GOTM V experiences

[shadowdale]

Originally posted by Matrix:
But what about barbarians? There's nothing more irritating than barbarians - or other Civs too - landing on your land and taking over a city (or more), just because you didn't have defense.

Well to me the occasional barbarian taking an undefended city is more than compensated by the increased production and the fact that my settlers get out faster so I can expand expand expand!!! And the cost of building a diplomat and buying the city back are so minor that I really never build those defensive unites!!!

Goodbye_Mr_Bond: Damn it's creepy how we think alike in matters of Civ2, and BTW I had one Civ left in 200AD but they had three or four cities, it wasn't until 340AD that I was down to a pet city!!

------------------
We are species 8472 - assimilation attempts are futile - the weak shall perish

No wait we are species 5618 and we got beer...... don't harm us!!!!!!

 

[Lord Oden]

Barbarians were not too much of a problem for me. I found that even though my cities were attacked 6 or 7 times they only attacked 3 cities. I guess Barbarians are creatures of habit and do not learn from their mistakes.
Hmmmm... that explains why they never advanced into anything worth recording in history books.

 

[starlifter]

Personally, I usually have at least one defender of some sort in a city... often it is a carvan or diplomat, however.... but at least it is occupied, otherwise the Civ 2 Barb game logic will find the unoccupied cities and eventaully land and take some of them with a simple walk-in. Barbs will not warn or offer ransom for not sacking such undefended cities, either.

If I control the seas from Steam Engine onwards (and I almost always do), then enemy landings are not an issue, but sea barbs always may be. I am in the 1700's in GOTM 4 (playing #4 to see how I'll do relative to those that completed it)... and a sea barb just landed and attacked a spy-only city with Dragoons. The first attacked, and the second pillaged... the city lost a pop point, but it grew right back (democracy). I then gained Vet status when I brought my non-vet Cavalry in via rail to dispatch the barbs. I also got a vet spy by sabotoging the Barb frigate.

In GOTM 5, I used a diplomat and a trireme (which was originally barbarian) to go Trolling for Barbs on the north side of the Zulus... The barbarians were numerous up there because I had a horseman fortified on a mountain which delayed the Zulu settlement of the north part of the land. That made it ripe for barbs, which were then bribed as the got near the coastline... eventually, Leonardo's Workshop made all those NONE horsemen into Cavalry, which I ultimately used to defeat all the AI civs in the 1500's.

 

[CornMaster]

I ALWAYS have 2 major defensive units PER city. (Phalanx, Pikeman, Musketters, Rifleman, Mech Inf.)

ALWAYS!!!!

I'll go through most games and NEVER loose a city. Although the greater defence make Republic and Democracy almost impossible, in the early years.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CivFanatics Civ 2 Ladder
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

 

[Matrix]

Well, two defenders is a bit too much for me. I do have at least one defender in every city. And my technology is usually far enough to be able to stand against a blitzkrieg of other civs or barbarians. However, this tends to go wrong in Deity.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.hetnet.nl/~maartencl/tmp/MatrixBW.gif" border=0>
Game of the Month administrator.

 

[starlifter]

Wow Cornmaster, do you play under Republic or Democracy very much? If so, it seems like a huge hit on support costs to keep 2 military defenders in each city for hundreds of years. But with 2 defenders minimum in a all cities, your empire is indeed secure, esp. if you have walls. Such a setup is especially good for Communism, since the troops keep order.

 

[noughmaster]

I had a very similar experience to Cornmaster. I conquered the Zulus straight away, then saw a Persian unit. It was easy to see where it came from, so I went across the bottom and conquered them, followed by the Romans & Sioux. I didn't need any units higher than veteran Crusaders and Musketeers.
I think it would be quite hard to get a GOTM score above about 90.

 

[noughmaster]

To Starlifter, Cornmaster:
I can't see the point of playing in republic.
On a small map, quick conquest seems the best option. I go to monarchy, then try to get the statue of liberty so I can change to communism. I often have 3 units + the religious wonders to keep the cities quiet.

 

[starlifter]

by noughmaster:

I think it would be quite hard to get a GOTM score above about 90.

I'm new to CFC and GOTM, having joining about 2 weeks ago. Maybe I'm not calculating it right, but I'd have to say it was pretty trivial to get a GOTM score above 100 in June's game. Since it has been stated that we should not disclose our exact scores, I'll use a set of numbers (will not reflect my real result), and the experienced GOTM people can tell me if the calculation methodology is correct:

ASSUMPTIONS:
SS Landing: 1783
Ending Game Turn: 272 (true ending turn)
Ending Game Turn: 266.5 (using Matrix's "bonus" method)
Ending Game Score: 1000

Calculation:

GOTM Score = 1000*(50^((470-272)/470))/200= 26.0 (using 272)

GOTM Score = 1000*(50^((470-267)/470))/200 = 27.1 (using 267; Matrix's "bonus")


If the above calculation method is correct, then my score easily exceeded 100 in GOTM 5, even with bungling several things that I would surely have done differently a second time. If I've done something wrong in crunching the numbers, let me know.


