G-Minor 17

[Misotu]

Just submitted my third and best game to date - 1816 & I am in 4th place. I made some errors of course, but even so I'm not sure I could have shaved off many more turns with my strategy. A lot of it now is luck of the draw - I produced a couple too many engineers rather than scientists & the huts were pretty poor. I had to found a city a fairly long way off early to get stone, and another later to get copper, which was expensive in turns & maintenance, but coal & aluminium popped up conveniently.

I might have one more try ... wonder if someone is pre-1800 yet?

 

[ori]

wonder if someone is pre-1800 yet?

just submitted a 1780 launch
pretty casual play, snaky continents which turned out to be a pangea...

 

[kovacsflo]

Before 1800 is not a big deal, but before 1395 (this is the best result in HOF table). I checked and it was great plains anyway.

 

[Thrallia]

just a thought...does Industrial give a production boost on projects also?

 

[ori]

just a thought...does Industrial give a production boost on projects also?

N o

 

[Jean d´Eath]

Before 1800 is not a big deal, but before 1395 (this is the best result in HOF table). I checked and it was great plains anyway.

more important it was marathon and not normal speed...

 

[Methos]

more important it was marathon and not normal speed...

Correct. In fact under the conditions as stated for this gauntlet, the 1^st place in the HoF table has a 1840 launch. Meaning more than likely whoever wins this gauntlet will hold the #1 spot for this table.

 

[kovacsflo]

more important it was marathon and not normal speed...

1840-1395=445 years. I don't think this is just because the game speed.
See the HOF table that I could reach the 1st place on imm/sp race/huge and large maps, even if playing normal speed.

It can mean some advantage, but I think the difference is mainly coming from that better players usually play e slow speed is a big advantage in conquest and dom. victories.

 

[Jean d´Eath]

it is correct that the difference is 445 years, but years do not mean that much in this context...

example: assume one would want to gain a SS victory once on quick speed, once on marathon... assume further you managed to win both times in 2000 in both cases there are 50 turns left, but in marathon you have already played a lot more turns up to this point and the fraction of remaing turns to already played turns is somewhat lower than for normal speed... those who tried g-major 10 know that 50 turns at quick speed for example are quite a long time to go, while at marathon speed one would speak of absolute end game...


by the way your finishing dates in immortal/huge/normal speed are awesome... so maybe i am completely wrong with the above statement... nevertheless i believe we will not see a 13xx launch...

 

[kovacsflo]

it is correct that the difference is 445 years, but years do not mean that much in this context...

example: assume one would want to gain a SS victory once on quick speed, once on marathon... assume further you managed to win both times in 2000 in both cases there are 50 turns left, but in marathon you have already played a lot more turns up to this point and the fraction of remaing turns to already played turns is somewhat lower than for normal speed... those who tried g-major 10 know that 50 turns at quick speed for example are quite a long time to go, while at marathon speed one would speak of absolute end game...


by the way your finishing dates in immortal/huge/normal speed are awesome... so maybe i am completely wrong with the above statement... nevertheless i believe we will not see a 13xx launch...

I repeat myself that slow speeds gives you some advantage, the difference beetwen our theories is only how big is this advantage.

Anyway I experienced that oracle-CS solution can be reached much harder on immortal level if playing slower speeds, I don't know why.

 

[Misotu]

Yes, but Kovacsflo you have to take account of the settings. People are not turning in scores anything approaching 13xx. So we are either all useless (which is possible I suppose ) or these settings set parameters that are less than ideal. Either way, I was just wondering whether anyone has a score faster than 1800? Anyone ??
OK, missed Ori's post Anyone pre-1600? Kovacsflo?

 

[AAA]

Marathon is far superior for space race, especially at the low levels like Warlord.

The 1395 finish is mine. On marathon I run both my settler and scout until 3700. If you get lucky, it is a multiplying effect and soon you are running 4 settler 5 workers, and 3 scouts - often popping 2-3 huts per turn.

And on marathon you crush who you want when you want, and the only problem is the domination limit. Also with a huge empire movement costs (i.e. workers not working, but running) are just so high on normal speed.

The 1620 finish I entered in this gauntlet was a better played game I think (than the 1395 finish), and I got very lucky in my early battles.

 

[Methos]

People are not turning in scores anything approaching 13xx.

