GOTM 09: Pre-Game discussion

DynamicSpirit said:
Do copper or horses ever get placed under forest on the starting map? I can't recall it ever happening to me.

Don't know. I've seen resources beneath jungle. I can't recall whether I've seen them under forest squares. Either way, it would be odd both squares contained late game resources. If it's modified, I'd assume at least one of the two is an early resource given the difficulty jump.
 
Grampaw said:
The AI won't come after you unless he has an extra archer floating around, and usually he doesn't. The AI will attack your stealing unit, though, and if the AI loses the battle, they will usually agree to peace unconditionally after 10-12 turns. If the AI wins the battle, they will want some compensation for peace (like a city or a tech), and that demand can last a long time, or until they lose at least an archer in a subsequent battle.
From this and the follow-on post from bshumbera I think you are saying to take at least 2 warriors when you are attempting to steal a worker- one to escort back and one to confront any enmy reaction.
 
No, just the one warrior is enough. Escorting the worker back is a good idea. And remember the Incan warrior doesn't need to fear archers as long as he's healthy and walking the forests.
 
I've played a part of a game in practice. Having never dared to touch Emperor before, my eyes were opened to a couple of pecularities of emperor level, like the change up in gears of the barbarians - the instant someone has copper, axemen appear, and as soon as someone discovers ironworking, swordsmen appear. Ouch.

Anyhow, more particular to this game, the quechua rush seemed to work nicely. I found Rome about 15 tiles from my capital, and after having produced 5 quechua as the first builds in my capital, I captured Rome OK, then went on to burn down an English city, and keep London after capturing it. I left Elizabeth with one city and accepted peace.

As it turns out, me, Caesar and Ellizabeth were the only occupants of the continent, and wiping out one of them, and seriously crippling the other worked fine for a while. It hurt my economy running Rome and London at such a distance, but with careful management it wasn't too bad. What was baad was the resulting hoardes of barbarians. With minimal expansion from the surviving civilisations (including me since I couldn't afford more expansion) barbarians just came from everywhere. I had been warned my this thread and produced military, putting out axemen as soon as I could, and horse archers as soon as I oculd produce them.

I spotted my first barbarian archer in 2590BC and from about 1200BC onwards, they just came in waves. I had fog busters out, but because there was very little expansion, all that meant was that I encourntered barbarians further from my own cities. The good side of that was that my economny didn't suffer from plundering barbarians because I killed them before the arrived in my area, but I surely didn't meet less of them. There were swarms of them, and it was all I could do to keep producing the military to fend them off. The instant I discovered iron working, barbarian swordsmen started appearing as well as axemen.

I'd like to ask opinions on this - when you have continents, and you wipe out one or two neighbours, the result is a LOT more space for barbarians to grow in. In this game I played, I couldn't trade techs because I was ahead of the only other civ on my continent, and barbarians don't trade!! :( The early quecua rush was good, and worked, but I wonder if I paid heavily for it, in barbariens thereafter. Would I have been better off leaving Caesar and Elizabeth healthy and hopefully happy with me?
 
DynamicSpirit said:
I've done quite a few test games to try out different approaches, but I'm pretty sure the total time I'll have spent is still small compared to how long I'll spend playing the (complete) GOTM.

I can just hope (and pray) the same will happen to me - that will mean I'll have survived to the barbarian hordes in the BC's :lol:
 
I'm very hesitant to attempt a CS slingshot on Emperor. You have to focus purely on getting COL oand Oracle, and if you fail then you'll be stuffed.

Even if you succeed then there's a good chance that you'll be overrun by Barbarians.

I'm going for early barracks and a Quecha rush. Depending on the distance to the nearest capital, I might pump out 4-5 Quechas and attempt to take it. If it's too far, then I'll just steal a worker and pillage for a while before setting the Quechas up as fog busters.

I've gone the peaceful route the last few games, so this time I'm up for some early war, and Agg/Fin is a wonderful combination. Early cottages will be the key here, along with plenty of military police / fog buster.


