G-Minor 119

[Manco Capac]

Just looked WastinTime's game and...just wow. I wonder what was the prob to destroy a civ with a single warrior, then get a worker and settler from tribal huts.

 

[shulec]

Just looked WastinTime's game and...just wow. I wonder what was the prob to destroy a civ with a single warrior, then get a worker and settler from tribal huts.

I bet it is really easy! Especially with Max opponents, high seas.

 

[AAA]

620AD with liz on inland sea

Not a bad game, first vote, good territory. But not great, two workers from huts, and I only rushed one AI.

You might get 160 AD, but 300-500AD is a better bet

 

[Manco Capac]

620AD with liz on inland sea

Not a bad game, first vote, good territory. But not great, two workers from huts, and I only rushed one AI.

You might get 160 AD, but 300-500AD is a better bet

Nothing less from AAA!
My first newbie question for this gauntlet: why this love for inland sea?

 

[shulec]

My first newbie question for this gauntlet: why this love for inland sea?

I like the inland sea for higher level culture and diplomacy games. The map tends to limit the number of AI the share large borders, providing a relatively good buffer from distant AI war declarations. There also tend to be quite a few rivers so getting foreign trade routes going with sailing is easier than other maps. With a financial leader, you can really boost cottage commerce. Resources also tend to be fairly abundant.

 

[kcd_swede]

I like the inland sea for higher level culture and diplomacy games. The map tends to limit the number of AI the share large borders, providing a relatively good buffer from distant AI war declarations. There also tend to be quite a few rivers so getting foreign trade routes going with sailing is easier than other maps. With a financial leader, you can really boost cottage commerce. Resources also tend to be fairly abundant.

But on a Tiny game size... in a game you don't expect to go past 1000AD... Even with min opps on a larger map type, you are close. But it won't affect the voting diplo noticably at Warlord level. There will be no distant AI war declarations, because nothing is distant. What speaks in favor of inland sea is the rivers is a good point, and probably knowing what types of resources to expect in which part of the map helps some too. So I can see a preference for that type, but don't really think it matters as much as playing well. Of course... having to clear jungles on a rainforest map would make me avoid that one, and I would avoid any map type with more than one land mass. But otherwise... I guess I don't play well enough to see a big advantage with one or another that fit these criteria.

 

[AAA]

Nothing less from AAA!
My first newbie question for this gauntlet: why this love for inland sea?

Rivers and gold, rivers and gold

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Out of curiosity, what people here expect as the most early diplomatic victory date possible? Something around 500 AD?
I felt so dead in my last attempt, so perhaps with a specific date, it'll make it more spicy.

the best diplo win at warlord level to date is wastintime with 160AD.
I don't expect this one to be that fast because it's normal and not epic, but somewhere between 160 and 1000 AD.

WastinTime is usually able to make good estimates of Gauntlet Win Dates for most Victory Conditions (possibly excluding only Conquest and Domination).

I start by looking at the HOF Table the Gauntlet matches. However, it is currently 1600 AD which seems really late, since Deity Diplomatic games often come close to 1000 AD. Tachywaxon is already at 1020 AD which is a huge improvement over the current 1600 AD #1 game.

However, the HOF Tables are not uniformly tight; there is yet plenty of "low hanging fruit". So, I usually do a HOF Ad-Hoc Query of the Victory Condition of the Gauntlet, a range of three Difficulty levels centered on the Difficulty level of the Gauntlet, a range of three Speeds centered on the Speed of the Gauntlet, and a range of three Map Sizes centered on the Speed of the Gauntlet. For this Gauntlet, that results in:

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/adhoc_query.php?show=summ&condition[]=3&difficulty[]=4&difficulty[]=3&difficulty[]=2&speed[]=1&speed[]=2&speed[]=3&mapSize[]=1&mapSize[]=2&mapSize[]=3&civ=-1&maptype=-1&era=-1&exp=0&pubID=130&submit=Go

From what I can see from the above Ad-Hoc Query, calbert is (at least close to) 100% correct! The range from 160 AD to 1000 AD is a fairly safe bet.

