Department of Turnplay

[Daghdha]

So game is afoot and discussions has begun . Please use this thread for further musing on the specific moves our TP should do.
So far the word is "Settle in place".

 

[killercane]

What to build first? A warrior puts us in the trading loop early if we send him in the right direction, while I believe we have time to put out a settler first and then some warriorage. I doubt anyone will be right on top of us by 3500 BC. Settler first doubles our production and fpt.

 

[jb1964]

Put the warrior/diplomat out first. I would love to catch someone founding a city w/o any defense. It would be nice leverage for setting terms of a long term agreement, or not.



BTW, doesn't the guy getting spanked here look like he's enjoying it?

 

[RFHolloway]

Playing solo I would go warrior warrior worker granery. An early worker is as good as half a settler when you have many tiles to improve, and if we do warrior warrior worker we never decease population, so it wouldn't be obvious. As for the settler vs granery debate - Granery doubles food for 60 shields, settler adds 2 (3 if on a river) plus the effect of moving population to more food rich sites for 30. With this start I doubt any of the first 4 population will benefit from a move and with 5 fpt the granery is better.

With 2 warriors 1 would stay at home (perhaps looking for a second city site) while the other went out exploring.

In any case as long as the worker goes to the cow, the settler settles in place and next turn the worker irrigates its OK with me. We can discuss what the shields should be used for over a

 

[Ansar]

Put the warrior/diplomat out first. I would love to catch someone founding a city w/o any defense. It would be nice leverage for setting terms of a long term agreement, or not.

Sounds like something you would do to an AI. But I think the same things could be demanded out of a human when such conditions are present.
I think we should build a warrior first. Send him to the mountain for a quick view.

BTW, doesn't the guy getting spanked here look like he's enjoying it?

Yeah, I find that disturbing.

 

[Theryman]

What is the difference between a masochist and a sadist?
A machosist says 'Hurt me!' and a sadist says 'No.'

Anyways, we need a warrior out early to attempt to bash some early skulls.

 

[Tone]

Ooops. Looks like I'm late to the party.

What to build first? A warrior puts us in the trading loop early if we send him in the right direction, while I believe we have time to put out a settler first and then some warriorage. I doubt anyone will be right on top of us by 3500 BC. Settler first doubles our production and fpt.

Interesting. I'd normally go for a warrior to do a bit of scouting in order to find a good 2nd city site (as well as meet people) but if we see a second cow when we settle in place, a settler build may be an interesting gambit. Hmmm.

 

[RFHolloway]

Options to choose between


Option 1 - my preferred ( axes turns 5 and 9, workers turns 12 and 23, granary on turn 21 settlers on turn 27 and every 4 turns thereafter)


Option 2 - No workers (axes turn 5 and 9, No workers, granary turn 19, settlers on turn 24 and every 4 turns thereafter) - lose 2 workers for 3 turn speed up in settlers,


option 3 - early settler (axes turn 14 and 17, worker on turn 27, granary turn 26 Settler on turn 10 then settlers on turn 32 and every 4 turns thereafter) lose 1 worker and 1 turn delay in second and subsequent settlers for early first settler.


Any comments?

 

[Ansar]

I like Option 1 and 3. The only problem I see with option 3 is, would we know where to settle?

 

[Tone]

Not wishing to complicate issues but...

Why do we need two warriors after the settler in option 3? One of those can come from our second city.

I'd like to reserve judgement though until I see the surrounding area after settling. I'm new to this thing but presumably there is no reason why we can switch from one to the other in the first four turns. If there is another food bonus close by then a second settler will be a very powerful start; if not then maybe the granary first is the best long term option.

 

[Daghdha]

Yes we can switch build whenever so we might hold on definite decision 4 a while. Good work on the analysis RF

 

[RFHolloway]

Not wishing to complicate issues but...

Why do we need two warriors after the settler in option 3? One of those can come from our second city.

I'd like to reserve judgement though until I see the surrounding area after settling. I'm new to this thing but presumably there is no reason why we can switch from one to the other in the first four turns. If there is another food bonus close by then a second settler will be a very powerful start; if not then maybe the granary first is the best long term option.

Hadn't thought of using the second city as a warrior pump initially. I will re run the analysis with a single warrior and then no warriors from the city.

 

[Tone]

Yes we can switch build whenever so we might hold on definite decision 4 a while.

Hadn't thought of using the second city as a warrior pump initially. I will re run the analysis with a single warrior and then no warriors from the city.

Maybe it's best then to hold off too deep an analysis as we could have other options if the second city has a food bonus. However if you have time to give us some idea as to the intial build process that'd be great. In the merantime I'll stop muddying the waters and (possibly) shut up!

YGood work on the analysis RF

Yes, I'll second that. The timings helped me focus on the decision process with a bit more clarity. It's somerhing that I tend to use gut feeling more than detailed planning when I'm playing a solo game. (That's probably the reason why my chess playing reached a plateau when I was younger!)

 

[RFHolloway]

The timings helped me focus on the decision process with a bit more clarity. It's somerhing that I tend to use gut feeling more than detailed planning when I'm playing a solo game. (That's probably the reason why my chess playing reached a plateau when I was younger!)

Doesn't seem to affect the HOF runs though! Initial analysis suggests that no warriors is a bit yuck (to use a technical term). Essentially the granery gets built earlier, but once it has finished there are insufficient shields to run the settler factory properly. We are left spinning our wheels for 8 turns, (during which time we can build 4 workers though), then the settlers start again on turn 35. Feels like something I might try in a GOTM but not here.

Settler worker granary might be an option, but I feel that is a bit too light on protection

We can probably wait until turn 15 for a warrior, but not much longer. That would give those who start with a deer rather than a cow 11 turns to find us.

 

[RFHolloway]

OK so what do we know

- No one has a deer start (so turn 5 will be the earliest warrior)
- 2 people have more "disease" than us - presumably 2 with more floodplains than us.

there seems to be some coast to the SE
is that 3 jungle squares to the NE? (one with banana)

option 1 warrior warrior worker granary looks the best to me.

 

[Perfection]

What do we research?

 

[Theryman]

I think that we have already decided on mysticism, although I do not know why...

 

[Daghdha]

I think that we have already decided on mysticism, although I do not know why...

Others will go after rep. We will go after 'cause there will be some blood spilled in our surroundings.

 

[RFHolloway]

and don't forget scientific leaders are on - although it is only a 3% chance we are guarenteed to get mysticysm first, and hence a shot at a SL from this and poly and monarchy if we go straight there. This gives us a 8.7% chance of coming up with at least one SL.

 

[Ansar]

Well, being Religious, we can be a Monarchy and then switch to a Republic in 2 turns.