Gator02 - Learning to Walk

[bradleyfeanor]

Hey guys, I think I'm a little too tired to play my turns tonight. I will play tomorrow, but if someone would like to grab the save and play a round before me that would be fine.

Just as a little food for thought, I think the following tech path might be a good one for us:

(Turns to finish research are only rough estimates.)

Machinery, 10 turns until complete.
Optics, 6 turns
Alphabet, 3 turns
Literature, 3 turns
Trade for Currency, Construction, Drama, Theology
Astronomy, 18 turns
Trade for Feudalism which allows us to research Guilds.
Guilds, 10 turns
Gunpowder, 12 turns
Engineering (11 turns, but may be able to trade for it or use Great Engineer)
Chemistry (Only 4 turns, great scientist will do most of the work)
Paper (maybe, if we need maps)

With this tech path, we should be finished with research and able to turn it off around 1250ad (around 75 turns from now). However, we may want to slip in Banking after Guilds if we have difficulty in getting a good trading partner. Mercantilism is wonderful in such situations.

Paper must be researched last (if we research it at all), because after Paper is researched, a Great Scientist will research Printing Press rather than Chemistry.

 

[Bezhukov]

Why would we turn off research before Printing Press? Are you afraid we'll have too much cash?

And the plan is to take over the world with grenadiers? What fun.

I may have to take that one in from the sidelines. If I wanted to play Empire, I'd go here:

http://www.softplatz.com/Soft/Games/Strategy-War/Empire-Deluxe-Enhanced-Edition.html

 

[leif erikson]

Why would we turn off research before Printing Press? Are you afraid we'll have too much cash?

And the plan is to take over the world with grenadiers? What fun.

That is exactly what I need to learn!!

Let's forge ahead!!

 

[Bezhukov]

If you want to learn how to totally disregard the strengths of your civ (i.e. in this case financial) to pursue some cookie-cutter strategy, you'll not learn it from me. Good luck, team!

 

[SkunkDoctor]

If you want to learn how to totally disregard the strengths of your civ (i.e. in this case financial) to pursue some cookie-cutter strategy, you'll not learn it from me. Good luck, team!

Lurker Comment
The strength of this SG read for me is that many are here to learn, and there is ample discussion to that effect. What I don't understand (along with many others I'd wager) is why you would dismiss a suggestion as a cookie cutter strategy, which you seem to unwilling to pursue, without any of the logical discourse to the contrary I am so fond of. For me it is unthinkable to turn off research at that point, but I have seen compelling arguments in this thread for many decisions that I wouldn't make. That is why I, for one, am here. I look forward to reading both sides of this decision.
P.S. If you can convince em to go slavery, you can convince em to research Fission

 

[bradleyfeanor]

And the plan is to take over the world with grenadiers? What fun.

I may have to take that one in from the sidelines. If I wanted to play Empire, I'd go here:

http://www.softplatz.com/Soft/Games/...d-Edition.html!

Where in the world did this come from??? We spent a long time discussing what type of victory to go for, and I thought we decided on quick domination. If you were dead-set against it, why didn't you say something then? Every strategy and move I have suggested for the last 8 or so pages has been based on going for quick domination.

If you want to learn how to totally disregard the strengths of your civ (i.e. in this case financial) to pursue some cookie-cutter strategy, you'll not learn it from me.

Geez man. Did your dog run away last night? Tree fall on the house maybe? The strategy I'm suggesting doesn't ignore the strengths of our civ and it isn't from a "cookie cutter." All my lobbying for fishing villages and river-cottages has been entirely because we are a financial civ. This plan is simply a suggestion on how to reach the victory condition I thought we had decided on: quick domination. Given our current situation, it seems like a good plan, but it certainly might change once we meet the AIs.

I posted the *tentative* tech path for two reasons: One was for discussion, the other is so everyone can have a good indication of when things are going to happen in the game. For me, I have to predict when things are going to happen in order to make good decisions. I think setting a strategy ahead of time is probably the #1 thing that separates a great civ player from a marginal one--or any other strategy game player for that matter.

So what are we doing here guys? Are we going for quick dom or something else? I'll wait to take my turns until I get some feedback.

