General Turn Discussion

[Memphus]

@azz yes.

settler was safe this turn. so healing puts us at 1.6 instead of 1.4 for next turn

the risky part was: if the settler had revealed a bear then the warrior would have been hard pressed to defend him. so the warrior should of moved first.

 

[General_W]

Well, at least it worked out!

I like the idea of moving our eastern warrior North (8) next turn.

 

[Ronnie1]

W1 8 is good

 

[Krill]

Oops, I think we may have slightly screwed up the workers...if we had moved the worker to the plains hill 41 of the capital we could have chopped and mined that hill then chopped into a granary or barracks in the second city (and still got the settler out at the end of turn 45 along with the road).

 

[Memphus]

so where to? we have a 3rd warrior now btw. who can go NE along the coast then come back down to meet our 2nd settler

 

[Ronnie1]

Please name the warriors so we can keep them straight.

Eastern warrior NW

Sanctum warrior towards elephants to reveal those 2 tiles that are still black.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I think NE for the eastern warrior. We should know if that is a pass or not.

I think sanctum warrior along coast is right.

 

[Viva_Chingon]

I wouldn't consider it waste to find out whether or not we're secure -- in a geographical sense.

 

[Ronnie1]

My reasoning...

W1 can go NW>NWor N> and then up the coast>then circle back to the SE. Mainly looking for seafood accessible for settling.

Sanctum warrior goes to the City #3 site to fogbust for the next settler...or at least waits long enough to be replaced in this duty before moving S on exploratory duties.

 

[Krill]

W1 NW (it uncovers all land that we would uncover by sending W3 up there in 1 turn, so we can then wander off again with him)
W2: fort in city and keep him there, we do not know how close the other civs warriors are, or where the barbs are, so we need to defend that city
W3: move SE until the near patch of FoW is uncovered.

City2 (1 vote of Copper Kettle, that's a cool name IMO) Should build a warrior IMO. 2 best options are either warrior>granary>2*axes>worker or settler or barracks>warrior>axes to size 4 IMO, but the former option grows to size 4 alot faster, I think (Memphus will know better though, I'm sure), and gets out a warrior to go explore the west and north with.

 

[Ronnie1]

I basically agree with Krill here. W2 can start to move once the first warrior build in this city is 3 turns from complete.

Copper Kettle is cool...I also tend to favor names that help me remember the PURPOSE of the city. Ground troops, Commerce, Great People, etc...., not very original I know, but very useful for cutting out unnecessary builds.

 

[Memphus]

i am 100% for naming the city so we know it's purpose

 

[azzaman333]

Personally, I want to know if it's a chokepoint ASAP. Like Krill said to justify W2's fortification, we don't know how close the other civs are. If we can set up an outpost of sorts up at that chokepoint we know when everyone is coming.

 

[Ronnie1]

Personally, I want to know if it's a chokepoint ASAP. Like Krill said to justify W2's fortification, we don't know how close the other civs are. If we can set up an outpost of sorts up at that chokepoint we know when everyone is coming.

I understand what you are saying...but even if it IS a gap, we will only SEE them coming IF they come that way. IF they follow the coast SW, it does us no good.

All that being said, IMO it doesn't really matter which way W1 goes next turn, 5 turns from now he will have explored the "gap" and the coast NE of Sanctum.

 

[Karhu]

In my humble opinion, the "gap" is relativity unimportant at this stage and we'll figure it out before it is important. But, if it is not a gap, which is likely due to the dense mountains we have so far encountered, then we lose valuable explorations turns right now.

 

[Memphus]

Things I need to know:

1. Should warrior #1 do this?

2. should warrior #2 move next turn as he will have full warrior in the city will be doen in 4 turns, 3 turns if we needed to so I think he safe to leave. But which way?

 

[Ronnie1]

W1>N
W2>NW>NW
W3>SE>SE

We also need to run Science at either 100% or 0%! It has been proven that ALL intermediate settings waste either gold or beakers.

 

[Memphus]

i disagree with the 0% or 100%. especially in BTS, where it doesn't round in each city. it rounds 1 time overall for the empire. so loosing 1 or 1 a turn isn't worth delaying techs IMO

 

[Krill]

Running techs at 0% or 100% would not delay pottery at all or AH in the future; we would have less overflow into AH, but we would be generating more bpt so the overflow is mute, and would save us a bit of gold. So we should be using binary science right now, 0% gold next turn, then 100% science for 2 turns to get pottery in a net research time of 3 turns from now.

The other reason to go binary science is that whilst we are storing gold and not researching, we are not dedicated to any particular tech we want to research, so we can more easily change as the situation requires us to ie, if we decide we want to tech IW after AH instead of writing because we meet a team that is going towards Alpha and is willing to trade us writing+alpha for IW+myst+med, for example.

 

[Krill]

W1: Memphus plan
W2: NW*2
W3: as pictured