GR23 - AWDG vs 30 Civs

[vmxa]

Sounds good.

markh, well I did manage to arrive in time to stop Gr winning streak and get them onto a nice two game set back.

 

[darski]

lurker's comment: Lurkers Anonymous sent me to check on y'all. That looks like a great starting location... so far.

 

[Northern Pike]

Greebley, I just ask because you didn't explicitly post a got-it--do you know you're up?

 

[I. Larkin]

Naive questions:
1)Rome works on hills - Just to have BW 1 turn earlier?
Why not let Veli work on Weat? Cities of approximately equal size easer to MCMg.
In this way we may get Archer 1 turn earlier.
3) Do we need second Barracks? Why not build Archer instead? Basically it is for Backshot defence. Also Mil civ promoted soon. and we save 1gpt.
Where next City may be? NW along the river, but on our side or another?

 

[Northern Pike]

1. Rome should be micromanaged for constant +4 food, not research, so in a sense I agree with you. Without a granary Rome can only generate the population for a settler every ten turns at best, and we don't want to make that time any longer.

2. As long as Rome is our source of settlers it has to have the wheat tile every turn. In theory we could produce settlers alternately out of Rome and Veii, since neither has a granary anyway, but in a succession game it's probably more practical to stick with the familiar principle of building the settlers in the capital.

3. Yes, Veii needs a barracks, especially when they're cheap for us. In a game like this we need very high kill ratios, and we can't rely on throwing regular units into battle and hoping the survivors promote because we're militaristic.

4. The tile three directly NW of Rome should probably be our next city site, for the sake of communications unhindered by the river, though otherwise the transriverine site would be a bit better.

 

[Ansar]

(subscribed)

 

[I. Larkin]

1. Rome should be micromanaged for constant +4 food, not research, so in a sense I agree with you. Without a granary Rome can only generate the population for a settler every ten turns at best, and we don't want to make that time any longer.

2. As long as Rome is our source of settlers it has to have the wheat tile every turn. In theory we could produce settlers alternately out of Rome and Veii, since neither has a granary anyway, but in a succession game it's probably more practical to stick with the familiar principle of building the settlers in the capital.

3. Yes, Veii needs a barracks, especially when they're cheap for us. In a game like this we need very high kill ratios, and we can't rely on throwing regular units into battle and hoping the survivors promote because we're militaristic.

4. The tile three directly NW of Rome should probably be our next city site, for the sake of communications unhindered by the river, though otherwise the transriverine site would be a bit better.

Thanks for reply.
1. Now Rome has 6 in "Granary", we can do 2+4 or 3+3 to make things "even".
2. Sure Rome better for SF, as "settler's runs" will be shotter.
3. Well, may be you right advisor.
4. It is delicate question, but OK, fast unit transfer without river cross more important.

 

[Greebley]

I can play now. I got it.

 

[Greebley]

Preturn: Ya, not sure why we are working the hill. Best option is to run 4 food/turn except for 1 turn when I give the 4 food to Veil for a turn.

Early: A lot of French Warrior showing up. Kill one with an Archer.

2310 BC:: We have 3 Warrior and Archer vs 9 incoming units and Archer is damaged, but we have Another Archer soon to complete. Bad RNG and it is all over.
Its bad enough I decide to sacrifice a pop to rush another Archer in Veii so we get 2 Archer next turn.

IBT: Only 2 units attack first turn (of possible 4). We win one (for an Elite Archer) and lose 1.

2270 BC: 5 Possible attacks next turn and we have 2 Warriors and 2 Archers in city with another in Veii. Kill 2 Warrior for 4 Attacks and 4 defenders. Should win and only one more Warrior past the 4 Attackers seen.

IBT: We win all 3 Battles and so have 2 Attackers near us fortified. Two more show up behind them

2230 BC: We don't attack out due to the threat of the new archers covering both fortified archers (on different squares).

IBT: We again win vs 1 attack.

2190 BC: Attack out with E Archer, V Archer, and E Warrior to kill last visible French Warrior.

2150 BC: Units fortified. Some healing.

Notes:.
An attack to weaken France is likely worthwhile (not Paris). We will have 3 Archer + first Spear completed next turn that could head off or wait for another Archer.