 

[Bezhukov]

I'm just tired of fighting the team at every turn. It's like I signed up for a team wanting to learn to play the violin only to learn that they intended to play tennis with it. You can do it, and I'd imagine it would be challenging, but it's not really what its for. Same with no-research Civ, especially Civ IV, especially when "learning to walk". Maybe do it someday after the basics are mastered, but pretending that this approach is the basic one; no thanks.

No, my dog didn't run away, but I have been generally very disappointed in reading/participating in the Civ IV SG's so far. Maybe it was because I'd spent over a year away from Civ III, but it just strikes me that a lot of folks are stuck in their favorite CivIII rut, and are unable to enjoy the new game on its own terms. In CivIII, the "no research" approach was a viable, perhaps even optimal strategy, so much so that the designers set out to make it a lot less appealing in CivIV, and yet here we are enthusiatically jumping off the same cliff and ingoring half the game.

See somewhat related discussion here:

http://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthread.php?t=692

 

[bradleyfeanor]

...but pretending that this approach is the basic one; no thanks.

I never claimed this approach is "basic", in fact I think it is quite the opposite. It is a gameplan entirely focused on reaching domination as quickly as possible given what we started with. Lief and Gator said that was what they wanted, and then you and Bede said something roughly equivalent to "ok," or at least that is what I had thought.

Rather than saying you are "tired of fighting the team," or don't want to play tennis with a violin, or don't want to "ignore half the game", tell me what you do want. I haven't the slightest clue from these statements. Are you wanting to play a game where we float about with no victory goal and just research through the entire tech tree? Do you want to go for space? What is it that you are wanting to do and/or learn?

 

[Bezhukov]

The name of the game - this SG - is "learning to walk", implying mastering the basics of the game. Given the tech pace we've already achieved, and the difficulty level, we could likely win the game with muskets at this point if we wanted to; that doesn't mean it is the optimal approach, and certainly doesn't do much as far as mastering the basics of the game. My guess is that the best approach on both those counts is to continue to press our tech advantage to conquer each continent with successively further advanced techs.

This will allow us to get a feel for some "basic" features of the CivIV mid to late game, including the value of the liberalism free tech, drafting rifles, combined arms, state property vs the alternatives, GA management, the impact of biology, etc.

Sprinting for grenadiers is indeed an effective way to turn a tech advantage into a military one, and unless we discover a full-fledged Mansa collective already in bloom in the rest of the world, it may be the "quickest" way to win via domination, but turning off research at chemistry is "learning skip backwards", not "learning to walk".

 

[DJMGator13]

Until we reach the point where we "might" actually shut off research, I don't think we need to argue about it. I have really enjoyed this game and I value everyone's opinions.

Both Bez and Brad are strong players and I have learned alot from them and the fact that they have pushed for different paths at times is what has been very beneficial. The fact that we have considered the alternatives and not dismissed them offhand does not fit my definition of a "cookie-cutter" plan. Plus I think the isolated start we have has presented some additional challenges to "fastest" finish. We will have to work out naval transport and gaining a foothold on another continent. Until we meet the other civs in the game we may find out that we need to continue researching past where Brad has currently suggested.

We did discuss which victory condition to go for and I am personally interested in the warfare side of the game. We also talked about a second game in which we would pursue a later game victory condition, going for space, culture or diplo. I'd like to see this team stay together through both of these games (and possibly more) so that we can continue to explore the other civ traits and other aspects of the game.

 

[Bezhukov]

I'm fine with domination. My frustration is as much, if not more, with other people on these forums as with this team. I am concerned, however, that I may be worse than useless in pursuing that victory condition, being a builder at heart.

Not only that, but Brad is a much sounder tactical player than I, and I hate being reminded that I'm far from the best.

 

[leif erikson]

Not to pile on because I think it has been very interesting and beneficial to hear and discuss different aspect of the game. Once we decide, then we can see the affects of that decision. I think this game has shown us the power of the cottage and how to weave that into a startegy. I'd really like to see how that translates into fast domination.