Note: for a full explanation of the Matrix's "bonus" for a pre-1850 SS launch, see the detailed posts I made a couple weeks ago.

 

[starlifter]

To Starlifter, Cornmaster:
I can't see the point of playing in republic.

I will be very candid and say that I have an overwhelming urge at any given moment to favor Monarchy/Communism/Fundamentalism in any given Civ II game, and can extract maximum production and science from any of these governments (taxes are more difficult under Monarchy and Communism, however).

It is only in the relatively recent past that I've taken the plunge on early Republics... I still choke on the initial unit support cost in small cities, as well as the 2 food of support for settlers. And it would be insane if you went to Republic and did not use WLTC days to grow! But if you do, your fledgling empire will accelerate almost vertical on the power graph, and your gold, science, and shields will far exceed what you had a few turns earlier under Monarchy. Two size 8 cities in Republic are superior to two size 3 (or 4) cities under Monarchy, even given Monarchy's 3 shield bonus. And the best part is that the science (or tax) is hugely accelerated in the Republic example.

Well, in GOTM 5 I took the plunge and went for the early Republic, albeit with some trepidation at first. However, I was very pleased with the results. The one thing I (and probably all other Republic users) would like is the ability to conduct wars without interference. But then that would change the fine balance of the game

.

In summary, the main point of a Republic is to grow rapidly, increase economic and infrastructure, and most importantly, achieve an overwhelming rate of science. When science is coming at a rate of one tech evey two days mid-game, and up to four techs in one turn (late game), it is not unreasonable to expect to see human Stealth fighters attacking AI Phalanx at times in a large map.

 

[noughmaster]

To Starlifter:
Your GOTM calculation is correct. A GOTM5 score of > 100 is still quite impressive. When did you finish?
Re: Republic
I suppose some quick growth if there is no immediate war on offer, followed by Communism, then an extended conquest could be a good strategy. I'll give it a try next GOTM.

 

[Kev]

Well, I took an uncharacteristic plunge into an early Republic in my game, and it really made a huge difference.

I would like to thank people like Starlifter, Shadowdale, Andu, etc. that have been answering my questions on trade and giving their own ideas as well. I went severely trade-happy in the game, and it worked wonderfully - especially under my early Republic and subsequent Democracy.

I mushed the Zulus pretty quickly, but did not get to the others very fast. However, the Persians did away with the Romans, and my first leg on the continent was the purchase of Persian Rome. From there I was able to wheedle away at the Persians and Sioux, but I left a single Sioux city for a later "key civ" strategy that seemed to have worked.

With the Persian capital as well as the Aztec and Carthaginian capitals (bought most of the yellow and orange cities as well), I waited until I had a decent force near each one then held the old "one turn revolt" in which I could wipe them all out in a single turn without the senate interfering.

Being on prince level, I didn't really start any wonders until relatively late - I wasn't exactly facing a huge wonders race. Because of this, there were a bunch of useless wonders before I even had a chance to look. I wish I could have made better use of these.

All in all, I learned a great deal. Don't know how the score will match up, but I was very happy just to be playing and experimenting.

------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock

 

[Alanna]

Well, as of a few minutes ago, I am a participating member of the GOTM Club. (As long as Matrix shows mercy on a GOTM Rookie and lets in my 2.5 hour late submission.)

I tried the early Republic path for the first time, and thought I had made a mistake several turns later. I was having a lot of trouble supporting units. I had a good handle on Happiness, so I just kept at it. I was very happy with the results after my first 14 cities were all about size 10 - 15 a few "WLT_ Days" later! I can see big advantages to this strategy in a 2X resource game.

Another interesting thing happened much later. I was growing pretty strong, but didn't really have enough military units to launch a war. I had been expanding a little faster than I am used to, and didn't have all of my cities garrisoned. Of course, Barbs landed and captured Leipzig. It's been a long time since I lost a city to Barbs!

The upside of this loss was 8 Partisan units , when I hadn't even researched Guerrilla Warfare yet! I'm not sure why they showed up, but here was an instant NONE army. So much for the Persians and Sioux!

I played most of this game under Democracy. I usually stick to Monarchy and then Republic with Women's Sufferage. I do like capturing AI cities and immediately making use of all of the trade with Democracy.