Not sure if it is worth holding off next settler to attack, but I do know aggression is required in the toughest games. We cannot allow france to build up and they just spent their initial units. We should also capture cities if we can - Abandon if we cannot hold them. France will likely build little culture if it loses early cities.

Therefore my suggestion is to take 4 Archer and a Spear to find France and attack (but not the capitol as it will be too tough), the Settler is delayed to complete Spear and build an Archer. Veii can hopefully supply Spear for defense (we would be keeping E Warrior and V Warrior for defense + Spear in 5 from Veii).

 

[Greebley]

BTW, the fact we were on a hill really helped us keep the losses low and allowed us to be in a position to attack. I think we actually did well with RNG. For example, the Archer attacks had decent odds, but the fact we won all of them really helped us keep the enemy unit count low enough that the AI had only a very small chance of taking our Capitol (twice the AI had as many attackers as defenders, but it never had more).

 

[ThERat]

Good thing we settled on the hill

Rather than attacking immediately, I would get a third town up as soon as possible. In my mind, expansion is key in those games. With more cities and more raxes, we should be able to kill them off sooner of later anyway.

Just remember, once we get iron, our UU will be able to handle a lot early on. And France has no UU to match us anyway.

 

[Northern Pike]

Yes, that worked out well. Normally the defensive qualities of the capital don't matter because if we're defending it, we're losing. But the initial rush of a near neighbour is a special case.

Sending off the attack force Greebley suggests sounds like a good gamble. Rat is right about expansion, but since we want Rome to produce a settler every tenth turn as it hits size seven, the delay involved in finishing the spearman and then building an archer before a settler will put the town on the right schedule. Then (with the extra mining we'll have finished) Rome will be on an optimal ten-turn cycle of two twenty-shield units and a setter.

We can't send the whole force off into the blue with no idea of where the French cities are, though, or we'll risk losing the game with our army near neither our cities nor Joanie's. So I'd send the spearman off alone (or with one archer) as soon as it completes, to proceed north as least as far as it can go on hills, since that should be fairly safe. The four archers can follow when the spearman has found something. If there are too many French units around for this to be practical, then we shouldn't attack anyway.

 

[Greebley]

The units came from straight north and one square to the West. I would look NNW.

 

[markh]

Do we really want to keep cities that far this early ? The first French warrior arrived after 21 turns and the initial rush after another 10 or so. Reinforcing will be difficult. I would establish the first ring of cities now. With legions I guess we will be able to take cities and hold them, but with archers and spears this seems difficult to me. However if we do not meet another AI this could work out.

BTW I used the hill for more commerce and to speed up research. I thought the earlier we get legions the better. Even if it is just one turn.

 

[Northern Pike]

Roster:
Greebley
I. Larkin UP
Northern Pike on deck
M60A3TTS
vxma
ThERat
markh

 

[I. Larkin]

I got it and will play after discussion. Looks that France is not close, also somebody may come from West. I'd sent Something like Archer+ warrior to hunter French Settlers, to get slaves. I agree with TheRat that expansion is a key factor and better to swich to settler in Rome now.
Also, I think better to research IW at Max.

 

[vmxa]

I think we can incorporate both concepts. We go out looking for France and see if we find combos or towns and go from that point.

We want to not find other guys and get more incoming, just yet, so we need to take care on where we go.

IW asap seems good, that is what we are doing anyway.

I doubt we can keep any towns as we will be hard press to fill the gaps, but we can decide that once we see what we have.

 

[vmxa]

BTW welcome aboard I. Larkin.

 

[Greebley]

Remember though we want to keep our production high. If NP is correct and we can get the Spear, Archer and still get the settler before we reach size 7 then that is ideal as we can do both.

Rushing settlers fast so our capitol is small isn't worthwhile IMO. New towns take a while to get going and we have no worker to improve it anyway.

Best is to build settlers whenever we will hit size 7.

 

[Northern Pike]

Yes--to repeat, no one believes in expansion more than I do, but it's worth being patient a little longer so that we can get our one settler per ten turns on an ideal cycle. To get the next archer on growth, we'll need to MM Rome to 6 spt as soon as it completes the spearman.

As Vmxa says, it's true that we can't know exactly what opportunities our strike force will find, whether settlers or weakly held cities, but in any case it's worth doing.