I now see that AAA has a 620 AD. Before knowing that I was going to suggest aiming for 1 AD. Just restart until you are happy with your Tribal Village luck and use an early Warrior rush. Try starting with 4 AI Leaders and taking down 3 very early.

Elizabeth is a good Player Leader choice (thanks for the tip AAA); her combination of Philosophical and Financial traits is hard to beat.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[cas]

300AD...assuming I didn't miss any settings.

Not a perfect map, but not bad. I could improve that by 5-10 turns on a better map and a little more micro...getting the same great luck from huts.

Epic, I might be able to win in BC. Normal is much tougher.

Pericles - Boreal - temperate - low sea - minimum 2 opponents (Mansa / Joao) for more hut popping. I tried the rush with 4 AI on a terra map / high seas...but I would rather pop 3-4 more huts on a land-map like Boreal. AI uses warriors to explore and I use 3-4 scouts.



cas

 

[Manco Capac]

Awesome on Boreal Map. What was the reason that made you lean towards that map? Forests? Hunting resources?
What kind of luck did you have with around 16 huts in average: 7 settlers and three workers...
Seriously, you really have your chance to be in the top three, maybe even 1st.







My 1020 AD is lame after all...he he

 

[Ozbenno]

Boreal is an interesting choice, lots of food and gems but not great on production. Why that one?

 

[cas]

Boreal is an interesting choice, lots of food and gems but not great on production. Why that one?

What production do you need other than crazy amounts of forest chops ? Pericles creative/philo = faster libraries / universities. What else are you going to build ? Granary, of course...and workers...maybe one settler.

And he starts with hunting for all the deer...which also means a scout instead of warrior. Huts = scout > warrior on Warlord diff.

Tough to fit in enough early workers...with a condensed timeline...that's one of the areas I could improve. This particular map also didn't give me a lot of gems or marble. I mapfinder a stone start for early pyramids/Oxford (and in this case HangGardens for extra GE chance).

I don't remember exactly what I popped with huts...2 settlers, math, 2 workers, and some other random things.

Early tech path is always mining - pottery - writing...so the huts have a better chance of popping BW / math. Early build is scout-scout...then either scout or worker depending where I am in the map and what I've got from huts. 2nd / 3rd cities build worker first...then usually library or granary.

I don't know if this is the best method...but it works for me. Better players can probably beat 300AD with less reliance on huts and a different map.

cas

 

[AgedOne]

I'm in the trailing bunch. 1330AD.
Really just to get a first submission in, and then try to improve on that.
Dead straightforward, Liz v 4, Inland Sea, (not OCC. Tried one but went off that idea!)
Oracle => Education. Liberalism => Radio.
No violence. Only 4 cities, which may account for the slow finish.
(Oh. Never popped a Gt Eng, which may also account for some of the delay!)

 

[Manco Capac]

I start by looking at the HOF Table the Gauntlet matches.

True. I should stop asking question where the answer is as far as two clicks.

I now see that AAA has a 620 AD. Before knowing that I was going to suggest aiming for 1 AD. Just restart until you are happy with your Tribal Village luck and use an early Warrior rush. Try starting with 4 AI Leaders and taking down 3 very early.

This is the main reason of this present post: I want once again launch a small debate about maximising the numbers of AI. In my rainforest 1020AD attempt, I popped three settlers easily as I minimized the number of AI. In the other case, for example an inland map, due to its wheel-like disposition, maximising the AI means the AI's will somewhat block a big chunck of territory and the wheel-like map will force the AI warriors to follow a path without much digression. In the end, one seems to end up with much fewer tribal huts to pop by maximising AI and/or Inland Sea map choice. Rushing a civ is a way to reduce the reliance of popping lot of settlers, which requires lot of attempts. Before cas submission, I was finally leaning towards maximising the number of AI's, but in the end, in my numerous attempts, I rarely popped lot of huts. Moreover, his finishing date tends to make maximising AI settings less the final and only option for a good finishing DV date. I know what I am saying is confusing because I am torn apart between two visions and I can't clarify myself yet:
- Minimizing the number of AI's and take a map where the water tiles are minimized so I can popped an average, say, 11 tribal villages out of an total average of 14. This tribal village path can be sometimes fruitious and can overcome the maximising AI setting. This is cas case.
- Maximising the number of AI's and take risk to lose major number of tribal huts. (Although, it is possible to increase the huts hunt with a hunting civ) Worse with Inland sea map. Not counting the higher number of AI's make the (e.g.) Education Oracling more risky. Nonetheless, we can run over three of four civs and gain almost assured cities compared to random settlers from huts.
This is more or less AAA case.

