GOTM #14: Chitchat (spoiler thread)

Thanks a lot for answering.

I definitely have to continue experimenting with ICS. I had 2 tries so far and they were at the time i couldn't beat deity. I seemed to do very well but i abandoned later as new patches kept coming. (1.21 and later 1.29).
 
Originally posted by Yndy
Thanks a lot for answering.

No problem!:) We, MOOers, have to stick together, you know.;)

Originally posted by Yndy
I definitely have to continue experimenting with ICS. I had 2 tries so far and they were at the time i couldn't beat deity. I seemed to do very well but i abandoned later as new patches kept coming. (1.21 and later 1.29).

From past experiment, especially at Deity level, it's best to squeeze every square of land to produce something.:) For more information, please talk to the Grand Master Aeson.:) I was having trouble winning at the Deity level until I watched the playback of what Aeson did in that 64K game at the HoF.:)
 
I'm not so sure about ICS. In my game, I did pretty well by quickly settling the flood plains, thereby hampering Persian expansion as well as controlling many mountains, which gave me one of the two Iron sources.
Since Persia saw open space on the southern grasslands, they didn't become aggressive and only had a handful of Immortals when I discovered Monarchy and began my attack. :)
 
ICS is not the only solution but if you know how to deal with it ( and like i was saying i'm still studying) it can save the day ... anyday.

So Ribannah, you started the war against Persians in the end of the Ancient Era? Or did you go straight to Monarchy?
 
Originally posted by Ribannah
I'm not so sure about ICS. In my game, I did pretty well by quickly settling the flood plains, thereby hampering Persian expansion as well as controlling many mountains, which gave me one of the two Iron sources.

Well, after the barbs murdered my second warrior, I couldn't explore the land much and didn't see those flood plains until it was too late. The Persians got there before I did.:(
 
I think ICS gives a good chance to build big forces for attacking of Persia. In GOTM14 I built several cities near my capital and its power "producton center" help me to conquer Persia when I was in Despotism yet.
 
I threw stones at the Persians to keep them aggravated and in a fairly constant state of war (breaks of 20 turns for peace). Winning cites and battles will make even a stong civ back down from the fight so if you can leave them with a bad taste in their mouth as they become willing to negotiate peace you can keep them off balance.

ICS can work well also but I was able to avoid that in my productive areas.
 
Although I am a frequent user of ICS, ICS was not necessary in this game. I used more of a OCP placement. I can't really say it's a full OCP, because I did have some unused tiles, and there was some overlapping (especially by where we start because of the sort of peninsula we started on). If you go with no granaries, then ICS is probably better most of the time. It would be interesting if I played this game again using ICS to compare. ICS does usually allow you to conquer your neighbors sooner, just knowing when to stop producing settlers and build nothing but barracks/military is the key.
 
Originally posted by Yndy
So Ribannah, you started the war against Persians in the end of the Ancient Era?
Yes. Only had Currency and Construction left to research.
It was 330 BC when I asked Persia to move their units from my territory. They said no and I pillaged their Iron. :)

Of course the very next turn they gained contact with the rest of the world (the Zulu have the Lighthouse) and traded for Iron :mad: but I managed to grab 5 cities nonetheless and got one more from the peace settlement. Now I am #1 in productivity.

Right after this fierce swordsmen - immortals battle the Zulu decided that they wanted a piece of the action. Guess they didn't like me sharing the tiniest island with them, so they came after me with all their might ....

The single Zulu Warrior didn't quite make it over my walls. :D
Now I'm contemplating whether to punish them or to go after Persia once more after I've regrouped and built some Knights. Maybe I'll do both, haha.
 
I didn't manage to secure the iron in the east as easily as Persia got there first, they pop a city right next to it, my settler 3 squares a way! They were also two Persian cities also already in the grasslands to the east. So it was quite a fight taking and defending all those 3 towns. Built two of my own on hills that they attack occasianally but they are normally more drawn towards cities on grassland. At the beginning of the 2nd era, a BIG **** happen to me! My iron town flipped to Persians FOR just one turn before I took it back, streams of immortals and then later knights came down on my forces that suppose to attack Persia not defend my cities. My second era was just wars with Persia with me victorious at the end but at a big cost. When I got Calvary, India/Zulu has Infantry! I'm thrown back half an era.
I normally built my cities on the 3rd or 4th square away from capital to minimise corruption. You call this ICS? These cities I normally do not let them grow beyond 12 due to lack of workable tile but size 12 already productive enough.
 
Originally posted by Gen. Maximus
My iron town flipped to Persians FOR just one turn before I took it back, streams of immortals and then later knights came down on my forces that suppose to attack Persia not defend my cities.

