Hammurabi - Immortal Cookbook

[drlake]

Ahhh, typos ftw!

 

[GKey]

^^^ My bad

Finished.

Spoiler :

Did not take into consideration SIP vs move to coast choice. Both have their merits.
Most subjective is a Progress column. What are you doing: rushing, REXing, etc. Are you in slavery or we need spend 1 turn in anarchy, etc.

According to numbers - Firebras won, although I would prefer rush Alex rather then Justinian.

Fierabras

Next are Civconvict and Dhoomstriker. Rush on this map is no doubt better then peaceful REX.

Civconvict

Dhoomstriker

 

[sadmachines]

I haven't had the time to check properly each game. If it isn't too late for voting tomorrow morning (UK time) then I will pick then.

 

[Gumbolt]

Sorry really lost track of things on last cookbook. Not had my mind on this section of forum.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Did not take into consideration SIP vs move to coast choice. Both have their merits.
Most subjective is a Progress column. What are you doing: rushing, REXing, etc. Are you in slavery or we need spend 1 turn in anarchy, etc.

Thank you for the blank spreadsheet, which allows us to easily come up with our own criteria.

For example, I might consider changing the number of Cities to the total number of citizens, to better reflect the power of having larger Cities. Those who have recently whipped will have already converted that "potential power" into Hammers, although it can be a bit unfair for someone who's just whipped but has yet to complete a build item--no system is perfect, which is why having multiple columns of numbers helps. I'd then add 1 point per Settler that exists to the total population, since that info wasn't captured in your spreadsheet (the existence of unsettled Settlers), but a few people had Settlers roaming around.

So for example, City 1 = Size 4, City 2 = Size 1, and one Settler existing would equal 4 + 1 + 1 = 6.


It would also be appreacited if you could upload a copy of the completed spreadsheet, as it would make for copying and pasting of the criteria that we wanted to reuse a whole lot easier.


Also, you went to the trouble of counting Buildings, but did not appear to credit Fierabras for his free Monuments from Stonehenge. Okay, a Monument in the capital is pretty much useless, so you might not count it, but shouldn't he at least get credit for the free Monument in his captured City as Building #3 (assuming that his Barracks and Stonehenge each count as 1 Building each)? If you aren't factoring in the QUALITY of the buildings but are just counting the total number, then he should get 4 points for Buildings, counting the all-but-useless free Monument in his capital.


Now that I gave some points back to Fierabras, I'd take some away, too. His tech pace isn't the best--he skipped Pottery and has less invested in Writing than a couple of others have invested into Pottery, Masonry, or Writing.

Minimally, you could instead count up the number of techs learned and give 1 point each.

Optimally, you'd create a little chart of Flasks per tech, then add up the total Flasks from each of the techs that a player had learned. To that total, you would add their current number of invested Flasks in the tech that they are researching. You could then devise a scale, such as 1 = the lowest amount of Flasks accumulated, 10 = the highest amount of Flasks accumulated, and everyone else would get a scaled number in between.

Or, you could dispense with all of that and simply give more points for the players that picked techs that you like.

Really, how you vote is up to you--I'm just trying to offer suggestions on how to improve the numerical-based ranking system for those of you who would rather use that method for helping you to make your decision. And, if you do make a spreadsheet, don't feel pressured into having to share it with anyone.

What's more important is that you cast a vote, even if it's done in a manner completely opposite to how everyone else votes.

 

[Fierabras]

Another problem with the numbers-based approach is that it's only 50 turns in the game. A lot of saves are going to capture stuff in the next couple of turns. Giving points after 100 turns seems more fair to me.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Another problem with the numbers-based approach is that it's only 50 turns in the game. A lot of saves are going to capture stuff in the next couple of turns. Giving points after 100 turns seems more fair to me.

I see your point. Unfortunately, we'll play another 50-turn round after this one, so we're unlikely to have a 100-turn time period.

What you could do to help address this situation is to add another subjective-based column for "what could happen in the next 5 turns," based on the existing army of units, existing Settlers, and build items that are in progress.

Anyway, I'm still thinking about which saves I will vote for and I am unlikely to use a spreadsheet--my votes will probably be very subjective. I still haven't even decided yet if I'll vote for the "best position" or the "most interesting games to continue playing from."

 

[Fierabras]

I was going to suggest a 'prognosis' column, but even without it I think GKey's points system will work better after the next 50 turns (the 100 turns evaluation).

To be honest, I rate my own save worse than a lot of others, solely based on where the game will probably go the next 50 turns. Somehow my approach doesn't seem to have a lot of long-term advantages. Oddly enough, I have gotten a lot of points already.

 

[Nothingontv]

Another problem with the numbers-based approach is that it's only 50 turns in the game. A lot of saves are going to capture stuff in the next couple of turns. Giving points after 100 turns seems more fair to me.

I agree with this. There are several saves that didn't use the first 50 turns to make the important decision of attacking. There are saves that might very well turn out better then the ones i voted for but i'm not very good at judging how people micromanaged things.