I learned quite a bit with this game, even playing on Prince instead of my usual King. I look forward to playing GOTM #6. I just hope I can find enough time, BEFORE the evening of August 2!!!

------------------
It's not an Aggressive, Expansionist, Militaristic attitude...it's Manifest Destiny!

 

[starlifter]

posted June 30, 2001 11:12 PM
To Starlifter:
Your GOTM calculation is correct. A GOTM5 score of > 100 is still quite impressive. When did you finish?

All the data in my calculation is correct, except for the final score. I plopped my SS down in 1783, on a "true" game turn of 272, but a "Matrix" turn of 266. Score was 4849 (about 306,460,000 people; +390 FT, +100 Peace)

Re: Republic
I suppose some quick growth if there is no immediate war on offer, followed by Communism, then an extended conquest could be a good strategy. I'll give it a try next GOTM.

As GOTM 6 showed me, early republic is not a panacea. In fact, I never even entered Republic in GOTM 6, having given in to my warlike impulses and used Communism until the late 1700's, where I am now. I'll be switching to Democracy before 1800, but the spaceship is decades off in the distant future. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

EDIT: Fix Quote Format.

[This message has been edited by starlifter (edited July 03, 2001).]

 

[stormerne]

You won't see Stormerne in the result table for GOTM 5. June was a calamitous month for me. After a bereavement mid-month and a complete home computer failure later, my game did not get past the Dark Ages. I'm only now in a position to complete it, and of course the deadline has past (which is a shame as I was doing so well...). I guess I just throw that one away. Oh well, there's always GOTM #6.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

 

[noughmaster]

To Starlifter:
Yes, I agree with you about Republic: the terrain doesn't always make it the best option. I can't see the point of it in GOTM6. I suppose a defining factor here will be choice of Democracy / Communism.
Re: GOTM score: was it too academic? I wasn't trying to push a political line in the sense of a strong campaign to change the formula. I think some people could probably have some fruitful discussions.
Regards,

 

[starlifter]

posted July 04, 2001 12:50 AM
To Starlifter:
Yes, I agree with you about Republic: the terrain doesn't always make it the best option. I can't see the point of it in GOTM6. I suppose a defining factor here will be choice of Democracy / Communism.

BTW, even though there is no instant-grow in Monarchy or Communism, the overseas trade is still very fruitful. Even trade with London (size 12) with my own Delhi (size 9 on avg, has Colossus) could yield 450 gold. "typical" junk caravans were about 120 to 240 in value. With a steady supply of about 2 caravans every 2 or 3 turns, you can get an advance every 2 days...

Be sure to pick an overseas city with good trade inside it, and a city near the capital (if they are in republic).

 

[starlifter]

by Starlifter:

.... I'll be switching to Democracy before 1800, but the spaceship is decades off in the distant future. ...

Well, just for the record, I missed that guess by a mile. It was 1824 before Democracy ***FINALLY*** swept the empire in GOTM 6, and 1828 before any celebrating could be done.

GOTM 6 was just not conducive to a fast and/or early finish for me... hope it goes better for some of you!

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Just to clarify what I said earlier about no defenders in my cities:

I meant no defending military units. I do try to have one diplomat within a two-turn range of each city. One dip per 3-4 cities--with a bit of cash to back him up--is enough to handle most barbs, even on raging horde. Yes, I lose a city here and there, but like Shadow said, the extra production more than makes up for it, especially in early game.

Btw, this seems a bit too coincidental to be pure luck, but I didn't see a single 'random' barb at all until 0 BC. From that very turn onwards, it seems they started coming thick and fast.

Is that a Prince-level thing, no barbs until 0 BC? 0 BC just seems like too much of a nice round number for it to have been a coincidence. (They did pop out of huts, just no random barb landings.)

(And Shadowdale: We might have the same thoughts, but my supply seems to be a bit diluted.

In the GOTM, I'm starting to feel like 'Shadowdale Lite'. <sigh> Maybe I'm doomed to chase your Shadow month after month

...)

 

[noughmaster]

Being new to GOTM, I hadn't seen the discussions about not using the early finish Civ bonus score in the GOTM score. Consequently, I have a GOTM5 score of 14 instead of 78. It seems from the list there are other players with the same predicament. What is the point of having an early finish bonus score if it's not counted? I finished in 1220AD and could have gone on and made a spaceship, but what for?
According to Thunderfall, there have been previous discussions on this topic, but new players can't be expected to have read them. Is anyone else annoyed by this? I actually played a good game and it's made me look like a novice. Moreover, with the scoring method of the Global ranking, such a score will stay with anyone in this situation FOREVER!