GOTM 40 Pre-Game Discussion

[DBear]

erm, I thought the Celts-Keltoi thing was because of regionalisms. The US version uses Celts, and I figured ainwood was using the UK version because of this and differences in the city lists. (Mohacs for the Celts? Sound more like Iroquois to me.)

 

[AlanH]

In order to make vanilla version 1.29 capable of playing in a similar way to PtW, using the same maps and a similar set of features, the GOTM team created additional tribes and UUs that correspond with the extra tribes in PtW. The units and leader heads had to be graphics created outside of the PtW software to avoid copyright issues. The civilization and unit and leader names were therefore changed to try to highlight the fact that, while the statistics and behaviour of these add-ons are the same as the PtW equivalents, they look a little different.

In view of the fact that the vanilla mods are there primarily to make vanilla play like PtW, I would contend that PtW is the 'genuine' GOTM platform, and vanilla is the approximation. Though I must say I prefer little Hannibaline, queen of neoCarthage, to the images I've seen of Hannibal, Carthage's beared leader in PtW! So I guess it comes down to a matter of taste, and whether you are prepared to download and install 25MBytes of mods.

PS @DBear: Not down to ainwood. Cracker, an all-American hero as far as I know, created the Keltoi race. Mohacs was and is in Hungary - nothing to do with Mohawks. ... and Keltoi was the Greek word for the Celts. Everyone can be an expert using Google

 

[Niklas]

Regarding the PtW vs vanilla issue, I'd say PtW for sure. Hannibaline may be prettier than her brother, but the Mod Arab leader gives me the creeps. And several of the other civs are represented by symbols only. Besides, several aspects of gameplay are better in PtW, such as random free techs. Not to mention the ability to rename units, it really simplifies writing QSC timelines.

I've been doing some calculations for this start. In my (probably) preferred start I have the situation that my granary will be ready on the same turn that Athens will grow, will that work out the way I hope it does (full bin) or is food calculated before the build?

 

[Niklas]

I've been doing some calculations for this start. In my (probably) preferred start I have the situation that my granary will be ready on the same turn that Athens will grow, will that work out the way I hope it does (full bin) or is food calculated before the build?

I'll answer my own question, and the answer is negative. I did some tests, and the bin will be empty after growth in the above scenario.
Back to the drawing board...

 

[ainwood]

No - you need to complete your granary on the turn before you grow, or it empties. Food / city growth is determined before improvements. Just starve the city for a turn!

 

[Dr. Proctor]

This is my first GOTM...hell, my first post in these forums. Anywho, someone had stated prior that Greece is a good builder...they certainly are. I won my first game of CivIII (ahh, the memories) with Greece, and have done very well as a builder since then. Space Race is optimal with them, simply because of the synergy for insane research speeds (cheap science buildings, extra money from COM, it makes sense, no?).

Anyways, hello, and hopefully I won't get trounced by what I think will be a behemoth of a map.

 

[Banthafodder]

Alot of you talk about moving your Palace. Why do this? How do you benefit by moving your Palace?

 

[denyd]

Banthafodder: In PTW & Vanilla, there is a feature (I prefer to think that C3C is broke), where all the cities closer to the FP than the capital get a greatly reduced distance corruption.

What many people like to do is establish a well devloped core and build the FP in the core, then with a GL relocate there palace to a distant city, usually a once AI capital city that has some terrain improvements. They then add infrastructure and develop the remaining terrain giving two producive cores.

As an example, on a world map playing as Germany, you would start with your capital in Berlin. After creating a well developed core with an FP in Leipzig, you get a great leader while battling China and are able to relocate (palace jump) your capital to Beijing. All of the cities in that you acquired in you conquest of France & Scandanavia, would now be closer to you FP than to your capital and would see a sharp drop in corruption. Also your new cities in China would suffer a smaller corruption allowing you to develop a new core.

In a recent GOTM my new gpt went from 137 to 421 by moving my capital to a new region and 10+ cities that had been producing only 1spt were now in the 5-6spt range making then functional.

 

[Banthafodder]

Sweet thanks!

 

[ainwood]

Sweet thanks!

However - as a caution on Denyd's note - you are required to keep the Palace within a core of SOME cities - if its miles away from everything on its own, then that is seen as exploitive.

Make sure that the palace has at least 6 to 8 cities around it.

 

[Jove]

Arrrr, COTM10 has taken a tough turn already, so I'm thinking I may see if I can finish this one in just a few days. Conquest, Domination... I haven't read a single spoiler, so technically I still qualify for the pre-game! Hope this one doesn't catch me snoozing.

 

[WilliamOfOrange]

I will be playing with the assumption that we are on a northern island and need to get off. I have always been partial to as many resources in a city as possible, and so am leaning towards moving SW. There is 3 BGs to be had in Athena and this way I can get one more city on what looks to be a small island. The river would be nice, and I may reconsider before loading up the game, but I feel 2 cities on a small island is better than one, so I can get more science. With Athena on the southern coast using trade from 2 fishies and a wine and another city inland taking the trade from the river I hope the tech rate will be fast enough for getting off the rock ASAP. Hopefully Colossus will be built in the Captial, otherwise a prebuild to the Lighthouse would work too.

A question about palace jumps and RCP. I have never done or tried things like this. I prefer not to disband the capital, because that city usually kicks ass. I prefer using a leader or a recently captured enemy city with surprisingly continued decent shield production to build the FP in an enemy core. Would or could using a leader to build a Palace rather than FP make a difference, and if so, how much of a difference?

 

[AlanH]

It's a little late to be asking about palace building strategies here. Many players will have opened the start save and therefore can't post in this thread. I'm responding as a mod, but I am actually in that state myself.

 

[WilliamOfOrange]

I am just asking in general ....does it really matter?

 

[MeteorPunch]

I am just asking in general ....does it really matter?

Just ask any general gameplay questions in the regular forums. It's easier.

 

[DBear]

Moderator Action: Spoiler post removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[AlanH]

I am just asking in general ....does it really matter?

Yes. This is a specific thread where players can speculate about GOTM40, not discuss general game principles.

We're all busy people and having to read additional posts in these threads to check for spoiler information is one task we can do without. It also saves time debating the issue.

I'm tempted to suggest we should close the pre-game threads once the spoilers are out.