 

[Casi]

Agree, 50 turns is way too short...all i could show was producing some axes but not enough to attack yet, who says a chariot rush is better in the long run than having a 2nd city producing units with copper connected. After all leader is agressive, and axes better units than chariots for that reason alone.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

all i could show was producing some axes but not enough to attack yet

Did you submit a saved game yet? If not, why not do so now?

who says a chariot rush is better in the long run than having a 2nd city producing units with copper connected. After all leader is agressive, and axes better units than chariots for that reason alone.

An excellent point.

Chariots are great for catching an AI by surprise, but if you don't attack with precise timing, then Aggressive Axemen can potentially bring you as much or more success.

But if you don't vote, your voice won't be heard in the results. If you don't submit a game, you can't even vote.

 

[Grashopa]

After chariots you can always hook up the copper and keep going... But there is a limit to how much warring you want to do early anyway. Shadow to 100 straight axes and show us the difference.

 

[GKey]

Sorry really lost track of things on last cookbook. Not had my mind on this section of forum.

Too bad I did not know you aren't there, had so much CiV staff to share. You going to play this?

.....For example, I might consider changing the number of Cities to the total number of citizens, to better reflect the power of having larger Cities....

....Also, you went to the trouble of counting Buildings, but did not appear to credit Fierabras for his free Monuments from Stonehenge....

Well this spreadsheet is highly subjective, no doubt.

Did not want make it too big. Otherwise I was sure add there columns for wonders, settlers etc. Instead I just added 1 column Progress, which was not there in previous one. By progress I mean all details together plus my personal impression.
Hmm, 0-10 is not enough for this column then. 0-20 is more likely.

I did not overlook Stonehenge, settlers, city size and other factors (hopefully). All missed details are there multiplied by my opinion about situation.
Stonenhenge did not fall from the skies; it came at cost of settlers/workers/chariots/axes not built. My personal opinion - early rush is a must on this map and anything delaying this rush not worth it, unless it's something really impressive.

Same with 3 cities + settler in your save Dhoom. We cripple our economy by rexing and don't have army to handle angry Alex (the fact that he is ready to sign peace does not mean he will not come after us later on), instead of preparing army to just wipe him out.
As you can see, I did not like your approach that much, but I was following numbers and numbers put you #2 together with Civconvict. Otherwise I would pick any other going for early rush save as #2.

....Or, you could dispense with all of that and simply give more points for the players that picked techs that you like.

That was exactly what I did.

Another problem with the numbers-based approach is that it's only 50 turns in the game. A lot of saves are going to capture stuff in the next couple of turns. Giving points after 100 turns seems more fair to me.

Like in previous cookbook I did not see the way to judge on 15 saves. Numbers came as solution to make my votes less subjective.
In next turns I don't think we will need numbers at all. Situation will vote for itself in most clear way.

....There are several saves that didn't use the first 50 turns to make the important decision of attacking. ....

Agree, 50 turns is way too short...all i could show was producing some axes but not enough to attack yet, who says a chariot rush is better in the long run than having a 2nd city producing units with copper connected. After all leader is agressive, and axes better units than chariots for that reason alone.

That was exactly the reason why I went for axes.
Shorter turn-sets was decided to reduce the trouble of adaptation to the mind of person who submitted winning save. Also it has educational value. Let's say Grashopa will submit save from 1200AD, 1 turn from domination victory. What will be educational value of it? I want him submit every 50 turns so I can learn!

Number system is far from being perfect (Grashopa got only 23 points ) and spreadsheet is far from being objective, (my opinion isn't perfect either ). Anyone here is most welcome to modify spreadsheet to his like. I would be glad if it will help. Looking forward to see results.

 

[Fierabras]

I agree on the 50 turns increment, but maybe next time we can start with 100 turns and then switch to 50 turns increment.

 

[drlake]

After looking at the saves, there are more than three that would be interesting to play from. Since I can only pick 3, though...

OK, here's my vote:

1) Grashopa: All the thrills of a chariot rush, without the tedious troop building. I'm only ranking this one higher than CCV because we have to play it out and make the rush work. Decent tech position, and I think Justinian is going down.

2) CivConVict: I think this is the strongest early rush opening, with the Greeks already on the ropes and a pile of Chariots ready to move on, plus a good tech position.

3) Dhoom: Anyone ballsy enough to start a war without any strategic resource hooked up deserves a vote. That said, I think its a good think to try to play forward from challenging position like this. Decent tech position, and those three cities are going to be a strong core.

 

[drlake]

BTW, could everyone contributing saves PLEASE put their CivFanatics login ID in the name of the save file so we can tell them apart without renaming them all ourselves?

 

[kossin]

I agree on the 50 turns increment, but maybe next time we can start with 100 turns and then switch to 50 turns increment.

100 turns is quite a lot on Normal Speed... sure it creates more diverse positions but it's also harder to compare saves for possible improvements. Nonetheless, I don't mind it if it's prefered over 50 turns.

 

[Rusten]

I will never understand why these things have to be either 50 or 100. Why not pick a more suitable number inbetween the two?

And there's no reason to keep the number of turns set throughout the game.

 

[kossin]

It's simpler to remember

60? 75?

75-75-50-End?

 

[GKey]

50 turns on normal is like 75 on epic? Short turns usually better when things start to be harder, like next turn and even more later on. On other hand early game micro is essential too.