Elizabeth is a good Player Leader choice (thanks for the tip AAA); her combination of Philosophical and Financial traits is hard to beat.

At first, I thought it was an obvious choice; that's why I picked her in my 1020 AD rainforest attempt. But everyone chooses a different leader here. Cabert's De Gaulle choice was the one that made me scratch my head the most. Maybe a patriotic reason is behind this choice. I thought philosophical was a must as one has to pop fast great people for early DV dates.

 

[cabert]

I chose de Gaulle for ind, and charismatic is always good.
I was not really going for an optimized thing.

 

[AgedOne]

This is the main reason of this present post: I want once again launch a small debate about maximising the numbers of AI.

Ah. That's what I have been waiting for. Some good strategic discussions.
Hopefully this will mark the beginning of my own improvement in this gauntlet .

Main Strategy / AI Numbers

In my rainforest 1020AD attempt, I popped three settlers easily as I minimized the number of AI. In the other case, for example an inland map, due to its wheel-like disposition, maximising the AI means the AI's will somewhat block a big chunck of territory and the wheel-like map will force the AI warriors to follow a path without much digression. In the end, one seems to end up with much fewer tribal huts to pop by maximising AI and/or Inland Sea map choice. Rushing a civ is a way to reduce the reliance of popping lot of settlers, which requires lot of attempts. Before cas submission, I was finally leaning towards maximising the number of AI's, but in the end, in my numerous attempts, I rarely popped lot of huts. Moreover, his finishing date tends to make maximising AI settings less the final and only option for a good finishing DV date. I know what I am saying is confusing because I am torn apart between two visions and I can't clarify myself yet:
- Minimizing the number of AI's and take a map where the water tiles are minimized so I can popped an average, say, 11 tribal villages out of an total average of 14. This tribal village path can be sometimes fruitious and can overcome the maximising AI setting. This is cas case.
- Maximising the number of AI's and take risk to lose major number of tribal huts. (Although, it is possible to increase the huts hunt with a hunting civ) Worse with Inland sea map. Not counting the higher number of AI's make the (e.g.) Education Oracling more risky. Nonetheless, we can run over three of four civs and gain almost assured cities compared to random settlers from huts.
This is more or less AAA case.

In my own attempts (2 so far - both outside of 100AD) I have crowded the AI. I have found that I popped about 5 huts on average. NB. I started without a scout - and I ensured none of the AI started with scout. I might have popped one or two more if I had a scout.
So we are trying to weigh up the benefit of (say) 6 huts against a strategy that aims to net us (say) 2 AI cities.
I would guess that the 2 - somewhat grown, somewhat improved - AI cities would outweigh even 2 settlers from the 6 huts. This is not a clear-cut thing, though, as the AI place their cities so badly and you would find better locations for the 2 settlers.

I am interested in what you say about Inland Sea. With low sea-level, our scouting unit can always get around the map before it is blocked, but you may mean that territory is blocked from being available to us for settling (?) - which is probably true and encourages you to eliminate a blocking AI and use their territory. As a side-note, we might expect the 'scouting routes' of the AI to be more predictable on an Inland Sea, making it harder to find undiscovered huts. Somewhat true, although I have noticed the AI are hopeless at finding huts that are in corners or against the 'outside wall' .

I certainly think that the optimum game (that I am still a long long way from achieving) involves the two slingshots - Oracle => Education and Liberalism => Radio. There also needs to be a significant amount of bulbing (Philosophy, Electricity being the ones I have managed, but there should be others).

Leader Choice

Elizabeth

At first, I thought it was an obvious choice; that's why I picked her in my 1020 AD rainforest attempt. But everyone chooses a different leader here. Cabert's De Gaulle choice was the one that made me scratch my head the most. Maybe a patriotic reason is behind this choice. I thought philosophical was a must as one has to pop fast great people for early DV dates.