I'm thinking quecha-barracks-quecha-worker- and then it will depend on how far away the enemy is and if I have stolen a worker yet. If the enemy capital is close then its Quechas, otherwise it's a second city.

Early research will focus on AH, pottery, BW, then HR for Horse Archers and a second wave of attacks.
 
I just saw something interesting in this thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155339

The claim was that:

I have seen barb riflemen and grenadiers. The lvl of the barb's defense is based on the lowest level of common tech among all playing civs. Thus if you have one civ who is still stuck with early melee units, the barbs are stuck there too. If that civ then upgrades to modern units quickly, you can watch the barb units upgrade to riflemen or infantry in a few turns.

I think this is critical if true. If you can delay the onset of axemen by foregoing bronzeworking, that would be an important consideration. I don't have any counter-evidence to this claim yet, but it is news to me. Anyone out there able to verify this or debunk it?

Thanks,

GS
 
Gr8scott said:
I just saw something interesting in this thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155339

quote: I have seen barb riflemen and grenadiers. The lvl of the barb's defense is based on the lowest level of common tech among all playing civs. Thus if you have one civ who is still stuck with early melee units, the barbs are stuck there too. If that civ then upgrades to modern units quickly, you can watch the barb units upgrade to riflemen or infantry in a few turns.

I find the claim surprising. I've seen barbarian riflemen and grenadiers too - in fact I saw some in GOTM8. The isolation factor in archaepelago maps tends to give barbarians the chance to survive til later in the game. I couldn't categorically deny the claim, but I thought a couple of times I've seen it, that all existing civs were past riflemen and grenadiers. Did they all have infantry though? Ughh. I don't know. I'm surprised but I can't prove it's wrong. I'd just assumed barbarians never developed past that level ever.

I've played a few modern start games, where all civs start past there, but in those games, I have NEVER seen barbarians. Perhaps this is normal for a modern start?
 
Big Pig said:
Well, I tried out a Quechua rush using the test start (thanks Blub :goodjob: ). Pumped out 5 quechuas initially and headed north to take out Paris (Bud Holy City) and Orleans, wiping out Louis in ~2000BC. Great start
BUT
I was then left with 2 cities both about 20 tiles away from and not connected to my relatively underdeveloped capital resulting in crippling maintenance and a research rate of 10-20%. Lots of frantic cottage building didn't really help this as the currency gains were offset against the cost of having to station Fogbusters outside my empire to reduce the waves of barbs and my research is limping along.

I'd be interested to hear the views of the good players on here on the benefits of the quechua rush, particularly if the enemies cities aren't close by. Sure, I've knocked out a rival already, but only at the expense of crippling my own research. Perhaps I'd have been better razing the cities, or instead using a few quechuas to pillage and harry a couple of opponents to slow their development while I consolidated mine? Or ignoring quechua altogether (although that does seem a waste of a UU)?

Don't take the third city (in this case Orleans) unless it has a fantastic location. If you get the chance to wipe out another civ before quechua's become obsolete, that's probably the time to keep your third city (namely the capitol).
 
toller pretzl said:
Don't take the third city (in this case Orleans) unless it has a fantastic location. If you get the chance to wipe out another civ before quechua's become obsolete, that's probably the time to keep your third city (namely the capitol).

Oh, and don't get more than seven quechua's because of the maintenance costs. Build that buddhist monastery or library instead.
 
Gr8scott said:
I just saw something interesting in this thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155339

I think this is critical if true. If you can delay the onset of axemen by foregoing bronzeworking, that would be an important consideration. I don't have any counter-evidence to this claim yet, but it is news to me. Anyone out there able to verify this or debunk it?

Well, at the beginning we don't have Archery, yet still face barb archers. But maybe archers are the exception.
 
I play often Terra maps, they are fun, because conquest can be easy and if not you got a lot of land to conquer without WW.
Barbs macemen are the rule in those maps, but easily you have to fight against barbs rifles in the last cities.

In GotM8 i won a SS victory, and to increase score, i conquered 2 or 3 barb cities with marines against rifles. One of these cities was in the big island right east of "Spain" mainland.
Never seen a barb knight or cavalry, only HA, but don't know if is a rule.