Although that did not happen to me, I think there is a good lesson there. It may be a good idea to post a couple units on such strategic resource. If the city flip, they won't get the resources right way. In my game, that iron source was unconnected. I ended up capture 5 Persian workers that were trying to connect to that iron source.:) I captured that iron town with horsemans and left 2 horsemans to defend that town. Since there was no way on earth my 2 horsemans could possibly hold the town, if the Persians try to take it, I would abandon it and run like hell, but they never did care much for that size-1 town. Even though the town was right next to the iron, they would not attack unless the iron was roaded. That is the different between human and AIs. AIs couldn't see the potential threat or the strategic value of the town. This may be the case because they could have easily connected to the second source of iron too, but they never did. During those years, I was expecting a storm of immortals, but they never came. I still haven't figured out why Pesia did never try to build an iron colony or a town on their second source of iron (NW of Persepolis). If they did that, my game would be over long before 10AD.
 
Originally posted by Moonsinger

I still haven't figured out why Pesia did never try to build an iron colony or a town on their second source of iron (NW of Persepolis).

Same thing in my game. The persians didn't get any immortal active in the ancient times, and they only managed to get iron by trading it with other nations later on. I even managed to sell them my own iron for big bucks when they were at war with most nations in the industrial times (then importing another iron for my own use from a friendly nation).

All that time they still hadn't roaded their own iron source NW of Persepolis. No idea why they were so hesitant to do so. :confused:
 
You would think that the AI would be programmed to at least try and secure it's own UU's strategic resource. I doubt if the AI would have to be tweaked much to make Deity level alot harder.
 
They did road it in my game. It might be related to the fact that you all crippled his worker base and he had other priorities. One would ask why didn't he built a town there, or at least closer.
 
All I can say is "Wow." I'd love to see some of you guys play - I think it's two levels of transcendance above mine. I'm just getting used to Monarch level, and beating it only if I have a good starting position (I just bought the game 6 weeks ago). I've tried reading the tactics section, even all of Cracker's intensive forestry, but I don't think my game is even remotely like any of yours (and yours are all very different, from your descriptions I read on the spoilers thread).

Sorry if this is OT, but I didn't know how else to reach all of you at once. Is there a way see what exactly players do? I suppose I could see some replays, but there's a great deal of detail that doesn't come across, and I think I may be missing something fundamental in my game.

You have inspired me to try out a GOTM. But not this one; I'm not quite ready for Diety yet.:blush:
 
can someone explain "ICS" and "OCP" and what they mean. I'm trying to follow the thread, hopefully to improve my game and I find no reference to these terms elsewhere. I assume they are strategic plans for city placement in the early game. Thanks.
 
ICS-Infinite City Sprawl. Building cities really close together (2-3 tiles apart), so each city uses 12 tiles at most (often times less than this, an extreme ICS uses about 5-6 tiles/city). Typically used for an early advantage (pre-railroads/hospitals) for defense, unit support, low corruption of the cities that are close to your capital, workers and settlers don't have to travel so far, improved tiles can be shared between cities as your population goes up and down from settler production, etc. ICS players usually don't build too much infrastructure. And they disband some cities by their capital (to allow the other cities to grow larger) later in the game if they need to build tanks and stuff. But done correctly (especially on the lower levels) the game will be over by knights or at least cavalry.

OCP-Optimal city placement Trying to build your cities so you have no unused tiles and very minimal overlapping of tiles. These become powerful cities after hospitals when they can start using all 20 tiles and all the improvements make these cities more efficient. And you have cities farther away that can be more productive.

Cromagnon- Be watching this forum at the beginning of next month. Zachriel posts a very detailed summary of his game loaded with good tips (he won't be doing a summary every month, though, so I don't know if he is doing one this month). And after/shortly before the deadline (the 2nd of the month) more people post more details about their summary. And there is the QSC that Cracker started that will give the logfiles (detailed moves up to 1000 BC) where you can follow along and duplicate the opening moves of those that submitted their log files.
 
Originally posted by Bamspeedy
OCP-Optimal city placement Trying to build your cities so you have no unused tiles and very minimal overlapping of tiles. These become powerful cities after hospitals when they can start using all 20 tiles and all the improvements make these cities more efficient. And you have cities farther away that can be more productive.

And the best part about OCP is that we can always squeeze a couple towns in between the two OCPs (disband it later when we get more luxuries). As in GOTM#14, Since Persia was expanding too quickly, we must make good use of the tiny piece of land that we get.:) Moreover, if our empire has very few luxuries, bigger city has to deal more with unhappy citizens too. Therefore, two cities of size 4 is actually more productive and faster growth than 1 city of size 8.
 
You would think that the AI would be programmed to at least try and secure it's own UU's strategic resource.

The Persian only roaded their NE iron resource I think only after their cultural boundary took that hill tile. I was defending that spot of using my pikemen from time to time and notice they didn't bother roading it.
 
Thanks for your reply Bamspeedy. ICS would be something that you would have to commit to very early I would guess, or do you usually wait to see how confined you are in the early game? Also, do you sometimes start out with the OCP strategy and then switch to ICP, placing cities in between after realizing how cramped your area is? Thanks
 
Back
Top Bottom