The weakest part of my Civ IV game is the military side. That is why I asked Gator if I could play along. Although I am also finding out that setting up that military piece is important as well and that, as Brad said, having a plan is quite important to keep focused. There are so many ways to play through a cIV game that losing focus means many more turns to victory, or worse, getting clobbered.

My focus is to become a better player for GOTM and that means becoming well versed in warmongering. That why I said that this is exactly what I need. And so I think in cIV, we need to set a goal and try to find the best way to achieve it.

And Bez, I have learned that no matter how good I think I am, there is always someone better. I just try to read how others achieve things and weave that into something I hope helps me out. These succession games are great learning tools, as I think you have already mentioned concerning the financial aspect of the early game. I just thank everyone at CivFanatics for being willing to teach noobs and enjoy playing together.

 

[Whomp]

And Bez, I have learned that no matter how good I think I am, there is always someone better. I just try to read how others achieve things and weave that into something I hope helps me out. These succession games are great learning tools, as I think you have already mentioned concerning the financial aspect of the early game. I just thank everyone at CivFanatics for being willing to teach noobs and enjoy playing together.

Cheers to that!

@Bez if everyone agreed with Bradley's strategy it wouldn't make for quite as interesting of a SG. You have 5 quality players on this team that dominated Civ3. Civ4 is a different game and watching the arguments and discussions is truly an education.

Just me lurking...but don't bail...

 

[Bezhukov]

My suggestion for tech path medium term is to grab Astronomy with the free Liberalism tech.

Short-term (after Optics) is to get Alphabet, Lit (to build Great Library to take advantage of our marble), and Drama (culture slider, theaters with dyes). Then do some trading, expecting to then go Paper, Education, Liberalism. I can usually trade for everything else up to Banking/Engineering/Gunpowder when taking this path.

If we want to slow down research for other priorities, this at least gives us a good selection of techs for future strategic consideration. I would think getting Oxford in Cuzco would be worth doing (the equivalent of two academies), as would building our cheap Banks.

 

[Bede]

Just to get my licks in this jam session:

1) What "learning to walk" is all about is learning to achieve control of the game, which is the path to any victory condition.
2) The approach we are taking here is not anybody's "cookie cutter" that I know of. I like the focus on "quick domination" because that is the aspect of the game that does require tight control of all the choices and is probably the most difficult for me to master. (I get distracted by all the really neat things you can research and build and lose sight of how to get where I really wany to go)
3) The opening of this game was a powerful demonstration of just how powerful the financial trait can be. I don't think that slope of the learning curve has been slighted in any way.

All of what has been discussed and attempted in this game I have put to good use in single player games. And I am really looking forward to the next stage of hammering on a distant opponent before aircraft and tanks (my personal crutches)

 

[Bezhukov]

Well, if the turn off research, grenadier rush isn't cookie-cutter yet, it soon will be. There's really no rock for grenadier scissors until cavalry/infantry, which both are quite a ways along the tech tree. That said, it strikes me as a more viable strategy for pangea/easier difficulties. Our isolated start may make the whole discussion moot, especially is we discover a Mansa-juiced AI.

Turning off research in general is cookie cutter from CivIII. I've already explained where I'm coming from there. Borderline exploitish/not in the spirit of the game. Of course, I'm pretty sure its not even optimal for CivIV, so maybe not exploitish at all anymore, just, um, unimaginative, hence my irritation.

 

[leif erikson]

Turning off research in general is cookie cutter from CivIII. I've already explained where I'm coming from there. Borderline exploitish/not in the spirit of the game. Of course, I'm pretty sure its not even optimal for CivIV, so maybe not exploitish at all anymore, just, um, unimaginative, hence my irritation.

I find this comment interesting as cIV is a different game from cIII. It is deeper and doesn't require one to be locked into the tech tree in order to progress to another age. We are climbing up the tech tree trying to maximize the use of these traits, financial and aggressive.

We have focused on financial thus far as our isolated start allows us to be builders that try to utilize the financial trait to its max. Soon, I hope, we will get into the aggressive trait and exploit that to its max.

As Bede said, this is about tightly controlling what we are given in the game and learning not to wander through the depth of cIV, both from a what do we build where and a how do we research to accomplish our goal perspective, fast domination.

