with a fortified warrior at 25% fortification, hill and city bonus. Spawn busting with warriors is beyond ridiculous when they have so little chance of surviving against barb archers unless fortified on a forested hill that it just turns into a waste of hammers.

The way that barb defense is usually handled by the pros is to tech BW or AH, look for copper / horses within the capitals BFC or for your second city. Dont have either? Restart map. BW + Copper is always just way to powerful to be skipped in any game, the only time it makes sense to do this is if you suspect you have horses nearby and want to prioritize chariots / HAs instead, usually much better for Civs which have UUs based on early horse units. But even then, BW is only DELAYED, not skipped.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Good to read your thoughts and play through, and glad that you at least see the logic of a non-Bronze Working Liberalism bulb here. Question, why did you settle on the stone away from the fresh water? I settled in place. I have also just added more about my play through in the intro spoiler.

I settled on the stone for 2 reasons:
- 2 hammers city tile = faster start.
- instant access to Stone once Masonry is researched (saves 8 worker turns) = earlier wonders.
Seeing Stone in BFC, I was sure I'd try to wonderspam: get Mysticism and Masonry asap. Losing fresh water is bad but this is for the better sake: long term sacrifice enable short term goodies.
(techpath: Animal Husbandry, Mysticism, Masonry, The Wheel, Fishing, Pottery, iirc.)

Bypassing Bronze made sense for that whole initial tech sequence. If you're going for the wonders AND Pottery, there's little time for Bronze Working.
It could be backfilled right after, though: ability to whip Granaries, especially, is very much welcome (= much better growth). Skipping the Granary whips is very dodgy.
Getting Bronze after Maths is researched could make sense as well: better chops. But, here, we don't have that many chops. Huhu, I actually had to reload to avoid researching BW after Maths...
Got 5 cities by 1AD without Bronze. Could be 8 or so with it. Also got near 0 infrastructure.


As I see it, skipping Bronze unlocks a hardcore Liberalism beeline (at the very least, there's no need to wait for the AIs getting Compass/bulbing Compass oneself // saves 1 great person). However, to really benefit from it, one needs some perfect timing: it ends with a timing attack and starts with getting the right great persons at the right moment (at least 2 G scientists for Edu and Lib). May be troublesome, especially since an Academy could be useful as well and one could get some non-scientist GPs (= more expensive scientists).

I would think that more balance is better but I regularly undervalue beelines. Rephrased: while bulbing into Liberalism is good, trying to do so puts some strain on the Empire, which is bad.
I'll try it again, though, maybe with some refining and better use for our few mines (externalizing workboats production is a start)...

An expansive leader might be welcome to halve the granary cost. Did you read Vicawoo's article about early Caste System for EXP leaders? Gameplay should follow those lines with a little more Stone action.

 

[rah]

I am deeply hurt by your superior attitude, and your rude suggestion that I alter the gameplay to compare scores.

I had to laugh when I read this. Every single time I mention in a post that I like huts and events I am deluged with comments that I'm not serious competitor since it adds a random element to the game. I really do understand their point when they're comparing games. For me there already is randomness in the game so I don't see it as big of an issue but I've conceded the point before and will again. Despite that, I do always feel a bit insulted myself since I'm considered a fierce competitor by the group I play with. It a bit humorous to see it turned around,

And you have to admit that turning them off is altering game play.

 

[Mylene]

And you have to admit that turning them off is altering game play.

Turning events off = understanding they are very badly programmed, and they never been in any civ game before bts anyways.
You could say turning events on = altering basic Civ game play, too

 

[rah]

BTS was an 'expansion package' that added things to basic CIV games so by your definition BTS = altering basic CIV game play.

And very badly programmed isn't limited to events. The whole vassal system is badly programmed. Some would argue that the AP is badly programmed. I'm not even going to go into the AI programming. And I personally don't think events are THAT badly programmed. They do impact the game more than some would like.

I understand it's not perfect but it is part of the game UNLESS you alter the game by turning them off.

But that's why I enjoy CIV and all the people that I can argue about it here. Variations have kept this game alive for a long time. I respect them even when I disagree. Different opinions does not equal right or wrong. I've learned a lot here.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Interesting discussion - I never used to use Slavery because of the possibility of a slave revolt. Last couple of months I have followed the trend on here and played with no huts/events and used Slavery. My feeling I'd that in that combination slavery is over powered.

Normally in comparing games you want huts/events off but it's a powerful argument that for this particular test they should be on.

 

[rah]

Yes, if any test should have events, this one is the one.
And I agree that with no events, slavery is a no-brainer. But I wish there was a different mechanism for reigning it in.

 

[UnforcedError]

Normally in comparing games you want huts/events off but it's a powerful argument that for this particular test they should be on.

If slave revolts appeared periodically during the time you run Slavery it would indeed be a good argument to leave events on in this game. But they're not called 'Random Events' for nothing. One guy could get 0 revolts while running Slavery the whole time and the other might get 5 in the course of 30 turns. So the two games wouldn't be comparable anymore even though they both used Slavery. You can prove absolutely nothing with random events.

 

[rah]

But in all fairness, over many iterations random events are normalized. So If you try this test 100 times you would get a more true comparison.

For any other comparison game I'd lean towards agreeing with you, but when Slavery is the issue, I don't think you can get a true comparison without events.

 

[UnforcedError]

But in all fairness, over many iterations random events are normalized. So If you try this test 100 times you would get a more true comparison.

For any other comparison game I'd lean towards agreeing with you, but when Slavery is the issue, I don't think you can get a true comparison without events.

Are you suggesting everyone should play a 100-1000 games for proof just to get enough iterations? (Given the limited life-time and all, I think it's easier to turn off events. )

 

[rah]

Actually on this one I don't think 100 games would be necessary to prove the point.

 

[vranasm]

only 100-1000 games? if we start to talk about statistics move it by *10^3 at LEAST!

 

[UnforcedError]

only 100-1000 games? if we start to talk about statistics move it by *10^3 at LEAST!

True. But if we have a 100 - 1000 competitors...

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

only 100-1000 games? if we start to talk about statistics move it by *10^3 at LEAST!

10 cubed is 1000. >.>