True, but recall G-Minor 15 (Diplo VC) that had around 50 players. It started off with dates in the 1800's and slowly began getting lower and lower. By the end of the gauntlet we were receiving BC dates. It'll take a while, but players will start noticing little things that will shave turns off and we'll start seeing better dates.

or these settings set parameters that are less than ideal.

Archi is an interesting setting and I hope I can have time to give it a shot. I'm really interested myself in these settings (and increasing my Minor QScore ).

 

[Misotu]

Aarfghhh ***?* So warmongering is the only way ... damn&blast that blows me away If I'm going to do it again ... time for another strategy change. And I'm *useless* at killing things. And not today Blast. And congrats beccnoa

 

[Harbourboy]

just submitted a 1780 launch
pretty casual play

What? How can you "casually" launch before 1800? I just submitted a 2016 AD victory. I can't see how I could possibly have shaved over 200 years off that time. The AI researches so slowly at this level that you have to do most of the work yourself. Looks like I have one of the worst games so far. I will have to do something radically different to improve on that.

This Warlords level is, in some ways, harder than Prince and Monarch. Completely different tactics are required.

 

[ori]

What? How can you "casually" launch before 1800?

I think aggressive expansion is the key here. You cannot have too many cities - and since I don't like warfare I build a lot of cities early on, and never waged a single war. In the end I had 16+ cities. I did not pay any attention on micromanaging though (forgot to have cottages worked etc.), forgot civics changes or wonder builds (I was beaten to the Pyramids in 1350 AD ), so it was a pretty casual play...

 

[Drool]

Im with you Harbourboy, I also struggled to launch a space ship in 2006. I thought I was doing the right thing by building alot of cottages and in the end had about 10 cities, but my production was just so slow.

P.S. Harbourboy - Go the Chiefs

 

[Kuningas]

Launched in 1680AD with Vanilla Elizabeth. You don't have to be hostile necessarily. But you must expand rapidly. Goody huts provided 3 settlers by 1000BC, so a bit of luck was involved. By 1AD I had 12 cities and never even bothered to build a single courthouse. Maintenance costs in Warlord level are so low. My MM skills are a little rusty so in the end I lost a couple of turns. But it was nice to have 4 Golden Ages straight in last 28 turns I played. (9 GP and Taj Mahal).

 

[jesusin]

I thought I would play my first Spaceship launch. Then I forgot to turn on the movies at the end…

1750AD Vanilla Elizabeth, casual game, won’t be submitted since I stopped working on the Oracle and pressed enter a number of times only to see when they would build it and then reload back.

No workers or settlers from huts. No war. Only 6 cities, 5 workers. Long game (8+ hours). No stone, no iron, but I got aluminum. Too early GAs.

4Wonders: Oracle (I first thought it was a bad idea, because of the prophets GPP, but I soon discovered that the best use for my GS was settling them, so GP are not so bad), GLIB (soon obsolete), Ironworks, TajMaj. I didn’t miss GLH, but I missed Pyramids: with so much food Representation is huge.

I should have built more cities. Workshops were huge at the end, when I had too much research and too little production, I had never built them before.

Lots of room for improvement. I was at a loss at the second half of the techtree, never had research advanced techs before. I will try again and submit, playing more seriously this time. I hope I can submit in time, this doesn’t feel like a “minor” at all. After that, I don’t think I will win a Space Launch ever again, it’s too long of a game.

 

[kovacsflo]

I think I will finish my current game beetwen 1600-1750.

I have to wait a lot for a game what I expected, but finally I reached.
Marble (two in my capital) and 2 early settlers (3800bc and 1500 bc-last turn) are the most important, but having a capital what can be improved well can be a key as well.

In my earlier game I experienced that in such small maps with enough gold and buildings your capital can give you more than a half of science even having 10-12 cities in 500 - 1000 AD. It was still not enough, I realized that my city had resources to give a starting gold and hammer (fish, cow, rice, gold), but there were no grasslands or water tiles, and there were 3 deserts.

My new game my capital have 2 marbles, wheat, cow, horse, 5 water tiles and enough grassland. I hope this will be enough for a good result.
Other cities can be good as well since my staring island can have 8 cities (3 built yet 1500 bc), and several other can be built nearby.

I think marble is much more important that any other resources before 1AD. I don't mind I can't see any stone yet, soon I will have copper for colossus (what is a cheap wonder anyway) and that's enough for a while. Wonders needing stone can wait for 500-1000 AD.