Personally, I find that both imaginative and focused. Even though cIV is a different game, I think all the best civ players over the years have found a way to be focused and to maximize what the game gives you to work with. Actually, imho, it is what the game is all about.

 

[bradleyfeanor]

Allrighty then. Sounds like the plan is still Domination and I assume we will not need to have any more discussions about that. It is now just a question of what tech path we want to take to get there.

Well, if the turn off research, grenadier rush isn't cookie-cutter yet, it soon will be…Turning off research in general is cookie cutter from CivIII. I've already explained where I'm coming from there. Borderline exploitish/not in the spirit of the game. Of course, I'm pretty sure its not even optimal for CivIV, so maybe not exploitish at all anymore, just, um, unimaginative, hence my irritation.

I’m sorry you feel turning off research is unimaginative and not in the spirit of the game. I try not to do anything that doesn’t help me reach the victory goal I set ASAP. That means not building any buildings or units I don’t need, and not researching anything I don’t need (unless going for a cow). To do otherwise is just poor play in my opinion. It seems completely realistic to me as well and not at all an exploit: throughout history, it has been very common for nations to divert all available cash and resources to a war effort. In general, it is good policy to hold nothing back when at war, both in Civ and IRL.

Turning off research in cIV is nothing at all like turning off research in Civ3. In Civ3, there were numerous ways to catch up in tech. In CivIV, there are not. It is actually very dangerous to turn off research if you don’t know what you are doing. If you turn off research at the wrong point in the game, overextend your economy, or your military advance stalls, you’re doomed!

On the other hand, if you are competing in the GoTM and you turn off research at the optimal moment and the other players don’t, you gain an edge. Choosing Grenadiers as the cut off point isn’t always the best option: in some games I choose Iron Working, others Construction, and often Guilds. In the Immortal game I just finished I didn’t turn it off until Military Tradition. The only reason I suggested Grenadiers in this game is because 1) We have to research to Astronomy anyway, which is pretty deep into the tech tree, and 2) we are aggressive, so knights or cavalry--which don’t get our free promotion--seem a poor unit to make up the bulk of our military.

My suggestion for tech path medium term is to grab Astronomy with the free Liberalism tech.

Now that is definitely a viable research plan! (And I much prefer that to hearing you say you are going to stop playing with us. ) This plan is the same as the one I listed above until after we research Lit (Path = Machinery, Optics, Alph, Lit; around 22 turns to research them all). So I guess we can wait a few more rounds before deciding between them. Plus, meeting the AIs may make us decide on something entirely different.

I guess I will go ahead and take my turns now (finally). Everything seems pretty straightforward for the moment except for where we found our next city. I am probably going to found it on the tile 1W of the horse. The reason I think that is preferable to founding 2 cities in this area (one that would claim the fish), is because we have waited a little too long in getting our settlers out. The one extra commerce city wouldn’t help us get to Chemistry/Astronomy all that much sooner at this point. I do think it is still worthwhile to found a city that claims the fish on our east coast, but that won’t happen during my turns. I will also make it a priority to get a couple of more workers built (we are very short), and to get a missionary for the horse city.

I am pondering building the Parthenon in the capitol and putting a chop into it. If we get Parthenon, great, if not, then we could use the cash for a little deficit research. Hmmm…not sure…

 

[Bezhukov]

Pls settle on the horse so we can work all those hills. If we're to conquer the world with grenadiers, we'll need plenty of hammers!

I have a philisophical problem with turning off all research at any point, whether its theoretically optimal or not. As you pointed out, doing so is quite risky anyway (again, more like learning to sprint than to walk) in CivIV, so I don't see the problem with continuing to develop our technology as we dominate the world. I don't mind turning it down to fund other priorities, but I still don't agree that turning it off altogether is in the spirit of the game. I will play with people - and enjoy it! - like Romeo who have an entirely different approach to the game, but playing without research is to me playing an different game altogether, and one quite a bit less fun than the one designed.

 

[Bezhukov]

I'm doubtful we can still get Parthenon, although the cash infusion from missing it would also be nice.