I am using Elizabeth at the moment. Philosophical is key to those Gt People, and also speeds up university production. Financial is good too, increasing the overall commerce.

To use the Philo trait would seem to require very good food locations for at least some of your cities. Then you run as many specialists as possible. Financial works best when your citizens are working lots of cottaged tiles. So in some ways the two traits don't work together as well as they seem at first sight - but I guess in practice you will have a split between your 'food-heavy-specialist-running' cities and your 'grass-and-floodplain-cottage' cities.

Some other traits that might concievable be useful are Spiritual (if you are planning to change civics often) Organised (if you plan a lot of cities, and want courthouses fast) Industrious (for the 3 WWonders you are likely to build, and forges) and at a pinch Creative (fast libraries).
So there must be a number of useful leaders, none of which I have tried yet!

 

[Manco Capac]

Oracle => Education

Hmmm. I wonder if going for CS is better when the capitol has two high commerce tiles or more. Can this make up the difference between Education and CS in the long term?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another small detail, why partially bulbing Radio (as kcd_swede has done) with a great Artist? Isn't being a golden age fodder better? The difference it makes compared to the time for teching Aesthetics, Literature and Music is not making up much. This is what I noticed.

 

[AgedOne]

Hmmm. I wonder if going for CS is better when the capitol has two high commerce tiles or more. Can this make up the difference between Education and CS in the long term?

I doubt it. CS is 792 . Education is 1782 . That's a big difference to make up.

You are sitting there at turn 42, you have just finished researching CoL and Mathematics.
Imagine that you could finish the Oracle this turn, or you could wait (artificial situation, I know)

You are bringing in 30 in your capital, and with your library and academy this equates to 52 at 100% research rate.
With your second city bringing in another 4 , your total research right now is 56 .
After switching to Bureaucracy, you get +50% in the capital - 45, which equates to 78 from the capital, 82 in total.


Scenario 1
Take CS from Oracle.
Run Bureaucracy (1 turn anarchy)
Research Paper 594 @ 82 /turn = 7 turns
Research Education 1782 @ 82 /turn = 22 turns


Turn 0: anarchy
Turns 1 - 7: researching Paper
Turns 8 - 29: researching Education
Turn 30: You have Education. The scenario is finished.

Scenario 2
Research CS 792 @ 56 /turn = 14 turns
Run Bureaucracy (1 turn anarchy)
Research Paper 594 @ 82 /turn = 7 turns
Take Education from Oracle


Turns 0 - 14: researching CS
Turn 15: anarchy
Turns 16 - 22: researching Paper
Turn 23 :You have Education The scenario is finished.

It is all very artificial. Obviously your cities would be growing, and things would get built during this time that would affect the outcome, but I still think taking Education is better if you can make it!

 

[shulec]

My initial thoughts were that would be better to Oracle CS, and the double bulb education. If you can get the AI to tech compass for you, this may be the way to go. The early increased research output from CS may be worth it in this situation. It also allows you to give away most of your techs to try to get the nearly worthless AI to tech something valuable for you. If you are hoping to Oracle education, I would be hesitant to do this.

When I make my try, I will Oracle CS.

 

[AgedOne]

My initial thoughts were that would be better to Oracle CS, and the double bulb education.

Yes, this is the other thing I should have put into the equation. Gt Scientists.
I was assuming one had already been used on the academy, but there will be the next one due around this time.
In my scenario 1, the Gt Sci can be used to bulb half of Education. (Obviously, better if you have 2 and double-bulb, but I doubt you will have the 3rd Gt Sci available until too late)
In scenario 2, you are left wondering what to do with the Gt Sci. Either settle them, or save until you can bulb Philosophy.
It's a closer decision than I thought.

In my experience, in this game at Warlord level, you can get Education from Oracle and seldom lose out (perhaps if one AI has marble). So you are not taking a great risk - and besides, HoF games are where you take risks anyway. You have to decide whether you get a better end result from taking CS or Edu.

I would prefer taking Edu from Oracle, and using Gt Sci #1 for academy, #2 for Philosophy.