Probably is correct:
- barbs can "produce" the best unit the less advanced civ can produce, without need to have the required resource, OR
- not the less advanced civ, but the second last advanced civ (in this case archers are explained - every civ knows archery, but ours)
 
Yesterday I ran my last test game, on Blubmuz´s :goodjob: save: I followed Erkon´s :goodjob: 2nd script (see quote below) and achieved Oracle CS 1210BC.

Erkon said:
Oracle : 1180 BC
Build: Quechua, Worker, Quechua, Quechua, Barracks, Quechua, Oracle
Research: Polyteism, Mining, Animal Husbandry, Wheel, Pottery, Priesthood, Writing, CoL
Improve: Gold, Pasture, Cottages (on flood plains)
Final city size: 6 + 30%
No huts explored and one worker stolen and used. The extra four turns were used to research A.H, improve Pasture and build Barracks.
/Erkon

After that I converted to Bureaucracy and researched BW followed by alphabet (I guess I got too cocky) which I didn´t have time to complete before getting swarmed by barbs 14 turns later, as summarized by the table below:
Year: 1180BC - 895BC
Turn: 94 - 108
Quechua count (current/lost) 6/0 - 2/5
Barb count (current/killed) 3w/(7a,6w)total=16 - (4a,2w)/ (15a,15w)total=36

p.s. a=archer, w=warrior, animals killed not counted

Lessons learned:
1. beeline for archery after slingshot, quechuas won´t be enough to handle warrior barbs then, and if you get it before it´s even riskier to achieve the slingshot.
2. even after researching BW, as I did not hook up the resource not a single axeman showed up among the 20 new barbs in 14 turns. Btw the 2 other civs were running slavery for a long time. Maybe then you need to hook up copper for them to appear?
 
I just finished out a test Emperor game and I purposely never researched military techs beyond Feudalism. There was a barb city situated outside my borders in the 1600s and my swordsman scout always saw longbows defending that city. Perhaps the claim that barbs DEFENSIVE units do not exceed those of the lowest civs techs, excluding the initial archers, is correct???
 
Conquistador 63 said:
After that I converted to Bureaucracy and researched BW followed by alphabet (I guess I got too cocky) which I didn´t have time to complete before getting swarmed by barbs 14 turns later, as summarized by the table below:
Year: 1180BC - 895BC
Turn: 94 - 108
Quechua count (current/lost) 6/0 - 2/5
Barb count (current/killed) 3w/(7a,6w)total=16 - (4a,2w)/ (15a,15w)total=36

If it's any comfort, you must at least have military tactics pretty well honed. If I've understood those figures right, you lost 5 quechas but in the process took out 8 barb archers and 9 barb warriors, despite presumably not having time to heal between battles!
 
I know not many have it yet, but i just dont know if i want to play a non-warlords game - I have been playing solid since i got it and I just dont know if i can play without my Axemen killing chariots and the Incans incredibile border expanding granery.

Sigh.... where's my old CIVIV disk.....

Next month Warlords GOTM1?
 
Having already opened this months file, I will NOT say anything about GOTM9 in this thread... I just want to answer the last sentence by facistal...

Staff has indicated that they intend to start WOTM1 (Warlords) about September 15th, and plan to run GOTM for civ4, and WOTM in parrallel, offset by half a month.
 
I was crushed like garlic in a press by last month's Monarch game while playing the contender class. Yet, I don't see any reason to eschew this months event since the price tag for entry is a good fit for my spartan budget.

I have absolutlely no plan whatsover, have not played any practice games because I've been Warlording, and am in way over my head.

My only goal is to try to add some mild comic relief to the usually droll and taciturn logs that seem to pepper the forums after these events.
 
drkodos said:
My only goal is to try to add some mild comic relief to the usually droll and taciturn logs that seem to pepper the forums after these events.

:lol: I'm looking forward to it. And maybe you'll surprise us with a success story ;)
 
Top Bottom